On Atheism vs. Christianity

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Atomic Playboy how things appear are entirely dependent on a priori beliefs. I take your point, but the atheist assumes his version of reality is correct. That being the case squirrel calling is an apt analogy. It almost goes without saying that if the belief is that there is a god who is the Creator then it's not arbitrary.

Now since neither hypothesis is testable, this is forever academic.

I'm always hesitant to participate in religious threads since they often devolve into a flame fest, but this has generally been fairly adult material.

Eh, whether invisible leprechauns exist is also untestable but if someone ordered their life around the likelihood of such creatures existing I'd say they were off their rocker.

Except the point of your post is essentially absurd. We are not talking about inbisible leprechauns or speghetti monsters or unicorns or anything else of that like, if you will look.

We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Blackjack, the most atheistic country is probably China. Considering that they hold the record for slaughter I don't think your contention means much. It's not that simplistic.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I think I see Moonbeam's point though. I'll bet if I was rotting in a jail cell somewhere or getting ready to storm Omaha beach, I'd believe in God too; atheism is a luxury. I think it's also useful to remember that religion has its evolutionary purpose. The ability to believe in God is part our our biology.

^^^this

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: inspire
...
The issue is one of faith. ...

And this is what discussions usually devolve to. I don't mean to single you out but this is where I usually lose respect.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well Atomic Playboy how things appear are entirely dependent on a priori beliefs. I take your point, but the atheist assumes his version of reality is correct. That being the case squirrel calling is an apt analogy. It almost goes without saying that if the belief is that there is a god who is the Creator then it's not arbitrary.

Now since neither hypothesis is testable, this is forever academic.

I'm always hesitant to participate in religious threads since they often devolve into a flame fest, but this has generally been fairly adult material.

Eh, whether invisible leprechauns exist is also untestable but if someone ordered their life around the likelihood of such creatures existing I'd say they were off their rocker.

Except the point of your post is essentially absurd. We are not talking about inbisible leprechauns or speghetti monsters or unicorns or anything else of that like, if you will look.

We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.

Evidence for the existence of god or the FSM is exactly equal.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think a lot of atheist's consider themselves humanists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

I feel music and art, that is all I need to enrich my "soul". Has your hair ever stood on end listening to music?

I think its a strawman to say that atheist's have no reason to live. We have MORE reason to live then those who believe they exist forever. Those of us lucky enough to be born into this first world at this time with a brain and work ethic get to taste life unlike any people of the past. Living life is great and we are lucky to be here.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: inspire
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it addresses what I'm trying to say here. What I'm getting at is that human knowledge and understanding has not yet ruled out the possibly of a creator. The are still characteristics of our Universe that we don't understand, and that I personally feel we never will. There are indeed sound theories which essentially state that a system cannot explain itself.

The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.

Until that time, I will believe.

I agree it's personal belief, I just think it's baseless person belief. I don't have a personal belief on the origin, because I don't think we have any evidence to point to one thing over another.

While it may seem like an exaggeration (in my mind it's not), human knowledge hasn't ruled out the possibility that our reality is akin to "the matrix", or that the spark of life was actually planted by aliens for the purposes of studying evolution, or that the whole universe is actually a painting by some 5th dimensional starving artist (Sudan proves he is still refining his form).

If the latter situation IS the truth, we could always fit the definition of God such that the painter satisfies it, but what's the point? It seems so arbitrary to choose one scenario over another at this point in human knowledge.

Yes, but I enjoy believing that there is order in some form. The particulars, I'm not so sure about, but that's where I start.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Blackjack, the most atheistic country is probably China. Considering that they hold the record for slaughter I don't think your contention means much. It's not that simplistic.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

My history teacher in high school liked to say that everyone forgets that Stalin killed more than Hitler, and Mao killed more than both, but Mao had more people to work with. That being said, I would never defend Mao and agree that it is quite possible for an atheist populace or an atheist government to do some pretty terrible things. As far government policy goes, I think the ideal is agnosticism: People should be allowed to believe in God if they want. Unfortuneately, while I think our (American) government presents itself as Agnostic, in many ways it is not.

Post hoc... oye, did I really say 'Ad hoc'?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Blackjack, the most atheistic country is probably China. Considering that they hold the record for slaughter I don't think your contention means much. It's not that simplistic.

I'm gonna go with: Incorrect Initial Assumption.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: inspire
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it addresses what I'm trying to say here. What I'm getting at is that human knowledge and understanding has not yet ruled out the possibly of a creator. The are still characteristics of our Universe that we don't understand, and that I personally feel we never will. There are indeed sound theories which essentially state that a system cannot explain itself.

The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.

Until that time, I will believe.

I agree it's personal belief, I just think it's baseless person belief. I don't have a personal belief on the origin, because I don't think we have any evidence to point to one thing over another.

While it may seem like an exaggeration (in my mind it's not), human knowledge hasn't ruled out the possibility that our reality is akin to "the matrix", or that the spark of life was actually planted by aliens for the purposes of studying evolution, or that the whole universe is actually a painting by some 5th dimensional starving artist (Sudan proves he is still refining his form).

If the latter situation IS the truth, we could always fit the definition of God such that the painter satisfies it, but what's the point? It seems so arbitrary to choose one scenario over another at this point in human knowledge.

Yes, but I enjoy believing that there is order in some form. The particulars, I'm not so sure about, but that's where I start.

There is, it's just not a Magical Being.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: inspire
...
The issue is one of faith. ...

And this is what discussions usually devolve to. I don't mean to single you out but this is where I usually lose respect.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what?

You lose respect? Did you read the entire post? I don't understand how you're losing respect here. You choose not to believe, and I chose to believe. Big deal. Some physicists believe String theory over M-Theory - there's no evidence that proves one over the other. Should these physicists lose respect for another?

God is just another axiom, folks. I believe there is an order, a meaning.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: inspire
Yes, but I enjoy believing that there is order in some form. The particulars, I'm not so sure about, but that's where I start.

Whatever floats your boat I guess?

Also, I never really read up on Humanism before, but I am DEFINITELY a Secular Humanist.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.

No, it's not - your equivocation is the only fallacy here. To have a belief is something that is neither proven nor disproven and to question it is the foundation of human knowledge. Had Euclid's Parallel Postulate not been accepted and tested, Hilbert would never have corrected it, giving us hyperbolic and elliptic geometries.

Now, I'm going to say this as politely as I can. Why is it that some of you guys want to pick and win an arguement on the internet after the OP called for a civil, philosphical discussion?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: inspire
...
The issue is one of faith. ...

And this is what discussions usually devolve to. I don't mean to single you out but this is where I usually lose respect.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what?

You lose respect? Did you read the entire post? I don't understand how you're losing respect here. You choose not to believe, and I chose to believe. Big deal. Some physicists believe String theory over M-Theory - there's no evidence that proves one over the other. Should these physicists lose respect for another?

God is just another axiom, folks. I believe there is an order, a meaning.

Ok. Whatever suits you.

I lost my best friend from high school to the god believers and religion. Towards the end, he would always resort to countering my points with "Well, you just have to have faith." Many years later, I heard that he was abused by his church but was still clinging to it.

Yes, I lose respect. When that happens, unfortunately, that is the death knell to any meaningful discussion. Don't take it personally.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I think a lot of atheist's consider themselves humanists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

I feel music and art, that is all I need to enrich my "soul". Has your hair ever stood on end listening to music?

I think its a strawman to say that atheist's have no reason to live. We have MORE reason to live then those who believe they exist forever. Those of us lucky enough to be born into this first world at this time with a brain and work ethic get to taste life unlike any people of the past. Living life is great and we are lucky to be here.

I think this is one of the more well thought out posts in here. I agree with you. I am an atheist and I'd say I'm also a humanist. I don't feel there needs to be a belief in any sort of god in order to be a good person. Ethics are an evolutionary trait of a social animal, something that humanity is. I've never felt the need to believe in a god and I don't feel the need to justify anything I do to any being other than myself.

I have many friends who happen to be very religious. I've been almost sick when I've heard some say that they don't think life has meaning without an afterlife. To me an afterlife makes life meaningless.

In the end I've always felt that religion is kind of silly. Not meaning to insult anyone, it's just how I view it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My point is that a society may be peaceful or not. There is no inherent superiority, no removal of human instincts. Again it's not that simple. Someone who is competent is that way because they are. It's independent of religion.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: inspire
...
The issue is one of faith. ...

And this is what discussions usually devolve to. I don't mean to single you out but this is where I usually lose respect.

Until that time, I will believe.

Believe what?

You lose respect? Did you read the entire post? I don't understand how you're losing respect here. You choose not to believe, and I chose to believe. Big deal. Some physicists believe String theory over M-Theory - there's no evidence that proves one over the other. Should these physicists lose respect for another?

God is just another axiom, folks. I believe there is an order, a meaning.

Ok. Whatever suits you.

I lost my best friend from high school to the god believers and religion. Towards the end, he would always resort to countering my points with "Well, you just have to have faith." Many years later, I heard that he was abused by his church but was still clinging to it.

Yes, I lose respect. When that happens, unfortunately, that is the death knell to any meaningful discussion. Don't take it personally.

Ah, well, I'm sorry about that. Can't say I'd feel any different were I in your position. As it is, I have my fair share of major disagreeements with many religions.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: inspire
No, it's not - your equivocation is the only fallacy here. To have a belief is something that is neither proven nor disproven and to question it is the foundation of human knowledge. Had Euclid's Parallel Postulate not been accepted and tested, Hilbert would never have corrected it, giving us hyperbolic and elliptic geometries.

And how did that process of mathematical discovery occur? By referring to already established axioms and principles. You have a positive belief in something that is derived from nothing but your own wishful thinking. Within the realm of real scientific human knowledge there is nowhere to be found a verified principle to derive god from. Hence, positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. The same principle applies to invisible unicorns, gnomes and magical kingdoms.

Personally, I used to be a deist, believing in some 'scientific' concept of god, only to realize there is as much of a 'scientific' concept of god as there is a 'scientific' concept of invisible flying pigs.

You vaguely referred to your 'background in math' as your source of belief, but have not mentioned a specific principle from that discipline. Name it and explain it, or give up your professed belief. That's my legitimate challenge to you.

Now, I'm going to say this as politely as I can. Why is it that some of you guys want to pick and win an arguement on the internet after the OP called for a civil, philosphical discussion?

I think I have remained civil thus far, but if not please point out exactly where I haven't. As for winning an argument, I don't see how that is necessarily uncivil. In fact, from that process one can correct where one has previously erred.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To complete my thought, I have the belief that there ought to be no compulsary religion by the state. On the other hand those who would sue because someone said a prayer before a meeting is just being a dick.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Ok. Whatever suits you.

I lost my best friend from high school to the god believers and religion. Towards the end, he would always resort to countering my points with "Well, you just have to have faith." Many years later, I heard that he was abused by his church but was still clinging to it.

Yes, I lose respect. When that happens, unfortunately, that is the death knell to any meaningful discussion. Don't take it personally.

Man is imperfect. All power corrupts. Is it religion's fault, or the fault of the person who abused your friend?

I know this will just get lost in a meaningless internet post, the ultimate purpose of religion is to help people live life, and pass on a better life to the next generation. And it works for many people. It's easy to say anything that can be done with faith in God, can also be done without faith in God, but real life just doesn't work like that for every person.

 

[LunarRay]

As an advocate looking into the eyes of the jury while trying to defend the existence of my client, "Time", who sat at the table nearby, I begin by saying that while I agree there is no physical property to measure or touch or smell or hear or taste "Time" exists... To prove this to you, ladies and gentlemen, I must resort to inferential means... I have the luxury, however, of noticing on each of your wrists exists a watch... you are measuring time intervals... you accept "Time" exists because you see the hands move... But, there are two kinds of "Time"... Physical and Metaphysical... Metaphysical time is immeasurable. It is the perception of time as a continuous flow... no interval. You must quantify it into intervals by looking at your watch for it to pass from Metaphysical to Physical.
Think of it another way... I notice you each brought a bible to court... you each, I presume, believe that God exists... God is like "Time" in the sense that you cannot prove directly his existence but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

Thank goodness there were no atheists in Court that day...

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Ok. Whatever suits you.

I lost my best friend from high school to the god believers and religion. Towards the end, he would always resort to countering my points with "Well, you just have to have faith." Many years later, I heard that he was abused by his church but was still clinging to it.

Yes, I lose respect. When that happens, unfortunately, that is the death knell to any meaningful discussion. Don't take it personally.

Man is imperfect. All power corrupts. Is it religion's fault, or the fault of the person who abused your friend?

I know this will just get lost in a meaningless internet post, the ultimate purpose of religion is to help people live life, and pass on a better life to the next generation. And it works for many people. It's easy to say anything that can be done with faith in God, can also be done without faith in God, but real life just doesn't work like that for every person.

Oops. It appears I gave the wrong impression here. This was not the catholic church. The abuse was by the church elders - not a single person - no sex involved that I'm aware of. They were trying to use their authority to tell him who to marry and when he refused, they ostracized him. I got all of this through 3rd parties.

And thanks, but I absolutely detest platitudes. They make me think of lawrence welk.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dissapate, science does not depend on religion and vice versa. It is a false dichotomy. Because you understand a little does not mean that you are the definitive authority on the existance of god. This argument will go on and on as it has. Constructing a set of criteria that you deem as necessary isn't a logical fallicy. It's your belief.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
As an advocate looking into the eyes of the jury while trying to defend the existence of my client, "Time", who sat at the table nearby, I begin by saying that while I agree there is no physical property to measure or touch or smell or hear or taste "Time" exists... To prove this to you, ladies and gentlemen, I must resort to inferential means... I have the luxury, however, of noticing on each of your wrists exists a watch... you are measuring time intervals... you accept "Time" exists because you see the hands move... But, there are two kinds of "Time"... Physical and Metaphysical... Metaphysical time is immeasurable. It is the perception of time as a continuous flow... no interval. You must quantify it into intervals by looking at your watch for it to pass from Metaphysical to Physical.
Think of it another way... I notice you each brought a bible to court... you each, I presume, believe that God exists... God is like "Time" in the sense that you cannot prove directly his existence but you can by inferential means... You look to other factors to conclude both exist. Therefore, to the extent factors point to the existence of a God, factors related to time prove that it exists...

Thank goodness there were no atheists in Court that day...

Time is Measurable(look at your System Tray) and Observable(just look). It is mostly a Human Construct though, to explain a Cycle(Day/Night). There's nothing Mystical about it, anymore than Gravity or Inertia.