Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[redhawk23]

How do you know Christianity is the correct religion?

What this ultimately boils down to is the argument does not deal with knowledge, but with belief. They don't know, but that's not the point for those who believe.

 

[DBryan]

Your Lovecraft arguements are facetious and add little to the discussion.

Whatever your beliefs on the matter of the bible, Lovecraft's writings were never intended to be taken as true. They are fictional stories from 1930's pulp magazines.

Regardless of their factual validity, the stories of the bible and the lessons that they teach metaphorically or directly have formed the backbone of western civilization for centuries. That you cannot deny. Meanwhile I never had an English teacher until my first year of college who had ever even heard of Lovecraft.

Even taking both as works of fiction, one can make a rating of the validity of insight and the relative importance to our culture.

Popularity makes one more valid? Really?

Okay, so, lots of churches have been built, systems of government have been centered around religion, and that is also what makes one more valid than the other? Really?

I'm making a moral argument. The God of Abraham is not more moral than Cthulhu.

What kind of evil ******* condemns billions to suffer for eternity?

How much morality does a person have to lack, to worship such a being, when you're not even sure he exists?

The argument does not deal with knowledge you say. I say knowledge should take a high importance if we're expected to swallow this garbage.

It's time we grew up as a species. If HP Lovecraft wrote his stories back in the BC times, we'd be waiting for the stars to align.

 

[Manic]

You know what one of the greatest horror stories of all time is? The book of Job. God and Satan pick out some random schmuck named Job and spend the entire book ****ing up his s*** to settle a bet.

 

[DBryan]

I have to also add that a science fiction writer invented scientology.

I mean, the fact that L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer is a matter of public accord, and yet scientologists still believe scientology.

The number of people who believe in it, the history of it, does not make it more valid.

I appeal to Christians who say, "well, it hurts me that people will burn in hell". Please, follow that thought through.

The Christian God is evil. A being that does these things is not a moral being worthy of your worship.

 

[Manic]

Truth be told, I was under the impression that the Christian God was meant to be feared. That's why the Bible is filled with stories of him being so cruel to humanity, and why Christianity teaches that you'll burn in everlasting fire if you don't worship him. The ideas that God loves you and the church is a place of peace-- those are fairly recent.

 

[DBryan]

Well, its easier to control people through fear.

And as people have become more civilized, the more blood soaked parts of the bible suddenly become harder to swallow, so people dress it up, or ignore the bad parts because its inconvenient.

But fear is still at the root.

When I first became an athiest (I'm an agnostic now), I was afraid. I was afraid that I was sinning for having my doubts.

And then I realized how screwed up that is.

 

[Nathan]

I'm not into religion. I always say I'll see if there's a god or not when I die. In the meantime, I'm just trying not to piss anyone off and treat people well, as I'd like to be treated.

If I land in the pits of hell because I didn't believe, well, **** happens. I'll probably make the best out of it and try to run the place. Or at least try to apply for a management position.

 

[SuperFerret]

What this ultimately boils down to is the argument does not deal with knowledge, but with belief. They don't know, but that's not the point for those who believe.

Exactly. Religion is basically a philosophy that's been mixed in far too much with politics. Make your own religion, and it'll work for you. There's no such thing as one size fits all.

 

[the amazing fro]

Truth be told, I was under the impression that the Christian God was meant to be feared. That's why the Bible is filled with stories of him being so cruel to humanity, and why Christianity teaches that you'll burn in everlasting fire if you don't worship him. The ideas that God loves you and the church is a place of peace-- those are fairly recent.

The problem lies in the division of the Old Testament and the New. The god's in both are very different. The Old Testament god is essentially the Jewish God, YHWH who to all extents and purposes is a bit of a meanie (putting it lightly here). You cross him he will smite you down, no matter what (though he might concede if you give him a goat, though its unlikely). The God of the New Testament is forgiving and relatively kind and will always forgive you if ask for it. Now I would say that the latter is the one that most Christians believe is the real personality of god, because that is what Jesus taught and that should be pretty much final.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

All I can do is be an example of Christ on earth while I'm here. Plain and simple.

I see nothing wrong with following the example of a character in a story, or a historical figure, because you agree with their overall moral structure and way of dealing with situations.

I try to follow the example of Clark Kent myself (though I think my own life morality more resembles Lois Lane).

But I don't really believe a man could fly. Or that aliens live among us. I know it's a story.

Now I know Jesus is a bit different. An atheist isn't going to argue with you for believing in Christs existence.

But they will argue that he didn't have powers. That he didn't die and come back to life. And that he wasn't the son of God.

 

[Dr.]

An atheist isn't going to argue with you for believing in Christ's existence.

Some would.

 

[Calvin]

Well, its easier to control people through fear.

And as people have become more civilized, the more blood soaked parts of the bible suddenly become harder to swallow, so people dress it up, or ignore the bad parts because its inconvenient.

But fear is still at the root.

When I first became an athiest (I'm an agnostic now), I was afraid. I was afraid that I was sinning for having my doubts.

And then I realized how screwed up that is.

Can I ask you what logic-based thing led you to become an agnostic rather than an athiest? I only ask this because a lot of agnostics tend to choose that route because it's more convenient, and feels more open, but isn't really a result of following logic all the way.

 

[GhostPoet]

You know what one of the greatest horror stories of all time is? The book of Job. God and Satan pick out some random schmuck named Job and spend the entire book ****ing up his s*** to settle a bet.

You're forgetting the point of that book. God let Satan do his worst to the guy...He knew Job wouldn't fail. And afterwards, Job was rewarded vastly more than he ever had before.

 

[GhostPoet]

The problem lies in the division of the Old Testament and the New. The god's in both are very different. The Old Testament god is essentially the Jewish God, YHWH who to all extents and purposes is a bit of a meanie (putting it lightly here). You cross him he will smite you down, no matter what (though he might concede if you give him a goat, though its unlikely). The God of the New Testament is forgiving and relatively kind and will always forgive you if ask for it. Now I would say that the latter is the one that most Christians believe is the real personality of god, because that is what Jesus taught and that should be pretty much final.

Actually...God is the same through out the Bible...it's just that the Old testament and New offer us the chance to see different ASPECTS of the same God. He meets people where they are. And at the time of the Old Testament that is where people were...so God dealt with them in that same way.

 

[redhawk23]

I wasn't saying that the bible's popularity makes it more valid, just that he was being flippant in comparing it to pulp fiction.

 

[redhawk23]

Can I ask you what logic-based thing led you to become an agnostic rather than an athiest? I only ask this because a lot of agnostics tend to choose that route because it's more convenient, and feels more open, but isn't really a result of following logic all the way.

The argument has been made a number of times throughout this thread that affirmed atheism, stating that there is no god, is no more logical than stating that there is and still comes down to a matter of belief. The argument can therefore be made that the only position based on what a person truly knows is agnosticism. Its not a matter of openness, just a matter of making claims without proof.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Some would.

Really? I would have thought there was enough evidence to suggest that the man actually existed in the past...

 

[redhawk23]

Well, its easier to control people through fear.

And as people have become more civilized, the more blood soaked parts of the bible suddenly become harder to swallow, so people dress it up, or ignore the bad parts because its inconvenient.

But fear is still at the root.

When I first became an athiest (I'm an agnostic now), I was afraid. I was afraid that I was sinning for having my doubts.

And then I realized how screwed up that is.

Though you could argue it plays on the fear of being alone, many religions preach the eternal love of their deity and appeal to peoples need for security. Many people who have accepted Jesus as their personal savior describe him as their "rock". For them their religion is an unshakable foundation that allows them to meet life's challenges. They don't feel that they are following the rules of their religion out of threat of damnation but because they feel it is their only reason for being.

 

[redhawk23]

Really? I would have thought there was enough evidence to suggest that the man actually existed in the past...

And many people will argue anything with no proof at all.

 

[GhostPoet]

Well, its easier to control people through fear.

And as people have become more civilized, the more blood soaked parts of the bible suddenly become harder to swallow, so people dress it up, or ignore the bad parts because its inconvenient.

But fear is still at the root.

When I first became an athiest (I'm an agnostic now), I was afraid. I was afraid that I was sinning for having my doubts.

And then I realized how screwed up that is.

I'm a christian and even I think that's screwed up. No one should live in fear. That's not even what the bible teaches. Whoever taught you was completely off.

 

[Calvin]

The argument has been made a number of times throughout this thread that affirmed atheism, stating that there is no god, is no more logical than stating that there is and still comes down to a matter of belief. The argument can therefore be made that the only position based on what a person truly knows is agnosticism. Its not a matter of openness, just a matter of making claims without proof.

Not really, athiesm isn't "faith" or "belief" in the absence of a god, it's simply coming to a conclusion based on the present set of observable evidence and logic. There isn't any reason to think there might be a god, because there hasn't really been a single shred of observable scientific evidence for it.

Now, I guess I should be more specific, which type of agnostic are you? The kind that I see 99.9% of the time is the type of agnostic that doesn't believe in (a specific) god, but thinks there still is some sort of supernatural conscious entity governing the universe. I.e. college airheads that go "well, I'm not religious... but I'd definitely say I'm spiritual." I find this type of agnosticism, which seems to be the most common, extremely lazy and wishy washy, and just totally insecure. Also, I find it almost as irrational as being religious.

There is of course an agnostic athiest, where you don't think there's any sort of god, but don't deny that it's a possibility in strictest terms (though if you ask me, that's really an athiest anyway, but they still have that classified as a form of agnosticism).

If you're the latter, my apologies for assuming you were the former.

 

[redhawk23]

I was simply saying that the argument was there.

I am most definitely the latter. As you clearly pointed out in your posts though, both terms both parts of the term have baggage and implications that may not always apply to the person they are applied to. Things are not always so cut and dry as the labels we place.

Though the term atheist does accurately describe my non-belief it is not one that actively identify with.

I consider myself a Humanist as Humanism (with a big H) is the philosophical background that best supports what I DO believe in.

For instance the principles laid out in the "Humanist Manifesto", which is recognized by most Humanist groups in the US and around the world, includes many things with which I am in full agreement.

For instance many of the principles of Humanism are laid out in the "Humanist Manifesto"

1.Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
2.Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
3.Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
4.Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
5.Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
6.Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

By no means does Humanism hold a monopoly on these ideals but it is the philosophical framework through which I personally choose to approach them.

 

[Manic]

You're forgetting the point of that book. God let Satan do his worst to the guy...He knew Job wouldn't fail. And afterwards, Job was rewarded vastly more than he ever had before.

It's still a dickish way to make a point. God turned a man's life (and the lives of his entire family) into playthings for Satan just to prove the man wouldn't curse God's name. And giving Job more wealth than he had before and a new family wasn't gonna bring back his old family.

And then there was that time God told Abraham to kill his own son just to see if he would. Sure he stopped Abe at the last minute, but it's (once again) a dickish way to prove a point.

 

[Dr.]

Really? I would have thought there was enough evidence to suggest that the man actually existed in the past...

I think if you surveyed New Testament scholars, the majority would say that a historical Jesus existed. But there is a decent minority who take the other view.

In terms of evidence, there’s almost none - one way or the other. The aforementioned majority just thinks it more plausible that the particulars of Jesus’s basic biography indicates a real individual – as opposed to a composite character or an outright fabrication.

 

[the amazing fro]

I think its pretty much a given that there was a historical Jesus. These things don't just pop out of nowhere.

Whether he was the son of god or not and performed miracles is a whole different kettle of fish.