Atheism

[BlackRosePhantom]

OK, doing as MorganaFang asked, I'm creating this thread to discus atheism instead of having it fill up the "What's Your Religion" thread. What are your views on it and why? Let us please continue the discussion we were having in the other thread here.

[Klark]

The funny thing I'm getting about the whole discussion in the other thread is that this debate over Atheism and Religion is roughly the equivalent of fighting over Nothing and Something.

Both Nothing and Atheism have names for what is essentially a nothingness, while Something and Religion both are supposed to give a meaning of fulfillment or of being full.

So when I see a definite shoulders-down pin in this debate, I'm hoping I'll be one step closer to discovering what nothingness the universe is growing into.

[Chiron Jackal]

Taken from the other thread:


In before "IT'S NOT FAIIIIITTTHHHH!!!!! GRRR"
Well, it's not faith. At least, not in the same way, say, a Christian would define the term.

The English language tends to disagree:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/ThrasherCub/faith.png

It might not be a religion, but until you can actually prove that there is no God it's still a faith.

[NitemareAngel]

OK, doing as MorganaFang asked, I'm creating this thread to discus atheism instead of having it fill up the "What's Your Religion" thread. What are your views on it and why? Let us please continue the discussion we were having in the other thread here.


Wel;l the love of my life is an Atheist so my view is do what every your happy with.. I myself am a Wiccan but I went through a long time of wanting to be an Atheist. So if you so choose be what you wish.

[Chriz]

It might not be a religion, but until you can actually prove that there is no God it's still a faith.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. You don't need to prove something that is evidently nonexistent is... nonexistent.

By all appearances, there is no god. He doesn't have a form or exist in any way that can be detected. Therefore, someone claiming god exists must supply evidence.

Also, faith is not deduction. Stop confusing them.

[blueeyes]

It might not be a religion, but until you can actually prove that there is no God it's still a faith.
Most Christians seem to use a different definition for faith, to the point where some would be offended by the mere dictionary definition. For them, faith is different than believing in something without proof. I'm not sure I know the right way to describe it. Even if they had the strongest proof possible on video tape, they'd still feel it a matter of belief and faith.

Many atheists would argue that they are going by proof, if only by preponderance of evidence rather than absolute proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but they're often big fans of Occam's Razor or the premise that the explanation with the most steps which can be observed or reproduced is the best.

Words have precise meanings, but people seldom agree on what those meanings are. The English language certainly disagrees, but it's difficult to have meaningful discussion when you're follow its rules rather than the rules the members of the discussion take.

[Chriz]

Many atheists would argue that they are going by proof, if only by preponderance of evidence rather than absolute proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but they're often big fans of Occam's Razor or the premise that the explanation with the most steps which can be observed or reproduced is the best.

Yes, that's a pretty good summation.

Faith is believing in something, and if you're interested in evidence, it's a selective interest. You'll filter out evidence that argues against your belief and search for evidence that reinforces it.

Deduction is starting without that end-point belief, and just accumulating evidence. Eventually, you'll gather enough evidence that you feel confident about positing a conclusion, but you do so because that's where the evidence takes you, not because you ignored evidence that contradicts what you wanted to believe.

The "faith" I have that there is no god is nothing like the faith a religious person has when he believes in god (generally speaking).

_rqUsC2KsiI

[BlackRosePhantom]

TL;DR

I don't fuck with quote miners. Especially not ones who basically put words in your mouth. If you don't understand some of the terminology I use, don't make up a meaning you know damn well I don't intend behind the terminology and then base an entire rebuttal off that. That's putting words in my mouth, strawman and all that.
One, watch the language please. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm asking for a simple clarification on your part. You misused both words when you called yourself a "political atheist." Maybe you were looking for a "philosophical agnostic." Agnostics are the ones that believe that there is most likely some sort of cosmic force up there that created us all, but that organized religion has it wrong. And a philosophy is your perspective on something. And I do understand your terminology, though I had to guess at "Iself," but it was your context that led me to think that you're contradicting yourself.

[Chiron Jackal]

_rqUsC2KsiI

You just found a Theist who accepts that my entire religion may be a load of complete crap and/or a really strange fantasy.

The primary reason I hold my beliefs is because doing so is enjoyable, not because I have some amazing truth or some such overly common religious bullshit.

[Wolf-Bone]

One, watch the language please. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm asking for a simple clarification on your part. You misused both words when you called yourself a "political atheist." Maybe you were looking for a "philosophical agnostic." Agnostics are the ones that believe that there is most likely some sort of cosmic force up there that created us all, but that organized religion has it wrong. And a philosophy is your perspective on something. And I do understand your terminology, though I had to guess at "Iself," but it was your context that led me to think that you're contradicting yourself.

I'm a political atheist. Meaning I don't adhere to/hold the slightest amount of respect for political religions (read: ideologies. And ultimately, every ideology is political). What most people think of as religion is actually ideology. And many who realize this, furthermore, believe religion and ideology to be inseparable. I strongly disagree. I incorporate religion into my life and wish to delve deeper into religious study. But ideologically, and therefor politically, I am an atheist.

I guess in a way I could also be a "philosophical agnostic" in that, for the most part, yes, organized religion is getting it all wrong. I don't think it has to be that way, however.

[Chriz]

The primary reason I hold my beliefs is because doing so is enjoyable, not because I have some amazing truth or some such overly common religious bullshit.

And that's the reason to have a religious belief. As long as you understand that it's fantasy, it's cool. If that fantasy helps give you a context to your worldview, and gives you common ground with other people with similar fantasies, great!

It's when people insist that their imaginary friend in the sky actually exists and, oh, we all have to follow his wishes, that I get itchy.

[GhostBat]

I'm both an atheist and an antitheist, meaning I don't have a belief in the supernatural, and I'm 100% against religion and religious beliefs.

As a studying paleobiologist, I am constantly reminded of the effects Christianity has had on science and the pursuit of knowledge. Other religions have behaved similarly. In my opinion, anything that acts as a shroud of ignorance to hide behind is both absurd and disgusting.

[Lore]

Not the mention the damage religion has done to some countries.

A report came out earlier in the week here in Ireland detailing 60 years of physical and sexual abuse from Catholic orders running institutions for children. We're talking industrial schools, boarding schools orphanages and so on.
Now of course the Irish state failed as well since they were overseeing this. The ISPCC, the police and the Judges also failed because they were funneling children into these places knowing something might be wrong.

But still, the sheer scale of physical and sexual abuse detailed in the report in every county in the country is unbelievable. We're talking about Nuns and Priests here.

[Klark]

But still, the sheer scale of physical and sexual abuse detailed in the report in every county in the country is unbelievable. We're talking about Nuns and Priests here.

I'm surprised that you're surprised by that. America has long been aware of how deviant those folks are.

As for organized religion vs. atheism, how long do you give it before the Christian God joins the ranks of Zeus, Jupiter and Odin? I wonder at what point in time the people of the Earth will look back and say how silly we were, and I wonder if they will call themselves atheists, realists or scientists.

[Lore]

I'm surprised that you're surprised by that. America has long been aware of how deviant those folks are.


This is probably the 4th report in 20 years. The last one, the Ferns report, detailed decades of sexual abuse by Priests in their own dioceses. I'm not so much surprised it happens, only that it takes decades for the truth to finally come out en-masse.

[J.L.R.]

And that's the reason to have a religious belief. As long as you understand that it's fantasy, it's cool. If that fantasy helps give you a context to your worldview, and gives you common ground with other people with similar fantasies, great!

It's when people insist that their imaginary friend in the sky actually exists and, oh, we all have to follow his wishes, that I get itchy.

The problem is this Chriz... there is EVIDENCE of God, but most atheists utterly and entirely refuse to acknowledge any of it. As stated, if you choose to deduct only what you want, you're going to come to these conclusions.

I've been doing a ton of research lately and I will be posting my ultimate conclusions in a seperate thread because it is going to be quite lenghty, but I will say this...
A. You don't know there isn't a God.

The mathematical equations state that there would have to be some sort of higher being, because life, order, by any sort of random chance is almost mathematically inplausible. If I remember correctly, it was like 1 in 10 to the trillianth power. Or like you tossing a dart across the grand expanse of space and time and hitting a bullseye the size of 10 milimeters on the other side without striking anything in between. (Science of God by Gerald S. Schreoder)

Another problem with your view is this...

What evidence would you need to prove the existence of God? How would you prove the existence of God? With what tools would you use...

If God, as I stated in earlier threads before the great fall.. (:whee:) is the Author of all Life, we wouldn't readily SEE Him in this world, unless He revealed Himself to us... and...He did... HOWEVER... As stated this is a whole other arguement all together, and I will be more than pleased to share my learnings in a thread all its own...

[Lore]

If God, as I stated in earlier threads before the great fall.. (:whee:) is the Author of all Life, we wouldn't readily SEE Him in this world, unless He revealed Himself to us... and...He did... HOWEVER... As stated this is a whole other arguement all together, and I will be more than pleased to share my learnings in a thread all its own...

When exactly did he do that? I have a feeling you'll say Jesus but unless you can back that up with solid proof then you don't have much to stand on.

Also the whole you can't disprove God argument is a little lacking. I mean I can't disprove walking, talking wigwams roam the Earth.

[McKitty]

All right, it's starting to near that point of the religious debate where it's better to agree to disagree.

Let's remember to keep it civil and to respect that everyone believes something, even if it's the belief that there's nothing.

[Chriz]

A. You don't know there isn't a God.

Only in the extreme sense that you don't know anything. You don't know you exist outside of a hallucination. You could be the only person in a Matrix-like world, designed specifically to fool you into thinking you live in a world with billions of people, each with their own lives.

You don't know any of these things aren't true, but to hold such severe standards to the term "to know" is not only pointless, it's counterproductive.

With equal confidence, I know the Earth travels around the Sun, I know if I let go of my cup of coffee it will fall to the floor (and make a mess), I know that people in China speak some variant of Chinese, I know my distant ancestors were ape-like creatures, and I know there's no god.

The mathematical equations state that there would have to be some sort of higher being, because life, order, by any sort of random chance is almost mathematically inplausible. If I remember correctly, it was like 1 in 10 to the trillianth power. Or like you tossing a dart across the grand expanse of space and time and hitting a bullseye the size of 10 milimeters on the other side without striking anything in between. (Science of God by Gerald S. Schreoder)

You're not remembering correctly. I suggest you refresh your knowledge of probability, and I also suggest you become more literate regarding the theory of evolution, specifically with regard to the influence of mutation (which is random) as compared to natural selection (which isn't).

What evidence would you need to prove the existence of God? How would you prove the existence of God? With what tools would you use...

Simple. I'd need something that doesn't boil down to "someone told me so." Everything anyone can show about god -- everything -- is subjective. There's no equivalent of fossil records, or background radiation, or geological structures, or anything at all that points to the existence of the supernatural, that also doesn't have a human advocate of the supernatural trying to "interpret" it that way.

All right, it's starting to near that point of the religious debate where it's better to agree to disagree.

It's generally civil so far, but in a thread called Atheism, there's bound to be debate.

[BlackRosePhantom]

In reality, that person is more "religious" than me. And such a "religious" person, if they actually knew me, would be more likely to think I were an atheist or at least a lapsed believer or agnostic. Religious people, at least those who know me, on the other hand, know that whatever else I might disagree with them on, I seek the truth. And that means conquering the human tendency to see what one wants to see, which I think a lot of religious atheists could stand to give a shot at. Your lil' friend there could start by not seeing me as they (and most likely on account of you) are predispositioned to see me as.

In plain English: I don't expect an atheist to believe what I believe, because to be honest, it's probably impossible for anyone to believe what I do. If there's any atheists who don't automatically look down on me and my kind just for believing in something itself, it'd go a long way towards me/us not tarring them all with the same brush if they'd actually speak up and take atheism back from the bunch of loud, obnoxious dicks who currently define it. That's what some of us are trying very hard to do for spiritualism.
Wait, what? :confused: Did you just contradict your contradictions? A.k.a you stated something, went against it later in the same post, and then later went against that without agreeing with what you originally stated? It looks like you did.
I'm a political atheist. Meaning I don't adhere to/hold the slightest amount of respect for political religions (read: ideologies. And ultimately, every ideology is political). What most people think of as religion is actually ideology. And many who realize this, furthermore, believe religion and ideology to be inseparable. I strongly disagree. I incorporate religion into my life and wish to delve deeper into religious study. But ideologically, and therefor politically, I am an atheist.

I guess in a way I could also be a "philosophical agnostic" in that, for the most part, yes, organized religion is getting it all wrong. I don't think it has to be that way, however.
Not all religions are political, take Unitarianism for example, though all are ideological. Religion in its very essence is ideological and can never not be ideological. What people think are religions are in fact religions, even though they are also ideological, but that is what makes them religions in the first place, and the only difference between a religion and a cult is how socially acceptable it is.

[McKitty]

It's generally civil so far, but in a thread called Atheism, there's bound to be debate.

Oh, yeah, I totally expect the debate. Just so long as the debate remains civil and respectful that while you're not going to convert anyone to your thought-line, that they have their own beliefs


I mean I can't disprove walking, talking wigwams roam the Earth.

Mostly, keep things like this outta here.

[Chriz]

Mostly, keep things like this outta here.

Well, this'll be an issue, then. That's a valid argument, isn't it?

Theists can come into an Atheism thread and say "you can't prove god doesn't exist" and Atheists have to sit and take it?

[McKitty]

If a theist does the same sort of thing, where the arguement goes into mocking and belittlement (which walking, talking wigwams count as, I mean come on.) then they'll be called out too.

My family consists of a die-hard Catholic, two atheists, myself(agnostic). Keeping the mockery to a minuim on both sides of the fence is the best way to go.

[Lore]

Mocking & belittlement? I wasn't mocking anyone. My point was that it anyone can easily say anything exists, even without evidence to support it, and no-one else can disprove it without the evidence to do so. And therefore using the argument that God cannot be dis-proven is a weak argument.

I just decided to create something fanciful.

[GhostBat]

If a theist does the same sort of thing, where the arguement goes into mocking and belittlement (which walking, talking wigwams count as, I mean come on.) then they'll be called out too.

I don't see the issue here. Atheists hold the opinion that believing in God is the same as believing in other supernatural entities, such as unicorns, leprechauns, and the flying spaghetti monster. That is a valid argument.

I'm sorry you see it as mockery, but it's not. Flames will be removed from the thread, but not perfectly reasonable discussion.

[Chiron Jackal]

In my opinion, anything that acts as a shroud of ignorance to hide behind is both absurd and disgusting.

Do I get a You-Suck-Less-Than-Other-Theists cookie for firmly believing that my Gods want to kick people in the nuts for being stupid?

[GhostBat]

Do I get a You-Suck-Less-Than-Other-Theists cookie for firmly believing that my Gods want to kick people in the nuts for being stupid?

Sure, why not? :p

[Chriz]

zDHJ4ztnldQ

[Lord Anubis]

That was awesome!

[Wolf-Bone]

Wait, what? :confused: Did you just contradict your contradictions? A.k.a you stated something, went against it later in the same post, and then later went against that without agreeing with what you originally stated? It looks like you did.

Not all religions are political, take Unitarianism for example, though all are ideological. Religion in its very essence is ideological and can never not be ideological. What people think are religions are in fact religions, even though they are also ideological, but that is what makes them religions in the first place, and the only difference between a religion and a cult is how socially acceptable it is.

I'm quickly concluding based on pretty much everything you've said so far that you, like most people, basically live in a make-believe world inside your head, and like most of those people, it's not even your own world as much as someone elses which you've adopted/had beaten into you.

I'm trying to break away from that and have a somewhat unique world inside my head that just happens to bear a striking, albeit colorful resemblance to reality. And I mean the real reality, not the clusterfuck of social constructs and downright lies most of you accept as "reality".

In short, I'm not interested. Talking to people like you only irritates me.

[J.L.R.]

When exactly did he do that? I have a feeling you'll say Jesus but unless you can back that up with solid proof then you don't have much to stand on.

Also the whole you can't disprove God argument is a little lacking. I mean I can't disprove walking, talking wigwams roam the Earth.

Actually, technically speaking there is proof that Jesus Christ existed... however, this also brings about the biggest problem with this message board and with anti-God skeptism. It wouldn't matter how much proof one could toss at them, they simply will not accept it.

Seriously though, people on this board make base their arguements upon the works of "scholars" who placed their bias above good scholarship. Lets face facts, we are all biased to some degree when it comes to our beliefs and personal world views, then it is also up to us to check our bias.

Let me give an example... A few years back a werewolf.comer set out to study the Bible, to point out all the ERRORS in the book.

See what I am getting at... Without ever having picked up the book, the reader has already concluded that it is full of errors. Why study? You don't pick up a history book and automatically state that they are inaccurate, you weigh their credibility by other sources, cross referencing and such. You let the facts bring you to the conclusion, not your opinions.

In the last great debate that was unfortunately lost due to web attack, the discussion came up of Jesus' Christ true identity...
Chriz gave four explanations of Christ, and yet none of those explanations was that Jesus was the Son of God. He's already made a biased conclustion without taking that into consideration. Who knows... Jesus COULD be the Son of God!

While this is expected for those who've never truly studied Christianity, even remedial, there are hosts of "scholarly" skeptics that use that same analysis to create their works. Such as the 80's Jesus Seminar. On the get go, the concluded that Jesus wasn't the Son of God, that He didn't really perform any of the maricles, and that fewer than 2 phrases from the new testament were really attributed to Him. How did they know this? The really scary thing is, they didn't. They were skeptics and they utterly refused to even look at the New Testament. Instead they flocked to the "Gnostic Gospels" for inspiration, of which is laughable by normal historians, as the Gnostics Gospels were not only written hundreds of years after the originals, some of then, such as the "Secret Gospel of Mark" was an out right hoax. For starters, the Gospel of Thomas was written between AD 170 to AD 200, and the syntex used in the Gospel is Syrian as opposed to Aramaic or Latin. The structure and dialogue used in the book has more in common with the writings of a Syrian church that existed in the same period the book was written. The Gospel also suffered historical issues as it doesn't protray 1st century Palistine. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

What about the skeptics arguement against Flavius Josephus?
One Werewolf.comer stated that most historians reject Flavius because his works were doctored... The funny thing is, it is partly true, but not totally...
Most skeptics, disregard the part of Flavius' work because he talks about Jesus Christ. The biggest issue for most atheists is that Flavius refers to Jesus as the Messiah, of which is out of character for him, because he was not only a staunch Jew, he was also cynical. In short, they love to toss out the whole section... Or the section they like to show anyway. I chanced by a copy of "Antiqueties of the Jews" at my local library and I found something quite interesting... Most atheist websites tought the first paragraph in Flavius discourse about Christ... However, if you read on, Flavius makes a snarky comment in regards to Jesus, such as... "if he really was a man?" So did Flavius call Jesus Christ the Messiah?... No... The truth is, a later writer wrote that in. So atheists are right in part. Flavius' works were doctored by priests who were translating them. This isn't entirely unusual in ancient history though. The epic of Beolwulf also has similar additions, where priests added "Christian" material, to the epic. Does it effect the story of Beolwulf though... no... in fact you can always point it out, because it sort of interrupts the narrative.
In short, somebody saw Flavius making snarky comments about Christ, and decided to edit it, by making him call him the Messiah. Does this invalidate the entire section... no...

You see folks, you have to be careful about the scholars you place your faith in, to give you solid facts, because many that I've seen, place their bias and their own agenda above the material that is there...

Granted I'm not saying that certain Christian writers don't. There are those like, Ken Ham, Carl Bough, and Kent Hovind, of whom are shrouded in shabby research and execution.

[McKitty]

You can't say "watch out for the scholars you're quoting and studying from" when the Priests of the Christian Church basically redid the entire bible and put in what was to be -their- acceptable version of Jesus.

Politics had a hold of the Christian religion before it was even considered nothing more than a break-away Judaism cult.

[Chriz]

Chriz gave four explanations of Christ, and yet none of those explanations was that Jesus was the Son of God. He's already made a biased conclustion without taking that into consideration. Who knows... Jesus COULD be the Son of God!

Of course I took that into consideration. I took it into consideration years ago and rejected it.

Also rejected:

Christ was a time traveler.
Christ was a space alien.
Christ was a mutant with special healing and water-walking powers.
Christ was a potato.

While in theory one should investigate all possibilities, there's a credibility boundary. Some possibilities are less likely than others, and some are really unlikely, so much so that there's really no point in taking that possibility seriously. Thus, we can dismiss as nonsensical ideas like time-traveler/alien/mutant/vegetable/deity.

[McKitty]

Christ was a time traveler.
Christ was a space alien.
Christ was a mutant with special healing and water-walking powers.



...please tell me you're just being sarcastic and that those theories aren't really out there.

[Chriz]

...please tell me you're just being sarcastic and that those theories aren't really out there.

I'm sure you'll find someone who takes them seriously.

[Klark]

I have heard of the Christ was a time traveler theory. Whether it's taken seriously by anyone, I don't know, but I have heard it.

[Lore]

History recorded that Jesus of Nazareth existed. There's no solid evidence to suggest he went around performing miracles. Also Jesus was a popular name back then and still is today.

But you're right, Jesus COULD have been the son of God but then again so I COULD be the son of God or the reincarnation of John Lennon.(That would be interesting)

As for the whole scholar business? Well I believe the components of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew and then translated in Latin and much, much later into German. How much meaning do you reckon was lost between languages? How many words had to be changed because there was no direct word to translate between. Did you know Hebrew for field and water are very similar words? Jesus could've been walking across fields but these days we think he was walking on lakes.

Add-on: I thought I'd also mention this, if a God did reveal him\herself to us in a way that could lead to the conclusion that such a being existed then I would believe such a being existed. But I would not follow or worship said being.

Let me explain. When Stalin controlled the U.S.S.R anyone who didn't believe him, follow him, or follow his commands was either killed or sent off to a Gulag. A labor camp in Siberia where you usually suffered the rest of your existence. Stalin was a tyrant for doing this, among other things, and used it to bend people to his will.

Now if I don't follow God's will, follow his commandments and so on then according to Christian dogma I get sent to Hell to suffer the rest of my existence. Not much of a difference there?

I don't fancy living under tyranny.

[J.L.R.]

You can't say "watch out for the scholars you're quoting and studying from" when the Priests of the Christian Church basically redid the entire bible and put in what was to be -their- acceptable version of Jesus.

Politics had a hold of the Christian religion before it was even considered nothing more than a break-away Judaism cult.

That is where you are wrong, or I should say mostly so. Again it is VERY easy to just make statements like that, but to actually prove them is something entirely different.

Tell me McKitty... what exactly did they alter, change, to make an acceptable Jesus? I really would like to know... cause...

If you go back to the 1st century you are going to find archeological evidence that 1st century Christians, much earlier than the 3rd century where the Great Council established the what would become the Biblical cannon, firmly believed that Jesus was the Son of God, that He did perform miracles, and that He was ressurrected from the dead. Such as the case with Polycarp, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter as a bishop of the Roman church. He was martyred for his faith in Jesus, and not just any Jesus, but a Jesus who he believed was the Son of God, performed maricles, preached against sin, was crucified on a Roman Cross, and was resurrected. Sorry Lore, you are right Jesus was a popular name back then, but I know of only one who did all of those things...

Your claims come straight from the PC mouths of the likes of Robert J. Miller and his associates who alleged that the Council purposely left out "other" gospels, such as Thomas, Judas, Secret Gospel of Mark, Mary... and such because they showed a vastly different Jesus than what was acceptable.

Miller was a staunch skeptic and those who he allowed on his "Jesus Seminar" were also staunch skeptics. If you review their profiles, you'll won't find one Christian among their staff. I would seriously doubt the agenda of any organization that blantantly allows a known hoax, such as the Secret Gospel of Mark, to be "evidence" for the cause. In short, Millar wanted a politically correct Jesus, and he was going to have it come hook or crook.

As stated in my last discourse, the so called, "missing Gospels" were not only written some 150 to 200 years after the events of speak about.

A few good sources that I trust for this evidence is...
"The Gospel Hoax: Morton's Smith's Invention of Secret Mark" by Stephen C. Carlson. &
"Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels" by Craig Evans.
"Cynic Sage or Son of God" by Gregory Boyd.

As a side note, when Ann Rice researched her material for her book, "Christ The Lord", she first went to the Jesus Seminar material, as having been an atheist most of her life, she was skeptical of the traditional views of Jesus as presented in traditional Biblical cannon. However, upon her investigation, she not only found that the Seminar placed their agenda above their facts, she also found that their scholarship was shabby. Why? Well, the Seminar wasn't looking for the real Jesus, they were trying to create their own.

In the end, were there variations in the large some of 25000 ancient 4 Gospels... yup... an estimated 400,000 to be exact, however most of those are spelling variants, such John, Jon, Jonn, and so on and so forth... The only KNOWN alternation was the addition of the story of Jesus telling the Pharisees, "Those without sin, cast the first stone" story, of which isn't in the earlier Gospels, and the last 12 verses of Mark, of which seem like a rehash of some of Paul's statments, of which actually was actually written before the Gospel of Mark.

None of the so called "alternations" changed the core beliefs that Jesus was the Son of God, that he performed miracles, he was crucified for our sin, and that he rose from the grave.

[BlackRosePhantom]

I'm quickly concluding based on pretty much everything you've said so far that you, like most people, basically live in a make-believe world inside your head, and like most of those people, it's not even your own world as much as someone elses which you've adopted/had beaten into you.

I'm trying to break away from that and have a somewhat unique world inside my head that just happens to bear a striking, albeit colorful resemblance to reality. And I mean the real reality, not the clusterfuck of social constructs and downright lies most of you accept as "reality".

In short, I'm not interested. Talking to people like you only irritates me.
Um, it sounds like you're living in your own make believe world, sorry. And no, I do not nor have even merely acceoted the statements people have thrown at me and believed them whole heartedly. I definitely wouldn't be an atheist if that were true, nor would I be a vegetarian, let alone a vegan, and I would have been down right ashamed of my sexuality. And unlike most people, I need evidence to believe in something, which no religion has offered me and I've also never had a "spiritual" exerience, meaning something happening to me that in no other way could be explained by science other than a flat out miricle.

But this is highly off topic and it needs to be dropped. I merely pity your thinking that your version of reality doesn't include the correct usage of the English language, because in reality, you're either an atheist, meaning you don't believe in any dieties what-so-ever, or your a theist, meaning you do. Being a theist does not mean that you conform to any writen doctrine telling you how to believe, but simplely that you believe in a higher power. Since you believe in god, you're a theist, by definition, and there is no way you can be a thiest. I'm not arguing what you are, I'm just arguing what you call yourself when using words already in existance and have been for hundreds of year with their own established definitions that cannot be changed at the whim of one person.

If you wish to debate me on this, please find on credible source where the world polotics is used to mean a person's perpective on life, and the word athiest means to not follow any organized religion. And no, I will not just dispute a sight because it is religion based. I know doing so would be biased, and would be assuming that they've bent their data to conform to what they want. While that senario is a very likely one, it is not necessarily true and I will at least skim through it to see if they're trying to preech or to actually trying to sound repuitable in the eyes of "disbelievers" as "my people" are so often labled.

Now, I not had the oportunity to read the Christian Bible, nor have I had the time to read the holy doctrine of any religion in its full, partly do to me having a year-round school, and partly due to me having an active social life. However, if simple words like reed and red (sea) can get mixed up in language translaion, then I'm pretty sure a whole lot of other words can too, and I persoanlly don't have the to learn Hebrew just to read these texts in their original contexts. I admit this because no firm believer I've met has gone out and fully read about the scientific theory of evolution, or the big bang, etc (the people that have are atheist like me or agnostic). I'm not trying to say that you are wrong, since I can't disprove you; I'm merely saying that your aren't necessarily right either, since you can't prove anything. Please take your time to prepare your argument before you burst out into five different opposing directions like you've done previously.

[J.L.R.]

Now, I not had the oportunity to read the Christian Bible, nor have I had the time to read the holy doctrine of any religion in its full, partly do to me having a year-round school, and partly due to me having an active social life. However, if simple words like reed and red (sea) can get mixed up in language translaion, then I'm pretty sure a whole lot of other words can too, and I persoanlly don't have the to learn Hebrew just to read these texts in their original contexts. I admit this because no firm believer I've met has gone out and fully read about the scientific theory of evolution, or the big bang, etc (the people that have are atheist like me or agnostic). I'm not trying to say that you are wrong, since I can't disprove you; I'm merely saying that your aren't necessarily right either, since you can't prove anything. Please take your time to prepare your argument before you burst out into five different opposing directions like you've done previously.

Not all Christians, including myself, hold to the "Young Earth" theory that is often popularized in "Christian" propogunda. The truth is the word for day in ancient Hebrew, as used in the Torah, actually means "span of time", if I remember it correctly. This info was provided by LV a few years back. In short the word can mean one day or a number of days, based upon the usage. Here I go again... A good book to look at is, "Science of God", by Gerald S. Schreoder.

Good books to avoid are anything written by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Carl Bough. Carl is actually a long time family friend and in reality is a very sweet man, but his sources are questionable, and I concluded unreliable when I had a long conversation with one of them, of whom believed that angels bred with ancient man, and produced offspring of whom could interbreed with animals and created a race of werewolves, weretigers, and... At any rate... anybody who trusts their facts to a "Tr00 W3r3" is readying themselves for disappointment.

[Chriz]

History recorded that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

I don't believe this is true. At most, evidence doesn't prohibit the possibility that a cult grew around a guy named Jesus in that area at that time. But so what?

"Who is this Jesus? Why is he different? You Jews produce messiahs by the sackful!"

[McKitty]

"Who is this Jesus? Why is he different? You Jews produce messiahs by the sackful!"

I love that play so very very much.

[Lore]

I don't believe this is true. At most, evidence doesn't prohibit the possibility that a cult grew around a guy named Jesus in that area at that time. But so what?

"Who is this Jesus? Why is he different? You Jews produce messiahs by the sackful!"

I do remember reading that there were Roman records of his birth registration but to be honest I don't have any material to cite. But I guess even if those records existed they only prove the birth of a child. I don't believe there's any credible proof that Jesus performed miracles.

[blueeyes]

Odd irony. I'll stick to the easily verifiable, then.

The truth is the word for day in ancient Hebrew, as used in the Torah, actually means "span of time", if I remember it correctly.
As far as I am able to find, the Hebrew word used in the creation story and often translated as day is yom. Literally translated, that can mean the period from dawn to dusk, a 24-hour day, or an unstated but typically longer period of time. While most of the rest of the texts use the first or second definitions, the creation story's use is pretty often believed to use the third. There are even some places where young Earth creationists will concede the matter, and most translations have a few places they'll use far different words than "day" when translating.

There's a very strong tendency to conglomerate Christians with the harshest of the young Earth creationists. Somewhere around half (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml) of the American populace specifically believe that humans were created by a specific god within the last ten thousand years, but a deal more than half also will tell you that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. It's a terminology disaster, and this really hasn't been helped by either side.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Odd irony. I'll stick to the easily verifiable, then.


As far as I am able to find, the Hebrew word used in the creation story and often translated as day is yom. Literally translated, that can mean the period from dawn to dusk, a 24-hour day, or an unstated but typically longer period of time. While most of the rest of the texts use the first or second definitions, the creation story's use is pretty often believed to use the third. There are even some places where young Earth creationists will concede the matter, and most translations have a few places they'll use far different words than "day" when translating.

There's a very strong tendency to conglomerate Christians with the harshest of the young Earth creationists. Somewhere around half (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml) of the American populace specifically believe that humans were created by a specific god within the last ten thousand years, but a deal more than half also will tell you that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. It's a terminology disaster, and this really hasn't been helped by either side.
This is why we look at context. Usually, it just mean the period between dawn and dusk, but when you include the Hebrew word for all, in other words, say "all day," you are talking about from sunset last night to sunset this night, since that's what the Jewish calendar counts as a day. Now I'd have to ask a Rabbi (maybe my dad or uncle), but I do not know the context in where day could mean an undefined length of time. Context is VERY important in the Hebrew language. Context matters more there than in English easily.

In English people often start prayers to god as: "Dear God," "God," "Dear Lord" "My Lord, God, and Savior," But in Hebrew, they always start off as "Ba-roe-hhu-ta, a-doe-nie..." (note vowels with an 'e' on the end are pronounced as their names, the double hh is to put emphasis on the h, to let you know to make the flem sound where you vibrate air up through the roof of your mouth). The English literal translation is "God, Master of the Universe...". There is absolutely no other way to start a prayer in Hebrew. That just one example of how loose the English language is, and you can have the lovely experience of reading and hearing how picky context matters in Hebrew by attending a Passover Seder, and in who many ways in can be translated.

"How do we know that this means to state the prayer in the presence of your son at the Seder table? The word "Day" refers to the daytime, and thus one would conclude that it must be done in the day, but with the inclusion of "all" we can conclude that we take the whole day into account, and thus must be said in the presence marroar and matzoh."

I'm not kidding, there is a fifteen minute long rant about how the inclusiveness of "all" changes the context of day and what part of day is being talked about during that damn Seder. :banghead: So, I can tell you, from eleven years of first hand experience, that unless otherwise indicated in the context, day means daytime, or the time between sunrise and sunset.

[DarkHunter]

Atheism describes one's position about the idea of god(s) in the universe. It's not a religion because it doesn't dictate anything beyond that. Now some people incorporate it into larger religious or philosophical structures, but atheism itself is not a religion.

I find that the idea of gods eventually reaches some logical contradiction. I mean, whenever I get into the discussion about there not being god, I'm asked that stupid question: "Where did you come from?" It doesn't deserve an answer because it's simple. But eventually theists typically posit gods as the "beginning."

So I ask who created God? How did God come into being? No one is ever quite able to give a straight answer. Some religions have "self-creation" accounts. Some say the universe came first and then the gods. Some just say God always existed.

The argument is that God must exist because something must be the "First Cause." If God is the "First Cause", then his existence proves that something can exist without a Cause. Which invalidates the need for a "First Cause", invalidating a need for God to be the first cause. Invalidating that logical need for God.

There's other arguments for gods. Again this doesn't apply to all because some (like the Greek gods for example) emerged after the beginning of the universe.

Don't get me wrong. I love the stories. I just don't accept them as fact and prefer to think that reality is far stranger than we imagine.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

Okay, I have a question that has nothing to do with the discussion, but is directed towards Atheists.

Since you've come to the conclusion that you're going to die, and there's NOTHING afterward, does that make you want to live forever? I've always wanted to know.

[Lore]

I would only want to live forever on the premise that my partner lived forever with me. But my desire for eternal life would not be driven by fear of death just curiosity at seeing the future and experiencing it.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

That's cool. It's interesting that you don't fear death, although it means oblivion to you. Does being an Atheist help with that sort of acceptance?

[Lore]

Atheism doesn't really play a part into it. I mean the idea of an afterlife isn't inherently tied to God or Allah.

Maybe something does happen to us after death, maybe we transcend into higher beings or some such but in that case I can only hope as I have nothing solid to base belief on.

I don't really like the Christian version of an afterlife though. It's too black & white. To kill a man is wrong but soldiers kill everyday, cops kill in the line of duty, some people kill in self-defense.

[J.L.R.]

Atheism describes one's position about the idea of god(s) in the universe. It's not a religion because it doesn't dictate anything beyond that. Now some people incorporate it into larger religious or philosophical structures, but atheism itself is not a religion.

I find that the idea of gods eventually reaches some logical contradiction. I mean, whenever I get into the discussion about there not being god, I'm asked that stupid question: "Where did you come from?" It doesn't deserve an answer because it's simple. But eventually theists typically posit gods as the "beginning."

So I ask who created God? How did God come into being? No one is ever quite able to give a straight answer. Some religions have "self-creation" accounts. Some say the universe came first and then the gods. Some just say God always existed.

The argument is that God must exist because something must be the "First Cause." If God is the "First Cause", then his existence proves that something can exist without a Cause. Which invalidates the need for a "First Cause", invalidating a need for God to be the first cause. Invalidating that logical need for God.

There's other arguments for gods. Again this doesn't apply to all because some (like the Greek gods for example) emerged after the beginning of the universe.

Don't get me wrong. I love the stories. I just don't accept them as fact and prefer to think that reality is far stranger than we imagine.

I will give you a straight answer... since I am heterosexual... oh not that kind of straight... sorry guys, I had to interject a bit a humor... couldn't help it...

To answer your question... The first time God is mentioned in the Torah, the word El is used. El of course means Eternal. So Genesis 1:1 would read...
"In the beginning the Eternal (implying Eternal God) created the heaven and the earth." Several times through out the Bible God and later even Jesus Christ refers to Himself, as the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

You see the problem with using our logic to explain God or the existense of God relies heavily upon the construct that God, Himself, is forced to obey the same laws of physics, such as space, time, matter, that we have to obey. We live in a universe ruled by finites. Everything comes to an end. The only thing that is constant is energy, of which can not be created or destroyed, but only transferred or transformed. In short if you try to work an eternal being into a world that isn't eternal, you are going to have problems getting correct conclusions.

HOWEVER, IF God is the Author of Life, then God exists outside our physical world. Through out the Bible God also calls himself, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob". The wording used is very deliberate, and if you take into consideration the other declarations of God, as in First/ Last, Alpha/ Omega, Beginning/ End, God is stating that He is STILL their God, implying that even though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are dead to us today, they are still living with God. Jesus Christ confirms this during his rebuke to the Sadduccees, of whom don't believe in a resurrection. "God is not a God of the dead, but a God of the living." The ONLY way for this to be possible is if God sees time semitaneously, and the ONLY way for that to be possible is if God exists outside our physical world.

As I stated, if God is the Author of Life, this becomes quite possible...

HOWEVER, if you must have an answer about God's "birth", you can then consider Jesus Christ. IF Jesus Christ is the Son of God, (a manifestation of the God Head, in human form), then our rules can rightly apply to Him. When was He born... Around 3BCE... Where was He Born... Bethleham... He was a child... He grew up... and He even died... and then, based upon the accounts of those who followed him, and those who also then converted in 1st Century Palestine... He was also resurrected. :cool:

[Chriz]

Since you've come to the conclusion that you're going to die, and there's NOTHING afterward, does that make you want to live forever? I've always wanted to know.

Absolutely, provided I remain relatively young and functional.

You see the problem with using our logic to explain God or the existense of God relies heavily upon the construct that God, Himself, is forced to obey the same laws of physics, such as space, time, matter, that we have to obey. We live in a universe ruled by finites. Everything comes to an end. The only thing that is constant is energy, of which can not be created or destroyed, but only transferred or transformed. In short if you try to work an eternal being into a world that isn't eternal, you are going to have problems getting correct conclusions.

Do you realize you just made the atheist argument?

[Binkx]

Since you've come to the conclusion that you're going to die, and there's NOTHING afterward, does that make you want to live forever? I've always wanted to know.

I am actually content with the fact that I will die and there will be nothing afterwards. I don't want to live forever and never really liked the idea of it, things would be too boring that way. But the idea of dying and one day providing nutrients to the planet makes me happy.

[Klark]

Absolutely, provided I remain relatively young and functional.

Living forever has been a want of man for a long time, however, just because people are atheist and don't believe in God, doesn't mean they don't believe in the natural order of things.

In fact, many of the atheists I know in my own life are quite happy to find immortality in other ways such as through children, through published works bearing their name, through other works that will live on credited to them.

I only quoted you Chriz to keep the conversation in line with the quote you quoted. It's not meant to disagree or agree with you. :cool:

[Tempest]

Since you've come to the conclusion that you're going to die, and there's NOTHING afterward, does that make you want to live forever? I've always wanted to know.

Although I'm not atheist, I don't believe in the afterlife. Even so, if I had the option to live forever, even if I remained young and beautiful and healthy, I wouldn't. It seems to me that life is that much sweeter when you realize how short it is. And living forever would be so lonely, especially after the human species comes to an end.

[Chriz]

I've never met anyone over the age of 40 who subscribes to the "immortality would be too boring" thing. I find it interesting...

[J.L.R.]

Absolutely, provided I remain relatively young and functional.



Do you realize you just made the atheist argument?

Not really, as the REST of my paragraph fully explains everything. However if you are satisfied with taking only porptions of my arguement that suites you best, feel free, but in the end, you are still wrong...

[Chriz]

Not really, as the REST of my paragraph fully explains everything. However if you are satisfied with taking only porptions of my arguement that suites you best, feel free, but in the end, you are still wrong...

Not really. All you said subsequently is that if god exists outside of reality, then you don't have to come up with an explanation for his existence. I couldn't agree more.

If god is outside the universe, then he's outside the universe. If he can poke his divine fingers into the universe and cause things to happen, then he must be able to interact with the universe (otherwise nothing would happen). In that case, he's no longer outside the universe in any meaningful sense.

Put simply, in order for god to "see" reality, reality must also be able to "see" god.

Edit: Perhaps a better way to put it is, if I can't interact with god because he exists outside of reality, then what does it matter if he exists or not?

[BlackRosePhantom]

Okay, I have a question that has nothing to do with the discussion, but is directed towards Atheists.

Since you've come to the conclusion that you're going to die, and there's NOTHING afterward, does that make you want to live forever? I've always wanted to know.
No, it does not. It took me two years to fully come to terms that nothing would happen to me after death, that my mentality would merely cease to exist. I'm ok with dying. Everyone dies, why should I be that special? I don't want to be. I've never been to a funeral, and I'm glad. No one personal to me has died while I've been in contact with them. Death is still an abstract thing for me, though I know it is something that is devastating.

The closest thing I have to a loved one dying is knowing the reality that I will most likely never see Carmine and Julian ever again. I'm still not over that, and it's partly due to the hope that their still alive and somewhere close to me and that I might be able to find them.

Though death doesn't scare me. Maybe because of my ignorance of actual death. I know it would cause many people close to me pain, but it is natural. I would rather die along with my loved ones, than live long enough to see all, or even most of them, die.
That's cool. It's interesting that you don't fear death, although it means oblivion to you. Does being an Atheist help with that sort of acceptance?
No, I fully know that believing in an afterlife psycologically helps people ease when their loved ones pass on because they have the hope that they might be able to see them again, but at least I don't have to worry about me and my loved ones being seperated on different planes (aka hevean and hell, or even a completely different afterlife for a different religion) when we die.

[Shaun]

I honestly can't blame anyone for being an atheist. A lot of religions out there contradict themselves entirely and yet you should just blindly follow it this way or that....pass. I may not be an atheist, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. I follow what my gut and heart tells me, and if some religion practices or says something that does not sit well with me, then it is not for me. I don't knock anyone who does believe in God whatever name he/she is to you, cause I'm not ignorant nor do I personally care what you believe in, but I damn sure believe in the right for you to believe and practice what you want and not get belittled or harassed about it.

[J.L.R.]

Not really. All you said subsequently is that if god exists outside of reality, then you don't have to come up with an explanation for his existence. I couldn't agree more.

If god is outside the universe, then he's outside the universe. If he can poke his divine fingers into the universe and cause things to happen, then he must be able to interact with the universe (otherwise nothing would happen). In that case, he's no longer outside the universe in any meaningful sense.

Put simply, in order for god to "see" reality, reality must also be able to "see" god.

Edit: Perhaps a better way to put it is, if I can't interact with god because he exists outside of reality, then what does it matter if he exists or not?

Hince... Jesus Christ... People readily saw Him...

Again, if God is the Author of Life, we won't readily "see" Him, because like any other author, He exists outside our realm. You're an author... just because your characters don't see you, per say, doesn't mean you don't exist...

[GhostBat]

You're an author... just because your characters don't see you, per say, doesn't mean you don't exist...

They don't exist, at least not as living and breathing entities.

[Chriz]

Hince... Jesus Christ... People readily saw Him...

Assuming he existed, they saw him because he was a man.

They don't exist, at least not as living and breathing entities.

This is a good analogy. God exists exactly the same way characters in a story exist.

JLR, you keep making great atheist arguments. Are you sure you just haven't been pretending all this time?

[J.L.R.]

Assuming he existed, they saw him because he was a man.



This is a good analogy. God exists exactly the same way characters in a story exist.

JLR, you keep making great atheist arguments. Are you sure you just haven't been pretending all this time?

Again Chriz, if you choose to pick or choose to analize only what you want out of my posts then one would come to those conclusions, but then again, Atheists have been doing that for years.

God is the Author... WE are the characters...

Again, your whole foundation lies solely on the fact that either Jesus was just a man, or never existed... However, if you count the Gospels, you have 4 different books that state otherwise.

Most historians, middle of the road, and on, regard them as being historically accurate. While, as stated, not all people agree that Jesus was the Son of God. Only far left wing skeptics conclude other wise. Again if you wish to draw your sources from people who readily place known hoaxes into their analysis, feel free, but as stated... you are still wrong.

[McKitty]

Again, your whole foundation lies solely on the fact that either Jesus was just a man, or never existed... However, if you count the Gospels, you have 4 different books that state otherwise.



Books written by men. So, does that mean that the battle for Troy went down exactly as Homer put it, because it was in a book? I mean, they have found what looks to be the old site.

Just because it's written down doesn't make it the (no pun intended) gospel truth.

[Lore]

God is the Author... WE are the characters...


That makes me wonder, do you believe we have free will and forge our own destinies or do you believe that your god has predetermined destiny for all?

I also wonder since you put so much reliance onto the four Gospels and the Bible what do you think of the Qur'an and Allah? The Bible and the Qur'an are comparative in age.

[J.L.R.]

Books written by men. So, does that mean that the battle for Troy went down exactly as Homer put it, because it was in a book? I mean, they have found what looks to be the old site.

Just because it's written down doesn't make it the (no pun intended) gospel truth.

And you are quite correct... Just because somebody writes it in a book, doesn't make it correct. HOWEVER, if we can test what is in his or her book, by histocracy, by archeology, by historical sociology, then we can rightly conclude that what is stated in the book is true. You can't simply cast doubt on a book, article, or whot-knot simply because it was written by human hands, as you wouldn't be able to believe anything in history, both past and present. As stated, you would test it with the criteria that I've provided and then come to the conclusion as to whether it was right or wrong.

Concerning Homer and his Illiad... Is there archeological evidence to support his epic poem and his descriptions of Troy... yes... So did things happen exactly the way he stated... If the histocracy supports it, if the archeology supports it, and since none of us lived to say otherwise, we have to conclude that he is correct, until proven other wise.

The Gospels, no matter your beliefs, can be placed against histocracy... There is archeological evidence to support the time, people, and places the Bible speaks about. There are numerous ancient manuscripts of the Gospels, some where around 25,000 to start out with of which is broken down to 10,500 in Greek, another 10,000 copies in Latin, and another estimated 15,000 copies in Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian. Some of course are fragmented, but a greater majority are complete copies.

In this respect, the Gospels have a huge advantage over Troy.
Further references include:
Reinventing Jesus by Daniel B. Wallace, J. Ed. M. Komoszewski and James Sawyer
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman and finally:
The Journey from Texts to Translation by Paul D. Wagner

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

And you are quite correct... Just because somebody writes it in a book, doesn't make it correct. HOWEVER, if we can test what is in his or her book, by histocracy, by archeology, by historical sociology, then we can rightly conclude that what is stated in the book is true. You can't simply cast doubt on a book, article, or whot-knot simply because it was written by human hands, as you wouldn't be able to believe anything in history, both past and present. As stated, you would test it with the criteria that I've provided and then come to the conclusion as to whether it was right or wrong.

Concerning Homer and his Illiad... Is there archeological evidence to support his epic poem and his descriptions of Troy... yes... So did things happen exactly the way he stated... If the histocracy supports it, if the archeology supports it, and since none of us lived to say otherwise, we have to conclude that he is correct, until proven other wise.



I know I'm taking bits here, but with that said... Does that mean you believe in the ancient Greek and Roman Gods as well? They had a LOT to do with that, if I remember the Illiad correctly.

[J.L.R.]

That makes me wonder, do you believe we have free will and forge our own destinies or do you believe that your god has predetermined destiny for all?

I also wonder since you put so much reliance onto the four Gospels and the Bible what do you think of the Qur'an and Allah? The Bible and the Qur'an are comparative in age.

The Qu'ran was written in AD 500, of which was several hundred years after the Gospels of which are dated between AD 60 and AD 90 respectively.

The Qu'ran is the revelation of one man, namely Mohammad. Mohammad, himself was largely influenced by Christian and Jewish merchants travelling in and out of Medina. A pretty good book, if you are interested, is "Mohammad: Islam's First Great General" by Richard Gabriel. It is one of the few books that talk about Mohammed and Islam in general without shedding light on his own bias whether for or against Islam.

How does the Qu'ran stack up against the Gospels?

There are 4 Gospels, all written by different people, but telling the same event, with exception to a few differences in POV. They can be tested historically, historical sociologically, and archeologically.
Can the same be said for the Qu'ran?

As for Free Will or predestinated destiny... I will get to that later on... I have my own explanations, but at this time, I don't really have enough time to go into full detail... rest assured... I will in due time. :whee:

[GhostBat]

As for Free Will or predestinated destiny... I will get to that later on... I have my own explanations, but at this time, I don't really have enough time to go into full detail... rest assured... I will in due time. :whee:

We'll be clinging to our seats in anticipation!

...Or not, depending on our predestined destiny of choosing our own destiny which also happens to be predestined by a being with no destiny.

Am I close?

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

Still didn't answer my question. According to your reasoning, that means the Greco- Roman gods must exist as well; so do you actively believe in them too?

[Chriz]

Most historians, middle of the road, and on, regard them as being historically accurate.

Most historians do not, actually.

[J.L.R.]

Most historians do not, actually.

Well you're right... Skeptical historians who wouldn't acknowledge evidence even if it bit them on the ass.

Within my own personal journey I've found several to be not only overtly biased, but had an agenda, such as the Jesus Seminar...

I've shown you my sources, now show me yours...

As for the Greco-Roman gods... No, I don't believe they existed... As you already know, as a Christian I hold faith to one True God, and that One alone.

Trying to trap me with my own words eh... :beerchug:

Homer was a Greek man, and his poem, the Illiad, reflects his culture, personal views, and most importantly, his beliefs. His poem, as you know, has to deal with the final year of the Trojan War. If he gives praises or accusations to his gods or goddesses that is to be expected.

As for the Greco-Roman gods themselves, they in themselves are more of legend and myth. They "existence" is tied to explanations of seasons, weather patterns, vegenation of crops... In short, stories about these gods or goddesses were passed down to explain events they had no explanation for. None of their gods or goddesses were tied to histocracy...
Read, Gospel and the Greeks by Ronald H. Nash

[Klark]

As for the Greco-Roman gods themselves, they in themselves are more of legend and myth. They "existence" is tied to explanations of seasons, weather patterns, vegenation of crops... In short, stories about these gods or goddesses were passed down to explain events they had no explanation for.

I know I'm going to regret popping my head into this, but...

That's kind of like what we do with the Christian God. Can't explain it? It must be God.

And their Gods did fit in with their history as they understood it at that time.

Not knocking anyone's beliefs.

[Chriz]

I've shown you my sources, now show me yours...

The only "source" you've shown me that I recall was a laughably bad site that, among other things, claimed the group we now call the Hittites are the biblical Hittites, completely ignoring that the modern group was explicitly named after the biblical group.

Forgive me for remaining skeptical.

[J.L.R.]

The only "source" you've shown me that I recall was a laughably bad site that, among other things, claimed the group we now call the Hittites are the biblical Hittites, completely ignoring that the modern group was explicitly named after the biblical group.

Forgive me for remaining skeptical.

Wow you just proved, what I've suspected since this debate started... You haven't been reading my entire posts have you?

I've listed tons of sources. That web link was just a quick thingy, I also noted a disclaimer via that site, as it was more of a quick reference. I don't typically do my research via the internet... Barns & Noble and the Good ole Library for me. You can check my claims, but if I have to do the work, I expect the same from you. They are all good reads by the way. Don't worry, no Bible tracks or Get Saved Now! brochures in them.

As for thoughts Klark, don't worry I don't bite...
Upon reading the Bible, the Hebrews readily saw natural phenominon as just that. While most races were worshiping stars, the moon, rocks, volcanoes, flies, and such, the Hebrews saw them as nothing but creations by an Almighty Creator. This is blatantly apparant with the first verse of Genesis.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This line was a bold statement for them, separating them from the rest of the world. When they gave credit to God for doing something miraculous, it wasn't something that they regularly witnessed every day, it was something truly miraculous.

Look at it this way. They didn't see the sun or moon as a god that had to be placated to rise, such as the Mayans. They saw them as nothing more than creations. They might not have understood what exactly the sun or moon was made of, but they already had made a determination as to what they weren't. In short, for their time period, they were way ahead of time.

[Lore]

Since Christianity is so fragmented into different sects I'm wondering which do you think is the right one JLR? Catholicism, Mormonism, Presbyterianism?

[Chriz]

Wow you just proved, what I've suspected since this debate started... You haven't been reading my entire posts have you?

Sorry, no, I mainly skim. I did read your posts on the subject more thoroughly in the beginning, but I eventually came to the conclusion that you were unconvincing.

I've listed tons of sources. That web link was just a quick thingy, I also noted a disclaimer via that site, as it was more of a quick reference. I don't typically do my research via the internet... Barns & Noble and the Good ole Library for me. You can check my claims, but if I have to do the work, I expect the same from you. They are all good reads by the way. Don't worry, no Bible tracks or Get Saved Now! brochures in them.

My sources are my eyes and brain.

[J.L.R.]

Since Christianity is so fragmented into different sects I'm wondering which do you think is the right one JLR? Catholicism, Mormonism, Presbyterianism?

What no Baptist? Don't you know the ONLY Christians going to heaven are Baptists! :beerchug:

Sarcasm...

Firstly let us consider a few things... such as what the Bible says vs what the certain sects say.

Romans 10:9-10 & 13
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Now if ANYBODY says they are a Christian, but they don't believe in salvation by Grace through Jesus Christ, as is taught via the New Testament, then they are wrong. This is the most fundamental Christian creed. This is what 1st century Christians believed, it is what is in the Bible, and thus it is what I believe.

In short, denominations may vary as far as codes and such, but as long as they believe this fundamental creed, they are fine.
Those who do not, aren't following what the Bible actually says, and if that is the case, they are wrong.

Getting back to you Chriz... I really don't know what to say. First you gripe because I don't list any sources. So I've started listing every source I use. These sources are available for anyone to read and research. The authors I picked were those who care more about facts and truth as opposed to being agreeable regardless of Christian or not. That isn't enough. Now my posts are too long, and apparently not worthy of your time, because you are apparently so intellegent you don't need to research anything, because you know with out a matter of fact that your assumptions are correct. What do I need to do to convince you? In the end, I doubt even Jesus Christ's return would do that... oh well...

OMG! Thank you Chriz for pointing this out to me. I am so ignorant...
I will say this, in close... If I'm wrong, well what hurt I am doing to myself and others? None... I firmly believing in Jesus' teachings of love thy neighbore as thyself. I am surrounded by those who love me, and I them. If I die, I have no regrets as I've lived my life to the best of my abilities and have been an honest and very much studious individual.

So me being wrong doesn't affect you at all... however, what if I'm right...
In short, I think I can afford being wrong, more than you can...

[GhostBat]

So me being wrong doesn't affect you at all... however, what if I'm right...
In short, I think I can afford being wrong, more than you can...

Huh...

PqJpZOljjG8

I'm pretty sure you have the same chance of going to hell as atheists, if you consider that all the religions through the ages have a chance of being the "correct" religion.

As an atheist, I'm very happy with my life. I have my own moral code (rather than fearing punishment from a god if I didn't follow his), I do my best to create a good life for myself and those I love, and I work to better society by studying science. There is nothing I would regret about this lifestyle.

Don't think you're better than the rest of us because you have to fear a non-existent being.

[Chriz]

In the end, I doubt even Jesus Christ's return would do that... oh well...

I'm pretty sure that would. Likewise, seeing the Loch Ness Monster with my own eyes would probably convince me it exists, too. I won't be holding my breath for either to happen.

I will say this, in close... If I'm wrong, well what hurt I am doing to myself and others?

Hm. Peddling a delusional worldview based on purposeful distortions of data in order to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of the frightened and uneducated (or acting on perhaps unwitting behalf of those who do).

Nope, harmless.

I firmly believing in Jesus' teachings of love thy neighbore as thyself. I am surrounded by those who love me, and I them. If I die, I have no regrets as I've lived my life to the best of my abilities and have been an honest and very much studious individual.

Yes, I'm incapable of love or compassion. It's true. For example, in my previous apartment, my neighbor (who often liked to blast music all hours of the night) had trouble with his car, and was trying to push it into his parking lot. Like the uncaring ass that I am, I threw my back into it and helped him get the job done.

Sometimes I can't face myself in the mirror in the morning.

So me being wrong doesn't affect you at all... however, what if I'm right...
In short, I think I can afford being wrong, more than you can...

So you agree that Jesus was a potato?

[Klark]

I'm currently watching a special on National Geographic Channel about a cult that believed their leader "Michael", a.k.a. Wayne Bent, was going to change on Oct. 31, 2007. Thirteen days after the taping, Michael was arrested for sexually assaulting little girls. He convinced the "church" a.k.a. his cult, that he was in fact the son of God. The girls laid with him to have a closer relationship with God.

Of special note, that doesn't really happen with atheists.

[Chriz]

Of special note, that doesn't really happen with atheists.

Whoa there, sport. I bet if you looked into it, you'd see it happens probably about as often with atheists (well, they wouldn't use the "son of God" excuse).

Atheists aren't more moral than religious people. They're just not less.

[Klark]

Whoa there, sport. I bet if you looked into it, you'd see it happens probably about as often with atheists (well, they wouldn't use the "son of God" excuse).

Atheists aren't more moral than religious people. They're just not less.

It was the "Son of God" tagline for creating religous cults I was referring to. Sorry, I'm a bit tired and should've been more clear in that statement.

[McKitty]

Meh, it'll all be personally proven to everyone once we die.

If I die and I meet up with God, I'll just be honest. "Sorry, but I couldn't live on faith alone. I lived a moral life, I loved my neighbor and all that jazz, but if that's not good enough for you, send me to hell because you're a vain god."

If I die and nothing happens, well, what the hell do I care?

[Lore]

So me being wrong doesn't affect you at all... however, what if I'm right...
In short, I think I can afford being wrong, more than you can...

So should we believe in your god in the slim chance that you might be right and we might go to hell? I could almost call this scaremongering.

It would appear to me that many believe believe in god not because they seek paradise but because they fear hell.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

If I were to be completely an fully truthful with myself, I believe what I do because A) There still seem to be things not explained by science, b) I personally think that if there is god, in whatever form, science and spirituality will eventually meet, and c) let me have my comfy blanket. Even if, at the end of the road, I sink into oblivion and there's nothing past that, let me comfort myself this life. I don't think that's going to happen, but yes, if that IS the case, then death is something I fear.

But, since I don't know, let me keep to what I believe, and I'll let you think whatever pleases you most.

Hell, you could believe in Jeff the god of Biscuits, or you could not believe in anything at all. So long as I'm happy with what I have, what should it matter what you believe, and what others think I should believe?

[J.L.R.]

Here is the problem folks, and the whole problem with Werewolf.com, especially when it comes to Christianity. Firstly by many of your own admission you've never studied the history of my religion. You assume your assumptions are correct and that is it, regardless of the facts that are laid out. I read through your posts and again and again, you hit me with the same questions, the same arguements. I go back read through my posts, because I could have possibly left something out, but no... come to find out people aren't even reading my posts.

I wasn't always a Christian, and I didn't become one because I didn't want to go to hell. I didn't even know about hell (in terms of Christianity) until after I was "saved". MOST of the Christians (real ones) that I know didn't get saved because of fear of hell. It was a personal and profound choice, that I've never regretted one last bit.

This doesn't mean that I still don't ask questions. I am a writer by heart, and I love research. I've never accepted anything on faith alone. I've not only read the Bible several times, cover to cover, I've also invested a fair amount of my time and money into finding writers who could answer those questions. I checked their credentials. I want somebody who is going to tell me the truth. Is the Bible right or wrong. Was it tampered with, and such. There are plenty of books out there that "Pastors" have written that are clearly and unconditionally biased, and I've done my vary best to stay away from them, as they tend to do everything in their power to convince you at becoming a Christian... I already am... don't need that. The authors I select have balls about them, per say, and some of which in the case of Gerald Schreoder and Schimka Jacobvichi, aren't even Christians. These two men deal with facts and let facts fall where they fall. If they are right they are right, if they are wrong they are wrong.

We all should have a healthy bit of skepticsm, but what I see on this board is just sad. You want facts, I give you information straight out of some of the brightest minds of the 21st century. People who are in the field, doing the research. Those who are willing to tell you the blatant truth about Biblical credibility and are often brutally honest. They certainly challenged a lot of my old concepts. However, what do you give back to me... Youtube videos!

You claim that the Bible has been purposefully doctored, altered, and corrupted to move the Christian agenda.
I ask you, tell me what exactly was altered? Where did you get that info, so I can look into it...

Sorry, J.L.R., I've never studied it, but I know I'm right, because the Bible has been obviously tampered with and as an added bonus, I have this really nice Youtube Video...

OMG! Where is LV, yes we are polar opposites when it comes to religion, but she at least has the courtesy to back up her claims with actual source material. Stuff that I can readily read for myself.

Ultimately believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a matter of faith, and that is something you simply can't out right prove. That is fact. However you can prove IF the Gospels are valid historical documents or not. You can prove if they were purposefully altered or not. You can prove if Christians barrowed from other religions, or not. You can prove if people, locations, and such actually existed as they were in the Bible... all of these things are tangible with good solid research such in the fields of ancienty history, archeology (especially that), ancient text research and such.

This is what frustrates me. I bring everything to the table... you bring nothing. Instead people revert back to merging every Christian with the Roman Catholic attrocity of the dark ages, of which had NOTHING to do with what Jesus taught, however you wouldn't know that now would you, because you've never read the New Testament. Of which is cool with most people here and do to the number of thanks you get they even agree... I can work with facts and I can deal with facts, but I can't fight unconditional bias, and thus far that is all that I've recieved via this board.

:beerchug:

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

I am not Christian, but I have read the Bible cover to cover. I was left feeling empty. Thusly, the religion is not for me.

Now, I do not dispute the fact that SOME of these events actually happened, but some parts of the Bible don't ring true to me. Namely, the mystical parts. There has been arguments about the time line of Moses' story as well. Since I personally can't verify one way or another, I cannot go, "Okay, I believe this."

Also, if you WERE to take the Bible almost completely literally, front to back, you also find that the Christian God, in my own opinion, is capricious, and cruel in many cases (the destruction of Gomorrah, Babylon, the dispersing and, in my opinion, torture of his chosen). I mean, this brings to mind whipped dogs, who, after getting beaten time and time again, finally get thrown a chew toy that's coated to make them behave better (Jesus). Mind you, it is my own opinion of the matter, but I would not want to worship a god like that.

Now, I know Contemporary Christianity is leaps and bounds from the Dark Ages. People aren't openly persecuted for believing differently. I know Early Christianity little resembles what it is today, when they themselves were persecuted for their beliefs. Believe it or not, I've done my research, as far as I've been able.

And that's why I can tell you, Easter, in it's current form, Christmas, in its current form, All Hallow's Eve, in its form, etc, drew extremely heavily from pagan influences. This was to make conversion of the masses, once the Roman Catholic church was a heavy political power, a smooth transition. This way, it was a church state, ruling, and yes, altering, some of the texts.

It wasn't until the King James version that people could start reading for themselves, but even then, it was off. Take, for example, the definition of God. In Hebrew, there's several words for God, all taken from various parts of their Torah. Those differing definitions, from an "it" variation to a "He/she" are not included until much, much later.

Also, the Catholic church was very good at oppression, stifling differing doctrines, with the famous stamp "heretic", and were, in fact, the ones to come up with Hellfire and brimstone. Early Christians held a more traditional view that you just kinda stayed around until you were judged. So, it was closer to the idea of purgatory than anything else. Hell was a scare tactic used.

And, while we're on the subject, I've heard plenty about omitted texts. I was watching a documentary the other day, where an early pope (can't remember the name) sat down an more or less said, "Yep, keeping this, not that, and this, not that, and that was written by someone I don't like so that's getting thrown out." That's why I believe, also, the Bible's incomplete, and I'm really not wanting to be a part of an incomplete religion. Since the religion is based off the Book and what people say in it, and how it's interpreted, it's like looking at a puzzle with about a third of the pieces missing. You don't really know what you're looking at.

These are just a few of the reasons why I don't like Christianity. But, that doesn't mean I'm attacking you; and I feel that you'd tense as if that's the case.

As I said before, you may believe what you like, and I will believe as I like. However, don't presume to judge me in accordance with a grouping like that. Perhaps I thanked them because I could see their point of view. Do I agree? Not necessarily. Perhaps I was amused. *shrug*

Anyways, I was hoping people wouldn't get defensive.

[LV426]

I'm pretty much not in this argument because you and I have hashed this all out before. I've presented my information, you've presented yours and what I say doesn't change your mind and what you say doesn't change mine. I can however cite a source that proves that the Bible has been tampered with. The very name of the book says so. The Bible King James Version. Now mind you this is only one version but the fact is that there are now several versions of the same book that men have tampered with in order to sell their own agenda or at least get the masses on their bandwagon. At this point in time there's no way of knowing what the true and original Bible ever said. Hell for all we know it was a collection of grandma's favorite recipes.

I like my wieners with mustard and relish on buns. No condiments is just wrong. ;-)

[Lore]

I'm man enough to admit some bias towards the Catholic Church for the rampant brutalization and molestation they've committed over the decades here and for trying to covering it up and protect their own.

But there are things about Christianity that don't gel for me. Jesus taught love, forgiveness and compassion which are all very admirable things and they make a lot of sense.
I just can't figure out where hell factors in. Many Christians believe non-believers will be sent to hell but why? Where's the love & compassion? If the Christian god believes what his son taught then is there a need for hell? This is an honest question, not an attack.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

I'm man enough to admit some bias towards the Catholic Church for the rampant brutalization and molestation they've committed over the decades here and for trying to covering it up and protect their own.

But there are things about Christianity that don't gel for me. Jesus taught love, forgiveness and compassion which are all very admirable things and they make a lot of sense.
I just can't figure out where hell factors in. Many Christians believe non-believers will be sent to hell but why? Where's the love & compassion? If the Christian god believes what his son taught then is there a need for hell? This is an honest question, not an attack.


Well, you already know my stance, but here's the only way I can see that aligning.

Eternity is a concept. Sometimes things feel like an eternity. Things that take a second drags on for what feels like five or six, especially in anticipation.

So, perhaps, hell is like a spanking, but it does get over with eventually...

Because eternity is a concept. So, it could be only a couple of celestial moments, or it could be fifteen... <.< or it could actually mean forever from the point of dying.

*shrug*

[Klark]

You claim that the Bible has been purposefully doctored, altered, and corrupted to move the Christian agenda.
I ask you, tell me what exactly was altered? Where did you get that info, so I can look into it...

Ultimately believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a matter of faith, and that is something you simply can't out right prove. That is fact. However you can prove IF the Gospels are valid historical documents or not. You can prove if they were purposefully altered or not. You can prove if Christians barrowed from other religions, or not. You can prove if people, locations, and such actually existed as they were in the Bible... all of these things are tangible with good solid research such in the fields of ancienty history, archeology (especially that), ancient text research and such.

This is where I have a problem, J.L.R. It's not in the facts you bring, and yes, I've read every one of your posts from top to bottom, no matter how long it is. But you come off as saying that if you can prove a building in the Bible actually stood, then the whole Bible is correct.

I've read a good deal of fiction books with real locations, but have had the damnedest time trying to locate the "real" character in it.

I'm not atheist. However, I do have a real problem with the way some Christians attempt to defend their religion. There's a simple argument that I've used in the past to defend what I thought and that was that my beliefs were a matter of my faith, as I was led to believe that my personal relationship with God was just that. Personally, I've seen some research that shows there are books missing from the Bible. The scriptures were all written separately at different times and then put together by another man entirely. The chance that there was not a mistake in all that happened to give us what we know today to be the Bible is so slim, it makes anorexics look fat.

So many people who call themselves Christians run around condemning those people who don't believe in the Bible and in God and in Jesus. They point the finger from atop the soap box and say, "You're going to hell!" Even you, J.L.R., are guilty of this in some way because instead of saying "I believe that your belief is wrong" you have flat out said "You are wrong." "Do not judge, lest ye be judged," is the popular quote from the Bible that many people defending themselves from Christianity find themselves quoting right back to the people who are trying to tell them that they are in fact a Christian who has read the Bible from cover to cover.

I haven't seen another post that told you, J.L.R., that you're wrong for your beliefs. They've simply said, it doesn't match up, it doesn't make sense, how could that of happened and so on. They ask questions, you answer. They ask more questions, you answer. I guarantee you that I can sit down with the most devout Christian on the face of this planet and in the end, when all my questions have been answered, the last answer I get will be "It's a matter of faith" because there simply isn't an answer – a solid, scientifically proven, historically accurate answer – to every question the Bible creates.

Unfortunately for Christianity, each sect of it chooses a particular part of the Bible to believe is the way we are to live our lives now. I've heard teachings that say the 10 Commandments don't apply today because Jesus left us three. I've heard that women are not supposed to be preaching, they are to be the obedient lap dogs of men. I've heard you are to go into a closet to pray because your relationship with Jesus and God is personal and is supposed to stay that way.

The only thing I can think to say about the whole argument is believe what you want to believe based on the facts, but also on your faith, and allow others to do that as well. Rebuke their facts with your facts, but telling them they are wrong will only cement the image that Christians have spent many a bloody year trying to enforce their religion.

This was not a personal attack, nor an attack of your beliefs, just as I do not personally attack Chriz for saying Christianity is a delusional world view even though there are many sane people, free of delusions in all medical senses, who believe in a higher power. ;) That is his view of religion and he is welcome to it, just as you are welcome to believe his view is wrong.

I think I'll shut up now. :)

[Tempest]

Here is the problem folks, and the whole problem with Werewolf.com, especially when it comes to Christianity....etc etc

There are people arguing against you who have studied the Bible and do read your posts. However, your arguments simply are not convincing, even to me and I'm agnostic. Many people on this site are logical people and it will take logic to convert us to Christianity. But your arguments are full of logical holes that can only be filled by faith, which, unsurprisingly, most of the people arguing against you do not have. I guess you expect us to bow down to your superior "logic" and convert to Christianity ASAP. Is this your goal? To win this argument? You won't, this is an endless argument and no one will change anyone's mind in the end. You should know, you've been through this before.

All I can see from this post is that the only problem you see with ww.com is that we aren't all Christian and we challenge your beliefs. Isn't it a good thing to have your beliefs challenged every once in a while? It seems to make them all the stronger.

[MorganaFang]

Here's the thing that's getting me about the sudden defensiveness and exasperation with those who "have not studied Christianity" (nice assumption, buddy, maybe I'll show my bible that was annotated when I read sermons as a youth leader sometime?) you are in an atheist thread trying to convince people. Where's the Christian quality of tolerance and letting people be? Oh wait not all sects teach it like that. (silly Lutheran me)

Also there is just something really bizarre to me about how you're addressing cultures and other religions. It's like comparing apples to oranges and then declaring that banana is the ultimate fruit because it doesn't have seeds... Ok why can't they all be valid? You're still not giving a good solid reason why it's superior, just going with a pretty big bias. Just like you're tutting everyone else for doing. I don't get it. Have you read anything on other religions or philosophies that wasn't published by a Christian publisher?

[J.L.R.]

I've studied several other religions, and in that regards I ALWAYS try to find sources that aren't Christian oriented, as obviously, to me at least, they aren't going to give the "whole" truth as to what that belief is. At this moment, when I have free time, I am studying Islam. I love studying other cultures, religions, and so on and so forth.

As for tolerance... You don't have to agree with somebody to be tolerant. You don't have to accept everything they say, to be tolerant. If that was the case, this is the most intolarant board of the face of the planet. I welcome arguements, debates, and such freely, but I also advise that if you or anyone is going to make claims that they can back it up.

The purpose of a debate is to compare facts and have a discourse about those facts.

I totally agree that I can't nor anyone prove the existence of God, or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Any "Christian" who says different is trying to sell something. This is a matter of Faith, and it will always be.

As for my claims of a person being wrong. It was and is never meant to address where their faith lies, no matter how much I disagree, but to where their facts lie.

Just to give a quick example on the subject of the Bible being purposefully tampered with to move the agenda of the Christian Church...
Even if you through out the King James Version of the Bible, of which in all regards IS probably one of the worse translations, you still have the Dewey, Greeves, Syrian, Greek, Latin, and so on and so forth translations that, other than syntax differences, still state that Jesus was the Christ, that He died for our Sins, and that He rose from the grave.
Has the Bible been tampered with... in parts yes... such as the addition of the story of Jesus and the Prostetute. This story doesn't appear in the earlier found Gospels. It was added later. Does it change the story of Christ though... no... In fact there are about 400,000 variants between versions, but most amount to spelling differences, syntax differences, and various names used for Jesus at the time. Does any of this change who Jesus said He was, or the core concepts of the Gospels... No... IF the Church was going to enhance the Gospels you would have thought they would have removed the "embarassing" material, such as Jesus' Disciples having constant doubts about Him, the doubts of His own family, the only two witnesses to first see His empty tomb, were two women, of whom's opinion, at that time, was regarded as meaningless. I mean there are tons of things they could have removed, but they didn't.

So yes, I can readily prove somebody wrong with these types of facts. The facts stand as they be.

Guys, understand this, as I believe I need to address this before I go any further... Being a Christian doesn't make a person better, superior, or morally sound than a non-Christian, and that is not what I am trying to get at. There have been many evils wrought by people who called themselves Christians, of which includes anti-Semitism. Martin Luther, a famed "Christian" hero, as well as the guy who wrote the 99 precepts, is the same man that declared that ALL Jews should be destroyed and their temples burned. In short, just because a person carries a Christian banner, that doesn't mean they are holy by any regards, that is including the Pope...

Then again, there are a number of people who've commited attrocities without the aid of religion... Saddam Housain, comes to mind. Many times religious dogma becomes the scapegoat to justify somebodies actions, but who is really to blame. I vote those who commited the crimes.

I'm not trying to convince you to abandon your beliefs to follow Christ. What I am trying to do is get you to challenge yourself.

I challenge myself all the time. I'm not afraid to ask hard questions concerning my own beliefs, and I'm not afraid of seeking sources that might challenge my concepts. It is how I learn and grow.

[GhostBat]

Sorry, J.L.R., I've never studied it, but I know I'm right, because the Bible has been obviously tampered with and as an added bonus, I have this really nice Youtube Video...

This is what frustrates me. I bring everything to the table... you bring nothing. Instead people revert back to merging every Christian with the Roman Catholic attrocity of the dark ages, of which had NOTHING to do with what Jesus taught, however you wouldn't know that now would you, because you've never read the New Testament. Of which is cool with most people here and do to the number of thanks you get they even agree... I can work with facts and I can deal with facts, but I can't fight unconditional bias, and thus far that is all that I've recieved via this board.

Wow, if I had known a youtube video was so offensive, I would have used more!

I think maybe you need to alter your perceptions of this website. We are not a religion-based forum, we are not here to convert anyone, we are not writing research papers on the subject, but we are here to share our opinions, socialize, and generally have a good time.

Oh wait, brb while I go read all those books you've mentioned so I can debate with one guy who wont change his mind about his religion on a site called Werewolf.com.

As some have already stated, a good majority of the people in this thread have actually read the Bible and know at least some of the historical background behind it. I have personally read the Bible front to back, attended several Christian schools and churches, and participated in 4 years of Bible study.

All in all, the entire experience led me to one final conclusion: none of it makes sense.

I know a place where you can keep your assumptions.

[J.L.R.]

And Ghosty, my intentions wasn't to "convert" people to Christianity, but to debate claims they made against Christianity...

I think this whole thing started when somebody stated that the reason they converted from Christianity was because the church got rid of certain books in order to further their own agenda.

Did the "church" really leave out certain books so they could create their own version of Christianity?

Is this true... and of course it isn't.

This is the type of stuff we can readily debate, because none of it relies of faith, but facts, and letting those facts make a decision.

This is where I disagree with Klark, while I do greatly appreciate the fact that he is reading all my posts. If I said that proving the church didn't have mal-intent with organizing the Bible, proves that Jesus is Lord, obviously this is a great error because all the facts prove is that the church didn't create their own version of Jesus Christ.

None of the information that I provided is going to prove the existence of God or that Jesus Christ is Lord, it is only going to disprove certain "theories" that are out there.

[Chriz]

Ultimately believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a matter of faith, and that is something you simply can't out right prove. That is fact. However you can prove IF the Gospels are valid historical documents or not.

If you can't prove the divinity of christ, what good does proving the historical validity of the gospels do you? Stories were written. Big deal.

Look, I have no problem at all with someone who finds refuge in a faith or outright delusion if that's what gives them strength. I'm not claiming to be delusion-free myself. Death is scary. The big questions in life can be scary. But that kind of thing falls under the "what's your poison?" brand of self-comfort. It's a personal choice you make, in how you deal with the fear of the unknown. We're not indestructible and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, even if it's resorting to telling yourself little fantasies in order to get you through the day.

But when you externalize those fantasies, it becomes a problem. A person knows when he's lying to himself. You can even give yourself permission to lie to yourself and then pretend you're not doing so. But other people can't detect automatically when you're lying to them, and it muddles the situation when you assert something as true that you're no longer aware is a fabrication. Trying to persuade other people of your delusions, because you don't want to face the fact that that's what they are, is dishonest.

JLR, one of the reasons I don't scour your reference posts is because it became apparent pretty early on that all you're really doing is showing that people hundreds or thousands of years ago sincerely believed in god. This isn't a revelation. It's really just another form of the argument that some large percentage of the population believes in some kind of god, and that many people can't be wrong, can they?

Well, of course they can. Go back 500 years and get a consensus of opinions on the geocentric vs. heliocentric models. I'm quite sure you'll find something like 95% of the population believed that the Sun travels around the Earth. Were they right simply because they were the majority?

God is not self-evident. You can't detect him with the senses. You can't see traces of him that can't be explained by more mundane, non-supernatural causes. Sure, it's possible that those traces are the cause of divine intervention, but that's why I keep bringing up the "Jesus was a potato" thing. The likelihood is ridiculously small.

Since god is not self-evident, it requires no evidence to decline to believe in his existence, any more than it requires evidence (beyond the evident) to claim that the sky is blue (generally) or that ice is cold. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that something that has an ordinary, mundane, non-supernatural explanation is instead the work of a divine being that -- aside from these select manifestations -- does not exist in reality in any perceivable way.

No, I can't prove god doesn't exist. But since I have a working explanation for how just about everything functions that doesn't include the presence of any kind of god, I don't need to. On the other hand, if you want to try to prove god exists, the burden is entirely on you. It's perfectly legit for me to just point to a mundane explanation in response.

Hey, look, I made a nice long post you can ignore now, too. :p

[J.L.R.]

Damn it... I didn't ignore your post... Oh well. :D

A fantasy is a diliberate fabrication, so I do have to disagree with you there. While I don't (obviously) agree with every religion, I don't think any of them believe that their religion is fantasy. You might think so, but then again, that is your opinion, based upon your own observations.

What benefit would early Christians (1st century) gained by making up the Jesus story? All of Jesus disciples, with exception of John were martyred. John was exiled. Early Christians suffered heinous persecutions for their faith. If it nothing but a lie, it would have been much easier to just admit to it. Instead, you find men or women, such as Polycarp, who willfully allowed themselves to be burned at the stake. People typically don't die for something they know is not true. This of course isn't proof that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, but it does prove that they at least fully believed He was.

Look at Jim Jones. He had lied to his whole congregation. He had tricked them into believing he was some sort of Messiah. When it came to the mass suicide he propagated, he tried to run. Why? He knew it was a hoax.

Again, my sources weren't to prove God or whot-knot, but refute claims against the Gospels themselves...

Oh well... :rockon:

[Chriz]

This of course isn't proof that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, but it does prove that they at least fully believed He was.

Like I said, this isn't a revelation. Assuming these people existed at all, they were likely very religious in some sense. Pre-science cultures tend to be.

The fact that they were believers is in no way whatsoever evidence that god exists.

[GhostBat]

What benefit would early Christians (1st century) gained by making up the Jesus story? All of Jesus disciples, with exception of John were martyred. John was exiled. Early Christians suffered heinous persecutions for their faith. If it nothing but a lie, it would have been much easier to just admit to it. Instead, you find men or women, such as Polycarp, who willfully allowed themselves to be burned at the stake. People typically don't die for something they know is not true. This of course isn't proof that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, but it does prove that they at least fully believed He was.

There have been several cults throughout the centuries that have convinced people without any doubt that their way is the correct way, and sacrificed themselves willing. Does this mean everything these cults preached is also true?

I'm not sure I get your point.

[Vendetta]

If I were to be completely an fully truthful with myself, I believe what I do because A) There still seem to be things not explained by science,
So would you have been a flat-earther back in the day?

Hell, you could believe in Jeff the god of Biscuits, or you could not believe in anything at all. So long as I'm happy with what I have, what should it matter what you believe, and what others think I should believe?
The issue with the majority of atheists isn't WHAT you believe, it's how you USE that belief. You can believe in the Flying Toaster for all I care, just so long as you don't tell other people that they can't dismantle or repair toasters because it violates YOUR holy commandments.

The problem is that most people of faith (usually ANY faith) aren't satisfied with leaving well-enough alone.

EDIT: Sorry I'm so late to the party.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

So would you have been a flat-earther back in the day?


The issue with the majority of atheists isn't WHAT you believe, it's how you USE that belief. You can believe in the Flying Toaster for all I care, just so long as you don't tell other people that they can't dismantle or repair toasters because it violates YOUR holy commandments.

The problem is that most people of faith (usually ANY faith) aren't satisfied with leaving well-enough alone.

EDIT: Sorry I'm so late to the party.

Well, not a flat earther; I just probably wouldn't care, back in the day.

Kind of, "That's nice. lemme sow my beans now.

[McKitty]

In the end, my reason for being an uncaring agnostic is this: I don't understand that Christians are so sure that no matter if you were a fricking saint in life; if you don't believe in one guy who may or may not have existed, you're potentially doomed for the rest of eternity.

Utter. Bullshit.

You want me to put faith in some guy up there who loves me unconditionally but he just sat on his ass up there while I get to go through the tramua of childhood abuse? I'm supposed to BELIEVE in him?

HA!

My Dad's a staunch Roman-Catholic. We butt heads all the time. He has been, for the past six years, dealing with toxic polyneropathy (nerve degenration) and it's one of the most painful things a man can go through, basically his entire body feels like it's on fire and nerves flare and flare and flare until they wither and die.

I don't comprehend how that's supposed to be a sign of Jesus loving him unconditionally. It's a sign that the universe is a cruel design of chance and cause&effect, not the handiwork of some good and all-knowing god.

Do I believe there's something up there? Yeah, but it was probably the big bang, or just an extended web of comsic whatis that everyone goes back to when they die. It's not some bearded man who tossed out Eve and Adam because they didn't want to be as ignorant as the animals anymore.

I read the bible with my dad. I go to studies and take classes on world religions. I know my stuff as well as a 23 year old taking the occasional class can know. Don't assume that I'm an idiot who spouts off facts because I'm anti-religion.

[UNODRAGONE]

stumbled upon this and thought it was interesting.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

Atheism: Belief in no God, or no
belief in God. (There is a difference)


Quotations about Atheism:
Anon: "Almost every American denies the existence of Artemis, Baal, Cybele, Fergus, Thor, Wotan, Zeus, and thousands of other gods and goddesses. The difference between a Christian and an Atheist is that an Atheist either denies the existence of the Trinity or has no belief in the Trinity. The difference is truly insignificant. It is only one part in thousands."

Isaac Asimov, from the article "On Religiosity" in Free Inquiry magazine: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."

Dan Barker, Author of "Losing Faith in Faith:" "I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."

Annie Wood Besant: "No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism."

George H.W. Bush, as presidential nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." 1

H. Havelock Ellis: "And it is in his own image, let us remember, that Man creates God."

Guy P. Harrison: "...atheism is not a conscious act of turning away from all gods. It is simply the final destination for those who think. ...you will be pleased to discover that the sky does not fall down on your head. ... if you still want to pray, you can (the success rate of your prayers is unlikely to change)."

Doug Jesseph: "As an atheist, I deny exist of all Gods: those of the Mayans, the Hindu, the Ancient Egyptians, and the God of the Old and New Testaments. If I am right, all of these are fictional constructs invented by clever humans for ... a variety of purposes, ranging from psychological comfort to entertainment." 2



Overview:
Atheism isn't necessarily a religious belief. However, it is certainly a religious issue because it deals with concepts that are found throughout many religions.

On this site, we define the term "religion" as:

"... any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

Atheism is not a complete religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions. However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point. These factors are generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any "revealed" religious text.

Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist."

Note that:

Atheism relates to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity, or whether the person associates any meaning to the terms "God" or "deity."

Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.

Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists and many individual Atheists.

Atheists often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses, as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc., are nonexistent entities created by human minds.

In one way, most people in North America are Atheists. Christians will generally deny the existence of the Mayan, Hindu, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Sumerian, Sikh, and many hundreds of other Gods and Goddesses, even as they assert their belief in the Christian Trinity. Thus, the difference between a typical Christian and a typical Atheist is numerically small: The strong Atheist believes that none of the many thousands of Gods and Goddesses exist; the Christian believes that one God exists in a certain structure -- a Trinity -- whereas all of the other thousands of deities are nonexistent, artificial creations by humans. Although the numerical difference is much less that 0.1%, the philosophical difference is immense.

There exists massive discrimination against Atheists in the U.S.

Part of this may be based on the historical linkage between Communism and Atheism. Most Communists are Atheists. But many people do not realize that most Atheists in North America are not Communists.

Another reason for this discrimination is the common belief that a person cannot be motivated to lead a moral life unless they believe in the carrot and stick system: hope for the reward of heaven, and fear the punishment of Hell. In the past, this belief had been codified into law. Conscientious objectors opposed to participating in warfare were thrown in jail if their opposition to killing other humans was not based on belief in God.

Still another cause of discrimination is a widespread linkage between theism -- the belief in the existence of God -- American patriotism, and Christianity.

[Wolf-Bone]

Part of this may be based on the historical linkage between Communism and Atheism. Most Communists are Atheists.

Worship of the state and its figurehead and a faith in the ability of rote-learning and labor (much of which is labor for its own sake) to bring about a utopia on earth is hardly what I'd call real atheism.

[Chriz]

Worship of the state and its figurehead and a faith in the ability of rote-learning and labor (much of which is labor for its own sake) to bring about a utopia on earth is hardly what I'd call real atheism.

Indeed.

The only reason communism and atheism are correlated is because Marx was an atheist, and wrote in The Communist Manifesto that religion would be outlawed after the great socialist revolution. Of course, he wrote that book less because he believed his own tripe but more because he knew the uneducated poor would (hm, sounds vaguely religious to me...). He was also paid very well to do it.

Religion didn't go away under Soviet Russia.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Dan Barker, Author of "Losing Faith in Faith:" "I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."
This is my new favorite quote. I just love it; it sums up your average [American] atheist's viewpoint on life in a very positive and wise tone. (^_^) Thank you UNO for finding that website. I don't ever criticize someone's religion unless they start criticizing my lack of a religion first. And they call me rude. :rolleyes: Though really, I'm not that much discriminated against. Sure, there are people that say "God Bless You" when I sneeze on purpose just to try to piss me off (and if I'm in a bad mood, it does annoy me), but those people are few in numbers and are just bitches anyway. I don't know, my high school seems to just be a tolerant place.

[Chriz]

Qa2UDXAB31o

[UNODRAGONE]

This is my new favorite quote. I just love it; it sums up your average [American] atheist's viewpoint on life in a very positive and wise tone. (^_^) Thank you UNO for finding that website. I don't ever criticize someone's religion unless they start criticizing my lack of a religion first. And they call me rude. :rolleyes: Though really, I'm not that much discriminated against. Sure, there are people that say "God Bless You" when I sneeze on purpose just to try to piss me off (and if I'm in a bad mood, it does annoy me), but those people are few in numbers and are just bitches anyway. I don't know, my high school seems to just be a tolerant place.

it is another misconception I have found people have about atheist, that for some reason they are negative and what not. My close friend is an atheist and he is anything but negative :shrug: just because you don't believe in God/s doesn't mean you're this negative depressed person, at least not to me, just means you don't believe in God/s.

[Lore]

it is another misconception I have found people have about atheist, that for some reason they are negative and what not. My close friend is an atheist and he is anything but negative :shrug: just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean you're this negative depressed person, at least not to me, just means you don't believe in anything.

You should be careful with your wording there UNO. Atheists believe in many things. The existence of a god just isn't one of those things.

[MetaKittie]

You should be careful with your wording there UNO. Atheists believe in many things. The existence of a god just isn't one of those things.

Really, you can't say Atheists believe certain things, like black and white "all Atheists believe THIS".
Its different for everyone. So yes, wording and generalization should be kept to a minimum or not used at all.

[Chriz]

Really, you can't say Atheists believe certain things, like black and white "all Atheists believe THIS".

I think Lore was just saying you can't define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in anything.

[MetaKittie]

I think Lore was just saying you can't define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in anything.

Thats what I mean.
As far as atheists go, its really an individual thing.
I for one think people just thought the bible was a good book and let fandom get outta hand. :p

[Chriz]

urlTBBKTO68

[Vendetta]

"What does God need with a starship?"

[J.L.R.]

"What does God need with a starship?"

I dunno... Even God's a fan of Star Trek? :D

[Chriz]

WYW_lPlekiQ

[jckrussll89]

I dunno... Even God's a fan of Star Trek? :D

How do you know?

[Raid]

How do you know?

If he wasn't, then he wouldn't have created it. :D

[jckrussll89]

Gene Roddenberry is God? Then God really is dead. At the age of 70, too.

[Raid]

He had a good run, some of the stuff people say about him are exaggerated a bit, though. He never rested on sundays.

[J.L.R.]

Whoa... I think there is finally proof in God! Somebody resurrected a zombie thread! Actually, judging from this site, this isn't actually miraculous. :D :notworthy:

[jckrussll89]

Brains!

[Therianthrope]

I'm an Atheist, and my reason for this is because I just cannot see the logic in the idea of a man/woman/thing existing everywhere at once. Isn't the Bible supposedly a bunch of random people adding new rules and rights and stories into it?

Sounds a lot like the 27 Amendments, doesn't it?

I just cant stand it. It makes me wanna do this :droolbld:

[Net]

I'm against Atheism, but it's more on a logical standpoint. Basically, there is no origin point for the universe. You can keep asking "well, where did THAT come from" over and over again, and you'll eventually end up at N/A. I say there has to have been something that created the first thing. The world is just too well put together to be made on accident.

Also, there's the purpose of being alive. Basically, I think it would be complete bullcrap if we were put here for absolutely no reason at all. That makes no sense. It would mean that no one has any purpose because there is no end result. Something can't come from nothing, and we can't end something with absolutely nothing. There has to be some sort of purpose for all this, or what would be the point of creating it? Sure, you can do "What If?" all day long, but which outcome seems the most likely? I think God is.

And yeah, that's the same reason I don't believe in reincarnation. Infinite loop takes away any meaning.

[GhostBat]

I'm against Atheism, but it's more on a logical standpoint. Basically, there is no origin point for the universe. You can keep asking "well, where did THAT come from" over and over again, and you'll eventually end up at N/A. I say there has to have been something that created the first thing.

... Something can't come from nothing...

The same problem arises for the belief in a creator. You can assume that the creator created the universe, but then the creator himself originated from nothing.

Also, there's the purpose of being alive. Basically, I think it would be complete bullcrap if we were put here for absolutely no reason at all. That makes no sense. It would mean that no one has any purpose because there is no end result... There has to be some sort of purpose for all this, or what would be the point of creating it? Sure, you can do "What If?" all day long, but which outcome seems the most likely? I think God is.

Of course it would be silly if there was a creator and he created life for no purpose (even if that purpose was to amuse himself). I think you're assuming something that is taken for granted in the belief of a creator. There is no need for a creator, so no one necessarily "created" or "designed" life. Life wasn't put here, it developed over time. The argument: "A creator wouldn't put life here simply for no reason, and since a creator does exist, life must have a purpose", is a logical fallacy. You cannot support your second premise as true. The argument is made worse when you use your conclusion, which you deducted from that premise, to prove that premise.

Life would ONLY have a specific purpose if it was created by an intelligence, and I simply cannot accept that. I mean, what intelligent creator would design a life-form that eats and breathes through the same opening? Choking hazard! In any case, there is no obvious purpose to life, besides the continuation of it through reproduction (which isn't really a purpose at all).

[NeonLightChild]

I mean, what intelligent creator would design a life-form that eats and breathes through the same opening? Choking hazard!

So dolphins and whales were created by the more intelligent being, while the gist of us got the short bus creator?

:(

OTOH, that would explain a LOT of things...

[GhostBat]

So dolphins and whales were created by the more intelligent being, while the gist of us got the short bus creator?

Or humans were one of his earlier tries, followed afterward by better designed marine mammals. An intelligent being learns from his mistakes, after all. :p

Anyway, humans created before other animals would agree with the biblical account of creation. Or does it?

Genesis 1:24-27

God created beasts before humans.

Genesis 2:7-19

God created humans before beasts.

[Vendetta]

I'm against Atheism, but it's more on a logical standpoint. Basically, there is no origin point for the universe. You can keep asking "well, where did THAT come from" over and over again, and you'll eventually end up at N/A. I say there has to have been something that created the first thing. The world is just too well put together to be made on accident.
Uhh who said the universe was made on accident? I'm pretty sure it's not atheists. Also, you seem to be refering to atheists as if there's some sot of codified belief system they all posess. This isn't true, other than the fact that they don't believe in a god or gods.

Also, there's the purpose of being alive. Basically, I think it would be complete bullcrap if we were put here for absolutely no reason at all.
So what this boils down to is that YOU specifically (and I'm sure lots of people) can't handle it if there is no "purpose" to life.

There has to be some sort of purpose for all this, or what would be the point of creating it?
Uhh again you're already assuming a creator, so yeah as GB pointed out you basically engaging in pretty fallatious reason (that is to say no reason as at all.)

Sure, you can do "What If?" all day long, but which outcome seems the most likely? I think God is.
That's great, but you haven't really said WHY you think that's more likely, other than engaging in circular "logic".

[Net]

The same problem arises for the belief in a creator. You can assume that the creator created the universe, but then the creator himself originated from nothing.



Of course it would be silly if there was a creator and he created life for no purpose (even if that purpose was to amuse himself). I think you're assuming something that is taken for granted in the belief of a creator. There is no need for a creator, so no one necessarily "created" or "designed" life. Life wasn't put here, it developed over time. The argument: "A creator wouldn't put life here simply for no reason, and since a creator does exist, life must have a purpose", is a logical fallacy. You cannot support your second premise as true. The argument is made worse when you use your conclusion, which you deducted from that premise, to prove that premise.

Life would ONLY have a specific purpose if it was created by an intelligence, and I simply cannot accept that. I mean, what intelligent creator would design a life-form that eats and breathes through the same opening? Choking hazard! In any case, there is no obvious purpose to life, besides the continuation of it through reproduction (which isn't really a purpose at all).

You assume life was not created by any sort of intelligence. I'm not totally assuming that we didn't develop over time, but I'm talking about the creation of all of nature. Not just humans. The making of the whole world is just too well put together.

And continuing a race for no reason just so it can be deleted in some huge disaster (like an expanding sun)? Now that's just nonsense. If anything, we're expected to be able to make it off this rock by a certain time period, meaning that we're meant for something other than just havin' sex and makin' babies.

And if we're talking in logical fallacies, you can't automatically assume that life just developed from absolutely nothing and then went on to do whatever. Answer this question. Where DID we come from? And I want to go ALL the way back, not just far enough to say "we started off as miniscule organisms".

Basically, my second premise can not be proven invalid.

Edit: Also, don't wanna double post so I'll just ignore the post directly before this, as it mostly seems to just call me stupid instead of actually telling me why I'm wrong.

[GhostBat]

You assume life was not created by any sort of intelligence. I'm not totally assuming that we didn't develop over time, but I'm talking about the creation of all of nature. Not just humans. The making of the whole world is just too well put together.

As a geologist, I'm fully aware of the formation and structure of the planet (along with other planets, planetoids, satellites, and stars). All of these can be explained through natural processes alone, with no need for any supernatural creator. I'm not arguing that God does or does not exist; I'm arguing that a creator is not necessary, so why fill a void that isn't there?

And continuing a race for no reason just so it can be deleted in some huge disaster (like an expanding sun)? Now that's just nonsense. If anything, we're expected to be able to make it off this rock by a certain time period, meaning that we're meant for something other than just havin' sex and makin' babies.

If I were to assume with you that a creator does exist, I still would not be in complete agreement with you. Why is it not possible that a creator would create humans (or any other life form) as some sort of experiment or form of amusement? If that were the case, why should we survive for infinity? Isn't that a special form of existence reserved for the creator?

And if we're talking in logical fallacies, you can't automatically assume that life just developed from absolutely nothing and then went on to do whatever. Answer this question. Where DID we come from? And I want to go ALL the way back, not just far enough to say "we started off as miniscule organisms".

Also as a geologist, more specifically a paleontologist, I've spent a number of years researching this exact question. It is one which we have yet to answer. With our limited (but growing) understanding of early Earth, several hypotheses have arisen to explain the beginning of life. Abiogenesis is the field that explores these hypotheses, in which living organisms arise from non-living matter.

I am not assuming that life on Earth arose from "nothing". Life arose from the non-living matter that was available at the time. That's not a fallacy at all. Even if a creator created life, he did so with non-living matter.

At this point, it is not known how life arose on this planet. This is not to be taken as proof of a creator, since in the not too distant past (geologically speaking) Zeus was believed to be responsible for lightning. With our current understanding of meteorology, we know that lightning has nothing to do with Zeus. The God of the gaps is pure nonsense.

If you would like to know more, here (http://staff.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/abiogenesis.pdf) is a recent lecture given at the University of Amsterdam on the subject.

Basically, my second premise can not be proven invalid.

Because your second premise cannot be proven either true or false, it cannot be relied upon to reach a conclusion through deductive reasoning.

[Vendetta]

Not just humans. The making of the whole world is just too well put together.
The whole world? Wow, do you have a narrow view of things.

And continuing a race for no reason just so it can be deleted in some huge disaster (like an expanding sun)? Now that's just nonsense.
Again, things have to make sense? Is this some sort of universal law? Because I've got news for you sport, lots of things don't make a lick of sense.

Take you for instance.

If anything, we're expected to be able to make it off this rock by a certain time period,
News Flash: We HAVE made it off this "rock". A looong time ago. Also, who is it that's expecting this?

meaning that we're meant for something other than just havin' sex and makin' babies.
Awww here's that adorable naivette I like so much.

And if we're talking in logical fallacies, you can't automatically assume that life just developed from absolutely nothing and then went on to do whatever.
No one is doing this. No one is saying we came from nothing.

Answer this question. Where DID we come from? And I want to go ALL the way back, not just far enough to say "we started off as miniscule organisms".
Man listen, seriously, no one's here to teach you basic biology/chemistry. Take some carbon, oxygen and hydrogen together in a bag, add some crazy, extreme chemical reactions, and voila, life.

Basically, my second premise can not be proven invalid.
Oh, you had a premise?

Edit: Also, don't wanna double post so I'll just ignore the post directly before this, as it mostly seems to just call me stupid instead of actually telling me why I'm wrong.
The fact that you can't see where I EXACTLY pointed out where you were wrong goes a long way to showing your stupidity. Sorry, nice try.

At this point I would highly recommend cracking open some non-fiction books (that aren't called, coincidentally "The Book") and maybe then you can come back and talk to the grown-ups.

[Net]

As a geologist, I'm fully aware of the formation and structure of the planet (along with other planets, planetoids, satellites, and stars). All of these can be explained through natural processes alone, with no need for any supernatural creator. I'm not arguing that God does or does not exist; I'm arguing that a creator is not necessary, so why fill a void that isn't there?



If I were to assume with you that a creator does exist, I still would not be in complete agreement with you. Why is it not possible that a creator would create humans (or any other life form) as some sort of experiment or form of amusement? If that were the case, why should we survive for infinity? Isn't that a special form of existence reserved for the creator?



Also as a geologist, more specifically a paleontologist, I've spent a number of years researching this exact question. It is one which we have yet to answer. With our limited (but growing) understanding of early Earth, several hypotheses have arisen to explain the beginning of life. Abiogenesis is the field that explores these hypotheses, in which living organisms arise from non-living matter.

I am not assuming that life on Earth arose from "nothing". Life arose from the non-living matter that was available at the time. That's not a fallacy at all. Even if a creator created life, he did so with non-living matter.

At this point, it is not known how life arose on this planet. This is not to be taken as proof of a creator, since in the not too distant past (geologically speaking) Zeus was believed to be responsible for lightening. With our current understanding of meteorology, we know that lightening has nothing to do with Zeus. The God of the gaps is pure nonsense.

If you would like to know more, here (http://staff.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/abiogenesis.pdf) is a recent lecture given at the University of Amsterdam on the subject.



Because your second premise cannot be proven either true or false, it cannot be relied upon to reach a conclusion through deductive reasoning.

Just for easiness sake, I'm going to go by paragraph and in this format: P1)=Paragraph 1, P2)=Paragragh 2 and so on...

P1) I'm doubting that all the laws of the universe were just THERE. Someone created those laws. I'm not saying he just created the world with those laws, I'm saying he also created those laws.

P2) That's assuming whoever the creator is just watches us for his amusement and doesn't give a crap. It is very possible he does want us to continue on. If you go by the "experiment" theory, I would think he would just want to see how long we last. Time limit until destruction wouldn't really work if he gives us enough intelligence to just move somewhere else. Which we have.

P3[That whole 3 paragraph section]) Not arguing that organisms were made from non-living matter. That only makes sense. The problem is the gaps that are, in fact, simply not answerable. There is no choice but to assume that the universe ultimately arose from nothing, so yeah, I say that can only lead to something having created it. I say God. Once science can accurately explain this to me, maybe that will change.

P4) I rely upon that premise because it can't simply be thrown out. I believe it can't be thrown out because there isn't a real alternate for it (if I'm using "alternate" incorrectly, it's because I couldn't think of a more accurate term).

TO VENDETTA: I can't even BEGIN to respond to your post, for various reasons. The main reason is that my account would probably be banned for it. I'm responding to GhostBat because he's ACTUALLY responding to my argument WITH an actual argument. YOU, on the other hand, are pretty much just quoting a sentence, telling me I'm stupid as a response, then doing it again for the next sentence. To say this as bluntly, and as nicely, as possible: shut up, please. I don't post on forums so some guy can call me an idiot over and over again (at least, not so blatantly).

[Chriz]

There is no choice but to assume that the universe ultimately arose from nothing, so yeah, I say that can only lead to something having created it.

Waxing philosophical here...

Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed, right? That means the entirety of reality could never have been created, because that would imply it didn't exist at one point. But if it didn't exist before it did, then it would need to have gone through a creation process, which is impossible.

So the only option we're left with is that the universe, in some form, has existed infinitely. It was never created, therefore there's no role for a creator.

I'm responding to GhostBat because she's ACTUALLY responding to my argument WITH an actual argument.

Fixed it for you. ;)

[GhostBat]

I found a book with a great chapter (chapter 2) on purpose that I think relates very well with the discussion at hand; It's called A Guide for the Godless (http://myweb.dal.ca/kernohan/Godless.pdf).

Let me quote a passage of it that I believe explains my point of view, because I am unsure that I'm successfully conveying it on my own:

"Richard Dawkins, a well-known contemporary defender of Darwin’s theory of evolution and author of The Selfish Gene, writes:

We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it difficult to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it or the purpose behind it might be. The desire to see purpose everywhere is a natural one in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts -- an animal, moreover, whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own goals and aims. Although a car, a tin opener, a screwdriver and a pitchfork all legitimately warrant the “What is it for” question, the mere fact that it is possible to frame a question does not make it legitimate or sensible to do so. . . . Questions can be simply inappropriate, however heartfelt their framing.
(Dawkins 1995:81)

Living in a technological world, a world of sophisticated tools for human purposes, human beings will naturally read “purpose” into their interpretation of the world. So projecting this framework onto the world seems natural for them. Nevertheless, the question, “What is the purpose of living?” is not a legitimate, well-framed, or fruitful question.

Physicists have abandoned explanations that appeal to purpose. The ancients thought that falling bodies always sought their natural place, which was on the surface of the earth. Such teleological explanations got their science nowhere. Modern physics, as we know it today, was able to develop only after it left this sort of explanation behind. Through Galileo and Newton, scientists came to think of motion and the law of gravity in a totally different way.

Biologists, too, have abandoned explanations that appeal to purpose. We can say, loosely, that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood, but that does not get us very far. The sophisticated therapies of modern medicine depend on a much finer grained knowledge of the physiology and biochemistry of the heart.

Political thinking, hopefully, has abandoned explanations that appeal to purpose. In totalitarian regimes, an individual is important only insofar as he fulfills a role in society. He has a purpose, which is to contribute to the good of the state. In democratic regimes, an individual is important in herself. She has inherent political rights. Her worth is not just instrumental; it is not that she is important only as she fulfills the purposes of the state. Her worth is intrinsic.

So, too, we should abandon the search for a purpose when thinking about life’s meaning. Otherwise we will be trapped by reasoning that goes like this: The meaning of life is the purpose of life; life has no purpose; therefore, life has no meaning. We must stop looking for instrumental meaning. Our lives are not resources serving some higher purpose. Instead, we should look for inherent meaning, meaning that is to be found within life itself. We should not think of something as meaningful only if it has a purpose. Instead, we should think of something as meaningful only if it is inherently worthwhile, that is, only if it truly matters."

[DarkWolf]

Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed, right? That means the entirety of reality could never have been created, because that would imply it didn't exist at one point. But if it didn't exist before it did, then it would need to have gone through a creation process, which is impossible.

So the only option we're left with is that the universe, in some form, has existed infinitely. It was never created, therefore there's no role for a creator.http://yahoofreak.com/animated%20emoticons/Violent%20Animated%20Emoticons/explode%20emoticon.gif
Brain go BOOM!

I'm against Atheism, but it's more on a logical standpoint.Because believing in some magical being that cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched is so much more logical?

Basically, there is no origin point for the universe.There are theories, but the main reason why we don't know for sure is because we weren't alive to witness it. We also don't know the origin of your God either, so the point is moot.

I say there has to have been something that created the first thing.'Cordin' to your later posts, isn't the first thing your God? So, are you saying there 'has to have been something that created God'? God wouldn't create the first thing, since by being there to create it he precedes anything he creates.

The world is just too well put together to be made on accident.Really, it isn't. But basic maths of probability tell you that it is indeed possible for something to be put together really well by pure randomness. So, say all you like the logics don't back your theory (nor negate it).

Basically, I think it would be complete bullcrap if we were put here for absolutely no reason at all.Ok, noted, but what does this tangent opinion have to do with you discussing the "logic" of why you're against atheism? Sorry, this ain't logic, this 'ere be nought but opinion.

That makes no sense.Who says it's suppose to? Where does logic say it must make sense or that there must be some super-special reason for life? Furthermore, atheism doesn't believe life is purposeless, it just describes not believing in God. Believing in alternative "dawn of time" and afterlife and so on are still possible for athiests. God and afterlife are mutually exclusive concepts, ya know. So, it's perfectly reasonable for an athiest to believe there is no spiritual purpose to life, or to believe that there is an afterlife to go to, etc. So, again I must ask where's this "logic" for being against "atheism" since you've yet to provide any.

And continuing a race for no reason just so it can be deleted in some huge disaster (like an expanding sun)? Now that's just nonsense.Perhaps. But this still has nothing to do with providing logic as reason for being against atheism. You realise logic is a pattern of thinking, deduction, math and finding evidence right? It's about spouting your personal opinions on whether there is or is not a creator.

You seem to forget that as equally as you consider it nonsense for life to continue until dead seemingly without meaning is how equally some others believe it nonsense that just because it seems pointless means there "must be" a creator.

Personally, in my opinion (not logic, just opinion) I find it silly and nonsense that just because you don't like the possibility of life being pointless you think this is why a creator must exist. D'ya ever think that just because you think it nonsense doesn't mean it isn't the case?

But again, must raise the point that a reason can exist without a creator behind it, such as believing we go through life, or even lives, to learn and develop and pass on to the next generation (not just genes, but knowledge and experience) so they can thrive and develop further and grant them a better chance of surviving to learn more and more. Perhaps that's a purpose, even if only self-given, to learn all we can about this universe even if for no deeper reason than shits 'n' giggles?

I find that more likely than some magicman nobody can see.

Edit: Also, don't wanna double post so I'll just ignore the post directly before this, as it mostly seems to just call me stupid instead of actually telling me why I'm wrong.Actually, Ven is pointing out your fallacies and is, indeed, indicating why you may be wrong.

Let's take a point by point look:

you seem to be refering to atheists as if there's some sot of codified belief system they all posess. This isn't true, other than the fact that they don't believe in a god or gods.He's not calling you stupid here and is pointing out a flaw in your posts: you seem to be under impression that athiests have set beliefs regarding the universe and the meaning of life. They don't. Athiest means only that the person doesn't believe in "God" or "Gods". Nothing stops them believing in reasons, in afterlife, or the supernatural. This is a pretty big flaw when you think about it.

So what this boils down to is that YOU specifically (and I'm sure lots of people) can't handle it if there is no "purpose" to life.Again, Ven here is not calling you stupid, merely pointing out another flaw as I have: that you're not providing logic for being against atheism only your personal preferences. Just because you as an individual have decided that life possibly having no meaning is "nonsense" and conclude from this decision that God must exist doesn't mean other people must also consider it nonsense.

So, those are the biggest points. I also would like to challenge you to back up your accusation. Vendetta, in that post, not once called you "stupid". So, why reply saying he did? Can you quote where in that post did he do so?

With that in mind, let's move on.

P1) I'm doubting that all the laws of the universe were just THERE. Someone created those laws. I'm not saying he just created the world with those laws, I'm saying he also created those laws.Doubting that the laws were simply just there doesn't, logically, immediately mean somebody created them. It is possible that laws became laws as part of the universe's development. It doesn't mean a god *must* have created those laws. That, again, is not logical reasoning it is you making assumptions on your personal preferences.

It is very possible he does want us to continue on.Aye. And it's also possible there is no creator and we continue on simply because we want to. You may consider this nonsense but actual LOGIC would be that nonsense or not, such a thing is possible regardless.

There is no choice but to assume that the universe ultimately arose from nothingFalse. See Chriz's post.

YOU, on the other hand, are pretty much just quoting a sentence, telling me I'm stupid as a response, then doing it again for the next sentence.He's not called you stupid yet. And is arguing your points just not as eloquently. The closest reference is his indicating the fact you can't even tell he's stating where you're wrong is what would be displaying your stupidity. This is, of course, inferring you're stupid for that. And I agree. But one indirect inferrence is not him calling you stupid every quoted sentence. Learn to read properly.

I will point out that the manner in which you're arguing your point is stupid and the way you dismiss Vendetta's very acceptable responses and make false accusations is stupid AND immature.

The reason why your arguing manner is stupid to me is simply because you claim to be against atheism from a logical standpoint - which, by the way, is inferring that athiests are not being logical - and yet you fail to actually provide any real logic. The main recurring principle behind your argument is that the idea of life/etc having no meaning is nonsense and so it must have been created for a purpose by God. That is NOT a logical standpoint, it is a standpoint based solely on your personal preference.

Actual logic dictates that life having no spiritual purpose is, indeed, a very plausible possibility and that stand regardless of whether you "like" it or not and whether you do or don't consider it "nonsense".

Things would surely have gone smoother if you had said you simply "disagreed" with Athiests. But, no, you stated you were AGAINST athiests due to LOGIC. This was, indeed, a rather stupid thing to say.

[Vendetta]

He's not called you stupid yet.
Allow me to rectify. Net, you ARE stupid. I mean maybe I could chalk it up to lack of information or education, but the fact that you keep repeating the same nonsensical drivel without bothering to actually respond to what people have stated in this thread leads me to this conclusion.

Furthermore, I've now gone around and read some of your other recent posts, because I thought hey, why not give the squirt the benefit of the doubt. But sadly, this only served to solidify my opinion.

Also, getting butthurt over my comments here seems fairly strange bizarre and not a little ironic, considering this:
...you'll most likely see me giving my two-cents, wanted or not.

[Net]

Okay, I'm starting to think being non-Atheist, on the internet, on a topic about Atheism, AND posting on said topic possibly wasn't a great idea. Any replies to my posts are starting to get ridiculously (and needlessly) long, while at the same time following Vendetta's you-are-an-idiot quote/response tactic. I'll post one last time here (on this thread), just to close everything up and stop what is starting to sound like hate-speech.

TO GHOSTBAT: We're going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that we were able to have an intelligent conversation about this. If I am understanding our opposition correctly, I am arguing that we must have a purpose and you are arguing that a purpose is not necessary. I don't think anything will change either of our minds on this subject, but it was nice talking to you on this thread. I DID read your last post, and to be honest, I wish you would summarize a bit more. The sources lengthened the post and it felt like you were saying the same thing several times at some points. But I can't really say I didn't do the same thing lol.

TO CHRIZ: Thanks for the correction. I'm new here so I won't know your genders lol. I'm going to auto-assume you're male unless you specifically tell me otherwise.
In reply to your response, I see what you're saying. But I simply can't accept that something has just been there forever with no creator and no outside influence, if I can say that here without someone piping up with "that's because you are stupid!"

TO DARKWOLF: To be honest, TL;DR. I don't take kindly to sentence by sentence commentary, since it usually ends up taking some things out of context. I did notice, however, that you were defending Vendetta's post, saying that he wasn't calling me stupid and simply pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. Pointing out flaws isn't arguing anything. It's the equivalent of telling a person he's an idiot over and over again without really stating anything AGAINST his views. Telling someone that they are wrong has no effect if you do not tell them WHY they are wrong. Also, my standing has not changed. My logic dictates that there must be a purpose, and their must be a creator. Your logic dictates the EXACT OPPOSITE. Let's just leave it at that, okay?

TO VENDETTA: Okay, I'm going to actually respond to you this time. Over the course of 3 posts, you have called me several names outright.
First Post: You start off telling me things I already know. You then go on to saying that I "can't handle it", then saying something "GB pointed out", and then saying my logic is circular. I ignored this post because you, yourself, never actually gave an argument. You just said I'm wrong about 3 times and ended it.
Second Post: This time you are more hostile. You start off calling me narrow-minded. Then you cracked a joke about me not making any sense. You go on to misconstrue my words (again) and tell me we've made it off the planet already (if you didn't get it the first time, I was saying that we are supposed to find a way off Earth, and to another place we can LIVE. Ya know? Because science says that Earth is going to eventually be swallowed by the sun, or some other catastrophe). Then you call me naive. And on and on to say I had no premise. Then you think pointing out what you think is a flaw in my post without actually giving a real response is helping? You think THAT is PERSUASION?!
Third Post: This time you just cut to the chase and call me stupid. Then you call ALL of my posts stupid. And then you basically tell me to "gtfo".

Now, this site isn't all bad. There are some nice enough people. GhostBat seems reasonable, he's cool. Some people have different opinions on a subject, I can understand that. But what Vendetta does, and also Darkwolf, that is just NOT okay. Darkwolf (at the end) basically says that if I simply said "I disagree" without stating an opinion or an argument, he would be cool with it. Discussions aren't run by everyone saying "I agree" over and over again in different ways. You can't just say "you suck gtfo" to everyone who has a dissenting opinion. That's what Vendetta did.

Vendetta, I go on forums and give my opinion, whether it is wanted or not. This INCLUDES going to a topic I disagree about and saying WHY I disagree. It does NOT mean I go to a topic, post my reply, and EXPECT some guy to come in a repeatedly say "you are stupid". I come in, I give my response, and what I EXPECT, is some modicum of civility. Not feigned civility. ACTUAL civility. Done.

[DarkWolf]

The quotes weren't out of context, it's to reply to a specific point in a manner that easily shows which point I'm replying to and makes it easier for readers.

For a second time, Ghostbat is female. Getting it wrong once is fine because you're not going to know and were corrected. But getting it wrong again?

And finally you're misquoting me. I didn't say, at all not even a hint that I'd be "cool" with you saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that without opinion.

What I said was it was stupid to say you were AGAINST Atheism from a LOGICAL STANDPOINT when all you give is mere opinion. I said it would be smoother of you had stated you DISAGREED (as opposed to against) and described it as OPINION (instead of logic). The issue seems to be you don't know what logic and opinion are. They mean very different things.

What you've presented IS NOT LOGIC. Logic is a process of mathmatical deduction, of discerning FACTS from environment and making CALCULATED CONCLUSION. You have not done this. You base the necessity of their being a creator purely on your OPINION that life must have purpose.

I have no qualms about your opinion, or anything you have stated on this topic as an opinion. My issue was simply that you described your opinion as a logical standpoint when it wasn't.

And how much calm civility are you expecting when you say you're AGAINST something and provide only opinion to back it up? Again there seems to be a problem with understanding the difference in terms. "Disagree" and "against" mean different things.

Being in disagreement means that you will not agree to something yourself but are fine with others who do agree.

Being against something means you actively seek to challenge, disrupt, disprove, or antagonise - it means you do not accept that something, and do not tolerate anyone who may agree. In short, saying you're against atheism means you don't accept people making the choice to be atheist.

THAT is why I have issue to you. You insulted atheists from the get-go. You say you're against them from a logical standpoint but provide only opinion. Which means, you're saying you consider us wrong for being atheists but only have an opinion to justify why.

So this is why I said it would have been better for you to have said you disagreed with atheism and then provided your opinion on the matter.

You began your side of things insulting atheists and fail to provide proper reasons to justify that. So based on your choice of words you got the level of civility you deserve. Perhaps it would be better in future to choose words that weren't designed to provoke people?

((EDIT: Caps are used for emphasis not shouting.))

[Net]

The quotes weren't out of context, it's to reply to a specific point in a manner that easily shows which point I'm replying to and makes it easier for readers.

For a second time, Ghostbat is female. Getting it wrong once is fine because you're not going to know and were corrected. But getting it wrong again?

And finally you're misquoting me. I didn't say, at all not even a hint that I'd be "cool" with you saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that without opinion.

What I said was it was stupid to say you were AGAINST Atheism from a LOGICAL STANDPOINT when all you give is mere opinion. I said it would be smoother of you had stated you DISAGREED (as opposed to against) and described it as OPINION (instead of logic). The issue seems to be you don't know what logic and opinion are. They mean very different things.

What you've presented IS NOT LOGIC. Logic is a process of mathmatical deduction, of discerning FACTS from environment and making CALCULATED CONCLUSION. You have not done this. You base the necessity of their being a creator purely on your OPINION that life must have purpose.

I have no qualms about your opinion, or anything you have stated on this topic as an opinion. My issue was simply that you described your opinion as a logical standpoint when it wasn't.

And how much calm civility are you expecting when you say you're AGAINST something and provide only opinion to back it up? Again there seems to be a problem with understanding the difference in terms. "Disagree" and "against" mean different things.

Being in disagreement means that you will not agree to something yourself but are fine with others who do agree.

Being against something means you actively seek to challenge, disrupt, disprove, or antagonise - it means you do not accept that something, and do not tolerate anyone who may agree. In short, saying you're against atheism means you don't accept people making the choice to be atheist.

THAT is why I have issue to you. You insulted atheists from the get-go. You say you're against them from a logical standpoint but provide only opinion. Which means, you're saying you consider us wrong for being atheists but only have an opinion to justify why.

So this is why I said it would have been better for you to have said you disagreed with atheism and then provided your opinion on the matter.

You began your side of things insulting atheists and fail to provide proper reasons to justify that. So based on your choice of words you got the level of civility you deserve. Perhaps it would be better in future to choose words that weren't designed to provoke people?

((EDIT: Caps are used for emphasis not shouting.))

I can't believe I'm responding to this...

If you didn't realize what thread you were on, this is ALL opinion. None of you can claim to know what ACTUALLY happens after you die, but we can all make inferences and educated guesses and theories on both the beginning and the end. This isn't place for hard facts. You can't just say I'm the only one here using opinions. All of you are. Also, what I say is logic. It's just logic assuming everything needing a purpose instead of logic assuming nothing needs a purpose.

Actually, "disagree" usually means you are also "against". I do in fact "disagree", and I am also "against". I'm not as hostile as you make it out to be, though.

I'm "against" atheism because, yes, I think it is wrong. If I think something is wrong, I will point it out. I did NOT, however, come here and tell you guys that you're stupid, nor did I insult you. Your mind went on a tangent simply because I used the word "against" instead of "disagree". It's a single word man. Get off it. And by "wrong" I mean it in the same way I think 1+1=3 is wrong, NOT in the same way I think killing children is wrong.

Okay, sorry I used the word "against" instead of "disagree". I think you may have overreacted a little, but either way my stance has not changed and I'm not changing my wording. I don't hate you guys, I just think you're wrong. You guys think I'M wrong. So be it.

And sorry GhostBat. It's habit. I'll make sure to refer to you as either GhostBat or "she".

[NeonLightChild]

Sorry if this post sounds a little nitpicky and the content a little off-topic, but I feel it necessary to clear this up...

But I'm afraid that your personal definitions of "disagree" and "against" are butting up against what some members have as their idea of the word.

"Disagree" is generally used under the guise that you have some form of evidence or valid source to back up why you feel that way. It's commonly used in debates where concrete examples are required in order to make a point: "I disagree and here's why" with real-world examples of why things might not be that way. I disagree with using captive marine mammals as the poster child for dog training and the entire positive reinforcement-only movement and .

"Against" is more of a personal thing. It generally just means that you don't like something as a matter of personal opinion, whether or not your reasons make sense to other people. You're against the idea of the paranormal unless something happens otherwise to change your mind. Your reasoning, your burden, and the only person it affects is you. I'm against those stupid head halters and no-pull harnesses that don't teach a dog a damn thing except to [i]maybe not pull on leash, and that's if you're really consistent and/or lucky (and don't get me started on people who use them in combo with a damn extendilead). If other people use them, fine, but if I'm asked for advice or paid for my training services, I'm going to not mince my words about them.

And yes, both can indicate a general dislike as well.

Understand? I think that's where we're getting a bit off. No one's trying to offend you, call you stupid, we're just debating what you put forth and asking you to back up your reasonings. It's damn near impossible to argue something like religion using something like "logic," because there is none.

Why should I believe in some zombie Jew who espouses cannibalism and who died on a glorified stick, when instead I can believe in a jackal-headed old guy who messes with dead people and whose picture can be found on some pretty old documents?

I could go for the artificial security of Wiccan and believe everything by Silver Ravenwolf, but why do that when the allure of Shiva beckons from ancient India?

Hell, I should use logic to believe in the power of the Greek and Roman gods, since they were a major part of society and life during their respective eras and are even mentioned in textbooks...but seriously, I'm more inclined to think that the likes of Loki, Odin and Sleipnir are way cooler than boring Zeus and Hera.

Get where I'm going with this?

It's not my intention to offend, and if that's how this comes across, my apologies. However, I imagine that we might be approaching the atheism debate and discussion a little differently than you, especially in regards to how we're interpreting your words.

[GhostBat]

TO GHOSTBAT: We're going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that we were able to have an intelligent conversation about this. If I am understanding our opposition correctly, I am arguing that we must have a purpose and you are arguing that a purpose is not necessary. I don't think anything will change either of our minds on this subject, but it was nice talking to you on this thread. I DID read your last post, and to be honest, I wish you would summarize a bit more. The sources lengthened the post and it felt like you were saying the same thing several times at some points. But I can't really say I didn't do the same thing lol.

At the end I wasn't quite sure how to continue without repeating myself, and I was grasping at straws to add more life to what I was trying to get across. You seem to have the right idea, though. I don't believe that a purpose for life is necessary, but that doesn't mean that life doesn't have an inherent meaning. I'm not sure we can argue further than that.

And sorry GhostBat. It's habit. I'll make sure to refer to you as either GhostBat or "she".

Or GB, Ghost, Bat, Batty, etc. Honestly I don't mind being considered male. Chriz might want people to know he's married to a woman, but I'm certainly not offended. :p

[DarkWolf]

This would be so much easier if you first read my posts properly and secondly stop putting words in my mouth (figuratively speaking).

I am not saying you are the only one using opinion. I am not saying that having the opinion is wrong. I am not even saying that your specific opinion is wrong. I have not, once, ever said this. What I am responding to is that you're calling your opinion a logical standpoint when it isn't one. Logic and opinion mean different things.

What you say is not "logic". Neither opinion of "life needs purpose" or "life doesn't need purpose" is logic. They are only opinions.

Disagree and against both mean in opposition but only against means "as hostile to". Pick up a dictionary sometime, please. The word "against" over "disagree" designates an antagonistic approach. You're here to say atheism is wrong. That's fine, an' all, but we generally expect to be given a logical reason why, and you've not provided any. Especially since you have also demonstrated failure to properly understand the term "atheist".

You are aware there are atheists who DO believe in afterlife and DO believe in life having purpose, yes? The only difference is that they believe life's purpose is from ourselves not from a creator.

Seriously, you've yet to explain logically why it must be "wrong" to think there is no creator. All you've said towards this is that thinking there is no purpose to life is nonsense. Since atheists also can believe purposeless life is nonsense too, your argument doesn't relate to why atheism is wrong.

Finally, in regards to the main thing with me at least, you're saying I'm wrong. I am NOT saying you are. You are saying my opinion - my belief - is WRONG. I have not once said your opinion, or your belief, is wrong. I'm simply asking for a logical reason why you think I'm wrong, since you've yet to actually provide one.

[Chriz]

Demonstrable Proof (http://www.everythingdiescomic.com/?p=1&s=33)

[Vendetta]

Vendetta, I go on forums and give my opinion, whether it is wanted or not.
Then you have to expect reciprocation there slick. Also, what kind of person goes on an internet forum they've never been to before without lurking for a bit to see what the members of said forum are like (and which are likely to bite his or her head off if they act like a moron)? I'll tell you: a stupid person. I've posted extensively not only in this thread but a good many others as well, and I think my way of doing things online is pretty self-evident. I'm sorry that makes you all butthurt, but that's not my problem. Welcome to the internet kiddo.

It does NOT mean I go to a topic, post my reply, and EXPECT some guy to come in a repeatedly say "you are stupid". I come in, I give my response, and what I EXPECT, is some modicum of civility. Not feigned civility. ACTUAL civility. Done.
Hmm, perhaps if your posts contained a modicum of logic or common sense you wouldn't get this response. People in this thread (myself included - no matter how much you ignore me) have time and time-again pointed out the flaws in your "logic". You have consistently shown that you don't know what an atheist is, how life works in the universe, and science in general.

And for the record, I never once even remotely implied that you need to GTFO. I welcome informed debate, and we've had many good ones on this site over the years. This just wasn't one of them.

Also, rainbows, how do THEY work?!

EDIT: Oh man I just found this. Net, are you a troll?
I believe that if I haven't seen it, or it hasn't happened to me, it does not exist.
(From the Paranormal thread.)

[Klark]

Oh, I want to read Stephen Hawking's newest book before I say anything further. :D

[Vendetta]

Oh, I want to read Stephen Hawking's newest book before I say anything further. :D
Yeah Dawkins has already come out in support of it. As much as I generally don't like some of Hawking's ideas (and egotism,) it certainly looks to be an interesting read.

[Vendetta]

Thought this was interesting enough to share with you folks. Apparently a new survey on religious knowledge from the Pew Research Center found that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest scoring (i.e. they knew the most about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions,) outperforming evangelicals, Protestants and Catholics. Atheists and agnostics scored the highest though out of all of them.

Here's the report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx)

[Praecida]

Thought this was interesting enough to share with you folks. Apparently a new survey on religious knowledge from the Pew Research Center found that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest scoring (i.e. they knew the most about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions,) outperforming evangelicals, Protestants and Catholics. Atheists and agnostics scored the highest though out of all of them.

Here's the report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx)

Since when are survey's ever used to make a point in anything other than politics? Any half brained individual knows that those mean absolutely nothing. Where was this taken, in New York? LA? Where people call themselves whatever they feel like that day? I'm not a religious person at all, but I'm not atheist in the least.

Theology is up for interpretation, lol. That's like showing someone a picture of a pink-red paint and asking them what color it is. Survey's mean absolutely nothing in the scientific world. That proves nothing.

[Vendetta]

Theology is up for interpretation, lol. That's like showing someone a picture of a pink-red paint and asking them what color it is. Survey's mean absolutely nothing in the scientific world. That proves nothing.
So I guess by your logic we might as well do away with standarized testing, since it proves "nothing." Well done.

EDIT: Also, if you actually WENT to the link you would see that the survey was based on a sample size of 3,412 (adults 18 years or older,) ACROSS the continental US. But I understand if reading is hard for you.

[J.L.R.]

So I guess by your logic we might as well do away with standarized testing, since it proves "nothing." Well done.

EDIT: Also, if you actually WENT to the link you would see that the survey was based on a sample size of 3,412 (adults 18 years or older,) ACROSS the continental US. But I understand if reading is hard for you.

Still polls like the above are only speculative at best. There are plenty of Christian deep thinkers out there. Now if you poll Christians stimming from a more "Emotional" sect, then yeah, you ain't gonna get the brightest stars in the sky. If they don't even know the fundamentals (based on the Bible) of their own beliefs, you're certainly not going to know the core concepts of others' beliefs.

Then you also have to take in consideration that some Christians have never studied other religions simply because they have no need. They are content with who they are and thusly don't need to reach out. I know a few like this as well.

On the flip side, I know quite a few Atheists of whom no nothing about Christianity. They rely heavily on Youtube vids, falsified info, and material that is nothing more than urban legend than what is actually in the Bible... and usually if they know a little Bible, it's taken out of context. So there ya go...

[Vendetta]

Still polls like the above are only speculative at best.
Except see, the thing wasn't really a poll. Not in the sense that polls are normally taken. It was basically a test. They asked people over 30 non-opinion questions on various religions and religious figures.

If you are an English major and you fail a test on basic English, YES, I think that's pretty significant.

[J.L.R.]

Except see, the thing wasn't really a poll. Not in the sense that polls are normally taken. It was basically a test. They asked people over 30 non-opinion questions on various religions and religious figures.

If you are an English major and you fail a test on basic English, YES, I think that's pretty significant.

But again the results are still speculative, because there is a multitude of variables that can determine those results. Location, exposure, level of education... ect... ect... ect...

If you are an English Major then you would have studied English. Being of any religious affiliciation doesn't require one to have studied religions above and beyond their own. Christians for example that have gone to college (especially Christian colleges, as most require a study of world religions) would fair quite a bit better than Joe Shmo Christian who lives in Left Wing Kentucky, and goes "emotionalistic" type Church where feelings and expierences rank higher than the study of one's own faith.
Secondly, especially in Christianity, there are a lot of people who associate themselves with Christians or call themselves Christians without adhereing or following the tenents of the faith.

In short, I'd love to see the so called "Christians" they tested.

[Vendetta]

But again the results are still speculative, because there is a multitude of variables that can determine those results. Location, exposure, level of education... ect... ect... ect...

If you are an English Major then you would have studied English. Being of any religious affiliciation doesn't require one to have studied religions above and beyond their own. Christians for example that have gone to college (especially Christian colleges, as most require a study of world religions) would fair quite a bit better than Joe Shmo Christian who lives in Left Wing Kentucky, and goes "emotionalistic" type Church where feelings and expierences rank higher than the study of one's own faith.
Secondly, especially in Christianity, there are a lot of people who associate themselves with Christians or call themselves Christians without adhereing or following the tenents of the faith.

In short, I'd love to see the so called "Christians" they tested.
JLR read the breakdown on the pages I linked to. They break the responses down by age, education level, race/ethnicty and religious background. Hell they even have a breakdown of respondents by how frequently they read their affiliated scripture and how committed they say they are to their religion. Seriously explore the entire report, not just the abstract. It's chock full of good information (section IV is about the full breakdowns, and Appendix A goes into their methodology.)

Also, you can take a short online version (only 15 questions) of the test (http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php) to get a taste of where you fall.

[J.L.R.]

:cool:JLR read the brakdown on the pages I linked to. They break the responses down by age, education level, race/ethnicty and religious background. Hell they even have a breakdown of respondents by how frequently they read their affiliated scripture and how committed they say they are to their religion. Seriously explore the entire report, not just the abstract. It's chock full of good information (section IV is about the full breakdowns, and Appendix A goes into their methodology.)

Also, you can take a short online version (only 15 questions) of the test (http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php) to get a taste of where you fall.

Okay folks... make a note... Sorry Vendetta... You were right... :beerchug:

Yes I know... The world just ended... :P

In truth, what is really sad... at least I think it is sad, is that most of the questions are pretty basic.

BTW... I scored 100%... :cool:

[Chiron Jackal]

Hey Atheist friends!

I recently saw Taking Chance (http://www.hbo.com/movies/taking-chance/index.html), a film based very closely on taking Chance Phelps, a Marine who was shot and killed in Iraq, home to be buried. His body was treated lovingly by the people who cleaned him up and dressed him, his uniform was absolutely perfect even though it would be a closed casket funeral, and he was saluted many many times. He was saluted every time he passed military personnel.

While there's the occasional odd Atheist who believes there just might be an afterlife, I know that the vast majority of you believe that when you die it's over for you. And I want to know what you think of such extreme care, honor, and dignity being lavished upon a person who no longer exists.

[GhostBat]

While there's the occasional odd Atheist who believes there just might be an afterlife, I know that the vast majority of you believe that when you die it's over for you. And I want to know what you think of such extreme care, honor, and dignity being lavished upon a person who no longer exists.

For me there are two things.

I think it's great to show respect for the dead, because you're showing respect for the memory of the person who passed away. That person isn't looking down and feeling happy or sad over the treatment of their body, but I would certainly be comforted in life to know that my body (which contributes greatly to how I define myself!) will be well-treated. That same comfort is awarded me when I think that my body could be put to good use as an organ donor or donated for scientific research. I wont be around to care what happens to my body when I die, but it's comforting now. Respect comes into play when you actually do for the deceased person what they were led to believe would happen to their body.

This follows into my next thought on the situation, which is that it can be a great way for friends and family to grieve. Actually going through the motions of taking care of the body after death ultimately has nothing to do with the deceased, but everything to do with those left behind. If it makes them feel better, then it should definitely be done. The body is the last sliver of physical connection they might have with the one they love.

[Fenris_brood]

I wouldn't deny anyone their rights to any cerimonial treatments like this, but personally I find it a bit of a waste of resources...at most send him at sea and make a memorial grave for him at home, does it really matter that there's a corpse under it or not? Cremation would also work better, cremation facilities should be carried in some way or another for use in these abroad situations, fit them into a navy ship or somethin'. But hey, no real harm for any cerimonial process really, it makes it special and makes people think they're doing an honour for a deceased, pointless as I may view it, other people don't.