Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 33. (Read 38463 times)

What about all the other superstitions?  What about Hindu for example?  How do I know that's not the true one?  They have their "historical accounts" too. 

Shouldn't we be following Hindu traditions as well, just to make sure?  There are around a billion or so people that follow them after all.

Oh come on.  A woman has an affair with another man and ends up pregnant.  Then claims that she hadn't had sex with another man but that "God did it".  Sorry, I just find that story so funny.

The Bible is the historical account of God's relationship with man up until right after Jesus came.  I am not sure what you mean by the Old and New Testament not agreeing?

There were strict rules that went into the canonization of the Bible.  Not all works were considered "inspired."  Hence why the Catholic Bible has a couple books not included in some versions, but for the most part all Scripture is "inspired."  There is so much historical evidence that supports the truth of scripture but lately people just casually dismiss it all.  We are to the point where it is not even taught in schools because of fear of the "separation of church and state" but the Bible is filled with History. 

Also, God has made himself apparent to humanity.  He came as a baby so that He could understand us then suffered and died for our sins.  How much more could He have done other than that? 

I do believe that God does reveal Himself to each individual person.  My relationship with Him is different than another persons, but He wants very much to have a relationship with each person.  It depends on each individual's choice to seek Him or not though.

My biggest problem with the idea of an afterlife is that it's too easy to not only not live one's life while they know they have a life on this Earth, but many of the crazier types love to prophecy the end of times; it seems every other year, there's a new date to when the world should end, and if you believe in an afterlife, this isn't frightening, but to those of us who believe we have just this one life to enjoy, it's the scariest thing.

If, in an afterlife, there was an apparent God, it would be impossible to deny Him; the problem is, we're not there yet, and so we can only say what's most likely.  If there's a God, He has not made Himself apparent; the various Bibles do not count, as they were written by men, and so belief in the Bible is belief that man would not lie, and I don't believe this to be so; how can we reject all mythology for just one?  Of over two-thousand Gods, how do we say only the one we believe in to be true?  Chiefly, as most religion is based on some mythos or another, I don't follow any religion, though I do understand when someone says that "feel" God's presence, which I'm okay with; it's when they claim God is this way or that, that's when it all goes out the window, since nobody can agree what God is like, not even the Bible's old and new testaments can agree, nor can its individual writers.

I nice delusion to complement to your really bad moral.

You've just convinced me that it is indeed meaningless to discuss...

My response to this is that knowing God brings joy, peace and comfort to those that have a relationship with HIm.  It is not necessarily about the "ticket to heaven" that accepting Him brings, but hope of more to this life.  There is a sense of meaninglessness and hopelessness that comes with thinking that this life is all that there is. 

Also, let's say that God does give a people a chance to accept Him or reject Him in the afterlife (which I personally believe He does) How many chances will a person get there?  Here on earth we might have more time or opportunities to do so?  I am not sure of course but it is interesting to discuss.

I too get offended by these scare tactics.  I think it is humanity taking the Bible and using it for their own selfish motives, or trying to fight to prove they are right and so on.  The more I study I realize that it is not that simple and black and white.  The translation of the Bible, especially in English, has done a disservice to us by changing eternal places into a simplified "Heaven" and "Hell."  In reality there were other places such as "Hades" and "Sheol."  These places are temporary places for the dead.  Because God has put a sense of fairness and justice into our hearts, would He really just send people to Hell that never had a chance to hear about him for whatever reason?  It makes more sense that He does give them that opportunity at some point.  But many Christians have this desperation and throw out the "You are going to Hell" comments without any love and compassion, which really ticks me off quite honestly.

The Bible says that we were "once blind but now we see."  All of humanity has "crippled senses/thinking" and only some come to see that when they search for God.  Anyone can "see" but they have to want to.  I think that there are many that purposely choose not too though.  Pride (the belief that we know more than God or do not need God) is what keeps so many from even starting to search or having the desire too.  If a person humbles himself enough to pray God hears that prayer and then will reveal Himself to them.

To be clear I would never say that I am better than an Atheist!  If I, as a Christian, felt that I was it would be pride.  If I do not have love for Atheist or all people regardless of religion then I am nothing!  But is it wrong to say that I have "seen the light?"  It would be wrong not to share that "light" with others, just as it would be wrong not to tell someone that they had blinders on that they were nearing an edge of a cliff.  In sharing the "light" I feel I am loving others, even if they take it as judgmental.  

Science was invoked in this conversation as an opposite to religion, which, although incorrect, is often the dichotomy proposed in atheist vs. religion debates.  This point is relevant to the extent that, if god exists, there would never be an absolute way of confirming this through empirical inference.  This means that those of us who have had a direct experience with god naturally have one hell of a time trying to convince someone else of what we experienced, namely because it's impossible.  But, it is the nature of something that is absolutely knowable to be impossible to prove, and this is because absolute knowledge can only result from direct perception or observation.

I disagree. If I stopped suffering, made the world a better place and understood the workings of the universe. That is not a meaningless life for me, just because I and all the things I am linked to are localized in space-time. You make your part of the 4d universe a better place. Yeah there are some other parts which may still remain wild, and untouched. Who cares, they are far away, mostly unkown, unknowable.

The thing that is meaningful to me is what I am part of anyway. I don't care about a future race of superhumans living in the year 150013 BCAD, who might very well have destroyed my race and may have values completely different from mine. That is like a far away planet to me that has only a very weak connection to me. But i want my life to contribute to the change.

You realize that "meaningfullness" in itself a psychological/mental concept. There is no sense of meaningfullness without a brain to feel it. That is why something that is meaningless to you, can be meaningful to me. In order to claim that there is a divine meaningfulness, you already need to assume that there is a divine something.

If sensory data is all of reality and there is no afterlife, then life is meaningless. You can enjoy your life, but all of your enjoyment will be the same as if it had never been once you die and your memories rot. Or if you get alzheimers. If you make the planet a better place and are remembered well for it, your contribution is pointless once the planet is consumed by the sun when it expands into a red giant, unless humans have spread to other planet byt hen. Even then, eventually entropy is going to catch up, eradicate all life forms that benefit from your contribution, and the universe will collapse into a super dense mega black hole, and your contribution is therefore meaningless.

   It's not like we are talking about just Christianity- every culture in the world has had wise people or prophets who have had visions of these relities, whether they call them spirit or shadow realms, paradise, the unseen, the kingdom of heaven, shangri la, the pure lands, so on and so forth. You know a tree by its fruit- if you really want to say that every respected community leader for the last tens of thousands of years was just making stories up because they didn't have microscopes and telescopes, fine. But if you look at what the European civilization has wrought in a few hundred year of using the scientific method, well, that's not the way I want to go. It's certainly a useful tool, but to use it excusively to construct a cosmology is not only ineffective, it's insulting to our ancestors. It should rather be seen as one tool among many- even the scientific worldview informs us that light, for example, can be viewed as partciles or as waves, depending on the observation. Empirical observation organized by the scientific method is one mode of perception.

 If you look into the field of consciousness studie, you will find that there are many other modes of observation that yield data without the use of the five senses. Prophets, gurus, saints, wise men and women, and the like have achieved profound insight into the nature of reality by using all of the observational capacity available to them, and they have attempted to explain this to those of thus who have not attained such a level of consciousness. If you look sincerely you can find a common thread through most of the accounts of spiritual reality.

  I was originally repulse by religion because of the threat making- "you are going to hell if you don't believe what I believe." The more power a system of thought has, the more potential it has to be abused by power hungry groups or individuals attempting to use the truth in it to their own worldly benefit. This is a confirmation of the truth of this reality rather than a contradiction of it, and it simply means that we should use our own reasoning when someone claims to be offering us the truth- and we must always ask if the person telling us stands to benefit from us accepting what they are saying. Those who are on the right path will never expect material compensation for sharing their knowledge.

  The purity of source texts is also an issue. We have to consider what data we have about the original authors of the source documents, who translated them, how many versions there are, and how much evidence we have of their authenticity to the source. For example, if we want to learn the teachings of Buddha, we must strive to find out who originally wrote down the teaching, how long after the original teaching it was written, was the person who wrote it trustworthy, what documentation do have from other sources of their character or corroboration that they actually personally received the teaching of Buddha, what language Buddha spoke in and what language the written version was written in, and so on and so forth. Every translation and every degree that the knowledge is separated from the one who originally taught it is a chance for corruption of the message to seep in. Think about if you are sailing in a boat from california to japan- if you are just one half of a degree off course, you could end up far from the intended destination- likewise, when trying to apply a complete spiritual system of life, the tiniest error could end up having devastating consequences.

I hope we all agree at least that the probability of the existence of any given god is a set of probability measure zero.

I don't get the point about nothing having any meaning after that.

To me it basically means that you can define the meaning of your own life. If you want to devote it to science or pleasure or death and destruction, you can set up your own ethics system completely independent of the one imposed by the society, which will help you achieve those goals.

The only point is that you need some kind of ultimate goal. a sort of metha-ethics. For a scientist that may be "understanding", for an hedonist it may be "pleasure", for a veganarchist/ecologist it may be to make the planet a better place.

In contrast if a god existed, nothing you do would have any meaning, since your desires/choices, pleasures, understanding, or the situation with the planet etc. would be completely meaningless. it would be his desires that would matter. In that case all of us would really have to be religious freaks, praying to the God the whole day.

I mean seriously, think about it, if a classical judeo-christian or musllim God existed, nothing in your life would have any meaning. You should give up everything and give yourself completely to the god. It is by definition more important than everything else.

No. To not believe isn't more riskier because a deity could exists which punishes superstition and irrationalism.

Doesn't make sense. If there are evidences, why a christian needs to believe?

So you are saying Atheist have some sort of crippled senses/thinking, like a blind person. And because they will never be able to understand you reasoning, like the blind person will never be able to see they have to trust the reasoning of the theists for ever, unable to understand it.

Or don't have atheist crippled sense and their senses tell them there is no cliff. Then your analogy doesn't work.

Or theist are the blind ones that just believe there is a cliff because they haven been told so by other blind one their entire live?

Why is it risky to reject God and the Bible?  What if the so called "superstitions" are true?  It is risky then because you are rejecting God's offer of eternal life.

He puts evidence of His existence all around us.  How can we not look at the beauty of creation and deny that there is no God?  Yet people do it all of the time and the Bible even warns that we will do this.

That said, if a person was walking on a cliff that was blind and someone warned him to be careful not to go over the edge and the blind person responded, "I don't believe that there I am even on a cliff!"  Would that keep him from walking off the edge?  When he stepped over the side he would still fall to the ground, perhaps saying, "Oops.  My Bad!" Weather or not a person believes something does not change what the truth really is.

God does give us brains for reason.  Many people have distorted who God is and because of that people have mixed up views.  Hence why it is imperative for people to read the Bible for themselves and try to come to an understanding of who He really is.  To just ignore Him though is dangerous and not wise, IMHO.  


All of this said, I do believe that God is fair and just and He will give everyone a chance.  I personally people that sincerely have never had the chance to accept or reject Him will get that chance in the afterlife.  It is not a popular thought in many Christian circles, but knowing that God is just and would not arbitrarily send someone to Hell without giving them that chance is what I believe, and there is some scriptural evidence supporting this as well.  But for those that blatantly reject Him, they are the ones that I believe are playing with "fire."

Atheists don't reject God.  They say that there is no more proof that the Christian God exists than any of the other Gods invented by men exist.    I'm assuming you are talking about the Christian God of course since you reference Hell and such.  You can't reject something if you don't know if it even exists or not.

Why is it risky to reject ancient myth and superstition?

God gives me a brain with which I can reason.  Then he offers up no proof or evidence of his existence and he's going to punish me for not believing old stories, many of which are very silly?  I've said many times that I think the Christian God is quite petty.  Which doesn't make sense to me if he's wise, all-knowing and benevolent.  Religious leaders on the hand...


Science doesn't have anything to do with it.  You could disprove science tomorrow and there would still be no evidence of God, no reason to believe in it.  

I'm not contradicting myself.  Math proofs can be called proofs because they simply abide by math's rules.  The scientific method tries to infer abstract models from observable phenomenon, and this is where you lose the ability to say that you can prove anything because you cannot prove the infallibility of the model.  Most scientists assume that repeated testing of a model that yields consistent results constitute proof of this infallibility, but this is really just for practical utility.  It's not technically proof of anything, or at least we can't call it such, and that's why no good published scientific paper will ever claim that they have "absolute" findings, but rather "statistically significant" ones.

I can drop an apple from a building in Earth's atmosphere and I can test numerous times that its acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2.  I might then test this at a variety of locations and come up with the same result.  Then, someone will posit a theory, "The law of the universe is that g = 9.8 m/s^2" and this is inferred through your observations on Earth.  No matter who tests this theory on Earth in standard Earth atmosphere, they will not be able to prove you wrong.  But then, some guy goes up in a shuttle to the moon and they do one test - one single test, which shows that g on the moon is about 1/6 of g on earth.  That one single test now discredited your inference despite having possibly millions of cases that supported your initial claim.  With that one test, we have completely wiped out our initial inference and we need to create a new inference, "g on EARTH is 9.8 m/s^2".  Now, it's important to note that none of the math you might have done while calculating your observed phenomena is wrong.  In fact, the math is all perfectly correct.  But your assumption of how that math describes reality was wrong, and that is how the problem of induction is invoked.  We can never get around this problem empirically.

Phrased another way, the problem with induction essentially lies with the idea that you would have to already know what it is that you're looking for before you've found it.  Let's hypothetically assume that we're conducting an experiment with an interaction between variables x and y in hopes of finding an event z that implies 'proof' of god.  We let x and y interact and, in fact, z is the result!  So we throw up our hands and we say, "Look!  We found z!  This is proof of god!"  Well, that's sure funny that you already somehow knew what z is and what it looks like before you ever saw it.  In other words, this means that you "recognize" z when in fact you've never encountered z in your life until just now.  This is just another form of confirmation bias.

@BitChick My opinion is religion is a faith based explanation for the unknown.  Once the unknown becomes know religion moves further up the line.  Keep in mind that a few hundred years ago there wasn't even a concept of a cell.  So the fact that you currently say a cell couldn't have evolved simply means you don't know how it came about.  If it turns out we were created by aliens then I'm sure religion will move to the statement "well then God must have created the aliens that designed us"
@the joint While conceptually I understand what you are saying you seem to be contradicting yourself.  1st you say there is no "prove" in science then you say math proofs are self contained systems.  What I'm saying is that many if not most religious statements have turned out to be provably false.  1st god is fire, oops that's provably not it.  Then god lives in the sky, oops once we got up there that's provably not it.  Then god is proof of living organism coming from manure, oops once we got better microscopes that's provably not it.  Now the god de jour is intelligent design.  I'm man enough to simply say I don't know and it's hard for me to respect people who after looking over the 1000 year history of this type of moving target but absolute statements still want to pimp religion to others with a straight face.