Atheism vs. Theism

[Vertex]

I agree, it seems a huge contradiction to basically parrot what well-known atheist authors publish but berate believers for doing the same with their holy books. Atheism doesn't need a book IMO. It shouldn't need validation - either you believe or you don't.

 

The only books atheists would use are those of science.

 

Please watch this when you get a chance and let me know what you think. It's a Dawkins video, but he brings up a lot of the points we've discussed in this thread.

 

[Rooster_DAR]

I gave up arguing with religiots after I saw this quote:

 

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"

 

Now that's a quote I can totally understand. Nice!

[FleshNBones]

Apparently atheists have their own bibles too. They must' date=' they keep referencing this Flying Spaghetti Monster that some author came up with in a book. And they've even got their own saviors - Richard Dawkins comes to mind.[/quote']Savior? More like Yoda. They think he is brilliant, but in reality, he is just outspoken.

It's really hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who starts it off insulting you. First, you aren't intelligent enough to even have the conversation, yet, they keep asking you questions they don't think you can comprehend....

The funny thing is they are never as intelligent as they claim to be.

Second, they discount all of your reasons "why" because they feel that everything can be answered by science.

That is because the original poster was shot down with logic (of all things) when he argued that everything could be explained with science. He fell back on spaghetti monsters, and the usual stuff.

I am with johan, still waiting for an original thought from the atheists. Say something that wasn't covered in these books. When was the moment you decided to be an atheist?

This is the one thing that makes them so boring. There is little curiosity, creativity, and originality in general.

The more I read from atheists, I am becoming convinced that they are likely disaffected theists - mostly Catholic.

I know some disaffected and overly BITTER former Catholics.

[threebyfate]

You cannot convince people to believe or disbelieve. People will believe what they want to believe.

 

In order to change their belief system, you're asking for people to walk away from foundations they've always known and with Fundamentalists, an entire social and familial structure, to their lives.

 

Organized religion isn't logical or rational. It's about belief and wanting to believe.

[FleshNBones]

Its insulting' date=' far from logical. To equate one's belief in god to some made up fictional thing is insulting and does not foster intelligent debate.[/quote']What makes it insulting is that FSM is just a caricature.

This will sound insensitive and I don't mean it to sound that way given what you have shared. It seems to me like the atheist side wants to say that their experience is more real than the theist side. But both are based on emotional (maybe even traumatic) experiences. It just doesn't seem fair or logical to say that one is more valid than another.

I think the fact that they are so outspoken about it is proof of their emotional investment.

[627]

religion simply contradicts logic and it is unfair

example:

in the bible it was Thomas(right? my bible is in arabic ) that said that he wants to put his hands in christ's wounds before he would believe that he really rose from the dead

and what happened? christ appeared to him and told him that he can put his hands if this would prove it to him

so how come a person that lived with christ and saw all these miracles, was still alowed to doubt, and he was still given yet another miracle to see

and we should only settle to believing stories 2000 years old, and we cannot ask for such a proof?

one of the many things that make no sense to me

[FleshNBones]

It's no logically different. If you believe in a God, this is no functionally different from believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't disprove the FSM, much like you can't disprove any other God. This is the entire point behind the FSM's construct. It isn't meant to be insulting, but rather an extreme example to reveal some commonplace errors in logic because so many people are quick to shoot it down without realizing what they're actually doing.

You could have made an argument about Zeus, Athena, or any number of pagan gods. Keep it honest and clean, and you will be in the clear. You lose credibility big time when you start making up testimonials. In doing that, you indirectly call us liars so you lose even more creditability.

Sure it does -- you are, by definition, atheist towards Gods you don't believe in. If faith is enough to declare that one incorporeal being is real, then it must be enough for them all, no? If you had grown up in a different country or time period, you'd be believing in a much different God.

Weak argument. Do you remember the 1st commandment? I believe the general Christian teaching is that there is only 1 true god, and the rest are false. Only 1 god created everything, and all of the others are just posers.

I'm not ignorant of their reasons, I just think that they're incorrect/misinformed/taught from an early age that there is a God/whatever the reason may be. People make the mistake that somehow emotion or morality has a place in universal truth when these things are purely human constructs.

You have no logical leg to stand on in regard to indoctrinating kids.

I can still ask questions as a human wanting to know the "why" behind another human's reasoning. This is still perfectly valid. I am just saying that asking "why" to questions that don't pertain to human matters is ultimately useless and will never result in ANY concrete answer because it isn't possible to do so. I agree that God is a human construct, as is belief -- I am just saying that there's no reason to believe in a "more powerful being" when evidence suggests otherwise. I apologize if this explanation doesn't make sense. Asking "why" is a human appeasement -- it is not a pathway to truth.

There will never be sufficient evidence for a devout atheist.

The difference is that I *removed* emotion from the equation, which IS the logical thing to do regarding truth and science.

You are no Spock.

Let me ask you: If I break my computer, does it go to computer heaven?

How many evolutionists believe it is alive?

How many evolutionists actually KNOW how it works?

 

I actually implemented a fully pipelined processor in VHDL when I was a college undergrad. It ran hand-coded machine code, and displayed the text output on a monitor. I didn't copy anything from a book.

[FleshNBones]

and right, you are living for something far far superior

being a slave to a master that does not consider you worthy of seing him or any direct link to him

to be a sheep in the herd?

yeah I'd rather yank away all my life

I was hoping you'd actualy give me an intelligent answer though, rather than to degrade the debate to such terms and ideas

Slaves do not have a choice.

We strive to be servants.

[FleshNBones]

Science is a tool. Religion is a tool. They can and should exist peacefully together.

I think the whole science vs religion conflict is just a myth.

[FleshNBones]

religion simply contradicts logic and it is unfair

example:

in the bible it was Thomas(right? my bible is in arabic ) that said that he wants to put his hands in christ's wounds before he would believe that he really rose from the dead

and what happened? christ appeared to him and told him that he can put his hands if this would prove it to him

so how come a person that lived with christ and saw all these miracles, was still alowed to doubt, and he was still given yet another miracle to see

and we should only settle to believing stories 2000 years old, and we cannot ask for such a proof?

one of the many things that make no sense to me

There are people in this world who sit on their butts waiting for answers to come to them.

There are also people in this world to go out and search for those answers.

Which one are you?

[Toki]

What this argument entails is essentially two sides of the same coin, arguing that the other side doesn't exist.

 

It's tedious, and as any Christian should know, the man who sits next to you probably doesn't believe in the same god as you do, even though you attend the same church, sit in the same pews, and partake of the same ceremonies. Just as with Atheism, no two are exactly alike in their beliefs, and the amount of ignorance being displayed on both sides, but nominally the Christians on this board, is disgusting.

 

I don't think a single Christian here has read the bible, it's really a great piece of work, maybe you should check it out. You know turn the other cheek, maybe even act humble in the face of wisdom and logic, since as you know... John, Luke, Paul, and even Jesus were apt to do from time to time. However, they were also comfortable and secure in their faith; its shameful how so many modern Christians forgot how to love.

[Vertex]

Like I said, I grew up Christian and have actually read the Bible. However, as an atheist, I'd say it's probably a good idea to have read the Bible, if only to at least figure out what it is you're not believing in, haha.

 

Regardless, this is the kind of deadlock I am concerned about. No theist has addressed any of my scientific points yet, which is part of the problem I referred to in the OP. A theist *has* to take the scientific view into account because it is true for everyone. It's not like science is only for atheists. It's for everyone. I want to understand what a theist has to say, given the evidence. So far the evidence is being largely ignored.

 

I think, in the end, no amount of scientific proof will sway one's faith, and that isn't the goal. Their primary argument is "It doesn't matter how much proof you amass -- I am still throwing in with a proofless belief because of 'personal experience' and other 'spiritual' intuitions.'" I just do not understand how people can still be theist even with an understanding of the science.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Vertex

[627]

There are people in this world who sit on their butts waiting for answers to come to them.

There are also people in this world to go out and search for those answers.

Which one are you?

well I'm arguing you aren't I?

and I'm always asking you questions and reading your answers

so which one do I appear to be?

I asked a million question in this thread and not all were answered, including this one

 

Slaves do not have a choice.

We strive to be servants.

serve you get to live in the eternity

disobey you get to die an eternal death

this is as much freedome as a robber pointing his gun at the cashier and telling him "give me all your money or die"

of course the cashier has a choice, take the bullet in the head and die refusing to give up the money

but is that a fair choice?

 

edit: what if I wish to keep my freedome, I won't kill anyong or steal or rape, however I do not wish to kneel and pray and deny myself the thrills of dating and sex and being rich and a bit selfish etc...

and I'm okay with not going to heaven for an eternity, I'd value my free will and personnality on earth more

would God just let me be what I want and in the end send me on some neutral grounds?

 

accordign to christianity, no, it's heaven or hell, you're either with the sheeps or the wolves

and I don't feel it is right that I should ask forgiveness for things that are not evil

being rich is defined apparently as a sin, but it is not evil

masturbation and sex, same

not praying or not worshiping same

I'm supposed to ask for forgiveness for those? and they actualy say "God is graceful enough to forgive you for these things" lolwut? why, what did I take from him for him to do the forgiving act?

Edited November 4, 2009 by 627

[mbeewood]

As a hardcore atheist, I simply want to state a few opinions and raise these questions:

 

Opinions:

1. I am okay with anyone's religious belief as long as it is not imposed on me, and as long as I am not discriminated based on my beliefs. I also extend the same concept to others.

2. I believe science and logic is the only way to examine the universe -- any "mystery" or "enigma" is simply something we do not yet know.

3. Dangerous opinion, but here goes: I feel that those who are not atheist simply do not understand all the arguments in favor.

4. I believe we can explain everything (and I do mean everything) without the need for a God or external force -- I am very much against the "God of the gaps" argument.

 

And so, my questions:

1. If you are indeed a God-believer, why are you?

2. If you are religious and yet still understand all points in favor of atheism, why do you still choose theism?

 

 

What the hell is "harcore atheists" supposed to mean?

 

1. I am okay with anyone's religious belief as long as it is not imposed on me, and as long as I am not discriminated based on my beliefs. I also extend the same concept to others.

 

That makes no sense. A belief does not somehow push itself onto you. A person does that to you. Therefore, not being okay with a certian belief because you think someone tried to push it into you makes no sense.

 

2. I believe science and logic is the only way to examine the universe -- any "mystery" or "enigma" is simply something we do not yet know.

 

So you're saying you're a naturalist. In my opinion that is a pretty ignorant belief, that everything in existence can be understood through science, but whatever floats your boat. As for your view on logic, religion and theism do not contradict logic whatsoever, and infact many theologians have attempted to prove God's existence with logic alone. Thomas Aquinas for example.

 

3. Dangerous opinion, but here goes: I feel that those who are not atheist simply do not understand all the arguments in favor.

 

And I feel many of those who are atheist do not understand all the arguments in favor of theism, including you my friend.

 

And number 4 you're pretty much just saying you're an atheist.

 

 

1. If you are indeed a God-believer, why are you?

 

First of all, there is no answer to explain the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of the big bang. Something must have caused the big bang. before the big bang, there was no time, and therefore no sequence. Because there was no sequence, nothing natural could have happened that caused the big bang. Therefore, whatever caused the big bang must have been supernatural.

 

Secondly, the fine tuning of the universe. Read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

2. If you are religious and yet still understand all points in favor of atheism, why do you still choose theism?

 

There are not any points in favor of atheism, only lack of points supporting theism. But as I have shown, there is evidence pointing towards the possible existence of God. Therefore I think it is illogical to be atheist, that people should be agnostic at most.

[mbeewood]

I think, in the end, no amount of scientific proof will sway one's faith, and that isn't the goal. Their primary argument is "It doesn't matter how much proof you amass -- I am still throwing in with a proofless belief because of 'personal experience' and other 'spiritual' intuitions.'" I just do not understand how people can still be theist even with an understanding of the science.

 

There is no "scientific proof" that contradicts theistic belief.

 

I just do not understand how people can still be theist even with an understanding of the science

 

Probably because full knowledge of science doesn't really have anything to do with belief in God.

[Vertex]

"First of all, there is no answer to explain the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of the big bang. Something must have caused the big bang. before the big bang, there was no time, and therefore no sequence. Because there was no sequence, nothing natural could have happened that caused the big bang. Therefore, whatever caused the big bang must have been supernatural."

 

This alone is false -- much about modern quantum mechanics can help explain the Big Bang and time. Saying "there must have been a creator of the Big Bang" is a dangerous assumption and is just as dangerous as saying "humans are too complex -- we must have been created."

 

Again, I will say for the thousandth time in this thread, I am not denying the fact that you cannot disprove God, because it is logically impossible. If people are going to assume God is supernatural, and our universe is natural, then no amount of natural proof will ever disprove or prove God's existence. Much like how we can't disprove Zeus, for instance. I'm well aware of Aquinas, and it's clear that he makes many, many assumptions that are still just as open to debate as any post here on LS concerning the matter.

 

As for point #1, I think it's clear you are twisting my words, as the intent is obvious. It simply means that people should be okay with the beliefs of others and not try to force each other to convert or believe what they believe.

 

The point of this thread is to figure out how, with a very good knowledge of science, anyone would still throw in with the concept of a God.

[Toki]

Like I said, I grew up Christian and have actually read the Bible. However, as an atheist, I'd say it's probably a good idea to have read the Bible, if only to at least figure out what it is you're not believing in, haha.

 

Regardless, this is the kind of deadlock I am concerned about. No theist has addressed any of my scientific points yet, which is part of the problem I referred to in the OP. A theist *has* to take the scientific view into account because it is true for everyone. It's not like science is only for atheists. It's for everyone. I want to understand what a theist has to say, given the evidence. So far the evidence is being largely ignored.

 

I think, in the end, no amount of scientific proof will sway one's faith, and that isn't the goal. Their primary argument is "It doesn't matter how much proof you amass -- I am still throwing in with a proofless belief because of 'personal experience' and other 'spiritual' intuitions.'" I just do not understand how people can still be theist even with an understanding of the science.

 

Oh I know, wasn't meant to be cheap shot at you. Honestly, none of the supposed devout are willing to give you a break, you ask a legitimate question to which Jerry Falwell Jr. responds "Oh noes!! He's takin' er' G'ahd!!! Kill Im!" If someone here was really well versed in theology chances are he'd respond to you such as "You may be right, thank you for your insight, but..." I feel a little ashamed for the theists that an old Agnostic had to clear the air a bit.

[NoIDidn't]

What this argument entails is essentially two sides of the same coin, arguing that the other side doesn't exist.

 

It's tedious, and as any Christian should know, the man who sits next to you probably doesn't believe in the same god as you do, even though you attend the same church, sit in the same pews, and partake of the same ceremonies. Just as with Atheism, no two are exactly alike in their beliefs, and the amount of ignorance being displayed on both sides, but nominally the Christians on this board, is disgusting.

 

I don't think a single Christian here has read the bible, it's really a great piece of work, maybe you should check it out. You know turn the other cheek, maybe even act humble in the face of wisdom and logic, since as you know... John, Luke, Paul, and even Jesus were apt to do from time to time. However, they were also comfortable and secure in their faith; its shameful how so many modern Christians forgot how to love.

 

I agree with most of your sentiment expect two. I don't think the theists here are arguing that atheism should not exist, at least I am not. I think they are free to believe whatever they choose - but I expect the same respect back without being asked repeatedly "how stupid are you for believing in something that I've decided doesn't exist and think I can prove as such".

 

Also, I've read the Bible. Several times. I think the Bible is more a book about human nature than about God. There is conflict between families and nations. Culture conflicts (the New Testament issues about the Samaritans vs. the Jews). Sibling rivalries (Kings and Chronicles). And beautiful peotry that really sums up the whole meaning of life (A time for everything, and nothing new under the Sun).

 

I believe one can have a very happy, and fulfilling life as an atheist. Sure, I think they'd be more fulfilled believing in my God, but if they choose not to, I don't have an issue with it.

 

You really hit the nail on the head with the pew situation of two people in the same church and yet believing totally different things about the *same* God. Such a true sentiment. And very observable here between us "believers".

[Toki]

I agree with most of your sentiment expect two. I don't think the theists here are arguing that atheism should not exist, at least I am not. I think they are free to believe whatever they choose - but I expect the same respect back without being asked repeatedly "how stupid are you for believing in something that I've decided doesn't exist and think I can prove as such".

 

Also, I've read the Bible. Several times. I think the Bible is more a book about human nature than about God. There is conflict between families and nations. Culture conflicts (the New Testament issues about the Samaritans vs. the Jews). Sibling rivalries (Kings and Chronicles). And beautiful peotry that really sums up the whole meaning of life (A time for everything, and nothing new under the Sun).

 

I believe one can have a very happy, and fulfilling life as an atheist. Sure, I think they'd be more fulfilled believing in my God, but if they choose not to, I don't have an issue with it.

 

You really hit the nail on the head with the pew situation of two people in the same church and yet believing totally different things about the *same* God. Such a true sentiment. And very observable here between us "believers".

 

I don't think my sentiment is entirely unfounded, however. Very few people read the books of their own self professed faith, and instead leave it up to their Priest or Pastor's interpretation. Which is a crime against the good book. I don't think Vertex was necessarily saying "well, it is stupid in itself to believe in a god" as it was "in my opinion believing in a god is stupid" and he'd bring up his points. The best responses he would get were totally out of character for someone who was very well learned in Christianity. Ultimately, The Kingdom of Heaven is a Kingdom of Conscience, was not the message being given.

 

The Bible is a great book, it is our story, much like the Baghavad Gita, the Koran, or any other of the great classic creation myths. The Bible unlike the Baghavad Gita, or even the Koran actually tells so many stories that one can look at, and see the conflict in themselves. Even if it was written mostly by the Apostles, condensed and translated by monks three hundred years after much of the scripture had been lost, its flawless as far as a compendium goes. Yes, the bible often does contradict itself, but its generally the stories of the old testament that conflict with the stories of the New, but the old stories to the men of that time were seen as just as important, and rightfully so. However, there are so many better examples of what one should do in the New Testament, that the Old Testament should probably be written out of the Bible entirely, or separated. Actually, it was really only the KJV that actually put the Old Testament with the New Testament, you won't find such Bibles in existence in most non English Speaking Countries.

 

Atheists are people too! . They haven't evolved to be any different than a theist. And as you believe they'd be better off in believing in your god, or my god, they think we'd probably be better off believing nothing. Its really a great argument in favor that each and every one of us is only .0001% different from the person standing next to us.

 

Even as an Agnostic, I don't not believe in the same God as any Christian, I just prefer to keep god righteous and mysterious, and perfect. No human interference on describing exactly what god *is*. I'll leave that to god to keep on shining down his rays of goodness, and I'll just enjoy it.

[mbeewood]

This alone is false -- much about modern quantum mechanics can help explain the Big Bang and time.

 

It may help us understand more about it but we do not have a definitive answer and probably never will

[Vertex]

It doesn't mean we won't reach a clearer answer (there is much evidence to suggest how simultaneity occurred back during the singularity). But an atheist isn't going to look at the unknown and think "A God must have done this," but rather "This is what we know and what we don't know."

[Toki]

It doesn't mean we won't reach a clearer answer (there is much evidence to suggest how simultaneity occurred back during the singularity). But an atheist isn't going to look at the unknown and think "A God must have done this," but rather "This is what we know and what we don't know."

 

I don't think that was the point he was trying to make...? And an atheist shouldn't look at the unknown and think anything, except for that its unknown. it would be terribly unatheist not to. But a theist, not a fundamentalistic, looks at the unknown and asks "what if?"

 

An atheist will ask why you even care to ask a question that can't be answered. A Theist will reply "Because those are the best questions to ask."

[Malenfant]

What the hell is "harcore atheists" supposed to mean?

 

 

For me 'hardcore atheist' means being an anti-theist. One who not only is an atheist, but is also against religion.

[disgracian]

I think the whole science vs religion conflict is just a myth.

I actually don't. Unless a person compartmentalises, they are often difficult to resolve (although it depends on the religion). I've watched a lot of attempts lately to establish a dialogue between theists and scientists and it rarely works. You end up with two sides just talking at each other and nobody walks away having learned anything really.

 

I'm not saying it's not possible or that nobody has managed it, but the two viewpoints remain fundamentally at odds: one uses systematic methods to verify observations, gather evidence in order to form conclusions; the other starts with conclusions and has little need to justify them with anything other than faith.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Toki]

For me 'hardcore atheist' means being an anti-theist. One who not only is an atheist, but is also against religion.

 

 

...quite.

 

It worked wonderfully for the Soviets didn't it?