It appears to me that more people are atheist, than there are agnostics. Which doesn't make sense to me, isn't atheism an assumption about something that cannot be known with certainty?
In all honestly, the only people who don't assume things are the nihilists who believe in absolutely nothing, not even the existence of things outside of their sphere of influence
Why not both?
You can have gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.
Just to piss you off.
I didn't realize someone could be both, I thought being an atheist implied a disbelief in god, as if a person had made a decision on the topic, while an agnostic would say its impossible to know and so therefore I am neutral
I posted a version of this graphic first. Therefore, I get a beer. It's in the rules...
(http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/files/2013/08/nb2mO.jpg)
that is awesome
Confusion like this is why I identify as a secular humanist. It's harder to convey what I think when I define myself by what I don't believe.
Thats cool
Riddle me this, token theist:
Do you know for certain that god is real? If there is any doubt, you are at minimum an agnostic theist.
I do identify myself as "atheist" when the subject comes up, but I am an agnostic atheist. I go by the mindset of "something that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I do not know for certain that there is no god at all, but I'm pretty sure of it. I am even more sure the judeo-christian god is nonexistent because of many reasons including bible contradictions and observable evidence that debunks claims made in the bible about god... but that isn't to say that there is no gods at all. I'd still like to know what a god even is. The first step in knowing if there is or isn't a god is figuring out what one is or consists of, which no one has been able to contribute an answer to. (at least to me or on this forum).
EDIT:Slightly unrelated, but...
I should also add that I usually make a point of leading a conversation that has to do with religion or spiritual B.S. to me being an atheist and skeptic. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where I won't piss off too many people... and in fact I have met and befriended many other atheists and skeptics in my area because of it.
It's amazing, I find, how many atheists don't even realize they are atheist. I was at a party talking to an atheist recently. I overheard him and my other friend talking about religion so I peeked my nose in and joined. I asked him if he was an atheist too (because my other friend is). He said "no, I'm agnostic." And I asked, "so do you believe in god?" and he answered: "I don't think there is a god, but I can't know for sure"
After explaining the graph kilodelta shared, he realized what an atheist is and that he was one.
Fuck. That was a tangent if I ever saw one. I should go to bed.
I'm a little late to the party, but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).
I am an agnostic theist, only by definition because I think there is no such thing as certainty, in regards tp humN knowledge
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 20, 2015, 01:37:34 AM
I'm a little late to the party, but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).
Late means you bring the Sam Adams.
This makes me thing of the weirdo on youtube the drunken peasants reported on singing his song "Why be an atheist". Its.. well its pretty much what Hijiri's signature made me feel like just listening to.
To answer it, being an atheist is the natural flow of how it went for me, and the fact it bothers you someone would choose to be is almost on a level of asking 'why be gay when theres all these women around', really, its an pretty slanted question to ask people.
im not bothered
i just wonder how someone could make an assumption, if they value evidence, so i question why gnostic atheism exists
i also dislike how you compare atheism and homosexuality
one is biology and the other is an idea
Of course it is, but the same rational sense wouldn't apply to other people, who would assume homosexuality is as much a thought process that can be changed.
My atheism is based on a continuous breakdown of everything religions have claimed to be true being proven falsifiable. While you can make the claim there are things we simply do not have the answers to, I take from the fact the people who claim what happens after we die, are the same nut jobs who claim the earth flooded, or their prophet flew to the moon on a flying horse, or that snakes talk.
Its pretty fucking hard to take seriously the notion of what they claim seriously of the complete unknown, when what is so easily refuted as rubbish in every other aspect. Snakes don't talk, seas do not part, the world didn't flood and drain off, people don't live to be 900 years old, so why should I take anything else they claim to be serious when they are obviously making shit up? not just that, but taking stories from people thousands of years before science proved them wrong.
Like Hijiri I am more inclined to identify as a secular humanist. The problem with identifying as an atheist is that most theists automatically think antigod versus non belief. Secular humanist has a more positive aspect about it.
wouldnt the end of the ice age cause floods, i always attributed floodstories to the ice age
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 19, 2015, 08:01:48 PM
It appears to me that more people are atheist, than there are agnostics. Which doesn't make sense to me, isn't atheism an assumption about something that cannot be known with certainty?
In all honestly, the only people who don't assume things are the nihilists who believe in absolutely nothing, not even the existence of things outside of their sphere of influence
It all depends on the definition of god being used.
If the definition is internally and/or externally incoherent, I can say that that god does not exist.
If someone proposes a god that is internally and externally coherent (has not happened yet), then I would be more agnostic about that god.
Also, you are strawmanning nihilism. You are putting all branches of nihilism in one. Only epistemological nihilism takes the position that nothing can be known for sure.
it isnt a strawman if i am not attacking it, i will be more specific in the future
what would be a coherent god?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 12:25:00 PM
it isnt a strawman if i am not attacking it, i will be more specific in the future
what would be a coherent god?
Some people direct their attention to the biblical god, which contradicts itself if taken literally.
This causes a fair chunk of the atheist population.
Argumentation against an omnipotent, all-loving god also contributes to a growing conversion.
We don't really have a strong definition of god (unless you consider the literal biblical god, which fails to hold water). This deters people from the Judeo-Christian God, and unlocks insight on what a "bad god" and used to disprove arguments against those who don't take the bible literally.
As far as I know, there is no consistent god that can be determined to hold water.
My two cents into the matter, now don't beat me for it.
fair enough
i would agree that classical theism is shaky at best
So is modern theism unless you are Deepak Chopra that thinks quantum mechanics is about spirituality and not matter, which is laughable because it deals with mechanics and particles. This is why I prefer to be called a freethinker. Solitary
what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force
That's just regular theism.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force
Air is invisible too, but there is evidence it exists, but none for a God that is invisible. There are forces too small to see, but there is still evidence they exist, like gravity that pushes the stars around, and not angels like once was believed. You might like to take a course in physics and biology that give answers to questions with evidence and not faith. Solitary
i got As in biology and physics
there isnt much knowledge about the possibity of other dimensions
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force
Isn't that just pantheism of a sort... God is everything. Theists tend to have a suitably undefined view of what god is, so they can move the goalposts when their ideas get questioned.
Would someone pray to an invisible force if that's all god is? Maybe, but I fail to understand why they think that force would be able to reply, or that they're that special that they'd merit a reply, especially considering the unresolved shit that is happening to Christian (etc.) people all round the planet. However, I digress....
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 19, 2015, 08:21:56 PM
I didn't realize someone could be both, I thought being an atheist implied a disbelief in god, as if a person had made a decision on the topic, while an agnostic would say its impossible to know and so therefore I am neutral
If you don't believe in God, you are an atheist. If you are neutral, you don't believe in God, and you would be an atheist.
However, agnosticism is not about being neutral. It's about not knowing. Not knowing does not make you neutral, so you can still believe or have no belief in God.
I'm surprised you don't know this. You've been around here for a fairly long time. Most atheists are absent of a position, so to speak. They are not on either side of a "yes there is/no there isn't" debate. They do not know, and they recognize that they don't have a belief. It is not a denial. It's lack of belief, which, by definition, means atheist.
This is hard for some, but not all, theists to wrap their head around. They assume an atheist is saying, "There is no god," when that's not what they are saying. This somewhat subtle point get's lost on some theists, because some atheists do say, "There is no god." But most atheists don't. Rather than being in a position of belief, they are simply in a void, waiting for evidence.
Like other here, I'm a gnostic atheist concerning specific god (the Judeo-Christian one can be disproved), but when someone starts using more vague terms to define god, like a force outside of nature that created everything, well, then I'm an agnostic atheist. But it's pretty useless as a stance, since the proposed gods in those cases could be anything. It's like, I'm an agnostic invisible pink aunicornist. I don't think there are any invisible pink unicorns, but there might have been, might be some on another planet for all I know. But for the purposes of day to day life, why even posit the proposition of an unprovable creature, then get angry at people at people who dismiss it? It's why we have Russel's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. These aren't there just to piss people off, they serve the purpose of pointing out that proposing an unprovable hypothesis is silly. The Flying Spaghetti monster is just as likely as a deistic deity, but neither one actually matters if they turn out to exist.
Such are the deistic (non personal) gods. If they do exist, they don't matter because they don't care about us and didn't create us with love.
It's frustrating to me, that Christians often fall back on the non-specific god argument, because they usually don't realize that at that point, they have undermined the point they were trying to make.
To be clear, how one defines god makes a difference. All definitions of god that I have heard so far fall into 3 categories:
1) Completely provably false, such as Zeus and Jehovah.
2) Pointless (Energy god, deistic god, outside the known universe, etc). Can't prove or disprove, but not important either way, as they don't actually impact the universe as they are proposed.
3) Aliens. Laugh, but I'm serious. If something did create the universe, or create us, or meddle with us, or whatever claims people make, what exactly defines it as a god as opposed to just a very advanced alien life form? I cannot think of ANY proposed god that wouldn't actually be defined as an alien life form if we actually found out it existed.
So I guess #3 makes me a sort of gnostic atheist, as I think there is no logical definition of a god. Not sure if that's the same as not believing in one, what I don't believe is that there has yet been a god proposed that makes any sense. I don't think it is possible to even have a sound definition of a god that doesn't fallinto #2 and #3, making gods....all gods....utter nonsense.
I don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence or rational argument for them. Therefore I'm an a-unicorn-ist. Same goes for god. Show me some evidence or rational argument for god or unicorns and I'll reconsider my position.
First of all you can't define the undefinable. It doesn't matter how you picture god or under what conditions god supposedly exists, because as I have said here a few times, god by nature is supernatural which puts him beyond our ability to quantify or describe. So in the end all you are talking about are suppositions. My stance is that by sheer lack of anything that can be considered as evidence, god for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. Nothing attributed to god can be proven to be true. Prayer doesn't work, faith healing doesn't work, miracles can't be shown to work or be from a god and so on. Both currently and historically there is simply nothing that can pointed to as evidence.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the end.
I recall having this debate months about about santa, where a christian guy we had on here, preacher, couldn't convince me father christmas didn't exist, seemed kind of scared of approaching the debate even.
But since children believe in father christmas, why then would it not exist?
Maybe because the childrens parents told the child he exists, gets the kid to go to bed early on christmas eve, wraps up their presents and puts them under the tree, and even leaves half eaten cookies and milk out, so when little billy comes down in the morning, he's completely convinced santa is real.
Thats your religion for you, stories made up by other people, long since dead, that gullible man-childs believe in. The difference between santa and god, children stop believing in the story of santa when they grow up, while god worshipers never grow up.
well my question was answered so im happy
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 19, 2015, 08:01:48 PM
It appears to me that more people are atheist, than there are agnostics. Which doesn't make sense to me, isn't atheism an assumption about something that cannot be known with certainty?
I guess I'd call myself a semi-gnostic atheist, on the basis that the god hypothesis of how the universe works simply isn't supported by observation, and I don't feel compelled to continue looking for proof of that theory in the same way that I don't feel compelled to look for proof of the phlogiston or caloric theories of heat, or the luminiferous aether.
If proof were to present itself, that's another matter entirely, but I don't expect it any more than I expect proof to turn up for any of the other theories I mentioned above -- and there were better observational bases for accepting those than for accepting the existence of a divine authority. Maxwell's equations were seen as a vindication of aether theory, after all. It wasn't until much later that they were seen to be independent of aether.
So, in the same way that I say that there is no phlogiston, no caloric, and no aether, I also say there is no god, and I feel not the slightest twinge to qualify that.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 11:22:46 AM
im not bothered
i just wonder how someone could make an assumption, if they value evidence, so i question why gnostic atheism exists
Like you, I wondered that distinction myself. I was an agnostic for most of my life. But within the last decade it dawned on me that there is evidence against a god governing the universe. Nature is that evidence. How could a 'loving' god, interested in justice and rewarding good, have created such a bloody system? I have no choice but to live as a killer. Even if I don't ever eat meat, I still have to eat plants. Plants have life. So, to live I have to kill--no choice. But what would be a better way?, I am asked? Plants don't need to kill--they can live by the energy of the sun or the chemicals from ocean bottom vents. Why would a loving god make such a system? I see that as evidence that no such entity exists. Can't exist.
apologists would have a field day with that
anyhow, nature being cruel doesnt disprove god, it only raises questions about a loving god
"keep digging" - wilfred (love that show)
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 10:28:48 PM
apologists would have a field day with that
anyhow, nature being cruel doesnt disprove god, it only raises questions about a loving god
"keep digging" - wilfred (love that show)
First, this is the type of proof that is personal. I do not expect to change anybody's mind with it. But it is sound enough for me to move from the agnostic group to the atheistic group.
A cruel nature (and it really isn't cruel as much as indifferent) does really raise questions about a god, and most certainty a 'loving god' Explain birth defects in light of a 'loving god.'
you are crossing into a personal area of mine
i was born with severe birth defects
and i dont blame God, i think it just happens
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 11:30:16 PM
you are crossing into a personal area of mine
i was born with severe birth defects
and i dont blame God, i think it just happens
Sorry to hear that. But why not blame god if god created the universe? He is in charge. With god in charge things don't just happen--they happen for a reason; a reason that makes no sense that I can fathom.
i think that the universe is chaotic and do not hold a calvinist worldview, i think god could heal me but wont, i dont care, but i wasnt chosen to suffer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibromatosis_type_I
i dont know anything different, so i see wishing to be normal as meaningless
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 12:39:56 AM
i think that the universe is chaotic and do not hold a calvinist worldview, i think god could heal me but wont, i dont care, but i wasnt chosen to suffer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibromatosis_type_I
i dont know anything different, so i see wishing to be normal as meaningless
You seem to have a very healthy attitude toward your situation. That's good.
But what of those who did not have that opportunity to make any kind of choice--those born too mangled to live more than a little while? Or those too insane to have any kind of choice making ability? Why or how could a loving compassionate god create the possibility of that kind of pain and suffering? Does not make any kind of sense, logical, reasonable or spiritually.
Yes, the universe is chaotic--or seems to be. That is mainly because we understand more about how it works. And it will become less and less chaotic as we learn more and more about it.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 19, 2015, 08:01:48 PM
It appears to me that more people are atheist, than there are agnostics. Which doesn't make sense to me, isn't atheism an assumption about something that cannot be known with certainty?
In all honestly, the only people who don't assume things are the nihilists who believe in absolutely nothing, not even the existence of things outside of their sphere of influence
What's a god?
I am of the classical definition of atheist as one who denies the existence of god(s). I also claim for certain that there is no god. No of course many say you cannot claim for certain on something that cannot be known for certain, but I argue that indeed one can claim for certain against ridiculous and incredulous statements.
In my studies (as I have bored many here with before) I have read and followed of the ancient religions and archeology that show religions existed prior to todays religions, I have read and followed the process of animism through tokenism to shamanism to deities through the history of anthropology and have observed it in the cognitive development of children so the idea of how gods can be imagined is readily available to anyone with a brain.
I have seen and read of the ancient structures thousands of years prior to todays religions and understood that humanity was looking for answers, the key being "looking".
I have seen the cave drawings from tens of thousands of years prior to religion even existing and seen the awareness that the ancients had of life and death and how even then they treated the dead with love and respect, long before deities existed.
I have read of the tens of thousands of gods that man has invented and seen that not one single religion has any better grace from their god than the next, to the point that the non-believer has exactly the same probability of success and grace as the believer.
I have read many religious texts and found them to be written for and to morons who willingly, set aside reason and logic to qualm their fear, and for no other reason but for that very fear.
I have seen that nothing, absolutely NOTHING that can be pointed to the works of a god that cannot, or has not, been solved by science or simple common sense.
There is nothing in this world, in any way shape or fashion that requires a god, yet the world can be explained without one.
That everything can be explained without a god, is proof that one does not need a god and thus gods do not exist but for the imaginary and for the fear of those less interested in finding the truth for themselves.
It has been proven beyond a doubt, to those who will take the time to learn, that gods were invented by humans. Nothing suggests otherwise. God(s) do not exist.
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 11:49:24 AM
I am of the classical definition of atheist as one who denies the existence of god(s). I also claim for certain that there is no god. No of course many say you cannot claim for certain on something that cannot be known for certain, but I argue that indeed one can claim for certain against ridiculous and incredulous statements.
In my studies (as I have bored many here with before) I have read and followed of the ancient religions and archeology that show religions existed prior to todays religions, I have read and followed the process of animism through tokenism to shamanism to deities through the history of anthropology and have observed it in the cognitive development of children so the idea of how gods can be imagined is readily available to anyone with a brain.
I have seen and read of the ancient structures thousands of years prior to todays religions and understood that humanity was looking for answers, the key being "looking".
I have seen the cave drawings from tens of thousands of years prior to religion even existing and seen the awareness that the ancients had of life and death and how even then they treated the dead with love and respect, long before deities existed.
I have read of the tens of thousands of gods that man has invented and seen that not one single religion has any better grace from their god than the next, to the point that the non-believer has exactly the same probability of success and grace as the believer.
I have read many religious texts and found them to be written for and to morons who willingly, set aside reason and logic to qualm their fear, and for no other reason but for that very fear.
I have seen that nothing, absolutely NOTHING that can be pointed to the works of a god that cannot, or has not, been solved by science or simple common sense.
There is nothing in this world, in any way shape or fashion that requires a god, yet the world can be explained without one.
That everything can be explained without a god, is proof that one does not need a god and thus gods do not exist but for the imaginary and for the fear of those less interested in finding the truth for themselves.
It has been proven beyond a doubt, to those who will take the time to learn, that gods were invented by humans. Nothing suggests otherwise. God(s) do not exist.
Yep!!
my original life span was supposed to be 3 years, so i was once considered one of the ones who wouldnt make it
when i was in Africa, in the slums particularly, i met some of the most joyful people, who still believed in God
for that reason, i accept alot of things as just is, i just have a condition, my genes mutated
as for the poor, i blame colonialism and greed
I feel like most agnostic people just don't want to step on any toes or offend anyone. Its really simple, do you believe in something or not? Most Atheist do not just declare that God definitely does not exist, they just say its EXTREMELY unlikely and therefore they don't believe, so most Atheist are not sure that God isn't real, they are just sure that they don't believe in him/her/it. It doesn't make much sense to me for someone to not be sure whether or not they believe if they've spent time pondering the topic.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 12:18:05 PM
my original life span was supposed to be 3 years, so i was once considered one of the ones who wouldnt make it
25, 000 children die every day, you are the exception and you willingly turn a blind eye to the death of others to claim you are special….how..christian of you.
Quotei blame colonialism and greed
even though god himself claims that he alone is responsible for the authorities that govern you, that he alone decides who lives and dies, that he alone is the creator of good and evil….and you blame colonialism and greed….how…christian of you.
Yeah, I am an atheist. Logic tells me that we worship Gods and believe in mystical things because we need to explain things and feel protected. That doesn't mean I am asserting to anyone else that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that is my perspective. I don't feel the need to put a label on it or justify it to anyone. It's what makes sense to me. It's not about proof, it's just my own logical conclusion.
youre an incredibly rude person
how dare you accuse me of turning a blind eye to children who die everyday
how dare you say that i think im special, if i was special i wouldnt have brain tumors and cysts
and i sure as hell wouldnt have a common condition
there are millions like me and billions who have it worse
im done, youre a jerk
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 20, 2015, 12:25:00 PM
it isnt a strawman if i am not attacking it, i will be more specific in the future
what would be a coherent god?
A coherent god would be one that is defined that it's definition does not contradict with itself, and where its definition does not contradict with the facts that we know about the universe.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 02:20:05 PM
youre an incredibly rude person
how dare you accuse me of turning a blind eye to children who die everyday
how dare you say that i think im special, if i was special i wouldnt have brain tumors and cysts
and i sure as hell wouldnt have a common condition
there are millions like me and billions who have it worse
im done, youre a jerk
oh waaaahh! Cry me a river. You are the one babbling about god and all, yapping about how hard you had it but implying that somehow good ole god has granted you life and all the other ones still alive who are happy and all, but……25,000 die every day and you refuse to take issue with the same god you think is giving YOU life despite all the ailments he gave you, you must surely be special. Yap yap yap. You are an apologist to the extreme, blinded by the injustice and cruelty of the very god you worship because the ailments you have hadn't killed you….yet. Meh, typical christian. The babble demands that if you truly believe your prayer will be answered, guaranteed! Whatsa matter? Don't you really believe?
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 04:08:52 PM
oh waaaahh! Cry me a river. You are the one babbling about god and all, yapping about how hard you had it but implying that somehow good ole god has granted you life and all the other ones still alive who are happy and all, but……25,000 die every day and you refuse to take issue with the same god you think is giving YOU life despite all the ailments he gave you, you must surely be special. Yap yap yap. You are an apologist to the extreme, blinded by the injustice and cruelty of the very god you worship because the ailments you have hadn't killed you….yet. Meh, typical christian. The babble demands that if you truly believe your prayer will be answered, guaranteed! Whatsa matter? Don't you really believe?
I personally do not like that there is someone that is somewhat spreading his religious views on this site, but he has not been rude to people. He has not been shoving his views down people's throats. You are acting kinda like a douche.
No offense, but it is people like you that make atheism have a bad name. It is people like you that make it easier for theists to point at atheists and say "see, atheists are a**holes".
Instead of responding like a douche, use your brain. Respond with intellect in a non-douchey way. If that is too much to handle, then don't respond.
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
25, 000 children die every day, you are the exception and you willingly turn a blind eye to the death of others to claim you are special….how..christian of you...
He is special, he lived! That enough would make any sane man happy!
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
even though god himself claims that he alone is responsible for the authorities that govern you, that he alone decides who lives and dies, that he alone is the creator of good and evil….and you blame colonialism and greed….how…christian of you.
My old denomination of the Catholic church didn't believe that, and (Probably, he doesn't either)
We believed works got you into heaven and that God controls nothing but that. He may have had been the creator of evil, but it manifests in us; not born into us.
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 04:08:52 PM
You are an apologist to the extreme
No, Kent Hovind was. This guy would be an amateur if you considered that.
Please refrain from attacking our "Friends" hereWe are all just trying to find out what is best for us. Sometimes we disagree and should draw that line between us and them and leave.
OH sheesh, you guys have a short memory, the guy claims that god does indeed answer and grant prayers but not apparently to him- typical excuse
He claims the babble has errors but is mostly correct- typical excuse
He claims that when jebus was killed that the verse that claims the dead came from their graves and walked through the city could had meant the dead in the underworld --typical excuse.
He has posted topics on verses to get you involved in discussing the babble while he makes up his stories as to what it really means. yeah..
Look, you want to play footsies and tosses, go right ahead. Yapping about how good and grand god and jebus are while making excuses as to why the babble has verses that we obviously misunderstand while he does, and because he is polite we should ignore the implied understanding that we don't understand god and jebus and he does, because….look, he has had a rough live…aww. Fine, I 'll leave the kid alone.
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
25, 000 children die every day, you are the exception and you willingly turn a blind eye to the death of others to claim you are special….how..christian of you.
even though god himself claims that he alone is responsible for the authorities that govern you, that he alone decides who lives and dies, that he alone is the creator of good and evil….and you blame colonialism and greed….how…christian of you.
aitm, im sensing some projection going on here. I dont see where CP said any of those things.
Lets listen to what is being said, not what we assume.
Remember that belief is a spectrum. CP has already said that he is not a Calvinist nor is he particularly devout or literalist when it comes to his religion. He seems pretty damn liberal to me. Lets not attack him over something that he has not said.
Quote from: aitm on February 21, 2015, 06:57:56 PM
OH sheesh, you guys have a short memory, the guy claims that god does indeed answer and grant prayers but not apparently to him- typical excuse
He claims the babble has errors but is mostly correct- typical excuse
He claims that when jebus was killed that the verse that claims the dead came from their graves and walked through the city could had meant the dead in the underworld --typical excuse.
He has posted topics on verses to get you involved in discussing the babble while he makes up his stories as to what it really means. yeah..
Look, you want to play footsies and tosses, go right ahead. Yapping about how good and grand god and jebus are while making excuses as to why the babble has verses that we obviously misunderstand while he does, and because he is polite we should ignore the implied understanding that we don't understand god and jebus and he does, because….look, he has had a rough live…aww. Fine, I 'll leave the kid alone.
is making an example out of him really conducive? Save the fire for those who really deserve it.
He didnt come here claiming absolute truth or to convert... he came here looking to learn and converse.
Quote from: dtq123 on February 21, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
We believed works got you into heaven and that God controls nothing but that. He may have had been the creator of evil, but it manifests in us; not born into us.
The problem with that line of belief is mindboggling to me. What are 'works' and why did not god deliver a clear message about what works are and how to do those works. If god controls nothing but allowing people into heaven, then he is a very, very poor god. Did god not create the universe and all that it contains--or not????? And if god is the creator of evil then is he not responsible for all that flows from that creation??? And does that not make him infinitely more dangerous and evil than the devil?
in christianity evil is seen as the opposite of God, a quality of separation
Moloth, i actually consider myself devout but i do not hold loyalty to the Christian right, my church is more about volunteering and helping the community, which i am very much on board with. I am a doubter, to the point i could be considered agnostic, but i very much believe in the cause of helping the poor, it is the humanitarianism of the Church that i am devoted to
Quote from: MagetheEntertainer on February 21, 2015, 01:20:38 PM
I feel like most agnostic people just don't want to step on any toes or offend anyone. Its really simple, do you believe in something or not? Most Atheist do not just declare that God definitely does not exist, they just say its EXTREMELY unlikely and therefore they don't believe, so most Atheist are not sure that God isn't real, they are just sure that they don't believe in him/her/it. It doesn't make much sense to me for someone to not be sure whether or not they believe if they've spent time pondering the topic.
For me, its more the basis that listening to crazy people claiming god is real, and using the stories from the bible as their footing for claiming his existence, is just further cementing the made up stories. It also gives reflection on how when your a child, your told father christmas and the easter bunny are real, but later learn your parents were making it up to make you happy, which is all religion is, made up stories by cult like organisations to control people on mass.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 08:06:29 PM
in christianity evil is seen as the opposite of God, a quality of separation
CP you are quite frustrating to try to have a conversation with. What does the above mean? I asked if god created evil, then should he not be held responsible for it? If it is the opposite, so what? Who created evil in the first place?
i dont think God created evil, he created beings with a capacity for evil, and some people choose evil
i see it as a consequence of free will
i dont see how a loving God would make us all automatons
so this is the limit of my understanding
god made us and we choose to do evil rather than good
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
i dont think God created evil, he created beings with a capacity for evil, and some people choose evil
i see it as a consequence of free will
i dont see how a loving God would make us all automatons
so this is the limit of my understanding
god made us and we choose to do evil rather than good
An awfully long list of screwed up stuff OR automatons! I'm sensing a bit of an excluded middle fallacy there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
i dont think God created evil, he created beings with a capacity for evil, and some people choose evil
i see it as a consequence of free will
i dont see how a loving God would make us all automatons
so this is the limit of my understanding
god made us and we choose to do evil rather than good
How does that absolve a god of any responsibility of the evil done by his creations?
If I have a teenage child that I know is unruly, and I don't take steps to control his behavior, that makes me at least party responsible for any crimes he might commit. This is
precisely analogous. If a putative god is capable of correcting the evil done by his creations but doesn't, he is immediately complicit in them. If he is not capable of correcting them, how much of a god is he?
What you propose is that this god is not responsible for the
actions of his creations. I might be willing to accept that, on the stipulation that he is responsible for the
consequences if he could correct the evil done, but doesn't.
If we have the power to choose, so does he. Ultimately, a god that permits evil when he could prevent it, is no different from us -- and in that case, whither godhood?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
i dont think God created evil, he created beings with a capacity for evil, and some people choose evil
i see it as a consequence of free will
i dont see how a loving God would make us all automatons
so this is the limit of my understanding
god made us and we choose to do evil rather than good
Can you answer me this then, as over on the Russell brand thread, if God made us, is all knowing and all loving, why then are children born with bone cancer, or born as harlequin babies, how the fuck is that level of suffering in an innocent new born child, if God is real, anything less the pure evil? Such things are not the result of 'our consequences'.
Before I get to involved in why God does this or that, I'd like someone to explain how he knows God exists. Only then does it even make sense to argue about his nature or how wonderful he is.
Quote from: SGOS on February 22, 2015, 06:32:33 AM
Before I get to involved in why God does this or that, I'd like someone to explain how he knows God exists. Only then does it even make sense to argue about his nature or how wonderful he is.
I've often thought how in the mind of a christian, when you pop this question, how they explain the creation of the universe as being by god, and ask when then where did god come from, it must be like a blood vessel popping in their brain, since they can't rationalize the universe without god being part of it before.
Quote from: Munch on February 22, 2015, 07:00:02 AM
I've often thought how in the mind of a christian, when you pop this question, how they explain the creation of the universe as being by god, and ask when then where did god come from, it must be like a blood vessel popping in their brain, since they can't rationalize the universe without god being part of it before.
One of Brand's plagiarized comments [from that other thread] was, "Scientists say, 'Just give us one miracle (the big bang), and we'll explain all the rest." This is one whopping bag of horse shit. Since when have scientists asked for a miracle? When has any reputable scientists stated that the big bang was a miracle? It's always clear that science doesn't claim knowledge of what caused the big bang. But for theists, if you don't understand something, it's either a miracle or caused by God. They are still explaining things in the 21st Century the way cavemen explained thunder.
Edit: I thought I was still responding in the Wisdom of Russell thread. I was still thinking about how inane his arguments were and Munch got me going, so I gravitated back to the other thread.
Quote from: Moloth on February 21, 2015, 07:02:35 PM
I dont see where CP said any of those things.
You haven't back in awhile Mo….I think you would agree that previous statements from other posts can be used as background for the general positions of people. I believe you have the ability to view his older posts.
Quote from: Moloth on February 21, 2015, 07:04:04 PM
He didnt come here claiming absolute truth
again, he has a whole half year of history here. Since when has spouting nonsense while being "polite" a pass for bullshit? And in re-reading my response, I don't see the insult that you guys do. Implied perhaps, as he has.
excuse me, but am i not allowed to change my opinion on issues especially over the course of a year? expecting me to not change my mind after exposure to new imformation is ridiculous
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 21, 2015, 10:38:27 PM
i dont think God created evil, he created beings with a capacity for evil, and some people choose evil
god made us and we choose to do evil rather than good
Come now, CP. I really don't think you are stupid. Think about that statement. A couple of examples. I bake a beautiful cake, frost it and all, and put it on a small table in my 3 yr. old's room. I tell he not to touch it and leave the room. She has the capacity to obey my words, but we all know the outcome. When she dives into that cake, who is responsible? Her, since she had free will? Or am I? Of course I am the most to blame. So, god created me all good. Yet he created that which will tempt me to go to the dark side. That evil is like the cake--is it not a temptation? So, why would god tempt us? Is he playing with us? Must be. And if I fail then I get to be punished forever.
So, god did not invent rape and murder. But he created the capacity for rape and murder. How is that any different? If god creates a capacity for something, then he is creating that something. There is no difference. In the eyes of puny human law, if I have a ladder leaning against my 6 ft. fence that allows a 6 yr. old to climb it and and then enter my pool and drown, that was a temptation too great for that child to not use it. That death is on me. If I leave the keys in the ignition of my car and someone steals it, I am held mostly responsible. How can a loving all-knowing god not be held responsible for the temptations he creates? Is god to stupid to see the connection between temptation and action? And he created the entire universe and all it contains, including evil and the devil--how can he not then be held responsible for all that actions that flow from his actions?
there is probably a better explanation but i dont want to risk misrepresenting, assuming, and i dont have time to research currently, between school and work, i have time to chat a wee bit but not enough to compile good information and elaborate responses
i also think your premise is faulty
what kind of a person is tempted to harm others? other than a bad person
yes thats a bold statement, but i do think people who do harm to others are not good people
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 12:33:11 PM
i also think your premise is faulty
what kind of a person is tempted to harm others? other than a bad person
yes thats a bold statement, but i do think people who do harm to others are not good people
'Harm others'--that covers a whole lot of ground. Do you mean physical harm or emotional harm? Or both? What about unintentional harm? The hurt is just as real whether or not the harm is intentional or not. What if you harm another who is trying to harm you? Or your dog? Or child? Or stranger?
I think you are saying that god produces us as a tabla rosa--blank slate. But that is simply not true. Each of us pops out of mom as unique individual that is shaped by our environment and our genes. We come partly preprogrammed. So, the fact is that we do not have total control over who and what we are--we may have some sway over much of that, but we do not have 'free will' or total control over who and what we become. The deeper one looks at 'god' the sloppier he becomes and the less 'good' and the more demented he becomes. The same can be said for any god.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 12:33:11 PM
i also think your premise is faulty
what kind of a person is tempted to harm others? other than a bad person
Really? I mean fucking really? Oh c'mon people, are you giving this guy a pass because he is "polite"? Really?
QuoteWhat kind of person is tempted to harm others? other than a bad person
Have you ever bothered to read the babble of which you pretend to champion? Have you ever studied the god and the jesus that you blabber on about?
Here, let an atheist help you understand your wonderful god, read Genesis 22:1
And don't come back here saying that this is not "harming others".
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 12:33:11 PM
what kind of a person is tempted to harm others? other than a bad person
yes thats a bold statement, but i do think people who do harm to others are not good people
The surgeon that cut me open did me a great deal of harm. It took me weeks to recover from the operation.
A surgeon is tempted to harm others on a daily basis for their own good. It doesn't make them bad people.
I don't think what the surgery constitutes "harm", it was "help" because it was needed
I stand by my statement that if a person is harmful, as in causing harm, they cannot be good
harm
härm/Submit
noun
noun: harm
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
considering that emotional turmoil has physical symptoms, emotional harm is the same as physical harm
I do think that a person has control over their actions
in all honesty, this has gotten petty (of little importance; trivial.) i don't care to convince anyone I'm right, and some of the counter points are ridiculous (a surgeon, really?)
how did testing abraham do anything? only a goat died (it would have died anyways)
and I recognize in King James Land it says tempted, other translations say tested
I am honestly offended that y'all would say stuff like "if you have such and such sickness, why is God good?"
To be frank, involving my personal medical condition to "prove" me wrong, makes you a jerk, lack of better word
I mean really, who does that, this is why I think conversation is petty
its all hypothetical
Ive been replying to be polite (getting annoyed and leaving, will prompt more needless remarks) but honestly Im done with this thread
CP if you bother to really read the bible , you will find a character(god) that make Hitler a very nice guy by comparison. Yahveh is a monster.
yeah
judges
joshua
genesis
are the three worst
I know that
but i don't see how complaining about wars that probably didn't happen disproves god, it disproves a literalist view of some jewish stories for sure, but how does it disprove god (theism, not Yehweh, which is the god of war in some cultures)
I mentioned in a previous post that currently, I only believe in a god and humanitarianism, the rest i don't know
so that is why I am getting annoyed about this banter about the bible, when its already been addressed
I know this stuff, y'all know this stuff, so why the heck are people talking about my health, its rude and pointless
CP you are a nice guy but arguing with you about christianity is a waste of time. You decided to be a believer. And believers only care about their beliefs and not about the truth. Maybe you are visiting this site because of curiosity. I don't expect you to give up your beliefs anytime soon.
I am visiting this site out of curiosity, thats why this post was a question, and my first post declared my intention to just watch, ask questions, maybe a write something to my fellow believers about sensitivity
I never wanted to argue
I don't mind that you are visiting the site and asking questions. You are a nice guy . You aren't a theist troll. And that's refreshing. But I still think that talking with you about the truth of christian dogmas is a waste of time. You are already made up your mind.
I just don't like argumentum ad scriptura
if anyones argument (theist or atheist) is based on a holy book, to me that argument is moot
on church dogma, I am against a religious government, and any strict set of rules all together
I stay in Church not because I buy into what they say, but because it is a community that I will be accepted in.
In addition to that, I see most debates about dogma has obnoxious, they go on forever
for every complaint an atheist can make, there is a carm.org page ready to argue with them
it is way to much time to research and decide on each issue, considering the argument goes on and on
So I simply just stick with progressive christians (they don't appear to harass people) for companionship and I believe in God for personal reasons.
If I could change my username I would, I am far more neutral on issues than I was a year ago
Just reading over, and if this has been responded to I am sorry (just skimming)...
Quotewhat kind of a person is tempted to harm others? other than a bad person
Is an officer who intentionally shoots an armed suspect a "bad person", since he is by definition causing harm?
What about a Colombian or Guatemalan "gangster" who was forced into the crime scene to protect their family from harassment and/or death and commits violent acts for the gang?
Is the kid who was raised from the time he was young that black people are "worthless" and "sub-human" and treats minorities like it necessarily a "bad person"?
There are very few "bad people", and more accurately the truly "bad" people are the one's with mental illnesses that lost the genetic lottery and were born with negative traits that cause them to harm society.
Good point about self defense, and I personally don't know what to think about that, I have decided for myself that I am a pacifist and I don't want to harm anyone, if someone wants my money, they can have it, the only thing worth defending is the lives of my family, but I don't own any weapons, so if attacked, Im pretty much screwed
I don't think there are only a small few bad people or else there wouldn't be so much injustice in the world
I would say there are just an overwhelmingly number of complacent people who allow bad people to do bad things, it is messed up that Gangsters are the law in slums (like in Nairobi) and that they poison the people with bad moonshine.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 02:28:15 PMI don't think what the surgery constitutes "harm", it was "help" because it was needed
It actually is harm. Generally a superficial and easily healed harm, but yeah, being cut open is inherently harmful. Though of course, surgery is minor harm offset by long-term health improvement. At least, that's the plan. Some don't go so well.
Quotebut i don't see how complaining about wars that probably didn't happen disproves god, it disproves a literalist view of some jewish stories for sure, but how does it disprove god (theism, not Yehweh, which is the god of war in some cultures)
So those wars "figuratively" happened? :think:
Quotefor every complaint an atheist can make, there is a carm.org page ready to argue with them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
I didn't say it was a good argument, I'm just stating there is a plethora of people who have "answers" to any sort of question
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 02:53:37 PM
So I simply just stick with progressive christians
A christian by definition is one who believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, if you are proclaiming that you believe there was a character named jesus who is not in any part the definition and/of the stories of the New Testament and who in no way claims to be the son of the god of the OT and in no way represents any part of the bible , then you are not a christian of any denomination. Period. You are a whole new religion that has never been discovered before. So please tell us how you came to understand of this jesus fellow that you never heard of except for the babble?
I think we all would be enthralled with this.
I heard of Jesus from Aaron Brockett in Indianapolis via Gospel
In addition to Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, James Ossuary
I agree with the philosophy of Jesus; helping people, self control, et cetera
Brockett gave a sermon about people who believe in God but haven't done much about it, asked if anyone wanted to Baptized
I did, and I was
I do believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day
Are you happy?
You gonna ridicule me now?
CP, I hope one day you discover a more awakened development, you seem like someone who might one day question your own beliefs instead of the beliefs of others, and realise the faults in your own following of such a cult as christianity
The case that you say your only in it because it feels like your community, isn't an excuse however to be part of such a thing, because all that means is your wrapped around the want and beliefs of others instead of your own. People from middle eastern countries leave there own country because of the violence in those lands, their 'community' or religious zealots and barbaric animosity would more then likely kill them for stepping even slightly out of line, and that is living in fear, because of the beliefs and rules of others.
QuoteI do believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day
I'm sorry I can't let that one go.. You actually believe someone died, and rose from the dead after three days being dead.
Please, explain to me the science behind that, tell me how that could possibly be a reality for you?
The Church I am a part of provides free ESL classes (our town is 1/3 immigrants from Asia, South America), and helps fund humanitarian aide projects in South Dallas, I am willing to be a part of that
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 03:25:59 PM
I heard of Jesus from Aaron Brockett in Indianapolis via Gospel
In addition to Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, James Ossuary
I agree with the philosophy of Jesus; helping people, self control, et cetera
Brockett gave a sermon about people who believe in God but haven't done much about it, asked if anyone wanted to Baptized
I did, and I was
I do believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day
Are you happy?
You gonna ridicule me now?
Yes, yes I am, you have yapped about jebus but then back track on the whole jesus is jesus thing and now you admit to some of some of some of something somebody said made you feel good about a guy named in a story about him being special and ………really? You think I need to ridicule you? You do enough of that yourself. You are not a christian of any sort, so stop that. You are like a fag…no…more like an albino..yeah an albino…thats it.. you yap about a jesus that only exists via the NT but proclaim that THAT jesus is NOT the jesus you speak of… YOU speak of a jesus that is spoken about in the babble but didn't actually do any of the shit in the babble except all the flowery stuff that you agree with….hmmmmm, gee, I wonder why we get so confused about you so-called "christians"…….yeah.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 03:36:26 PM
The Church I am a part of provides free ESL classes (our town is 1/3 immigrants from Asia, South America), and helps fund humanitarian aide projects in South Dallas, I am willing to be a part of that
well, good god then, lets all give you a fucking rose and a glass of water! Holy Crap a human being that helps others and wants to be honored for that……my gosh……
I await the onslaught from my brothers here for being so mean to such a wonderful human that brags about his willingness to help others…...
I don't want to be honored, I mentioned in regards to dogma. I am not so much associated with the dogma, I care more about helping others. I really don't see how attacking my personal beliefs furthers anything, the question of the thread was answered, and I think the conversation is over.
I really think answering questions about myself is worthless considering I want to ask questions, and I am not interested in proving anything. if anything can be proven
No it is not answered. Answer Munch. I want to know how you claim to be a christian but ignore all the "naughty bits"…please stand up and answer Munch.
The Law is simplified by the maxim "love your neighbor as yourself" I follow that maxim and thus follow the laws of the bible
Galatians 5:14
So by living by that phrase, I am obeying the Bible
(edit)
There is no proof that it happened, proof being defined as 100% certifiable
Past criticisms of the Bible have been refuted such as "Pilate and David do not exist"
So I do think that more evidence will be available in the future
But I don't understand how anyone can claim to know with certainty whether or not Jesus existed
I am an agnostic christian, because I am not totally sure, but I do believe it
This topic has been debated so much, and I doubt I will bring more to the table, so I implore you to lay this to rest
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 04:36:56 PM
The Law is simplified by the maxim "love your neighbor as yourself" I follow that maxim and thus follow the laws of the bible
Galatians 5:14
So by living by that phrase, I am obeying the Bible
You did not answer Munch..please do so at your earliest convenience, and please take you time despite three requests…we don't want you to feel unloved.
I amended my last post
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 04:36:56 PM
The Law is simplified by the maxim "love your neighbor as yourself" I follow that maxim and thus follow the laws of the bible
Galatians 5:14
So by living by that phrase, I am obeying the Bible
Whoa!! Now you are quoting the babble that you have previously stated was pretty much a bunch of whacko shit that you have dismissed in favor of some guy in Biloxi who said something about jesus being a sctientlologist or some shit like that? Really? Now you're going to say the babble is for sure the shizzle?
You are in violation of rule 10, by definition you are trolling
You post brings nothing to the table
It is only meant to evoke an emotional response
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 04:36:56 PM
The Law is simplified by the maxim "love your neighbor as yourself" I follow that maxim and thus follow the laws of the bible
Galatians 5:14
So by living by that phrase, I am obeying the Bible
(edit)
There is no proof that it happened, proof being defined as 100% certifiable
Past criticisms of the Bible have been refuted such as "Pilate and David do not exist"
So I do think that more evidence will be available in the future
But I don't understand how anyone can claim to know with certainty whether or not Jesus existed
I am an agnostic christian, because I am not totally sure, but I do believe it
This topic has been debated so much, and I doubt I will bring more to the table, so I implore you to lay this to rest
If that idea--the golden rule (which I like myself)--is a good guide for you actions, then christianity does not own it. The GR was around long before any thought of the Jewish religion, much less christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule---checkout that site with literally hundreds variations of the GR.
I am aware of that, Confucius coined it, (so i think?)
I was only answering a question
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 04:47:03 PM
You are in violation of rule 10, by definition you are trolling
You post brings nothing to the table
It is only meant to evoke an emotional response
I have stated the obvious, as all of my posts have been. There are 3 billion christians in the world all yapping the the stuff you are except many of them kill other people for not accepting the same mythology they do, many have a live and let live attitude and then are are some like you, that walk around pretending to be a christian while saying you do not follow the babble but in reality you do, but you don't here or there, but you do here or over there and some think this is all cute and cuddly because others in history were very polite while they ignored the death of thousands because the people in charge were proper christians……
I think everyone in the forum is aware who the troll is. You cannot be a christian and call the babble bullshit and hold jebus up as an example of humanity and then dismiss the definition of him in the babble as …meh…..yeah. I think everyone with a brain knows who the troll is.
Even those without too much brain power knows who a roll is, they are the idiots that come here! :wall: Solitary
This thread is so derailed it's not even funny.
Everyone relax and quit it. Get back on track with a civil/on topic discussion about agnosticism and gnosticism or this thread will be closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VorC_GHQnSc
Different people have different thresholds of 'evidence' that leads them to non-belief (or active disbelief) or agnosticism. The less evidence you require, the more gullible you are...
for me, i divide this way:
I am a-theist towards god. why? because the very concept runs counter to all that we know about the cosmos. It's existence defies the laws of physics and logic.
I am a-gnostic towards extraterrestrial life. why? because, while i do not have evidence FOR its existence, its existence could easily exist in the cosmos as we understand it. It breaks no laws of physics and, in fact, seems very likely give the chemical composition of the universe.
The dividing line for me is whether or not something is actually possible given our current knowledge/framework of reality. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.
how do you know that? what god?
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 22, 2015, 07:22:58 PM
This thread is so derailed it's not even funny.
Everyone relax and quit it. Get back on track with a civil/on topic discussion about agnosticism and gnosticism or this thread will be closed.
I completely support this plan.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 23, 2015, 12:38:11 PM
how do you know that? what god?
Any entity that could be described as a 'deity'.
if you have a specific one, describe it.
Not asserting any deity in particular, just questioning
The Christian god does defy reason. I have no question about that. Similar to what I think CP is doing, at one time, I tried to invent my own god, one that was not so well defined as the one in the Bible, one that did not exceed my limits of reason. And since I was raised as a Christian, I called this "the real" Christian god. But there are problems with inventing your own god and diverging from the definition in the Bible (which is supposed to be God's autobiography). As recently pointed out, individuals have different thresholds for accepting the far fetched. But you can't just go out and invent a god to suit your own needs. That's what Alcoholics Anonymous does, and the philosophy of AA is about as logically incomprehensible as anything.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 23, 2015, 02:07:40 PM
Not asserting any deity in particular, just questioning
Was my answer satisfactory?
I want to make sure we're on the same page...
Quote from: the_antithesis on February 23, 2015, 04:06:29 PM
What's a god?
Something like the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny--you know, things to fool the kids.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 23, 2015, 08:59:20 PM
Something like the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny--you know, things to fool the kids.
Hey you should stop the blasphemies with the Tooth fairy. Santa claus and the easter bunny are Bullshit but the toothfairy is the real thing.
Quote from: leo on February 23, 2015, 10:37:35 PM
Hey you should stop the blasphemies with the Tooth fairy. Santa claus and the easter bunny are Bullshit but the toothfairy is the real thing.
Damn--you're right! I learned that last night!
Well of course the tooth fairys real.. he's the rock!
(http://www.gofugyourself.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/the-rock-the-tooth-fairy.jpg)
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 22, 2015, 02:35:28 PM
but i don't see how complaining about wars that probably didn't happen disproves god, it disproves a literalist view of some jewish stories for sure, but how does it disprove god (theism, not Yehweh, which is the god of war in some cultures)
Leaving these ancient writings out of it, then, what concrete incontrovertible evidence is there that any god
does exist? By stating that there is a god, you're positing that there exists something beyond that which is immediately evident to our senses or our experiments.
This is by definition an 'extraordinary claim' -- that there is something beyond observable, measurable physical reality.
So, absent these ancient writings, the literality of which you yourself have already disclaimed, what
evidence is there to
prove there is a god? As atheists, we're not the ones advancing the extraordinary claim. We're the ones saying the world that we see is that there is. As such, the burden of proof is not on us.
I know that I have the burden of proof, I recognize that stating there is something greater is an extradinary claim, and i admit i lack sufficient intellectual justification.
What would be enough proof for you? the answer to that question is different for various people
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 10:53:00 AM
What would be enough proof for you? the answer to that question is different for various people
For starters, it would have to be somewhere higher than zero.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 10:53:00 AM
I know that I have the burden of proof, I recognize that stating there is something greater is an extradinary claim, and i admit i lack sufficient intellectual justification.
What would be enough proof for you? the answer to that question is different for various people
CP you will never have enough reasonable, rational, intellectual justification for god--for it simply does not exist. You will always believe in god because of faith--you don't need a 'reasoned' reason to believe--you simply believe because it makes you feel better than not believing.
For me proof is in nature. Nature operates on a set of principles, some of which we now understand. Darwin articulated some foundational ones--survival of the fittest, for example. That is an elegant yet totally neutral concept. It is simple (and if only it was taught like that in school)--those species who fit into their environments best survive. Those who don't eventually die out. That is not cruel or excessive, or just, or anything else--it just is. The human species can put emotions to it and turn it into something that it is not. I suppose one could cling to the idea of 'first cause'--but even then god created and left--gone to other places. If god exists he has to leave 'footprints' somewhere--there must be some observable evidence of his existence somewhere. And if god is universal he must leave some universal evidence. None exists. Your god cannot even leave a coherent written message anywhere or anywhen. There is not a shred of rational, reasonable, logical, evidence of god anywhere--only emotional evidence which results in faith--unreasonded belief void of proof.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 28, 2015, 11:46:46 AM
You will always believe in god because of faith--
And faith is an act of pride.
how is believing in something an act of pride?
It can easily be accounted that the seven deadly sins, if all Christians claim to shun anyone who commits to them, you would find how just about all christians commit there own sins on a day by day level, and if god and heaven were real, you'd all be fucked regardless.
Greed: Have you see the vatican, the gold leafed floors and structures? Not forgetting all the tax avoidance the church commits to on a daily level for its personal money laundering
Lust: God must have reworked the laws for all the boy fiddlers in the catholic church, and reality check, in order to fuck and have babies, you need to be turned on to get an erection, so any family man with kids who claims to do the lawd work has sinned, probably many times.
Sloth: So no Christians have ever laid around doing nothing, they are active all the time, never stopping for a moment to relax, eat something and chill out? I'd be glad to see that.
Envy: Lets be honest, saying envy doesn't exist if your a christian as as much chance of you claiming angels wipe your ass with clouds from heaven. Being humble all the time means you have nothing to strive towards and become better at.
Pride: "I'm proud to be a christian" Yeah there you go.
Wrath: never been angry at someone, given the fact Christians want to confront all others who don't believe in god and wish hell to open up and claim them, thats pretty wrathful in of itself, funny how hell exists in your faith making that very claim of no following wrath a convenient tick to your own 'sins'.
Gluttony: So no Christians have ever eaten to much in their life, more then what they need, and shared it with the poor and starving? Then why are their still starving people in the world?
Christians made up their own rules about how they get into their imaginary cloud palace in the sky, and claim anyone else not following them will burn in hell for it. The irony of their own fallacies just makes watching christian preachers and those following them make me realize how much further as a species we have yet to evolve.
um i have never met a Christian who claimed not to sin
the 7 deadly sins are a Catholic thing
protestants believe all sin is deadly
the point of Christianity is that everyone can be forgiven of their transgressions no matter how great
i try and be the best person i can be but i fall short of that
people often say that the wage of sin is death, which is why if forced to take a stance on the afterlife, i say that people who never asked to be forgiven cease to exist while people who tried to turn from their ways continue to exist, this idea is called annhilationism
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 12:29:32 PM
protestants believe all sin is deadly
What is a deadly sin? I have a protestant upbringing and I actually do not have any memory of being taught about sin.
sin has been described to me as anything that strays from ideal such as not taking care of my brother would be sinful because i would be failing to fulfill my obligations. also like abusing animals would be considered a sin for the same reason, not fulfiling an obligation
i personally struggle to use my time effectivley and to take good care of myself, sin or not, i consider being out of shape a short coming
I don't mean sin, I mean "deadly" sin. What makes a sin deadly?
deadly as in has deadly consequences, if i am so lazy that family starves, that is why laziness is deadly, the consequences
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 01:11:19 PM
also like abusing animals would be considered a sin for the same reason,
oh really? can you show a babble verse where abuse of any animal is a "deadly" sin? That would be a new one on me…
Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds,
Proverbs 27:23
here are some more
http://www.openbible.info/topics/animal_cruelty
a few are relevant a few are not
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 01:22:51 PM
deadly as in has deadly consequences, if i am so lazy that family starves, that is why laziness is deadly, the consequences
I think my confusion is with your statement that protestants believe all sins are deadly sins.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 10:53:00 AM
I know that I have the burden of proof, I recognize that stating there is something greater is an extradinary claim, and i admit i lack sufficient intellectual justification.
What would be enough proof for you? the answer to that question is different for various people
Doubting Thomas provides an excellent example.
(http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/the-incredulity-of-saint-thomas-caravaggio.jpg)
NIV John 20:24-27
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!†But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.â€
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!â€
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.â€
Direct personal experience in a public setting would certainly be highly convincing. And it'd be a trifling matter for a deity. One would think that a deity who wants to be known would jump at the chance.
It'd certainly beat the current state of affairs:
(http://i.imgur.com/ovEtqVU.jpg)
eh protestants are really divided on issues but its always been told to me that all sin is deadly
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 01:49:25 PM
eh protestants are really divided on issues but its always been told to me that all sin is deadly
I am really not trying to be a pedant here. I just do not understand this. Have you just accepted that without understanding it?
i do understand it, i am just assuming it is specific to my branch which would explain why not everyone has
all sin is deadly because they all constitute some sort of short fall and have consequences
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 28, 2015, 10:53:00 AM
I know that I have the burden of proof, I recognize that stating there is something greater is an extradinary claim, and i admit i lack sufficient intellectual justification.
What would be enough proof for you? the answer to that question is different for various people
That's a fair question, and the answer is, I don't know. I haven't determined a way to differentiate between a deity, and a sufficiently advanced (but otherwise natural) alien. Think of it as a a variant on Clarke's Law: not only is any sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic, but any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a deity -- and when you come down to it, there is no difference between 'magic' and 'divine power', unless you want to quibble about source and scale.
Even on our own planet, we see examples of that actually happening: I recommend looking up cargo cults. My own favorite is the one that's decided Prince Philip of the United Kingdom is a god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement). Now imagine something as much more advanced than Western civilization as Western civilization is over those islanders appearing to us. Is it likely that many people will mistake advanced technology for magic/divine power? I think it's not only likely, it's inevitable.
In the main, I would generally plump for alienhood over godhood, on the basis that an alien is still the product of the natural processes of the universe and not outside them.
fair point, and thanks for being straightforward
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on February 19, 2015, 08:01:48 PM
It appears to me that more people are atheist, than there are agnostics. Which doesn't make sense to me, isn't atheism an assumption about something that cannot be known with certainty?
Nope.
Atheism makes no assumptions or claims.
It is simply the lack of belief in gods. Period.
Don't feel bad... There's a lot of folks who share your misconception about the definition of atheism.
"Atheist" was a term invented by the Greeks to describe someone who didn't believe in Theos (Zeus). Everyone in modern times is an atheist.
CP why you are protestant anyway ? Any specific reason ?
distrust of major institutions such as the catholic church
for the record, i dont trust joel olsteen either