We understand very well how Christians and other followers of religion think, and we understand how you can and have for so long structure your lives and your surroundings into a mass delusion. We also realise that it’s a false view of the universe.
But you’re free to carry on, just don’t try to bring others along in your group think with you.
[quote=“urodacus”]We understand very well how Christians and other followers of religion think, and we understand how you can and have for so long structure your lives and your surroundings into a mass delusion. We also realise that it’s a false view of the universe.
But you’re free to carry on, just don’t try to bring others along in your group think with you.[/quote]
But, democracy thrives on the battlefield of ideas. If a set of ideas cannot thrive when confronted by another set of ideas, there’s a problem.
Also, just as Bob seems to be set on changing my mind on atheism, I should have the same right to seek to change his mind on Christianity.
I sense a double standard, don’t you?
Oh, and Bob, you want me to watch an hour and a half of videos, and I just do not have time for that. Sorry. But, I’ve watch many videos of a similar nature, and they don’t move me.
[quote=“thirdstring”][quote=“urodacus”]Bob thinks that all followers of religion are deluded. You think that atheists are looney, AND that followers of all other religions are wrong. It’s not the same, it’s subtly but importantly different. you are painting atheism as another religion, whereas it plainly isn’t.
Atheism is a fulsome rejection of the whole idea of faith and the supernatural and some imaginary person(s) in the sky, because living by faith is an outdated stone-age view of the world (and not even a view of the world as it actually is, but a view of the world the way a stone-age mentality believes it to be).[/quote]
The reality is that atheism is by definition a belief system. While atheists may not be a part of an organized religion, believing there is no greater being is still a belief.[/quote]
No it isn’t. That’s like saying not believing in magic space unicorns is a belief.
Everyone is born atheist.
As the well-known saying goes (well-known among atheists, anyway):
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
[quote=“noamchomsky”]
The reality is that atheism is by definition a belief system. While atheists may not be a part of an organized religion, believing there is no greater being is still a belief.[/quote]
No it isn’t. That’s like saying not believing in magic space unicorns is a belief.
Everyone is born atheist.[/quote]
If there were enough people who identified themselves as ‘not believing in magic space unicorns’ (NBiMSU), then you could call it a belief - especially, if they created organizations to combat the belief in magic space unicorns.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]
Bob,
I’m really enjoying this demonstration that you are giving us. I could change the wording a little and use your words to describe OUR position vis-a-vis yours.
I just don’t understand why you struggle so hard to see our position in this.
And, there is a serious aspect to this inability that you are demonstrating. People like you who gain positions of power start to create a cascade of rules and regulations that, over time, lead to persecution, death and mass murder - a story that has been repeated for centuries.
So, we can ‘wink’ at your inability to understand how Christians think, but this is not a trivial matter.
Now, why is it that you are so insistent that I watch your videos? You sound like you are trying to ‘win me over to atheism’. I don’t mind you trying, but it’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?[/quote]
Nope, I don’t think it is hypocritical. I never said that you weren’t suppose to win me over to Christianity. Go ahead, give it a go, though you should realize that I already undertsand pretty much how Christians think. I once was one. And no, this is by no means a trivial issue. It is one of the most important, especially now. I mean with all the difficulties in the world the last thing we need is even more psychos running around.
Wow, so dramatic.
From wikipedia:
[i]The philosophy or life stance secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.[1][2][3]
It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.[/i]
No, you couldn’t, because I don’t have a faith position. I’ll go whichever way the evidence and the logic points. That is in no way similar to your position that no mater what evidence or logic is presented, jesus was sacrificed for your sins, was resurrected, and faith in him washes away your sins.
If you want to see a situation where you COULD switch the wording a bit and come up with something comparable, take a look at the evil god hypothesis…
lawpapers.blogspot.tw/2009/06/ev … ng-in.html
Today’s vid…
[quote=“MikeN”]As the well-known saying goes (well-known among atheists, anyway):
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”[/quote]
I could see how not collecting stamps describes an agnostic, but not how it describes an atheist.
Christians believe God exists, don’t have proof, but believe they have evidence.
Atheists believe God doesn’t exist, don’t have proof, but believe they have evidence.
Therefore, atheism is like collecting Pokemon stickers.
Bob,
Your religious fervor is inspiring.
The only true non-religious belief system is agnosticism because it is the only logically consistent argument that you could possibly take, if you were intellectually honest about the whole question.
But, because you are adamant that THERE CAN BE NO GOD… (of which you have no proof) Well, it is clear that you are a man of true faith, and we must respect that faith no matter how much we disagree with it. And yes, a conviction of the unprovable is called faith.
After all, the definition of faith is the “assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (from Hebrews 11:1)
Bob, you are a man of faith.
There’s faith and there’s faith.
I have faith that the light fixture fixed above my head will not suddenly dislodge and brain me, making this discussion moot. Based on the available evidence, this seems a quite reasonable position. However, if it were to begin to sway, and bits of concrete began falling upon me, my previously unshakable faith might be called into question.
I have faith that no god or other “supernatural” being I have heard posited by a person exists. In this sense I am an atheist. It’s impossible to prove a negative, and I don’t particularly see the need to try to do so. However, suffice it to say the bar of faith is not set very high here, for me (and the drinks are cheap.)
I have no idea how or why the universe or life exists. To that degree I am agnostic.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]Bob,
Your religious fervor is inspiring.
The only true non-religious belief system is agnosticism because it is the only logically consistent argument that you could possibly take, if you were intellectually honest about the whole question.
But, because you are adamant that THERE CAN BE NO GOD… (of which you have no proof) Well, it is clear that you are a man of true faith, and we must respect that faith no matter how much we disagree with it. And yes, a conviction of the unprovable is called faith.
After all, the definition of faith is the “assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (from Hebrews 11:1)
Bob, you are a man of faith.[/quote]
At what point was I adamant that there is no God? What I actually said was that, as far as I know, there actually may be a consciousnes behind the big bang. I kind of doubt it but there are indications that there might be.
Who “reallly” knows?
Nobody.
Good enough. I’ve got faith, in the sense being used here, in absolutely nothing.
What can be understood, with no need of faith, simply through evidence and logic is that the Bible was written by people who were either just making up stories, hallucinating, lying or simply doing what they could to understand the universe before much of anything was ACTUALLY known about it. They attributed intention where there was none and they arrogantly placed themselves at the centre of the universe. They wrote accounts of things that didn’t happen (flight from Egypt, for example,) made statements about scientific issues that were flat out wrong, acted out prophecies in order that they might be fulfilled!? Developed an incredibly twisted moral system etc etc.
No fault to them really. What did they know?
But people “still” clinging to it now as though there were some core of truth there, something from GOD. That’s nuts. Absolutely crackers.
Again, trying to bridge the gulf that lies between two different belief systems is impossible. But, since you have raised the issue of factual accuracy, I think that I can contribute something to the discussion here.
There are two sets of records that corroborate the story of Jesus Christ - biblical and secular. But, the most important element to these records is the witness of those who followed Jesus closely throughout the last years of His life. Every one of them died rather than deny what they had observed to be true.
And, no one agrees to die for what they know to be a lie. No one.
You’re working yourself into a corner here, GTBK! 
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”] There are two sets of records that corroborate the story of Jesus Christ - biblical and secular. But, the most important element to these records is the witness of those who followed Jesus closely throughout the last years of His life. Every one of them died rather than deny what they had observed to be true.
And, no one agrees to die for what they know to be a lie. No one.[/quote]
The gospels were all written at least forty years after Jesus died, in a different langauge to the one in which the events occured, and by annonymous writers who did not witness the events. They are biased and inconsistent with regard to both trivial and important events, and they show changes consistent with political tampering.
There is no secular record that provides any better evidence and I certainly doubt that there is any unbiased secular record of anybody dying for Jesus. If there is it would be interesting to see.
Bob’s got a point there, GTBK. How do you counter the historical inaccuracies? Just brush them under the carpet and trust in Blind Faith?
I didn’t come to faith based on how the bible correlates to the ‘historical record’, so I’m not much of an expert in ‘Christian Apologetics’. However, many have echoed Bob’s contention that there are ‘historical inaccuracies’ and been found to be wrong. For instance, historians loudly claimed that the Hittites never existed and tried to use this ‘fact’ to pummel the Bible - that is, until conclusive evidence popped up, substantiating that the Hittites really were a historical fact.
So, I rather doubt these unnamed ‘historical inaccuracies’.
As for the fact that the four biographies of Christ (aka, the gospels) written 40 years after the fact by anonymous authors… that is a VERY weak argument. The gospels are directly corroborated by the writings of those who were students of Jesus. So, there is an internal verification. Secondly, we have John the disciple himself lasting well into old age, who would have also corroborated these ‘anonymous authors’. Thirdly, we have the writings of Josephus as well as Roman records - not many, to be sure, but they do exist.
There is an interesting discussion of this by Lee Strobel, who was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and a confirmed atheist - until he felt the need to prove that Christianity was wrong. That attempt to disprove Jesus resulted in his becoming a devout Christian and in a book, the Case for Christ.
Actually, I have just discovered the audio version of the book. I’ve never read the book, so this is my opportunity to listen to it being read.
If you’re interested, there is also a fascinating video/book called The Case for a Creator. Whether you agree or disagree, it does offer up much food for thought.
Having said all that, ultimately none of that matters. It really comes down to whether something like this resonates with your soul:
If it doesn’t, then Christ isn’t for you, and I accept that.
What puzzles me, is why so many feel the need to try and eliminate faith in Jesus. When someone is THAT antagonistic, it makes me wonder if he/she is afraid of something.
I see it as a kind of back-handed confirmation.
Why is that weird and creepy? Oh, yes, of course - science tells us that trees can’t possibly talk. That silly old uncivilised aborigine guy! If only he were clever and scientific like the rest of us, he’d know that for a fact. And in what way would that improve his world? Humanity is doing its best to remove every last bloody tree from the planet - because we know they can’t talk, and can’t protest - even though science also tells us that our lives depend on their continued existence. Believing trees can talk, in an environment like the Australian outback, is a pretty effective way to guarantee your survival.
[quote=“SauLan”][quote=“MikeN”]As the well-known saying goes (well-known among atheists, anyway):
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”[/quote]
I could see how not collecting stamps describes an agnostic, but not how it describes an atheist.
Christians believe God exists, don’t have proof, but believe they have evidence.
Atheists believe God doesn’t exist, don’t [color=#FF4000]need[/color] proof, but [strike]believe they[/strike] have a mountain of evidence stacked against the false evidence of believers.
Therefore, atheism is like collecting Pokemon stickers.[/quote]
There. I’ve fixed it for you.
[quote=“noamchomsky”][quote=“thirdstring”][quote=“urodacus”]Bob thinks that all followers of religion are deluded. You think that atheists are looney, AND that followers of all other religions are wrong. It’s not the same, it’s subtly but importantly different. you are painting atheism as another religion, whereas it plainly isn’t.
Atheism is a fulsome rejection of the whole idea of faith and the supernatural and some imaginary person(s) in the sky, because living by faith is an outdated stone-age view of the world (and not even a view of the world as it actually is, but a view of the world the way a stone-age mentality believes it to be).[/quote]
The reality is that atheism is by definition a belief system. While atheists may not be a part of an organized religion, believing there is no greater being is still a belief.[/quote]
No it isn’t. That’s like saying not believing in magic space unicorns is a belief.
Everyone is born atheist.[/quote]
(From dictionary.com) Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Is not atheism the belief that there is no supernatural power, that all things can be explained solely through natural phenomenon? It seems this is a set of beliefs that atheists agree on, and live accordingly.
And I also disagree that everyone is born atheist. I never once believed there was no God. I was born agnostic - I had not considered whether there was a God until high school. I doubt when you were 2 years old you gave consideration to anything supernatural either.
[quote=“thirdstring”][quote=“noamchomsky”][quote=“thirdstring”][quote=“urodacus”]Bob thinks that all followers of religion are deluded. You think that atheists are looney, AND that followers of all other religions are wrong. It’s not the same, it’s subtly but importantly different. you are painting atheism as another religion, whereas it plainly isn’t.
Atheism is a fulsome rejection of the whole idea of faith and the supernatural and some imaginary person(s) in the sky, because living by faith is an outdated stone-age view of the world (and not even a view of the world as it actually is, but a view of the world the way a stone-age mentality believes it to be).[/quote]
The reality is that atheism is by definition a belief system. While atheists may not be a part of an organized religion, believing there is no greater being is still a belief.[/quote]
No it isn’t. That’s like saying not believing in magic space unicorns is a belief.
Everyone is born atheist.[/quote]
(From dictionary.com) Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Is not atheism the belief that there is no supernatural power, that all things can be explained solely through natural phenomenon? It seems this is a set of beliefs that atheists agree on, and live accordingly. [/quote]
You need to take into account if an atheist is a strong ( or positive ) atheist or a weak ( or negative ) atheist. There is an important difference. A strong atheist would assert no god exists. Which is an impossible claim to prove because it would require complete knowledge of the universe ( and I think most people would agree that humans, in all probability, only understand a very small fraction of what exists). On the other hand a weak atheist wouldn’t make any such claim and would merely say something like I haven’t seen evidence that god exists. That is not a belief and is certainly not a set of beliefs.
[quote=“antarcticbeech”]
You need to take into account if an atheist is a strong ( or positive ) atheist or a weak ( or negative ) atheist. There is an important difference. A strong atheist would assert no god exists. Which is an impossible claim to prove because it would require complete knowledge of the universe ( and I think most people would agree that humans, in all probability, only understand a very small fraction of what exists). On the other hand a weak atheist wouldn’t make any such claim and would merely say something like I haven’t seen evidence that god exists. That is not a belief and is certainly not a set of beliefs.[/quote]
Very good discussion.
However, I would point out that your ‘weak atheist’ is actually an agnostic.
Agnosticism, to my mind, is actually the only real non-religion. Religion seeks to answer the unanswerable, and agnostics respond by saying that we can’t know and move on with their lives. Or, more succinctly, he/she doesn’t know and doesn’t care.
For instance, hand a true agnostic a flyer on how wonderful Buddhism/Atheism/Christianity/Hinduism is, and the agnostic will say that this is interesting and move on. However, a devout follower of a religion will actually REJECT the competing ideas of another religion. That rejection might be internal or external, but it is still rejection. This is completely natural and acceptable.
Likewise, Atheism is demonstrating the same qualities. The Atheist has put on his black armor, planted his feet before the bridge, and said ‘none shall pass’. (Until, of course, confronted by King Arthur)
Now, am I saying that this is inappropriate? Not at all. In fact, I have far more respect for someone who decides what is right and true, takes a stand, and defends that stance.
I respect Atheists, but I find that Atheists are unwilling to return the favor, which is sad and unfortunate.