The Athiest thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
beli said:


I disagree. There is an ancient book of Chinese medicine. I forget how old, the name of it, etc. Scientists are currently plowing through it bit by bit and are finding answers and/or assistance to answers to medical problems. I find this to be the most remarkable book.

I assume you read my post Beli, but for clarity- what I was pointing out was remarkable was the number and quality of ancient copies we have in existance today as compared with anything else. Any historian (whether or not christian) would agree that this is just breathtaking from a scientific/historical point of view. Of course it is also the first book that was printed on the printing press, has been translated into vastly more languages than any other book and is the best seller of all time. I accept your opinion that the ancient book of Chinese medicine is the most remarkable book to you, but from an objective basis, you must agree there is nothing that really comes close to the bible in these regards.

Have you read it? I only ask because I have struck a lot of people who slag off the bible and then when I ask them about it they admit they haven't actually read it much if at all. Also people often infer that certain things are in which are not at all.
 
There are lots of copies of the bible, and some are old. The first Guttenberg publication was the bible because most of the people who were literate at the time were religious. Thats not something that I personally find impressive. Just a fact of life at the time really.

As for reading it. I attended an Anglican school for three years - 3 years of divinity, chapel, etc. Havent read much since. I also havent read Anna Karenina. Cant get into either of them.

I just dont view the Bible as proof of anything. Its not evidence to me. The events are not able to be replicated.

eg There are recorded instances of pathenogenisis in turkeys but not in humans. Why is that? Im guessing you would say because God was involved. I would say because it did not happen. I dont really care how many times its written down.
 
There's a lot in what you've been asking all_i_want, and i will try and break it down to a few points.

ok, lets say we take these texts as they are. still, there are a lot of things that dont make sense in it. concept of a god that needs worshipping just doesnt float my boat. why would the almighty 'force' his followers to worship him? why threathen them with 'hell'? and really, why create a place called purgatory (i think there was some way of reducing the days you spend there.. dont remember how though :eyebrow: could you explain the concept of going to hell with my quote below in mind?
Actually I think if you look at the bible in totallity you will not find a concept of a God who needs worship. You will not find a concept of a God who needs anything or anyone. What you find is a god who desires our love. To me I find a perfect parallel in creation. I don't need my kid's love, but damn if I don't want it badly. As her creation I think God really want's us to be in relationship with her. In fact one of the most confronting images of God in the bible is of a jealous lover. I think that's where the lines in Love & Peace or Else come from...you know... "lay down your treasure, you don't have time for a jealous lover".

As regard to Hell, I think spiral has answered this pretty well. The bible explicitly states that God wishes that no-one would be lost to him. It's back to that free-will thing. If people can't really have the capacity to choose against God then it's not really free will. The whole point of Jesus death was God's plan for a way to satisfy both justice and his love and provide a way to restore us to relationship with him.

And there is no mention at all of purgatory in the bible. Man-made concept.

also i still dont understand why islam is any less legitimate than christianity. the written records started the year its book started coming and lasted for all this time. if we are going to discuss historical accuracy those records are not any less accurate.

I am not questioning the acuracy of the Koran, it is no where near as old as the bible- but I do have some big problems with it on other levels. Firstly it's message is not falsafiable as A_Wanderer has been good at identifying. Christianity is (see my previous posts on this subject). There are also many other problems I have with the message of the Koran in particular that it endorses the killing of infidels where as Christianity teaches to love your enemies. At the end of the day though it is the simply logic that they can't all be right- and I find something very unique in the christian message. Of eleven major religions of the world, ten of them teach salvation through human effort. Only Christianity recognizes the frustration and futility of mankind's own efforts and declares that our salvation rests in the provision and grace of God.


talking about religious atrocities, do i need to mention MILLIONS of women burned at stakes by the church in the middle ages. those atrocities are just as vile as the ones that happen in iran or saudi arabia. any kind of religious fanaticism is dangerous.
I don't think it was "millions' but that's not really the point. I'm with you on this point, I think there have been tragic injustices carried out in the name of god or the church- and I think it is plain evil. For the most part these things were not done for any christian purpose at all, they were done for political expediency or greed or hate and they deserve the disdain that they recieve. I personally believe the institutional church through the middle ages become more of a political entity than the loving, living, caring family that Jesus had in mind, and power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely as they say. No wonder the reformation came. But don't write off the underlying truth of the christian message because evil people have hijacked the institutional church for their own means.


lets take hitler for example (he's more or less my fave example to explain this) did he go to hell? more or less every religion would say 'hell, yeah!' but really, what did he do wrong? did he do anything contrary to god's will? who on earth could do something contrary to GOD'S will? i know, freedom of choice, youd say. well, where is the freedom if you know youd do something and not what is prescribed? if its gods will to give its subjects the freedom of choice, it is not his choice to forever damn the souls of the ones who dont make the choice god would like.
'do this, or go to hell' i dont really have much of a choice do i?

I think you have a very narrow view of god's justice. Freedom without consequences for actions is just chaos. Someone must be held accountable.... otherwise where is justice. Are you happy for God to just wink at the actions of say hitler (using your example). Geez, that is certainly not a god I could respect. And yet that is the thing about christianity that is just so jaw dropping. Imagine, God is so gracious as to provide a way out of the justice issue- offering to take the consequences for us. It speaks to me of the enormous passionate nature of God.


thats only one problem i have with religions. dont even get me started on the needy, egomaniac god model they present to us. 'you have kneel before me five times a day' or 'you have to visit church every sunday'. the god i believe is not the kind that constantly 'needs' things from his subjects.


That's also the God I believe in. That is the christian conception of God, think you got sold a lemon somewhere along the line as far as what christianity is.
 
Last edited:
beli said:
There are lots of copies of the bible, and some are old. The first Guttenberg publication was the bible because most of the people who were literate at the time were religious. Thats not something that I personally find impressive. Just a fact of life at the time really.

As for reading it. I attended an Anglican school for three years - 3 years of divinity, chapel, etc. Havent read much since. I also havent read Anna Karenina. Cant get into either of them.

I just dont view the Bible as proof of anything. Its not evidence to me. The events are not able to be replicated.

eg There are recorded instances of pathenogenisis in turkeys but not in humans. Why is that? Im guessing you would say because God was involved. I would say because it did not happen. I dont really care how many times its written down.
pathenogenisis= virgin birth? I assume that's what you meant.

Beli, I think you're up to your straw man tricks again...you sneaky thing you!:wink:

You have conveniently avoided the main gist of what I was saying about the bible - namely that it has no equal in terms of our ability to check that what we read today was what was written down 2000 years ago. And from there to look at what was claimed by and about Jesus. To say you don't care how many times it is written down is completely irrelevent to what I was talking about.

I am talking about a physical event in hisotry- the life death and ressurection of Jesus. He claimed to be God and many believed him. Those who chose to in the first couple of centuries often did so at great personal cost even death. These are facts you can explore scientifically, both within and outside of the bible.

All I'm saying in regard to the bible is that it is not easily dismissed as you would like, at least if you want to have integrity about how you reach your conclusions about god. On the other hand if you want to decide that because you went to an Anglican school for a few years that that qualifies you to know conclusively that the bible is proof of nothing, then that also makes me an expert on medicine, cause I've been to hospitals many times! Maybe i could handle your next operation Beli?:wink:
 
No thats not what I meant at all. I mean I dont care how many copies there are. Really, I honestly dont. The events are not able to be replicated. The pages are, the events are not. My pathenogenisis remark was an example of an event that is not able to be replicated. It was relevant to what I was talking about ie the events in the bible not being able to be replicated.

As for the Anglican remark. I was saying I read the bible for a period of time. Im not interested in it. How many years do I have to read it before its acceptable to chuck it out? Im not going to dedicate me life to something Im not interested in.

I also do wish you would stop with the straw man thing. I have never been accused of that before and you have mentioned it more than once. Its starting to read like a put down. As is your hospital remark.
 
Last edited:
NotAnEasyThing said:


All I'm saying in regard to the bible is that it is not easily dismissed as you would like, at least if you want to have integrity about how you reach your conclusions about god. On the other hand if you want to decide that because you went to an Anglican school for a few years that that qualifies you to know conclusively that the bible is proof of nothing, then that also makes me an expert on medicine, cause I've been to hospitals many times! Maybe i could handle your next operation Beli?:wink:

I'd like to know how many times you have read the religious texts? (actually I'm interested in the answer from anyone who quotes the Bible as the ultimate authority and dismisses the religious texts of other beliefs). I'm just interested...has anyone here given more than a cursory review to other religions before deciding this one (whichever "this one" is really) is the "right" one?
 
beli said:
No thats not what I meant at all. I mean I dont care how many copies there are. Really, I honestly dont. The events are not able to be replicated. The pages are, the events are not. My pathenogenisis remark was an example of an event that is not able to be replicated. It was relevant to what I was talking about ie the events in the bible not being able to be replicated.

As for the Anglican remark. I was saying I read the bible for a period of time. Im not interested in it. How many years do I have to read it before its acceptable to chuck it out? Im not going to dedicate me life to something Im not interested in.

I also do wish you would stop with the straw man thing. I have never been accused of that before and you have mentioned it more than once. Its starting to read like a put down. As is your hospital remark.

Sorry if it sounded like a put down Beli, it was not meant to. I just find it impossible to discuss something when you argue against a point I am not making. When you say you have read the bible for a period of time, don't you mean you listened to some teachers explain their take on it, and perhaps read a few small excerpts here and there? This is perhaps the main problem I have with the atheist position that is based on a reaction to what they've heard about the bible/jesus.

And how would replicating the virgin birth prove anything?

The reason why I have gone to the trouble of explaining the situation regarding our scientific knowledge of the bible is in answer to people's remarks about it being unreliable as a historical document. The evidence I gave was based on conventional scientific/historical methods used to check the veracity of ancient documents. If you already accept the veracity of the bible then fine. But don't claim to know that it proves nothing, if you haven't gone to the trouble of testing it's claims.

Beli of course you are entitled to choose not to, it just doesn't give you much credibility when it comes to your views on it.
 
AcrobatMan said:
Beli...

Can we delete religious stuff from this thread especialy those involving God...because this is supposed to be atheist thread..

Those who want others to believe in God..Please stay away.

Thank you :)

No, no, no, can't do that...because we have to be allowed to bring some logic into the religion threads!! :D
 
NotAnEasyThing said:


Beli of course you are entitled to choose not to, it just doesn't give you much credibility when it comes to your views on it.

How can belief be credible? Honestly...I don't get this. One can believe, not believe, or not give a rats ass (that would be me...don't really care, but enjoy the discussion anyway, even if it's just to figure out why other people do), but belief in a god is a faith thing, not a proof thing.
 
indra said:


I'd like to know how many times you have read the religious texts? (actually I'm interested in the answer from anyone who quotes the Bible as the ultimate authority and dismisses the religious texts of other beliefs). I'm just interested...has anyone here given more than a cursory review to other religions before deciding this one (whichever "this one" is really) is the "right" one?

I have studied theology at a tertiary level including the study of the texts from all the major religions, and from many other religious movements. Outside of that I have made a quest of examing these issues of faith and spirituality in my personal life.
 
indra said:


How can belief be credible? Honestly...I don't get this. One can believe, not believe, or not give a rats ass (that would be me...don't really care, but enjoy the discussion anyway, even if it's just to figure out why other people do), but belief in a god is a faith thing, not a proof thing.

Actually indra, this is what I have been at pains to explain. When it comes to Christianity there is something substantive to base belief on. But sure, in the end it comes down to can I be bothered? When it comes to something that to me seems so integral to life- as far as I'm concerned I can't afford not to be bothered.

Incidently my comment to Beli was that there doesn't seem much credibility to arriving at a conclusion without checking out all the facts. Isn't that what atheists accuse christians of?
 
NotAnEasyThing said:

This is perhaps the main problem I have with the atheist position that is based on a reaction to what they've heard about the bible/jesus.


I was raised an atheist as were my parents. It has NOTHING to do with a reaction to the bible/jesus. I did not know Christianity was still alive until I was 11 years old. I keep saying that because that is the truth.

NotAnEasyThing said:
And how would replicating the virgin birth prove anything?

That its feasible, possible. ie there would be evidence that the event could possibly occur.

NotAnEasyThing said:
Beli of course you are entitled to choose not to, it just doesn't give you much credibility when it comes to your views on it

You are seriously coming across as a patronising Christian now. Its not a matter of being entitled to choose not to. Its about what Im entitled to choose (ie in the positive). I am an atheist because that is what I believe. I t has NOTHING to do with a rejection of the bible.

Nobody has any "credibility" in this argument. Its all personal beliefs.
 
beli said:


I was raised an atheist as were my parents. It has NOTHING to do with a reaction to the bible/jesus. I did not know Christianity was still alive until I was 11 years old. I keep saying that because that is the truth.

I hear that Beli. Just that you seemed by your description of the anglican school experience to be browned off. Tell me, rather than me assume, what is your impression of christians.


That its feasible, possible. ie there would be evidence that the event could possibly occur.
But you are still left with the underlying question of what is to be made of it.

You are seriously coming across as a patronising Christian now. Its not a matter of being entitled to choose not to. Its about what Im entitled to choose (ie in the positive). I am an atheist because that is what I believe. I t has NOTHING to do with a rejection of the bible.

Nobody has any "credibility" in this argument. Its all personal beliefs.
Please explain how I patronised you. If I did it was not intentional. I was only making the point that it seems unreasonable to to accept a position and argue for it with credibility if you have not examined the facts pertaining the contrary view. Isn't that just logical? I'd expect you to hold me to the same scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
NotAnEasyThing said:


I hear that Beli. Just that you seemed by your description of the anglican school experience to be browned off.

When did I say that? You asked when I read the bible. I answered the question.


NotAnEasyThing said:

Tell me, rather than me assume, what is your impression of christians.

The ones here? Or the ones in real life? I dont know a whole lot of Christians. I live in Perth. Most of the people here are Spiritualists or atheist/agnostic/dont give a stuff. Or Seikhs, or...........
My mother in law is Catholic but I havent known her very long, shes only just moved to Perth.

The Christians on this web site annoy me. Especially the fundamentalist USA ones.


NotAnEasyThing said:

But you are still left with the underlying question of what is to be made of it.

No. There is only a question if its provable. If pathenogenisis is not possible then there is no underlying question. The bit in the bible did not happen. Which is what I believe. If it is proven then, yes, it does raise questions.

NotAnEasyThing said:

Please explain how I patronised you. If I did it was not intentional. I was only making the point that it seems unreasonable to to accept a position and argue for it with credibility if you have not examined the facts pertaining the contrary view. Isn't that just logical? I'd expect you to hold me to the same scrutiny.

Why is Christanity the contrary view to atheism? Theism is the contrary view to atheism. Christianity is one of many contrary views to irreligion.
 
NotAnEasyThing said:

Isn't that what atheists accuse christians of?

Can I ask how many atheists you actually know? And what kind of atheists are they? "Athiest" is a term for people who do not believe in god (s), it is not an a term for a group of people with similiar actions/customs/ code of conduct. What kind of atheists have accused Christians of not checking out the facts?
 
NotAnEasyThing said:


Actually indra, this is what I have been at pains to explain. When it comes to Christianity there is something substantive to base belief on. But sure, in the end it comes down to can I be bothered? When it comes to something that to me seems so integral to life- as far as I'm concerned I can't afford not to be bothered.

Incidently my comment to Beli was that there doesn't seem much credibility to arriving at a conclusion without checking out all the facts. Isn't that what atheists accuse christians of?

Actually, I think what is most irritating about so many Christians to atheists/agnostics is that you are so sure you are right. Because when it comes right down to it, your "proof" is belief, and while it works for you, it doesn't for me. You see something substantive to base your belief on, and I don't deny the existance of Jesus and various followers, but I don't think he was the son of God (and I don't think there is a God anyway). I think Jesus was a man ahead of his time (and perhaps a bit of a nutjob, not a bad nutjob, mind you...just a bit delusional), but not divine.

You can point out what you think of as proof all day and night, but when it comes down to it, it's all belief. You believe. I don't.
 
Haha well, amid the fury and rising hoityness in here, I did admire how you finally came clean. You know what I mean :D You're braver than I, but then I've had to hide all these years. Woe. I still got called biased, but what they hey. Yes Christians can be annoying. And there's a shitload of them that are. A concentrated number in this forum who are too rude to ever answer things directly, and instead use childish and thoroughly insulting methods of getting their points across. NotAnEasyThing has been a nice change. Truly. I'd love to sit with both of you on a beach somewhere eating 1/4 bbq chicken and chips (with gravy + chicken salt), throwing the crusty chips to the seagulls and discussing all the things which shit us in life.
I dunno. I dont want this to become a huge fight but I always get the feeling Christians are standing on the other side of a chasm and they're looking back when they talk to me or whoever and are saying "ha! come on, we made the lap, what are you scared?" It's this painful combination of righteousness, piety, smugness, gloating and outward disregard. Inward there's a party. They joined the club. They're happy. Why am I always made to feel there is something wrong with how I feel? About the only aspect of Christianity I'm interested in is when it changed. I'm deadset curious about these changes Constantine made and how religion became what it is today. I'm not sure if it's more the history or what. Probably the history. I love a good drama, and what better than how this could all be based on a lie. Or lots of lies.

But I reckon you bnoth stopped listening to each other, which is why I'd rather see us on a beach somewhere throwing chips at the gulls and wondering how the HELL they are dirtier than pigeons??????

So yeah :huh: No sympathy lol.

:wink:
 
I swear I'm gonna start the heathen thread. I feel an urge to dance nekkid in the snow and sleet and howl at the sky! :D
 
I've got to agree that there are some bloody annoying christians or at least that claim christianity as some kind of badge. And yes they often do come accross like they are "right" and everyone else wrong. Angela, your chasm analogy really describes this well. I sincerely apologise to anyone who might have taken any of my posts here to be arogant, self righteous, smug etc. It is very difficult in the context of a few lines of text to convey the tone of what is beeing said. I know that smilies are meant to do that- but I'm crap at using them. So sorry, but that is not how I feel.

The irony of all this is that the at the core of a Christian approach to life is the concept of accepting that you don't have it all together. And boy, i sure don't. I'm just trying to talk with you about my own journey, and I actually get a lot out of hearing your experience too. As this is the atheist thread, it is something I'm interested in. If I were just a someone who thought I knew it all I'd come in leave some sanctamoneous response and leave (as some have done). But I'm still here, just trying to be myself and respect others. Angela that 1/4 chicken & chips on the beach idea sounds very inviting, I'd like that too (especially the gravy).
 
Last edited:
Beli, just to answer a few things you mentioned;

-Christians annoy you. I guess you would say this doesn't influence how you feel about the Bible/Jesus. But does it?

-You are quite correct to say theism is the opposite view of atheism. My point was that christianity is one of the major versions of theism- so doesn't it get a look in when it comes to examining what evidence is out there ? Check out the evidence for others too, as I've done. The more information, the greater certainity one can have. If you believe there's nothing in it, it can only give your atheism more credibility.

-I know and have known several atheist or people claiming to be atheist, more often than not after we've talked about these issues in greater depth they would probably better decribed as agnostic. As for examples of those who have accused christians of not checking the facts, I need not go any further than this thread to demonstrate:
beli said:

errrm. A belief in a god requires faith, which by definition does not require evidence.
 
on a lighter note, the way of the Jedi is also an atheist religion.

The Force is not a god, it is created by all living things, not the creator of all living things. But the Jedi code is certainly a set of values, beliefs, traditions, and rules.

:wink:

my my my, I'm such a geek.
 
Is there something shorter we can call you? Your username is too long lol. NAET will have to do though if you dont want to give us your real name hehe.
I cant blame for you for the actions of others though, nor lump you with them. Sorry if it sounded like I was.

Mmm chips on the beach..where's beli? or will she have replied already by the time i've written this? lol
 
Back
Top Bottom