Atheism

[evo]

What predictions do your 'simple' theological arguments make? If they are to be explanatory than they should also make testable predictions.

.

They predict the banana silly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A&feature=related

 

[Six Pack]

If it helps, my atheism means that i dont believe in god or gods, I don't believe that there is life after death. I believe we are born, we live and then we die. and thats it.

It's not complicated, that's it.

Why some of u try and overintellectualise this amazes me. It's pretty simple really.

 

[jayfox]

jayfox, I took the time to respond to your questions... it seems you have lost interest?

No I haven't lost interest, I have been busy and can't respond to everything I would like to immediately. One thing I cannot be accused of on this topic is losing interest. I have answered questions for hundreds of pages now. I just can't respond to everything in the time that everyone would like.

Many, many people. Let alone the many, many others who translated it from one language to another. God inspired? I have no doubt that most of the people who participated in the writing of the Bible certainly believed themselves to be inspired by God. This is a matter of historical record.

Fair enough. Thanks.

Unlike the Koran, the Bible does not claim to be the actual word of God - only the writings of people who were in various ways "inspired by God". I have no doubt that most of these authors were sincere in contributing to their religious traditions.

The Bible is referred to by Christians as "the Word of God" and "His Word" so I don't think it is really considered any differently by it's followers than the Koran. Everyone knows that Mohammed was the author of the Koran even if he didn't write it down himself.

Many events occurred and have historical truth. Not all though - I used be told that there were Roman records from the time of Pontius Pilot that supported the actual existence of Jesus. In fact this is not the case though and there is no supporting evidence - outside the Bible and other third hand accounts - that he ever existed.

I don't think think that there is any doubt that He existed. I think that you would have to be a fairly cynical person not to at least acknowledge Jesus' existence. The passion that He brought out in His early followers alone would be pretty fair evidence that He existed. It is hard to get that passionate about a fairytale. Remember, these people were put to death for their pronounced belief in Him.

See above. Some of the Bible is based on historical fact, other bits are not. Much of it obviously parable and metaphor, written with very good intentions no doubt. Hmmm, the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" suddenly springs to mind.

It is true that Jesus regularly spoke in parables so that people could understand His point easier.

I don't really understand this question.

All I am saying is that if you want to look for good morals then look at the teaching of Jesus. Why would deceitful people, if in fact they were that, articulate such morals so well?

You mean Genesis 6:14-16
Fantastic design specifications there - I am sure even I could build a sea-going vessel with that comprehensive blueprint. What I found more troubling is how Noah managed to fit one pair of every species on earth into a boat made of wood, and keep them from eating each other. The rubbish that floats around "supporting" assertions in the Bible is mind blowing, even for a confirmed sceptic like myself.

The simple answer is that the story of Noah and the Ark is a fable - a metaphor. You can even be a Christian and accept this and not have your faith challenged.

I disagree completely. The story of Noah is fact and I am not sure how a Christian could think otherwise? It is written as fact, completely differently to when Jesus is telling stories to get across His point, for example. If it was a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for, i.e. what is it's point?

On the "how did he fit them and why didn't they eat each other?" question, there are many possibilities -

1- The animals could all have been newborn or infant creatures.
2- The animals could have gone into a hibernation type stage. This was a global catastrophe like none ever seen before so who knows how the animals might react, especially with Supernatural involvement.
3- God may have acted Supernaturally in some way. He did in so many other places in the Bible so why not here?

It was more than several - the New Testament alone has all the books (27 of them) written by the Apostles which were written over a period of more than one hundred years and eventually collected together. Surely you know this? Let alone the old Testament based on the Jewish Tanakh, and the Deuteronomies (excluded from some Bibles depending on your flavour of Christianity).

How many does several mean? I'd have thought 27 is several? And yes, I knew this.

The Bible you know and love today bears little resemblance to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The Bible is not a unified and integrated whole - it is a fragmented, jumbled, politicised, retranslated, patchwork of Christian and Jewish writings thrown together. As you'd expect from a document which had its origins around 2000 years ago. Surely you know this?

Yes, I know this but I don't think it is as mixed up as you say accuse it of being. If you believe in an Omnipotent, Supernatural God it is no stretch to believe that the word that we read today is the one that He wants us to read. I don't think that it is any coincidence that most mainstream Bibles today read extremely similarly. I believe that was God's intention. The message of the gospels will endure forever.

It's a religious tract. This makes it neither a hoax, conspiracy or anything else. It is a great work of literature, no question. Your choice to believe it is one of personal faith. This makes it "true" for you. I believe that many different people throughout history contributed to it as part of the great Judeo-Christian tradition and this is a matter of historical record.

Surely if it is a fake and what it is claiming is false then it is a hoax in your eyes? The rest I agree with.

Thanks for your response. I did actually think it was a considered one and appreciate that. Sorry for not getting back to you in the timeframe that you expected.

 

[jayfox]

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. End of story.

Perhaps but then if an person with such a belief wants to explain a material thing then they must do it in terms of itself. Correct?

 

[jayfox]

Do you ever entertain the possibility that what you think is a connection to God is a delusion and that what you feel as 'blessed assurance' is your brain's way of dealing with its fear of the unknown?

No. Too many things in my life have proven to me that God exists for it to be a delusion. I know that you can;t understand this and I am sorry for that.

 

[Disco08]

These things couldn't be coincidence Jay?

Perhaps but then if an person with such a belief wants to explain a material thing then they must do it in terms of itself. Correct?

Why can't a person just accept that something is without having to attempt to explain its origins?

 

[Six Pack]

These things couldn't be coincidence Jay?

Why can't a person just accept that something is without having to attempt to explain its origins?

agree!

 

[jayfox]

These things couldn't be coincidence Jay?

Absolutely not. The chance of these things all being coincidence would be the same probability as everything in this world evolving from bacteria..........hang on a second! ;D

Why can't a person just accept that something is without having to attempt to explain its origins?

They can. I was just saying that if they ever wanted to explain something that is how they would have to do it. You know I could use the same argument in relation to Christianity and the tricky questions. But that would see me be accused of being narrow-minded and ignorant.

 

[Six Pack]

but there's nothing to explain. ???

 

[evo]

but there's nothing to explain. ???

A monk asked "What is the living meaning of Zen Buddhism?"

Master Zhao Zhao replied "The cypress tree in the yard"

 

[Six Pack]

A monk asked "What is the living meaning of Zen Buddhism?"

Master Zhao Zhao replied "The cypress tree in the yard"

exactly :clap

 

[jayfox]

but there's nothing to explain. ???

There is nothing material?

 

[Disco08]

Absolutely not. The chance of these things all being coincidence would be the same probability as everything in this world evolving from bacteria..........hang on a second! ;DThey can. I was just saying that if they ever wanted to explain something that is how they would have to do it. You know I could use the same argument in relation to Christianity and the tricky questions. But that would see me be accused of being narrow-minded and ignorant.

The difference being that there's verifiable evidence for material things, but none for God.

Absolutely not. The chance of these things all being coincidence would be the same probability as everything in this world evolving from bacteria..........hang on a second!

So God helps you but chooses to ignore millions of others, coincidentally mostly people far less fortunate than yourself?

 

[Six Pack]

There is nothing material?

probably not, but there is no need to explain

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Absolutely not. The chance of these things all being coincidence would be the same probability as everything in this world evolving from bacteria..........hang on a second! ;DThey can. I was just saying that if they ever wanted to explain something that is how they would have to do it. You know I could use the same argument in relation to Christianity and the tricky questions. But that would see me be accused of being narrow-minded and ignorant.

Who evolved from bacteria? LUCA was my ancestor!

It is funny how we cling to things that match our expectations and disregard those that don't. We all do it in all aspects of life - pattern seeking primates, that's all we are .

When good things happen it is proof of your God and when bad things happen you are being tested, or it is God's will. In the same circumstances I see those same events as the roller coaster of life.

 

[Six Pack]

and how many times have i had to say that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the disbeliever.

born, live and die, then nothing

 

[Djevv]

A monk asked "What is the living meaning of Zen Buddhism?"

Master Zhao Zhao replied "The cypress tree in the yard"

Yes, yes, I see now Grasshopper.

 

[jayfox]

The difference being that there's verifiable evidence for material things, but none for God.

There is the life experience of Billions of people plus the writings of people who actually met Him. But I understand that you can;t come to terms with that and that is fine. It is your choice and your life to lead.

So God helps you but chooses to ignore millions of others, coincidentally mostly people far less fortunate than yourself?

God helps everyone who calls on him. That doesn't mean He stops them from going through hard times, torture or even death, it just means that He gives them the means to cope with those situations. Remember Jesus called on God whilst on the cross but God didn't stop Him going through the pain, torture or death. He just helped Him cope. Thank Goodness.

 

[jayfox]

and how many times have i had to say that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the disbeliever.

born, live and die, then nothing

Nope. The proof lies within the believer. If the non-believer decides he needs material proof to believe then there is no burden at all for the believer, except to know the destiny of the non-believer, i.e. it is everyone's choice and if you won't believe given the information available then that is your choice and chosen fate.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

There is the life experience of Billions of people plus the writings of people who actually met Him. But I understand that you can;t come to terms with that and that is fine. It is your choice and your life to lead.

What about other religions that can (and do) make similar claims? Understand why you consider their claims invalid and you will understand why I consider your's likewise. Surely you must see the flaw in your logic? Believe what you like Jay, but don't try to convince others that you have compelling evidence that they are choosing to ignore. You have blind assertions, nothing more.