For the Atheists....

[Columbus]

From the other threads, I have come to see a lot of the Atheists out there, and wanted to start this thread on a somewhat different topic. I guess Atheist isn't the right word to use... but it's the best thing I could come up with at the time.

My question for all of you is, regardless of what God it is, do you believe in God? Not anyone specific, this has nothing to do with an organized religion. All I am asking is that for those of you who don't belong to a religion, and do not believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc., do you believe in a God or Creator at all?

[Cockney Corner.]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a God (or gods). That is the definition of an atheist ...

I think you might be thinking of the word "deist" (a person who accepts the existence of a God or gods but rejects organised religion). This was a popular belief amongst the Founding Fathers I gather.

[retired]

I do not believe in a God, creator, etc.

[JPR]

A true Atheist believes there is no God.....Someone who believes in God but does not believe in a recognizable God, i.e. Jesus, Buddha, etc. typically is referred to as Agnostic.....

It will be interesting to watch this thread. It would seem that Atheists will not have much to talk about since how do you talk about your beliefs when you believe in nothing?:confused:

[Cockney Corner.]

Someone who believes in God but does not believe in a recognizable God, i.e. Jesus, Buddha, etc. typically is referred to as Agnostic.....

An agnostic is a "person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God". Agnostics don't believe in God - they're non-committal. Again, you may be thinking of a "deist".

It would seem that Atheists will not have much to talk about since how do you talk about your beliefs when you believe in nothing?

I wouldn't say I believe in nothing because I don't believe in God or a Creator.

[John3:16]

God does not believe in Atheists........

[Depco164]

A great book that offers wonderful insights into atheist and deist beliefs... or non beliefs is Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

I listened to the audio book; No time to read these days.

Richard Dawkins' website is here:

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion

Very good read/listen and explains his views on why organized religion is bad for man and the world.

[Cockney Corner.]

God does not believe in Atheists........

tantum religio potuit suadere malorum (religion has led men to commit so many evils). Lucretius.

[retired]

God does not believe in Atheists........

I think that is fair since Atheists don't believe there is a God.;)

[JPR]

An agnostic is a "person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God". Agnostics don't believe in God - they're non-committal. Again, you may be thinking of a "deist".


Actually, what I said was "typically referred to" which is the context in which I always hear it theses days. Actually, to be precise, the term "Agnostic" I hear comes from the Latin words Ag(without) and Nostic(knowledge). So when a person says they are Agnostic, they are literally saying they are without knoweldge.

[1042 Trooper]

Okay...what do you call someone wh doesn't believe in atheists?

There's one for ya! :D

[Ex Army MP]

I believe in God; always have. However, I am not convinced that Jesus is the son of God. That's not to say that I think it's wrong to live a Christ like life and following the teachings of Jesus. I am saying that I don't believe Jesus is the only way.

I posed a question in one of the other threads about how the souls of Indians would have been saved since they lived on another side of the world and had no knowledge of the existence of Jesus, let alone anyone not on this Continent. Moreover, those in the old world, Jesus included, had no knowledge of them. Nobody on this board could successfully argue this one. The only answers you ever get around here are " believe or else".

You see, the Bible, whether the New or Old Testament, has many contradictions. Hard for me to believe that homosexuality could be worse than owning slaves. Speaking of which, you'd think that not enslaving people would have been part of the Ten Commandments. On my list of things to do or not do, I put that slightly above honoring my mother and father or not coveting my neighbor's wife.

Finally, why do the Ten Commandments not speak about my wife coveting our neighbor's husband? I find this one grossly unfair and I'll be keeping my eye on both of them.

[Cockney Corner.]

Actually, what I said was "typically referred to" which is the context in which I always hear it theses days. Actually, to be precise, the term "Agnostic" I hear comes from the Latin words Ag(without) and Nostic(knowledge). So when a person says they are Agnostic, they are literally saying they are without knoweldge.

Fair enough. Though "agnostic" actually comes from the Greek "A" (without) "Gnosis" (knowledge).

[retired]

Okay...what do you call someone wh doesn't believe in atheists?

There's one for ya! :D

1042 Trooper:eek: :D

[Columbus]

Yeah, as I said in my original post, I knew "atheist" wasn't the right word but I couldn't think of what it would be. Anyways, this is the thing that hit me more than someone not believing in a specific God. I just don't see where the actual Atheists think the universe came from.

[1042 Trooper]

Indeed. I do NOT believe IN them, but I do believe they exist. :)

[retired]

Yeah, as I said in my original post, I knew "atheist" wasn't the right word but I couldn't think of what it would be. Anyways, this is the thing that hit me more than someone not believing in a specific God. I just don't see where the actual Atheists think the universe came from.


And I don't see where religious believers think God came from?:)

[retired]

Indeed. I do NOT believe IN them, but I do believe they exist. :)

Of course they exist just as believers exist. I worked alongside many a damn good cop who was an Atheist.:) :)

[JPR]

.................................I posed a question in one of the other threads about how the souls of Indians would have been saved since they lived on another side of the world and had no knowledge of the existence of Jesus, let alone anyone not on this Continent. Moreover, those in the old world, Jesus included, had no knowledge of them. Nobody on this board could successfully argue this one. The only answers you ever get around here are " believe or else". ...........................

That's not true. I gave you a different answer, remember? I said that even though Jesus is the only way, there may be several ways to Jesus. The three wise men showing up at his birth shows that other people in the world got the memo of his birth. Ironically, the only royalty to show up at jesus birthplace were non-Jewish. Somehow, someway I believe God gives all people the opportunity to accept or reject forgiveness for their sins. Jesus is the only way to forgiveness since he is the one that paid the sin debt. God only knows how many ways there are to Jesus. The thief on the cross is one example of a different way. He didn't understand the details of faith. But he knew and admitted he was a sinner. And he intuitively knew that Jesus was God and capable of forgiving sin. So he asked for forgiveness and Jesus told him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."


.................................Finally, why do the Ten Commandments not speak about my wife coveting our neighbor's husband? I find this one grossly unfair and I'll be keeping my eye on both of them.


If your neighbor is Bill Clinton, you better be keeping an eye on them!:D

[JPR]

Here's some food for thought.....................How many times have you heard people, including atheists, use Jesus' name in vain? Plenty right?

Now how many of you have ever heard people use Buddha's name in vain? Or Allah's name in vain?

Hmmmmmmmm.......Just may be more evidence that Jesus really is God.;)

[retired]

Hmmmmmmmm.......Just may be more evidence that Jesus really is God.;)

As long as you believe it, that's what important.:)

[Ex Army MP]

Here's some food for thought.....................How many times have you heard people, including atheists, use Jesus' name in vain? Plenty right?

Now how many of you have ever heard people use Buddha's name in vain? Or Allah's name in vain?

Hmmmmmmmm.......Just may be more evidence that Jesus really is God.;)

That's because you'd have to go into hiding if you used Allah's name in vain.

[John3:16]

I believe in God; always have. However, I am not convinced that Jesus is the son of God. That's not to say that I think it's wrong to live a Christ like life and following the teachings of Jesus. I am saying that I don't believe Jesus is the only way.

I posed a question in one of the other threads about how the souls of Indians would have been saved since they lived on another side of the world and had no knowledge of the existence of Jesus, let alone anyone not on this Continent. Moreover, those in the old world, Jesus included, had no knowledge of them. Nobody on this board could successfully argue this one. The only answers you ever get around here are " believe or else".

You see, the Bible, whether the New or Old Testament, has many contradictions. Hard for me to believe that homosexuality could be worse than owning slaves. Speaking of which, you'd think that not enslaving people would have been part of the Ten Commandments. On my list of things to do or not do, I put that slightly above honoring my mother and father or not coveting my neighbor's wife.

Finally, why do the Ten Commandments not speak about my wife coveting our neighbor's husband? I find this one grossly unfair and I'll be keeping my eye on both of them.

You did pose a question, In the begining was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. Jesus did know about the Indians, he put them where they were, and how they got saved, well that's between Jesus and them. And those that did not get a chance to know Jesus because Jesus came in the flesh after them. That is for Jesus to know and not us.

[Cockney Corner.]

I said that even though Jesus is the only way, there may be several ways to Jesus. The three wise men showing up at his birth shows that other people in the world got the memo of his birth. Ironically, the only royalty to show up at jesus birthplace were non-Jewish.

OK, I'll say for argument's sake that the story of the Magi or wise men reflects historic events, even though it appears in only one gospel, which is generally accepted to have been written seventy to a hundred years after the birth of Jesus.

Matthew 2 doesn't state that there were three wise men (that's an assumption based on there being three gifts) nor that they were royal incidentally. Nor is it stated whether the astrologers were themselves Jewish.

The memo you refer to was of course the appearance of a "star". But then they were professional astrologers and so about the only people likely to realise the special significance of the star (we also have to assume that astrology is true for this exercise). Nor did the memo get that far. Matthew only states that the wise men came "from the east". Popular tradition takes this to mean Persia (Iran). Not very far in global terms.

The Lord does indeed move in mysterious ways.

[Cockney Corner.]

You did pose a question, In the begining was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. Jesus did know about the Indians, he put them where they were, and how they got saved, well that's between Jesus and them. And those that did not get a chance to know Jesus because Jesus came in the flesh after them. That is for Jesus to know and not us.

It would have been quicker to say "I don't know" wouldn't it?

[britplod]

PHEW!! after reading thru all that all i can say is "Thank God i'm an Athiest":D .........

[John3:16]

It would have been quicker to say "I don't know" wouldn't it?

You don't know.

[Cockney Corner.]

You don't know.

Snappy comeback. But, if you recall, the question was how people who could not possibly have had any knowledge of Jesus Christ, like the Native Americans (or Japanese people or Siberian tribesmen or Australian aborigines or whoever) could expect to be saved. As a big fan of the Gospel of John, you will be familiar with John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". Pretty unambiguous. If you had the misfortune, through no fault of your own, not to hear about Jesus, you didn't get saved. Seems pretty hard to reconcile with a just and benevolent God doesn't it?

Personally, I think the question who goes to heaven and who doesn't, is like arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in a fight. Whatever answer you come up with, it doesn't have any bearing on reality.

[John3:16]

Snappy comeback. But, if you recall, the question was how people who could not possibly have had any knowledge of Jesus Christ, like the Native Americans (or Japanese people or Siberian tribesmen or Australian aborigines or whoever) could expect to be saved. As a big fan of the Gospel of John, you will be familiar with John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". Pretty unambiguous. If you had the misfortune, through no fault of your own, not to hear about Jesus, you didn't get saved. Seems pretty hard to reconcile with a just and benevolent God doesn't it?

Personally, I think the question who goes to heaven and who doesn't, is like arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in a fight. Whatever answer you come up with, it doesn't have any bearing on reality.


Why is there good and bad?, who made good and bad. Why do we have laws?
Who created the laws? God gave us laws, and if we don't obey them, we must pay the consequences. God made everything, He can make the rules. When you create your world then you can make the rules.

[ProWriter]

Why is there good and bad?, who made good and bad. Why do we have laws? To me, this is really one of the most insidious prices of your particular religious teachings: It actually convinces otherwise normal adults that there's no such thing as right and wrong without some reference to your God.

"Good" is a general characterization of things that most living organisms experience as positive; "Bad" is a general characterization of things that most living organisms experience as negative. Two year olds are capable of understanding the basic differences between the two, in principle. That's why elements of your religious teachings, like Do Unto Others happen to make objective sense. That's also why some version of that concept is very common across so many different human societies.

Who created the laws?Most Human societies have put together a shared definition of socially desirable behaviors; they also usually define deterrents and punishment for certain types of behaviors considered particularly bad.

In this society, for example, we have a respected set of such laws, known as The Constitution, and a system for selecting the people most qualified to interpret and apply it to changes in our society. It defines as "good" the right to worship as you choose; it defines as "bad" the purposeful intrusion of any one religious philosophy into the lives of anybody with different (or no) religious beliefs.

When you create your world then you can make the rules.In your world, nothing you do in life and nothing you do to other people is capable of any characterization of being "good" or "bad" in and of itself. Frankly, that terrifies the rest of us who don't live in your world. That's also why we don't want any of our laws defined by the beliefs in your world. Otherwise, we think that your right to believe and worship however you wish is "good."

[Cockney Corner.]

Why is there good and bad?, who made good and bad.

Well, I would have steered away from the whole good/bad issue. It raises after all the awkward question of why a just and all powerful God allows the innocent to suffer. Let me guess. It's a secret.

Indeed, is there some eternal and universally accepted idea of what exactly is "good" and what is "evil"? A few centuries ago putting a witch to death (or at least a person believed to be a witch) was the act of a good and righteous man (as the people of Salem up the road from you would have been happy to explain). Today, there are plenty of cultures where a good and righteous man will kill his unmarried daughter if she talks to a man outside the family. Sure, these people are wrong. But if it's clear and obvious what constitutes good and evil, why don't any two people agree on the issue?

Why do we have laws? Who created the laws?

What laws are we talking about? The criminal law? That would be Congress in your country and Parliament in mine. Well, that was easy enough to explain.

God gave us laws, and if we don't obey them, we must pay the consequences.

Ah! We're talking about the laws in the Bible! So we should be putting to death a man who had sex with a woman engaged to another man? Force unmarried rape victims to marry their attackers (Deuteronomy 22)? Kill sons who are disobedient to their parents (Deuteronomy 21)? Etc. Etc. Of course not. But these are God's eternal laws, aren't they?

God made everything, He can make the rules. When you create your world then you can make the rules.

So, taking the example that we initially addressed, God can condemn huge swathes of the world's population to damnation through no fault of their own because "He's the Boss and what He says, goes". I see. Very fair. Very just.

[Columbus]

And I don't see where religious believers think God came from?


I think that the idea of God creating the universe seems a lot more logical than anything I've heard from Atheists.

[ProWriter]

I think that the idea of God creating the universe seems a lot more logical than anything I've heard from Atheists.At least there's direct evidence that the Universe actually exists.

Either eternal existence/spontaneous existence is impossible or it isn't. What's not "logical" is thinking that the Universe needs more of an explanation than a God, when you have even less evidence of any such God and no better explanation of how any God came to exist than we have about the Universe.

[djack16]

I do not believe in a benevolent, personal creator. It doesn't make sense to me from what I understand from this universe so far. I do not believe there is good enough evidence to support any creator of these properties.

Will I declare there is no creator, benevolent of malevolent? No...there simply is not any evidence in my eyes to support either claim. Agnostic atheist is probably the best description.

[djack16]

At least there's direct evidence that the Universe actually exists.

Either eternal existence/spontaneous existence is impossible or it isn't. What's not "logical" is thinking that the Universe needs more of an explanation than a God, when you have even less evidence of any such God and no better explanation of how any God came to exist than we have about the Universe.
+1 on that one BIGTIME.

[damode]

People tend to just say "God did it" to explain things they dont understand.

This is why back in the "good" old days Religion was the center and most important institution.

Thanks to science, reason, the amazing ability of critical thinking, and the questioning of certain aspects of this world we are able to move forward.

We are in the climax now where science and common sense is just to strong to believe that there is some dude in the sky watching every move we do.

One day we will have the answer in a rational way on how the universe was created.

Same way we got the answer to know that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, that the world is more than just 6000 years old, germ theory, medicine, and a whole bunch of more science.

Science and Technology has done more to humanity in 200 years alone than what religion has been doing for the past 2000 years.

Enough is enough already.

[John3:16]

I do not believe in a benevolent, personal creator. It doesn't make sense to me from what I understand from this universe so far. I do not believe there is good enough evidence to support any creator of these properties.

Will I declare there is no creator, benevolent of malevolent? No...there simply is not any evidence in my eyes to support either claim. Agnostic atheist is probably the best description.

You are the evidence, you are perfectly and wonderfully made. It did not take billions of years to create you. Just look where all your body parts were placed. Is that the work of billions of years. No, God placed every part carefully. Did you know more that 55% of scientist believe there has to be a designer. The body is too complex.

[britplod]

You are the evidence, you are perfectly and wonderfully made. It did not take billions of years to create you. Just look where all your body parts were placed. Is that the work of billions of years. No, God placed every part carefully. Did you know more that 55% of scientist believe there has to be a designer. The body is too complex.

Now i've kept out of this discussion because i dont know that much about God and religion and dont really want to, but to say that "GOD" created man and women is abit far fetched.
I can understand you saying that the local council created women cos who else would put a play ground beside a sewage farm:D ............

[Dave2886]

Personally, I believe in God, but I don't believe in organized religion. What makes anyone think they have the right to declare that their God, and their religion is the only real God or religion, and that if you don't believe exactly as they do, you're going to burn in hell for eternity? The Bible, the Torah,or the Koran? These are books that were written by man, not God. And, as we all know, these books are extremely old, and were originally passed down by word of mouth, then later were transcribed. I'm not that up on the Koran or the Torah, but I do know that the Bible has been heavily edited, re-written, numerous times over the years. Entire sections have been deleted. How can anyone seriously believe that this is the word of God? I guess God's word wasn't that important, or it wouldn't have been edited out of the Bible, huh? It's what men have written themselves, claiming it to be the word of God. Not to mention that over the centuries, hundreds of wars and millions upon millions of lives have been taken, all in the name of religion. Again, I wholeheartedly believe in God, but you can keep your churches, temples and synagoges.

Another thing I don't understand is why people insist on making the whole God vs. Evolution thing an either/or idea. You have to either believe in science OR religion. Is it so farfetched to believe that everything science tells us about the "Big Bang", evolution and everything else is true, but God is the one who put things in motion to begin with? I say this not so much for the atheists, but for the religious crowd, who insist that everything was done in 7 days. Why couldn't evolution, and all the other theories that are based on rock-solid scientific evidence, actually be God's doing? I don't think science and religion need to be at such odds with eachother, but the hardliners in the church crowd refuse to open their minds to anything other than the propaganda that they've been fed their whole lives.

Throughout history, and still today, organized religions have frowned on free thinking and open mindedness. The reason? If you allow your church members to think for themselves, the smart ones will begin to question everything the church has taught them. They see what science teaches us, and realize that it actually makes a heck of a lot more sense! They then realize that maybe everything they've been told isn't really true, and then they may leave the church. This is why the church has always been at odds with science.

[aircop26]

Man someone really opened a can of worms when they started this thread!

This discussion will probably go on for ever. Good luck to both sides. I doubt anyone is going to win on this topic. :confused: :D

[Cockney Corner.]

You are the evidence, you are perfectly and wonderfully made. It did not take billions of years to create you. Just look where all your body parts were placed. Is that the work of billions of years. No, God placed every part carefully.

Clearly human beings aren't "perfectly ... made". Many people are born with congenital illnesses or physical or mental problems. There are chunks of our bodies that don't do anything. We suddenly develop cancerous tumours. It's not really perfect is it? And of course we think we're wonderful. We're humans and are a little biased in that regard. Dolphins probably think they're pretty cool too.

I also don't see why it follows that we haven't developed over billions of years. That part of your argument isn't explained. Just please don't tell me that you don't believe in evolution, almost a century after the world laughed at Tennessee when it tried to ban the teaching of evolution.

Did you know more that 55% of scientist believe there has to be a designer. The body is too complex.

And the source of this statistic is ..?

Incidentally, I notice that you don't seem to be actually answering any of the previous issues that I, pro and others have raised. You just popping up with a different argument. Still, not to worry. I'll lead you to the dark side yet.

[ray8285]

One day we will have the answer in a rational way on how the universe was created.

Same way we got the answer to know that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, that the world is more than just 6000 years old, germ theory, medicine, and a whole bunch of more science.

.

Scientist said the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth not the religious leaders.

I guess because of FAITH you believe some day science will prove everything:D

[Cockney Corner.]

I guess because of FAITH you believe some day science will prove everything

In fact, science admits that there are some things that it will never answer. For example, most mathematicians believe that we will never understand what lies behind the sequence of prime numbers. But it doesn't follow from the fact that some things may never be fully understood that "God is doing it". At least scientists are able conclusively to demonstrate a great many things about how and why the universe is as it is. They are also open to the fact that they may be wrong about their conjectures. Faith doesn't come into it. In fact it is the antithesis of science.

[2buster]

You did pose a question, In the begining was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. Jesus did know about the Indians, he put them where they were, and how they got saved, well that's between Jesus and them. And those that did not get a chance to know Jesus because Jesus came in the flesh after them. That is for Jesus to know and not us.Atheists, and especially people who do not subscribe to "intelligent design," have evidence without certainty. Christians and those that accept intelligent design have certainty without evidence.

It is acknowledged that there are Christians that reject intelligent design, and vice versa.

[2buster]

This is a quote from an episode of "The West Wing." President Bartlet is speaking to a radio personality who is modeled on Dr. Laura Schlesinger:

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-*** Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[ProWriter]

Scientist said the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth not the religious leaders. I guess because of FAITH you believe some day science will prove everything:D

What are you smoking?

It was the church authorities who condemned the
study of human anatomy and considered the very notion of a
heliocentric solar system (as opposed to a geocentric one),
to be complete heresy. Galileo was threatened with torture
and execution, and ultimately forced into exile by Pope
Urban VIII until his death even after he recanted his
"heretical" claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather
than the other way around. Other early medieval astronomers
were burned at the stake by the Church (like Giordano Bruno,
in 1600) for suggesting that the Sun and not the Earth was the
center of our Solar System. The Vatican took another hundred
years after Galileo's death to admit the obvious truth about the
Solar System.

Throughout history, and continuing today with its nonsensical
and amoral objection to stem cell research, the Church has
always been an obstacle to scientific knowledge
because it conflicts with its teachings. Thousands of children
have to starve to death every day in the Thrid World thanks
to the (successful) efforts of the Vatican's opposition to
providing condoms to impoverished regions plagued by famine
and drought.

Lucky for today's scientists, that means today's Church just
stands in the way of tremendously beneficial medical technologies,
such as by lobbying incessantly to block Federal funding for
research intended to cure debilitating diseases. As frustrating as
that is, it beats being blinded, boiled, or burned alive for reporting
new scientific observations. But let's not rewrite the history of who
is responsible for scientific progress and who has always thwarted
any such progress.

[damode]

Scientist said the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth not the religious leaders.

I guess because of FAITH you believe some day science will prove everything:D

Yes, your right, there was a day scientists thought that the world was flat.

But, what makes science so beautiful and makes religion so obsolete is the fact that science can EVOLVE and CHANGE because of evidence and research that is shown.

While science is always questioning, changing and advancing, Religion remains stagnant, stuck on 2000 year old superstitions and rules.

Athiests do not believe in a religion nor a god. I am an athiest

BUT, you show us direct proof, and i mean direct concrete proof of god ( not some stupid old 2000 year old book some guy wrote. or that god speaks into your mind) and you will see every single atheist sitting front and center on sunday morning.

And this can occur because most athiests are critical thinkers, and are very open minded. We can accept new ideas and evidence.

Now you can sit next to an extreme religious person and throw books and books on scientific evidence on him/her, and they will never change their mind.

I call it blind ignorance, and a close minded person, you guys call it "Faith"

Religion is old and out-dated, just like 80's music.

Time to grow up already. Enough of praying to your "Santa Claus" for adults.

[Columbus]

At least there's direct evidence that the Universe actually exists.

Either eternal existence/spontaneous existence is impossible or it isn't. What's not "logical" is thinking that the Universe needs more of an explanation than a God, when you have even less evidence of any such God and no better explanation of how any God came to exist than we have about the Universe

Please tell me how the universe began then. "A little ball of energy exploded." Where did that ball of energy come from? It had to begin somewhere, right? You might not like the religious explanation, but at least it has an explanation. God said he has always been around. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it is an explanation of how things happened.

Scientists like to say "Well, we think that the universe started with -insert some type of matter here-." They have nothing to say when asked where that came from though. It had to be created somehow.

[ProWriter]

Please tell me how the universe began then. "A little ball of energy exploded." Where did that ball of energy come from? It had to begin somewhere, right? I have no idea how the Universe began. Whatever it was that caused the Big Bang is simply a property or feature of Universes that has, apparently, existed forever. Where did your God come from? "God has always existed." Where did this God come from? God had to begin somewhere, right?

You might not like the religious explanation, but at least it has an explanation. God said he has always been around. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it is an explanation of how things happened.What religious "explanation"? Stating a faith-based belief that God has always been around is not an "explanation" of anything. What if everything written in the Bible about what God "said" is nothing more than words written by mortal men? Allah "said" things and so did all the other so-called "false" Gods whose existence you reject. In any case, at least with the Universe, there's no doubt THAT it exists, because we have DIRECT evidence all around us. Direct evidence always trumps FAITH and indirect supposed evidence, too.

Scientists like to say "Well, we think that the universe started with -insert some type of matter here-." They have nothing to say when asked where that came from though. It had to be created somehow.And you like to say "Well, we believe that God said he created the universe." You have nothing to say when asked where God came from though, and you have LESS than nothing to say when asked why your belief that the existence of YOUR God is "proven" by your scripture but OTHER religious scriptures prove nothing about the existence of all the OTHER Gods of billions of other people.

I don't know where the Universe came from; you don't know where your God came from. So, why is it that you don't have to answer the exact same question about God that you demand about the Universe? That's a ridiculously presumptuous position when the existence of the Universe is directly apparent to everybody, even if we don't know how it began. The Universe exists, whether or not we understand how it came to be. Your God's mere existence already relies on your faith before anybody even gets to the question of where God came from.

[JaseFifty1]

A true Atheist believes there is no God.....Someone who believes in God but does not believe in a recognizable God, i.e. Jesus, Buddha, etc. typically is referred to as Agnostic.....

That's not really accurate. A person can be both an atheist and agnostic.

The word 'atheist' refers to what a person does NOT believe. This would mean they lack belief in a god or gods because of lack of evidence. This is not the same as denying the existence of a god or gods. They are basically saying, 'There is no evidence of that concept. Therefore, I do not have belief in that concept.' If sufficient evidence was presented for the existence of that concept, they would believe.

Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge that something is true. Knowledge, not to be confused with belief, is evidence based. A person can believe something without knowing that it is true. It is called faith.

Theists or atheists can both be agnostics. Belief in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists equals 'agnostic theism'. Disbelief in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist equals 'agnostic atheism'.

[JaseFifty1]

It would have been quicker to say "I don't know" wouldn't it?

:D That is an awfully hard thing for many religious folks to admit.

[PC Plum]

Like Britplod,I have kept out of this discussion because of my lack of knowledge on the subject.
However I served in Bosnia during the Balkans War and the main thing that I could not understand about Religion (and it was a religeous war) was when villages and towns had been decimated. People had no shelter or basics such as clean running water etc. WHy on earth was the first thing that got rebuilt the places of worship? If God(s) exist why would they insist that thier houses are rebuilt first?

[JaseFifty1]

You are the evidence, you are perfectly and wonderfully made. It did not take billions of years to create you. Just look where all your body parts were placed. Is that the work of billions of years. No, God placed every part carefully.

Yeah, the location of that prostate gland was a work of genius wasn't it? And how about those wisdom teeth?

Did you know more that 55% of scientist believe there has to be a designer.

Would you please cite your source for that?

[Cockney Corner.]

Scientists like to say "Well, we think that the universe started with -insert some type of matter here-." They have nothing to say when asked where that came from though. It had to be created somehow.

Ignoring the obvious lack of logic of "and therefore God must have done it", you misrepresent what physicists have to say about the origins of the universe. In fact there are a number of theories, which I can't pretend to understand. It is impossible to simulate the conditions at the beginning of the universe now. No definite conclusions can therefore be drawn. This is not the same as ignorance.

[thenicepython]

Snappy comeback. But, if you recall, the question was how people who could not possibly have had any knowledge of Jesus Christ, like the Native Americans (or Japanese people or Siberian tribesmen or Australian aborigines or whoever) could expect to be saved. As a big fan of the Gospel of John, you will be familiar with John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". Pretty unambiguous. If you had the misfortune, through no fault of your own, not to hear about Jesus, you didn't get saved. Seems pretty hard to reconcile with a just and benevolent God doesn't it?

Personally, I think the question who goes to heaven and who doesn't, is like arguing whether Superman could beat the Hulk in a fight. Whatever answer you come up with, it doesn't have any bearing on reality.

superman would totally win;)

[Cockney Corner.]

superman would totally win;)

Well, I Googled this one out of curiosity and it turns out you are right! Superman does indeed defeat the Hulk in the 1996 comic Marvel vs. DC. I should probably Google all the other questions posed in this thread and get the answers, rather than just guessing.

[Ex Army MP]

This about sums it up:

" If you believe in forever, then life is just a one night stand. If there's a rock and roll heaven, you know they got a hell of a band".

[Bobbycop]

Science and Technology has done more to humanity in 200 years alone than what religion has been doing for the past 2000 years.


That is arguable. Science and technology also includes the creation of bombs and weapons as well as medicine. It is also true that these weapons have been used to kill millions in wars in the name of religion, but is it really fair to put the blame of these wars on God ?

God gave everybody free will, it seems that people have messed things up. As for the argument 'Why does God let bad things happen?', well God does not have complete control over everything that happens. Every religion refers to evil in the world, whether that is man's evil or evil spirits.

Christianity and, as far as I know, most other religions do preach right from wrong, don't kill etc. As a believer the thought of eternal damnation would be more of a deterence for committing murder than 15 years jail time would ever be.

Religion is a personal thing for billions of people and nobody will ever put across any argument to 'prove' God's existence either way. Many people truly believe in the power of prayer and that they have been helped in troubled times. Many people do get great strength from their beliefs and feel that their life would be empty without their religion.

I'm the first to admit that I have little knowledge of religion but I do have my own personal beliefs and standards that I would not be without.

One thing that bugs agnostics/deists/atheists is when people who do believe in God talk about it. I don't do that. What does bug me a little is when agnostics/deists/atheists think that they are somehow far more enlightened and talk down at believers and ridicule the idea of the existence of God.

[ProWriter]

That is arguable. Science and technology also includes the creation of bombs and weapons as well as medicine. It is also true that these weapons have been used to kill millions in wars in the name of religion, but is it really fair to put the blame of these wars on God ?Religious difference is the single cause of more wars and human atrocities across the globe, both today and throughout all recorded history, dwarfing all other causes combined. Atheists don't blame God; we blame people with very delusional beliefs about God, and specifically, delusional beliefs that their particular God is the only true God and that their God wants them to convert or kill believers in other Gods. In the famous words of Pope Innocent III responding to reports that many Christians were also being killed during his crusades, "Kill them all, God will know his own." A real pioneer of human welfare there.

God gave everybody free will, it seems that people have messed things up. As for the argument 'Why does God let bad things happen?', well God does not have complete control over everything that happens. Every religion refers to evil in the world, whether that is man's evil or evil spirits.How did people and their free will "mess up" to cause tsunamis and natural disease? Also, isn't your God supposedly omnipotent? Yes, every religion believes in evil spirits and ghosts, and every religion considers all those other religions' beliefs to be completely false fabrications. I agree with you about all those other religions, and I agree with all of them about yours.

Christianity and, as far as I know, most other religions do preach right from wrong, don't kill etc. As a believer the thought of eternal damnation would be more of a deterence for committing murder than 15 years jail time would ever be.It's not the teachings about theft, rape, and murder that we have a problem with. Those moral ideas can be taught very easily without any religious basis, as can any other worthwhile moral concept that benefits society to enforce through laws. Our problem is with all the nonsensical "moral" beliefs about acknowledging and worshipping the "right" God. We also have a problem with religious teachings about normal human sexuality that guarantee repression and unnecessary shame. Finally, we think that your belief in God is a huge delusional crutch that undermines self responsibility, and very often, the most basic ability to determine right from wrong in any practical sense without reference to God. Finally, we think teaching children that mere thoughts are capable of being immoral virtually guarantees some measure of preventable low self esteem in society. If eternal damnation is such a great deterrent to crime, why aren't prisons full of atheists and all but devoid of Christians? Care to guess the predominant religious affiliation among hard core criminals on the outside and prison inmates on the inside?

Religion is a personal thing for billions of people and nobody will ever put across any argument to 'prove' God's existence either way. Many people truly believe in the power of prayer and that they have been helped in troubled times. Many people do get great strength from their beliefs and feel that their life would be empty without their religion. The burden to "prove" something lies with the person who claims a God exists, not with someone who merely rejects that belief. Can you prove that Allah isn't the one true God? Can you prove that the Classical Greek Gods aren't in charge? No? Then, how dare you Christians say that OTHER PEOPLES' BELIEFS about THEIR Gods are "false"? How dare you call other peoples' sincere religious beliefs "Mythology"? Why are you allowed to reject all those beliefs as untrue myths without having to disprove every single one of them?

I'm the first to admit that I have little knowledge of religion but I do have my own personal beliefs and standards that I would not be without. Now you know how billions of Muslims and Buddhists feel. What's your point?

One thing that bugs agnostics/deists/atheists is when people who do believe in God talk about it. I don't do that. What does bug me a little is when agnostics/deists/atheists think that they are somehow far more enlightened and talk down at believers and ridicule the idea of the existence of God.We don't "ridicule" anything; we explain all the reasons that we don't think your beliefs are true and we point out that all of the benefits of religious teachings can be accomplished without religion and without all the harm and the incalculable price of religious affiliation and Bible-based morality. Generally, we know better than to start a thread on a public forum titled "For the Christians" because we'd be accused of "bashing" Christians. We wait for religious believers to title a thread "For the Atheists" or "For Nonbelievers" and then we simply respond with appropriately polite answers to questions about why we reject religion and about what we do believe. We also try to answer all your questions directly and we ask some of our own questions about the obvious contradictions inherent in your beliefs, looking for direct answers from the believers. Then, believers completely ignore our questions or dismiss them and quote Bible scripture, saying the proof of their belief that their God is the one true God is right there in the book that everybody else but them knows was written by a bunch of ancient men with little knowledge of anything. Finally, you accuse us of not being "logical" and you tell us what "bugs" you about us.

[JPR]

One thing that bugs agnostics/deists/atheists is when people who do believe in God talk about it. I don't do that. What does bug me a little is when agnostics/deists/atheists think that they are somehow far more enlightened and talk down at believers and ridicule the idea of the existence of God.

Friend, believe me when I tell you that you are wasting your breath with these folks. They have their minds made up and are not going to listen to reason even though they believe reason is the basis for their position. You might as well have a discussion with a brick wall.:rolleyes:

The best thing non-atheists here can do is to stay out of this thread. If only atheists post here, it should die pretty quick. After all what do they have to talk about?:(

[Columbus]

After all what do they have to talk about?

All of the other things they don't believe in?

[Cockney Corner.]

They have their minds made up and are not going to listen to reason even though they believe reason is the basis for their position.

Any more than you? And what's with this whole "It's my ball and I'm taking it home" attitude when the thread was started with the express purpose of finding out the views of atheists (even if some people weren't quite clear what an "atheist" was)?

We've expressed out views and you don't like them. Not very open minded is it?

[Columbus]

Correction Cockney. I know what an Atheist is. I didn't know what a "deist" was, or whatever the other term was. Now if you could could stop with those types of shots we can move on.

[retired]

After all what do they have to talk about?:(

How about our careers in LE? How about our military service? How about how well we raised our children? How about how patriotic most of us are? How's that for starters?:) :)

[damode]

Most of the science elite and i bet you more than half of all politicians are either athiests or what i like to call "Closet Athiests".

Thanks to a possible zeitgeist (Spiritual Movement) going on around the world and espeically in the western countries, Athiesm is finally getting a voice and its getting centralized.

Thanks to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and many more, We are finally publicly questioning and answering back to the religious majorities.

Day by day, more people are coming out of their shell and publicly saying they are an athiest and proud of it. Every day theists are losing on every single debate across the globe.

You guys always have the same answers and always sound obsolete and old on your ideas.

As always, you guys start a thread like this, we respond (remember, we are just regular people, imagine dealing with doctors, evolutionary biologists and scientists), and almost all the athiests that answered here smashed all your stupid questions and comebacks.

You are right, there will be a point that athiests will talk amongst themselves because theists in the end always run back to their imaginary friend to make themselves feel better.

Ima leave you guys with a quote from my hero Richard Dawkins. Im sure this will definately send you guys running to your imaginary friend, so dont think to hard about it o.k :)

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

[damode]

How about our careers in LE? How about our military service? How about how well we raised our children? How about how patriotic most of us are? How's that for starters?:) :)

Thank you retired, im not in LE yet but ret has hit on an important point.

Most atheists are good people. We love our families and our life, we love our humanity, Many atheists even are willing to risk their life day to day in their LE and Military careers.

Most people are good any where you go regardless on what their belief.

The old idea that all atheists are crazy snobs that have no love for human life is an old myth.

People are moral, just and good to their fellow man because most people are good, period. No need for an imaginary dude in the sky for that.

[Columbus]

I highly doubt that more than half of politicians are atheists. Anyways, who ever said that Atheists couldn't be good people? And lastly, I doubt that talking to biologists or anyone else would have any more of an impact on those of us who are religious. Why? Because they can, like you, only provide answers to the point of "well we don't know where that came from." That's where the faith comes in, so talking to them would be of any extra benefit.

[damode]

oh well, this can go on forever

im happy im an atheist, your happy believing in whatever you believe

lets just make sure noone ever imposes on what they believe on another person :)

at least in that sense, would you agree on seperation between church and state?

[Columbus]

Although I think having things church-related in all public places would be great, I don't wish for it because we are a diverse society. I don't believe in making our government out to be completely one-sided. The Ten Commandments, while Christian, I think are good because they promote good morals.

[Dave2886]

That is arguable. Science and technology also includes the creation of bombs and weapons as well as medicine. It is also true that these weapons have been used to kill millions in wars in the name of religion, but is it really fair to put the blame of these wars on God ?
I would never blame it on God--It's religion that has been the driving force behind many of the wars that have been fought, and the millions that have been killed in the name of God. Religion and God are two seperate things.

[ProWriter]

As damode and Retired point out, no atheist here had the need to start this thread to challenge anybody else's religious beliefs. Generally, atheists don't really worry too much about what other peoples' beliefs are unless they're pushed on us. Some of you religious people apparently had some legitimate questions about why we don't share your beliefs, right? No problem. But you don't respond to points that are directly on the issue that you raised and you get very offended when we point out your circular reasoning and all the ridiculous contradictions in your beliefs.

Well, those are our beliefs. Why did you ask if the answer offends you? What were you expecting to hear? That we agree your beliefs about God make perfect sense but we just want to be rebels? We think your beliefs are very silly; that's why we don't share them. We just don't feel the need to start threads about it.

The Ten Commandments, while Christian, I think are good because they promote good morals.It's not the good morals we object to; it's the stuff like Thou shall not have any other Gods before me" parts that the rest of us would like you to keep inside the walls of your houses of religious worship and your own homes.

Again, even the above quote illustrates that you don't understand what circular reasoning is: You've already said that there's no such thing as any "good" or "bad" except as defined by God, right? Without God, they can't be defined, right? So, what does it even mean to say that Biblical Commandments are "good because they promote good morals." Please explain what "good morals" the very first commandment promotes. I don't have a problem with prohibitions against bearing false witness, stealing, and killing. Then again, I'm not the one who says there's "no way to define those things as bad without a higher power." You are.

I doubt that talking to biologists or anyone else would have any more of an impact on those of us who are religious.No kidding.

[MDS]

And I don't see where religious believers think God came from?:)

We don't think He came from anywhere. At least, Christians and Jews don't. Something eternal has to have existed. From nothing, nothing comes. Positing God as an eternal is theologically correct and fits the philosophical bill as well as anything else you could posit.

[MDS]

I would never blame it on God--It's religion that has been the driving force behind many of the wars that have been fought, and the millions that have been killed in the name of God. Religion and God are two seperate things.

Religion of all stripes (including secular religion) is guilty of war. Plenty of bloodshed occurred last century due to atheistic leaders as well. So Dawkins talk of religion being guilty as if non-belief is some sort of saviour is silly.

[MDS]

Most of the science elite and i bet you more than half of all politicians are either athiests or what i like to call "Closet Athiests".

Thanks to a possible zeitgeist (Spiritual Movement) going on around the world and espeically in the western countries, Athiesm is finally getting a voice and its getting centralized.

This is flat out wrong about science 'elite'. The number of atheists in the sciences is likely the same as truck drivers. The number (I wish I had the quote) is roughly the same as it was in the early 1900s. I believe the number is 35-40%. Again, wish I had the quote. So 'most' is wrong here.

Thanks to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and many more, We are finally publicly questioning and answering back to the religious majorities.


Nothing wrong with asking questions but....if you ask a question about the mating habits of atlantic salmon, you don't ask a psychologist, you ask a marine biologist right? Same holds true for asking theological questions. I don't have a problem with Harris or Dawkins or anyone else ASKING, but the problem they run into is when they go from asking to being the guy giving the answers far out of their area of knowledge. I doubt they would think much of a non-expert invading their area of expertise.

Day by day, more people are coming out of their shell and publicly saying they are an athiest and proud of it. Every day theists are losing on every single debate across the globe.

You guys always have the same answers and always sound obsolete and old on your ideas.

Wow, every single debate?! I'd like to see some evidence of this please. And the 'same old same old' is right back atcha when it comes to the questions, to be quite frank. The atheist trumpet hasn't changed its note much for hundreds of years.

As always, you guys start a thread like this, we respond (remember, we are just regular people, imagine dealing with doctors, evolutionary biologists and scientists), and almost all the athiests that answered here smashed all your stupid questions and comebacks.

You are right, there will be a point that athiests will talk amongst themselves because theists in the end always run back to their imaginary friend to make themselves feel better.

Who's 'you guys'? I didn't start this thread. I know of evolutionists, doctors and scientists who are quite knowledgeable and exist as believers also. What is your point? The entire ASA is filled with Christians in the sciences who all accept the evolutionary paradigm. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is the leading edge of I.D and has plenty of scientists on their list also who reject the evolutionary paradigm so far as biology is concerned. Not all Christians are the strawman you'd like us to be. The last paragraph doesn't require a response.

Ima leave you guys with a quote from my hero Richard Dawkins. Im sure this will definately send you guys running to your imaginary friend, so dont think to hard about it o.k :)

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Fantastic. I'm in awe.

[Dave2886]

Religion of all stripes (including secular religion) is guilty of war. Plenty of bloodshed occurred last century due to atheistic leaders as well. So Dawkins talk of religion being guilty as if non-belief is some sort of saviour is silly.
I assume you're referring to the Soviets and/or Vietnam. I never said that ONLY religion was responsible for much of the bloodshed in human history, but I think if you were to look at every war in recorded history, including the crusades and the holocaust, Kosovo and Bosnia, you'll find that religion and/or religious beliefs or prejudices have been responsible for the vast majority of all the millions upon millions of lives that have been taken. Sure, there have been some atheists that have done some horrible things, but far more lives have been taken in the name of God, or Allah, than have been taken for non-religious motivations.

To me, the evil that has been done, and continues to be done (jihad, for one thing) outweigh the good that organized religion does. Also, I am not condemning individual people who are religious, I am only against those who use their religious beliefs as motivation to do bad things.

[MDS]

I assume you're referring to the Soviets and/or Vietnam. I never said that ONLY religion was responsible for much of the bloodshed in human history, but I think if you were to look at every war in recorded history, including the crusades and the holocaust, Kosovo and Bosnia, you'll find that religion and/or religious beliefs or prejudices have been responsible for the vast majority of all the millions upon millions of lives that have been taken. Sure, there have been some atheists that have done some horrible things, but far more lives have been taken in the name of God, or Allah, than have been taken for non-religious motivations.

To me, the evil that has been done, and continues to be done (jihad, for one thing) outweigh the good that organized religion does. Also, I am not condemning individual people who are religious, I am only against those who use their religious beliefs as motivation to do bad things.

I'll say it again to avoid any confusion on my part: I think all stripes are/have been guilty at one point or another. But, I can only say that those acting in the crusades were hardly following through on anything Jesus ever said. Their pope drew them into that mess. I'm not here to defend Allah, jihad, fanatical buddhists or anything else. 'Some horrible things'? Atheists such as Mao and Pol Pot, Stalin and the like brought on millions of deaths in one century alone.

[Dave2886]

I'll say it again to avoid any confusion on my part: I think all stripes are/have been guilty at one point or another. But, I can only say that those acting in the crusades were hardly following through on anything Jesus ever said. Their pope drew them into that mess. I'm not here to defend Allah, jihad, fanatical buddhists or anything else. 'Some horrible things'? Atheists such as Mao and Pol Pot, Stalin and the like brought on millions of deaths in one century alone.
I understood you the first time, and I agree with you. Part of the problem with religion is blind faith--Those in the Crusades probably whole-heartedy believed that they were doing God's will, because they were blindly following their religious leader. Apparently "some horrible things" wasn't a strong enough condemnation of the above mentioned atheists, so let me say this more strongly. I never disputed the fact that some terrible, horrifying, bone-chillingly evil atrocities have been committed by those people. All I am saying is that even with the amove-mentioned millions of people killed, a great deal more people have been killed as a direct result of religious motivation. Am I defending murderous atheists? Absolutely not. Am I attacking peaceful, tolerant religous people? No. I am simply saying that more people have died because of religious beliefs, than because of non-religious reasons.

I believe in a very personal, private relationship with God, and I don't need a church to tell me how to worship, or that if I don't believe exactly as they say I should, my relationship with God is null and void, and I'll be burning in hell for eternity. I also don't feel the need to shove my beliefs in everyone else's face, and don't appreciate when its done to me. The only reason I'm talking about it now, is that someone else brought it up. I do not believe that organized religion is necessary in order to worship whatever God one wants to believe in. I don't agree with the fact that each organized religion believes that only they are in God's favor, and that all others are heathens and therefore eternally damned. Oh, and on top of all that (and there's a ton more reasons I don't have time to get into), there's also the small matter that I mentioned earlier, about religion being the driving force behind the great majority of the wars and killings we've seen on Earth.

Look, people have been killing eachother and fighting wars since before recorded history. This will most likely never change. But if we ever see a day where all religions become tolerant and accepting of other religions, I think you'd see a lot less violence in the name of religion. But fear not, there are still plenty of other things to go to war over...;)

[djack16]

Ok so far from what I have heard from our religious friends is this.

God always existed works but Universe always existed does not compute. Whaaaaaa?

And intelligent design? John you NEED to research this stuff a little more. If you would take a brief glance around the internet, maybe through Googling "arguments validity Christianity," you will find an incredible amount of debate. Debates that have answered, and been read, by many atheists on this board.

I always see Christians foaming at the mouth for that answer. That perfectly straight-forward, feel-good answer that makes them all warm and fuzzy inside. John...what about the volcanos that erupted and wiped out hundreds of generations of people in unimaginably large pyroclastic flows. The crops destroyed from the environmental trauma and the resultant deaths of many more thousands of people. Hurricane's, earthquakes, and other natural disasters for humankind also demonstrate something plainly obvious John. There is no benevolent God that is concerned with human affairs. Intelligent design would work a little bit better if the assertion was that part of God's properties was being a twisted, mass murderer.

[MDS]

Ok so far from what I have heard from our religious friends is this.

God always existed works but Universe always existed does not compute. Whaaaaaa?

And intelligent design? John you NEED to research this stuff a little more. If you would take a brief glance around the internet, maybe through Googling "arguments validity Christianity," you will find an incredible amount of debate. Debates that have answered, and been read, by many atheists on this board.

I always see Christians foaming at the mouth for that answer. That perfectly straight-forward, feel-good answer that makes them all warm and fuzzy inside. John...what about the volcanos that erupted and wiped out hundreds of generations of people in unimaginably large pyroclastic flows. The crops destroyed from the environmental trauma and the resultant deaths of many more thousands of people. Hurricane's, earthquakes, and other natural disasters for humankind also demonstrate something plainly obvious John. There is no benevolent God that is concerned with human affairs. Intelligent design would work a little bit better if the assertion was that part of God's properties was being a twisted, mass murderer.

Errr. Explain your first comment please? Yes, it's theologically correct that God has always existed. The universe according to the best science, has not. What is the whhhhhaaaa, for?

Then you bring up debating. What of it? I've read plenty of debates, and not by folks like you and I. What of the numerous opponents that William Lane Craig has taken on? What do you make of Antony Flew's deconversion of atheism? What of the head of the human genome project, Francis Collins, a former atheist himself? Finally, I've got to mention that 'truth by majority', even if majority was on your side, is hardly a good way to determine truth, as paradigms have and do shift.

Then you bring up the problem of evil. This has been tackled by numerous philosophers, have you read any of their arguments? What about Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's greatest living philosophers? Or John S. Feinberg? There are plenty of discussions on these things along with solutions, I'm just curious if you've read them or just assumed us stupid Christians stand with mouths gaping?

[ProWriter]

Errr. Explain your first comment please? Yes, it's theologically correct that God has always existed. The universe according to the best science, has not. What is the whhhhhaaaa, for?"Theologically Correct" means theologists, all starting with an unfounded assumption that they're not even allowed to question, agree that everything consistent with that assumption must be true and everything inconsistent with that assumption must be untrue.

The "fact" that the sun revolved around the Earth was so "theologically correct" that the Church exiled, tortured, and murdered anybody who dared raise the growing evidence that the Earth is not the center of our Solar System.

Science is a system of trying your best to disprove any proposed theory and only accepting, as tentatively true, theories that survive that process. By definition, science also means openly acknowledging, even volunteering, the limits of anything learned. Any scientific theory can be tested by anyone independently, anywhere around the world. That's why current scientific understanding of the origin of the Universe ends a very small fraction of the first second after the Big Bang.

Theology tests nothing. Theology admits no limits. Theology does not grow. Theologians know about nothing except the Bible, a book written by ancient men and discussed ever since by less ancient men. If theology tested its ideas or subjected its ideas to attempts to disprove them, there wouldn't be anything left to study. Theology can teach us what the words in the bible say and what others have said about those words. That's it.

Theology doesn't have the capability of studying anything else, much less anything as complicated as the age or origin of the Universe. Theology simply says that anything inconsistent with the Bible must be untrue. That's why the Vatican burned astronomers at the stake if blinding them and imprisoning them first didn't get them to recant their "heresy" about the Earth's true motion around the Sun. Theologians weren't even capable of studying this tiny Solar System, but you seem to think that what they have to say about the infinitely more complicated origin of the entire Universe deserves respect equal to what modern astronomers and astrophysicists have to say about that. You can't compare the truth of scientific knowledge and theology because theology is based exclusively on a-priori beliefs that aren't even allowed to be questioned.

Your argument above seems to be: God must have existed forever because theologians say so. Scientists admit to having no explanation for what happened "before" the Big Bang. Therefore, the theologians' explanation that God has existed forever and that God created the Universe must be correct, because theologians say they're sure about it and scietists say they aren't so sure.

That's crazy talk, Pal. I'm assuming that's what he meant by "Waaaa."

[MDS]

"Theologically Correct" means theologists, all starting with an unfounded assumption that they're not even allowed to question, agree that everything consistent with that assumption must be true and everything inconsistent with that assumption must be untrue.

The "fact" that the sun revolved around the Earth was so "theologically correct" that the Church exiled, tortured, and murdered anybody who dared raise the growing evidence that the Earth is not the center of our Solar System.

Science is a system of trying your best to disprove any proposed theory and only accepting, as tentatively true, theories that survive that process. By definition, science also means openly acknowledging, even volunteering, the limits of anything learned. Any scientific theory can be tested by anyone independently, anywhere around the world. That's why current scientific understanding of the origin of the Universe ends a very small fraction of the first second after the Big Bang.

Theology tests nothing. Theology admits no limits. Theology does not grow. Theologians know about nothing except the Bible, a book written by ancient men and discussed ever since by less ancient men. If theology tested its ideas or subjected its ideas to attempts to disprove them, there wouldn't be anything left to study. Theology can teach us what the words in the bible say and what others have said about those words. That's it.

Theology doesn't have the capability of studying anything else, much less anything as complicated as the age or origin of the Universe. Theology simply says that anything inconsistent with the Bible must be untrue. That's why the Vatican burned astronomers at the stake if blinding them and imprisoning them first didn't get them to recant their "heresy" about the Earth's true motion around the Sun. Theologians weren't even capable of studying this tiny Solar System, but you seem to think that what they have to say about the infinitely more complicated origin of the entire Universe deserves respect equal to what modern astronomers and astrophysicists have to say about that. You can't compare the truth of scientific knowledge and theology because theology is based exclusively on a-priori beliefs that aren't even allowed to be questioned.

Your argument above seems to be: God must have existed forever because theologians say so. Scientists admit to having no explanation for what happened "before" the Big Bang. Therefore, the theologians' explanation that God has existed forever and that God created the Universe must be correct, because theologians say they're sure about it and scietists say they aren't so sure.

That's crazy talk, Pal. I'm assuming that's what he meant by "Waaaa."

When I said theologically correct, I didn't say it to be exclusive, it is philosophically correct also. The question of existence is a metaphysical assertion and your belief that some matter or field was pre-existing eternally is no better nor no worse than my belief that God was pre-existing eternally. Science cannot reach there and therefore has no say. It's pure philosophy. Claiming it scientific or unscientific is nonsense and like asking what sound purple makes.

Found an article that seems to address your other concerns:
An atheist named Ken Schei runs a website called "Atheists for Jesus." His goal? To promote the "love and kindness" taught by Jesus while rejecting a Church responsible for, as he claims, "Some of the most brutal . . . atrocities known to man."

It's a harsh charge, and yet, sooner or later, we must confront this apparent paradox: A religion that teaches love and compassion is the same religion that gave us the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials. So, are these tragedies historical anomalies -- or are they, as Ken Schei charges, part of the DNA of our faith?

Former journalist Lee Strobel pursued this question the way he used to go after any story: He went to an expert -- on Church history, in this case -- with a notebook full of questions.

In his new book, The Case for Faith, Strobel relates his conversation with my good friend and theologian John Woodbridge. Yes, Woodbridge acknowledged, great evil has been perpetrated in the name of Christ. But with regard to atrocities, he said, we have to differentiate between authentic Christians and cultural Christians -- those who belong to churches, but may not follow Christ closely, or at all.

Come on, Strobel retorted. It's a little too convenient to blame these things on people who claimed they were Christians, but really weren't.

Not really, Woodbridge replied. Jesus himself made this distinction. He said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven . . . I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you'" [Matthew 7:21-23].

Throughout the centuries, you see, much has been done in Jesus' name that does not reflect his teachings. And as Woodbridge noted, even as these abuses took place, authentic Christians spoke out against them. For instance, the Puritan leader Increase Mather condemned the Salem witch trials. In Germany in the 1930s, true Christians, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the confessing church, spoke out against both Hitler and the churches that gave in to his demands.

Of course, Christians aren't perfect, and we have to accept blame when we fail. But we're sometimes blamed for things we have nothing to do with. For example, in the sixteenth century, Spain sent explorers to the Americas to seek gold, and missionaries to save souls. Unfortunately, Woodbridge said, the missionaries have been blamed for all the terrible things the explorers did -- abuses the missionaries had no part in.

Woodbridge is right in his conclusion. Abuses in the name of Jesus are the exception, not the norm. And when people throw atrocities like the Inquisition in our faces, we must remind them that, while the Inquisition was bad, far worse things have been perpetrated in name of secular ambition: Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. Stalin slaughtered 50 million Russians. Both of them hated the Christian God.

Christians have never perfectly followed the commands of Christ, that's true. But our attempts to follow him have inspired the best in Western civilization for two millennia. Imperfect Christians have built schools and hospitals. We've rescued children left to die, and visited prisoners. We've made the world, not perfect, but far better than it would have been without our influence.

We do these things, not because we admire Ken Schei's namby-pamby, powerless Jesus, but because we worship the risen, living Christ.

Another book I'd recommend, written by a pair of historians, is Christianity on Trial, which talks in several chapters about misconceptions (historical) people like to parrot about Christianity and history. Well worth the money.

Since you started your reply with an argument from hundreds of years back (the sun around the earth and 'the church' being closeminded), I thought I'd give you a more recent example you might enjoy: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&id=4079&callingPage=discoMainPage
This bad attitude has existed on both sides for all time, not just 'the church'.

[ProWriter]

I don't know what sound purple makes, but I'm not the one mixing up colors and sounds; you are.

You're the one who suggests that the Universe requires a Creator, because it couldn't have come from nothing and it couldn't have existed forever.

You suggest that the existence of the Universe is only explained by a God.

I responded that your "answer" raises exactly the same questions about eternal existence and spontaneous existence, not to mention that, unlike the Universe, the idea of God adds another troubling question, because there's no direct evidence of any such God, whereas the existence of the Universe is not in doubt at all.

It's a very simple issue that you're trying to make much more complicated to hide the fact that you have no answer. Spare me your reading suggestions.

I don't know how it is that a Universe exists. Either something that became the Universe has always existed, or it came into existence somehow in a way we don't yet understand. I'm completely open-minded about what we may eventually learn about that.

The only thing I'm not "open-minded" about is a supposed answer that raises the exact same questions about eternal existence or spontaneous existence.

Your argument is that something "must" have caused the Universe to exist because everything "must" have a cause. God is your solution to that problem.

If everything "must" have a cause, what caused God? Your have no answer except for a bunch of mumbo jumbo about what Science, Philosophy, and Theology are capable of answering. Until you have YOUR OWN answer for what caused God, don't bother me with questions about what caused the Universe. I don't know what caused the Universe to exist, but nobody needs blind faith to be sure that the Universe does, in fact, exist. That's more than can be said for any God.

[MDS]

I don't know what sound purple makes, but I'm not the one mixing up colors and sounds; you are.

It doesn't make a sound, it's nonsense. That's the point.

You're the one who suggests that the Universe requires a Creator, because it couldn't have come from nothing and it couldn't have existed forever.

What I said was that it's a reasonable explanation.

You suggest that the existence of the Universe is only explained by a God.

I responded that your "answer" raises exactly the same questions about eternal existence and spontaneous existence, not to mention that, unlike the Universe, the idea of God adds another troubling question, because there's no direct evidence of any such God, whereas the existence of the Universe is not in doubt at all.

You can't stick God in a test tube any more than you can a past event, yet we don't deny past events occurred. God is a reasonable inference from the things we see around us. Courts have to go by reasonable inferences all the time.

It's a very simple issue that you're trying to make much more complicated to hide the fact that you have no answer. Spare me your reading suggestions.

You said you were the avid reader, were you not? Have no answer? Thought I gave a few there but you are obviously very comfortable in your worldview and don't want to be bothered exploring another avenue. I'm not forcing you to, just showing you a reasonable option.

I don't know how it is that a Universe exists. Either something that became the Universe has always existed, or it came into existence somehow in a way we don't yet understand. I'm completely open-minded about what we may eventually learn about that.

Glad you said this. The best science of the last hundred years (roughly) says that your suggestion here is dead wrong, yet you punt to an unknown (we'll eventually figure it out!) which you've got no evidence for, yet accused me a few paragraphs up of supporting a notion where there is no evidence for.

The only thing I'm not "open-minded" about is a supposed answer that raises the exact same questions about eternal existence or spontaneous existence.

Your argument is that something "must" have caused the Universe to exist because everything "must" have a cause. God is your solution to that problem.

It doesn't raise the same question at all. It's very simple. Something eternal has to have had existed. You claim 'something' not discovered yet which you've got no evidence for. I claim Someone that we do have all sorts of pointers to.
Moral (axiological) arguments
Teleogical arguments—that is, design arguments
Ontological arguments—the most controversial, lately revamped by Plantinga and others
Cosmological arguments—from a first cause
Historical arguments—for example, argument from miracles
Arguments from religious experience
Practical arguments—for example, Pascal's wager

If everything "must" have a cause, what caused God? Your have no answer except for a bunch of mumbo jumbo about what Science, Philosophy, and Theology are capable of answering. Until you have YOUR OWN answer for what caused God, don't bother me with questions about what caused the Universe. I don't know what caused the Universe to exist, but nobody needs blind faith to be sure that the Universe does, in fact, exist. That's more than can be said for any God.

Didn't say everything must have a cause. I already made it clear that the buck has to stop somewhere because you cannot have an infinite regress. The universe is well known to not be eternal but you keep making the unscientific suggestion that it is, we just don't have any evidence for it. Brushing everything I say off as 'mumbo jumbo' is just showing how desparate you are to cling to your own beliefs. I'm not being (or trying to be) rude, but that seems to be the case. Are atheists not just as happy with their position as anyone else and don't want to move?

[ProWriter]

You can't stick God in a test tube any more than you can a past event, yet we don't deny past events occurred. God is a reasonable inference from the things we see around us. Courts have to go by reasonable inferences all the time.We know of past events through the EVIDENCE left behind. There is zero evidence of any God, and last time I checked, courts tend to require EVIDENCE. As far as "inferences" go, natural catastrophes, epidemic starvation, and debilitating infant diseases would be considered pretty strong support for the "reasonable inference" that the notion of an all-powerful loving God is preposterous even without the nonsense about "Original Sin."

You said you were the avid reader, were you not? Have no answer? Thought I gave a few there but you are obviously very comfortable in your worldview and don't want to be bothered exploring another avenue. I'm not forcing you to, just showing you a reasonable option.I don't recall ever saying that I'm an "avid" reader, but I'll "explore another avenue" right after you give up the religious culture into which you happened to have been born and go explore the roughly 1,500 known other religious "avenues" yourself.

Glad you said this. The best science of the last hundred years (roughly) says that your suggestion here is dead wrong, yet you punt to an unknown (we'll eventually figure it out!) which you've got no evidence for, yet accused me a few paragraphs up of supporting a notion where there is no evidence for.I haven't suggested anything except that there are only two possibilities for the origin of the Universe: Either it has existed eternally or it came into existence spontaneously. Same as God, except that there's at least some convincing EVIDENCE that the Universe actually does exist.

I don't know how much Science you've read, but according to my reading, scientists are stuck at a very small fraction of the first second after the Big Bang where mathematics breaks down and General Relativity can't be reconciled with Quantum Theory. Everything that happened after that fraction of a second is pretty well understood.

It doesn't raise the same question at all. It's very simple. Something eternal has to have had existed. You claim 'something' not discovered yet which you've got no evidence for. I claim Someone that we do have all sorts of pointers to.You're the one advocating a belief system based strictly on untestable FAITH, remember? I'm not "claiming" anything "undiscovered" at all: I see the Universe all around me and I'm not one bit worried about the fact that we don't yet know exactly how it came to be. I see absolutely no "pointers" to any loving God and plenty of "pointers" against any such God.

Didn't say everything must have a cause. I already made it clear that the buck has to stop somewhere because you cannot have an infinite regress. The universe is well known to not be eternal but you keep making the unscientific suggestion that it is, we just don't have any evidence for it. Brushing everything I say off as 'mumbo jumbo' is just showing how desparate you are to cling to your own beliefs. I'm not being (or trying to be) rude, but that seems to be the case. I was also trying to be polite. I thought "mumbo jumbo" was more polite than spelling out the common observation that people who have no ability to formulate or express their own original thoughts love to mask their intellectual shortcomings by quoting classical sources to make themselves sound "educated." Spare me any more lists copied from your Philosophy 101 textbook's Table of Contents.

What scientific evidence do we have that the Universe (or Multiverse) is not eternal? Scientists are pretty united in the position that there is no such thing as Time "before" the Big Bang and that we're unlikely ever to look "past" that period. Maybe you know something they don't. As far as we know, the Big Bang that gave rise to this Universe might be just one of an infinite number of similar events that take place in other dimensions or "spacetime manifolds" of an infinite Multiverse. As untested as that is, there's still more evidence of that than of any God.

Are atheists not just as happy with their position as anyone else and don't want to move?We're not the ones actively trying to preach our beliefs to strangers or starting threads challenging other religious positions on a LE forum. You are.

[MDS]

We know of past events through the EVIDENCE left behind. There is zero evidence of any God, and last time I checked, courts tend to require EVIDENCE. As far as "inferences" go, natural catastrophes, epidemic starvation, and debilitating infant diseases would be considered pretty strong support for the "reasonable inference" that the notion of an all-powerful loving God is preposterous even without the nonsense about "Original Sin."

Zero evidence. Hm. I thought I listed a decent list above? I'll try again because you missed or ignored it:

Moral (axiological) arguments
Teleogical arguments—that is, design arguments
Ontological arguments—the most controversial, lately revamped by Plantinga and others
Cosmological arguments—from a first cause
Historical arguments—for example, argument from miracles
Arguments from religious experience
Practical arguments—for example, Pascal's wager

Or how about this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1422

So you've chosen to bring up the problem of evil also. That's fine. I'm content in realizing that I cannot read another persons mind, let alone God's. If He's got a reason for allowing a tragedy to occur, I'm willing to acknowledge it's logically possible He knows better than I.

I don't recall ever saying that I'm an "avid" reader, but I'll "explore another avenue" right after you give up the religious culture into which you happened to have been born and go explore the roughly 1,500 known other religious "avenues" yourself.

Sorry, I thought you said you read alot? I shouldnt have used avid I guess. I don't see a need to explore another avenue, as I was sure to explore the one I was 'born into' quite enough and find it reasonable. I've done some exploring in others, certainly not 1500, and you yourself know it would take more than a lifetime of studying to get in depth on 1500 topics. So lets stop playing games.

I haven't suggested anything except that there are only two possibilities for the origin of the Universe: Either it has existed eternally or it came into existence spontaneously. Same as God, except that there's at least some convincing EVIDENCE that the Universe actually does exist.

Correct. The universe exists. But we know from everything studied that it is not eternal and therefore points to something trancending it, even if you choose to ignore that fact.
Astronomer and mathematician Fred Hoyle was so astonished at the remarkable chain of “coincidences” necessary for the production of oxygen and carbon in the universe, he concluded that “a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” That statement was uttered mid–20th century as a result of Hoyle discovering the wildly improbable presence of just the right nuclear resonance levels in carbon and oxygen to allow for the formation of these most necessary elements for life. For Hoyle, such wonderful calibration could not be an accident: “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.”


I don't know how much Science you've read, but according to my reading, scientists are stuck at a very small fraction of the first second after the Big Bang where mathematics breaks down and General Relativity can't be reconciled with Quantum Theory. Everything that happened after that fraction of a second is pretty well understood.

This doesn't change anything I've said.

You're the one advocating a belief system based strictly on untestable FAITH, remember? I'm not "claiming" anything "undiscovered" at all: I see the Universe all around me and I'm not one bit worried about the fact that we don't yet know exactly how it came to be. I see absolutely no "pointers" to any loving God and plenty of "pointers" against any such God.

Untestable faith is advocating an eternally existing universe which is well known to be not eternal and holding out for an explanation someday, as you have chosen to do. Don't try and say that your worldview doesn't require faith. All do.

I was also trying to be polite. I thought "mumbo jumbo" was more polite than spelling out the common observation that people who have no ability to formulate or express their own original thoughts love to mask their intellectual shortcomings by quoting classical sources to make themselves sound "educated." Spare me any more lists copied from your Philosophy 101 textbook's Table of Contents.

No comment needed here. Nothing productive said or answerable.

What scientific evidence do we have that the Universe (or Multiverse) is not eternal? Scientists are pretty united in the position that there is no such thing as Time "before" the Big Bang and that we're unlikely ever to look "past" that period. Maybe you know something they don't. As far as we know, the Big Bang that gave rise to this Universe might be just one of an infinite number of similar events that take place in other dimensions or "spacetime manifolds" of an infinite Multiverse. As untested as that is, there's still more evidence of that than of any God.

Don't look now but you're punting to an unknown/untestable/unscientific idea again and showing your faith.

We're not the ones actively trying to preach our beliefs to strangers or starting threads challenging other religious positions on a LE forum. You are.

I didn't start the thread. Merely jumped in because this bullying tactic is old that you're attempting. Nor am I challenging you at all, simply pointing out that your case isn't as solid as you'd like it to be.

[damode]

Funny thing is that, even if one day we find a scientifcal and mathematical explanation on how the universe began, religious people will stick to their imaginary friend up in the sky.

Same way we are finding a scientific way about the evolution of species, or the age of the earth, or the learning more of the field of space, planets and how earth relates to the system and the universe.

And it will never matter. They would just say what they always say

oooo its only a theory! ooo theres not enough evidence!

We are not in space because of religion

People arent living longer because of religion

People are not communicating half across the world in milliseconds because of religion

Doctors arent advancing the way they are because of religion

People are moral not because of religion

People are happy not because of religion


People feel guilty about their sex life because of religion

Some doctors are refusing care to patients because of their religion

People have an Us vs. Them mentality because of religion

People hate someone of another religion because of their religion

People of religion CAN NEVER care, or love another person that is different than them because they know they are right and this person will go to hell

Religion is for the ignorant, deprived, lonely, and for the low self-esteem.

You are scared of death and the "big bad world" so you need to make up an imaginary friend to look after you and protect you.

And yes, im sorry if its offensive but you guys can publicly get away with saying this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

- George Bush Sr. on 1987 campaigning in chicago, illinois.

^^^ This is why its about time Athiests start talking trash and defending ourself. You "righteous" guys have been ragging on us for long enough.

[MDS]

Funny thing is that, even if one day we find a scientifcal and mathematical explanation on how the universe began, religious people will stick to their imaginary friend up in the sky.

Sure, and no matter how much fine tuning and pointers to God are found, are non-religious friends will always stick to an unexplained unknown in their heads.

Same way we are finding a scientific way about the evolution of species, or the age of the earth, or the learning more of the field of space, planets and how earth relates to the system and the universe.

And it will never matter. They would just say what they always say

oooo its only a theory! ooo theres not enough evidence!


Right back atcha. "There's not enough/no evidence" is a mantra I've heard more than a few times.


We are not in space because of religion

People arent living longer because of religion

People are not communicating half across the world in milliseconds because of religion

Doctors arent advancing the way they are because of religion

People are moral not because of religion

People are happy not because of religion


People feel guilty about their sex life because of religion

Some doctors are refusing care to patients because of their religion

People have an Us vs. Them mentality because of religion

People hate someone of another religion because of their religion

People of religion CAN NEVER care, or love another person that is different than them because they know they are right and this person will go to hell

Religion is for the ignorant, deprived, lonely, and for the low self-esteem.

You are scared of death and the "big bad world" so you need to make up an imaginary friend to look after you and protect you.

And yes, im sorry if its offensive but you guys can publicly get away with saying this:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

- George Bush Sr. on 1987 campaigning in chicago, illinois.

^^^ This is why its about time Athiests start talking trash and defending ourself. You "righteous" guys have been ragging on us for long enough.

Substitute 'because of religion' and 'religion' for atheism, and you could say the same thing for everything above here. You're just as 'self righteous' as anyone I've ever met with what you just said here.

[ProWriter]

Substitute 'because of religion' and 'religion' for atheism, and you could say the same thing for everything above here. You're just as 'self righteous' as anyone I've ever met with what you just said here. That's because he wasn't suggesting that atheism produced any of those beneficial breakthroughs. He was simply citing all those advances as concrete evidence of the accuracy of the underlying sciences that made them possible.

Every time you cook something in a microwave, transmit a signal by radio, or listen to a CD (to name just a few of hundreds of things you do every single day), you have irrefutable direct evidence that science isn't just another cultist belief system that relies on faith. If there were any credible evidence of any gods, or of your particular God, faith wouldn't be required to maintain the belief. Faith is only necessary in the complete absence of any evidence, even without all the self-contradictions of your religious beliefs.

Scientists continually test and subject their conclusions to rigorous challenges all the time, and they revise and reformulate their specific conclusions. They volunteer their findings even when they refute their earlier ideas. This is the antithesis of belief by "faith." That's why it's either ignorant or disingenuous to respond to illustrations of how much we actually know about the origin of the Universe with the suggestion that whatever we've learned about it is just another unproven belief system. We recognize that science is about gradually filling in areas where our understanding is incomplete. The fact that science changes and acknowledges its mistakes isn't a "weakness" in the scientific method, but gives it the credibility that faith-based beliefs lack.

[John3:16]

MDS if you read the previous post you will see they have been shown the truth. They reject it and chose to be scoffers.

Damode has no Idea what he is talking about.

I know you have a good heart and have good intentions. God is true. We are not all His children, only those that believe. We are all His creation and will be before Him. These people have no excuse when they face him.

You know they will face Him. And then they will believe, and it will be too late. God bless you.

[damode]

MDS if you read the previous post you will see they have been shown the truth. They reject it and chose to be scoffers.

Damode has no Idea what he is talking about.

I know you have a good heart and have good intentions. God is true. We are not all His children, only those that believe. We are all His creation and will be before Him. These people have no excuse when they face him.

You know they will face Him. And then they will believe, and it will be too late. God bless you.

So theres a god bless you to mds, and a sentence to hell to me and all other athiests by john 3:16

I shall quote myself on this one ,

"People of religion CAN NEVER care, or love another person that is different than them because they know they are right and this person will go to hell"

[ProWriter]

We are not all His children, only those that believe. We are all His creation and will be before Him. These people have no excuse when they face him. You know they will face Him. And then they will believe, and it will be too late. God bless you.Why will it be too late? Let's say I'm genuinely too stupid, or too psychologically blocked, or too well indoctrinated by my parents' false beliefs to see the truth in my life.

If I come face to face with your "perfect," "forgiving," "unconditionally loving" God when I die, and that moment is genuinely the first time that I can TRUTHFULLY and whole-heartedly say that I believe in Jesus Christ, why is it too late? I don't mean for the serial killers and rapists of the world, just someone with a good heart who tried to do the right thing to the best of his ability in life. Why is it too late for God to accept me then? Why can't God forgive my honest mistake?

[John3:16]

Why will it be too late? Let's say I'm genuinely too stupid, or too psychologically blocked, or too well indoctrinated by my parents' false beliefs to see the truth in my life.

If I come face to face with your "perfect," "forgiving," "unconditionally loving" God when I die, and that moment is genuinely the first time that I can TRUTHFULLY and whole-heartedly say that I believe in Jesus Christ, why is it too late? I don't mean for the serial killers and rapists of the world, just someone with a good heart who tried to do the right thing to the best of his ability in life. Why is it too late for God to accept me then? Why can't God forgive my honest mistake?


Here we go again..........see you later

[MDS]

That's because he wasn't suggesting that atheism produced any of those beneficial breakthroughs. He was simply citing all those advances as concrete evidence of the accuracy of the underlying sciences that made them possible.

Every time you cook something in a microwave, transmit a signal by radio, or listen to a CD (to name just a few of hundreds of things you do every single day), you have irrefutable direct evidence that science isn't just another cultist belief system that relies on faith. If there were any credible evidence of any gods, or of your particular God, faith wouldn't be required to maintain the belief. Faith is only necessary in the complete absence of any evidence, even without all the self-contradictions of your religious beliefs.

Scientists continually test and subject their conclusions to rigorous challenges all the time, and they revise and reformulate their specific conclusions. They volunteer their findings even when they refute their earlier ideas. This is the antithesis of belief by "faith." That's why it's either ignorant or disingenuous to respond to illustrations of how much we actually know about the origin of the Universe with the suggestion that whatever we've learned about it is just another unproven belief system. We recognize that science is about gradually filling in areas where our understanding is incomplete. The fact that science changes and acknowledges its mistakes isn't a "weakness" in the scientific method, but gives it the credibility that faith-based beliefs lack.

Wrong. Science flourished in the first place because the Judeo-Christian worldview believed God's universe knowable and studyable. As Rodney Stark writes in his new book, For the Glory of God, "every educated person" of Columbus's time, especially Christian clergy, "knew the earth was round." More than 800 years before Columbus's voyage, Bede, the church historian, taught this, as did Hildegard of Bingen and Thomas Aquinas. The title of the most popular medieval text on astronomy was Sphere, not exactly what you would call a book that said the earth was flat.

As for Copernicus's sudden flash of insight, Stark quotes the eminent historian L. Bernard Cohen who called that idea "an invention of later historians." Copernicus "was taught the essential fundamentals leading to his model by his Scholastic professors" -- that is, Christian scholars.

That model was "developed gradually by a succession of . . . Scholastic scientists over the previous two centuries." Building upon their work on orbital mechanics, Copernicus added the "implicit next step."

Thus, the idea that science was invented in the seventeenth century, "when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it," as it is said, is false. Long before the famed physicist Isaac Newton, clergy like John of Sacrobosco, the author of Sphere, were doing what can be only called science. The Scholastics -- Christians -- not the Enlightenment, invented modern science.

Three hundred years before Newton, a Scholastic cleric named Jean Buridan anticipated Newton's First Law of Motion, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless otherwise impeded. It was Buridan, not an Enlightenment luminary, who first proposed that Earth turns on its axis.

In Stark's words, "Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science." Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy.

That's because Christianity depicted God as a "rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being" who created a universe with a "rational, lawful, stable" structure. These beliefs uniquely led to "faith in the possibility of science."

So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, "the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack of faith." Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts not only to discredit Christianity, but also to position themselves as "liberators" of the human mind and spirit.

[MDS]

So theres a god bless you to mds, and a sentence to hell to me and all other athiests by john 3:16

I shall quote myself on this one ,

"People of religion CAN NEVER care, or love another person that is different than them because they know they are right and this person will go to hell"

Blesses you also, friend. You're not the enemy.

[Cockney Corner.]

Wrong. Science flourished in the first place because the Judeo-Christian worldview believed God's universe knowable and studyable. As Rodney Stark writes in his new book, For the Glory of God, "every educated person" of Columbus's time, especially Christian clergy, "knew the earth was round." More than 800 years before Columbus's voyage, Bede, the church historian, taught this, as did Hildegard of Bingen and Thomas Aquinas. The title of the most popular medieval text on astronomy was Sphere, not exactly what you would call a book that said the earth was flat.

Well, Mr Stark raises some interesting points and I won't simply write "Wrong" as you did. But the notion that science arises from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint is, well, stretching history to breaking point. Yes, it is a myth that everyone thought the world was flat at the time of Columbus. How did they know? The Greeks told them. Yup, the pagan, not remotely Judeo-Christian Greeks figured it out. Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's diameter to within 50 miles. Aristarchus figured out the whole Copernican system (as did the not terribly Judeo-Christian Indians). And of course we have copies of only a tiny fraction of what the Greeks wrote, so we don't know what else they discovered.

Medieval Christian scholars openly drew on the work of Aristotle (also not a Jew or Christian incidentally) when they realised that the revealed word of God didn't actually explain a great deal about the world around them and that they needed those darn pagans to help them out.

I particularly enjoyed your claim that Copernicus proves how open minded Christianity was about science. This would be the Copernicus who was condemned by Luther and Calvin on the basis that his model wasn't compatible with the Bible.

Yes, of course there are many Christians who are also scientists. And priests and monks who were eminent scientists (Mendel springs to mind). But the idea that Judeo-Christian beliefs, based as they are on faith and the idea that things happen by magic (or miracles - whatever you want to call them) are the bedrock of science - c'mon!

[Dave2886]

Here we go again..........see you later
Wow, that was a really "Christian" attitude to take....the man was asking a legitimate question, and you tell him, not in so many words, to go to hell. Is that how Jesus would treat people?

This is why extremely religious people put such a bad taste in so many other people's mouths: You act all pious, but once you decide you don't like someone, you turn all "holier than thou" and a lot of times downright hateful. Does that not go against everything Christ preached? I have found in my experience most people that are self-proclaimed "devout" Christians to be very hypocritical in their lives. Of course, their excuse for this is, "Hey, we're all sinners...that's why Jesus died, so we can keep living our sinful lives. As long as we believe in Jesus, and we repent our sins at some point before we die, we can be as hateful and crappy to as many people (preferably non-believers) as we want! Heaven, here we come!!!" Must be nice to not be accountable for ones actions...:rolleyes:

[Jellybean400]

An agnostic is a "person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God". Agnostics don't believe in God - they're non-committal. Again, you may be thinking of a "deist".



I'm agnostic.

[damode]

Well this debate can go on forever like i said before.

ill drop my opinion again i guess

Believe what you believe, hold your opinions on certain people BUT NEVER push what you believe onto others and ALWAYS look out for you fellow man.

I know in the future i will be in a career in LE, and im sure many who have posted in here are currently in certain stages of their own career. Religion will always be a hot topic that will have heated debates.

But i hope the opinions of the people you risk your lives with everyday does not change your attitutde towards the duty any of us has taken.

For ex. John 3:16 is probably one of the toughest religious people on this board, and i disagree with probably 110 percent of the stuff he puts down in here,

but i dont know how much time he has left in LE, and im not sure if i will ever end up in LE, but im certain that if we ever cross paths because of our duty in LE, im positive i got his back and i hope he will have my back.

I bring this up because i hope a certain prejudice between athiests and theists is not prevalent in law enforcement, because its true that many in LE are very conservative and very religious.

I would like to know that when i start my career i will not be looked down upon or feel that im surrounded with people that do not care what happens to me because of what i believe in (in this case, what i dont believe in).

Athiesm is a topic that will be getting more open, and you will see many people "come out" the religious closet and saying that they have been athiests all this time.

Any one of you guys seeing any of those changes around you?

[ProWriter]

I have found in my experience most people that are self-proclaimed "devout" Christians to be very hypocritical in their lives. Of course, their excuse for this is, "Hey, we're all sinners...that's why Jesus died, so we can keep living our sinful lives. As long as we believe in Jesus, and we repent our sins at some point before we die, we can be as hateful and crappy to as many people (preferably non-believers) as we want! Heaven, here we come!!!" Must be nice to not be accountable for ones actions...:rolleyes:If there is any omnipotent God, he'd only be insulted by the notion of forgiveness-in-advance, in his name, for moral transgressions. I give any omnipotent, "perfect" being enough credit to know that he'd be proud of anybody who had no belief in any God and no fear whatsoever of any "punishment" after death for his actions on Earth, but still chose to live a moral life for no other reason than doing the right thing for its own sake. That's infinitely more honorable than doing it out of fear of punishment and self preservation in the "afterlife."

(As far as sins go, I'm only using the term to describe the kinds of moral right and wrong that nobody needs any scripture to define. I'm also well aware that many Christians believe it's "impossible" to define right and wrong without reference to God. In their case, I'm very glad they do have their religious beliefs, because that's all that's keeping the rest of us safe from anybody who has no idea what right and wrong is on his own.)

[MDS]

Well, Mr Stark raises some interesting points and I won't simply write "Wrong" as you did. But the notion that science arises from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint is, well, stretching history to breaking point. Yes, it is a myth that everyone thought the world was flat at the time of Columbus. How did they know? The Greeks told them. Yup, the pagan, not remotely Judeo-Christian Greeks figured it out. Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's diameter to within 50 miles. Aristarchus figured out the whole Copernican system (as did the not terribly Judeo-Christian Indians). And of course we have copies of only a tiny fraction of what the Greeks wrote, so we don't know what else they discovered.

Medieval Christian scholars openly drew on the work of Aristotle (also not a Jew or Christian incidentally) when they realised that the revealed word of God didn't actually explain a great deal about the world around them and that they needed those darn pagans to help them out.

I particularly enjoyed your claim that Copernicus proves how open minded Christianity was about science. This would be the Copernicus who was condemned by Luther and Calvin on the basis that his model wasn't compatible with the Bible.

Yes, of course there are many Christians who are also scientists. And priests and monks who were eminent scientists (Mendel springs to mind). But the idea that Judeo-Christian beliefs, based as they are on faith and the idea that things happen by magic (or miracles - whatever you want to call them) are the bedrock of science - c'mon!

Oh absolutely Luther and Calvin and those that followed him were wrong. Absolutely. But, their voice wasn't the only one, but rather the one that conveniently remembered as a useful weapon. I'd recommend to you as I did someone else the book titled Christianity On Trial. It's got lots of helpful history in it regarding this sort of thing.

[John3:16]

Well, Mr Stark raises some interesting points and I won't simply write "Wrong" as you did. But the notion that science arises from the Judeo-Christian viewpoint is, well, stretching history to breaking point. Yes, it is a myth that everyone thought the world was flat at the time of Columbus. How did they know? The Greeks told them. Yup, the pagan, not remotely Judeo-Christian Greeks figured it out. Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's diameter to within 50 miles. Aristarchus figured out the whole Copernican system (as did the not terribly Judeo-Christian Indians). And of course we have copies of only a tiny fraction of what the Greeks wrote, so we don't know what else they discovered.

Medieval Christian scholars openly drew on the work of Aristotle (also not a Jew or Christian incidentally) when they realised that the revealed word of God didn't actually explain a great deal about the world around them and that they needed those darn pagans to help them out.

I particularly enjoyed your claim that Copernicus proves how open minded Christianity was about science. This would be the Copernicus who was condemned by Luther and Calvin on the basis that his model wasn't compatible with the Bible.

Yes, of course there are many Christians who are also scientists. And priests and monks who were eminent scientists (Mendel springs to mind). But the idea that Judeo-Christian beliefs, based as they are on faith and the idea that things happen by magic (or miracles - whatever you want to call them) are the bedrock of science - c'mon!


Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.

2 Timothy 3: But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despiser's of good, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

[JaseFifty1]

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

[Cockney Corner.]

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.

And this is supposed to prove ..?

Firstly, we've already established that belief in the Earth being a sphere was widely held in the ancient world. Due to scientific observation.

And in any case, the following pose a little problem:

1 Chr 16:30: He [the LORD] has fixed the Earth firm, immovable.

Ps 93:1: [Repeats the above]

Ps 96:10: [Repeats the above]

As Galileo is reported to have said when the Church was trying him for heresy for propounding the crazy notion that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe, with all other stellar bodies rotating around it:

Eppur si muove (but still it moves).

In fact, it's probably a myth that he said this, as he was understandably worried about being burned alive by peaceful, loving Christians for expounding this sort of wickedness.

2 Timothy 3: But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despiser's of good, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

Well, I guess I've ticked a couple of those boxes in my time. Good advice.

[Cockney Corner.]

[W]e do have all sorts of pointers to.
Moral (axiological) arguments

OK, This is a vastly complex area, and I'm happy to go one on one on any of these arguments. But in brief, I'll have a crack at all of these.

The moral argument. In short, morality comes from God. Well, without going into the ins and outs, I don't agree. I like to think I'm a good father and husband and a good and useful member of society. I don't see how theology comes into that.

Teleogical arguments—that is, design arguments

Ah yes, the watchmaker argument. We all fit together so well, like a watch, there must a watchmaker. Evolution covers that one pretty well. And naturally we're biased about how cool we are.

Ontological arguments—the most controversial, lately revamped by Plantinga and others

Yup, it's controversial because it's rubbish (there's also an ontological argument for the non-existence of God incidentally). For those who aren't avid readers of the Philosophy of Religion, this goes something like this:

Let us define God as a being greater than which it is not possible to conceive.

In thus imagining God, we must therefore accept that He exists because it is better to exist than not to exist.

This was an argument created by St Anselm in the eleventh century. If you actually read the book in which Anselm set out this idea, you can see that he himself thought it was, well, a bit dodgy. His contemporaries certainly thought. The bottom line is that you can't simply define something into existence. Existence is not a predicate to use the jargon.

Cosmological arguments—from a first cause

A popular one on the thread. All things, including the Universe, have causes. God is the cause. Doesn't explain God. William of Ockham, a Medieval monk, had a wonderful observation which covers this nicely, known as "Ockham's Razor". In essence it is that if all things are equal, we should accept the simplest explanation. Which would be that the Universe just appeared without needing someone else to appear and set that in motion.

Historical arguments—for example, argument from miracles

Miracles. I could pretend that I thought of this one myself but the nod has to go to the eighteenth century philospher David Hume. A miracle is something that is contrary to the laws of nature. The laws of nature simply describe how things are. A miracle is therefore something that happened, that didn't happen. Sure, there are fortuitous coincidences that might be taken for miracles, I'll give you that, but they're not contrary to the laws of nature. Nothing is.

Arguments from religious experience

People think God is telling them to do things. The lunatics who undertook the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London thought God wanted them to kill people. They seemed pretty convinced. Were they right?

Practical arguments—for example, Pascal's wager

Again, for those who don't know it, Pascal's wager boils down to the idea that you may as well worship God because you haven't lost anything if you do, and He doesn't exist, and you hit cherries even if you're not sure if He does. I'll let that argument speak for itself.

Next?

[n0mad]

I think I'll create a new topic entitled "Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Big Foot, The Fairy Godmother, etc..." I think the only difference between god and these other supernatural beings is that your parents told you they didn't exist after a certain age, but since they were brainwashed themselves, they let the idea of god continue and it perpetuates from generation to generation.

What a pity. Lets free ourselves from the bonds of closed-mindedness and learn to think critically and for ourselves. There's no reason to label the unknown "god"... as science grows, the gap of the unknown decreases as its done ever since intelligent human beings started looking for real answers. If you don't know or understand, just say that, and it's ok.

And just remember, the strength lies within you.. there's no reason to look up for it.

[Dave2886]

I bring this up because i hope a certain prejudice between athiests and theists is not prevalent in law enforcement, because its true that many in LE are very conservative and very religious.

I would like to know that when i start my career i will not be looked down upon or feel that im surrounded with people that do not care what happens to me because of what i believe in (in this case, what i dont believe in).
I can only speak for where I work, but I have found that the majority of officers I know claim some type of religion, probably around 40-75%. I can also say that I know plenty of cops here who are atheists, or agnostics, but they are the minority. It should be noted that I work in the South, where religion is very much more front-burner than it is in other parts of the country. I was very much surprised when I first moved down here, after growing up in New England. On several occasions people I met would ask me where I went to church, usually within the first 2 minutes of the conversation. This would be almost unthinkable to someone who grew up in New England, not because people don't go to church up north, but because it's a private thing. Down here, however, everyone just assumes you go to church unless you make it obvious otherwise, and it's considered perfectly acceptable to talk to perfect strangers about it.

Anyway, I don't know how it is in other police agencies, but here, there are a good amount of religious people, but I've never seen any obvious cases of officers being looked down upon because of their religious beliefs. I have, however, seen at least one case of someone who suspected a captain didn't accomodate this person's requests because the captain was VERY religious, and the person was pretty much an atheist, but there was no direct evidence that religion was the deciding factor, and I've never heard of any other incidents like this. I think you'll find that in any civil service job you won't find many overt cases of religious harassment, because if you were accused of something like that, and the complaint was sustained, you'd probably lose your job and have a hard time finding another cop job. Sorry for rambling on, hope this answered your question.

[ProWriter]

I've never been discriminated against, but there was definitely something not quite right (and violative of my 1st Amendment rights) that within my first hour of federal service I had to choose between swearing an oath to a God in whom I don't believe or making a specific point to announce my private religious views to request a non-theistic affirmation. Religious beliefs are supposed to be as private as one wants them to be and I shouldn't have been put in that position my first day on the job, especially to take a job working for the federal government.

[JonMcD1980]

God Bless Our Troops who stand guard if needed to defend our rights to have discussions such as these on what we believe or don't believe. If you are an athiest, Best Wishes to Our Troops who stand guard if needed to defend our rights to have discussions such as these on what we believe or don't believe.

I believe in God. I don't care if you think I'm narrow minded because I disagree with the athiest viewpoint, but I'm not on here calling you a sinner destined for hell. We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. That's the beauty of America and the rest of the Free World.

[99 Fenix]

This about sums it up:

" If you believe in forever, then life is just a one night stand. If there's a rock and roll heaven, you know they got a hell of a band".

Lamb of God :)

i believe and all that good stuff, but i hate when people HIDE behind religion because they don't understand whats going on. for example, say i tell you your going to have a heart attack and you do!!! wow, did i put that "evil" on you, no, maybe if you didn't eat at MACdonalds every day, it wouldn't have happened and thats just common sense...it's really annoying, but people are entitled to their opinions...then i edjucate them :)

[ProWriter]

I believe in God. I don't care if you think I'm narrow minded because I disagree with the athiest viewpoint, but I'm not on here calling you a sinner destined for hell. We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. That's the beauty of America and the rest of the Free World.Generally, atheists aren't worried about or threatened by anybody else's beliefs. We're happy just to be treated like our belief that there (probably) is no god deserves as much respect as all the other different belief systems. We usually don't bring up the topic of religion with people we barely know in real life and we know better than to antagonize religious people on line by starting threads with titles like "For the Christians".
As a group, we're probably much less annoyed at being challenged than religious people and we don't mind having the discussion, but no atheist started any thread to criticize or characterize anybody negatively for having religious beliefs.

[Cockney Corner.]

I can only speak for where I work, but I have found that the majority of officers I know claim some type of religion, probably around 40-75%. I can also say that I know plenty of cops here who are atheists, or agnostics, but they are the minority.

As I've never heard anyone going on about religion (or atheism) where I work (with the exception of two officers, one a devout Christian, the other a devout Muslim) I can only guess what everyone believes. However, we have the choice over here of either affirming or taking a religious oath when giving evidence in court. I would say 90% of officers I have seen going to give evidence elect to affirm.

[MDS]

And this is supposed to prove ..?

Firstly, we've already established that belief in the Earth being a sphere was widely held in the ancient world. Due to scientific observation.

And in any case, the following pose a little problem:

1 Chr 16:30: He [the LORD] has fixed the Earth firm, immovable.

Ps 93:1: [Repeats the above]

Ps 96:10: [Repeats the above]

As Galileo is reported to have said when the Church was trying him for heresy for propounding the crazy notion that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe, with all other stellar bodies rotating around it:

Eppur si muove (but still it moves).

In fact, it's probably a myth that he said this, as he was understandably worried about being burned alive by peaceful, loving Christians for expounding this sort of wickedness.



Well, I guess I've ticked a couple of those boxes in my time. Good advice.

Dig a bit deeper....
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

[MDS]

OK, This is a vastly complex area, and I'm happy to go one on one on any of these arguments. But in brief, I'll have a crack at all of these.

Not a problem, but the purpose of me posting them wasn't really to argue each one, but simply to counter the claim that there is 'no' evidence, when in fact there is. I'm not saying you can't object to them, simply saying that arguements do exist. After all, anyone skilled enough could argue that I don't exist, or you either for that matter.

The moral argument. In short, morality comes from God. Well, without going into the ins and outs, I don't agree. I like to think I'm a good father and husband and a good and useful member of society. I don't see how theology comes into that.

It comes in, in that without a Rule-giver, there are no rules. I don't doubt you can behave in a productive way as a non-theist, but there is no reason for you to. Also, how can anyone say that things such as genocide are wrong, without a moral compass to go by?

Ah yes, the watchmaker argument. We all fit together so well, like a watch, there must a watchmaker. Evolution covers that one pretty well. And naturally we're biased about how cool we are.

It's debatable (highly) whether or not evolution covers it, as the ID movement will attest. www.discovery.org But, even if true, there doesn't seem to be a problem for God either. I've always thought of the example of a vehicle production plant. The designers/engineers are not found in the building, but that is no reason to assume they don't exist. The entire ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) seems to be full of both Christians who are evolutionists also. Then there are those trained in the sciences who hold the YEC viewpoint. I do not myself, but the point is that they are there.

Yup, it's controversial because it's rubbish (there's also an ontological argument for the non-existence of God incidentally). For those who aren't avid readers of the Philosophy of Religion, this goes something like this:

Let us define God as a being greater than which it is not possible to conceive.

In thus imagining God, we must therefore accept that He exists because it is better to exist than not to exist.

This was an argument created by St Anselm in the eleventh century. If you actually read the book in which Anselm set out this idea, you can see that he himself thought it was, well, a bit dodgy. His contemporaries certainly thought. The bottom line is that you can't simply define something into existence. Existence is not a predicate to use the jargon.

I don't care for the arguement much myself but cannot consider myself an expert by any means. Again, I only point it out as an evidence that some use. You could find others who could likely articulate it much better than I would ever attempt to.

A popular one on the thread. All things, including the Universe, have causes. God is the cause. Doesn't explain God. William of Ockham, a Medieval monk, had a wonderful observation which covers this nicely, known as "Ockham's Razor". In essence it is that if all things are equal, we should accept the simplest explanation. Which would be that the Universe just appeared without needing someone else to appear and set that in motion.

That goes against everything that we know from science itself. The universe didn't 'just appear', because according to your worldview, there was nothing to make it appear. More can be found here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html

Miracles. I could pretend that I thought of this one myself but the nod has to go to the eighteenth century philospher David Hume. A miracle is something that is contrary to the laws of nature. The laws of nature simply describe how things are. A miracle is therefore something that happened, that didn't happen. Sure, there are fortuitous coincidences that might be taken for miracles, I'll give you that, but they're not contrary to the laws of nature. Nothing is.

Let's assume Moses parted the Red Sea and you accepted that. I'm assuming you would still force it into the 'just so happened at the right time' paradigm? One could just as easily argue that there are no fortuitous coincidences. If something is said to occur outside of regularly observed phenomenon (what we call laws of nature), then it could be classed as a miracle. The fact that lawlike regularities exist is quite amazing in and of itself.

People think God is telling them to do things. The lunatics who undertook the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London thought God wanted them to kill people. They seemed pretty convinced. Were they right?

I'm not a muslim, so I'll go with no.

Again, for those who don't know it, Pascal's wager boils down to the idea that you may as well worship God because you haven't lost anything if you do, and He doesn't exist, and you hit cherries even if you're not sure if He does. I'll let that argument speak for itself.

Next?

I don't care for it as any sort of proof, but it's a logical enough bet.

[Dave2886]

I'm not a muslim, so I'll go with no.
Does that mean that if a Christian flies a plane into a building, and claims (in a previously-taped suicide note) with all sincerity that God told him to do it, you'd believe him?

[Columbus]

We usually don't bring up the topic of religion with people we barely know in real life and we know better than to antagonize religious people on line by starting threads with titles like "For the Christians".

Ahh, here we go. I'm not trying to antagonize you ProWriter, but rather start a discussion of beliefs, where I'm trying to gain understanding of where your viewpoint comes from. I'm not saying I think you'll change my mind, I just wanted to see exactly what Atheists believe, as I can ask direct questions here. People who then call you out on a point you bring up aren't trying to upset you, but rather are trying to contribute to the debate. There's a difference. If I started a thread that was titled "Atheists are stupid," then I would be trying to antagonize you.

Does that mean that if a Christian flies a plane into a building, and claims (in a previously-taped suicide note) with all sincerity that God told him to do it, you'd believe him?

No, the true work of God would not consist of killing thousands of innocent people. There is a judgement that can be made on who truly has a relationship with God, and who doesn't. If a man says he raped 20 babies because God told him to do it, of course I don't believe him. If a man goes to Africa to help the hunger problem because he says God told him to, I think it's plausible.

[ProWriter]

Ahh, here we go. I'm not trying to antagonize you ProWriter, but rather start a discussion of beliefs, where I'm trying to gain understanding of where your viewpoint comes from. I'm not saying I think you'll change my mind, I just wanted to see exactly what Atheists believe, as I can ask direct questions here. People who then call you out on a point you bring up aren't trying to upset you, but rather are trying to contribute to the debate. There's a difference. If I started a thread that was titled "Atheists are stupid," then I would be trying to antagonize you.
Reading comprehension much? I specifically said that atheists, as a group, are a lot LESS likely than religious folk to be "offended" at being asked to justify our beliefs and that we DON'T mind having the discussion at all. I simply suggested that if an atheist ever started a forum thread titled "For the Christians" and "called out" Christians to defend their beliefs for the sake of "starting a discussion" or "contributing to the debate" it would probably provoke a much nastier response and be seen as antagonizing people.

My comment was primarily directed to JonMcD1980, because his post seemed to suggest that the atheists who responded to this thread were opposed to the right of everybody to hold and express his beliefs in this country, whatever they may be. If anything, atheists need that right even more than people who subscribe to the views of the religious majority. We support free speech and the right to autonomous thought as much as anybody, if not more so.

What we believe is that there's no evidence of any gods and, especially, of any Christian God, in particular. We believe that human beings are just another biological life form that, like all others, simply returns to dust after death. We believe that all religions were inspired, generally, by the fear of the unknown and, more specifically, as a way of coping (through denial) with the inevitability of our own death and the death of our loved ones.

We have as much respect (in terms of your right to believe what you wish) for your religion as you have for our same right. As far as intellectual respect, we respect your specific beliefs exactly as much as we respect those sincere religious beliefs of all other cultures, including those of the Ancient Greeks that we now call "Mythology." We have somewhat more respect (I mean intellectual respect) for religions that view "God" as a general universal consciousness than for the absolutely ridiculous idea of a "God" who monitors the lives of his creatures individually and rewards and punishes them in an "afterlife."

We have no idea (yet) how it is that the Universe exists, but we're certain that admitting that we simply don't (yet) know is a much less cowardly position than accepting ridiculous stories about an imaginary God who rewards us for recognizing him and tortures us eternally for going about our lives without worrying about any "gods." The only thing we consider sillier than belief in any such "God" on blind faith is maintaining that belief while simultaneously dismissing all the other religions who accept diametrically opposite beliefs by the same exact system of "faith."

Thanks for your interest. No offense intended. Just responding honestly (and strictly on point) to having my beliefs about gods "called out."

[Cockney Corner.]

Also, how can anyone say that things such as genocide are wrong, without a moral compass to go by?

We can do this because morality and ethics do not require a supernatural origin. I'm glad that you used genocide as an example. The fact that God repeatedly demands the total extermination of the Amalekite people in the Old Testament must be a tricky one for those of a Judeo-Christian persuasion.
It's debatable (highly) whether or not evolution covers it, as the ID movement will attest. www.discovery.org But, even if true, there doesn't seem to be a problem for God either.

No, I accept that there are many who consider that God initiated and/or directs evolution. I was just making point that the existence of complex organisms can be explained by non-divine means.

That goes against everything that we know from science itself. The universe didn't 'just appear', because according to your worldview, there was nothing to make it appear

As I mentioned earlier, the scientific consensus is that the origins of the Universe are ultimately unknowable because we can't recreate the conditions to test any theory. But informed theories do exist (which I can't pretend to understand). It doesn't follow from the fact that something may ultimately be unknowable that God is responsible for it.

Let's assume Moses parted the Red Sea and you accepted that. I'm assuming you would still force it into the 'just so happened at the right time' paradigm?

Yes, you've put your finger on the problem from my point of view. I don't accept any such thing. There is no historical evidence of the existence of Moses or the Exodus. Let alone the parting of the Red Sea/Reed Sea. It doesn't even make any rational sense if you look at the story (600,000 men and their families left Egypt with Moses and they managed to cross the Red Sea, which is seventeen miles across at its narrowest point, in one night). The Plagues of Egypt, now we're on the subject, also pose a bit of a problem in respect of the "God is the ultimate moral authority" argument. Death of the First Born. Naughty.

[retired]

No, the true work of God would not consist of killing thousands of innocent people. .


I've pretty well stayed out of this discussion, but here is a partial list where God does tell people to kill.

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)



Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

[Dave2886]

No, the true work of God would not consist of killing thousands of innocent people. There is a judgement that can be made on who truly has a relationship with God, and who doesn't. If a man says he raped 20 babies because God told him to do it, of course I don't believe him. If a man goes to Africa to help the hunger problem because he says God told him to, I think it's plausible.
How does any mortal have any right whatsoever to claim to know what the "true work of God" consists of? This should offend atheists and theists alike.

[Columbus]

How does any mortal have any right whatsoever to claim to know what the "true work of God" consists of? This should offend atheists and theists alike.

Which is why I said "I believe yada yada." I never said I know for sure, but I can have my opinion on it regardless. I also said that it is a personal judgement to be made, I never said it is black and white.

RETIRED: I find a few problems with your reply. 1. I said God would not tell someone to kill thousands of people like on 9/11 at random. All of the things you wrote were specific reasons why those people were to be punished. Also, many of the things you posted, such as in Leviticus, are found in the Old Testament. That means those rules don't apply now, as the death of Jesus Christ changed all of that. Otherwise Christians would be like any terrorists, trying to exterminate groups of people all of the time. But that is the Old Testament, not the New, and so it doesn't apply.

[JaseFifty1]

No, the true work of God would not consist of killing thousands of innocent people.

Not ever? What about the biblical instances of him doing so?

There is a judgement that can be made on who truly has a relationship with God, and who doesn't.

How does one make that judgment?

[retired]

Which is why I said "I believe yada yada." I never said I know for sure, but I can have my opinion on it regardless. I also said that it is a personal judgement to be made, I never said it is black and white.

RETIRED: I find a few problems with your reply. 1. I said God would not tell someone to kill thousands of people like on 9/11 at random. All of the things you wrote were specific reasons why those people were to be punished. Also, many of the things you posted, such as in Leviticus, are found in the Old Testament. That means those rules don't apply now, as the death of Jesus Christ changed all of that. Otherwise Christians would be like any terrorists, trying to exterminate groups of people all of the time. But that is the Old Testament, not the New, and so it doesn't apply.

So the old Testement doesn't apply? I guess that means the ten commandments don't apply as well as the creation theory in Genesis?:eek: :eek: And it was okay for God to say that people should be killed for those reasons and you call it punishment?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JaseFifty1]

All of the things you wrote were specific reasons why those people were to be punished. Also, many of the things you posted, such as in Leviticus, are found in the Old Testament. That means those rules don't apply now, as the death of Jesus Christ changed all of that. Otherwise Christians would be like any terrorists, trying to exterminate groups of people all of the time. But that is the Old Testament, not the New, and so it doesn't apply.

I thought you said that "the true work of God would not consist of killing thousands of innocent people." Even if the OT rules do not apply (which throws out the ten commandments as well), according to your theology, the fact remains that the true work of god did indeed consist of killing thousands of innocent people.

BTW: It does seem that Jesus disagreed with the assessment that christians were not bound by OT law...

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

[MDS]

We can do this because morality and ethics do not require a supernatural origin. I'm glad that you used genocide as an example. The fact that God repeatedly demands the total extermination of the Amalekite people in the Old Testament must be a tricky one for those of a Judeo-Christian persuasion.

Glad you brought it up. Yes, morality does demand a just God, otherwise, you cannot ever say what Hitler did was wrong, for there would be no wrong in your worldview. I believe morality is implanted within us, and points directly at God, you do not. On the Amalekites: http://christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html


No, I accept that there are many who consider that God initiated and/or directs evolution. I was just making point that the existence of complex organisms can be explained by non-divine means.

That is hardly set in stone, but that wasn't what you were inferring it seems.

As I mentioned earlier, the scientific consensus is that the origins of the Universe are ultimately unknowable because we can't recreate the conditions to test any theory. But informed theories do exist (which I can't pretend to understand). It doesn't follow from the fact that something may ultimately be unknowable that God is responsible for it.

It follows that the universe is not eternal and cries out for an explanation aside itself. See: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/morriston.html

Yes, you've put your finger on the problem from my point of view. I don't accept any such thing. There is no historical evidence of the existence of Moses or the Exodus. Let alone the parting of the Red Sea/Reed Sea. It doesn't even make any rational sense if you look at the story (600,000 men and their families left Egypt with Moses and they managed to cross the Red Sea, which is seventeen miles across at its narrowest point, in one night). The Plagues of Egypt, now we're on the subject, also pose a bit of a problem in respect of the "God is the ultimate moral authority" argument. Death of the First Born. Naughty.

A lot of things don't make 'rational sense' (however you choose to define that term), even in day to day life. Doesn't make 'rational sense' that we chased a guy yesterday doing 110 mph after he burglarized a home with his infant less than six months old in the car, wrecked it, abandoned it and we chased him on foot while he left the infant behind. But, consider this: if the story was written so you, personally, found it to be in your definition, 'rationally acceptable', would you not then simply explain it away as a totally natural occurance? I'm 110% certain you would. So you've got personal rules set up so that the Bible cannot be true no matter what.

[MDS]

I've pretty well stayed out of this discussion, but here is a partial list where God does tell people to kill.

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)



Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Did you not get my response to this under the Separation of Church/State thread?

[retired]

Did you not get my response to this under the Separation of Church/State thread?


My apologies since I did not see or read your response in the other thread. I haven't really become that deeply involved in these religious discussions because I don't see any real purpose, therefore I miss some comments. But I'll look harder next time for any of your comments.;) ;)

[Columbus]

OT applies, but not the whole "death to homosexuals," and all of those type of things found in Leviticus. And Retired, I do call it punishment because that's what it is. It is a punishment for a sin against God, we may have different beliefs about homosexuality, but that's a different discussion. It is a sin under Christian law though, which is all that matters for this scenario. Therefore, it is punishment.

So when did God kill thousands of innocent people, as you claim? I must have missed this part. There was a reason for every death delivered by God.

[Cockney Corner.]

A lot of things don't make 'rational sense' (however you choose to define that term), even in day to day life. Doesn't make 'rational sense' that we chased a guy yesterday doing 110 mph after he burglarized a home with his infant less than six months old in the car, wrecked it, abandoned it and we chased him on foot while he left the infant behind.

I meant "rational sense" to mean "possible". Clearly the incident that happened to you was possible because you saw it (was the infant OK by the way?).

But, consider this: if the story was written so you, personally, found it to be in your definition, 'rationally acceptable', would you not then simply explain it away as a totally natural occurance? I'm 110% certain you would. So you've got personal rules set up so that the Bible cannot be true no matter what.

Yes, you're right, I do assume any recorded miracle is either a natural occurence or simply never happened. But don't get me wrong. I very much respect the Bible. I'm not one of these atheists who believe that the Bible is composed of fairy stories. But for obvious reasons I don't accept the Bible is divinely inspired. The accepted consensus is that the story of the Exodus was recorded in its present form between 500 and 750 years after it occurred, if it occurred. The earliest part of the New Testament (the letters of Paul) was written fifteen years after the death of Jesus, who I fully accept existed. Paul, by his own admission, never met Jesus. The Gospels were almost certainly not written by people who knew Jesus (though I can believe that they were written by people who knew people who knew Jesus).

So, no, I don't automatically assume that the Bible cannot be true. Many parts undoubtedly are. I just can't accept the miracles.

[Columbus]

So, no, I don't automatically assume that the Bible cannot be true. Many parts undoubtedly are. I just can't accept the miracles.

Why can't you accept the miracles though... is it actually that for something to be plausible to you it must come with a perfectly logical, no-God-involved, explanation? I mean, I can respect that you don't think it's possible, but there are just so many examples of miracles that I don't know why you wouldn't. It's a miracle the universe is here, that you have life, the construction of a human... those are the kind of things where I point to a higher power.

[Cockney Corner.]

Why can't you accept the miracles though... is it actually that for something to be plausible to you it must come with a perfectly logical, no-God-involved, explanation?

Pretty much, yeah.

It's a miracle the universe is here, that you have life, the construction of a human... those are the kind of things where I point to a higher power.

Well, I've already expressed my views on the existence of the universe and the way human beings are. Is life itself a miracle? Well, it's increasingly looking, according to astronomers and biologists that life (or complex life) requires a huge number of factors to be in play, which means that intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe is going to be, well, rarer than Star Trek would have us believe.

But of course the Milky Way contains tens of billions of stars and is one of tens of billions of galaxies. The bell curve of probability, when faced with those odds, means that somewhere life is going to emerge. And here we are. Of course on planets where intelligent life didn't emerge, no-one is thinking "Hey, we don't exist, that must mean that God doesn't". Don't get me wrong. I've got two children and I think they're pretty impressive. But I don't think they're "miracles". Just cute.

[Columbus]

Well ok then. I think I do have a better understanding now of where your beliefs come from. But Cockney, you did give me a laugh with that last sentence in your last post. :D

[damode]

The problem with the bible is that it contradicts itself to many times.

On one page it says love your neighbor, on the other it says to kill homosexuals.

You can find one verse that says the earth is flat, and another that says the earth is round.

When it has contradictions, then ANYONE can analyze and read what they want.

If your an insane mass-murderer you can find many verses to justify your evil actions.

If your a good person, you can find many verses to justify your good actions.

So this "word of god" is not some definate unbreakable thing. Religion is very easily questioned because of its contradictions.

With the bible, you are easily justified in anything you do.

So, if you think about it, religion really has no basis of morality.

PEOPLE take the bible for what its worth. Evil people will use the bible for evil things and GOOD people will use the bible for good things.

Atheists say, dont kill anyone, were all the same, living in one world and we aint going anywhere after we die, so lets enjoy what little time we have together and lets live the best life possible

Religious people say the same BUT kill homos, fortune tellers, and basicly anyone that "doesnt" believe.

MORALITY is a human made thing. People are either good or bad, depends what they want to be, and the bible is just one lame tool to push w.e agenda anyone wants, either good or bad.

I think its about time people are held accountable for their actions instead of saying, "God said so", or "God made me do it"

[Cockney Corner.]

OK, I haven't turned traitor but let's not whale on our theist colleagues. I don't know why I'm feeling so generous. Maybe because Columbus was nice to my kids.

On one page it says love your neighbor, on the other it says to kill homosexuals.

Because Jesus told us to set aside the Old Covenant and embrace his new teachings. Jesus of course doesn't condemn homosexuality, though Paul does (who never met Jesus, as I suggested earlier).

You can find one verse that says the earth is flat, and another that says the earth is round.

Only a problem if you think the Bible is divinely inspired. Good men and women, trying to interpret the world about them.

When it has contradictions, then ANYONE can analyze and read what they want.

As above.

If your an insane mass-murderer you can find many verses to justify your evil actions. If your a good person, you can find many verses to justify your good actions.

Mark Chapman thought Catcher in the Rye was telling him to kill John Lennon. Doesn't mean that it isn't a good book.

[MDS]

I meant "rational sense" to mean "possible". Clearly the incident that happened to you was possible because you saw it (was the infant OK by the way?).

The child was actually sleeping when we found him. Some folks don't mind excitement eh? Back to your comment; we've got people in the Bible claiming to have witnessed miracles also. If the earth nukes and someone rediscovers the internet and finds our conversation here, what I did is written in the same way.

Yes, you're right, I do assume any recorded miracle is either a natural occurence or simply never happened. But don't get me wrong. I very much respect the Bible. I'm not one of these atheists who believe that the Bible is composed of fairy stories. But for obvious reasons I don't accept the Bible is divinely inspired. The accepted consensus is that the story of the Exodus was recorded in its present form between 500 and 750 years after it occurred, if it occurred. The earliest part of the New Testament (the letters of Paul) was written fifteen years after the death of Jesus, who I fully accept existed. Paul, by his own admission, never met Jesus. The Gospels were almost certainly not written by people who knew Jesus (though I can believe that they were written by people who knew people who knew Jesus).

Good article on the Exodus here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/exoduslogistics.html and here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html
You've got to remember, the hebrews were very much an 'oral' culture and things were passed by mouth before being written. They had entire books memorized in this way, so it wasn't like the kids game of telephone. Have you read this?: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
On dating, take a look here: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html
I apologize for tossing so many links at you at once, but honestly read them when you have time. If you're more of a book fella, Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is good by Mike Licona/Gary Habermas. NT Wrights works are great also.

So, no, I don't automatically assume that the Bible cannot be true. Many parts undoubtedly are. I just can't accept the miracles.

But miracles cannot simply be brushed off as impossible. They are within the realm of possibility once you accept God as being there, also within the realm of possibility.

[Gene L]

It reallyl doesn't matter whether you believe or do not believe.

What matters is what is. You can't create God, nor can you destroy Him by disbelief. In fact, you can't do that with anything. You can believe with all your soul that the color red doesn't exist. In fact, you can get color-blind people to agree with you.

But the color red does exist, without any help from you or I.

I talked to a woman once who didn't believe in Satan, but did believe in God. I made the argument that one of the reasons the Jews were marched off to the death camps in WW II is because they didn't believe that kind of evil existed. Most people didn't believe it existed, in fact. Yet it did, and any belief contrary is like trying to believe a brick wall doesn't exist and assuming because you don't believe it, you're not going to be held to the laws of physics regarding brick walls. So, run into a brick wall.

Miracles are just events that science hasn't advanced far enough yet to explain. How one sperm cell fertilizes one egg cell and forms a human being is a miracle, without the science to explain it.

[Cockney Corner.]

[W]e've got people in the Bible claiming to have witnessed miracles also. If the earth nukes and someone rediscovers the internet and finds our conversation here, what I did is written in the same way.

I'm slightly disturbed that this thread might be the only record of early twenty first century views on religion. So, in the event that archeologists in 3007 are poring over a hard copy of this, let me make it clear that I'm very frequently wrong about things. But future generations I, Cockney Corner, leave you this thought to found your religions on There's only one rule that I know of, babies—G*d d**n it, you've got to be kind(with thanks to Kurt Vonnegut)

You've got to remember, the hebrews were very much an 'oral' culture and things were passed by mouth before being written. They had entire books memorized in this way

Yes, absolutely. People underestimate the ability of pre-MTV/Internet generations to memorise information generation after generation (my late Irish grandfather, who died a couple of weeks ago, could recite epic poems for seemingly hours on end). We also know that once the books of the Bible had been established as canon, they were copied without alteration (as the discovery of the Dead Scrolls, which included books of the Old Testament, demonstarted - they were virtually identical to the texts from the Middle Ages which were used to create our modern Bible).

But ...

But miracles cannot simply be brushed off as impossible. They are within the realm of possibility once you accept God as being there, also within the realm of possibility.

Following on from the above, we know that a number of pagan Gods were born of virgin births, rose from the dead and so on. Their followers believed this to be true. Were they right? We also know that Israel at the time of Jesus was awash with people who claimed to perform miracles, and who had followers who were equally accepting of their claims. Paul and other writers of the New Testament mention some of them by name. Why aren't we worshipping them now? Historical accident.

[MDS]

I'm slightly disturbed that this thread might be the only record of early twenty first century views on religion. So, in the event that archeologists in 3007 are poring over a hard copy of this, let me make it clear that I'm very frequently wrong about things. But future generations I, Cockney Corner, leave you this thought to found your religions on There's only one rule that I know of, babies—G*d d**n it, you've got to be kind(with thanks to Kurt Vonnegut)

Try those exodus links I sent up there when you get a chance.



Yes, absolutely. People underestimate the ability of pre-MTV/Internet generations to memorise information generation after generation (my late Irish grandfather, who died a couple of weeks ago, could recite epic poems for seemingly hours on end). We also know that once the books of the Bible had been established as canon, they were copied without alteration (as the discovery of the Dead Scrolls, which included books of the Old Testament, demonstarted - they were virtually identical to the texts from the Middle Ages which were used to create our modern Bible).

I've got to ask.....did the poem reciting get on your nerves? :)

But ...



Following on from the above, we know that a number of pagan Gods were born of virgin births, rose from the dead and so on. Their followers believed this to be true. Were they right? We also know that Israel at the time of Jesus was awash with people who claimed to perform miracles, and who had followers who were equally accepting of their claims. Paul and other writers of the New Testament mention some of them by name. Why aren't we worshipping them now? Historical accident.

I'm glad you brought up the comparisons to the pagans. Again, try this: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
It's long, and will take a while to get through, but you'll notice the difference...the comparisons have no basis for believing any link between the two. Did you read the link to Impossible Faith above? My good friend wrote it and actively takes challengers to it. Give it a shot, he's a good guy and very well versed in the material.

[MDS]

Welcome to the year 3740. This is Teachminder Phonias J. Futz, and the past few years have been quite amazing. As you know, I have been single-handedly responsible for debunking the mythology surrounding Abraham Lincoln, supposedly a great leader of the ancient nation of Usa, but as I have shown, more likely a charlatan and a scoundrel. It is with some excitement that I find now that I must upgrade, and to some degree disassociate myself from, my earlier theory. I am now convinced, based on newfound evidence, that it is quite likely that Lincoln as a man did not exist at all.

My grounds for this startling thesis is an incomplete copy of a work recently discovered in the ruins of a college library in what was once known as Northwest State University in the ancient dominion called Louis-Anne, a territory of Usa. Though badly damaged, and missing a few pages at either end, we are able to discern this work's title, author and purpose: Lincoln Wasn't There, by Francis Lee Utley. His thesis: Lincoln's life is composed entirely of mythological elements -- adjusted and syncretized for his time period, of course.

Utley's first pages are lost to us, but we can see how he proves out his thesis beginning on page 3. Utley lists a set of 22 characteristics of the life of a mythical hero. Lincoln turns out to adhere to some form of all 22 of these, allowing for adjustments to his own alleged period shortly before the technological 20th century. Let's examine these one at a time, offering summary of and commentary upon Utley's case.

The hero's mother is a royal virgin. The nation of Usa was of course not a monarchy, so we would expect certain syncretizing adjustments for this criteria. We have noted that Lincoln confided to a friend, William Herndon, that his mother, Nancy Hanks, was the natural child of Lucy Hanks and "a well-bred Virginia planter." This is as close to royalty as the Usaians came in this period: the aristocratic upper class. We noted also that this was likely an example of fabrication by pro-Lincoln forces. How appropriate that Utley's criteria confirm this thesis!
The "virgin" aspect is likewise fulfilled, albeit with expected adjustments. Lincoln's age and thereafter was the time of the blossoming of science, and of eminent rationalists such as Thomas Pain and Thomas Hume. A typical "virgin birth" story would hardly have been accepted. What we get on equal terms is reported by Utley. A field interview of obvious worth (as noted by Utley, verified by the colloquial language with which it is reported; this obviously reflects a reliable oral tradition) with a person living in the area where Lincoln's mother reputedly resided reveals that Nancy Hanks was hired by a gentleman named Abraham Enloe who had a reputation for adulterous affairs. Nancy was "presumably a virgin before Enloe seduced her." Furthermore, Nancy became, after Lincoln's alleged death, a subject of sermons that compared her to the Virgin Mary. In his own "mythical memoirs" Herndon reports Lincoln saying, "I don't know who my grandfather was, and I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be."

Two other points clearly place Nancy -- and therefore Lincoln -- in the realm of myth. We have noted Basler's words: Reportedly Lincoln once said: "All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother." Basler writes of this: "It is such an expression as any man is likely to make, but...(it) has furnished the keynote of the Nancy Hanks legend." Here we now see Basler trying to cover up the obvious mythological nature of the "angel mother" statement which gave birth to the legend. This statement, as Utley notes, clearly places Nancy "in the ranks of the supernatural." Second, it is worth noting that "Hanks" derives from the Egyptian ankh, or soul. A virgin birth would have been hard to claim, but it is clear that Lincoln's mythologizers did what they could!

His father is a king... This aspect is covered by the claim that Lincoln's grandfather was a well-bred member of the aristocratic class. We saw attempts in the Lincoln biographies to rehabilitate Lincoln's father; these obviously did not work out, and so of necessity a more remote ancestor, whose nature was less easy to verify, was chosen. Utley also notes various legends of claims of other persons than Thomas Lincoln being Abraham's father -- and rightly interprets this as "competition for the birth of the cult hero." Among those alleged to be Abraham's father were great patriots like Patrick Henry, and others with signifying names such as Adam Springs (reminding us of the mythical springs of life and of vegetation deities) and Samuel Davis, also reputedly the father of Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederacy, symbolzing the dualistic notion of good and evil having a common source.
His father is often a near relative of his mother... Utley notes that this one doesn't offer much evidence, but does note that Nancy was reputedly related to Robert E. Lee, and that within the culture of the period there were numerous relationships among cousins. It is likely that Nancy was related to Thomas, or one of the several purported fathers, through one of these relationships.
The circumstances of his conception are unusual. The evidence on this account is overwhelming. Over fifteen cities claim to be the birthplace of Lincoln; surely if the man existed, and was so important, such confusion would not have been possible. Moreover, accounts testify that Nancy was of a mystical nature during her pregnancy with Abraham, wandering the fields in a rapt daze, undoubtedly communing with divine powers as Mary and Elizabeth did. Utley also reports the account of the popular writer Tolstoy of an interview with a Circassian chief who said that Lincoln "spoke with a voice of thunder" and added that "the angels appeared to his mother and predicted that the son whom she would conceive would become the greatest the stars had ever seen." Abraham was born during "the worst blizzard in anyone's memory" raged outside, and would have died had not a neighbor come and rubbed the baby and fed it with turkey-fat. One writer says of this: "God came down to the world that February morning" and went with that neighbor. Interestingly, this neighbor's name was Isom Enlow, a match for one of lincoln's putative fathers, Abraham Enloe.
A final tale worth noting: We have alluded to Patrck Henry as a putative father of Lincoln. The former died in 1799; Lincoln was born in 1809. As Utley notes, this matches with the mythological gestation of Hercules by Alcema.

He is reputed to be the son of a god. This is found throughout the literature on Lincoln. A freed slave said that Lincoln "walked de earth like da Lord." Lincoln biographer Richard Current commented, "[Lincoln] has grown into a protean god who can assume a shape to please almost any worshipper." This is of course an adjustment for a scientific age, but it fits nonetheless.
Utley also notes that a characteristic of a mythical hero is an identification with totem animals. Lincoln was regularly identified thusly. One newspaper referred to him as "a cross between a sand-hill crane and an Andalusian jackass." Elsewhere he was called the Royal Ape, Fox populi, and Old Hoss, and was also often identified with the hog or pig. One commentator said that Lincoln "sucks flattery as a pig sucks milk." Hogs or pigs were often the subject of Lincoln's stories or jokes, and a Senator reputedly remarked that the hogs running uncontrolled around Washington showed that they were favored by Lincoln.

Finally Utley notes that Lincoln's stature -- he was six foot four, among the tallest of men -- reflects an aspect of the god-hero.

At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or material grandfather, to kill him... Utley notes that this is found implicitly in the story of Abraham Enloe, a putative father of Lincoln, who drove out Nancy Hanks after seducing her. Moreover, the story of the blizzard and Abraham's danger at birth reveals an enmity with the forces of nature -- the secular age's equal to enmity with the sky gods.
But he is spirited away... Utley finds that this may be displaced to the time when Lincoln's body, after death, was stolen, but there is also a story of how Abraham Enloe and Thomas Lincoln fought, and Thomas bit off the end of Enloe's nose in the fracas. I would add that this tale is pregnant with symbolism: The nose may well be seen as a phallic symbol, and the fight may represent the mythical contention for the claim to Abrahram's paternity. There is also a story, told allegedly by Lincoln himself, of how a "Negro nurse swapped [him] off for another boy just to please a friend..."
Reared by foster parents in a far country... This obviously connects to the above, as the original father Enloe was substituted for Thomas, who brought the young Lincoln from Kentucky to Illinois. That isn't a "far" trip, according to our remaining maps of Usa, but given that the nation was much smaller at this time, and that only untamed wilderness lay beyond, this is an expected practical constraint.
We are told nothing of his childhood. Indeed we know very little of Lincoln's childhood. An obvious attempt to cover this gap by Lincoln's biographers. Masters covered the lack of information with background data about living conditions. Oates says: "he truth was that Lincoln felt embarrassed about his log-cabin origins and never liked to talk about them." Lincoln himself said that his early life could be condensed into a single sentence: "The short and simple annals of the poor." In his own autobiographical notes, Lincoln "Try as he might...could not remember much about Kentucky - and nothing at all about the log-cabin farm..." (p. 5) This seems very odd indeed, and is telling evidence of myth. Only the latest biographer, Donald, gave any detail about Lincoln's childhood, an obvious attempt to shore up a myth that was rapidly losing ground.
On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom. This is clearly reperesented by Lincoln's career in the "kingdom" of politics, beginning in Illinois.
After a victory over a king, and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast... The rational age had disposed of giants and dragons, so again not surprisingly, we have a syncretized substitute. Utley notes a work in which Lincoln is symbolically portrayed as the victor over "the Black Dragon slavery." But more likely this is represented by Lincoln's many political opponents: Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, and other lesser antagonists. Davis in particular fits the mythical portrait of the doppelganger, or the legendary twins. As noted some thought they had the same father. They also were born in the same state, some say in the same log cabin, and both lost a son (a dynastic successor) during the war. Their wives went to the same dressmaker. The myth is completed by the report that after victory in war against the South, Lincoln took upon hismelf to sit in Davis' vacated chair in the Confederate leader's office.
Stephen Douglas also fits the doppelganger/anti-hero myth. Lincoln was tall; Douglas was short. A newspaper described Lincoln's countenance as "happy, good-humored" and Douglas' as "black and repulsive enough to turn all the milk in Egypt sour." This is an especially interesting comment in light of the derivation of Hanks from ankh, and the likeness of the Mississippi delta, the sounternmost part of Lincoln's kingdom, to the Nile delta. Douglas also matches the mythical pattern of the enemy-turned-friend, found also for example in the ballads of Robin Hood and Little John, and his debates with Lincoln reflect the myth of the sacred combat, adjusted of course for the times.

He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor... This is matched in Mary Todd's aristocratic status. We also see in Lincoln's love life an outworking of the Great Mother archaetype, in which the hero is entangled with the affairs of both a white and a dark goddess. The white goddess was Lincoln's early love, Ann Rutledge, a slim, fair-skinned and fair-haired woman who died at an early age. Mary Todd easily is seen as the dark goddess, as we have seen in report of her treatment of Lincoln.
It is worthwhile to also note in Lincoln's alleged past a story told by him of eloping with a girl in a covered wagon. Utley perceives in this tale a form of the sacred marriage in a processional barge, similar to tales of ancient Egypt and Babylon. (continued below)

[MDS]

He becomes king. This is quite obvious, as Lincoln became President, the closest office to a king in this period. This is expected "cultural substitution" or syncretization. Interestingly, however, Lincoln was often disparagingly referred to as a king, dictator, or emperor.
For a time he reigns uneventfully. This is also adjusted for culture, matching the time between Lincoln's election in 1860 and his inauguration in 1861.
He prescribes laws. This is fulfilled not only in Lincoln's presidential duties, but especially in his production of the Emancipation Proclamation. We have previously expressed doubts about Lincoln's motives in this Proclamation. It appears that we are vindicated, as Utley notes that Ulysses Grant, Lincoln's own general, says nothing about this Proclamation in his memoirs. Clearly he could not have avoided, indeed would have been compelled to be, mentioning such a great event. This decree was most likely a myth.
Later he loses favor with the gods or his subjects. This is represented in two ways. First, the secession of the Southern states from the Union, under Lincoln's watch. Utley notes the mythical nature of this war, reflected by the peculiar names of its battlegrounds: Antietam, Shiloh (a name with mythical, messianic connotations), Chickamagua, amd Bull Run (a clear allusion to mythical bulls). Second, by Lincoln's adversaries within his own administration, such as McClellan and Seward. Utley notes clear clues of mythical dualistic doubling: the freed slave Frederick Douglass, and Stephen Douglas; Jefferson Davis and David Davis, one of Lincolns campaign managers; and Ann Rutledge and Archibald Rutledge, who attacked Lincoln's body after his death.
He is driven from the throne and city.
He meets a mysterious death.
Often at the top of a hill.
All three of these points are merged in Lincoln's assassination. Utley notes a mythical quality of the anti-hero in John Wilkes Booth. Little is known of Booth's early life. He reportedly liked shooting animals, including Lincoln's totem animal, the hog. The "top of the hill" may have been Capitol Hill, but is more likely modernized into Lincoln's place in a box at the Ford's Theater, higher than the rest of the audience. Adding to the mythic mix: A parallel to the legend of another myth, that of Jesus Christ. "The time of [Lincoln's] death is proof positive that we have no real history before us, but a plain syncretic myth. For the shooting was on Good Friday," the same date as the execution of Christ.

His children do not succeed him. This was fulfilled quite dramatically. Of course by the Usaian political system, leaders were elected, not part of a dynasty, but as a compensative match, two of Lincoln's sons died very early, and a third died with a not much longer life. Only one child survived, Robert Lincoln, and his life as president of a private railroad company, in which position he denied higher wages to Negro porters, shows him to be the epitome of the apostate. Significantly also, Lincoln's actual "heir" to the throne, Vice President Andrew Johnson, was also an anti-hero: reportedly he was illiterate, and had to be awakened from a deep sleep after a drunken spree to take his Presidential oath.
His body is not buried.
He has one or more holy sepulchres.
These two points are fulfilled by the various localities that competed for Lincoln's tomb. New York, Washington, and Springfield, Illinois all competed for the honor. There was also confusion when Mary Todd (the dark goddess!) rejected the original burial plot and chose another. Lincoln therefore had a number of places where his body was not buried, and ended up with several holy sepulchres.

Utley's closing words are fitting: "The railsplitter Lincoln exists in our hearts, not in forged documents or in historical hairsplitting." He quotes Basler, significantly, as saying, "His existence may some day be denied, but his significance never." In our earlier study we noted the work of one Bracado Bramantip, who suggested a Lincoln myth. At the time I did not endorse this idea, thinking it enough to suppose that Lincoln the man did exist, but was overlaad with mythical components. Now I am convinced that Bramantip was correct. It remains to be seen whether we may now discern further sources for the Lincoln myth. To this end I have directed my junior research associates to scour the archaeological remains from the 19th and 20th centuries to see what else may be found. Hopefully further evidence is forthcoming which will allow us to discern once and for all the origin and nature of the Lincoln legend.

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

Welcome back to the 21st century.

Francis Utley's classic work on Lincoln is a work of satire. My fictional Dr. Futz is unaware of this, since I have conveniently robbed him of the first two pages or so, where Utley explains that he is making this work in jest. However, there are serious points behind this presentation. Purveyors of a "pagan copycat" thesis of some sort -- whether it be Acharya S and her mystical parallels, or Richard Carrier and his social parallels -- depend on the same sort of imaginative methodology Utley did for his study of Lincoln. In particular and of late, Carrier's explaining of Zalmoxis as a source, but one syncretized for a Jewish background, reminds one of the use of "cultural substitution" to explain away discrepancies and non-parallels between acounts.

It boils down to this: copycat parallels rely heavily upon vague generalization, the collapsing and dulling of terms and specifics, interpretation of evidence as broadly as possible, and creativity by the author. Using such methods it is possible to relegate any story or person to the realm of myth.
All credit for this belongs to JP Holding, at www.tektonics.org

[Cockney Corner.]

[On my grandfather]I've got to ask.....did the poem reciting get on your nerves?

No, not really. He was very good at it. His war stories on the other hand (he served in the US Army) would take several years in the telling and would always conclude with the words "Well, to cut a long story short ..."

I'm glad you brought up the comparisons to the pagans. Again, try this: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
It's long, and will take a while to get through, but you'll notice the difference...the comparisons have no basis for believing any link between the two. Did you read the link to Impossible Faith above? My good friend wrote it and actively takes challengers to it. Give it a shot, he's a good guy and very well versed in the material.

I've had a quick look. Very interesting. I think many of the rebuttals say more about the crank fringe of Biblical scholarship than anything. Not you - I mean the people who write books suggesting that the life was Jesus was based on the life of Caesar or on the Iliad (never come across those before) or worship of magic mushrooms or whatever.

But you have to remember that the notion of historical writing, as we understand it today, didn't exist at the time. One of the links you provided refers to the historian Tacitus. Tacitus, referring to events about 30 years after the death of Jesus, sets out a speech made by a Roman general to his troops just before they crushed the revolt of the British general Boudica/Boadicea. Fair enough. He also records the speech made by Boudica to her troops. Since pretty much all of Boudica's troops were killed, and its highly unlikely that anyone in the legions could speak Boudica's dialect, we can guess that he made that up. But no-one reading the passage at the time would have come to the same conclusion. If you wrote the sort of thing a person might have said, that was equally acceptable as history. There are many other such examples. The notion that you actually had to prove that someone said or did something only emerged later. It was a different mind-set at the time. After all, as Pilate said "What is truth?"

[MDS]

No, not really. He was very good at it. His war stories on the other hand (he served in the US Army) would take several years in the telling and would always conclude with the words "Well, to cut a long story short ..."



I've had a quick look. Very interesting. I think many of the rebuttals say more about the crank fringe of Biblical scholarship than anything. Not you - I mean the people who write books suggesting that the life was Jesus was based on the life of Caesar or on the Iliad (never come across those before) or worship of magic mushrooms or whatever.

But you have to remember that the notion of historical writing, as we understand it today, didn't exist at the time. One of the links you provided refers to the historian Tacitus. Tacitus, referring to events about 30 years after the death of Jesus, sets out a speech made by a Roman general to his troops just before they crushed the revolt of the British general Boudica/Boadicea. Fair enough. He also records the speech made by Boudica to her troops. Since pretty much all of Boudica's troops were killed, and its highly unlikely that anyone in the legions could speak Boudica's dialect, we can guess that he made that up. But no-one reading the passage at the time would have come to the same conclusion. If you wrote the sort of thing a person might have said, that was equally acceptable as history. There are many other such examples. The notion that you actually had to prove that someone said or did something only emerged later. It was a different mind-set at the time. After all, as Pilate said "What is truth?"


Think when Pilate said that, it was more of a philosophical comment; one we could ask even today. Historical research can be done into Jesus' life as it can anyone else's. Try those links and books I'd mentioned earlier, you're a smart enough sounding fella....you may like them?

[ChargerPD]

There really isn't a question of whether Jesus existed, historically. Mention of him can be found in many seperate sources including the Quran, which notes him as a prophet. The question lies with whether he is god. The age old argument is that if the Quran teaches that he was a prophet, and he claimed to be the son of man, then he either is, or he is lying and therefore shouldn't be considered a prophet by the Islamic religion. Three out of Four of the major worldwide religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) share the same god. Keeping in mind that Buddahism isnt a religion, but a way of life, the only major world religion that doesnt believe in the same god is Hinduism, which is predominately practiced in India.

I wrestled with the question of "Is there a god?" all throughout college. I was a diehard agnostic/atheist. I come from a psychological background and I was lucky to have taken classes that tied religion to the human mind. One such class was "Psychology of Religion". The point of the class was basically to learn about scientific studies conducted about religion, like whether prayer worked, whether people who were Christian were better people as exhibited through altruistic behavior, etc. I found the concept that there seems to be an innate drive for religion in and of itself remarkable.

I read the Bible about three times for college and I came to the conclusion that since God doesn't punish aborted babies into damnation there is no reason to believe that he would have punished those that never heard about him. Further, I personally dont believe that he sends good people who choose to be atheists into hell. Picking out which books to put into the New Testament was highly political, although they get Jesus's teachings part correct (different sources from different regions, most align at least somewhat harmoniously) there is evidence that certain things were added by scribes throughout. Also, according to Christian beliefs at least, the New Testament becomes the new covenant and much of the Old Testament becomes secondary. It is now totally not ok to stone a woman who cheated on her husband/ was a prostitute. If I recall correctly, the "throw the first stone" story as taught by Jesus comes to mind.

One thing I wish I could have studied through APA scientific means is the process of sainthood as conducted by the Catholic Church. There is a board of 5 physician/ scientists that examine cases and then recommend it for Vatican review.

[Columbus]

I read the Bible about three times for college and I came to the conclusion that since God doesn't punish aborted babies into damnation there is no reason to believe that he would have punished those that never heard about him. Further, I personally dont believe that he sends good people who choose to be atheists into hell. Picking out which books to put into the New Testament was highly political, although they get Jesus's teachings part correct (different sources from different regions, most align at least somewhat harmoniously) there is evidence that certain things were added by scribes throughout. Also, according to Christian beliefs at least, the New Testament becomes the new covenant and much of the Old Testament becomes secondary. It is now totally not ok to stone a woman who cheated on her husband/ was a prostitute. If I recall correctly, the "throw the first stone" story as taught by Jesus comes to mind.

Exactly.

[ProWriter]

I read the Bible about three times for college and I came to the conclusion that since God doesn't punish aborted babies into damnation there is no reason to believe that he would have punished those that never heard about him. Further, I personally dont believe that he sends good people who choose to be atheists into hell...It is now totally not ok to stone a woman who cheated on her husband/ was a prostitute. If I recall correctly, the "throw the first stone" story as taught by Jesus comes to mind.
While I still see no reason to believe in any God, much less any one specific God, I'm more comfortable with that religious philosophy than with traditional Christian beliefs.

Unfortunately, many Christians will respond that:

-Everybody else (besides those who die in the womb) does have the chance to accept Jesus at some point in life and therefore, is not as innocent in rejecting God;
-"Goodness" on Earth is irrelevant because eternal damnation is the consequence of rejecting God's love rather than punishment for not being a "good person" in life;
-"Goodness" and "morality" are impossible to define and aren't even concepts worth discussing without reference to what God defines as "good" or "moral" and therefore,
-You will suffer eternal damnation regardless of how generously, kindly, helpfully, or justly you lived your life on Earth if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before you die.

Also, to be objective in your research, I think it's insufficient to read only the one or two Bibles to which you've been most exposed in your particular culture. I think you'd need to do a more complete survey of many other religious teachings, including those no longer in existence (like so-called Greek "Mythology"), all of which are (or were at some time) the genuine religious beliefs of many people throughout the world. In my opinion, the more familiar you become with all those other Gods, the harder it is to take seriously the belief in ANY God.

[miami-k9]

Here's some food for thought.....................How many times have you heard people, including atheists, use Jesus' name in vain? Plenty right?

Now how many of you have ever heard people use Buddha's name in vain? Or Allah's name in vain?

Hmmmmmmmm.......Just may be more evidence that Jesus really is God.;)


Sorry just noticed this thread and couldnt help but respond to this one.

Saying "Jesus Christ!!!" or "Oh, God.", is a part of the english vernacular. It has been so ingrained into our language that it has become second nature to even those of us that are Athiests. I find the "Oh God" is best used with a female friend in the room, its the best way to get them to continue doing whatever they happen to be doing.

As for Buddhas name, how many buddhists do you know? Maybe they do, you just dont know it? Of course it may not be an issue in that religion.

[equinox137]

You did pose a question, In the begining was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God.

What?

Although everything in this sentence is written in English, I don't understand a word of it.

[miami-k9]

From the other threads, I have come to see a lot of the Atheists out there, and wanted to start this thread on a somewhat different topic. I guess Atheist isn't the right word to use... but it's the best thing I could come up with at the time.

My question for all of you is, regardless of what God it is, do you believe in God? Not anyone specific, this has nothing to do with an organized religion. All I am asking is that for those of you who don't belong to a religion, and do not believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc., do you believe in a God or Creator at all?[/

Fairy tales, some of them nice, some of them not so nice. But fairy tales all....

[Columbus]

Fairy tales, some of them nice, some of them not so nice. But fairy tales all....

And back to the basic argument: It had to start somewhere. :)

[Cockney Corner.]

And back to the basic argument: It had to start somewhere.

So, Columbus, I still haven't persuaded you to embrace atheism? Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete.

The whole "no smoke without fire" thing just won't wash. A quick glance at some conspiracy sites on the internet should serve to demonstrate that.

[Cockney Corner.]

There really isn't a question of whether Jesus existed, historically. Mention of him can be found in many seperate sources including the Quran, which notes him as a prophet.

Er, no, there is a question. Personally, I believe Jesus existed but there are in fact no contemporary sources which mention Jesus.

The Gospels, which are scarcely independent, aren't contemporary and don't pretend to be. A couple of Roman writers in the following decades mention Christians, but then the existence of early Christianity in the first century AD is genuinely not in doubt.

The Jewish writer Josephus refers several times to Jesus, writing 60 years after his death. But it is universally accepted that the version of Josephus we have today has been altered by later Christian writers. The question is whether they have made up all the passages about Jesus, or just embroidered them.

There are mentions in the Talmud of a figure who might just be Jesus - and they are not particularly positive. But it might not be Jesus, and in any event, the earliest part of the Talmud was complied about 170 years after the death of Jesus.

And then there is the Quran. Unless you believe that the Quran is divinely inspired, you have to accept that Muhammed and the followers who complied his sayings into the Quran, were fully aware of the existence of Christianity and its beliefs. Bearing in mind that the Quran was written down 600 years after the death of Jesus, it cannot be taken as historical proof of the existence of Jesus. Anymore than me saying that William Tell (who was allegedly around 600 years ago) must have existed because I've read a book about him and seen a couple of movies, and it all seems pretty reasonable to me.

[miami-k9]

And back to the basic argument: It had to start somewhere. :)

Of course, as with all good stories, you start with a basic premise, period and person or group, and start embelishing. As time goes on, the storytellers come to realize that to keep people listening, they need to embelish a little more.........1000 years later, you get the KING JAMES Version.

[Columbus]

So, Columbus, I still haven't persuaded you to embrace atheism? Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete.

The whole "no smoke without fire" thing just won't wash. A quick glance at some conspiracy sites on the internet should serve to demonstrate that.

First of all, no need to get personal. I don't think I have made any "hate" comments, nor do I have any true hate for anybody. Contrary to popular belief, Christians don't hate Atheists... or Muslims, or Jews, etc. Christianity truly is about love and the greater good. Say what you want but I don't think you're any lower than me because you don't believe in God. I wish I could change your beliefs but I can't, God loves everyone equally and only he can judge in the end.

And as for your second point, there is no site in the world that could convince me that the universe just created itself.

[Cockney Corner.]

First of all, no need to get personal. I don't think I have made any "hate" comments, nor do I have any true hate for anybody.

Sorry, the comment was intended to be light-hearted, as I hoped to convey by borrowing a line from Star Wars. For the record, you have always conducted this debate in a very gentlemanly fashion

[ProWriter]

...there is no site in the world that could convince me that the universe just created itself.How did God just create himself?

[zombo]

Prowriter, I think we all know that God is timeless, duh!..

Here's a description of Christianity I ran across the other day... ...the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... :D

[miami-k9]

Prowriter, I think we all know that God is timeless, duh!..

Here's a description of Christianity I ran across the other day... ...the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... :D



I love it, ohhhhhh I love it!!!!

and athiests are supposed to be the crazy ones???

[Outshined]

What amazes me, is that non-believers will spend so much time and effort trying to convince believers that what they believe in is not true. And the bottom line is that the non-believers don't believe that the thing they are fighting against even exists. Yet they become angry and vocal about how ignorant Christians are.

I personally don't spend hours and hours demanding that small children don't believe in Santa , because I don't. It really makes you think.

[ProWriter]

That's pretty funny Zombo. I've never seen that either, but someone else here once posted this website for the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Montserhttp://www.venganza.org/

What amazes me, is that non-believers will spend so much time and effort trying to convince believers that what they believe in is not true. And the bottom line is that the non-believers don't believe that the thing they are fighting against even exists. Yet they become angry and vocal about how ignorant Christians are...I personally don't spend hours and hours demanding that small children don't believe in Santa , because I don't. It really makes you think.The thread wasn't started by an atheist challenging Christian beliefs, but by a Christian directing his questions to atheists. By your reasoning, doesn't it "really make you think" about why someone totally secure in his own beliefs would bother challenging other people who happen to have different beliefs?

Personally, I have no problem being asked about atheism, but I'm confused how you think merely responding to the questions posed to me by Christians somehow "makes you think" anything about me instead of the person who obviously has a need to question other peoples' beliefs.

Nobody's attacking any Christians or calling them "ignorant" or "demanding" that they believe something different either. The reason many of us reject your beliefs is, precisely, that we think they're utterly ridiculous and completely self-contradictory. I agree that implies something less than flattering about anybody who accepts those beliefs, but we're just responding honestly to the question of a Christian. If you're likely to be insulted by the answer, you probably shouldn't ask the question. If you choose to ask the question and the truthful answer implies something unflattering about you, that's not the fault of the person responding directly to the question. Most of us have no need to raise the subject out of the blue, and I also think we're a lot more open to civil discussion compared to the likely result of one of us ever starting a thread titled "For The Christians."

Feel free to ask me anything you want to about why I believe whatever I believe; but don't suggest that I'm the one with the issues or a chip on my shoulder just for answering a question someone else asked about my beliefs.

[zombo]

What amazes me, is that non-believers will spend so much time and effort trying to convince believers that what they believe in is not true. And the bottom line is that the non-believers don't believe that the thing they are fighting against even exists. Yet they become angry and vocal about how ignorant Christians are.

I personally don't spend hours and hours demanding that small children don't believe in Santa , because I don't. It really makes you think.

Yeah, I hate it when athiests knock on my door and proselytize me in my living room... ;)

[SRT936]

Of course, as with all good stories, you start with a basic premise, period and person or group, and start embelishing. As time goes on, the storytellers come to realize that to keep people listening, they need to embelish a little more.........1000 years later, you get the KING JAMES Version.

In theory, your statement makes sense and has been used as a staple of atheist movement for years. The problem comes when you get to reality.

A copy of Isaiah was recovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls that dates to 500 BC. When compared to modern translations of Isaiah, they are almost identical. The same holds true for third century New Testament texts compared to modern day translations. While certain phrasology may differ, there is almost no difference in the overall text.

[retired]

What amazes me, is that non-believers will spend so much time and effort trying to convince believers that what they believe in is not true. And the bottom line is that the non-believers don't believe that the thing they are fighting against even exists. Yet they become angry and vocal about how ignorant Christians are.

I personally don't spend hours and hours demanding that small children don't believe in Santa , because I don't. It really makes you think.

I can't agree with that. Most Atheists, myself included don't care if you believe. I don't care if you think it is true, I just happen to think it's a fairy tale. I don't ever recall getting angry and vocal about a persons belief.

Myself, I spend hours on the street corner trying to convince little kids that Santa is indeed real.:D :eek: He is, isn't he?;) ;)

[miami-k9]

In theory, your statement makes sense and has been used as a staple of atheist movement for years. The problem comes when you get to reality.

A copy of Isaiah was recovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls that dates to 500 BC. When compared to modern translations of Isaiah, they are almost identical. The same holds true for third century New Testament texts compared to modern day translations. While certain phrasology may differ, there is almost no difference in the overall text.

There is only so much embelishment one can do before it starts to go beyond believablity. 500 years is a long time to get the story perfected.

[Columbus]

as I hoped to convey by borrowing a line from Star Wars.

:eek: Wow, I guess it's been a while since I've seen Star Wars. I should have seen it, but I just took "dark side" as meaning radical Christianity or something along those lines. My bad man, didn't mean to take what you said the wrong way.

How did God just create himself?

Because he's God and he just did :D . Bad explanation? Hey, we still have one.

[JMTX]

I can't agree with that. Most Atheists, myself included don't care if you believe. I don't care if you think it is true, I just happen to think it's a fairy tale. I don't ever recall getting angry and vocal about a persons belief.

Myself, I spend hours on the street corner trying to convince little kids that Santa is indeed real.:D :eek: He is, isn't he?;) ;)


BIG ditto.

I've never once in my whole life tried to convince anybody that their religion was wrong. I'm an athiest but I really don't care what anybody else believes. It's none of my business. I'll debate it with someone if they ASK me to, but I don't go around trying to convert people to athiesm.

I just honestly couldn't give a flying rat's patooty whether people believe in God, Jesus, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or honest republicans. I simply have much MUCH better things to do with my time than try to change people's religious beliefs.

I do however, expect that they should give me the same respect.

[ProWriter]

...Because he's God and he just did :D . Bad explanation? Hey, we still have one. How come you can "explain" how your God came into existence by saying that but you don't allow the EXACT SAME answer ("Because it exists and it just does:D") about the coming into existence of the Universe?

You're entitled to believe in God without any direct evidence or explanation for his existence, but surely you realize how silly it is to try to establish that your beliefs are true by telling someone who doesn't share them that your only "explanation" for how God came into existence is "Because he's God and he just did." You do realize that is NOT an explanation, right?

I don't know how it is that there is a Universe, but we have plenty of very DIRECT evidence that it must exist because we're typing. Why can't you at least admit that you DON'T KNOW how your God could have created himself from nothing? Do you have any explanation for how God created himself from nothing or not?

[Depco164]

I do however, expect that they should give me the same respect.

The problem is that many people don't show the same respect. Usually their jaws drop to the floor and they act as if you had just slapped them across the face. Then they try to justify their beliefs. As if I care or haven't heard it all before. (I was raised as a good little Lutheran)

Personally I don't go around trying to convince people how religion is silly. But wouldn't it be something to get together a bunch of Atheists and go door to door, ala Bible thumping Christians or Jehovah Witness'. How fun would that be to have some Atheists show up at your door?

Atheist: "Do you believe in god?"

Citizen: "I sure do."

Atheist: "Why?"

Citizen: "Because I have been brought up to believe in god. He does so many good things for me."

Atheist: "Well if you could give me a moment of your time I would like to enlighten you to how god is completely improbable."

I think it would be funny to turn the tables... Of course the very devout or head-strong would invite you in and then get mad that the atheist doesn't believe in god... could be hazardous to their health depending on how fundamentalist the person ended up being.

It would make a funny SNL skit.

[JMTX]

That would be hilarious (but wrong on so many levels)!

After highschool, I worked part time on the weekends at a convenience store....EVERY sunday this group of JWs would come in to bring me phamplets and lecture me.

I was dying, just absolutely DYING, to get a group of athiests together and show up at THEIR place of employment and torture them while they're on the clock trying to do their job. But I decided to be the bigger person...It would have been awfully funny to do it though.

[zombo]

Well, my parents said they were busy doing the horizontal tango when some JWs showed up at our place - which is recessed and behind a fence - with lots of windows too... So never had much trouble with'm...

My fiancee on the other hand relished the opportunity and figured she was doing a community service by keeping them busy for a few hours every month... Until her mom found out they were trying to convert a 13 year old girl on the sly... Apparently that didn't go over so well...

[Outshined]

The thread wasn't started by an atheist challenging Christian beliefs, but by a Christian directing his questions to atheists. By your reasoning, doesn't it "really make you think" about why someone totally secure in his own beliefs would bother challenging other people who happen to have different beliefs?

Personally, I have no problem being asked about atheism, but I'm confused how you think merely responding to the questions posed to me by Christians somehow "makes you think" anything about me instead of the person who obviously has a need to question other peoples' beliefs.

Nobody's attacking any Christians or calling them "ignorant" or "demanding" that they believe something different either. The reason many of us reject your beliefs is, precisely, that we think they're utterly ridiculous and completely self-contradictory. I agree that implies something less than flattering about anybody who accepts those beliefs, but we're just responding honestly to the question of a Christian. If you're likely to be insulted by the answer, you probably shouldn't ask the question. If you choose to ask the question and the truthful answer implies something unflattering about you, that's not the fault of the person responding directly to the question. Most of us have no need to raise the subject out of the blue, and I also think we're a lot more open to civil discussion compared to the likely result of one of us ever starting a thread titled "For The Christians."

Feel free to ask me anything you want to about why I believe whatever I believe; but don't suggest that I'm the one with the issues or a chip on my shoulder just for answering a question someone else asked about my beliefs.[/QUOTe



I am not going to speculate on whether the original poster is secure in his beliefs or not. I also don't see anywhere in my post where I said I was a Christian. Thirdly, I wasn't really directing my post at all of the posters here, just throwing out a statement/question that I have been thinking about for some time, and in a thread dealing with peoples different ideas about religion, thought it might be a place to ask it. I really have no interest whatsoever asking you what you believe. Who says you have the truthful answer? After reading your response, It makes me wonder even more about my original question. It is insulting, because someone asked a simple question.

[Columbus]

How come you can "explain" how your God came into existence by saying that but you don't allow the EXACT SAME answer ("Because it exists and it just does") about the coming into existence of the Universe?

You're entitled to believe in God without any direct evidence or explanation for his existence, but surely you realize how silly it is to try to establish that your beliefs are true by telling someone who doesn't share them that your only "explanation" for how God came into existence is "Because he's God and he just did." You do realize that is NOT an explanation, right?

1. That explanation is JUST as good as yours.

2. I never said that I have all the answers in the world.

3. The difference in us having the same basic explanation is that the Atheists are the ones who will flat out say Christians are uneducated and dumb for believing in what they call "fairy tales" when they don't have an explanation any better.

I am not going to speculate on whether the original poster is secure in his beliefs or not. I also don't see anywhere in my post where I said I was a Christian. Thirdly, I wasn't really directing my post at all of the posters here, just throwing out a statement/question that I have been thinking about for some time, and in a thread dealing with peoples different ideas about religion, thought it might be a place to ask it. I really have no interest whatsoever asking you what you believe. Who says you have the truthful answer? After reading your response, It makes me wonder even more about my original question. It is insulting, because someone asked a simple question.

Not directed at you Outshined, but I noticed it in your post. Let me kill the question: I (the original poster) am 100% sure on my beliefs, but I can't say I'm always "secure" with them. I question my beliefs all the time in different situations, and after thinking about it logically always come back to the same conclusion. I think that me questioning my beliefs makes me a stronger Christian because I don't just believe in it blindly like some do, I question and arrive at my own conclusion. I was NOT raised to go to church, be baptized, etc. I arrived at my own conclusion on original thinking. However, even though I do question my own beliefs at time, that was not my purpose in starting this thread. You may think genocide is wrong and can't understand why some would think it's ok. Does you questioning them automatically mean you must be questioning your own beliefs? Didn't think so. It's about education, not personal doubt.

Hope that clears some things up.

[knox]

A neat little video to watch on Christianity.

It may change your beliefs, it may enforce them. But it definitely is interesting to watch for parties on both sides of the fence.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972

[miami-k9]

A neat little video to watch on Christianity.

It may change your beliefs, it may enforce them. But it definitely is interesting to watch for parties on both sides of the fence.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972

I just watched the entire movie. I wont comment on its entirety until after I do some research but if even 10% of the facts mentioned in it are true.......it would alter your world.

I highly recommend anyone with the time take 2 hours out of your day and watch it. If nothing else only to provoke some critical thinking.

Thank you for posting that one KNOX, excellent find.

[Columbus]

Problems with that video (I watched it all):

1. After some research on the previous "Gods" this guy mentioned, there are huge parts of the story left out, which don't fit the story of Christ at all.

2. Christ is found not only in Biblical text, but in other religious texts as well.

3. They simply disregard any historian who mentions Christ and fail to give their reasons on why they do.

4. You can find some of their sources: They are all extremely biased sites, none of which are part of an educational institution, that have an obvious agenda, and are not shy to show it.

5. "We want to be factual." says the narrator. This comes from the same guy that earlier in the video claimed the winter solstice is December 24-25. :rolleyes:

[miami-k9]

Columbus;957986]Problems with that video (I watched it all):

1. After some research on the previous "Gods" this guy mentioned, there are huge parts of the story left out, which don't fit the story of Christ at all.

Its only a 2hr movie, of course there are holes in the story.

2. Christ is found not only in Biblical text, but in other religious texts as well.

Kinda gives the info given more credit if you ask me.

3. They simply disregard any historian who mentions Christ and fail to give their reasons on why they do.

They only mention a few, and again, only 2 hours long.

4. You can find some of their sources: They are all extremely biased sites, none of which are part of an educational institution, that have an obvious agenda, and are not shy to show it.

Is any religious text any less biased. Most educational institutions wouldnt want to touch this kind of research with a 40 foot pole.


5. "We want to be factual." says the narrator. This comes from the same guy that earlier in the video claimed the winter solstice is December 24-25. :rolleyes

Im not going to hunt down the specific part of the film, but I believe that it said that the winter solstice occured from the 22-25th. The 25th being the date when the sun/son begins to rise in the winter sky. I verified that it occurs on either the 21st or 22nd depending.

[JMTX]

I celebrate the winter solstice and it is usually closer to the 21st. That's the only comment I can make, as my slow-dial-up won't allow me to watch the movie.

[equinox137]

Spring equinox (equal-night): March 23
Summer solstice: June 23
Autumn equinox: Sept 22 or 23
Winter solstice: December 23

[JMTX]

Solstices aren't on the same day every year. They fluctuate. I've seen Yule (aka winter solstice) fall everywhere from 21-23.

[MEA0306]

I believe in God; always have. However, I am not convinced that Jesus is the son of God. That's not to say that I think it's wrong to live a Christ like life and following the teachings of Jesus. I am saying that I don't believe Jesus is the only way.

I posed a question in one of the other threads about how the souls of Indians would have been saved since they lived on another side of the world and had no knowledge of the existence of Jesus, let alone anyone not on this Continent. Moreover, those in the old world, Jesus included, had no knowledge of them. Nobody on this board could successfully argue this one. The only answers you ever get around here are " believe or else".

I believe that the Lord shows/has shown himself to people that did not have the "education" available to so called "civilized" people.

There is an inherent truth in living life in a Christ-like way - love your neighbor as yourself etc.; that is the same wherever or whenever you are. I believe that those people were saved.

If He is going to make a requirement, He will make sure that everyone gets the information. He will be fair to everyone in enforcing that requirement.

Everyone is judged by their ability to believe and how they lived what they believed. I hope that helps.

You see, the Bible, whether the New or Old Testament, has many contradictions. Hard for me to believe that homosexuality could be worse than owning slaves. Speaking of which, you'd think that not enslaving people would have been part of the Ten Commandments. On my list of things to do or not do, I put that slightly above honoring my mother and father or not coveting my neighbor's wife.

The spirit of the law and the truth of God's love for us is present in the Bible through all cultures, customs and times. Some of the writing regarding specific issues was being addressed to a specific audience.

I personally don't believe that (slavery or homosexuality) was/is God's plan for people; but we are required to treat all people with respect and dignity.

Finally, why do the Ten Commandments not speak about my wife coveting our neighbor's husband? I find this one grossly unfair and I'll be keeping my eye on both of them.

LOL

My pet peeve OT issue was if a man raped a girl, he was required to pay the bride price for her and keep her as his wife. So not only was the poor girl raped, she had to marry the guy! I am really hoping that those cases were because of consensual premarital relations and not criminal sexual assault.

My personal goal is to have everyone I meet know I am a Christian without actually having to tell them.

[miami-k9]

Sigh........

The greatest problem with attempting to make the atheist argument is the overwhelming lack of sense. There are cultures the world over that have had little or no contact with christianity. There are/have been numerous state run religions, and far more nations where mere ownership of a Bible would be enough to kill a man. Despite this, christians will tell you, "If they had the oppourtunity to know the word of god, and turned it down, eternal damnation is their fate." So as adamantly as you argue for a Christian god, these people, who have their own religion, are supposed to simply disregard their entire belief system, out of sheer power of the bibles story?

Its not that good a story.

Its full of contradictions. Its writings are purposly vague so that even simple passages might be misinterpreted.

Here is an interesting article.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

My own belief as to why so many religious persons cling so desperatly to their ideas is because they are terrified of what death may be. And why not, all that atheism offers is ..........ending, the absense of being, simply not existing anymore. I will conceed that Heaven sounds like a much nicer place, however I cannot/will not, delude myself into pretending that it exists.

Christians will laugh at the idea that dying for Islam will net a terrorist 72 (why 72?) virgins upon his entry into heaven. And yet every day, Islamics all over the world show their faith, by killing themselves for their religion. Jesus is even mentioned in the Koran, undoubtedly because christianity represented a rival set of doctrins that did not mesh with Islamic ideals, ideals like suicide. Its hard to practice a religion when your flock is running around blowing themselves up. In this respect Christianity is at least, the smarter of the two belief systems.

Here Jesus is mentioned in the koran.

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran, Surah 4:171, Women),

So much religion is tied up in the writings of long dead men that happened to have a powerful following. You have the Torah, which is the basis for the old testament, the Old testament, which is the groundwork for the Bible, the Koran (Qu'ran), which considers jesus as a prophet, and all of them are interconnected thru use of the some of the same prophets. Its all connected because its all the same basic idea. Similar story lines with their own stuff in there to match their agenda. The Torah being the oldest.....and simplest. A very good place to start a good story is with an old simple myth, expound on it, and wham.......Anne Rice has a best seller about vampires.

Im tired and goin to bed.

[UlsterScots432]

I was curious one night (being a fan of skeptical inquiry and other similar podcasts/magazines and writers, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris), and I typed "atheist" and law enforcement officers and found this place. There actually are groups of Atheists for the Military, and I was hoping there would be one for L/E.

I was amazed to find indeed there WERE other law enforcement officers, investigators, agents (like myself) who were non-believers in the prevailing God, Gods, Deities, etc, of the Universe.

As to the issue of this topic, I am if anything a rough "deist" in that, I believe the Universe, for whatever it is, IS "God" in the sense that it is all things, and it is a closed system, as far as time, and energy. I do not believe in a creator that is actively involved in my life or yours for that matter. The bible is a silly mythology, akin to the Book of Mormon or the Quaran.

There are so many inconsistencies and nonsensical and contradictory statements in the Bible that it is shocking that so many educated people believe it.

The truth is, as Sam Harris says, all Christians know what it is like to be an atheist, because they hold essentially the same view of Islam and Mormonism, that atheists hold of Christianity.

I don't wake up every morning, wondering if this will be the day that I "accept Christ" (I was, I should note, raised a Protestant), anymore than Christians wake up every day wondering if today will be the day they seek out the next Caliphate, or wish to pray Allah and travel to Mecca.

It's good to see I am not alone.

[ProWriter]

My own belief as to why so many religious persons cling so desperatly to their ideas is because they are terrified of what death may be. And why not, all that atheism offers is ..........ending, the absense of being, simply not existing anymore. I will conceed that Heaven sounds like a much nicer place, however I cannot/will not, delude myself into pretending that it exists.

Whenever they ask me "how can you not be the least bit afraid about death?" I tell 'em "Because I really don't expect the eternity after my life to be any worse from my perspective than the (near) eternity before my life was."

As to what MBA said about considering himself an atheist or a deist, I resent having to be called ANYTHING just because I don't share someone else's belief about something. I'm not part of any "group" and I don't necessarily have anything more in common with any other person who happens not to think that there's a god than I necessarily have in common with someone else who happens to wear the same model of socks I like.

Being called an "atheist" is no different from identifying everybody in society who DOESN'T believe in UFO abductions an "anti-abductionist." The sad thing is, if 90% of everybody believed in UFOs, we probably WOULD have another alienating "group" identity based on philosophies we have absolutely nothing to do with.

[SkepticAlways]

I used to think I was an Atheist but then I found it to be more of a religion or movement against a god or religion.

Please expand on this. I hear it frequently. But I've never heard anyone express why they would think that. What was it about atheism that struck you as a religion, or a movement against gods or religion?

[JMTX]

I used to think I was an Atheist but then I found it to be more of a religion or movement against a god or religion.
I've never seen that to be so.

However, American athiests often become annoyed at a specific religion (ie christianity) because it seems to want to push itself on people who aren't interested and insist that it should be allowed in public institutions (like schools) and that it should be utilized in the creation of laws (ie banning gay marriage.). This obviously leads to frustration and resentment sometimes, and even to anger, not only from athiests but from Wiccans, pagans, hindus, buddhists, taoists, Jews, etc.

Athiests (and members of non-christian faiths) are often most concerned with simply being let alone...which of course many Christians find it impossible to do.

[ProWriter]

Organized religion strive to add followers by various means. Athiesm does the same by trying to convince others that there is no god. (IMHO). Athiests have clubs and seminars which try to dispel the myth of god's existence. (isn't this the same thing that organized religion does to prove the existence of god?)

I disagree. Most atheists do not "join" any group of other atheists at all; many of us don't even know any other atheists. Many if not most atheists keep their views completely private and don't even discuss their views with other people, much less participate in "clubs" for atheists or in "seminars" dedicated to disseminating their atheist position.

I don't belong to any "clubs" dedicated to promoting disbelief in gods; I don't bring up the topic of gods any more than I bring up the topic of the lunar landings or claims of UFO abduction. On the other hand, I don't mind discussing any of those if I'm asked, in which case I argue that the lunar landings were real and not faked by the U.S. government; that no UFO abduction has ever been documented; and that there's absolutely no objective logical evidence to suggest that the existence of any "god" is more likely to be true than not.

Why should I have to have any "label" for simply rejecting a belief about ANYTHING held by others? Do I have to call myself a "Lunar Landing Supporter" or a "UFO Abduction Rejectionist" and a "Non-Vegetarian" too? If you believe in something, that's your business and you can call yourself whatever you want to distinguish yourself from other people. Should all non-Jews have to refer to themselves as "Non-Kosher Eaters" when asked about their dietary preferences? No? I agree. Then why do I need a label that is a reference to gods any more than you need a label that is a reference to Judaism?