Atheism

[Disco08]

If you need absolute scientific proof that God exists then I reckon that you are fishing in the wrong waters and will never get it. Christianity is about faith.

I'd settle for some logical proof personally. I agree though, believing a book which contains contradictions, seemingly impossible stories, abhorrent treatment of others mixed in with some (hardly original) moral teaching to the point that you base your entire life on it certainly requires a lot of faith.

faith that there is actually someone in control of this out-of-control world, a faith that there is a hope for the future and after we die.

This is the exact point that IMO allows religious people (of all sorts) to delude themselves. Subconsciously people are so desperate to give meaning to their lives that they create 'evidence' for themselves.

Some people will just never be able to do this, out of pride, love for sinful pleasures, love of their own lives or even through simply not caring enough to give it the research and respect it deserves.

Do you think this summarises the reasons most atheists don't believe in God Jay?

 

[jayfox]

I'd settle for some logical proof personally. I agree though, believing a book which contains contradictions, seemingly impossible stories, abhorrent treatment of others mixed in with some (hardly original) moral teaching to the point that you base your entire life on it certainly requires a lot of faith.

If that is what you think the Bible is then you clearly have little understanding of it. I just love how in every post of this kind you are overtly negative (even putting the "hardly original" before the moral teaching part). The overwhelming story of the Bible is God's great love for a creation that has turned against Him and how He sacrificed everything to save us even when we didn't deserve it, if we would only choose to believe. But you choose to completely ignore that part.

This is the exact point that IMO allows religious people (of all sorts) to delude themselves. Subconsciously people are so desperate to give meaning to their lives that they create 'evidence' for themselves.

Yeah, I know that you think that we are all deluded. You've said it over and over again. I'm really not sure why you post on this thread anymore? What do you get out of it? Do you enjoy displaying the overt negativity towards people's faith?

Do you think this summarises the reasons most atheists don't believe in God Jay?

For some people, yeah.

 

[jayfox]

Sadly I disagree with this. In my personal experience, the number of times I have been told I'm doomed to the fires of Hell, while they will be guaranteed salvation because of their love of Christ.....

Perhaps, but they will all admit that they don't deserve to go to Heaven as no person is good enough to earn their way to heaven. They will say that they are going to Heaven but they are only going there because of God's grace, not because they deserve to. Most non-Christians think that they are 'good' people and would therefore go to heaven if there was one.
That's the difference. A Christian may say that they are going to Heaven but that they deserve to.

Stupid bit is, you are right. If you go by all the bits and pieces of the Bible, you cannot argue much with your logic. Problem is most Christians don't want to hear that, so they think its their Golden Ticket for the afterlife.

And that is sad when that is the case. But, again, I would say judge Christianity by Jesus and not by Christians. Christians are imperfect and sinful like everyone else. Jesus was not. We are asked to try to be as pure as possible, God knowing that we will never be perfect. That's why Jesus died in our place. Either we pay for our sins or He does. It's simple.

 

[AngryAnt]

Great site isn't it? i am sorry I did not put the link to the site for all the learned gentlemen on here to view, please accept my apology, I will be more diligent next time.

No worries tigertime2. You'll find that us athiests are pedantic about things like that.

 

[AngryAnt]

Did you read what I posted? I gave a few possible reasons for stylistic differences within books, hardly a convoluted argument. Higher criticism does amount to a conspiracy theory. You are asked to believe a bunch of writers fraudulently pieced together a document which Orthodox Jews REVERE as the true history of their nation and religon.

Reverence is not a scientific or even an evidence based argument for truth. I respect the Jews' reverence for their religious texts, just as I respect your reverence for your texts. Does this make these texts "true"? No. They are the product of their historical times, some is "true", some is allegorical, some metaphorical, some downright BS. The fact that authorship is disputed is not in dispute. Think about that.

Occam's razor - well OK, you think your "theory" is simpler although even that is very debatable. Occam's razor is a useful rule of thumb, not an absolute. However, Occam's razor is always over-ruled by actual evidence that supports the more "complex" theory. Any scientist knows this. You are not willing to accept that evidence supplants your own beliefs. And forget about the authorship of the Bible debate - I'm talking about any attempt to hijack science or historical research to support a priori religious dogmas.

I mean, according to the Bible and religious scholars, God created the whole universe several thousand years ago despite an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary. Of course, you would say "oh yes but he created a fossil record and placed the planets, stars, galaxies and so on in positions and in motion as though they did originate from a single point billions of years ago". Why? To trick us? Apply Occam's Razor to that particular theory, if you dare.

BTW in case you are unaware my science background is pretty strong - so I accept the findings and philosophy of science, but I reserve the right to skeptism.

Skepticism and constant questioning is integral to the development of science, so good for you. Apparently not to religion though.

I am aware of your "science background" given some of your other posts - I always find it strange to consider the cognitive dissonance that must occur when you choose to apply a rigorous scientific method to some parts of your work/life but choose to fudge it or prefer clearly dubious historical/archaeological/scientific/philosophical "research". Not because it is good or convincing, but because it supports your own religious biases.

That's poor science and a poor philosophy. It might be good religion, I'm not qualified to judge.

 

[Disco08]

If that is what you think the Bible is then you clearly have little understanding of it. I just love how in every post of this kind you are overtly negative (even putting the "hardly original" before the moral teaching part). The overwhelming story of the Bible is God's great love for a creation that has turned against Him and how He sacrificed everything to save us even when we didn't deserve it, if we would only choose to believe. But you choose to completely ignore that part.

The main moral teaching of Jesus is the Golden Rule, but this was a tenet of other religions well before Jesus. It's not being overtly negative to point that out is it? Wouldn't it be fair to expect that a book inspired by God (and God himself) would offer some moral insight that man had yet to devise on his own?

As for God's great love for mankind, this is a point we've already agreed to disagree on on the basis that I can't fathom how you could damn someone to eternal suffering if you love them no matter what they'd done to you. We've already agreed that you and I hold different definitions for unconditional love, but I don't think that should mean I'm not allowed to express my opinion. You certainly express yours and I never jump down your throat for it. As I've also said before, if you want to have a thread dedicated to preaching the word of God by all means start one and I'll leave you to it.

Yeah, I know that you think that we are all deluded. You've said it over and over again. I'm really not sure why you post on this thread anymore? What do you get out of it? Do you enjoy displaying the overt negativity towards people's faith?

I find it a fascinating phenomenom, nothing more, nothing less. In fact the only difference between you and me is that I think all religious experiences are founded on personal delusion and you think (as far as I can tell) that all non-Chritian experiences are delusional.

 

[Djevv]

Just curious at what point in their lives jayfox, Djevv & tigertime2 found their enlightenment in God/religion?
Were they formed their beliefs from very early in life(say childhood) or whether they came to it later?

Just wondering how much of this 'belief' is due to conditioning.

Seems to me it has a pretty big part to play in the religious process.

My upbringing was Atheist (my Dad was a university science lecturer ;D) and that is how I viewed the world until my 20s. So in a sense my family did me a favor in bringing me up free from religion (which seems to put a lot of people off faith). But I had Christian friends who actually seemed more balanced and together than others I hung out with at uni. Anyway at that point in my life I was ready to hear about faith. A number of people told me about Christianity and the Bible, and at they did, I began to feel something.

I always believe that while many spoke to me, it was God that revealed Himself to me, otherwise I would never have believed.

Anyway once I had made a commitment, I was never the same again. At the start I was completely ignorant, and I did not even go to Church for a number of years, or have any knowledge of Christian doctrines - all I knew was that God loved me - and that was enough.

 

[Djevv]

Reverence is not a scientific or even an evidence based argument for truth. I respect the Jews' reverence for their religious texts, just as I respect your reverence for your texts. Does this make these texts "true"? No. They are the product of their historical times, some is "true", some is allegorical, some metaphorical, some downright BS. The fact that authorship is disputed is not in dispute. Think about that.

I know there is a dispute. I was addressing the evidence and offered some alternative explanations. Are you going to comment on the evidence rather than talking in generalities. I did a lot of reading on higher critisism to come up with my response.

Occam's razor - well OK, you think your "theory" is simpler although even that is very debatable. Occam's razor is a useful rule of thumb, not an absolute. However, Occam's razor is always over-ruled by actual evidence that supports the more "complex" theory. Any scientist knows this. You are not willing to accept that evidence supplants your own beliefs. And forget about the authorship of the Bible debate - I'm talking about any attempt to hijack science or historical research to support a priori religious dogmas.

Actually I agree with what you are saying from a science POV. In this case you are dealing with different hypothesis, and the same evidence. Occams razor does apply. You keep talking about the evidence that supplants my belief? Did they find the body?

I mean, according to the Bible and religious scholars, God created the whole universe several thousand years ago despite an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary. Of course, you would say "oh yes but he created a fossil record and placed the planets, stars, galaxies and so on in positions and in motion as though they did originate from a single point billions of years ago". Why? To trick us? Apply Occam's Razor to that particular theory, if you dare.

It is possible to accept this evidence (with reasonable skepticism) and still believe the Bible. Dr Ross from 'Reasons to Believe' has similar beliefs to me.

Skepticism and constant questioning is integral to the development of science, so good for you. Apparently not to religion though.

Faith and skepticism don't really go together I agree, but there is plenty of solid evidence to support Christianity - see reply 1701 .

I am aware of your "science background" given some of your other posts - I always find it strange to consider the cognitive dissonance that must occur when you choose to apply a rigorous scientific method to some parts of your work/life but choose to fudge it or prefer clearly dubious historical/archaeological/scientific/philosophical "research". Not because it is good or convincing, but because it supports your own religious biases.

That's poor science and a poor philosophy. It might be good religion, I'm not qualified to judge.

Your's making a lot of value judgements here. Skeptics will always find many reasons to be skeptical - you can count on it. I'm not sure that the fact they are skeptics makes their findings better than others that find reasons to believe. Are you sure you are not doing the same things you accuse me of?

 

[evo]

LOL @ the 'Reasons to Believe' website.

Gotta love the use of the "science-faith" neologism.

 

[jayfox]

The main moral teaching of Jesus is the Golden Rule, but this was a tenet of other religions well before Jesus. It's not being overtly negative to point that out is it?

Again -

I agree though, believing a book which contains contradictions, seemingly impossible stories, abhorrent treatment of others mixed in with some (hardly original) moral teaching to the point that you base your entire life on it certainly requires a lot of faith.

If that is all that you get out of the Bible (and Jesus' teaching) and you can't see that that is an overtly negative view then I am not sure that I am the one who is deluded.

 

[AngryAnt]

I know there is a dispute. I was addressing the evidence and offered some alternative explanations. Are you going to comment on the evidence rather than talking in generalities. I did a lot of reading on higher critisism to come up with my response.

Actually I agree with what you are saying from a science POV. In this case you are dealing with different hypothesis, and the same evidence. Occams razor does apply. You keep talking about the evidence that supplants my belief? Did they find the body?

It is possible to accept this evidence (with reasonable skepticism) and still believe the Bible. Dr Ross from 'Reasons to Believe' has similar beliefs to me.

Faith and skepticism don't really go together I agree, but there is plenty of solid evidence to support Christianity - see reply 1701 .

Your's making a lot of value judgements here. Skeptics will always find many reasons to be skeptical - you can count on it. I'm not sure that the fact they are skeptics makes their findings better than others that find reasons to believe. Are you sure you are not doing the same things you accuse me of?

Oh, you did some reading? So did I, and I know more about "higher" and "lower" criticism, Biblical studies, and Christian Apologia than I ever really wanted to. It's a tangled, murky web of BS in there, that's for sure.

But seriously, on higher criticism and the like - I actually am not particularly interested in who wrote the Bible and whether John of Patmos wrote this or John of Taylors Lakes did or whatever. I leave those debates to the theological historians. The point I was making is that the Bible is a work pieced together from numerous sources, of its time(s), and that uncritical acceptance of it is foolish. Most Christians who accept it uncritically as "the Word of God" don't have a clue.

Occam's razor and the body... did anyone find God's body yet? And a smoking gun? And a note? Oh, scratch the note, we have the Bible. Apparently the Bible is evidence, whether we choose to accept it or not.

The sites you provide as evidence are frankly, laughable. I'd love to go into each one and pick them apart, but I don't have the time, sorry. My favourite is probably this one though, although I did like "Reasons to Believe - the international and interdenominational science think-tank" also.

Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell

A good start.

After more than 700 hours of studying this subject

But was it 700 hours of quality research time? Nevertheless, I'm impressed!! Imagine what he could have proved if he'd spent 800 or even 900 hours!?? Well, I'm convinced. Good work Josh McDowell of the ©1992 Josh McDowell Ministry at "Leadership University". :hihi

Sorry Djevvy, but it will take more than a few half-baked websites to convince me that you have "scientific" evidence of anything much. And yes, that is a value judgment. Currently my value judgment stands like this. - Djevvy, despite claiming a "science background" - his dad was a science lecturer - accepts bunkum websites uncritically and then presents them as "evidence".

Most of these sites and claims are backed up by appeals to Christian Apologists - never has a term been more apt by the way - a movement of intellectual Christians who - like Djevvy - liked to appeal to science and history to support "Biblical evidence". All old hat, more of a social/intellectual movement of the late 19th century than anything.

 

[Djevv]

LOL @ the 'Reasons to Believe' website.

Gotta love the use of the "science-faith" neologism.

So atheists own science?

 

[Tigers of Old]

My upbringing was Atheist (my Dad was a university science lecturer ;D) and that is how I viewed the world until my 20s. So in a sense my family did me a favor in bringing me up free from religion (which seems to put a lot of people off faith). But I had Christian friends who actually seemed more balanced and together than others I hung out with at uni. Anyway at that point in my life I was ready to hear about faith. A number of people told me about Christianity and the Bible, and at they did, I began to feel something.

I always believe that while many spoke to me, it was God that revealed Himself to me, otherwise I would never have believed.

Anyway once I had made a commitment, I was never the same again. At the start I was completely ignorant, and I did not even go to Church for a number of years, or have any knowledge of Christian doctrines - all I knew was that God loved me - and that was enough.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that Djevv.

 

[jayfox]

Oh, you did some reading? So did I, and I know more about "higher" and "lower" criticism, Biblical studies, and Christian Apologia than I ever really wanted to. It's a tangled, murky web of BS in there, that's for sure.

But seriously, on higher criticism and the like - I actually am not particularly interested in who wrote the Bible and whether John of Patmos wrote this or John of Taylors Lakes did or whatever. I leave those debates to the theological historians. The point I was making is that the Bible is a work pieced together from numerous sources, of its time(s), and that uncritical acceptance of it is foolish. Most Christians who accept it uncritically as "the Word of God" don't have a clue.

Occam's razor and the body... did anyone find God's body yet? And a smoking gun? And a note? Oh, scratch the note, we have the Bible. Apparently the Bible is evidence, whether we choose to accept it or not.

The sites you provide as evidence are frankly, laughable. I'd love to go into each one and pick them apart, but I don't have the time, sorry. My favourite is probably this one though, although I did like "Reasons to Believe - the international and interdenominational science think-tank" also.

A good start.

But was it 700 hours of quality research time? Nevertheless, I'm impressed!! Imagine what he could have proved if he'd spent 800 or even 900 hours!?? Well, I'm convinced. Good work Josh McDowell of the ©1992 Josh McDowell Ministry at "Leadership University". :hihi

Sorry Djevvy, but it will take more than a few half-baked websites to convince me that you have "scientific" evidence of anything much. And yes, that is a value judgment. Currently my value judgment stands like this. - Djevvy, despite claiming a "science background" - his dad was a science lecturer - accepts bunkum websites uncritically and then presents them as "evidence".

Most of these sites and claims are backed up by appeals to Christian Apologists - never has a term been more apt by the way - a movement of intellectual Christians who - like Djevvy - liked to appeal to science and history to support "Biblical evidence". All old hat, more of a social/intellectual movement of the late 19th century than anything.

You have a lot of internal anger don't you Angry Ant. God could help you fix that if you would let Him.

 

[Djevv]

Oh, you did some reading? So did I, and I know more about "higher" and "lower" criticism, Biblical studies, and Christian Apologia than I ever really wanted to. It's a tangled, murky web of BS in there, that's for sure.
etc
etc

claims are backed up by appeals to Christian Apologists - never has a term been more apt by the way - a movement of intellectual Christians who - like Djevvy - liked to appeal to science and history to support "Biblical evidence". All old hat, more of a social/intellectual movement of the late 19th century than anything.

Wow you do the Atheist mockery thing real well! My sites were really a doorway to more reading - if you are interested - but clearly your not. You are really not engaging in a debate here, it seems, merely sounding off.

Again you failed to address my points.

BTW Ant, I am not making 'claims' about my background based on anything apart from my own qualifications. What is your science background?

 

[Disco08]

If that is all that you get out of the Bible (and Jesus' teaching) and you can't see that that is an overtly negative view then I am not sure that I am the one who is deluded.

As I've said before, Jesus' teachings on morality are great. The Golden Rule is an excellent creed to live your life by. It's the contradiction of claiming to love someone but still inflicting a suffering beyond belief on them that I find impossible to swallow. Jesus' (God's?) sacrifice to allow those who love him into heaven is a major theme in the NT so I think I understand what I'm supposed to be getting out of it, I just don't think it fits logically or morally.

The instructions contained in Deuternonomy and other places are clearly abhorrent as are the deeds carried out under the OT God's guidance, and many of the OT stories are physically impossible under the observed laws of physics so I don't think my description of the book as a whole is at all innacurate.

 

[tigertime2]

As I've said before, Jesus' teachings on morality are great. The Golden Rule is an excellent creed to live your life by. It's the contradiction of claiming to love someone but still inflicting a suffering beyond belief on them that I find impossible to swallow. Jesus' (God's?) sacrifice to allow those who love him into heaven is a major theme in the NT so I think I understand what I'm supposed to be getting out of it, I just don't think it fits logically or morally.

The instructions contained in Deuternonomy and other places are clearly abhorrent as are the deeds carried out under the OT God's guidance, and many of the OT stories are physically impossible under the observed laws of physics so I don't think my description of the book as a whole is at all innacurate.

So are you saying that you do not believe in the rule of Law? when someone in society commits a crime there should be no punishment for that crime?

 

[tigertime2]

how do u know where u are going and what the outcome is? thats a bit presumptuous.

That is why the Bible is logical for me. It explains where we come from, what we are doing here and where we are going.

 

[AngryAnt]

You have a lot of internal anger don't you Angry Ant. God could help you fix that if you would let Him.

Ah yes, if I could only let Jesus into my heart all would be well.  I find that point of view just a tiny weensy bit patronising, thanks very much all the same.

Actually I enjoy debates like this - occasionally I find the Christian flip-flopping between science (when it suits them) and then falling back onto faith when it all gets too hard a bit frustrating - but it's all good fun.

 

[Tiger74]

That is why the Bible is logical for me. It explains where we come from, what we are doing here and where we are going.

It doesn't though. You go to heaven and or hell, and then....The End.

What happens if another Satan steps up, it happened before, who's to say it won't happen again? What happens in heaven for an eternity? If its hanging around Mormons all day, playing Jenga, and talking about how cool God is, that doesn't sound too awesome to me.

I'm being cheeky, but my point is what is an "end" for you, is just a beginning for another story, which is not yet even covered.