When atheists go too far

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

Yep that's one of the reasons, definitely. To leave though would mean an obliteration of a whole ideological viewpoint of the world, of what is right and wrong, and what I can expect for my life and my children (if I ever have any - unlikely!:D)

Philosophy is MUCH better in that department than theology.

sensibleken

Asry wrote: »

Yep that's one of the reasons, definitely. To leave though would mean an obliteration of a whole ideological viewpoint of the world, of what is right and wrong, and what I can expect for my life and my children (if I ever have any - unlikely!:D)





That's one viewpoint, certainly. But you can't get away from the fact that the bible says, unequivocally, many times, that it is a sin and an abomination. No changing in religious denomination will change that. BUT, I don't know that for sure because all I know is what the RCC has taught me since infancy. I'd have to read about stuff really.

It doesnt. There is one line in leviticus about men having sex with men. On the page previous there is a whole colums on mildew, mildew is clearly more of a concern for the old testament god (the one that christians dont even worship).

It says nothing about lesbians.

Have you ever read the bible cover to cover to see what they are talking about.

Asry

Seachmall wrote: »

Philosophy is MUCH better in that department than theology.

I am interested in philosophy Although I tend to have existential freakouts now and then. Philosophy would just serve as a support for my religious belief, however - for it to act as a substitute would be for me to accept my doubt (that happens sometimes) that there is no God and when we die, we're dead, and that'd mean straitjacket land for moi! :rolleyes:

Asry

sensibleken wrote: »

It doesnt. There is one line in leviticus about men having sex with men. On the page previous there is a whole colums on mildew, mildew is clearly more of a concern for the old testament god (the one that christians dont even worship).

It says nothing about lesbians.

Have you ever read the bible cover to cover to see what they are talking about.

I have indeed. The conflicting commandments in Leviticus were deemed null and void by something called the New Covenant. I'll post a link here rather than going into it because it's been hashed out on the Christianity forum already. Leviticus is not the only place in the bible that refers to homosexuality - yes it cites men having relations with men explicitly, but there are other passages which just reference homosexual sex specifically.

CerebralCortex

Asry wrote: »

I am interested in philosophy Although I tend to have existential freakouts now and then. Philosophy would just serve as a support for my religious belief, however - for it to act as a substitute would be for me to accept my doubt (that happens sometimes) that there is no God and when we die, we're dead, and that'd mean straitjacket land for moi! :rolleyes:

So you're choosing to believe?

dvpower

Asry wrote: »

That's one viewpoint, certainly. But you can't get away from the fact that the bible says, unequivocally, many times, that it is a sin and an abomination. No changing in religious denomination will change that. BUT, I don't know that for sure because all I know is what the RCC has taught me since infancy. I'd have to read about stuff really.

Changing religious denomination might not, although there are many practicing gay people who can reconcile their sexuality with their faith.

Obviously my advise would be to reject a religion that would condemn you for being yourself.

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

I am interested in philosophy Although I tend to have existential freakouts now and then. Philosophy would just serve as a support for my religious belief, however - for it to act as a substitute would be for me to accept my doubt (that happens sometimes) that there is no God and when we die, we're dead, and that'd mean straitjacket land for moi! :rolleyes:

If you're interested in getting into philosophy check out 'Philosophy: Basic Readings'.

Morals, happiness, embracing life etc. can all be accomplished without believing in a God.

"Isn't it enough to believe that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the end of it too?" - Douglas Adams

Asry

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So you're choosing to believe?

Well as a thinking human who's not an idiot (I hope) and educated (I have an MA!! It might be a completely useless one but it's there!! :pac:) I have considered the alternative to my current belief system - the one with no meaning and no God and death at the end. And in objectively viewing both these views, the one with a designer and an overall purpose made more sense to me, and made me feel safer than the other one.

That's the rational side of me. There's the entire other side, the emotional/intuitive/spiritual...whatever, that thrills with light and joy and just...believes. It can't be explained away.

optogirl

Asry wrote: »

no meaning and no God and death at the end. And in objectively viewing both these views, the one with a designer and an overall purpose made more sense to me, and made me feel safer than the other one.

And here is the crux of it - I truly believe that a lot of people cling onto religion purely because of fear. There's no doubting it's placebo effect on people but accepting it because you are afraid of the alternative seems wilfully blinkered and I would imagine not what the church wants from it's members either.

Mark200

Asry wrote: »

Well as a thinking human who's not an idiot (I hope) and educated (I have an MA!! It might be a completely useless one but it's there!! :pac:) I have considered the alternative to my current belief system - the one with no meaning and no God and death at the end. And in objectively viewing both these views, the one with a designer and an overall purpose made more sense to me, and made me feel safer than the other one.

That's the rational side of me. There's the entire other side, the emotional/intuitive/spiritual...whatever, that thrills with light and joy and just...believes. It can't be explained away.

Taking into account how good a belief makes you feel when trying to decide whether its true or not is not rational. Presumably you think death is the end for dogs, cats, mice, spiders and all other animals. Why wouldn't it be the end for us too?

CerebralCortex

Asry wrote: »

Well as a thinking human who's not an idiot (I hope) and educated (I have an MA!! It might be a completely useless one but it's there!! :pac:) I have considered the alternative to my current belief system - the one with no meaning and no God and death at the end. And in objectively viewing both these views, the one with a designer and an overall purpose made more sense to me, and made me feel safer than the other one.

That's the rational side of me.

You couldn't be further from rationality I'm afraid!

Asry wrote: »

There's the entire other side, the emotional/intuitive/spiritual...whatever, that thrills with light and joy and just...believes. It can't be explained away.

Yes it can.

dvpower

Asry wrote: »

I have considered the alternative to my current belief system - the one with no meaning and no God and death at the end. And in objectively viewing both these views, the one with a designer and an overall purpose made more sense to me, and made me feel safer than the other one.

You feel safer with the one that will send you to hell if you fail to supress your own sexual orientation!

Asry

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You couldn't be further from rationality I'm afraid! Yes it can.

It is? How? (to both questions)

dvpower wrote: »

You feel safer with the one that will send you to hell if you fail to supress your own sexual orientation!

But that's only if you see it as a natural thing. Sometimes I see it as my own willful sinfulness. And sometimes I don't. It's confusing. But yes I do.

Mark200 wrote: »

Taking into account how good a belief makes you feel when trying to decide whether its true or not is not rational. Presumably you think death is the end for dogs, cats, mice, spiders and all other animals. Why wouldn't it be the end for us too?

Because animals don't have souls.

optogirl wrote: »

And here is the crux of it - I truly believe that a lot of people cling onto religion purely because of fear. There's no doubting it's placebo effect on people but accepting it because you are afraid of the alternative seems wilfully blinkered and I would imagine not what the church wants from it's members either.

oh, I agree. But my faith runs deeper than that.

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

It is? How? (to both questions)

This could just be the wording and no one wants to get into semantics but it came across that you believe in God because it makes you feel safer (that's subjective reasoning).

For it to be rational you'd have to put how it makes you feel aside and analyze what is the most likely.

You should ask yourself these questions and answer as objectively as you can:

• Is there evidence of a God that can't be explained by any other means (even if that explanation is "I don't know"*)?
  
• Why do I believe in this particular God out of the thousands of others?
  
• Would I believe in a different God if I was born/raised elsewhere?

etc.

* "I don't know" is a very important response. If you don't know how something occurred admit it, don't feel the need to fill in the gaps.

Mark200

Asry wrote: »

Because animals don't have souls.

Eh hate to break your heart but neither do we. What we have is a different level of consciousness. If you've ever owned a dog you'd know that they have a level of consciousness too.

Asry

Seachmall wrote: »

You should ask yourself these questions and answer as objectively as you can:

• Is there evidence of a God that can't be explained by any other means (even if that explanation is "I don't know"*)?
  
• Why do I believe in this particular God out of the thousands of others?
  
• Would I believe in a different God if I was born/raised elsewhere?

etc.

1 - No.
2 - Not to sound tautological but because this is God.
3 - I have no idea? Would I?

Any answer I can give you would just be 'because it is', 'because it happened', 'because it's true.' I really can't say anything else.

Asry

Mark200 wrote: »

Eh hate to break your heart but neither do we. What we have is a different level of consciousness. If you've ever owned a dog you'd know that they have a level of consciousness too.

Level of consciousnesses doesn't = souls. Your belief in the fact that we don't have souls is your belief.

Tehachapi

Asry wrote: »

Level of consciousnesses doesn't = souls. Your belief in the fact that we don't have souls is your belief.

You specifically stated "animals don't have souls", implying that humans do have souls. If that wasn't your intention, why not just state "there's no such thing as souls in any living entity".

If you are implying that humans do have souls, what is that based on? Holy scripture? A personal experience? With no scientific evidence couldn't I just as equally state there are 5 invisible leprechauns following every human around, with the addition of 3 invisible goblins following everyone over the age of 28. It's just as plausible as the belief of "souls".

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

Level of consciousnesses doesn't = souls. Your belief in the fact that we don't have souls is your belief.

While this is true (it is just a belief) it is the more reasonable and consistent belief.

Less assumptions are made in the belief there is no soul than there is a soul.

We have no real evidence either way. Likewise we have no real evidence either way for unicorns. If you don't believe in unicorns you 'should' not believe in souls (for the sake of consistency anyway). If you make an exception for one how is it justified? If you do believe in both, and everything else without evidence either way, your beliefs will become incompatible with each other.

I'm not suggesting what you should/shouldn't believe in, just the reasoning behind my position to help you better understand, or alter, your own.

Mark200

Asry wrote: »

Level of consciousnesses doesn't = souls. Your belief in the fact that we don't have souls is your belief.

And what reason do you have to believe we have souls unlike the millions of other species on this planet?

And if you acknowledge evolution, in what stage of evolution do you think we got these souls?

Ellis Dee

Mark200 wrote: »

Eh hate to break your heart but neither do we. What we have is a different level of consciousness. If you've ever owned a dog you'd know that they have a level of consciousness too.

A very high level. Here's mine terrified in his "safe place" in the bathroom with all the fireworks going off everywhere on New Years Eve. Thunder has the same effect on him. If there really was an all-loving sky fairy, there would be neither thunder nor rockets in this world.:mad:

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

It's not just "believing it for myself". I believe it is objectively true. It's simply not just something nice to believe.

For something to be objectively true, it has to be provably true independent of subjective judgement. Was this just an unfortunate turn of phrase or do you now have actual proof?

philologos

Mark200 wrote: »

So the greatest thing he has done is deciding to not send us all to eternal torture (just send most of us).
.

No. The greatest thing that He has done is to forgive our sins through Christ. We've turned against God and screwed up in the process, not just our relationship with Him but also in what we do to others. God has paid the price that we would have to pay so that we can come back into a relationship with Him.

We deserve to be punished for what we've done wrong. Yet we won't be if we truly believe and trust in Christ.

If I do numerous things wrong with periods where I do what is right in between. I am still guilty for what I do wrong. If I murdered someone 30 years ago and then I decided to do what is right and good from that point on, I would still be guilty before the court. Likewise if I don't repent and turn away from my sins I am still nonetheless guilty of them.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

We deserve to be punished for what we've done wrong. Yet we won't be if we truly believe and trust in Christ.

So I can unleash atrocities on society, and go unpunished because I subsequently believe and trust in Christ? Right. Seriously though what a load of pious nonsense. Do you believe in the concept of a "soul" yes?

philologos

Knasher wrote: »

For something to be objectively true, it has to be provably true independent of subjective judgement. Was this just an unfortunate turn of phrase or do you now have actual proof?

Proof is only to be found in mathematics. You mean that there should be good reason to believe in Christianity? I believe there is and I've argued exactly why I believe countless times on this forum.

When I get some more time I might systematically revise those reasons I gave a few years ago.

philologos

Tehachapi wrote: »

So I can unleash atrocities on society, and go unpunished because I subsequently believe and trust in Christ? Right. Seriously though what a load of pious nonsense. Do you believe in the concept of a "soul" yes?

Not quite. Just because we are forgiven doesn't mean we should do what we did before. It calls us to be transformed and to live new lives doing what glorifies God (I.E What is good).

Galatians 5:13-15 wrote:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

We are called to use the freedom we have to "serve one another humbly in love" rather than in hatred.

Christ Himself said that you will know them (believers) by their fruits. If one isn't demonstrating the fruits that come from faith in Christ then it is likely that they might be wolves in sheep's clothing.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

When I get some more time I might systematically revise those reasons I gave a few years ago.

2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event wrote:

If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.

Burden of proof rests on the claimant that something extraordinary happened. Until then "Don't know" is the only reasonable answer when asked "What happened".

3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense wrote:

The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility

The creation of the world, regardless of how small the chances are, is mathematically inevitable. Presuming there was no time limit of course (which there wouldn't have been).

4) Spiritual experiences wrote:

These are the strongest witness and conviction of an individuals faith, and this is where the atheist is left to struggle in misunderstanding over these type of issues.

An intelligent skeptic does not concern himself with anecdotal evidence.

6) Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the Bible. wrote:

Figures such as Xerxes (if you have seen 300 this is the same Xerxes), Nebuchadnezzar, Hezekiah, Sennachera, Balthasar, Darius, Cyrus, and so on have been substantiated in secular historical sources of the age. Likewise, the construction of the walls of Jerusalem, the construction of the 2nd Temple, the captivity of the Judeans and the Israelites, and so on are also backed up historically [...]

Making references to factual things does not add credence to supernatural claims.

7) Authenticity of the Bible wrote:

- The New Testament is one of the most widely circulated pieces of work in the Greek world, and it has indeed circulated far further than works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle.

The Bible is old and widely distributed. This does not add credence to it's supernatural claims.


The other two make specific claims (prophesies coming through and sources for the existence of Jesus) so I'll have to look them up.

Helix

philologos wrote: »

God has paid the price that we would have to pay so that we can come back into a relationship with Him.

sure if he's all powerful and everything is down to him than there was no price to pay at all, and he didnt need to do anything to change the rules. he could just have said "right, ill just let them all into heaven, sure itll be grand" and that would be that

no need to send a son to earth
no need to see that son crucified
no need to forgive people for their sins (if he created everything then sins are his doing too)
etc. etc.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

Proof is only to be found in mathematics. You mean that there should be good reason to believe in Christianity? I believe there is and I've argued exactly why I believe countless times on this forum.

When I get some more time I might systematically revise those reasons I gave a few years ago.

Okay so then you admit that it isn't objectively true?

I'm not trying to score a point off you here, saying something is objectively true has a very specific and narrow definition which you absolutely aren't meeting. Nor do I expect you to meet it because if you could meet it then it wouldn't be called faith it would be called fact. However I was hoping you would take the out I was giving you and just say it was an unfortunate turn of phrase, because the alternative is that you are trying to make an argument from authority.

Of course I freely admit that saying something isn't objectively true isn't an admission that it is false. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy.

achtungbarry

Asry wrote: »

That's the rational side of me. There's the entire other side, the emotional/intuitive/spiritual...whatever, that thrills with light and joy and just...believes. It can't be explained away.

You unwittingly explained it a sentence or two beforehand.

Asry wrote: »

and made me feel safer than the other one.