What exactly is atheism?

[synthesizer-patel]

Why the roll-eyes?
I suggest you read the statement you actually responded to;



jan.

The roll eyes are for the child-like and somewhat petulant reasoning skills thus far demonstrated by EF.

while he may claim to be open to both viewpoints, his posts demonstrate otherwise - albeit mostly in another thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84373

 

[Jan Ardena]

The roll eyes are for the child-like and somewhat petulant reasoning skills thus far demonstrated by EF.

while he may claim to be open to both viewpoints, his posts demonstrate otherwise - albeit mostly in another thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84373

I'm afraid you are mistaken as he
is holding the same position as in this thread.

On one hand you appear to be like the adult,
gently showing the youth the error of his ways.
But on the other hand it seems you recieved some serious
injuries from your last encounter, and now wish to seek vengence.

Just my observation.
jan.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I'm afraid you are mistaken as he
is holding the same position as in this thread.

On one hand you appear to be like the adult,
gently showing the youth the error of his ways.
But on the other hand it seems you recieved some serious
injuries from your last encounter, and now wish to seek vengence.

Just my observation.
jan.

No injuries - other than the insults to both my, and his own intelligence

Actually if you read the posts, he says he is certain that humans are intelligently designed - and that intelligent design is a distinct possibility - so clearly not open to both sides of the argument as he claims.

On the other hand while I accept that ID may be a substitute for evolution, and that supernatural creation may be resonsible for abiogenesis, the preponderance of evidence that contradicts these views means they are vanishingly improbable - in no way can the 2 contrasting views - as EF seems to assert - be viewed on an equal footing in terms of science or philosophy - it is only through a religious/supernatural special pleading that we can relegate one and/or promote the other.

Thus the accusation of a logical fallacy on his expectation for a proof of negative, is a fair and just one.

I suggest however that we let EF stand up for him/her self, by answering some of the questions posed with the evidence he claims to have access to.

ps - never call me an adult again

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

What if your personal reasons are completely wrong?

Then they are wrong.

Have you considered that perhaps the fire and brimstone Christians are right (and that they are the ones who have the proper understanding of the Bible), or that God is evil, or that the Bhagavad-Gita is wrong?
I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, and this is what scares me.

To merely consider something, then base a belief on that consideration, to the point where you feel you have come to the end of knowledge, is non-different to blind-faith, IMO.
If you read the gospels, you will understand that the idea of burning in hell for eternity, because you didn't believe in Jesus, is non existent. (If I am wrong about this then please eloborate.)
If someone purports something in the name of God, or Jesus, but it cannot be found within the scripture, then their purport is of no value, IMO.

I am sure you have read BG. So please explain how God can be evil?
As for whether BG is right or wrong, cannot be the point of belief.
Whatever you can understand of it, must relate to you personally, as in experience. This, in my mind, is reality.

I am not sure what Dennet there meant by "religion". If he meant fire and brimstone Christianity, then I agree with him.

By "religion", he could only have meant the idea of worshiping a God, or gods, which for him do not exist. Given the choice he would choose a society where rape is accepted in the way religion is accepted. In effect, he is showing how much he hates religion, or more to the point, worship of God.

I think what those Christians are doing to those they wish to convert, is spiritual rape.

Why?

Yet I see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right, so I am left to wonder what to do.

What do you mean, you see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right?

Christians = followers of Jesus Christ
Jesus' words and deeds have been written down.
If Christians deviate from said words and deeds, they aren't right.
How hard is that to understand.

Perhaps there is only this one lifetime, and if I don't "get it right", I will burn in hell for all eternity

Perhaps you are taking the words of these people too seriously, without bothering to see if they actually have a point. Did Jesus ever say or imply, believe in me or you will burn forever in hell? If he didn't, then why believe people who say that he did?
I just don't get it.

It seems to me that unless I am able to refute that premise, I am obligated to believe it as true and good.

Okay.
What is this premise based on?
Let's start the refutation process with an answer to that.

Why not? It is one of the basic premises of a popular line of Christian thinking. Millions of people across the world and history have believed it to be true and good - so it's not that I am afraid of something completely outlandish or peculiar to myself.

Millions of people were duped into thinking that the coalition went to war with Iraq because it was proven that they had WMD's.
Millions of people were duped into thinking that Africans were of a sub-human origin, and felt no remorse (for a long time) in the brutal enslavement of these innocent people.
The actual truth to these claims were very simple to unravel, as is your particular claims.
The question is, do you want to unravel it, or are satisfied with your current understanding?

What are that intelligence and discrimination against a god who is willing to torture me in hell for all eternity?

Show me where this is stated in scripture.

Moreover, I don't have personal realization or insight, I am not enlightened, I don't have direct perception - so I can't say how things really are.

You are a human being, you have a brain, a mind, just like Dennet, or any philosopher who wishes to shout his claims.

I am merely left with possibilites of all kinds. Considering the worst-case scenario (ie. God is evil / I have to get it right in this one lifetime or I will burn in hell forever) seems like the best path of caution to take.

Then it must be true for you.
Either that or you are attracted to this idea.

jan.

 

[greenberg]

Then they are wrong.

Aren't you afraid of being wrong? But I suppose even if you do have such fear, it isn't nearly as crippling as for me.

To merely consider something, then base a belief on that consideration, to the point where you feel you have come to the end of knowledge, is non-different to blind-faith, IMO.

I agree. It's having fear or other forms of duress determine one's thinking.

If you read the gospels, you will understand that the idea of burning in hell for eternity, because you didn't believe in Jesus, is non existent. (If I am wrong about this then please eloborate.)

There is this and all that about weeping and gnashing of teeth, and Matthew 12:30. And some nasty things in the Pauline epistels, but I didn't feel like looking that up.

I think what those Christians are doing to those they wish to convert, is spiritual rape.

Why?

This would require a detailed explanation of some psychological and cognitive phenomena. But basically, what I think spiritual rape is about :

1. Using many logical fallacies. Unless one has formal training in logics, it will be difficult not to be disturbed by the use of fallacies. The average, untrained person when faced with fallacious reasoning will tend to feel that there is something wrong, but can't put their finger on it - meanwhile, the proselytizer continues to pound on the person with more fallacies, effectively confounding the person. Once this is achieved, it is difficult to recover from it. Research even suggests that people continually exposed to double binds (such as "You must love God, but you must love God freely - or you will go to hell" - must and freely are mutually exclusive) can become schizophrenic or develop other milder or harsher psychological disorders.

2. Exploiting a person's trust, goodness and honesty. This goes hand in hand with the above. Many people, by nature, are very attached to being good and honest, to the extent of admitting terrible things about themselves, and being liable to extreme self-doubt. Some Christian proselytizers know how to play on this card, and how to get the person on a guilt-trip that will make them believe all sorts of horrible things about themselves.


But of course, a person equipped with a good knowledge of and confidence in the power of straight thinking and who is not too attached to always being Mrs or Mr Nice will not so likely be a target and victim of proselytizing. But those who are weak in these aspects, are. It's not right to harp on those weak people and use their weakness against them.

What do you mean, you see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right?

Christians = followers of Jesus Christ
Jesus' words and deeds have been written down.
If Christians deviate from said words and deeds, they aren't right.
How hard is that to understand.
/.../
Perhaps you are taking the words of these people too seriously, without bothering to see if they actually have a point. Did Jesus ever say or imply, believe in me or you will burn forever in hell? If he didn't, then why believe people who say that he did?
I just don't get it.

To understand this means to be sure I understand the Bible correctly. I would not dare to declare I understand the Bible correctly. It's as if I am the victim of my own admission that I am not perfect. So the problems continue. However ...

It seems to me that unless I am able to refute that premise, I am obligated to believe it as true and good.

Okay.
What is this premise based on?
Let's start the refutation process with an answer to that.

I really don't feel like going into that specific premise. It seems to me my problem with it is more general - I tend to think that if I cannot refute something, I am obligated to accept it as true. I even posted a thread on this once. If I would solve this formal problem of cognition, I predict many other problems that I struggle with would be done away too - all those odd claims I feel obligated to accept as true.

Millions of people were duped into thinking that the coalition went to war with Iraq because it was proven that they had WMD's.
Millions of people were duped into thinking that Africans were of a sub-human origin, and felt no remorse (for a long time) in the brutal enslavement of these innocent people.
The actual truth to these claims were very simple to unravel, as is your particular claims.
The question is, do you want to unravel it, or are satisfied with your current understanding?

Actually, I had another discussion about this topic elsewhere, and this occured to me: I don't find Jesus or Christianity per se so bad. But what I find absolutely repulsive is that if I accepted Jesus as my savior, I would have to become like all the other people who have also done that. Meaning I should have no problem with meat-eating, drinking coffee and real tea, illicit sex, looking down on logical reasoning even to the extent of becoming a fideist, and more such things that I find to be wrong. And that I would have to associate with people who do that. I did that for quite some time in the past, and I was usually on the verge of crying and puking when with them.
I remember that even when I was a small child, I never understood why people who claimed to know God and be saved had to drink alcohol and eat meat and go hunting and such. I figured that if one knew God and loved God, then one wouldn't have to engage in such raw pleasures and distractions. Or when some natural disaster struck, like a hailstorm or drought - why did all those (supposedly) God-loving, God-knowing people complain and were distraught over what happened.

I am merely left with possibilites of all kinds. Considering the worst-case scenario (ie. God is evil / I have to get it right in this one lifetime or I will burn in hell forever) seems like the best path of caution to take.

Then it must be true for you.
Either that or you are attracted to this idea.

Apparently I am attracted to it, for better or worse.

 

[tepidepic]

If god exist's and I am neither acknowledging the possibility nor the improbability;

Then it would stand to reason that if he is omnipotent and all powerful, then surely he could create a rock so big that he himself could not lift it!

Waiting for the bolt of lightning to strike me down where I sit... Nope nothing zilch... He created the world in seven days and night's but proclaimed that on the 7th day no man or woman should work as this was the holy holiday, the sabbath. But who the hell gets out of bed to go to work on a Sunday, theirs never anyone in the office anyway!

So if that's indeed the case and Sunday is everyones day off and we're all supposed to hit church and pray, it's no wonder our prayers never get answered, he's having a day off... "God speaking, haha, fooled you, I'm not in right now, please leave your message after the beep!"

The problem with the story of creation, well lets see god created the first man, Uh huh, ok, then he created the first woman.. Um, yeah.. following so far..

Then how did we beget others, are we expected to believe we've been fucking our own brothers and sisters.. Oh nice I'll have a side plate of incest please.. Sorry but thats a pretty repugnant idea...:bugeye:

Religion exists to bring law to the lawless, the 10 commandments, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal.. Is it not then safe to assume that without the basis of law their would be anarchy. Paradise awaits for those who adhere to these commands and hell awaits those who do not.. umm yeah.:bugeye:

That must be why so many mass murderers suddenly find religion sitting on deaths row. . . Repent now and ye shall be saved! God understands you never meant to eat all those people you butchered, he forgives you and welcomes you into the gates of heaven with open arms.. Right, so you can go on and eat the wings on an angel and blow up the pearly gates in the afterlife.. Oh please.. I nearly said "God give me strength!" but that would be a contradiction.

Sun worshipers still worshiping 'Ra's' golden chariot as it flys across the heavens. . .

Have you spoken to god lately? Does he speak to you often? See your Doctor and tell him you can talk to him and he listens to you. . . He will prescribe a cure, its called Medication!

Next thing they'll be screaming on about signs of his existence, right, god exists because you found his name written in Arabic in a tomatoe. No wait they found the likeness of Jesus in a knotty old tree stump.

So because there are crop circles I should believe in ET as well eh!

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You must be one of M*W's students!

pleasepleaseplease start a new thread of your very own where we can discuss your interesting perceptions of christianity. I'm begging you.

 

[audible]

one who does not believe in God for whatever reason.

This is a little over simplified, as this includes all other religions as Atheist. Whereas to lack belief in god/gods as pointed out by cris covers any supernatural fantasy.

 

[SnakeLord]

First time I think we agree on something Jan

An atheist is anyone that doesn't believe in gods (for whatever reason).

 

[lixluke]

The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the first life. To claim so is a red herring that the evolution denialists are fond of tossing at people who haven't given the matter a lot of thought. The theory of evolution describes how species have evolved from previous species, and like any canonical scientific theory it is based on mountains of evidence: in fossils, DNA, and observation of mutations and breeding.

The hypothesis--not theory--that the first living matter arose from non-living matter is called "abiogenesis." There is very little evidence to support it and it is all indirect or logically reasoned, hardly enough to qualify as a "theory." Nonetheless it has more supporting evidence than divine creation, which is not a scientific theory at all since it violates the defining theory of science: that the natural universe is a closed system.

Is is not relevant what the theory of evolution claims or does not. The points of what atheism is remain.

Whether or not Jesus created the universe, the fact remains that atheists belive that there is no creator.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Aren't you afraid of being wrong?

I don't think fear comes into it, unless you are knowingly wrong.

There is this and all that about weeping and gnashing of teeth, and Matthew 12:30. And some nasty things in the Pauline epistels, but I didn't feel like looking that up.

I cannot see where it says one goes to hell because one doesn't believe. Meaning that un-belief, irregardless of actions, is the sole reason.

To understand this means to be sure I understand the Bible correctly. I would not dare to declare I understand the Bible correctly. It's as if I am the victim of my own admission that I am not perfect. So the problems continue. However ...

No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.

jan.

 

[greenberg]

I cannot see where it says one goes to hell because one doesn't believe. Meaning that un-belief, irregardless of actions, is the sole reason.

Are you aware of the disputes that different Christian traditions have amongst themselves about the requirements for salvation?

No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.

How do I know whether I understand them or not?
Every Christian I have discussed this with pointed out that I don't understand Jesus' teachings. Either that since I do not have the Holy Spirit, it is completely impossible that I could understand Jesus' teachings correctly; or because I am not chosen to understand them correctly; or because I am not a practising Christian; or because I am sinful.

And if Christians aren't the authority on the Bible and Jesus' teachings, then who is?

I don't have the self-confidence to read the Bible and make up my mind for myself, like you seem to suggest.
The Bible could mean a million things. Whichever I would choose, could be wrong.
So I am not going to investigate the Bible. To me, there is only one question that needs to be settled: whether God is evil or not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Are you aware of the disputes that different Christian traditions have amongst themselves about the requirements for salvation?

Yes, but I have come to the understand, at my own peril, that that is nonsense.

How do I know whether I understand them or not?

I cannot imagine why you would not understand them, they are designed for ordinary people to understand.

Every Christian I have discussed this with pointed out that I don't understand Jesus' teachings.

Just like every atheist will point out that theists do not understand science, logic, and are not rational. It is the penultimate attempt to snatch victory because their argument has become defunct. The final straw is personal attack.

Either that since I do not have the Holy Spirit, it is completely impossible that I could understand Jesus' teachings correctly; or because I am not chosen to understand them correctly; or because I am not a practising Christian; or because I am sinful.

The institute of christianity, and Jesus' teaching is not necessarily harmonious.

And if Christians aren't the authority on the Bible and Jesus' teachings, then who is?

Does such an authority really matter?
Are they going to make you a follower of Jesus, because they are an authority?

I don't have the self-confidence to read the Bible and make up my mind for myself, like you seem to suggest.
The Bible could mean a million things. Whichever I would choose, could be wrong.
So I am not going to investigate the Bible. To me, there is only one question that needs to be settled: whether God is evil or not.

I assume you have an idea of how God could be evil, if he were?

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

tepidepic
Registered User (20 posts)
08-30-08, 04:39 PM #226

If god exist's and I am neither acknowledging the possibility nor the improbability;

Then it would stand to reason that if he is omnipotent and all powerful, then surely he could create a rock so big that he himself could not lift it!

Stranger ========== Absurd.

 

[greenberg]

Yes, but I have come to the understand, at my own peril, that that is nonsense.

At your own peril, yes. For some reason, you were apparently willing to take that risk and ignore the sectarian disputes of Christians.

Just like every atheist will point out that theists do not understand science, logic, and are not rational. It is the penultimate attempt to snatch victory because their argument has become defunct. The final straw is personal attack.

Actually, with Christians, it's not a personal attack. It is part of their doctrines. There is all that about the Original Sin and how humans are inherently sinful. One of the first things a person must understand -so some Christian doctrines- is that people are inherently sinful and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

Does such an authority really matter?

The principle of authority matters.

Are they going to make you a follower of Jesus, because they are an authority?

No, but I might burn in hell for all eternity if I don't accept their authority.

I assume you have an idea of how God could be evil, if he were?

Imagine a god like a wolf in a sheep's skin - who, in his evil sense of humor, gets a kick out of confusing people and making them suffer, making empty promises to them, while all along pretending to be "just and loving".

Frankly, this is what the god that Christians usually describe, seems like to me. If I would read in the Bible that Jesus ate the meat of animals, drank alcohol and had casual sex - I would not be surprised.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.

Teachings like cursing a fig tree because it had no fruit in the off season?
Telling his disciples he spoke in parables so that not everyone would understand?
Commanding that you preach to animals?
Telling slaves to obey their masters with no hint of disapproving slavery?
Saying he would return within the lifetime of some people there with him?
Hate your mother & father?
Let the dead bury the dead?
Give everything to the poor?
Telling a story involving multiple brides for 1 man yet no hint of disapproval?
Never confirming he was the son of god when asked tho often saying he's the son of man?
Telling you to eat his body & drink his blood?
Giving Judas implied approval of what he was about to do?
Expressing doubt while on the cross?
Giving actual physical proof to Thomas but not to us?
I come not with somethingorother but with a sword?
Allowing contradictory stories of his life, which is goofy, despite any arguments on whether a christian must believe the entire Babble?
Being rude to his mother?
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee (Peter), That this day, [even] in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice???
Praying to his other self, asking the burden of being crucified be taken from him???
There will be gnailing & washing of teeth?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Looks like that stopped this thread. Maybe I should post it in several others.
1111

 

[Jan Ardena]

Teachings like cursing a fig tree because it had no fruit in the off season?
Telling his disciples he spoke in parables so that not everyone would understand?
Commanding that you preach to animals?
Telling slaves to obey their masters with no hint of disapproving slavery?
Saying he would return within the lifetime of some people there with him?
Hate your mother & father?
Let the dead bury the dead?
Give everything to the poor?
Telling a story involving multiple brides for 1 man yet no hint of disapproval?
Never confirming he was the son of god when asked tho often saying he's the son of man?
Telling you to eat his body & drink his blood?
Giving Judas implied approval of what he was about to do?
Expressing doubt while on the cross?
Giving actual physical proof to Thomas but not to us?
I come not with somethingorother but with a sword?
Allowing contradictory stories of his life, which is goofy, despite any arguments on whether a christian must believe the entire Babble?
Being rude to his mother?
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee (Peter), That this day, [even] in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice???
Praying to his other self, asking the burden of being crucified be taken from him???
There will be gnailing & washing of teeth?

Why don't you choose some of the quotes, and show them in their true context. Then we'll have more idea of what you're getting at.
Otherwise this is just a bunch of words.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

At your own peril, yes. For some reason, you were apparently willing to take that risk and ignore the sectarian disputes of Christians.

Actually, christianity wasn't my concern.

Actually, with Christians, it's not a personal attack. It is part of their doctrines. There is all that about the Original Sin and how humans are inherently sinful. One of the first things a person must understand -so some Christian doctrines- is that people are inherently sinful and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

What is there to say?
This is some idea of God and religion, not related to Jesus the person who is purportedly looked up to in that religion.

The principle of authority matters.

The principles of authority have broken down. Whoever shouts the loudest, and weaves the most power, becomes the authority by force.

Tribalism.

No, but I might burn in hell for all eternity if I don't accept their authority.

And what is their authority based on, why it would have such a profound effect on your very essence?

Imagine a god like a wolf in a sheep's skin - who, in his evil sense of humor, gets a kick out of confusing people and making them suffer, making empty promises to them, while all along pretending to be "just and loving".

Then imagine a god, who is Krishna, and put the two imaginations side by side.

Frankly, this is what the god that Christians usually describe, seems like to me. If I would read in the Bible that Jesus ate the meat of animals, drank alcohol and had casual sex - I would not be surprised.

Christianity seems to have successfully damaged real religion.
Best look elsewhere, where people do not deviate from their scripture, that way you will always have a reference.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why don't you choose some of the quotes, and show them in their true context. Then we'll have more idea of what you're getting at.
Otherwise this is just a bunch of words.
jan.

Absurd.
If you want to attempt to defend any of that, go ahead. None of it is defensible but defending less than half would make no difference in my overall point.
1111