Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[GhostPoet]

I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than a Christian.

 

[DBryan]

How do you figure?

 

[Calvin]

I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

It takes zero faith. If you're an atheist, you believe zero things that don't have some basis of observable proof. So since faith is by definition a belief in something not based on proof, it pretty much takes zero faith to be an atheist.

Try again.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than a Christian.

This is like saying that it takes more faith to not believe in Santa than it does to believe in him.

It's also interesting that you're attacking atheists by saying they have more faith than you, thus portraying faith as a bad thing. If faith is a bad thing, why bother with it at all?

faith - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The atheist does not believe in a deity because he/she sees no proof of one. The theist either does not need proof or assumes that existence itself is enough proof. How is the atheist the more faithful one here?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than a Christian.

Well, that's just nonsense.

 

[Calvin]

I think it takes more athleticism to be a coach potato than a professional boxer.

 

[KingMob]

Man, if there were a "Christianity: love it or leave it" or Muslim thread, people would lose it.

Its simple. Immerse yourselves in history. Its clear as day that religions are man made, not based on actual events, but just stories.

 

[ThDWgeek]

OK, I'll throw my opinion in on this one.

As with all things, it's best in moderation. If you personally don't believe in any one form of organized religion or some form of deity or higher power, then fine, you've got a definitive world view, and I'm happy for you because of it. But what I don't like is when militant Atheists constantly attempt to belittle religion or blame it for all of the world's problems. Its just obnoxious and annoying. But on the flip side, I hate it just as much when religious people try to paint Atheists as psychopaths with no morals or definitions of right or wrong at all. That's just as misguided as trying to get people to get rid of any sort of faith they have.

As for my personal stance on religion, I'm an agnostic leaning towards the Atheistic end of the spectrum, but I won't mock or judge anybody's faith.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Man, if there were a "Christianity: love it or leave it" or Muslim thread, people would lose it.

Its simple. Immerse yourselves in history. Its clear as day that religions are man made, not based on actual events, but just stories.

It’d be nice if people who give this “advice” would take heed of it themselves because those who usually say it don’t really know much about history to begin with. If they did, they wouldn’t be saying it. Regardless of your faith in the spiritual aspects of the Bible, archeology is constantly discovering evidence that validates much of these “stories”.

For example:

UK Professor John Garstang studied the infamous city of Jericho ruins in the 1930a. Analysis of the walls suggests a sudden collapse by earthquake, and the city burned - this not only confirms that there indeed WAS a city called Jericho, but that its walls suddenly fell down and the city captured.

The Bible talks of an Assyrian king called Sargon and his victory over the city Ashdod. Originally thought to not exist, Sargon’s palace was excavated in Iraq, where inscriptions describe the sacking of Ashdod that is mentioned in the bible.

Sodom and Gomorrah were actual cities. Archeologists discovered them in the early 1900s. They are known as two of the five “Cities of the Plain” near the Dead Sea (again, documented in the Bible). And yes, there is evidence of the cities being destroyed by fire and an earthquake (the area is rich in sulfur-laden bitumen – which being spewed out by an earthquake, could cause the fire and characteristic heavy smoke of sulfur and bitumen that the Bible mentions).

In 1993, a stone inscribed by King Hazael of Damascus called the Tel Dan Stel talks of the kingdom of Israel as well as King David.

The ossuary of Caiaphas was discovered. Caiaphas was a high priest who the bible says presided over Jesus’ trial.

Several Jewish and Roman historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius mention Jesus and his trial and followers as well as John the Baptist.

And these are just a few examples. The point is, it clear as day that the stories ARE based on actual events, and are not just fictional tales. Its proven time and time again. The issue is not whether or not the stories are real, but whether these events are divinely inspired or not. Regardless of your faith, actually take time and read up on the archeological findings. The Old Testament really is being proven to be a history book.

 

[Nevincer]

I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than a Christian.

Wow, that's an ignorant statement.

 

[EML420]

I recently lost my religous belifs but I dont consider my self an atheist
but science its hard to ignore.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I recently lost my religous belifs but I dont consider my self an atheist
but science its hard to ignore.

Even as a "religious person", I would say that ignoring the findings of science is a very dumb move. I accept the findings of science because smarter men than I know what they're talking about. I personally think that the whole "religion v. science" mindset is a very close-minded view of the world. The understanding of both religion and science are at the mercy of the fallacy of man. The two can coexist without hindering one another. Its stubborn people on both sides that cause the problems.

 

[Heretic]

It’d be nice if people who give this “advice” would take heed of it themselves because those who usually say it don’t really know much about history to begin with. If they did, they wouldn’t be saying it. Regardless of your faith in the spiritual aspects of the Bible, archeology is constantly discovering evidence that validates much of these “stories”.

For example:



And these are just a few examples. The point is, it clear as day that the stories ARE based on actual events, and are not just fictional tales. Its proven time and time again. The issue is not whether or not the stories are real, but whether these events are divinely inspired or not. Regardless of your faith, actually take time and read up on the archeological findings. The Old Testament really is being proven to be a history book.

There was a book called Fred Hembeck Destroys The Marvel Universe. Researchers have proven that Fred Hembeck exists. Furthermore, we are certain that New York City, home of the Marvel Universe, is a real place. Therefore, Fred Hembeck Destroys The Marvel Universe is a history book.

In other words...just because some truth can be found in a book, that doesn't in any way lend ANY believability to the supernatural aspects of the book.

 

[Spider-Who?]

There was a book called Fred Hembeck Destroys The Marvel Universe. Researchers have proven that Fred Hembeck exists. Furthermore, we are certain that New York City, home of the Marvel Universe, is a real place. Therefore, Fred Hembeck Destroys The Marvel Universe is a history book.

In other words...just because some truth can be found in a book, that doesn't in any way lend ANY believability to the supernatural aspects of the book.

I'm not arguing the supernatural aspects. I'm arguing the simple idea of the validity of the historical aspects that many people - the original poster included - choose to remain ignorant of. Even then, in your example, the only thing factual is the author and location of events. That's it. None of the story is true. The bible is more than that. Not only do we know the authors existed (how else could they write it) and that the locations (Middle East and Egypt) exist, but also many of the events written about.

Its far easier for people to say "Oh, the Bible is completely wrong" than it is to actually look into what it is they are saying. Case in point, the OP said to "immerse yourselves in history" and that the bible is just a book of stories not "based on actual events"; when if fact, you can go to the library and pick up any archeology book and see this isn't the case. People here damn those religious people who don't accept all of science (ie: evolution)* because it doesn't fit into their world view; and yet there are plenty of atheists (here on this board even) who dismiss historical fact presented in the bible and authenticated by science because it doesn't fit their view of the bible being ludicrous. It's asinine, really.

Yes, there ARE supernatural aspects of the bible. Yet many of these "supernatural" parts (ie: Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, the destruction of the walls of Jericho) are validated by the archeological record. Its just the idea of divine intervention in those events that are not verifiable.

* a group of religious people whom I am not a part of

 

[Team Andino]

I've been agnostic for a few years and I've slowly over time lean more towards being an atheist but I feel the atheist I see are just as hardcore and come off just as ignorant as the people they complain about. I'd rather stay let everyone stick to what they believe in, live and let live.

 

[Heretic]

I'm not arguing the supernatural aspects. I'm arguing the simple idea of the validity of the historical aspects that many people - the original poster included - choose to remain ignorant of. Even then, in your example, the only thing factual is the author and location of events. That's it. None of the story is true. The bible is more than that. Not only do we know the authors existed (how else could they write it) and that the locations (Middle East and Egypt) exist, but also many of the events written about.

Its far easier for people to say "Oh, the Bible is completely wrong" than it is to actually look into what it is they are saying. Case in point, the OP said to "immerse yourselves in history" and that the bible is just a book of stories not "based on actual events"; when if fact, you can go to the library and pick up any archeology book and see this isn't the case. People here damn those religious people who don't accept all of science (ie: evolution)* because it doesn't fit into their world view; and yet there are plenty of atheists (here on this board even) who dismiss historical fact presented in the bible and authenticated by science because it doesn't fit their view of the bible being ludicrous. It's asinine, really.

Yes, there ARE supernatural aspects of the bible. Yet many of these "supernatural" parts (ie: Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, the destruction of the walls of Jericho) are validated by the archeological record. Its just the idea of divine intervention in those events that are not verifiable.

* a group of religious people whom I am not a part of

No one thinks that everything in the bible is false. Thats just crazy. Of course there are people and places that actually existed...battles that actually took place. However, there are also plenty of events that certainly did NOT happen. If it is a history book, then it needs to delete plenty of events and get its facts straight on others. And of course, there is no reason at all to believe the supernatural stuff.

 

[SuperFerret]

Want to win the war on Christmas? Tell Christians the truth that they are going to hell for celebrating pagan winter festival and enjoying greed by giving their children so many gifts. Going to church on Christmas Eve and if it doesn't fall on a day the Sabbath is a sin, so you get the picture.

War on Christmas?

 

[bunk]

No one thinks that everything in the bible is false. Thats just crazy. Of course there are people and places that actually existed...battles that actually took place. However, there are also plenty of events that certainly did NOT happen. If it is a history book, then it needs to delete plenty of events and get its facts straight on others. And of course, there is no reason at all to believe the supernatural stuff.

Exactly. We could have overwhelming evidence that supports the story of the Trojan War as described by the Illiad and the Odyssey, but that would in no way suggest the gods of ancient Greece actually exist.

 

[Bat-Mite]

If we aren't going to consider the Mahabharata, Beowulf, or the Viking sagas as largely historically accurate (these all also contain stories of supernatural beings and the like), then there's no reason to give the same consideration to the Bible, especially when taking into account silliness like the Great Flood.

 

[Rocketman]

Science does not require belief. It just is. You can test theories and prove them right or wrong, hence solidifying them as facts. Science can prove that snakes can't talk, that a man can't split the ocean in two with his hands, and that a virgin cannot give birth without artificial insemination. It's just what science does. It's nothing personal against religion; again, it just is.

Personally, I go by facts. I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a Christian or anything else. If something is a fact, I just listen to facts. The Bible, according to facts, cannot be a book that depicts real events. So I don't accept it as anything legitimate. It's not worth my time, and it's just as believable a story as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. In other words, I don't see why it would be healthy to believe that the Harry Potter books are depictions of real occurrences.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

And these are just a few examples. The point is, it clear as day that the stories ARE based on actual events, and are not just fictional tales. Its proven time and time again. The issue is not whether or not the stories are real, but whether these events are divinely inspired or not. Regardless of your faith, actually take time and read up on the archeological findings. The Old Testament really is being proven to be a history book.

I have no problem accepting that any of the people that the bible speaks about may have actually existed, or that historical events that happened in the bible actually happened.

But the Bible isn't a history book.

It is a book that tells us what is morally right or wrong according to God and Jesus.

What I don't understand, is even if I entertained the idea of Jesus as the son of God, i'd still have to logically conclude that because none of the bible was actually written by him, he was probably largely misquoted.

A lot of different people wrote parts of the bible, and their own opinions/ideas about morals is a lot of what went down on paper... which is why there are so many contradictions.

 

[Sloth7d]

We can determine what is right by doing exactly what I said.

My survival is important to me. In my opinion, killing me is a bad thing. Therefore, societies that work together for a common good must have a rule against killing. Same with stealing, raping etc.

What common good? One man's version of good is another's anchor holding him back from doing great things that would also be considered good. What was the common good for China but Qin Shi Hang beating the rival states around him into submission and unification? Or the colonists killing off the natives to create this progressive nation we know and love?

My standards are proven to be correct because this is all we have to go on.

There are many different ethical standards to live by; egoism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, altruism, Buddhism, Kantian, stoicism, hedonism, etc. And many different philosophers have argued that their favored system is the correct one.

You are using theoretical other worldly possibilities and maybe this and maybe that...

Hm? Sure, I've asked you to speculate on certain events and their outcomes should they be different, but the events I've chosen are ones that really happened and conflict with your moral view. Which is why I asked you them. There have been plenty of good things in our world history that been gained through what could be considered evil actions.

but all we can know is what we can know...and as far as we know, society works best when it doesn't kill itself. So, killing each other is wrong. It is self preservation, amplified.

While it's true that without order and rules a society of people would lead itself into extinction, that says nothing about whether killing is wrong. Only that allowing everybody to kill anyone for any reason will prevent the effectiveness for a cohesive society. But that says nothing about whether forming a society is right or whether it's okay to kill in certain circumstances. For instance, in Ancient Rome it was deemed allowable for a husband to kill his family if his wife was unfaithful to him. Albania's history of "eye for an eye" ethics a.k.a blood feuding, is still going strong.

And this is only speaking of killing. Civil rights and free speech laws in countries such as China and South Korea are still less than egalitarian.

But I get it...you're one of those "there are no absolutes, so we can never make any kind of firm statements" type of people...but while there are no absolutes, we only have what we can know to go on, so living life based on things we cant know is absurd.

For instance, we don't KNOW that we are even really alive. We could all be a computer simulation of life...but we have no way of knowing that, so the reasonable thing would be to live our lives as if we actually exist, not try to sound smart and above it all by suggesting that life could be just a computer simulation that can in no way be proven or altered.

I wouldn't go that far as to compare ethics to reality. Indeed, we can't know 100% what's real and tangible, but given the readily apparent evidence, I'd say we can be 90% sure of ourselves at the very least. I see no reason to completely write off the senses because they are limited and subject to error at times, nor do I agree with any arguments for a priori knowledge. In this sense I am completely existential.

Ethics, on the other hand, aren't tangible things. They are opinions based on perspective. Nothing based in any facts or science ( though there are sciences dedicated to changing this; neuroscience, anthropology, psychotheraphy, etc.). However, I'm not saying morals can never be objectively known or enforced either. On the contrary, in fact, I enjoyed Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape very much, though you should know he argues that there is justification for interferring in a nation that carries out cruel acts against it's people; most proponents for an objective morality will, with moral relativist being the ones dissenting. However, for the moment there's no indication of morals being anything but a subjective preference of values for living. We will all do what we think is right, but that doesn't make it right nor even prove there is an objective thing as being morally right in the first place. For all we know, the word is meaningless.

 

[SuperFerret]

Science does not require belief. It just is. You can test theories and prove them right or wrong, hence solidifying them as facts. Science can prove that snakes can't talk, that a man can't split the ocean in two with his hands, and that a virgin cannot give birth without artificial insemination. It's just what science does. It's nothing personal against religion; again, it just is.

Personally, I go by facts. I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a Christian or anything else. If something is a fact, I just listen to facts. The Bible, according to facts, cannot be a book that depicts real events. So I don't accept it as anything legitimate. It's not worth my time, and it's just as believable a story as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. In other words, I don't see why it would be healthy to believe that the Harry Potter books are depictions of real occurrences.

How do you get your facts?

 

[Sloth7d]

It’d be nice if people who give this “advice” would take heed of it themselves because those who usually say it don’t really know much about history to begin with. If they did, they wouldn’t be saying it. Regardless of your faith in the spiritual aspects of the Bible, archeology is constantly discovering evidence that validates much of these “stories”.

For example:



And these are just a few examples. The point is, it clear as day that the stories ARE based on actual events, and are not just fictional tales. Its proven time and time again. The issue is not whether or not the stories are real, but whether these events are divinely inspired or not. Regardless of your faith, actually take time and read up on the archeological findings. The Old Testament really is being proven to be a history book.

Israel Finklestein has demolished most of these findings along time ago. According to his findings, the cities of Canaan were not, in fact, fortified. Thus no walls could come crumbling down. As far as history goes, the OT doesn't get quite historical until Kings, and even then it's rather shady. Things like Exodus also just could not have happened as the Bible reports. The archaelogy contradicts the wanderings or settlementts of 600,000 Hebrews in Sinai, Kadesh-barnea, or Ezion-geber, or that there were a great mass of Hebrew slaves in Egypt at all. From a historical stand point, the Bible is best looked at as propaganda of the Israelites.

 

[SuperFerret]

Or y'know, stories.