Mikaels interview kind of inspiret me to ask. Who's christian?

[fizz6207]

"Atheists completely deny that a supreme being can exist."

you nonce, have you got any experience with any of the atheist literature or do you just want to shove words down our throats to make yourself feel better? Like I have already pointed out, most rational atheists do not claim that a supernatural being "definitely" does not exist - after all - it is impossible to prove. What it comes down to is the level of reasonability of such a belief - and of course most atheists decide that the probability of it existing is so small that its not worth considering yourself "agnostic" on the issue. I myself can respect a simple theistic viewpoint (by that I mean a belief in a supreme being but perhaps no belief in any of the major structured religions) - but saying that an atheists argument is "weak and feeble" compared to say a christian (whose belief systems have to undergo RADICAL reconstrunctions everytime one of their belief systems is contradicted by science or other sources eg [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFml69gyaW8&feature=related[/ame] ) is just utterly laughable.

So what it comes down to in my belief system is this. Its fair to ignore all the major organised religions - because picking any one means you are just going to go to hell in all the others, each is just a hand-me-down of the culture it comes from. And anyway they are all filled with so much made up nonsense its hard to take them seriously at all. So the only real question I can ask myself is: is it rational to believe in a supreme being/god? (whether its from one of the main religions or not) And so we come down to your argument that an agnostic is more "rooted in intelligence" (lol and you're calling us arrogant?) for thinking that the existence of a god is a plausible and rational possibility - simply because we have no proof that it doesnt exist (If im putting words in your mouth the way you did to me - please let me know so I may reconstruct my approach to this discussion).

So let me ask you this - do you believe that there is a purple teapot orbiting the closest star to our sun? Or an invisible silent magic ninja that causes you to lose your keys? Im going to assume you dont - but then again let me know if you do. Now why dont you believe in said things? You have NO proof that they dont exist whatsoever - yet you do not consider yourself agnostic towards them.

So if we have no problems thus far - I guess what it comes down to is this: Why is a god a more rational belief than a purple orbiting ninja or an invisible teapot? Well? you tell me? Im dieing to know.

 

[Anesthetize]

Also, because what the fuck would a tea pot be doing in outer space? That's just silly. And I should think a magical ninja would have better things to do than steal my keys.

The reason God is more plausible than any of those things is because God is an unknown quantity/quality. There is no definition of God, there is no uniform image of God, there is no known way that God behaves/exists, whereas the things you mentioned (and all others like it) are known to humans., and therefore can be dismissed based on what we know about them.

 

[fizz6207]

"... because God is an unknown quantity/quality. There is no definition of God, there is no uniform image of God, there is no known way that God behaves/exists"

these are not by any means reasons that make god a plausible belief, if anything, quite the contrary. The examples of the teapot and ninja are merely more abstract views that didnt need direct rebuttals, but were more reflective as to the belief systems at hand - just what makes god plausible? Usually there is some retort such as we cannot explain the origins of the universe - so it must have been god! But funnily enough out of EVERYTHING that humans did once not understand (and was perhaps attributed to magic or powerful beings) but is now understood - the answer did not lie in magic or powerful beings. So please dont tell me its not foolish to simply shrug off things we dont understand as derived from god. If everyone used that method of thinking we wouldnt have the internet to have this discussion.

"... can be dismissed based on what we know about them"
So they CAN be dismissed? Despite having no proof whatsoever that they dont exist? Well thats good because - based on the arguments Ive seen for and against gods existence - my own opinion has developed and I think I CAN dismiss the existence of god based on what I know about relgious beliefs and history - as well as science and all that jazz. Despite having no proof he doesnt exist! Arent opinions great!

by the way as much as we're all in a heated debate here - I cant recommend the atheist experience enough - no matter what your religion/belief (plenty of Eps available on you tube) Theres some interesting discussions and the host actually knows a hell of a lot. fish around for some good ones.

 

[Anesthetize]

^ What it means, as we do not know those things about God, we don't have enough imformation to dismiss him. See, the whole thing about God is you're never supposed to know if he's there. You're supposed to believe. So trying to prove one way or the other is futile. Instead, you should just realize that it doesn't matter one way or the other, and instead of pretending you know something you don't, just let it go as an unsolved mystery because, again, it doesn't matter.

 

[Lateralus14]

"Atheists completely deny that a supreme being can exist."

you nonce, have you got any experience with any of the atheist literature or do you just want to shove words down our throats to make yourself feel better? Like I have already pointed out, most rational atheists do not claim that a supernatural being "definitely" does not exist - after all - it is impossible to prove. What it comes down to is the level of reasonability of such a belief - and of course most atheists decide that the probability of it existing is so small that its not worth considering yourself "agnostic" on the issue. I myself can respect a simple theistic viewpoint (by that I mean a belief in a supreme being but perhaps no belief in any of the major structured religions) - but saying that an atheists argument is "weak and feeble" compared to say a christian (whose belief systems have to undergo RADICAL reconstrunctions everytime one of their belief systems is contradicted by science or other sources eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFml69gyaW8&feature=related ) is just utterly laughable.

So what it comes down to in my belief system is this. Its fair to ignore all the major organised religions - because picking any one means you are just going to go to hell in all the others, each is just a hand-me-down of the culture it comes from. And anyway they are all filled with so much made up nonsense its hard to take them seriously at all. So the only real question I can ask myself is: is it rational to believe in a supreme being/god? (whether its from one of the main religions or not) And so we come down to your argument that an agnostic is more "rooted in intelligence" (lol and you're calling us arrogant?) for thinking that the existence of a god is a plausible and rational possibility - simply because we have no proof that it doesnt exist (If im putting words in your mouth the way you did to me - please let me know so I may reconstruct my approach to this discussion).

So let me ask you this - do you believe that there is a purple teapot orbiting the closest star to our sun? Or an invisible silent magic ninja that causes you to lose your keys? Im going to assume you dont - but then again let me know if you do. Now why dont you believe in said things? You have NO proof that they dont exist whatsoever - yet you do not consider yourself agnostic towards them.

So if we have no problems thus far - I guess what it comes down to is this: Why is a god a more rational belief than a purple orbiting ninja or an invisible teapot? Well? you tell me? Im dieing to know.

TBH this post makes a lot of sense and I can respect that if Atheists believe it. What I don't like is the huge portion of Atheists that are openly hostile to everyone else. Personally, I'm not sure what I believe at this stage, but I believe in tolerance for other people's beliefs. Many atheists (not all) have this nasty tendency of calling out the religious as complete idiots, which is unacceptable.

 

[Words of Credence]

It's silly to me to put so much faith in these "supreme beings" since we have a really hard time putting faith in each other seeing as how we're all in the same big toilet of life. Irony is that religion divides us even further on top of, you know, color/language/etc.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

Atheists represent a little 2% of the Earth's population. Christianity, 40%. I think atheists can feel agressive because they are surrounded by religions that have only brought war and conflicts in the world, and that are perpetually contradicting themselves.

 

[Lateralus14]

^ All very true, I still wish some people could be more civil about it though, atheists or religious.

 

[wut wut]

Atheists represent a little 2% of the Earth's population. Christianity, 40%. I think atheists can feel agressive because they are surrounded by religions that have only brought war and conflicts in the world, and that are perpetually contradicting themselves.

However, it isn't the belief in a creator being that caused all of these religious conquests. Power hungry people in positions of authority that skew religious texts and traditions to further their agenda are the cause, and ignorant and/or damaged people are the ones who buy into those agendas.

I wish more atheists would try to seperate organized religion from the belief in a divine creator. Organized religion is but one progression from that belief. Belief does not invariably lead to organized religion.

Myself, I've had too many experiences to not believe. Among them was when I broke onto a construction site late at night to jump off the top. I was sitting up there for a while, and I asked God that if there were any sign he'd like to give me, now was the time. Seconds later, a helicopter came out of nowhere, circled me a couple of times, and just flew away. We really don't get choppers flying around out here.

I just have lots of experiences like those. Well, not like that one;that was the only time that I came really close to killing myself. But too many amazing coincidences to just all be amazing coincidences.

 

[fizz6207]

I am pretty civil towards others beliefs in general (maybe not so much on the net haha) and I have a lot of friends of differing beliefs. Whilst I agree atheists should be respecting of others beliefs, there are some areas I think it is important to be aggresive:
- Religion being taught in schools as fact (and ESPECIALLY ridiculous shit such as "creation science").
- Religion getting in the way of scientific advancement
- it being used as an excuse for waging war in our modern times (bush anyone?)
- also, do parents really have the right to indoctrinate their children, and perform ancient religious rituals such as circumcision well before the child has had the chance to develop and form his own opinion of the world?

 

[wut wut]

I think even most sane church-goers wouldn't argue with any of those points but the last. The fundies are the ones pushing Intelligent Design and such, and fundies are a slowly dying breed. Why do you think they're so pissed? Because they're in their death throes, and they know it. Sucks to be them.

Does a parent have the right to indoctrinate their children? Uh, obviously yes, they're the parents of that child. Wouldn't you try to steer you child toward the path of athiesm, believing that it's the most logical and healthy choice for your child? It's only natural for the parents to try to impart something of themselves down to thier kids. The child has the right to disown those beliefs if they choose to when they come of age.

Circumcision is another matter, since it's permanent. I don't agree with it, but it's considered mandatory by the Jewish faith. Tricky issue.

 

[wut wut]

I think even church-goers wouldn't argue with any of those points but the last. The fundies are the ones pushing Intelligent Design and such, and fundies are a slowly dying breed. Why do you think they're so pissed? Because they're in their death throes, and they know it. Sucks to be them.

Does a parent have the right to indoctrinate their children? Uh, obviously yes, they're the parents of that child. Wouldn't you try to steer you child toward the path of athiesm, believing that it's the most logical and healthy choice for your child? It's only natural for the parents to try to impart something of themselves down to thier kids. The child has the right to disown those beliefs if they choose to when they come of age.

Circumcision is another matter, since it's permanent. I don't agree with it, but it's considered mandatory by the Jewish faith. Tricky issue.

 

[fizz6207]

"Does a parent have the right to indoctrinate their children? Uh, obviously yes, they're the parents of that child. Wouldn't you try to steer you child toward the path of athiesm, believing that it's the most logical and healthy choice for your child? It's only natural for the parents to try to impart something of themselves down to thier kids. The child has the right to disown those beliefs if they choose to when they come of age."

See you differentiate circumcision from indoctrination because its permanent. But often deep religious indoctrination from a young age can be permanent. The use of scare tactics such as hell can cause permanent psychological fear which carries into adulthood. Is it right to raise a child that way? One member of my family can remember having vivid nightmares as a young child after staying over at a religious friends house. I think its much more fair to introduce a child to many religious teachings including atheism and let them develop their own idea of the world with age.

But of course its a tricky issue, as whos to tell a parent whats right for their kids? As for raising my own children, I think it will be similar to how I was raised. Although given mostly atheist viewpoints, my mum allowed me to be exposed to religion at school and such because she thought it would be fair to make my own choice as I got older.

 

[greasyboat]

i can't beleive you people can just accept all the mystery in this world and say it's science, WELL IT'S NOT SCIENCE ITS GODS WORK. and i respect him for giving me mysteries! but i also respect athiests but my god does not and you will all go to hell

 

[Lateralus14]

lol

 

[Anesthetize]

Best. Troll. Ever.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

I just have lots of experiences like those. Well, not like that one;that was the only time that I came really close to killing myself. But too many amazing coincidences to just all be amazing coincidences.

You shouldn't necesserily believe that there is a God doing all that stuff just because of coincidences. It's just surprising sometime how things happen, and there are so many coincidences in the world, it's just hard to really understand. It's all about probabilities. If you hadn't called God at that moment, the helicopter would still have come! That's the whole point. Anyone who's in misery will hope something good happen, and when it happens (which is not impossible), they just think it's because of a holy force, but that's ridiculous. It's important to take some distance on our own lives and see it with another pespective; this is crucial in understanding.

 

[Anesthetize]

Double posted because of the epic win nature of the post? I approve...

 

[hexwind]

Atheists represent a little 2% of the Earth's population. Christianity, 40%. I think atheists can feel agressive because they are surrounded by religions that have only brought war and conflicts in the world, and that are perpetually contradicting themselves.

Bro.
Religion never brought war and conflicts to the world, religious people did and still doing.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

Religion > Religious people
Religious people > War
THEN
Religion > Religious people > War
THEN
Religion > War

> means "brought".

Perhaps Religious people brought religion. Damn, who came first!? Seriously, you can see it that way, that it's possible that these wars were done on the name of religion, and that if religion hadn't existed, then it would have been under the name of something else. It's hard to know.