The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[MrsKent26]

I understand when people do not believe in God; what I find fascinating about that is that most atheists I know become angry about it as if they angry AT God. That's weird to me.

If someone is "angry at god," they probably aren't an atheist. An atheist wouldn't be angry at something they don't believe in. Those people were probably angry about something else. Some religious people can be very extreme/bigoted/sexist in their views. Maybe that's what upsets some people.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

That's a good point. However, I've had atheists speak angrily of God with the open acknowledgement that He was a part of the conversation. That's what struck me as odd. I was asking questions for insight and that's weird for me. If I don't believe in something, it's pretty much non-existent to me. You do make an excellent point.

 

[Doctor Evo]

However, I've had atheists speak angrily of God with the open acknowledgement that He was a part of the conversation.

It seems as though you're describing somebody speaking hypothetically. The thing about speaking hypothetically is that it isn't always prefaced with a statement to that effect (e.g., "Hypothetically speaking..."). This is something that atheists do frequently.

Beyond that, when discussing characters in fictional literature, for example, people often refer to those characters directly. "I think that Holden Caulfield is a whiny little brat," would not be an unusual thing to say, but nobody assumes that the person saying it actually believes that Holden Caulfield is a real person.

 

[MrsKent26]

That's a good point. However, I've had atheists speak angrily of God with the open acknowledgement that He was a part of the conversation. That's what struck me as odd. I was asking questions for insight and that's weird for me. If I don't believe in something, it's pretty much non-existent to me. You do make an excellent point.

Hmm. That's interesting. I don't think those folks could be called true atheists then. If one speaks angrily of God, that's an indication they believe in him or are at least open to believing. I'm not sure what to call them. Perhaps agnostic theists? Those are the type that don't claim to know any deities exist, but still believe they could/do exist.

edit: It could also be what Dr. Evo is describing above.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

What about snowflakes? Or sand dunes?

Have you ever seen a god?

No snowflake is alike. Are you able to count the sands on the beach? Do you see my point. I'm not a zealot and I'm not arguing God's existence. Nature and my studies in science can do that for me. I'm reasonable. If people don't people in God, I care about that as much as I concern myself with political affairs.

"a god" as in "powerful one"? That is one meaning for that. It's not from mythology; it's a part of theology.

One person said that the works of the planet made it inexcusable not to believe in Him. When I think of something as simple, yet as complex, as the cross pollination of millions of apples, that makes me think about it. When I think about how the cellular structure in humans deteriorates from one generation to the next, yet the human body is supposed to have a regenerative cellular structure that continually works (past 30 when the body stops producing more than those that die and a human essentially starts to die), and the dichotomy of photosynthesis in relation to sequoias, I tend to think that there is a strong case for Intelligent Design.

However, I would not be so forward as to say, I can't see gravity or other laws of physics...get the point?

People ultimately decide based on their own experiences from what I have seen under this Sun.

I could never see myself as an Athiest but the ironic thing is that I understand agnosticism and deism very well.

I lived most of my life as an agnostic and still do in some ways.

The President of the Atheist's Society made an interesting statement one day that made me curious. He said that he didn't believe in God (obvious), yet if he did, chose one religion.

I won't mention it or - again spark a misunderstanding -go any further but things like that make me wonder if some people say they are atheists and - in reality - they're actually agnostic or just live as if he doesn't exist.

I can walk outside at the moment, say I believe in God, and never mention anything regarding what theology may say for years. That was an interesting aspect for me.

 

[Doctor Evo]

No snowflake is alike.

No two humans are identical - not even identical twins. What exactly is your point, here?

When I think of something as simple, yet as complex, as the cross pollination of millions of apples, that makes me think about it.

This is nicely (and parsimoniously) explained by coevolution of insects and angiosperms.

When I think about how the cellular structure in humans deteriorates from one generation to the next...

What does this even mean?

What are you basing this on?

...yet the human body is supposed to have a regenerative cellular structure that continually works (past 30 when the body stops producing more than those that die and a human essentially starts to die)...

What is the significance of this within the context of the point you're trying to make?

...and the dichotomy of photosynthesis in relation to sequoias...

You've completely lost me here.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

I'm not 100% against the idea of an all powerful creative force that is responsible for the universe, I am however 100% against all man-made religion. Especially when the followers try to dictate their religious laws and rules to everyone else. Especially when they boycott Cosmos. I'm against the idea of believing in fairy tales over scientific facts. Atheism/agnostic is like turning the TV off when every channel is BS.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

No two humans are identical - not even identical twins. What exactly is your point, here?

We are finite at the moment. We do not fully understand much, yet we speak as if we understand a great deal.

This is nicely (and parsimoniously) explained by coevolution of insects and angiosperms.

No...no, it's not. Hundreds of millions of apples from different locales spreading was a metaphor for saying that it would take one human many lifetimes to name them, let alone describe character traits, sensory, etc... This is data that has been contracted over time.

What does this even mean?

Never mind.

What are you basing this on?

Never mind. I'm not a Boroean. Speaking about this for this long has me pretty much at the point where I say little and learn much.

What is the significance of this within the context of the point you're trying to make?

You've completely lost me here.

I do not try to make points. I just observe people and live my own life. I usually find that the people who are giving the most answers or definitive statements know nothing at all.

I find wisdom to be sophisticated when adorned with logic. I find opinions to often be misguided, yet intriguing. I often see and hear people arguing about what is and is not pertain to the first two statements.

There are different definitions, different gods, different philosophies, and a myriad of books that make one wearisome in terms of ideas and concepts.

Whomever said that I had a lot to learn spoke well. I never stop learning. I observe. Many of the women in my life have stated that I care more about ideas and concepts than them. lol: it's usually the truth.

A lot of these questions are stupid for me when I think of something like quantum-physics or the vaccuum equational value. These things are concrete; yet they could be abstract after my lifetime.

At one time in history, atheism supposedly did not exist. No one in secular history has disputed this to this point. I find that to be very interesting concerning the dynamics of what remains: monotheism and polytheism.

To each his own. If some pastor tells me I'm going to hell or I am going to burn, I would probably laugh at him. I don't believe in Hell.

Have a great day. I'm not arguing for or against Intelligent Design. I'm speaking of things that I have studied in history.

 

[Feenix]

Sounds pretentious.

 

[KevanG]

Just to go off topic for a sec, I am very pleased to see more than the usual folks in here these days and now back on topic.

As I've said previously, I have no definite way of verify if there is or isn't a creator god but I've found, due to giving it some serious thought over the years, that the very idea that there is a creator god that influences us every day throughout human history to be very offensive.

The idea that we as a species owe everything to some magic being that has made us go a certain way and forces us to do as it wants is demeaning to us all. It means that everything we've ever done and will do is nothing more than a game to it. That every idea, every war, every thought has been due to an outside force and we have no say in it offends me. It means that we've never mattered, that we've never done anything on our own, by ourselves.

 

[regwec]

Alpha and Omega...I don't intend to be disrespectful but, to me, some of your posts don't really mean anything, just as a matter of syntax. They sound rhetorically pleasant, however.

 

[MrsKent26]

Just to go off topic for a sec, I am very pleased to see more than the usual folks in here these days and now back on topic.

As I've said previously, I have no definite way of verify if there is or isn't a creator god but I've found, due to giving it some serious thought over the years, that the very idea that there is a creator god that influences us every day throughout human history to be very offensive.

The idea that we as a species owe everything to some magic being that has made us go a certain way and forces us to do as it wants is demeaning to us all. It means that everything we've ever done and will do is nothing more than a game to it. That every idea, every war, every thought has been due to an outside force and we have no say in it offends me. It means that we've never mattered, that we've never done anything on our own, by ourselves.

And yet...some people believe that. They think it's a good thing that we are subject to "God's will." It boggles my mind how people are ok with that.

I've asked religious people before if they find comfort in thinking that a loved one died because of "God's plan" and they say yes. I didn't question further because I didn't want to upset those grieving people, but I would like to know why a loved one being selected at random for death is comforting. Sure, that loved one would be in heaven unless they're a sinner, but they would have gotten to heaven anyways after having a full Earthly life if they hadn't been selected for premature death. So really....where's the comfort there?

 

[Heretic]

Watched a video last night of a comedian saying a that atheists are crazy because they are scared of a god they dont believe in (god in schools etc). I pointed out to the person that posted it that Christians are oppressed in many countries because of gods they dont believe in, but my friend deleted my comment and then falsely claimed that I reported their video to Facebook for violating TOS because I wasn't able to handle the truth.

 

[regwec]

What a *****e.

 

[MrsKent26]

Watched a video last night of a comedian saying a that atheists are crazy because they are scared of a god they dont believe in (god in schools etc). I pointed out to the person that posted it that Christians are oppressed in many countries because of gods they dont believe in, but my friend deleted my comment and then falsely claimed that I reported their video to Facebook for violating TOS because I wasn't able to handle the truth.

Has anyone here read the book 1984 by George Orwell?

Some of the things people do to help propagate religion, such as what Heretic mentioned, remind me of things that go on in that book.

Here are some quotes from the book that fit with this discussion:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

 

[rodhulk]

And like I was saying, there's a large area of interpretation through almost every part of the bible and not every single thing that means one thing can logically be extended to multiple things that deal with science and astronomy. There's interpretation and then there's just stretching a metaphor beyond the breaking point in order to try and make it fit where it just cannot do so.

If you believe it to be the word of god or just a book of history or just something to help you live your life that's fine, but don't try to force every aspect to show that it's pertinent to modern day astrophysics when it really has nothing to do beyond a metaphor for a creation myth.

The thing is, it's literal words still resemble something to the point of describing something.... literally... as we observe as fact or make a theory of it. It's continuous ability to do this shows me that something remarkable can be made of the Bible, that this ancient book may be the word of the one and only true God and I would hope those who are seeking will examine all the evidence I've provided in the last several pages, that I've provided sound answers to the many supposed "errors" of scripture that many have attempted to use here, and that they would just seek out the truth of all things and if this can lead to God and Jesus as it has for me.

 

[KevanG]

Your evidence and sound answers just don't hold up to any scrutiny beyond the basics. That's the problem I have with that. It's just taking sections of the book and trying to apply them to different areas where only the broadest interpretation will work.

 

[rodhulk]

Since you seem to have missed the question I posted, I'll ask again. What part of not believing in Jesus, or at least as the son of God, and God translates to hate for you? It's not hate, it's not believing in something for various reasons, please point to what confuses you about this. What you are saying is the equivalent of me asking why you hate Zeus or any other deity you don't believe in.

The hate is the approach that many take here. The way they don't like the manner in which God works (at least as per the Bible) which translates to the way or manner in which some deal with me (insulting, etc...)... but that's okay in the fact that I expect it.

 

[rodhulk]

Your evidence and sound answers just don't hold up to any scrutiny beyond the basics. That's the problem I have with that. It's just taking sections of the book and trying to apply them to different areas where only the broadest interpretation will work.

Of course they hold up and the many answers (often with links) I have provided show the message that is being spoken of and that it relates very nicely to many things we know or have theories in science. Like one of the scriptures say that I have use here, this is all clear to people so that they are without excuse but as another one I've used, people still say (the Bible uses the word fool for these people) there is no God.

You're free to believe what you want and if you want to deny what the Bible says so that you don't have to serve a God, you are free to do so.

Edit: Oh, and I'm happy you said that the Bible offers no more than the basics because as per many things "science," that's all the Bible offers and it's nice to know that it gets them all correct.

 

[Shikamaru]

Has anyone here read the book 1984 by George Orwell?

Well, remember when you had nightmares as a kid and your parents blamed it on the TV? Telling you things like "If you spent your time reading books instead, you wouldn't have them"? If you never had that happen to you, I'm sure you knew someone as a kid who heard that speech. For me, 1984 is the book that completely exposed that belief as a misconception. That book scared me more than anything I ever saw on TV as a kid. In my teen years, nevertheless.

 

[KevanG]

No I said it doesn't stand up to more than the basics as in the most basic interpretations. You say things like "Job 9:8 God stretches out the heavens. Think the big bang here." That is the most exaggerated way possible of trying to have a metaphor fit a certain concept when a basic concept like the night sky, is far far far more likely to what they where attempting to convey.

 

[KevanG]

It's a page or two back.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I think modern Christianity is not the same as it was the first 300 years of it's existence. We basically got a Roman Empire State run version of Christianity that incorporated many traditions from other religions at the time so people would join on more easily.

It's hard to get an exact history of Christianity since the Roman Catholic Church basically did everything in it's power to hide the history of the religion that didn't fit it's version of Christianity, but you could sort of put pieces together here and there and find many ways early Christianity differs.

Not really. They kept "heresies" well documented.

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

There are some early sects we know very little about, but that's mainly because they were small and short lived.

 

[rodhulk]

If finding value and personal meaning in religion hinges in any way upon scripture being a literal representation of scientific and/or historical fact, then it's a true exercise in futility. It's barking up the wrong tree..and to be fair, so is devaluing religion as an endeavor based on its lack of literal or even allusive truth/fact. The two do not belong in the same conversation.

Neither the Earth, the universe, nor we were 'designed' by some great presence...scripture does not even represent a remotely accurate account of the origins of life or evolution. But religion shouldn't depend on that...especially not literally. If it does, then it defeats itself.

It gives what I mentioned already, just some brief information on science and history and it does not disagree with some of the many facts and theories about science and history. Anybody can pick apart anything if they really want to, whether it's the Bible and/or religion and science and history. We really need to use our common sense in determining things in making up our minds on what we believe. And not be bias towards something which many unfortunately are. And that's why I believe what the Bible says, it's words often relate to what science facts and theories say. If one checks back, I've given several examples of how the Bible agrees (not disagrees) with science. Of course, the Bible doesn't agree with everything science says, we definitely have some disagreements, but the Bible has shown me enough in that it is very credible in being the word of God and it offers the best solution to life (including life eternal in Jesus) as per my opionion.

 

[rodhulk]

No I said it doesn't stand up to more than the basics as in the most basic interpretations. You say things like "Job 9:8 God stretches out the heavens. Think the big bang here." That is the most exaggerated way possible of trying to have a metaphor fit a certain concept when a basic concept like the night sky, is far far far more likely to what they where attempting to convey.

No it's not, both in a simple way say the same thing. The big bang says things expanded, the Bible says God spread everything out. I see a similarity. If you and others don't, that's just your attempt to deny God and be a fool (Bible's word) that says there is no God.