Reason To be athiest?

wynn,

...

Is this an example of me refusing to give clarifiction?
If you think it is, then I think you should point it out.

As far as I'm concerned this is an acurate descritpion of your character from our past communications.

Why should I be an example or role model to anyone?
You're the one who makes these imaginary attachments to a person who simply believes in God.
And further more, upon the revelation that such attachments don't occurr because one may believe, you
still go on and on about it. That's why I say ''it's all in head'' and ''you don't listen''.

More imaginary attachments.
Why don't you save these inputs for someone who agrees with you, because you're getting no joy in bringing
it up, to me?

No I'm not. You kill a discussion by creating imaginary attachments to the term 'theist', thereby dictating
what a theist should be, I end up spending time creating posts, explaining (as a theist) that's not how it goes.
We go back and forth on the same old nonsense just wasting time. You do it all the time.

Did you comprehend what I said?
Can't you respond to that rather than go off on a different tangent.

:wallbang:

Another of example of how misquoteing is dangerous.
I know that people will pretend to be unaware of something. Are they ''liars'', I don't know. Is a good poker player
a liar, or does he creating false scenarios to give a certain impression which may be favourable to him? You decide.

No it doesn't. Again you're making assumptions based on what's in your head.
A theist simply believes in God, there's nothing more. No angels, harps, special powers, tickets to goody-two-shoes land, nothing.

Whether or not I care isn't the issue. I like to discuss these types of subects, I happen to believe in God. Why do you think I have to care about you or anyone else I talk to in these forums?

Even if that was true, it works both ways.

We're all talking about God, sweetheart, that's what's so brilliant.
When somebody declares that ''God does not exist'', or ''God is meaningless'', or ''God is evil'', or ''God is a ficticious character'', and all the other things people say, isn't the onus on them? Don't you think there position is one of ''knowing better''?

You express them, I explain to you I'm not Jesus Christ, or even close, but you still insist on all this ''theists are supposed to be this and that. LEAVE IT OUT! I'm a normal guy who believes in God, as opposed to a normal guy who doesn't. I come on here to talk about God from the perspective of these forums. If peeps are talking about evolution providing evidence of no God, or God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, and other such topics, I'm interested and want to put my two cents in. THAT'S ALL.

The person/people in question understand me alright, they just don't like what I'm saying.
Maybe if I came across as a christian evangelist, they would feel more comfortable, even though it's
potentially more aggressive than my actual input.

I write off ''tangents and distraction'', not fears and concerns.
You've shown that you only loosely understand what I say, and you inferr the rest, then you stick to
that, and I have to spend time going and explaining what I meant, only to realise my explanations don't
mean anything to you

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aqueous Id,

Knowledge doesn't dictate, people do.
I believe ''human understanding'' goes further than what can be gained through school.
I have no problem learning things I don't agree with, because that particular system is geared that way.
But there is another kind of learning, a kind which can never be taught by a schooling system.

So there is more than one pov. So what?

Wishful thinking by way of degrading religion, and worship of God.

Have you stopped beating next doors 2 year old kid?

People always have science, as long as they're human.
People don't believe in God to explain phenomena.
And it is the evidence of people that is important, and how to discriminate, when God, or anything spiritual is involved, because science doesn't deal with that side of life.

The word God, may be a historically new word, and as such could mean anything. But we both know what we're talking about when we use the word.
Why do you call ''religion'' ''superstition?

Still, why would you think the world was round? If your mind was induced to ponder about the shape of the world
you live in, you could just as easily assume the world was flat with gigantic lump coming offa it.

You're right it isn't a modern science book, and the point of saying the world is a globe, was to explain something spiritual. The shape of the world was merely part of the explanation. IOW it's not really important for the soul to know the shape of the world, but if they want to, there is a body of knowledge dedicated to matter.

So your idea of ''believing in something'' boils down to whether you can see it or not?
Doesn't that seem a little limited to you?

I have a book definition in mind, just like if you ask me to define love, I could give you a host of book definitions.
But while I am experiencing in the world, book definitions don't cut it.

Different people say different things at different times, under different circumstances. You can't possibly know what people really thing, as you would have to know everybody. To me, this is the problem with your type of thinking. You pick and choose what is important, what is to detailed, and discard things you deem unimportant, relegating it to polls, and averages.

You mean mainstream thinking. What people say when they are trying to say the right thing, and not be ridiculed for something that is out of the mainstream ordinary. It's like when you see someone we may say hello and ask them if they're okay, and usually reply ''yes, and you?'' To which we reply ''yes''. There are different sides to us, and some of those sides are very personal.

I don't have to tunnel through it, it seem completely natural to me, to the point when I'm with others to whom this is a natural thing, we don't even discuss it. The thing is, I think that you feel the same way, that is conected to something greater than yourself, but you don't believe in God, so you cling to atheism, and darwinism to give you a sense of conectedness. To me, you're no different than a theist, other than the object of your beliefs.

There's no point is wondering what it would be like in a religion-less world, because it's never happened as far as we know. Maybe there's a message in there somewhere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, there are lots of different types and ways of education.

Whose to say that the so-called ''freeing of cultural baggage'' isn't conditioning one away from reality?

And that's as far as atheism can go.

Some scientists have a vested interest in fraud, and have succeeded in pulling the wool over peoples eyes
for decades at a time, probably doing a lot damage. So if the science is overseen by modern atheists, which it seems to be, I cannot trust everything they say, regarding evidence of things I have no way of knowing as to whether or not they are true. Of course if one or two are being fraudulent, then I dare say they will be found out in the course of time. But decades are too long.

You mean as long as we're grounded in ''modern atheist'' reality.
You'll excuse me if I don't partake.

It can't help us when it comes to God or spirituality. To surrender yourself to it in that way, is to say ''there is nothing more than what modern-atheist science has to offer. That is so unattractive.

I'm not talking about ''atheism'', I'm talking about ''modern atheism'', there is a big difference, although I don't expect you to accept that.

Religion doesn't clash with science, and modern atheism clashes with everything. Probably because we can see that it wants to control. It's slaughtered ''institutional christianity'', not religion. Then again that's not such a hard task if the institute has elements of atheistic ideology, when scrutinised against the scripture it used to proclaim itself representatives of God, or other scriptures for that matter.

I also have that problem with some religions, and other problems as well. So you don't have to be atheist to see that. But I'm not really talking about ''religions''.

It's modern atheism that's totalitarian, not science.
I have no problem with science or nature. I just don't think modern atheism is interested in science,
more than it is interested in taking over the world with it's ideals using science as a reason. The institute of christianity did the same thing with Jesus. Same type of people, different time.

That would be a culture. Or don't you see it as such.

I find that, not only really patronising, but narrow-minded.

At some point we need to grow up, and understand we don't know everything, and accept that others may have a point even though it's not in agreement with our own.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan Ardena:

People INVENTED gods to explain phenomena they did not understand. But Thor's hammer turns out not to cause thunder, and Odin is not the source of lightning.

Religion and superstition absolutely clash with science and reality. Atheism is simply the rejection(as truth) of theist claims and superstitious clap-trap. Believe anything you like, it makes no difference to me unless you start asserting that your superstitious non-sense has any bearing on reality.

The only difference is that modern atheists do not give deference to superstitious non-sense anymore, treating religious belief as the abomination of unreason it has always been instead of remaining silent(sometimes on pain of death)or giving lip service to the idea that religious belief is a sane and reasoned viewpoint. Atheism hasn't changed, it has just spoken up.

Name one tenant of Atheism other than non-belief in religious non-sense. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a stance on religious ideology(rejection). Even the reasons for rejecting theism differs from one Atheist to another(we have whole threads on this).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James R,

If God exists the world is an effect of His actions, whether we believed it or not.

How do you know God doesn't answer prayers?
And because we don't see ''statistical evidence'', we deem God doesn't exist?

Because our essence is ''sprit'', the same as Gods'.
Because this lifetime could well be less than a portion of a nano-second, to God.
Because we may have been through this innumerable times, in different bodies.
Because the correct protocol (as in Gods' law), is to let the living entity experience what it is
supposed to experience.......

There is no such thing as a world with no God at all, not for us humans anyway.
The only way would be to condition humans that there is no God, generation after generation, replacing
the notion with something else. And even then it wouldn't be long before somebody decides there's more to life
than meat, IMO.

They're no more truth seekers than any other human being.
What great truth as scientists given us?

It depends what you regard as evidence.
Don't be coy, what would you regard as evidence for God?

Oh! So they've looked for it, and haven't found it have they?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Exactly, which is what is known as ''atheism'', but that's as far as it goes, lack of belief.
All the other stuff is validation of that belief.

It's not exactly ''wrong thinking'' is it?
They say what they see, but things aren't always as they seem.
If they learn that there's more to life than what their senses percieve, they stand a chance of being
open-minded, failure to do so and you get closed-mindedness. People who want to take over the world
are close minded.

Well, we're talking about theism, which is ''believing IN something'.
As one can not believe in something, but believe it exists, it means your understanding of theism is dodgy.
Yes! Then planet Venus is there, but I don't believe in it.

Who else is prepared to shave the corners of the hexagonal earth? Duh!

Or that nature popped into existence via nature?

I've explained this to you for years now, but no more.
My response is simply: this is why you are an atheist.

And what's wrong with feeling conected to Lord Xenu, Lord of War?

You just gotta love the trees and the forest spirits.

That they do lad, that they do.

No.

No, it's just a natural feeling to me.

I don't.
Why do you ask?

You and I have also reasoned, and I have noticed a consistency in your reasoning, that refuses to see things any other way, while at the same time asking for physical evidence. You've backed yourself into a corner where you cannot accept God. You're not prepared to go down the road of understanding why people believe in God. You're not prepared to read the scriptures objectively, and if you have read the bible, since your declaration, chances are it was only to find more reasons to validate your position.

No. I'm question what and how you have to think.
Conditioning doesn't mean we walk around like robots.

No. I've met some intelligent atheists who think he's a twat.
Some modern atheists pretend to think that, but then you find them using his idiotic arguments, then they
justify it by saying he's a twat but he makes some good point.

I don't put ''modern atheism'' and ''science'' in the same camp.
Science has nothing to do with God or spirituality, that is to say, it wouldn't occurr to me to talk
about God at a science convention, anymore than talking about science at the annual basket-weavers asociation dinner and dance. The two just don't go together.

I would say good on ya mate!

But how does that relate to othere individuals?

It could be anything. Do we really exist?
Are we just part of micro organism in someones leg?
I'm just living my life, which will be over soon, and I can't be arsed to think about things of no consequence.
Or IOW, I'm choosing what is and is not important.

No. But I think ''modern atheism'' is.
Is that clear enough, or do you want me to spell it out?

Atheist science?
What is atheist science?

The same roundabout way as the western christian institute dictated about christ, and God.

Good.

Either that, or they make the decision to pull away from the God.

Either that, or they make the decision to pull away from the God.

One's true, and the other one is superficial.
Pretty simple really.

I've answered your question regarding ''conectedness'', please what your problem is with my response.

jan.

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "all that goes on." I think for someone to believe in the "evidence" for God, they need to have either a witting or unwitting ignorance of the facts. So yes, there would be more going on than simply a belief based on evidence.

How is that implied by the alternative?

 

So, lack of belief is now a belief...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You lack belief of God? God who?

 

Jan Ardena

Actually, you have it backwards, everything we discover is the BASIS for lack of belief. And on this question, that is all.

No, statistical evidence does, however, show that the claimed efficacy of prayer is not supported by the evidence available, quite the opposite in some cases.

Another claim of existence with no supporting evidence. Our essence, going by the evidence, is chemistry. No "spirit" in evidence.

Irrelevant speculation on par with most theistic thought.

Irrelevant speculation akin to reincarnation theologies.

Gibberish.

There is no evidence of a world with a god in it, though some believe that there are gods.

Yes, reason.

Implying you think Atheists think all there is to life is meat. That is far from true. There's also vegetables.

That we are not the center of the Universe, that we are unlikely to be alone in the Universe and that we can understand the Universe. Great truths that actually have a firm basis in fact, not belief.

Violation of the laws of physics by the act of an intelligence. Since we have yet to find anything violating those laws, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.

No, but they have studied the Universe and have found no evidence that any of it needs a non-natural explanation.

And if there is not and they believe it anyway? That is close mindedness and has led theists to rule for most of man's history, based on nothing but opinion.

Whatever existed "prior" to the Universe cannot currently be known, but it was that which created Nature, not Nature itself.

Nothing if you do not make decisions based on that belief. But we've seen the evil belief in unevidenced supernatural beings brings. The whole history of man is painted red by the conflicts between believers.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain.



Talking about God should not be yet another topic that people happen to talk about. Instead, it should count for something, it should mean something - it should not be done lightly.

You seem to want to make talking about God into such "yet another topic," something that can be talked about without emotion, without attachment, without really putting your life on the line.
Basically, you seem to want to remain comfortably philosophical about it, in your armchair. "Just a normal guy who happens to believe in God. Just a normal guy, nobody special, no role model or genius."

And it is precisely such an attitude that is so conducive to atheism.

That is just not good enough for me. I'm not going to be like you. And if this means earning your disdain, so be it.



Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain.

Remember this.

 

Why is your notion of God so Judeo-Christian?

The reason Jan gets so casual and dismissive about religion is because his understanding of it is entirely superficial. He can rattle off vague assertions like the one found in this thread, but he becomes hostile when pressed because his knowledge has no strategic depth. He's not here to discuss, he's here to proclaim and walk away. You're asking him to take the conversation seriously, but this is beyond his means. I suggest you stop wasting your time.

Though I am curious, how does one put their life on the line in a discussion about God?

What is this even supposed to mean? What attitude? Jan doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about; it has nothing to do with attitude. And certainly nothing to do with atheism.

In many ways, you're exactly like him. I can't think of a discussion you've participated in that didn't end with you acting exactly as Jan is acting now.

 

wynn

This doesn't mean what it seems you think it means. The merchant who puts Christian symbols on his advertising is taking the Lord's name in vain. The preacher who preaches hatred(Phelps, for example)or promotes his own ideas as if they were God's(Pat Robertson)is taking the Lord's name in vain. The Politician who wraps himself in his religion but promotes things Christ would not(Santorum)is taking the Lord's name in vain. The priest who molests children is taking the Lord's name in vain. The athlete who prays publicly so that he may be seen by all doing so(Tebow)is taking the Lord's name in vain. Taking the Lord's name in vain is using God's name(authority)for your own purposes or your own vainglorious benefit.

I do know my Bible and what it says, even if I don't accept the superstitious non-sense it contains. And Jesus had much to say that was wise in a philosophical sense. And I do recognize the hypocracy of those like Phelps, Robertson, Tebow and Santorum, judging by what they claim to believe and what they actually do.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think Phelps is the only one who is not a hypocrite.

 

Jesus had nothing to say that was wise in a philosophical sense. The philosophy behind his teachings was one of fear and submission, and his moral righteousness entirely predicated on him being the son of God. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you or I'll kill you" is not a philosophically reasonable injunction, let alone a moral one.

There have been many others who reached better conclusions while actually providing an understanding as to why we should do what it is we do. And most of them did it before Jesus was ever conceptualized (or plagiarized).

 

People can fully fall for their thoughts feelings, and sensationd, hook, line, and sinker, if that's only what informs them; however, that is a common plight, and so it can be expected.

 

Balerion

We've been through this in the forum and in messaging, and your opinion on this is shit, in my opinion. "Do unto others" is not a threat, it is a wise precept. Don't confuse the religion(which is a threat)with the precept(which is not). In fact today we still have it as the Golden Rule. "As ye have done to the least of these" is a very good measure of personal responsibility. "Turn the other cheek" is non-violence thousands of years before Ghandi. That he was claimed to be the son of god is irrelevant to those precepts, they stand as wisdom all on their own, NO MATTER WHO SAID THEM OR WHEN. There are others. There is certainly a lot of crap in the Bible, even about Jesus himself. And not everything Jesus said(or is SAID to have said)is wise. But you are tossing the baby out with the bathwater and if you can't post to me without foaming at the mouth about Jesus, don't bother posting at all. I decide what I consider wisdom, and your opinion on the matter is your own problem.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We've been through this in messaging because you refused to have the conversation in public. You don't like losing, apparently.

Of course it's a threat. The chapter begins with "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you," and ends with "12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." It's not a suggestion, and it doesn't give you sound reasoning for why this action is good. It tells you "Do this or suffer the wrath of God."

You want to separate the words from their meaning, which is pointless considering that the Golden Rule is nearly universal, and there are far better examples of it that don't use fear as a motivator.

The Golden Rule has existed in some form in every civilization, including those to come before Jesus supposedly lived.

Not in the slightest. Do you know what happens to those who don't "do unto the least of these?" They go to hell. Literally. "46 'Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.'" Where's the philosophy in that? "Do this or die." While we can agree on the idea of helping the needy is generally a good one, to say it is always good is wrong, and certainly to command it under penalty of burning eternally is barbaric. You call that wisdom?

Allowing your enemies to destroy you is immoral, and not an idea Jesus himself seemed to subscribe to. (The parable of the Ten Minas comes to mind). Finding a non-violent solution is preferable, but only up to the point where there is no other reasonable choice. Allowing your enemy to strike you is wrong at any level of extrapolation--from the kid who allows himself to be bullied at school, to the nation that allows another to invade it. In both cases, all that awaits the cheek-turner is annihilation. But here's the secret--that's the whole point! Jesus believed the end of the world was at hand, and he preached like it. He even said, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." So go ahead, give no thought to the morrow. Go ahead, turn the other cheek. It doesn't matter, because this shindig's about to end anyway.

And again, the philosophy behind this injunction was that God commanded it, and you're his sheep so you had better do as he says or you'll spend your eternity in Hell. There's nothing wise about that.

No. That's your mistake. Of course it mattered that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. His injunctions completely relied upon his authority. There was no philosophical discussion, no meeting of minds or exchange of ideas. He never even said "Do this so you guys will get along better, so that life will be easier on you." Why not? Because Christianity is a death cult, and the whole purpose of it was to ready its followers for the promised afterlife. That's not moral teaching.

Look, I think it's noble that you're trying to spin Christianity into some areligious morality guide, but what Jesus actually said wasn't moral. You can take "soundbites" and breathe your own philosophy into them, but there are better sources for those ideas than the Bible, and they come ready-made without the need to gut the original message.

 

Balerion

As I said to you then and in my last post, your opinion is shit on this subject.

I really don't care what else is in that passage or what motivation it has "Love thy neighbor as thyself, that is the sum of the law" is the same thought in different words, and there is no separation of meaning, it is easily understood. It is wise. Even if the next verse is not wise or is full of religious non-sense. As I said, you throw wisdom out with the crap, that's your problem, not mine. Jesus seems to give you rabies, for some personal reason. Your hatred of Christianity is no more rational than Phelps' hatred of gays and just as dogmatic.

So Jesus' repetition is just as valid as any other, and he said it in several different ways. Take the parable of the Good Samaritan, it teaches the principle of the Golden Rule without the least mention of godly wrath or soul destroying judgement. Is it too not wise? We filter everything through our intellect based on our experience and I want to be like the Good Samaritan because it is the moral thing to do, not because I buy the "Fire and Brimstone if you don't" that is all you seem to see.

Yes, but I don't ascribe to that non-sense. But it sure makes a good club to wield around the head regions of so-called Christian politicians who think the poor should just die. I ascribe to the thought, though. If you believe in Christianity you really can't be a Republican in this day and age. And you can't be a moral person without following the thought for it's own sake, no matter what motivations the religious claptrap assigns to it.

So, slapping you is to destroy you? Ghandi defeated the whole British army using this philosophical position without once raising a hand(much less a weapon)in return. Seems to work rather well. "A kind word turneth away wrath" is the same thought. "Cooler heads" is too. It seems to me to be wise. I don't care what you think of it.

Only to those who think there is a god to be the son of. I don't, so it does not matter what he claimed or what is claimed he claimed(remember, his words were recorded at least two generations after he lived, generations who created the religion and religious non-sense associated with him).

Your rabid hatred of Christianity is not reasonable and clouds your view. I reject the supernatural while seeking wisdom and I do not excuse the evil that religion does or did. But to each according to their discernement.

Not Christianity, just the wisdom of some of what the man, Jesus, said. I don't hold Christianity in ANY regard, it is an evil and dangerous load of hooiee. I also loath most of what Ronald Reagan said and did to this country, but when he said that a bus driver shouldn't pay more in taxes than a millionaire I thought that was wise. Separating the wheat from the chaff is most of what being wise is all about. Take the good you find everywhere, even if it is embedded in a big pile of crap.

Some of what Jesus is claimed to have said is immoral, some is religious, but some is wise. And I will take the wise, even if I have to gut the Bible to do it. Jefferson had the same attitude and took a razor to his Bible. And who said the only source I use is the Bible? Not me. There are OTHER sources, and I treat them the same way. ALL religious texts are huge piles of crap, but most have pearls of wisdom embedded in them that do not depend on accepting the religious non-sense to accept the wisdom. And it is MY philosophy, I will base it on what I feel is wise from many different sources. Isaac Asimov is one of the wisest men who ever lived, you really need to read his commentary on the Bible(hint, he agrees with me, or rather, vice versa about how to extract wisdom from piles of religious dreck), though just reading his Science Fiction will give you the same info, minus the thees and thous.

We've discussed this to death, I find your attitude unreasonable, you seem to feel the same about mine. You will not convince me that wisdom cannot be found in Jesus' words for discerning readers, you will never be able to see that wisdom due to your reaction to the religious crap it is mixed in. Let's leave it at that.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!