Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
How do you convince people god exists?
Options
Comments
-
No that's not what I'm talking about at all.
How did the writers of the bible maintain the mathematical consistency throughout the old testament and new testament in terms of the number 7?
If your unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, this is a good start into studying it....but only a start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hOKA9fR2p4
The bible is a book that deserves proper study if your going to be talking about it.
Now if you want to discuss contradictions in the four gospels...well these are suppose to be eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus....so being eye witness accounts you would expect to see some inconsistencies....however none of these would take away the truth of the gospel. More over they actually prove that these are actual eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus.
What proves? The fact that there are inconsistencies? Certainly identical testimony would whiff of collusion. But variance a proof of truth??
How are you reckoning it. When they vary it's natural human subjectivity at work. When they harmonize, evidence of objective truth. Surely there are other ways to skin this cat??0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »What proves? The fact that there are inconsistencies? Certainly identical testimony would whiff of collusion. But variance a proof of truth??
How are you reckoning it. When they vary it's natural human subjectivity at work. When they harmonize, evidence of objective truth. Surely there are other ways to skin this cat??
I'd suggest having a read of
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels0 -
I'd suggest having a read of
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
I think that my favorite part of the bible is the Old Testament story of Noah. That is a truly inspired tale, especially when you consider it was pilfered word for word from the story of Gilgamesh, written a long time before the bible was brewed in what is now present day Iraq. Like the Bible, it is filled with passionate violence and sex, and it is a direct ascendant of that lovely form of entertainment you mentioned earlier in the name of video games. Is that the inkling you had, too?0 -
I'd suggest having a read of
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
An early days Christian and I read all that kind of stuff - "who rolled back the stone" etc .. and in so far as it goes it's fine.
But that stuff kinda relies on you being a believer first. Then the tracing out all makes good sense.
Without that a priori belief your average atheist could (and should) shred the 'proof'
No one, I don't think, will be argued or apologeticized into the kingdom of heaven0 -
No that's not what I'm talking about at all.
How did the writers of the bible maintain the mathematical consistency throughout the old testament and new testament in terms of the number 7?
If your unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, this is a good start into studying it....but only a start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hOKA9fR2p4
The bible is a book that deserves proper study if your going to be talking about it.
Now if you want to discuss contradictions in the four gospels...well these are suppose to be eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus....so being eye witness accounts you would expect to see some inconsistencies....however none of these would take away the truth of the gospel. More over they actually prove that these are actual eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus.
They don't prove anything!!! They ere written 200 and 300 years after he died. Eyewitness my backside, Chinese whispers at best.
My fb profile from Uni proves more with pictures and comments and I can tell you that some of those pics do not describe the whole scenario of some of those nights.
The Diet of Worms selected these 4 as they would suit best for the general consumption by the public. It is now known there is a gospel for each of the 12 apostles.
And here is a shock, Judas was Jesus' best mate not a traitor and asked by Jesus to do that (according to the bible of Judas). Thats an old Discovery Channel documentary fact.
Also, if the repenter will be saved, why not be an athiest and spend your time doing other stuff than mass, just before you die then repent like crazy and you will be accepted into heaven. That will free up weeks and months of your time to do stuff you want to!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
How did the writers of the bible maintain the mathematical consistency throughout the old testament and new testament in terms of the number 7?
Who cares.It was written decades later and was written / edited to fulfil an agenda.Now if you want to discuss contradictions in the four gospels...well these are suppose to be eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus....
Eyewitness accounts written by people born after his death :rolleyes:Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Kaybaykwah wrote: »I think that my favorite part of the bible is the Old Testament story of Noah.
Yeah, he lived to be 900, crammed every species into a boat constructed of wood from a region where trees were sparse, and rode his daughers. What's not to like!Life ain't always empty.
0 -
They don't prove anything!!! They ere written 200 and 300 years after he died. Eyewitness my backside, Chinese whispers at best.
My fb profile from Uni proves more with pictures and comments and I can tell you that some of those pics do not describe the whole scenario of some of those nights.
The Diet of Worms selected these 4 as they would suit best for the general consumption by the public. It is now known there is a gospel for each of the 12 apostles.
And here is a shock, Judas was Jesus' best mate not a traitor and asked by Jesus to do that (according to the bible of Judas). Thats an old Discovery Channel documentary fact.
Also, if the repenter will be saved, why not be an athiest and spend your time doing other stuff than mass, just before you die then repent like crazy and you will be accepted into heaven. That will free up weeks and months of your time to do stuff you want to!!!Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Who cares.It was written decades later and was written / edited to fulfil an agenda.
Eyewitness accounts written by people born after his death :rolleyes:
Do you guys just take these things at face value without researching deeper into these things?
What is your motivation for posting...is it just to discount everything in the most vaguest of researched arguments or are you genuinely after the truth of things?
No one can convince you that God exists....If your convinced in yourself that he doesn't and everything surrounding that is nonsense then stay the way you are.
It doesn't matter how much evidences presented either way - you can't discover GOD through solely intellectual methods.
God is spiritual and only when you soften your hearts and allow yourselves too really seek God out will you find the truth.
This is not easy to do at all and many don't understand what this actually means and it's very difficult to explain it as everyone's path to God is different.
Only you know in your own heart and mind what you need to be able to Know God. Weather that is a direct encounter with him or a journey you have to take to Grow as a person.0 -
Do you guys just take these things at face value without researching deeper into these things?
Get over yourself. You will find that many users here have been studying and researching the topic of gods and religions for many years in fact. Doing research and not coming to the same conclusions as YOU have, does not mean such research has not been done. To think that way requires a level of hubris and arrogance I would not share with you.No one can convince you that God exists....If your convinced in yourself that he doesn't and everything surrounding that is nonsense then stay the way you are.
Yet myself and many other users are not "convinced" there is, or is not a god. The only thing we are convinced of is that no one has shown us THUS FAR any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest such an entity does exist. Simple as that.It doesn't matter how much evidences presented either way
Hard to say, until you actually present some. But refusing to present any, and then presuming to tell us that it would not matter anyway, is at best guess work on your behalf and at worst is a complete canard designed to simply straw man us as closed minded individuals for whom no effort is worth investing.you can't discover GOD through solely intellectual methods.
Says you. Other theists claim however that god can be discovered through reason alone. What makes you right and them wrong?
Now, granted, when such users make that claim around here they are united in their refusal to actually offer the reasoning in question. They merely claim that there is reasoning available to discover god. They just do not seem to want US to know what it is.God is spiritual and only when you soften your hearts and allow yourselves too really seek God out will you find the truth.
The problem with that mantra is the exact same mantra is presented by people espousing other equally nonsense and equally unsubstantiated claims. They claim some nonsense.... maybe some conspiracy theory, or something supposed snake oil medicine, or paranormal magic, or whatever..... and then rather than show ANY evidence that their claims are credible they instead suggest the mark needs to be more open hearted or more open minded.
It is a trick as old as humanity itself probably. Claim nonsense then instead of backing up the nonsense, make it about the mark. Charlatan 101 move basically. For shame sir. For. Shame.everyone's path to God is different.
A bit rich to say that after claiming above you can not get to this god through intellectual methods. In one breath you presume to dictate what a path to god can or can not be. In the next breath you declare that said path is varied and individual.
If you are going to espouse unsubstantiated nonsense.... you might at least try to keep said nonsense INTERNALLY consistent, no?0 -
Do you guys just take these things at face value without researching deeper into these things?
What is your motivation for posting...is it just to discount everything in the most vaguest of researched arguments or are you genuinely after the truth of things?
No one can convince you that God exists....If your convinced in yourself that he doesn't and everything surrounding that is nonsense then stay the way you are.
It doesn't matter how much evidences presented either way - you can't discover GOD through solely intellectual methods.
God is spiritual and only when you soften your hearts and allow yourselves too really seek God out will you find the truth.
This is not easy to do at all and many don't understand what this actually means and it's very difficult to explain it as everyone's path to God is different.
Only you know in your own heart and mind what you need to be able to Know God. Weather that is a direct encounter with him or a journey you have to take to Grow as a person.
Replace God with astrology or numerology though, and your argument is the same: be open minded and hearted.
The problem with that assertion is that you need to discredit scientific inquiry to bolster your claims of being a "grown person", in spite of the fact you present nothing but magical thought processes to support said claims.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not in the slightest. The bible started off true, but as people learned more and became less credulous, bits of it turned out to be false or ridiculous.It may have apparent contradictions, however usually when these are studied in more detail you gain great insights into their meanings any many of these apparent contradictions are gems of knowledge.
Each bit which turns out to be false or ridiculous then becomes a metaphor.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Except for the ludicrously vast amount of the universe that is empty space, you mean. It's like people who talk about the wondrous order of nature aren't aware how much of the universe is completely empty and viciously lethal to anything alive.
We have done this before, haven't we? Discussed the supposed "reason" that can justify the existence of god. I am still waiting for this "reason", if you want to continue from our last post.
Ah, so if no-one else recognises the "reason" in your argument, it's because god hasn't cheated for them and made them believe, it's not because your "reason" is leakier than a sieve. Convenient that, isn't it? It's also something that a lot of people who believe in completely contradictory gods will say, that their god has given them faith. How do I, as an outsider, tell which of you actually has any "reason" without any gift of faith?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That is circular. The evidence that a god created things the way they are, is the things the way they are? You are using the question itself as evidence for itself.
Adumbrate that reasoning for me/us then. I genuinely hope it is more coherent and less fallacious than the circular reasoning above.
Pretty sure I have given an account of the arguments for the existence of God from causation and from ontology (principle of non-contradiction) earlier in this thread. You cannot keep asking me to reproduce them.
PS I have never found anyone putting a serious dint in Aquinas' Five Ways of Proving God's Existence. Especially not Dawkins, from whom even his atheist pals try to distance themselves.
https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/richard-dawkins-has-gone-so-far-he-s-lost-even-his-atheist-friends-1.594456Just pondering this idea.... If God created the Universe and the world - then really the Universe is kind of like a virtual world that we human might be able to create in games.
So Looking at the Creation account -
Creation Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5)
God created the heavens and the earth. “The heavens” refers to everything beyond the earth, outer space. The earth is made but not formed in any specific way, although water is present. God then speaks light into existence. He then separates the light from the dark and names the light “day” and the dark “night.” This creative work occurs from evening until morning – one day.
So God Coded and developed the Universe and the building blocks of planets - ie Earth. So he initializes the game engine.
2. He writes the code for light and integrates it into his new game engine.
3. Then rather then having light every where he codes it into Light sources so we can have both dark and light.
So he managed to code all that in one day. Not bad really.
Now I could go on with the rest of the account of creation, it really strike me that rather then looking at our surroundings from our point of view. If you look at the rest of the account of creation from a Game creator / Programmers point of view it's very close to how an actually game universe or virtual world would actually be developed.
Day 2 - God - Codes up the how the atmosphere works and adds in moisture and water.
Day 3 - God codes up the land, continents and seas - I wonder at this point is he using the unreal engine or the unity engine.
Day 4 - God codes up all the stars and heavenly bodies. And initializes the thread to allow them to run. He also creates the Moon and the sun in relations to the earth. - This can only make sense if this is actually game development here - I mean it is the sequence you would do it in.
Day 5 - God uses something better then Adobe to create all the life in water and insects
Day 6 - God then uses the same software to create all the land creatures. And finally creates Humans as the NPC's to his world.
Day 7 God Rests.
That account does not make sense in terms of science that we know. It can only really make sense to me in terms of developing a virtual world and the only example I have of that is a Computer Game world.
Does the creation account make sense if it was simply the sequence of coding up and developing a game world?
Then if we are the npc's inside that virtual world then looking from within that world we can only really know about how the world runs We would not be able to see past that world.
The world was initially created as a safe paradise in which we could live freely. And God roamed around from time to time to speak with us.
Then we went against god - the problem that God has here is that he has to leave our presence as when you go against God you go against creation and I guess there is some universal law that means if you go against creation and are in the presence of God in his true form you die.
Then he decided to Join the world in First Person Perspective but again we went against him and just had him killed.
I wonder how the game plays out in the end.
The Genesis account is written in the style of a fable and many aspects should not be taken literally. This is not to mean that it does not contain truth, eg. the universe is created, not eternal.
For a good discussion I would recommend R.R Reno's Genesis (Brazos Press 2010) https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=9781587430916&i=stripbooks&linkCode=qs.0 -
Not in the slightest. The bible started off true, but as people learned more and became less credulous, bits of it turned out to be false or ridiculous.
Each bit which turns out to be false or ridiculous then becomes a metaphor.
The Bible is perfectly credible and coherent. Much of it has to be approached with the relevant cultural, historical and linguistic context. This is where the discipline of exegesis comes in.
If someone starts reading the Bible by diving headlong into the Old Testament and discovers it does not make sense, then he is not alone. Beginners should not attempt the OT without a good commentary.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26383
Ty Straight Villa wrote: »The Bible is perfectly credible and coherent. Much of it has to be approached with the relevant cultural, historical and linguistic context. This is where the discipline of exegesis comes in.
If someone starts reading the Bible by diving headlong into the Old Testament and discovers it does not make sense, then he is not alone. Beginners should not attempt the OT without a good commentary.
I tell you, for a apparently all powerful being he seems to need lots of humans to work out what he meant. Funny that.
It's almost if numerous people made up stuff and badly edited it together. But I'm sure that would never happy.
🙄0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,695 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 88935
Are you suggesting the others don't ?Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Do you mean the four gospels which contradict each other?0 -
Kaybaykwah wrote: »I think that my favorite part of the bible is the Old Testament story of Noah. That is a truly inspired tale, especially when you consider it was pilfered word for word from the story of Gilgamesh, written a long time before the bible was brewed in what is now present day Iraq. Like the Bible, it is filled with passionate violence and sex, and it is a direct ascendant of that lovely form of entertainment you mentioned earlier in the name of video games. Is that the inkling you had, too?
Gilgamesh is indeed worthy of some study also, especially in how it compares and contrasts differently and similarly to noah.
There is a star wars like light sabre in Gilgamesh.
However there are debates around which actually came first.
Almost looks like the Gilgamesh account comes from the Fallen angels or Aliens as you would have called them today, especially when you look at the reasons for the Flood in Gilgamesh.
In the Gilgamesh account, the Flood was ordered by multiple, self-centered squabbling ‘gods’ that were ‘starving’ without humans to feed them sacrifices
this is quiet different to the Biblical account.
However not surprising at all given that the fallen angels were trying to control humans at the time.
You should look into the whole fallen angel accounts in the Bible and what the did with people, along with all the other mythology that comes from the Norse Gods, Greek and Indian Gods.
Also have a read of the books of Enoch.
It's all very interesting.0 -
-
-
Ty Straight Villa wrote: »Pretty sure I have given an account of the arguments for the existence of God from causation and from ontology (principle of non-contradiction) earlier in this thread. You cannot keep asking me to reproduce them.
You trotted out a string of fallacies which me and a number of other posters basically decimated. You ignored nearly all of those rebuttals, then eventually ran away. Now you slink back in acting like the opposite somehow happened?
This is a discussion forum. You have demonstrably refused discussion. So no, you have not given an account of arguments for the existence of god and anyone can scroll back to your earlier posts, and the responses to them, and see that.
The best you can do is respond to an old man who is not even here (Dawkins) to cover your dodges of the people who actually are.0 -
Dredging up a six year old article to have a pop at Dawkins is a sign of desperation.
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Dredging up a six year old article to have a pop at Dawkins is a sign of desperation.
Heh reminds me of the anti abortion poster who tried to rebut my positions by dredging up posts I made here TEN years ago. And his "rebuttal" was to point out I said the same thing 10 years ago but with slightly different wording so I must be contradicting myself somehow.
Very laughable the effects desperation have on people like that. Especially so with Dawkins who.... much like people point out about Micheal Nugent.... does not speak for all atheists at all.
But it is understandable too. Many theists, especially Christians and Muslims, essentially view the world through the lens of a personality cult. So they parse opposition in that way too. So they imagine we have some kind of divine leaders that if they tear them down, they somehow tear us down. And they vicariously treat Dawkins as an atheist messiah in a way no actual atheist I have met actually does.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Dredging up a six year old article to have a pop at Dawkins is a sign of desperation.
Some even try to dredge up millennia-old goatherds tales to prove a point...
:pac:0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But it is understandable too. Many theists, especially Christians and Muslims, essentially view the world through the lens of a personality cult. So they parse opposition in that way too.
Similar to the whole "atheism is really a religion" thing, or "deathbed conversions" "no atheists in foxholes" rubbish. Can't accept there are people who don't just not believe in a god, but feel absolutely no need or desire to do so either.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Similar to the whole "atheism is really a religion" thing, or "deathbed conversions" "no atheists in foxholes" rubbish. Can't accept there are people who don't just not believe in a god, but feel absolutely no need or desire to do so either.
Atheists, whilst not believing in God believe something else in relation to the questions answered for others by God
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
Supposing, for example, that you arose from natural processes and that there is no meaning outside whatever you decide for yourself stems from a belief system. A belief about the means you've used to arrive at that conclusion - science being a frequent player.
That would make you a Science-tist. Scienceism is a religion as is an atheism arising from it.
Atheists don't believe in God, but they believe something else.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Heh reminds me of the anti abortion poster who tried to rebut my positions by dredging up posts I made here TEN years ago. And his "rebuttal" was to point out I said the same thing 10 years ago but with slightly different wording so I must be contradicting myself somehow.
Very laughable the effects desperation have on people like that. Especially so with Dawkins who.... much like people point out about Micheal Nugent.... does not speak for all atheists at all.
But it is understandable too. Many theists, especially Christians and Muslims, essentially view the world through the lens of a personality cult. So they parse opposition in that way too. So they imagine we have some kind of divine leaders that if they tear them down, they somehow tear us down. And they vicariously treat Dawkins as an atheist messiah in a way no actual atheist I have met actually does.
He just sounds so much like so many of you, the parallel is inevitable.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Atheists, whilst not believing in God believe something else in relation to the questions answered for others by God
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
You really do like telling people what other people think rather than defending your own views and positions.... positions you like to act as if they are correct by default and the "sceptic" is somehow to be derided.
However no, many if not most atheists I have met do not hold beliefs at all on the above questions.... no matter how much you want to pretend they do. Rather, they hold them as open and as yet unanswered questions. Nothing more. Nothing less.antiskeptic wrote: »That would make you a Science-tist. Scienceism is a religion as is an atheism arising from it.
I guess when you parse the entire world through unsubstantiated nonsnese, then you are led to assume other people do so too. But no, not everything is a religion. Science is just the position of looking at the data set available to you and making best guess predictions about the state of the world to come based on past observations.
It is not religion for example for me to think that if I throw myself off the top of a building that I can not fly. The "science" involved here is just to note the data set that all previous humans who left the top surface of a building without the aid of technology travelled downwards at terminal (in more ways that one) velocity.
I do not "believe" I can fly. I do not "believe" I can not fly either. Rather what I do is make educated guesses as to the state of the universe based on observations of previous data. Nothing religious about it.antiskeptic wrote: »Atheists don't believe in God, but they believe something else.
Most likely. But I would move to ask them what they believe rather than pretend you have any idea at all what people other than yourself think. You have too much straw laying around you that you like to build into little men to knock over.antiskeptic wrote: »He just sounds so much like so many of you, the parallel is inevitable.
That, or you just hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest. Which is no surprise from someone who likes to pretend their position is the default and that the "sceptic" is something to be derided or ridiculed.
If I was espousing unsubstantiated nonsense I would probably be terrified of sceptics too. Replete with post dodging, post sniping and retreats to boot. Do you avoid mirrors I wonder?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Atheists, whilst not believing in God believe something else in relation to the questions answered for others by God
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
Supposing, for example, that you arose from natural processes and that there is no meaning outside whatever you decide for yourself stems from a belief system. A belief about the means you've used to arrive at that conclusion - science being a frequent player.
That would make you a Science-tist. Scienceism is a religion as is an atheism arising from it.
Atheists don't believe in God, but they believe something else.
Those who can't or won't understand atheism often have a need to foist beliefs on us where none exist according to their definition of the word.
Belief in religious terms carries weight because without belief there is nothing.
Questions like these above are the kind of questions that are easily resolved in a satisfying manner by having a belief in a supernatural power who can provide comforting answers to where we came from, why we are here and where we are going. Religions through history all provide a narrative that answer these 'big' questions.
However, when you don't believe with a big B, these questions no longer are of any great interest as the mundane reality is that there is no real mystery in where we came from, there is no more purpose to our existence than there is for a worm, and we will end up in the same place as the worm at the end.
Personally (and I can't generalise for other atheists here), I find these types of questions to be very egocentric and veering too far towards navel gazing.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Atheists, whilst not believing in God believe something else in relation to the questions answered for others by God
Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
Supposing, for example, that you arose from natural processes and that there is no meaning outside whatever you decide for yourself stems from a belief system. A belief about the means you've used to arrive at that conclusion - science being a frequent player.
That would make you a Science-tist. Scienceism is a religion as is an atheism arising from it.
Atheists don't believe in God, but they believe something else.
Every atheist on this thread has asked you to stop misrepresenting their position. It’s an unfair and a particularly nasty thing to do.
So - once more - no, since I don’t believe in the existence of your god, I don’t believe in anything else. Once again, imagine your absence of belief in Zeus and Odin - we just have that for all gods and pink unicorns.
You might enlighten us as to how a belief in god answers those questions? Or how a belief in god proves that a god exists? And what are the answers to the following;
Where does god come from?
Why is god here?
Where is god going?0 -
Every atheist on this thread has asked you to stop misrepresenting their position. It’s an unfair and a particularly nasty thing to do.
So - once more - no, since I don’t believe in the existence of your god, I don’t believe in anything else.
I should have said:
"either believe something else (regarding answer to such fundamental questions - questions that man has always asked and sought an answer to)."
Or
" haven't gotten around to asking such fundamental questions"
You appear to categorize yourself into that latter group: someone who has no belief for want of asking the question.
That's not atheism. That's a-anything. Lacking a belief in anything: "I don't believe in anything" you say.0 -
Advertisement
-
Those who can't or won't understand atheism often have a need to foist beliefs on us where none exist according to their definition of the word.
Belief in religious terms carries weight because without belief there is nothing.
Questions like these above are the kind of questions that are easily resolved in a satisfying manner by having a belief in a supernatural power who can provide comforting answers to where we came from, why we are here and where we are going. Religions through history all provide a narrative that answer these 'big' questions.
However, when you don't believe with a big B, these questions no longer are of any great interest as the mundane reality is that there is no real mystery in where we came from, there is no more purpose to our existence than there is for a worm, and we will end up in the same place as the worm at the end.
Personally (and I can't generalise for other atheists here), I find these types of questions to be very egocentric and veering too far towards navel gazing.
You believe there is no.mystery because you believe an explanation that involves no mystery. Presumably one that involves natural processes and happenstance.
Your belief (the result of your assessment of information) is what renders us mundane and insignificant. Your belief has the same size b in front if it as mine (which too is the result of an assessment of the information): my belief merely concludes we have profound importance and value, yours concludes we have little.
That two people buying a Lotto ticket results in them obtaining two different sized prizes doesn't alter the sameness of their input: buying a Lotto ticket0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6XAvuRn4Q
Advertisement