Problems w/ Atheism

[AJTheMan]

Can you prove that the plane you will be taking will not crash?
Can you prove that the car you will be driving will not meet a fatal collision tonight?
Can you prove that your bank account will not be wiped out by a hacker tonight?

Everyday you place your life on things whose reliability cannot be proven. Yet you question faith with a double standard. Is that scientific attitude?

Why are you asking me to prove these things?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I pray that some day, all Atheists and Agnostics will see the light. My boyfriend used to be an Agnostic. He now believes in God and in Christianity praise be to God. Now, he has some purpose to his life while before, he didn’t feel like he had a lot of purpose to his life.

See what light? You hope we will one day sign up with religion, which offers nothing, has bloodier hands than perhaps the worse tyrants in history, and is patently ridiculous?

Keep praying …

 

[Chancellare]

Why are you asking me to prove these things?

Because you guys are asking us to prove our faith?

 

[AJTheMan]

Because you guys are asking us to prove our faith?

I’m not asking you to prove your faith. “Us guys,” Buddhists, respect other religions.

 

[PantheistsRule]

Hello everybody. This is my first post. I am a dualistic pantheist, as in, I believe “God” or whatever you wish to call him, is essentially a supernatural essence permeating, though not controlling, all things. All things are part of him, but he is not really a conscious thing. We make up God, God is life, the flow of life. This makes me a theist, but not a deist.

Please keep an open mind

Now, many Christians call atheism evil, or unlikely… “with such a wonderful world, how can there be no God?” Well, what makes the world so wonderful? Life, right? Animals, grass… it’s so great, man! We have science proving that evolution and the Big Bang occured, creating life. So God must have done that, right? Caused that? Weeellll, in all likelihood… how plausible is it that any conscious, singular, “human-like” being singlehandedly created all of that? It just raises far too many questions. First and foremost, how come I’m not like that, but “God” is? This question brought me to the conclusion that only a totally different type of being, that was not conscious and beyond our comprehension, could do something like this, if anyone did it at all. So God must be either a metaphor, nonexistent, or (to account for things such as luck, and how perfect everything seems to be) an unconscious “spiritual essence” permeating everything, life. Those three ideas seem the most plausible to me. I vary between those three beliefs at times.

Christianity brings WAYYY too many particulars into the equation… like, was a 2000 year old person named Jesus God? Well, if belief in God and all the associated particulars is to be considered “a leap of faith”… Jesus just can’t be God. It’s all about the message, people. Jesus told us to love each other, he didn’t throw particulars in our face… the BIBLE does, though. You can never prove it to be inerrant… it was written 100 years AFTER Jesus “died” or whatever you believe happened to him.

I have nothing against open-minded Christians, I do not want to convert you to my way of thinking. I hope I was able to make you think about something, or open your mind to something.

May whoever your God is bless you!

 

[PantheistsRule]

Oh, yeah, almost forgot… organized religion is used to abuse people and puts other people down while bringing others up. Doesn’t that make you think that maybe they are lying to abuse you, to control you? An angry God makes people do things FAR easier than a passive God does…

 

[srferdave]

We have science proving that evolution and the Big Bang occured, creating life. So God must have done that, right?

Macro evolution and Big Bang are not proved. They are theories with evidence. You can not say with 100% assurance that these happened.

Caused that? Weeellll, in all likelihood… how plausible is it that any conscious, singular, “human-like” being singlehandedly created all of that? It just raises far too many questions. First and foremost, how come I’m not like that, but “God” is? This question brought me to the conclusion that only a totally different type of being, that was not conscious and beyond our comprehension, could do something like this, if anyone did it at all. So God must be either a metaphor, nonexistent, or (to account for things such as luck, and how perfect everything seems to be) an unconscious “spiritual essence” permeating everything, life. Those three ideas seem the most plausible to me. I vary between those three beliefs at times.

Christians do not say that God is “human-like”. Humans were made by God in the image and likeness of God. We see this through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was fully human and fully God. Its important to understand Christian belief first before you say where we go wrong.

Christianity brings WAYYY too many particulars into the equation… like, was a 2000 year old person named Jesus God? Well, if belief in God and all the associated particulars is to be considered “a leap of faith”… Jesus just can’t be God. It’s all about the message, people. Jesus told us to love each other, he didn’t throw particulars in our face… the BIBLE does, though. You can never prove it to be inerrant… it was written 100 years AFTER Jesus “died” or whatever you believe happened to him.

The new testament in the Bible is all about Jesus’ message. Nothing in the Bible contradicts Jesus’ teaching.

You can never prove it to be inerrant… it was written 100 years AFTER Jesus “died” or whatever you believe happened to him.

There is a lot of evidence that gives the Bible credibility. Too many things add up. There is no evidence to dis-prove anything in the Bible.

How does the fact that the Bible was written after (some scriptures were written 30 years after; NOT 100 years after) Jesus time on earth prove that it is inerrant?

Oh, yeah, almost forgot… organized religion is used to abuse people and puts other people down while bringing others up. Doesn’t that make you think that maybe they are lying to abuse you, to control you? An angry God makes people do things FAR easier than a passive God does…

The is absolutely NOT true. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Macro evolution and Big Bang are not proved. They are theories with evidence. You can not say with 100% assurance that these happened.

Macro-evolution has been observed and demonstrated, but the big bang is beginning to show some cracks as a theoretical model (or I should say classic inflation theory).

While theists usually use the big bang to show a starting point, and combine it with the idea of causality (i.e. every event must have a preceding cause), to arrive at a position that god must exist – all one needs to do is study the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics to know this classic idea of cause and effect has been essentially debunked. It implies that future events are not necessarily determined by past events (in other words it debunks a deterministic view of nature, suggesting the only thing that applies is chance).

Today the idea of probability distribution (or “chance”) is a fundamental law of quantum physics.

 

[PantheistsRule]

To the guy that corrected me:

I wasn’t specific enough about stuff, sorry. You actually did a good job picking apart what I said, but I didn’t express myself in a “specific-enough” manner.

First off, by “human-like”, a mean “like a person”. We think of God in terms defined by society, by our race. We constantly seek to relate ourselves to him (i.e. Jesus)

Nothing in the Bible contradicts Jesus because our ONLY source of info. on Jesus is THE BIBLE. I’m sure that Jesus actually said some stuff he said in the Bible, but there is NO proof of biblical inerracny…

The Big Bang and Evolution have more evidence supporting them than Jesus performing miracles, etc…
Though the Big Bang theory DOES need a bit of work, the framework of it, the general concept, is all but proven…

If an biography on you was written 30-100 years after YOU died, after people had discussed you and interpereted your views in several very different manners, how would you feel? I doubt the biography would be totally unbiased. The Bible was written by people, Biblical Inerrancy is a matter of faith…

And about organized religion…
Without talking about heaven, prove to me that organized religion has saved the lives of more people than it has killed, aided more people than impovershed them…

Christians: Help the POOR, don’t go round putting gays and pro-choice folk down…

So, hope that helps to better explain myself. I respect your views, and see you have thought them out, but they have holes too, just like mine. Mine though, most likely UNLIKE yours, are flexible. I simply need evidence.

 

[AntiTheist]

To conclude that something in my post implies equality between things mentioned IS sloppy thinking. Incredibly.

Your post sounds very much like one of those arguments that try to make everything a question of faith – arguments like, “you atheists have faith the sun will rise tomorrow!” or “you atheists have faith that history books are correct!” or “you atheists have faith that you’ll be safe on your next car trip!”

It’s all faith, according to that rather silly argument.

I’m pointing out that there’s an enormous, enormous difference between claims that we decide based on evidence – for example, the ridiculously high likelihood that the sun will rise tomorrow or that my brakes will work today – and claims that one chooses to believe in without evidence – for example, religious faith.

The two are so different that trying to compare one to the other doesn’t work.

 

[srferdave]

Nothing in the Bible contradicts Jesus because our ONLY source of info. on Jesus is THE BIBLE. I’m sure that Jesus actually said some stuff he said in the Bible, but there is NO proof of biblical inerracny…

Not true. There are many documents on the life of Jesus other than the Bible.

If an biography on you was written 30-100 years after YOU died, after people had discussed you and interpereted your views in several very different manners, how would you feel? I doubt the biography would be totally unbiased. The Bible was written by people, Biblical Inerrancy is a matter of faith…

We’ll since I believe God exist, I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the writings of the Bible to be written without error.

And about organized religion…
Without talking about heaven, prove to me that organized religion has saved the lives of more people than it has killed, aided more people than impovershed them…

How can you talk about Christianity by excluding Heaven. Thats like saying… tell me about the Olympics but don’t mention anything about the medals. Why would you like someone to tell you all about something but leave out one of the main aspects of it?

Christians: Help the POOR, don’t go round putting gays and pro-choice folk down…

You are mistaking putting people down with putting down their lifestyle. We (Christians) do not agree with the lifestyle of gays and pro choice people. Theres a difference.

 

[yankee_doodle]

You are mistaking putting people down with putting down their lifestyle. We (Christians) do not agree with the lifestyle of gays and pro choice people. Theres a difference.

Isn’t that what they always say? In other words, there is no difference to the people you insult and harm, the difference only subjectively exists in your minds.

 

[srferdave]

Isn’t that what they always say? In other words, there is no difference to the people you insult and harm, the difference only subjectively exists in your minds.

There is a difference between personally insulting or attacking a person and disagreeing with their lifestyle.

One can either agree that homosexuality is moral or disagree. Not both. If you agree and I disagree that is not an insult. It’s called a disagreement.

 

[yankee_doodle]

There is a difference between personally insulting or attacking a person and disagreeing with their lifestyle.

One can either agree that homosexuality is moral or disagree. Not both. If you agree and I disagree that is not an insult. It’s called a disagreement.

Well, you just don’t disagree, you also say they can’t have a marriage certificate and I suspect you’re against gays adopting kids (even kids who have no hope of being adopted by a normal couple, and who have very little hope in life besides Jim and Bob, two productive affluent law abiding and psychologically stable adults, who would like to give that kid a shot)?

Frankly I don’t really have a bone in this debate (I’m neither gay or religious), but the religious arguments I’ve heard on this subject seem pretty silly (not to mention the wildly speculative slippery slopes you guys usually drum up to stir paranoia). But, at one time in life I fell for the same tired and illogical arguments … so I guess I can’t judge too harshly (I remember how blinding religion can be).

 

[srferdave]

Well, you just don’t disagree, you also say they can’t have a marriage certificate

Where does marriage come from? Marriage was defined by God. You can find this in the Bible. Why does one that disagrees with God’s laws want something that was instituted by God? I agree that the state should have never got involved with this. However, there are civil unions. Why can’t gays be happy with that? Why do they have to insist on changing God’s law when many don’t even believe in God in the first place.

and I suspect you’re against gays adopting kids (even kids who have no hope of being adopted by a normal couple, and who have very little hope in life besides Jim and Bob, two productive affluent law abiding and psychologically stable adults, who would like to give that kid a shot)?

Well, we are starting to get way off the topic of God’s existence here. But homosexuality goes against natural law if you don’t want to follow God’s law. Second, it is very hard for a couple to find a child to adopt. It usually takes many years to adopt a child.

Frankly I don’t really have a bone in this debate (I’m neither gay or religious), but the religious arguments I’ve heard on this subject seem pretty silly (not to mention the wildly speculative slippery slopes you guys usually drum up to stir paranoia). But, at one time in life I fell for the same tired and illogical arguments … so I guess I can’t judge too harshly (I remember how blinding religion can be).

Guess you failed to see the logical points in theism to come to this conclusion.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Where does marriage come from? Marriage was defined by God. You can find this in the Bible. Why does one that disagrees with God’s laws want something that was instituted by God? I agree that the state should have never got involved with this. However, there are civil unions. Why can’t gays be happy with that? Why do they have to insist on changing God’s law when many don’t even believe in God in the first place.

because your god doesn’t exist, so you’re basing our laws on fairy tales. Not only that but the institution of marriage long predates Judaism (which means it long predates Christianity), and historically very few societies prohibited gays from marrying (of course the right to enter into marriage was rarely regulated by governments as it is today, which is another problem … but I digress).

Well, we are starting to get way off the topic of God’s existence here. But homosexuality goes against natural law if you don’t want to follow God’s law. Second, it is very hard for a couple to find a child to adopt. It usually takes many years to adopt a child.

what natural law?

Guess you failed to see the logical points in theism to come to this conclusion.

No, they’re just not really logical

 

[srferdave]

because your god doesn’t exist, so you’re basing our laws on fairy tales. Not only that but the institution of marriage long predates Judaism (which means it long predates Christianity)

False, marriage was institute by God with Adam and Eve. Find me a society that predates the first man and woman. Than we can talk.

and historically very few societies prohibited gays from marrying (of course the right to enter into marriage was rarely regulated by governments as it is today, which is another problem … but I digress).

Well this is irrelevant because i don’t think marriage should be regulated by the government.

what natural law?

w/o getting too far off topic heres the short version. 2 men cannot reproduce. So that violates natural law.

 

[AntiTheist]

i don’t think marriage should be regulated by the government.

I actually agree with this, but as it is today, there is religious marriage, and there is civil marriage.

When it comes to homosexuals marrying, we’re talking about civil marriage. By all means, individual groups can believe whatever they want about their own kinds of religious marriage and have whatever rules and restrictions they want on religious marriage.

But when it comes to civil marriage, here in the United States, we have a secular government that doesn’t make laws on the basis of any religion.

So while individual religious people or groups are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is “evil” or violates some “natural order,” such beliefs cannot be the basis for outlawing a civil marriage.

 

[yankee_doodle]

False, marriage was institute by God with Adam and Eve. Find me a society that predates the first man and woman. Than we can talk.

OK … well we’ll just have to disagree on that one

Well this is irrelevant because i don’t think marriage should be regulated by the government.

great I agree. So then if gay people want to get married they can (since government will no longer be in the business of regulating marriage)?

w/o getting too far off topic heres the short version. 2 men cannot reproduce. So that violates natural law.

the only natural law I see is men cannot reproduce? I don’t think marriage (a ceremony and social institution) can be logically called a natural law (under your logic) anymore than applying for a building permit can?

 

[srferdave]

I actually agree with this, but as it is today, there is religious marriage, and there is civil marriage.

When it comes to homosexuals marrying, we’re talking about civil marriage. By all means, individual groups can believe whatever they want about their own kinds of religious marriage and have whatever rules and restrictions they want on religious marriage.

But when it comes to civil marriage, here in the United States, we have a secular government that doesn’t make laws on the basis of any religion.

So while individual religious people or groups are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is “evil” or violates some “natural order,” such beliefs cannot be the basis for outlawing a civil marriage.

I don’t think they should call it a marriage. That is changing the definition of marriage. That is why they call it civil unions… at least here in california. But marriage was something instituted by God. If you don’t believe in God, go call it something else, but don’t call it marriage. Cause its not marriage.