Atheism discussion

Yes thats fine and all but you cant base the history of the world on a book.
Religon is someting that gives people hope it works for some and dosent for some.
Why should I be judged.
Why cant I judge.
I think we may have interpreted it wrong.
I am not sure what to really say.
Although basing everything you do and say on a Book Or The Bible
Is just kinda crazy to me.

 

And what percentage of the world is Buddhist? Hindu? Muslim?

As for History being wrong...except for the Bible? Seriously, that's just...argh! Not in the mood for getting banned for a flame, so let's just leave it at that.

As for the rest, we shall see. People have been saying that Jesus is almost back for...oh, about 2000 years now.

What makes you more right than them?



Squ33k!

 

History is usually VERY WRONG, unless you're reading it from the Bible.

Uh...WOW.

Are you aware that there are many Christians who believe in reading the Bible contextually, and who do not believe all of the Bible to be historical fact? And if that's coming from your fellow Christians, what's everybody else supposed to think?

I will agree that there are a lot of books with BAD history out there, but the good ones at least are based on some sort of historical evidence (unlike, say, the Bible).

 

"History is usually VERY WRONG, unless you're reading it from the Bible." <<< You're kidding right? I have so much to say about this only it is friday night and I'm too drunk and sleepy to type it all out. I'll try to come back in the morning. That statement is really funny though and sad at the same time.

 

I go the gym for a couple of hours and this place goes to hell in a handbasket.

I would lock this thread if it was not salvagable, but in my modly naivety I would like to think you guys can discuss things like adults, and not the 8 years I'm cursed with teaching.

Here are some simple rules. Break 'em, I'll see you in no less than 24 hours.

1) Christians can stop preaching. If you want to discuss atheism, discuss your theoretical and logical disagreements with it. Simply saying, "I'm right because God is right and I believe in God" says everything and thus, nothing.

2) Atheists, stop making personal comments. If you object to the way someone is posting, contact me, Mr44 or KK (aka teh Big Cheese). Unless you want there to be no more threads discussing atheism?

I'm giving you a chance to prove your worth, do not screw it up.

E_S

EDIT: And I just realised I made a bad pun!

 

Yes, about 10% of the population in the world are Christian.

Christianity encompasses about 2.1bn people, a third of the world's population. A third being 33%.

---

Exactly; religions as crutch for the weak minded.

The point in obliterating religion, of course, is to weed out such weak minds. Darwinism at it's finest!

I think you mean social darwinism, which is a nonsensical concept dreamt up by those who wish to justify selfishness and exploiting the vulnerable. Evolution has provided us with the intelligence and social abilities to provide for all members of society - the weak, disabled, mentally handicapped, young and old. This isn't an accident, it's because it's important for the survival of our species.

To actually get on to the subject of atheism/religious belief, I read a very interesting article recently which said that people may be evolutionarily predisposed to religious faith. If anyone is familiar with the sociologist Emile Durkheim's work on totems, this is already old news. Religion provides social cohesion by creating society worship: our religions (totems in Durkheim's studies of aboriginals) reflect the norms and values of our society and by worshipping them we're reinforcing them across society and creating unity around a set of guiding principles. I believe that this is the reality behind what a lot of religious conservatives talk about when they say a lack of religion leads to social disunity and anomie (another word from Durkheim meaning alienation and purposelessness in society). Perhaps in this sense religion is not so much a crutch but an invaluable component of a society's survival, and it's the spread of secularism/atheism which has led to the lack of cohesion which marks modern societies.

I don't deny that religion does provide some kind of crutch for people. A couple of other sociologists, Stark and Bainbridge, came up with the idea of 'religious compensators.' That is, people compensate for the hardship of this life with a belief in the paradise of the next. Not an exactly an old theory, Marx had a similar one with his 'opium of the masses' (though he believed it was part of the false consciousness that prevented people overthrowing the capitalist system, rather than a positive thing as Stark and Bainbridge did).

I think religion plays an important role in society in promoting individual happiness and, as I said, social cohesion. Of course, this doesn't make it any more factually right - which is why I'm an atheist. Just one very much sympathetic to religion and the religious.

JFM.

 

What the hell do "God's laws" have to do with science??? Should a scientist disregard any evidence that would go against christian beliefs? What a terrible world we'd live in if exploration and the constant seeking of knowledge was restricted by christian beliefs. Honestly, if you put even if a second of thought into what you're saying I think you'd realize that that is not at all what you want and certainly not what's best for humanity.

 

We're getting off topic. Do I have to make good on my earlier promise? Or can you somehow heroically link your post to an atheist perspective cyprus?

E_S

 

How is that off topic, this is an Atheist discussion, discussing Atheism in science is off-topic?

 

It's from al ine of discussion which is only going to cause pain, tears, rants, flames low birth weights, lung cancer, birth defects. It's like the cigarette packet of posts!

E_S

 

Well I'd say this discussion is not only at an impasse, but it is mired as well.

We're reduced to logic, and logic can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural entity.

All that leaves us with is to discuss where opposing views come into contact. Creationism is the most publicly visible instance of this today, with Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School Board going to trial soon here in the states, and similar debates in the public forum as well.

I suppose we could try to change the topic such as discussing the comparative merits of secular humanism and faith based morality. I'll try to get the ball rolling I suppose. While I am a religious person, with a deep faith in the divine, I do see the merits of secular humanism in society, as it is a morality set with none of the baggage from religion the requires other faiths are morally wrong, and what not. I find it is a more pluristic set of values.

What do you all think?

 

I think people should read the following before offering up opinions on secular humanism:

What is secular humanism?

 

This has already been covered quite thoroughly in this thread. The US is not a Christian nation. VLM and I both posted links within the last few pages that thoroughly debunk this myth. Seeing as you're new, I'd recommend you read a bit more of the history of this thread. I realize it's long, but hey, so's the bible, and I've sat down and read that several times. Please pay us the same courtesy we pay you.

Incorrect. As a scientist, I try to figure out nature's laws. No diety involved. No diety would ever come up with equations to govern the universe that were this messy

As other people have pointed out, you're making yourself look like a fool here.
#1) Concerning the bible as historical truth: PPOR.
#2) You stated this is just an opinion, so can we really expect you to back up anything you say?
#3) You're not claiming the authority of God yet immediately tell us that Jesus is going to come judge us? I think you just negated your own statement.
#4) Again, you tell us it's something you beleieve. Present us with something more than a baseless opinion. This is the senate and you're in the Atheist thread. Opinions are worthless here.

 

If opinions are worthless here then the thread needs to be locked because that's what this thread is about. Opinions.

If the Atheists can express their opinions about Christians(Which are most, to all flawed and incorrect)then us Christians deserve to post our opinions about Atheism and other such subjects.

 

What Voija is trying to say is that if you make a flat statement as fact you should try and back it up with evidence that supports it. This will not happen in every case but if you just browse over the thread you'll see alot of links and references to support what we state.

 

The point we're trying to make here is that we're not expressing opinions. We're putting across rational arguments complete with supporting data. Meanwhile, you throw things out without any supporting evidence. This is not going to endear you to anyone here in the senate. Perhaps you should try the JCC.

If you read through the history of this thread as I suggested, you'll quickly discover that our arguments are backed up by several links and that we're not people that know nothing about Christianity. Indeed, many atheists were once religious and know a great deal about the religions from which they departed.

We're all willing to listen to any argument as long as you can support it and it's not one that's been debunked a million times (such as the dust layer on the moon "proving" YEC). We're trying to help you realize this.

So again, stop with the generalizations, the unsupported arguments, and general ignorance of what's going on and you'll do better. As E_S said in the sticky thread:

Perhaps you should go read through that thread and the other stickies.

 

You should have totally put that in bold type. The same old arguments have been shot down many times over. But, there is an old saying, "if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth". So every time someone spouts off about evolution not being a fact or calling it 'just a theory' we will probably come right after it with the same information that has been produced a zillion times over.
Fundies have earned a special place in that they seem to have no concern over wether something is a lie or not. The only reason they might read up on some science is so they can twist it around and try to hand out new definitions that are not correct so they can further their religion.
I think we get a bit tired of it sometimes and make rebuttal comments to nonsense comments without so much as a reference. But then again in a science class this is not a problem, nor is it that much of a problem here. The problem comes when a Fundie goes to a school board and gives a lecture that sounds like the technobabble of a Star trek episode(Science-like sounding stuff that really isn't science) in the attempt to get ID taught in scholls as a future replacement for a real science.

I'm not even an officially educted scientist like Voija. I'm an enthusiast at best, I read quite a bit, sift through gobs of web pages looking through what's BS and what's not. Honestly, it's not hard to understand basic concepts backed by decades of real research. Wiki is a good start for any topic though you have to be careful with it because anyone can edit an article. The external links that follow them can lead to more detailed information and actual sources.

 

That's one of the reasons I leave these debates before too long. I argue it out with the first bunch, and then a new group comes in with the exact same arguments, and I just don't care to repeat myself, and they don't care to go back and read what I've already written.

 

That would be all well and good, if that's what you were doing.

You weren't.

As I see it, you're using the line, "I believe in God. God is all-seeing and all-knowing, thus his omniscience and omnipotence makes him always right. If I believe in God, and God is always right, therefore I must be right." In fact, that train of logic was noticeably absent from your posts. Simply saying "God said it" explains everything, and thus nothing.

I don't need to quote myself from the sticky thread; it's been done already. If you're going to argue against atheism, you need to establish a factual and logic position and try and exploit gaps in the atheist perspective. I'm sure the author of this thread has no problem in a Q&A/debate style approach but that is currently not the approach you and others are taking.

If you wish to continue posting here, I must insist you observe the rules of the Senate, the guidelines for better posting and stop relying on your beliefs as a valid argumentative standpoint. They form the basis of your opinions but if you cannot support them with some kind of logical evidence, then you need to remove yourself from the discussion.

I am totally loathed to locking this thread, so I'd ask that both sides observe the nature of debate.

E_S

 

I think that's why VLM and I have a very healthy library of bookmarks for quick referencing. I don't have to retype it, just re-link it.

Sadly, my computer self destructed this week so until I figure out what's wrong (it's either the power source or the motherboard), I don't have my linkbrary.

 

After consider of Mas' point as well as the general degeneration of discussion here and the overall thread length, I am going to lock this. FID has added a new Atheism discussion, which may attract some fresh perspectives not put off by 66 pages (at 50ppp) of posts.

See you there.

E_S