Atheist, are you one??

[want2cmyone]

Originally Posted by howerd

Here's the problem want2cmyone, being a Christian could well be loving thy neighbor as thyself however that quote is open to interpretation when you notice it doesn't say 'love everyone as thyself'. But let's say it did say that or it means 'everyone' as I'm sure some Christians will claim -well for all I know in some translations it possibly does read that way (I've quoted the King James version here seeing as it's probably the most popular interpretation). But Jesus also said in Matthew 5:18 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' i.e. The law (a.k.a. The Old Testament scriptures) stand in every detail until the end of time. - So Jesus endorsed everything there because he was an observant Jew & endorsed those scriptures as entirely valid. That means we are to believe everything in the Bible like:

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. Leviticus 18:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Well how daft is that? The bible contradicts itself all over the place making it's 'true values' open to personal interpretation in order to come up with a view which can be believed as 'the correct interpretation'. So how do Christians do this: by reason or by faith? Well in religion 'reason' is faith & faith is believing without evidence. That's OK when Christians put their faith in the peaceful & loving verses of the Bible but a nightmare when they place faith in the vile, hateful & unjust parts which exist as well. But that's the problem with faith: it's arbitrary. You could put faith in any religious claim - not just Christian or Judaic but Islamic, Hindu, Seek, Pagan, Mormon etc. etc. etc. Reason however has to justify it's beliefs using logic & independently verifiable evidence. That's why reason is a far more reliable guide than blind faith - the only variety of faith there is. 'Reasonable faith' is merely faith masquerading as reason but reason is only polluted by adding any element of faith to it just as food is tainted by poison. No matter how miniscule the amount of poison one adds to a meal, that meal is always better without it.

The Bible is essentially 'The Great Big Book Of Multiple Choice' & interpreting it's mixed messages according to your personal faith in it's message makes it an extremely unreliable source of moral guidance. Reason isn't perfect either but it's one hell of a lot harder to justify bad ideas than by utilizing faith instead.

What you have said there is kind of my point when I mentioned about the whole "love thy neighbour" quote, and the Bill Maher clip is another perfect example of how contradictory the Bible is. I mean even the guy being interviewed danced around the whole "stoning" question that Maher asked him.

I don't read the bible (being an atheist and all ) but I'm guessing religious people like that cow in the clip pretty much live by their Bibles, so if that was the case then aren't they technically committing some sort of sin by not accepting their fellow man/woman and going against the word of God?

The Leviticus scriptures are a mere example on how contradictory it all is...

Leviticus 19:18
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

So don't bear a grudge against anyone among your people....unless they have their own beliefs and are gay

Originally Posted by DTravel

Did you consider that maybe people like that are loving their neighbors as much as they do themselves?

So many ways that can be taken, but if you're meaning it the way i think you are then possibly, but I'd love to know how she would react if a gay couple were already in her neighbourhood or if a gay couple moved in next door to her. Would she still go by her Bibles scripture and "love thy neighbour". Something tells me no

If she's supposed to be "God fearing" and a "good Christian" then why the hate and anger with something that doesn't even intrude on her life? She is a classic example of religious hypocrisy for me. I mean people like her spout on about how these things intrude on their religious beliefs yet it's OK for religious people like her to dictate to others on how they should live their lives.

[howerd]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Are you not interested in the conversation on a philosophical level, Howerd?

Yes I am! Very much so. I'd love that because philosophy is all about using reason to arrive at sound conclusions. What sound conclusion can be attained by claiming a god should be considered possible or even plausible? It seems to me that there's a sort of 'no go' area as far as religion goes saying: You can't question it. - Why not? You can't criticise it? Why not? You can't prove there's no god. - Agreed! & I also can't prove there are no mermaids under the sea either so is that claim also beyond question as well? I see no difference but if there is an important difference I'd like to know what I've missed.

Please remember one important fact: No one ever left their mother's womb proclaiming 'There is no god! There is no god!' We leave our mother's womb & usually as soon as we can understand simple words we are informed a God exists & we must never question this alleged 'fact'.

Well now I'm old enough to intellectually defend myself from questionable claims I'm simply asking 'OK why should I accept this claim?' I'm making no claims myself I'm simply pointing out that I've never heard a remotely plausible philosophical argument for a god yet. For this reason I'm very eager to discover why I might be wrong because I certainly could be... tell me why any god at all is even remotely likely but tell me why. - Fair?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by howerd

Yes I am! Very much so. I'd love that because philosophy is all about using reason to arrive at sound conclusions. What sound conclusion can be attained by claiming a god should be considered possible or even plausible? It seems to me that there's a sort of 'no go' area as far as religion goes saying: You can't question it. - Why not? You can't criticise it? Why not? You can't prove there's no god. - Agreed! & I also can't prove there are no mermaids under the sea either so is that claim also beyond question as well? I see no difference but if there is an important difference I'd like to know what I've missed.

A thing can be true without being capable of being weighed and measured; but I am not here with a view to turning anyone to my way of thinking, rather I am interested in listening to what others have to say. Incidentally, I have not noticed any reticence on your part, Howerd, in questioning or criticising religion. I suppose that more people believe in God than believe in mermaids, and that's a difference.

Originally Posted by howerd

Please remember one important fact: No one ever left their mother's womb proclaiming 'There is no god! There is no god!' We leave our mother's womb & usually as soon as we can understand simple words we are informed a God exists & we must never question this alleged 'fact'.

Well now I'm old enough to intellectually defend myself from questionable claims I'm simply asking 'OK why should I accept this claim?' I'm making no claims myself I'm simply pointing out that I've never heard a remotely plausible philosophical argument for a god yet. For this reason I'm very eager to discover why I might be wrong because I certainly could be... tell me why I am if that's likely but say why. - Fair?

I am not on a mission to prove anyone wrong; likewise I do not see why anyone should feel the need to do the same for me. We inhabit a compact and crowded world and need to live together in peace. But since you ask, my answer is that not everything in this world is explained by science and it is useful to remember that this is so; it keeps us humble and reminds us of our limitations. Science is a vital and essential tool in human progress, and I have no time whatsoever for things like "creationism", an attempt to teach lies as science; if Howerd will forgive me for expressing it in this way, all lies come from the Father of Lies. In principle, human science is a search for objective and provable truth. All I point out is that science explains the "how", but not the "why". Perhaps there is no "why" and therefore no why to be explained; or perhaps there is a reason for all this. I think there is a reason why we all exist and that life is not a random accident in a petrie dish; but that's just me.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Anyone who has had to moderate on VEF wil be found to have expiated all Their sins...

Sort of like purgatory, but without having to die to begin the purging...

[keegen01]

"Atheist, are you one?"

Why replace one Religion with another?

[howerd]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I think there is a reason why we all exist and that life is not a random accident in a petrie dish; but that's just me.

OK I appreciate you think there is a reason why we all exist (God I presume? ...I don't want to put words in your mouth) - but I was very very clear about discussing this philosophically (CORRECTION: You were). OK so what reason do you have for your belief? You wanted a philosophical exchange but instead of giving even one reason you say 'life is not a random accident in a petrie dish' instead. Well maybe not but that's what you don't believe not what you do. You aren't giving even one reason for your belief in god & you seem reluctant to even let that statement be made which is weird if you are so sure it's valid. Perhaps you are not?

I did make a point of asking for even one reason you think saying 'God is the explanation' really explains a thing. Do you think invoking a god has some kind of explanatory power of some sort? How?

Surely you can't blame me for asking this when you suggested we converse philosophically & philosophy is all about reasoning. Have you a reason then? I'll drop the issue of why you don't think some kind of scientific claim might be better (because I've not said that) & just ask how a god explains existence? - Fair question?

[scoundrel]

There is an enormous power behind the forces of nature, as we can see expressed in the dramatic events which we class together as "natural disasters"; but this power governs us all and in mundane and prosaic ways, for example the seasons and the weather. Over time and through applied scientific research we have learned to understand many events which were once mysterious to us. But they are still powerful events and while we can understand them, we do not control them; they control us.

It is our conceit as a species to imagine we are in command of our world; we are not. Yet we can see that there is an order and sequence in how our world works; and science tells us and predicts this order and this sequence. It tells us how things work, but not how they came to be the way they are...at least, not completely and not yet. There is a gap in our understanding.

I put forward my view that life is not a random accident as exactly that; a view, an opinion. It isn't superior to your view or opinion, but neither is it inferior, unless you can in an objective, measureable and scientific way explain to the world why we all exist; not how, but why. It need not be a question of our egotism as individuals or as a species; rather, why does the universe itself exist. Not how; but why. You ask me to put forward a reason why and of course I can't. But neither can you, I suspect, and I would be fascinated if you proved me wrong and did put forward a viable reason. But this is no proof that we and our universe exists randomly amd without a reason or a purpose. We stubbornly continue to function exactly as though there is a point to our existence, and that suits me fine.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I suppose that more people believe in God than believe in mermaids, and that's a difference..

Well, one difference would be that belief in mermaids is without further consequences.

Originally Posted by keegen01

"Atheist, are you one?"
Why replace one Religion with another?

Atheism is not a religion.
A-theism (the A means none): disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.)

We seem to have to repeat this quite often.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

Well, one difference would be that belief in mermaids is without further consequences.



Atheism is not a religion.
A-theism (the A means none): disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.)

We seem to have to repeat this quite often.

That's mainly because we believer types aren't buying. Disbelief is not just quite exactly the same as lack of belief and this is plain enough to see if you are looking through the eyes of someone with beliefs. Lack of belief is agnostic but disbelief is the assertion of a firm opinion, even if a negative one. I'm not saying this to annoy anyone, just to explain whats going on from my own perspective.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

That's mainly because we believer types aren't buying. Disbelief is not just quite exactly the same as lack of belief and this is plain enough to see if you are looking through the eyes of someone with beliefs. Lack of belief is agnostic but disbelief is the assertion of a firm opinion, even if a negative one. I'm not saying this to annoy anyone, just to explain whats going on from my own perspective.

hmmmm... i think i have a lack of belief as default, and a disbelief in response to (the claims of) religions. (the second assuming someone came up with something in the first place).
So one can have both, i guess?

What would be the definition of disbelief?