Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[DemianHawthorne]

My fellow atheists, I pose to you a question, what is the greatest weapon in the arsenal of an atheist? It's not intelligence as many a moronic and unread person have shown us it does not take a brilliant man to see through and exploit the lies of the pious. It is not the ability to reason, how many Christians or Muslims or Scientologists (:)) do you know who apart from their faith, are intelligent and logical human beings? It is not that the truth is on our side, if truth where an advantage for a cause than we would look back on a much different human history. Our greatest weapon can be summed up in a single beautiful symbol. The most powerful of all symbols. More powerful than the Crucifix, more powerful than the Crescent Moon and Star, more powerful than the Star of David. And that symbol is..



?



Yup that's the symbol. We ask questions. Creationists or religious folk are probably reading this right now and sneering, "I ask questions too!" I can see their uncomfortable faces, them squirming in their chairs and considering not reading this \thread, it's easy to rile them. Creationists you do not ask questions, not really. You may end questions with question marks, but in your heart, you have already decided on the answer and that answer is God. How did the Universe come to be? Why is their good and evil in the world. What is the meaning of life? How did life on earth come to be? Why are human begins the only creatures capable of advanced deductive reasoning? Is there life after death? How can I decide what is right and what is wrong? Why am I moved by art? Am I significant in the grand scheme of things? ...... Is there a grand scheme of things?

These are questions that any person of normal intelligence asks themselves from time to time..well in between episodes of the Real World and American Idol anyway. For an atheist, some of these questions have partial answers either objective or subjective and some do not. That is the nature of truth, it is something human begins must discover either through research or discovery or introspection. Theist don't have to worry about that. For a theists, these questions arrive at a single all-encompassing answer..GOD! The great forgone conclusion. A substitute for inquiry. A way to turn the great question mark in the hearts and minds of men into periods and exclamation points. THIS IS THE TRUTH! As if the declaration was the sole prerequisite for truth. Faith, boiled down to it's raw essence is the notion that passionate assertion is every bit as valid as observable reality.

You would think that a group of people earnestly able to believe that desire equals truth would find a great deal of contentment in this supposition. But you'd be wrong. Perhaps just for the sake of balancing an equation and making their righteousness seem more exclusive, they have given themselves a list of rules and regulations that they must conform to or attempt to conform to in order to be accepted by God and enter his kingdom of Heaven.

Luckily, little to no sacrifice is required as Christians of all stripes tend to select the brand of faith that is right for them, which is why my homosexual liberal uncle can still be a Christian simply by attending an ultra liberal Episcopalian church. His mind navigates the landmine field of homophobia in the bible as effectively as the mind of a Catholic can still worship graven images regardless of what the second commandment has to say on the subject.

Religion has convinced people that the idea that life arose slowly, that we are the result of billions of years of a natural process called evolution, is repugnant and that the idea that men where fashioned from dirt and that woman where fashioned from the single rib of one of these dirt men is beautiful. Religion has convinced people that the human body is a wretched contemptible thing, dirty and sinful. It has convinced people that the only function of our most pure expression of love and lust was intended exclusively for procreation. Religion has convinced people that there is a being intelligent enough to create the Universe and that he manages it to this day but that he is so petty and spiteful that he concerns himself with the doings of homosexuals, adulterous spouses, and people who use his name disrespectfully. Is it even feasible that a being responsible for the wonders of the heavens is also responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Religious people, in my view, are morally reprehensible from the extremist to the enabling moderates. For every triviality they condemn, they commit ten atrocities with impunity. For example: Letting your daughter die of cervical cancer because you where afraid the vaccine would make her promiscuous is immoral. Teaching kids that condoms don't work and that only abstinence will prevent STDs(bad) and pregnancy(worse), is immoral. Suicide bombings are immoral. Tax exempt status for religious institutions with massive political and social influences is immoral. Denying a person medical treatment because your god doesn't believe in medicine is immoral. Bombing abortion clinics is immoral. Putting religious laws in front of a courthouse where everyone is supposed to be treated fairly is immoral. Telling people what they can and cannot do with their own body's is immoral. Denying us homosexuals the ability to enter into the same social contracts as everyone else is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Going to third world countries to indoctrinate those in poverty is immoral. Genocide of those whose invisible cloud king wears a different set of boxers than yours is immoral. Crashing aircraft into buildings because your sexually repressed ass has been told that heaven is full of virgins is immoral. The idea that a woman is worth 1/2 of a man is immoral. No nudity on TV is..if not..immoral..really lame.

Religion is where we get our morals from? Why than at the root of every inhuman act of cowardice and degradation do we find a Bible or a Quran or some other piece of religious icon? Why than is the justification behind the sum of all evils when boiled down to the naked essentials is "God said so." Why than did the Nazi soldiers wear the words "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles as they tossed Jews, Gypsys and homosexuals into gas chambers to die? These are important questions are they not? The perpetual inability of theists to answer these and other important questions leads me to the conclusion that a theist claiming that God is the source of morality is akin to a dictator telling you that a nuclear arsenal is the root of all peace. The next time a theist tells you that you are trying to destroy morality, do not at all deny it. Instead, tell them if their idea of morality is the garbage found in their religious text, than you are proud to be among those working to put an end to their morals. Inform them that you believe not in God and his dark morality of guilt, suffering and repentance, but in a human morality with the virtues of happiness, justice and prosperity.

[Thorne]

I dont' necessarily agree with everything you say here, but the general idea is pretty close to what I believe.

I do think you demean people with faith too much. Just because someone believes in God does not mean they cannot be rational and intelligent. It is primarily, IMO, those who believe in the literal word of the Bible who are guilty of irrational thought.

Religion, not faith, is the enemy here. Most people of faith whom I know can still understand and promote the idea of evolution, both of man and of the universe, my own father among them. Should I belittle him because he still believes in a Supreme Deity? Not at all! It's only when he parrots the doctrines of the Catholic Church that I question him, respecfully.

There have been many respected, highly intelligent scientists throughout history who believed in God. There still are. There are, and have been, many physicians who believe in God and miracles, despite there being no physical manifestation of a soul in the bodies they deal with every day. This doesn't make them evil or stupid. Quite the contrary.

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them. And of course, it is only the particular version of the Bible which they happen to own which is the one true version: all others are heresy. Yet when you point out that the Bible is merely a translation of older texts and potentially filled with mis-translations and mis-spellings, they claim that God prevents such problems from actually happening. So how is it that there can be so many versions?

No, don't hurl your wrath at people who believe in God, but at those who cannot tolerate any belief other than their own narrow, narcissistic faith.

[TheShadow.]

How did the Universe come to be? Why is their good and evil in the world. What is the meaning of life? How did life on earth come to be? Why are human begins the only creatures capable of advanced deductive reasoning? Is there life after death? How can I decide what is right and what is wrong? Why am I moved by art? Am I significant in the grand scheme of things? ...... Is there a grand scheme of things?

You don't think theist don't ask those questions? I could list numerous books written by Christians about just those subjects. The various catechisms of the orthodox religions are a reflection of just the questions you accuse us of not asking. But you, in your infinite ignorance, actually thonk people of faith cannot ask questions.This indicates to me you have not truly looked for the answers to the questions, you decided you didn't like the answers.


These are questions that any person of normal intelligence asks themselves from time to time..well in between episodes of the Real World and American Idol anyway. For an atheist, some of these questions have partial answers either objective or subjective and some do not. That is the nature of truth, it is something human begins must discover either through research or discovery or introspection. Theist don't have to worry about that. For a theists, these questions arrive at a single all-encompassing answer..GOD! The great forgone conclusion. A substitute for inquiry. A way to turn the great question mark in the hearts and minds of men into periods and exclamation points. THIS IS THE TRUTH! As if the declaration was the sole prerequisite for truth. Faith, boiled down to it's raw essence is the notion that passionate assertion is every bit as valid as observable reality.

We can agree on that, which is why Christians have debated them for centuries, and before us other people of faith. Truth sets us free, and God is not the answer to these questions. The answers are much more profound than the ones you end up with because the only true answer you have is "I don't know." Those of us with faith don't believe God is the answer, but that he has the answers. A bit like your own belief at one time in your own parents. Faith is not a blind acceptance that God is the be all and end all, but the acceptance of not knowing. One of the best songs I have ever heard says "Maybe questions tell us more than answers ever will." That was written by a man of faith, and spoke to my heart in a time of crisis to assure me that faith is stronger than the storms.


Luckily, little to no sacrifice is required as Christians of all stripes tend to select the brand of faith that is right for them, which is why my homosexual liberal uncle can still be a Christian simply by attending an ultra liberal Episcopalian church. His mind navigates the landmine field of homophobia in the bible as effectively as the mind of a Catholic can still worship graven images regardless of what the second commandment has to say on the subject.x

Now I get it, this isn't about people of faith, it is about your uncle. If you have a problem with him being homosexual you need to deal with your feelings and not try to blame everyone else on the planet.


Religious people, in my view, are morally reprehensible from the extremist to the enabling moderates. For every triviality they condemn, they commit ten atrocities with impunity. For example: Letting your daughter die of cervical cancer because you where afraid the vaccine would make her promiscuous is immoral. Teaching kids that condoms don't work and that only abstinence will prevent STDs(bad) and pregnancy(worse), is immoral. Suicide bombings are immoral. Tax exempt status for religious institutions with massive political and social influences is immoral. Denying a person medical treatment because your god doesn't believe in medicine is immoral. Bombing abortion clinics is immoral. Putting religious laws in front of a courthouse where everyone is supposed to be treated fairly is immoral. Telling people what they can and cannot do with their own body's is immoral. Denying us homosexuals the ability to enter into the same social contracts as everyone else is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Going to third world countries to indoctrinate those in poverty is immoral. Genocide of those whose invisible cloud king wears a different set of boxers than yours is immoral. Crashing aircraft into buildings because your sexually repressed ass has been told that heaven is full of virgins is immoral. The idea that a woman is worth 1/2 of a man is immoral. No nudity on TV is..if not..immoral..really lame.

Religion is where we get our morals from? Why than at the root of every inhuman act of cowardice and degradation do we find a Bible or a Quran or some other piece of religious icon? Why than is the justification behind the sum of all evils when boiled down to the naked essentials is "God said so." Why than did the Nazi soldiers wear the words "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles as they tossed Jews, Gypsys and homosexuals into gas chambers to die? These are important questions are they not? The perpetual inability of theists to answer these and other important questions leads me to the conclusion that a theist claiming that God is the source of morality is akin to a dictator telling you that a nuclear arsenal is the root of all peace. The next time a theist tells you that you are trying to destroy morality, do not at all deny it. Instead, tell them if their idea of morality is the garbage found in their religious text, than you are proud to be among those working to put an end to their morals. Inform them that you believe not in God and his dark morality of guilt, suffering and repentance, but in a human morality with the virtues of happiness, justice and prosperity.

Now you are spouting ignorance. Grow up. If you were any more intolerant I could nominate you fpr some type of award.

The root of every inhumane act is religion? Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals? Or are you one of those people who think animals do not behave cruelly? If you are I will simply ask you to watch a cat toy with a mouse at some time in your life. Even when the cat is hungry and is going to eat the mouse it does not simply kill it.

[lucy]

Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals?
umm, with all due respect, humane acts of animals sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

[fetishdj]

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword... this is so true.

I also agree with Thorne in that it is not faith which is the problem but Dogma. Literal interpretations and rigid adherence to outdated concepts. Most Christians (and muslims and hindus and sikhs) I have talked to have been intelligent and questioning and are prepared to change their beliefs and ideas in the face of new evidence. Maybe this is because most of the religious types I have met are university graduates and British and we British are no longer quite so zealous about our religion these days (unlike 500 years ago when you could be executed for being catholic or a protestant depending on which monarch was in power and the poor priests were getting all confused about whether they were allowed to get married or not). We don't tend to have the really extreme fundamentalists, though they are creeping over slowly.

The trouble is that you have to avoid dogma on both sides. You have to always be open to possibilities and the fact that new evidence can change your views. One piece of information I read intrigued me by suggesting that science as a discipline could never have happened without monotheistic religion. Partly because of the mindset of the monotheist (there is only one god so you have to explain many contradictory phenomena in a way that is more than 'the weather gods are fighting')) and partly because many of the ancient classical texts on philosophy and science were for many years preserved by the Islamic and Christian scholars (all medieval universities were run by the catholic church hence the eccliastical like hierarchy many of them have.)

And human beings are not the only species capable of advanced deductive reasoning. Many other species can do it too.The only difference is that we can communicate things we have learnt to the next generation using non verbal means. This means that every generation of dolphin or blue tit has to learn from scratch how to do something whereas we can write a book about it (or set up a webpage) and give the next generation (and all subsequent ones) a headstart. Until we had this we were no different to many other species.

Now that is assuming that what you mean by deductive reasoning is problem solving intelligence. If, however, you mean abstract thought... well that is a different matter and there are a lot of interesting theories about that (some of them involving the beleif that we once lived on the sea shore where there was a lot of omega 3/essential fatty acid containing seafood....)

[DemianHawthorne]

Glad to see my thread is getting some good responses.


I dont' necessarily agree with everything you say here, but the general idea is pretty close to what I believe.

I do think you demean people with faith too much. Just because someone believes in God does not mean they cannot be rational and intelligent. It is primarily, IMO, those who believe in the literal word of the Bible who are guilty of irrational thought.

Religion, not faith, is the enemy here. Most people of faith whom I know can still understand and promote the idea of evolution, both of man and of the universe, my own father among them. Should I belittle him because he still believes in a Supreme Deity? Not at all! It's only when he parrots the doctrines of the Catholic Church that I question him, respecfully.

There have been many respected, highly intelligent scientists throughout history who believed in God. There still are. There are, and have been, many physicians who believe in God and miracles, despite there being no physical manifestation of a soul in the bodies they deal with every day. This doesn't make them evil or stupid. Quite the contrary.

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them. And of course, it is only the particular version of the Bible which they happen to own which is the one true version: all others are heresy. Yet when you point out that the Bible is merely a translation of older texts and potentially filled with mis-translations and mis-spellings, they claim that God prevents such problems from actually happening. So how is it that there can be so many versions?

No, don't hurl your wrath at people who believe in God, but at those who cannot tolerate any belief other than their own narrow, narcissistic faith.

I never said religious people or people with faith couldn't be intelligent. Some of the smartest men who ever lived where theists after all. What I meant to say, if it wasn't clear was "How many people do you know who despite their religion are extremely intelligent?".

As for religion and not faith being the enemy here. I disagree. I have a problem with both faith and religion because all faith is is believing in something without evidence because you want it to be. Faith is the idea that desire = truth and to me, this is a very dangerous belief. Also I wasn't hurling my wrath and I apologize if it came off like that. I just like to debate and share my views. I tried to keep this fairly tame compared to some of the things I have said. o_O



You don't think theist don't ask those questions? I could list numerous books written by Christians about just those subjects. The various catechisms of the orthodox religions are a reflection of just the questions you accuse us of not asking. But you, in your infinite ignorance, actually thonk people of faith cannot ask questions.This indicates to me you have not truly looked for the answers to the questions, you decided you didn't like the answers.

Why is that when anyone speaks against religion, they are ignorant. Why is there this curtain around faith that makes it immune to dissection and criticism just like any other belief. Also, I do believe you misunderstand because you see to an atheist we he have to discover for ourselves why we are what we are. Why we exist and why we do the things we do. In other words, what is it that makes us us. As a religious person this is impossible to do. Yes you can "ask questions" but because of your belief you cannot help but arrive to the answer of God. If you believe a God created you and existence than the areas of the purpose of life and the purpose of your life cannot escape from this omniscient being. You can question perhaps WHY God created us but it cannot change the fact some infinite powerful being created us and thus has all the answers.




We can agree on that, which is why Christians have debated them for centuries, and before us other people of faith. Truth sets us free, and God is not the answer to these questions. The answers are much more profound than the ones you end up with because the only true answer you have is "I don't know." Those of us with faith don't believe God is the answer, but that he has the answers. A bit like your own belief at one time in your own parents. Faith is not a blind acceptance that God is the be all and end all, but the acceptance of not knowing. One of the best songs I have ever heard says "Maybe questions tell us more than answers ever will." That was written by a man of faith, and spoke to my heart in a time of crisis to assure me that faith is stronger than the storms.

But that's just it! Human begins are amazing creatures when it comes to figuring things out. Will we be able to answer every question before our species dies out, not even close but it shouldn't hamper us from reaching for the stars, but the believe in a deity would merely hold us back, especially when rules and regulations get added in on top.




Now I get it, this isn't about people of faith, it is about your uncle. If you have a problem with him being homosexual you need to deal with your feelings and not try to blame everyone else on the planet.

That's a joke right? I'm homosexual myself. =) Well, I like dominant women but as far as dating goes, guys only.

Now you are spouting ignorance. Grow up. If you were any more intolerant I could nominate you for some type of award.

The root of every inhumane act is religion? Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals? Or are you one of those people who think animals do not behave cruelly? If you are I will simply ask you to watch a cat toy with a mouse at some time in your life. Even when the cat is hungry and is going to eat the mouse it does not simply kill it.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anything I said was ignorant. All of the things I cited above have really happened. The point of the last paragraph however was to show that religion is NOT where we get our morals from since the religious are just as capable of murdering, killing and genocide as anyone if not more so.

[Thorne]

What I meant to say, if it wasn't clear was "How many people do you know who despite their religion are extremely intelligent?".
I've known many. My father is one of them. I also socialized with a remarkably intelligent priest for a time. I didn't agree with his religion, but he didn't push it on me, either.


As for religion and not faith being the enemy here. I disagree. I have a problem with both faith and religion because all faith is is believing in something without evidence because you want it to be. Faith is the idea that desire = truth and to me, this is a very dangerous belief.
I disagree. Faith is believing in something for which no evidence is available. That doesn't make it wrong, provided that the belief conforms to known facts. It's when you maintain faith in an idea despite evidence to the contrary that faith becomes dangerous.

A person can have faith that he can fly simply by flapping his arms. There is no inherent danger in that faith until he actually tries to test it. Gravity's a bitch! But a person having faith in a God in Heaven is not, per se, dangerous. And there is no way, to date, of proving or disproving his belief.


Also I wasn't hurling my wrath and I apologize if it came off like that.
Sorry, the term "wrath" was being used metaphorically and not intended as an accusation.

[DarkPoet]

I remember very well a morning (I may have been fourteen or fifteen and was just sitting on the loo, but that's not really that important, though the bathroom seems to not have lost it's inspirational qualities since the times of the old Greeks) when I, for the very first time, discovered the enormity of my lack of knowledge. Up to then, I'd get curious about this or that, and if I couldn't deduce a valid answer myself, I'd ask someone about it or read a book, and get an answer. But on this special morning, I was wondering about what was outside of the universe, having recently read that the universe itself has limited dimensions.

So I had asked my mother, and suffice to say, her answer wasn't very elucidating, and my grandparents could only offer me the vague advice to not delve into questions that aren't helpful in life. My teachers told me that this was something that couldn't really be explained, and our preacher just shrugged it off with a comment on the wonders of god. So I sat on the loo for quite some time, trying to imagine a big bubble of almost nothing surrounded by even less than nothing, and even trying to bring it together with what I had learned about God and his creation.

I couldn't. And I realized at this very moment how limited my knowledge and imagination really are. The floor below me gave way into a dark abyss of uncertainty and I felt as if free falling from fifty thousand feet. My security vanished in the blink of an eye, and I became aware that I had to re-learn so many things, ask so many questions anew, and that I, even if I got them all answered correctly, might not be able to understand the answers.

I was lost, a blind beggar in a strange world filled with endless noise, asking questions about life, death and reason that nobody could answer satisfactory. And for quite some time (even years), I struggled with the feeling that I had experienced this very moment, the loss of the security of an explainable world.

The world became a foreign, cold place for me, and I desperately searched for ways to give meaning to it, from trying out esoteric or occult rituals to taking all kinds of drugs and wearing "Make love not war" t-shirts. I went through some really bad times and only barely came out alive, pushed to see reason (or light) at the last possible (and maybe also first possible) moment by someone who loved me.

Having been there, fallen into that abyss, how could I expect others to make the jump? Calling religious people morally reprehensible is, in my opinion, unjust and narrow sighted. Our world is imperfect, as we are ourselves, but even in our lack of understanding we are (slowly) developing. Away from a world where the strongest, most knowledgeable or most ruthless dictate how reality has to be perceived, towards a world where everyone can build his/her own opinion and freely discuss it (the existance of bdsml is proof of that).

Getting rid of religious dogmatism is, for me, a part of this development, but I've also discovered that this comes usually as a secondary effect of developing one's own morale. There's no need in fighting religion when experiences like love, trust or gratefulness can make a much more convincing argument. It was, after all, Ghandi who led India into independence with his weaponless revolution, while lots of surrounding states just swapped oppressors through their liberty wars.

[Thorne]

Calling religious people morally reprehensible is, in my opinion, unjust and narrow sighted.
I, for one, would not call anyone reprehensible just because of his faith or religion. Those who yse religion to control others and to line their own pockets, on the other hand....


There's no need in fighting religion when experiences like love, trust or gratefulness can make a much more convincing argument.
I agree completely. I don't enjoy fighting religion at all. It's so much easier to sit back and watch the fundamentalists destroy their own foundations through their lack of understanding of science and modern morality.

One good example is that group of nuts from the midwest who go around protesting at the funerals of soldiers. IMO, they have done more to harm Christianity and religion in general than they have harmed the gay rights movement. And aren't we all better for that?

[MMI]

Who says atheists cannot love, be trusted or express gratitiude? I could name several stalwart Christians who lack those qualities.

[damyanti]

Atheists are every bit as moronic, pious, hypocritical and religious as everyone else.

I believe the single most significant decision I can make on a day-to-day basis is my choice of attitude. When the attitude is right...

For me the question is not wheter there is God (because there is something)...but What is God...and if that is God at all?

The problem are not Faiths or scriptures, but people who abuse them, people who are smart enough to impose their vision and their interpretations on others (less intelligent if you will).

Reading scriptures doesnt mean one is stupid, what is stupid is disregarding the spirit of the teachings in order to follow the letter of the law.

Intolerance is dangerous and stupid whether it comes from a Christian, Muslim or an Atheist. I do not concern myself with what other people believe, I cant tell them what to feel is right in their hearts, but what I hate is when people have the need to convert others to their religion, even by using repression or force if necessary.

"All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions” W.B. Yeats

disclaimer: I am Unitarian Universalist and my IQ is 154. :blurp_ani

[Matin]

[B]

disclaimer: I am Unitarian Universalist and my IQ is 154. :blurp_ani

hooray UU! me too, and my iq tests between 130 + 150, depending on what i had for breakfast and what planet is ruling my sign that week lmao

is the argument and the objection here against fundamentalism, and not truly against faith? it's in fundamentalism that one finds intolerance, not necesarily in faith...

ok, i grant you, faith to those who don't share it is illogical by it's nature, and as a mechanic and child of medical professionals (scientists and left-brainers) i am much more comfortable dealing with matters i can measure and quantify.

that doesn't in any way diminish my faith, however, although it does periodically cause me to question it's validity. but that's the scientist in me, and i eventually emerge from that with my faith as strong as ever.

as a pagan amongst catholics i will vouch for their openminded tolerance towards what must be very alien and strange beliefs... it's when they get all inflamed by some radical that they become closed minded, but that applies to a much larger segment of the populace than just people of faith - if an atheistic democrat or republican tears my head off for badmouthing their favorite politico, isn't that the same basic impulse, just expressed differently? faith in the hands of the sane can do good in the world, or at least harm it very little, so i feel that the focus ought not to be to convince believers of the fallacy of belief, but to bring them to know that tolerance and faith can and do coexist. and reason!

i rambled...lol:)

[Thorne]

is the argument and the objection here against fundamentalism, and not truly against faith? it's in fundamentalism that one finds intolerance, not necesarily in faith...
That's my point of view, at least. I don't proclaim myself to be an atheist or a Christian or any other particular type. When pressed I respond with, "I'm an apathetic agnostic: I don't know if God exists, and I don't give a damn."

However, I do have faith. Not in some supernatural, intangible, supposedly omniscient being as described in the religious texts. But in science, or more precisely, the scientific process. (Not to be confused with scientists, who are mere mortals like the rest of us and subject to the same capacity for greed and subterfuge as anyone else.) The scientific process, when properly applied, helps to advance our knowledge of the universe, and tells us how we came to be, what processes conspired to bring about the results we see before us.

The thing we have to remember is that all formalized religions evolve with one basic premise in mind: we know the only truth; all others are heretics. We tend to forget that those who propagate that religion are mere mortals, just as we are. Any pronouncements they make are no more than their own opinions and interpretations of scripture, not the definitive word of God.

So, if you want to believe that God created us, and set us on this world to worship him, you have that right. And if I want to believe that all of humanity, and all of the creatures on this world, are mere accidents of nature, well I have that right, too.

As to why we are here? I don't know and I don't give a damn!

[MMI]

I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.

[Thorne]

I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.
But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

[craven]

"That's my point of view, at least. I don't proclaim myself to be an atheist or a Christian or any other particular type. When pressed I respond with, "I'm an apathetic agnostic: I don't know if God exists, and I don't give a damn." posted by thorne

well said thorne, and i liked your last post also, whether one believes or not, lets be frank about it there is a need for tolerance and understanding, from both sides of the debate, i respect others views as long as they try and respect mine.

I dont expect them to agree with my opinions or even fully understand them, just show me some respect for them, that is all i ask, irrespective of whether this debate is "proven" or "won" by one side or the other, all that is needed to maintain a peaceful coexistence is understanding and respect.

if someone believes in god then so be it, in whatever form or sect that their god chooses to manifest itself, what ever works for that individual, i am not going to knock or pre judge, just as i dont expect to be myself.

lets move away from picking holes in either sides facts and learn to accept and coexist.

the more positions become polarized the greater the danger there is of alienation, we need to be an inclusive society tolerant of all views if we are to live side by side, too often historically we have seen what can happen when parts of society are marginalized or demonized.

we cant let history repeat itself.

i like your stance and approach to this one thorne

[TheShadow.]

umm, with all due respect, humane acts of animals sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

Tell that to PETA and the rest of those that claim animals are never cruel.

[TheShadow.]

Why is that when anyone speaks against religion, they are ignorant. Why is there this curtain around faith that makes it immune to dissection and criticism just like any other belief. Also, I do believe you misunderstand because you see to an atheist we he have to discover for ourselves why we are what we are. Why we exist and why we do the things we do. In other words, what is it that makes us us. As a religious person this is impossible to do. Yes you can "ask questions" but because of your belief you cannot help but arrive to the answer of God. If you believe a God created you and existence than the areas of the purpose of life and the purpose of your life cannot escape from this omniscient being. You can question perhaps WHY God created us but it cannot change the fact some infinite powerful being created us and thus has all the answers.

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.


But that's just it! Human begins are amazing creatures when it comes to figuring things out. Will we be able to answer every question before our species dies out, not even close but it shouldn't hamper us from reaching for the stars, but the believe in a deity would merely hold us back, especially when rules and regulations get added in on top.

Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.


That's a joke right? I'm homosexual myself. =) Well, I like dominant women but as far as dating goes, guys only.

And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?


I don't see how anything I said was ignorant. All of the things I cited above have really happened. The point of the last paragraph however was to show that religion is NOT where we get our morals from since the religious are just as capable of murdering, killing and genocide as anyone if not more so.

That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

[TheShadow.]

ok, i grant you, faith to those who don't share it is illogical by it's nature, and as a mechanic and child of medical professionals (scientists and left-brainers) i am much more comfortable dealing with matters i can measure and quantify.

And it doesn't help when idiots of any stripe try to say that faith is believing in something without any evidence. I cannot believe in something without evidence, yet what I accept as evidence may not be acceptable to others.

Let us take something almost everyone believes in and most people do it without evidence, atoms. How many people have seen an atom, or really know what to look for to prove they exist? Yet these same people who try to call me stupid for believing in a God because I have had evidence of his existence that makes his existence the least objectionable alternative blindly believe in atoms simply because they were taught that they exist.

This is why I always chuckle when an atiest procalims himself smarter or more skeptical than I am. I accept that some people score higher on IQ tests than I, but as a member of Mensa I also know that the smartest people usually end up driving trucks. (At least the 3 smartest people I ever met do so.)

Most people consider themselves skeptics because they are willing to challenge a couple of things they think are big issues. Skeptics never believe anything, and sometimes we don't even trust ourselves.

[Thorne]

why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient?
Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

[Thorne]

Let us take something almost everyone believes in and most people do it without evidence, atoms. How many people have seen an atom, or really know what to look for to prove they exist? Yet these same people who try to call me stupid for believing in a God because I have had evidence of his existence that makes his existence the least objectionable alternative blindly believe in atoms simply because they were taught that they exist.
You don't have to be able to see something to know it exists. You can't see oxygen, but just try living without it. The atom has been proven to exist, through many detailed, and repeatable, scientific experiments. We know from experimentation that, if you combine certain atoms under certain conditions you will get the same result every time.

I've heard people who claim that something which seemed miraculous to them proves the existence of God. For example, someone surviving an accident which, by all rights, should have killed them. But there are far too many accidents in which someone who should have survived doesn't. Why didn't God intervene there?

I've heard people who claim that God must have created the world because it's just too complex to have developed on its own. Yet when confronted with the all too frequent breakdowns of those complex systems, something an infallible God should have been able to avoid, they place the blame on Satan. Why is it that anything bad that happens has to be Satan's fault, and not God's?

No, I'm afraid that we can never prove that God exists until the time that he stands in front of the world and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he does. But by the same token, we can never prove that he does not exist, either. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith.

[leo9]

This means that every generation of dolphin or blue tit has to learn from scratch how to do something whereas we can write a book about it (or set up a webpage) and give the next generation (and all subsequent ones) a headstart.
As it happens, one of the reasons people think dolphins may be on our mental level is that there is evidence they can teach their children things without having to show them. Just thought I'd mention it.

[leo9]

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

Can you prove that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are wrong? I think not!

Bertrand Russell was confronted with the argument that since he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, he must accept that he does. Russell said "I assert that orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter is a small purple teapot. Since you can't prove that teapot doesn't exist, you must by your logic accept that it does."

My own response is, "Which God?" I'll accept that I can't disprove the existence of your god, if you accept that you can't disprove the existence of mine. And there are more of mine :)

[Thorne]

Can you prove that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are wrong? I think not!
Precisely! Believers in TFSM have just as much right to their beliefs as anyone else, regardless of how silly they may seem to us. But wouldn't we be surprised if it popped up tomorrow?

That being said, respecting someone's beliefs does not, in and of itself, imply a respect of the practice of those beliefs. Especially when those beliefs are used to justify harming other people. Nearly all religions have, at one point or another, used that religion to justify the torture and murder of non-believers (Christianity being probably the most notorious.)

So believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fine, just don't go around sprinkling everyone you meet with spaghetti sauce!


Bertrand Russell was confronted with the argument that since he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, he must accept that he does. Russell said "I assert that orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter is a small purple teapot. Since you can't prove that teapot doesn't exist, you must by your logic accept that it does."
I agree with him. That was faulty logic. The absence of 'A' does not prove the presence of 'B'. And the absence of 'A' does not prove the non-existence of 'A', either. Or the non-existence of 'B'.

[leo9]

Nearly all religions have, at one point or another, used that religion to justify the torture and murder of non-believers
Arthur Clarke used to tell anyone who would listen that Buddhism was the only religion that had never had a holy war. Then the Buddhists of Sri Lanka started massacring their Hindu neighbours. I sometimes wonder if that was what killed him.

But given the record of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and China, one certainly can't claim that atheists have never been guilty of religious war. And given the pogroms against the early Xians in Rome, we Pagans aren't guiltess either...

(I suddenly remember Pratchett's "all-purpose warcry", "Remember the atrocities committed against us last time which will justify the atrocities we're about to commit!")

[Thorne]

But given the record of religious persecution in the Soviet Union and China, one certainly can't claim that atheists have never been guilty of religious war. And given the pogroms against the early Xians in Rome, we Pagans aren't guiltess either...
It was never my intention to imply that. The unfaithful are just as cruel and depraved as the faithful. They just don't use religion to justify it.

[leo9]

It was never my intention to imply that. The unfaithful are just as cruel and depraved as the faithful. They just don't use religion to justify it.

Though on second thought, it's a moot point whether communists can be called non-believers.

To paraphrase Clarke, any sufficiently fanatical ideology is indistinguishable from religion.

[Thorne]

Though on second thought, it's a moot point whether communists can be called non-believers.
Actually, I would guess you could claim that true communists are the ultimate believers in the goodness of humanity. They believe that, if everyone is treated equally, with equal access to goods and services, without fear of hunger or illness, that everyone will work to their highest capabilities in order to preserve the common good.

In actuality, of course, it doesn't quite work out that way. Which is why the Soviet Union no longer exists, why China is branching out into a controlled capitalism, and why Cuba and North Korea, at least, can only survive as rigidly controlled dictatorships which ruthlessly (at least in the case of NK) hold down their populations.

[MMI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
I'm an atheist, and I'm confident I'm right to hold this opinion. If anyone disagrees with me, then let him prove me wrong.




Originally posted by Thorne

But turn that idea around. Can you prove that believers are wrong? I think not!

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

[Thorne]

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?
Believers don't have to prove what they believe in, as long as they are happy with whatever evidence they feel is already available. It's only non-believers who demand the proof.


In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.
It's still only a presumption, however. Just because you can't prove it exists and can't demonstrate that it exists doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Just that you can't, under current conditions and with current technology, prove it's existence.

In astronomy, especially, there have been many objects which were presumed to exist despite the fact that they could not be detected or measured. They were deduced based on effects which occur that seemed to require something of their kind to exist. That didn't necessarily mean they did exist (I can think of one that was shown to be untrue), just that they might exist.


If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.
True, one cannot "know" something exists without proof, and those who claim to know it are, indeed, liars. But believing something exists without proof does not make one gullible.

Until the time when a spacecraft actually orbited the moon and photographed the far side, scientist could only assume that there would be craters there. Believing that there were craters there did not make the scientists gullible, just trusting that their conclusions were accurate. And if that first spacecraft had shown that there cotton candy trees on the far side of the moon instead of craters, would you think the scientists were stupid to have believed in the existence of craters in the first place? I think not!


Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.
I agree, you have a right to your point of view, and I don't criticize your comments just because I may not agree with them. I'm only trying to point out what I perceive to be logical fallacies in some of your comments. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!:cool:

And for the record, I, too, am a non-believer. I long ago discarded the need for some supernatural magic worker in my life. I find there are far too many discrepancies even within single religions, much less between different religions, to make such a belief viable, for me.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!:cool:

[leo9]

I always liked the line from "Contact" where the scientist says she's an atheist because she won't believe in anything that can't be proved. The priest asks "Did you love your father?"

"Of course I did!" (We already know that her love of her late father is vital to her.)

"Prove it."

I've long compared the religious experience to falling in love. People who haven't been in love may be dismissive and point out, perfectly rationally, that you can't prove there's anything more to it than lust turned personal. When you've been there you know there is something more to it, but you still can't prove it.

I believe in ghosts because I met one, and it near scared me crazy. I believe in gods because I met one, and She loves me. But since I can't prove that any of that happened anywhere but inside my head, I don't expect or wish to convince anyone else that it's real.

[MMI]

Believers don't have to prove what they believe in, as long as they are happy with whatever evidence they feel is already available. It's only non-believers who demand the proof.

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

It's still only a presumption, however. Just because you can't prove it exists and can't demonstrate that it exists doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Just that you can't, under current conditions and with current technology, prove it's existence.

In astronomy, especially, there have been many objects which were presumed to exist despite the fact that they could not be detected or measured. They were deduced based on effects which occur that seemed to require something of their kind to exist. That didn't necessarily mean they did exist (I can think of one that was shown to be untrue), just that they might exist.

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.


True, one cannot "know" something exists without proof, and those who claim to know it are, indeed, liars. But believing something exists without proof does not make one gullible.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

Until the time when a spacecraft actually orbited the moon and photographed the far side, scientist could only assume that there would be craters there. Believing that there were craters there did not make the scientists gullible, just trusting that their conclusions were accurate. And if that first spacecraft had shown that there cotton candy trees on the far side of the moon instead of craters, would you think the scientists were stupid to have believed in the existence of craters in the first place? I think not!

No, of course not. They formed their opinions on the basis of what they knew. Rational opinions that built up a viewpoint based on probability; but rebuttable by going tot he far side of the Moon and looking.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

I agree, you have a right to your point of view, and I don't criticize your comments just because I may not agree with them. I'm only trying to point out what I perceive to be logical fallacies in some of your comments. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!:cool:

Then I beg to differ:cool:

And for the record, I, too, am a non-believer. I long ago discarded the need for some supernatural magic worker in my life. I find there are far too many discrepancies even within single religions, much less between different religions, to make such a belief viable, for me.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!:cool:

And so do I:cool:

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

[Thorne]

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.
That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.
That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.
There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.

[TheShadow.]

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

Irrelevant to my position though. The man addressed me and thought I was silly for believing in something I don't believe in.


You don't have to be able to see something to know it exists. You can't see oxygen, but just try living without it. The atom has been proven to exist, through many detailed, and repeatable, scientific experiments. We know from experimentation that, if you combine certain atoms under certain conditions you will get the same result every time.

I've heard people who claim that something which seemed miraculous to them proves the existence of God. For example, someone surviving an accident which, by all rights, should have killed them. But there are far too many accidents in which someone who should have survived doesn't. Why didn't God intervene there?

I've heard people who claim that God must have created the world because it's just too complex to have developed on its own. Yet when confronted with the all too frequent breakdowns of those complex systems, something an infallible God should have been able to avoid, they place the blame on Satan. Why is it that anything bad that happens has to be Satan's fault, and not God's?

No, I'm afraid that we can never prove that God exists until the time that he stands in front of the world and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he does. But by the same token, we can never prove that he does not exist, either. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith.

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

[TheShadow.]

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.

[MMI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

Who's harrassing the believers? Not I. For by far the most part, it is believers who try to impose their beliefs on non-believers and on believers in other things, for no better reason than they believe it themselves.



Quote:
How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

I would agree with that if mere existence or if an ancient book did amount to persuasive evidence of a greater power. But it does not. There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident. There are also competing religious proofs that are mutually exclusive or contradictory.

It may be the best they can offer, but it is not convincing proof. So it is still up to them.




Quote:
OK - if not gullible, deluded.

That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

I'm nothing if not condescending, as I've demonstrated frequently on these threads - but only for effect. I respect everyone and their beliefs also.

What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.



Quote:
As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.

No, that's wrong. For non-belivers, no explanation is called for at all. why explain what does not exist? But if someone tries to make the case for God, they have to show that the existence of a deity is more likely than not.

Until that happens, a non-believer's position is better than a believer's



Quote:


Originally Posted by MMI
Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.
Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.

Because, if you want me to believe, like you do, in a hare-brained notion that, somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin) but refuses to make himself known to us (and hecould if he wanted to), then you must demonstrate to me that, at least, such a thing is more likely than not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist any more than I have to prove the existence of nothing. That's not double standards; it's expecting you to live up to normal standards.

As for Fermat's Last Theorem, it was a problem set by Diophantus in the 3rd century that Fermat managed to solve (so he claimed) in the 17th century. So for 1400 years or so, it would have been Diopantus's Proposition, and during that one-and-a-half thousand years, anyone who believed in it who have had to admit that his opinion was founded on belief, not proven fact.

Unfortunately, Fermat did not record what his proof was, so for four more centuries, that proof had to be rediscovered. During those 400 years, people who believed that the problem had been solved relied on Fermat's claims and nothing more. They had to accept that their belief was founded upon their trust that Fermat was not lying and that he had not made any mistakes, as so many others had.

You put the cart before the horse when you say "lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof".

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.

[Thorne]

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.
I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!


Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?
Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

[leo9]

There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident.
That's where most religious arguments break down: they present it as a dichotomy, believe in my God or nothing. But any halfway educated person knows there are other options.



What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.
It's not that simple. Before I was touched by the Goddess, I believed, in the sense that it sounded right to me, but I didn't know. Now I know from direct experience... but I also know that my experience was subjective and personal, so I can't present it as proof to anyone else, and I can't claim that other people who know differently are wrong. If I were a more persuasive person, I'd be tempted to preach and persuade and try to bring other people to see the wonderful vision: and I'd be completely wrong, because it might not be there at all for anyone else.

I often compare it to the '60s rock opera "Tommy." For people who aren't old enough to remember this, for complicated reasons Tommy becomes deaf and blind, then is cured and enlightened while playing pinball. His response is to persuade all his followers to play pinball in earpugs and blindfolds in the hope that they will find the same nirvana; and of course they don't, and they reject him furiously.


somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin)

For a long time that was my problem with gods. As a gut anarchist, I automatically reject any being on any plane of existence who not only expects to be obeyed without question, but who also expects me to grovel and "praise him to the highest". (I could enjoy doing that for a Domme, but that's the difference between role-play and real life.) I couldn't even start to explore the possibility till I found that there were people who believed in gods who didn't want or expect worship or sacrifice, who just wanted to make contact because they care about us.

I love the Lady, and I am awed at a Being who exists on a level so much wider than mine. But worship her... she'd just laugh.

And for the avoidance of doubt (as the lawyers say), I'm not trying to convince anyone that my invisible friend is real. I'm just explaining how it is for me.

[Skyybird]

“ Existence is illusory and it is eternal. ”
Fyodor Dostoevsky

I put to this discussion that before we can even try to dicipher what does exist....one must first of all clarify and identify what is meant by the word exist. Perhaps that way we can make a better decision regarding what actually exists and those things which we would sincerely love to see but that can never be proved due to the lack of physical evidence.

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word 'existere', meaning to appear or emerge or stand out. Exist can also be shortened to "is". A grammatical predicate you might say. May I give an example? 'A Four-leaved clover exists.' can be rephrased as 'There is a clover with four leaves.'. Funny...I found the same sentence analogy almost word for word on wikipedia! But I think we all agree it is a right and proper example of the use of the word exist.

Having said that Philosphers of the world have tried to put forward the arguement that "existence" is not only a grammatical predicate but that it implies a notion of logic. I could go on for hours about mathamatical formula's to illustrate the circumstances of existence. I shall not, because I feel it would lead us away too far from the actual topic of this post, not to mention that I am not a mathematician and would likely not convey their theories accurately.

I prefer to look at the question from this position; 'Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines'.

Basically we all believe what we believe, some of us need proof, others need no more than a suggestion to see the benefit of faith in the existence of "god", or some such other entity. Even religious men of the past have debated the truth behind the gospels, the Old and New Testament are often quoted in support of the existence of God...but in themselves are admittedly a collection of stories from individuals, who claimed to be there during the life of Christ, yet the gospels were written down in some form of order many years after their passing. Are we basing a society around the incredible talents of a story teller who took a legend or a handed down story from his fathers mothers cousin who worked for the boss of Matthew, Mark Luke or John?

Great stories of mystery and wonderment...based on actual events? Who can say.

I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God, although I have witnessed a community coming together in his name to support and care for each other without the need for thanks or remuneration. But honestly, that was just nice people being kind right?

Anyway....I'll go back to my fence and see where the discussion goes next.

[DemianHawthorne]

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".


And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.

No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.


Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.

"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"


And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?

I like my uncle fine, I just used him as an example.


That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

[leo9]

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?
Or as JK Rowling put it, "Yes, this is all happening in your head. But does that mean it isn't real?"

The computer you are sitting at started as an idea in someone's head. The point at which you could say that the idea had "real" "existence" (quotes used to indicate that these terms cry out for definition) is as fuzzy and arguable as the point where a zygote (fertilised ovum) becomes a human being. And as that simile shows, it's not a neutral question: people have ideological reasons for arguing one definition against another.

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?
<snip>
I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

Dangerous example for a scientist. A headache is subjective: it may have detectable physical causes, but the pain itself cannot be measured with any instrument except the sufferer's mind. (A "dolorometer" that could measure pain as objectively as a theromometer measures fever is something medical research would be devoted to, if only they had the slightest clue where to start.) Therefore, your belief that paracetamol cures your headache is subjectively based, and the "scientific proof" is only that a lot of other people have been found to share your subjective experience. Yes, more people have their headaches cured by paracetamol than by placebos, but only statistically: placebos still have a pretty good success rate. There are million-dollar patent medicines based entirely on that fact.


In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God
I've touched and been taught by mine, but I don't call that proof. It changed my life, but so does falling in love, and you can't get more subjective than that.

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

[Thorne]

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.:rolleyes:

[leo9]

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.:rolleyes:
A lot of people have been trying that lately, which is why we're in this mess.

[TheShadow.]

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.
[/COLOR][/B]

Wrong again. For centuries there was no prooof that atoms existed, yet they exist.

For centuries there was no proof that other planets existed, yet they exist.

As I stated, all a lack of proof amounts to is proof you do not have proof. Trying to extrapolate from a lack of proof is called jumping to conclusions.

[TheShadow.]

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

I agree with that, mosy of my response to you was based on your replies to what I said anyway, and was not about disagreeing so much as clarifying my position.

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty. They really go apeshit when I tell them that I really don't think anyone will actually go to heaven.


Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

[TheShadow.]

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".

Why would I believe that? The only way God would have total control over the universe is if he did write it on some sort of super computer, and then did not make any provision for randomness in it.

If I wrote a game that made certain decisions based on how many particles a detector had counted in the previous fraction of time I would not know exactly what was going to happen, and the more randomness I built into it the less I would actually know about all those details you want to insist I believe God knows.

Just because I believe in God does not mean that "God made them that way is the perfect answer to any question. What if God wants us to understand not just that he did something, but why he did it? Simply knowing he did it would then be only the first step on our path to knowledge, and would force us to ask questions that science blithely ignores.


No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.

It isn't safe, it is just easy, and that simply makes you lazy. And the fact that you cannot even admit that shows that oyu are essentially no better than a theist who simply says "God made it that way."


"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"

Wow, yet the proudly atheistic government of Sweden is insisting that scientists consider the feelings and dignity of plants before conducting research into ways to improve their health and food value. So again you are wrong, it is not a belief in God that holds us back, it is stupidity.


What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

Those so called myths are not based on the religion or teachings of the prophets, but upon man's basic desire to do evil. That is the simple fact you are ignoring. Or, perhaps because you do not believe in God, you reject the idea of evil also, which just makes you a fool.

[Thorne]

if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.
I have heard many different opinions about that, and I'm fairly well convinced that there is not all that much of the Bible which has remained unchanged. In the first place, the Old Testament is a conglomeration of morality tales, primarily, based on old oral histories and then the Torah. But there have been numerous revisions and translations and revisions of translations. The basic stories are the same, but many of the phrases, which may have meant one thing in Aramaic, meant something slightly different in Hebrew, and more different in Greek, then in Latin and then in English. It's like playing that old children's game of telephone, where each person has to pass on a message to the next person, with each person translating from what he was told by the previous person.
Even the New Testament has been revised since the first writings, with the leaders of the Catholic Church picking and choosing among the various gospels in existence at the time, then tossing the one's they didn't like. That doesn't mean that the one's they selected were accurate, just that they sold the message the Church leaders wanted to sell.
And, while there may be some archeological evidence to corroborate some portions of the Bible, there is an awful lot of blank space, things which one would suspect should have left traces, but for which no tangible evidence has been found.
So we cannot say that the Bible is unchanged; we cannot show that many, if not most, of the happenings in the Bible, including most of the New Testament, ever took place; we cannot even prove that some of the most important characters in the Bible actually existed. How, then can we say it has remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years?
And all that aside, when so many people who profess to believe in the Bible can interpret it in so many different ways, how are we expected, rationally, to accept it as gospel? No, I think I'll have to pass on the Bible as an historical artifact and interpret it more as a morality play, a teaching tool for the rules of society.

[Belgarold]

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

To add to Thorne's great post, many of the parables and stories were added to the Bible by monks as late as the dark ages.

The powers that were also left out many books (The Gnostic Chronicles) which actually had Jesus saying, (and I am paraphrasing, sorry), "I am god, but you are too."

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

And, to me, when you consider that the books of the New Testament were written 60 years after the events, you have to wonder.

I am sorry but the statement that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years just doesn't hold water.

And for the record I am not an Atheist, I have a strong, personal belief in God. But I do not think the Bible is the end-all be-all of religious thought. TO me God speaks to us through many means and many people.

The Bible has many good things in it, but as THorne alluded too, it is way too easy to interpretation. And it seems to me, most organized religions, are based on a few verses and they easily ignore the rest.

[leo9]

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty.
Which verses are those? I would have thought the First Commandment pretty much settled it.

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.

Following the "right" religion might give you useful pointers as to the approved kind of virtue (whether to rub blue mud into your navel on the Solstices or the Equinoxes), but if you get it right by pure inspiration, you qualify just like a True Believer.


I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

As a matter of interest, which excluded books of the Apocrypha do you consider part of this unchanged and accurate book, and which of the ones that were removed from it within recorded history were never part of it?

Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Thorne]

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.
Obviously you are unfamiliar with the American Southern Baptists. As near as I can tell, you are either a born again Christian who may make it to heaven, or you are the spawn of Satan trying to lure others to hell. There seems to be very little middle ground. :)


Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)
I've heard similar reports, many dealing with events which should have been recorded. There are, supposedly, records from the Roman government in Judea from the time of the crucifixion, many dealing with criminals and executions, but to my (admittedly uncertain) knowledge there is absolutely no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ outside of the New Testament.
Add to this the fact that even among the four Gospels which the Church deemed worthy of inclusion in the Bible, there is a plethora of contradiction and disagreement dealing with something so important to the Church as the life of Christ. Much of the early life of Christ, as related by the Gospels, seems to have been edited to conform to the Hebrew prophecies dealing with the coming of the Messiah.

[MMI]

According to a programme I saw on the UK History channel, it was statistically probable that there were about four Jesus ben Josephs in Judea at the time of Christ's lifetime, and there is tentative evidence of at least one of them.

To the person who triumphantly demonstrated I was "wrong again" (I don't admit to EVER being wrong!) - I'm afraid he is overstating his case in this regard. While it is true that the existence of some things has been posited and eventually proved right, such as atoms, that does not mean every proposition will always be right. When atoms were discovered and studied, it was found that they were not at all what had originally been suggested, for example: an indivisible particle that was the same as every other other atom.

Nevertheless, let's accept that I'm splitting hairs over that. I still maintain that what I said was true: if there is absolutely no evidence that a thing exists, then, on the balance of probabilities, it doesn't. That's not to say it definitely doesn't, but if you need a working model, the one that assumes it doesn't exist will probably be right. The evidence of your eyes/ears/reason will be right more often than not.

[Thorne]

According to a programme I saw on the UK History channel, it was statistically probable that there were about four Jesus ben Josephs in Judea at the time of Christ's lifetime, and there is tentative evidence of at least one of them.
I've heard that as well, though I thought the probability was higher. They were both fairly common names during that time. But there is no record of a Jesus ben Joseph being tried, convicted and executed for treason by the Roman courts. And the Romans were pretty fanatical about their records. Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Just that there's no evidence for it.


I don't admit to EVER being wrong!
Good for you:wave:!


If there is absolutely no evidence that a thing exists, then, on the balance of probabilities, it doesn't. That's not to say it definitely doesn't, but if you need a working model, the one that assumes it doesn't exist will probably be right. The evidence of your eyes/ears/reason will be right more often than not.
Ye gods, we're agreeing again! Is the world coming to an end?
Or maybe not. You can't always believe your eyes. That's the basis for illusionists doing what they do. To the eye, the world seems flat and the sky seems to be an inverted bowl hanging over our heads. And you can't always believe everything you hear, either. All of our senses are filtered through our minds which tends to block out, to some extent, those things we don't want to see and hear.
And what may seem reasonable to one may seem cockeyed to another. Reason is far too subjective.

[leo9]

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the American Southern Baptists. As near as I can tell, you are either a born again Christian who may make it to heaven, or you are the spawn of Satan trying to lure others to hell. There seems to be very little middle ground. :)

That particular faction isn't found in this country, but we have our own versions. I'll never forget an interfaith forum I once attended which was all friendly and ecumenical until the two Christian ministers fell out over the question of whether unbelievers could be saved. I can still hear the Protestant minister getting more Irish by the moment as he shouted "I don't care what the Pope says, the Bible says..."

[leo9]

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

If you've read it, you'll see why. It has him acting like one of the more capricious Hindu gods - he make mud animals and brings them to life, then when another child damages them, he strikes the child dead. And so on. It must have been an embarrassment even back in ancient Rome.

The deleted gospel that I find more intriguing is the Life of Mary, which credits her with a portentous birth and miracle-working life to equal her son's. One can certainly see how the Roman church, which had already taken on board all the Roman attitudes to women, couldn't be having with that.

[Belgarold]

Yes, that is amazing but my point was that the book has not remained unchanged for thousands of years. And it shows that mortal men, fallible men, made decisions about the format of the Bible.

And I agree that deleting the book of Mary was a travesty. But a lot of the early members of the Church seemed to be patently misogynist. LOL.

[wmrs2]

I admit that I have not read the many good replies listed here on this thread;therefore I am not aware of whose toes are being stepped on. I hope no one's toes.

There are no real atheist. If you say you are an atheist, it is only by a narrow definition that you made up. That ? thing is bull shit. In order to question or do any type of thinking, you must have a premise on which you base reality. Without this you would just be an animal or no being at all. It comes down to this, everybody believes in something absolute or there would be no premises upon which to base thinking. Everybody who thinks by definition also believes whether you want to admit it or not. Get over it, the Master Lives.