Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

Ah, you want us to try and defeat the deistic god. Unnecessary, as the deistic god would have completely different attributes than one found in any of the holy texts. One no more needs to debunk the deistic god to challenge Yahweh than they need to challenge Vishnu.

Since when was atheism a disbelief in some Gods, rather than any version of God ?
More agnosticism. Still waiting for a good argument for atheism.

shizz

philologos wrote: »

Do you not agree that making such a judgement on the Bible without giving it a fair consideration is much like writing a book review without having read the book you're talking about?

Of course it is. But I haven't laid judgement on the book as a text. It's obviously an important historical document, but to me its up on the fiction shelf and always will be.

It makes sense to me that if it was a divinely inspired text it would be obviously so and we wouldn't be having a discussion either way. The only "God" scenario that I could see having some weight to it is one in which something created our universe. Not sculpted it but set it in motion and does not interfere with it. But I highly doubt it and don't adhere to such a notion.

Surely our creator wouldn't like to see his creations squabbling over who is right when if he really cares about what he's created he would make sure we knew the truth.

I could go on with other things that bother me with the premise of the bible but I'm really tired and I'm sure you have heard them all before. Perhaps tomorrow. In any case thanks for the discussion philogos.

Pushtrak

Opticom wrote: »

Since when was atheism a disbelief in some Gods, rather than any version of God ?
More agnosticism. Still waiting for a good argument for atheism.

I don't believe in any gods. I don't need to have evidence against gods for that position. The deistic god is one that doesn't intervene in affairs at all. If you wish to subscribe to such an entity, then make a case for it. If not, then present evidence for one that works along the lines of the bible by means of miracles. Look up atheism and look up agnosticism. You don't understand either.

Wibbs

Sarky wrote: »

Hydrogen isn't wet. Oxygen isn't wet. Neither contain a trace of "wetness"

Actually that's not exactly a great example. Both can exist as a liquid, so would therefore be measurably "wet". Iron, gold, any metal you care to mention can be wet on that score.. To put it another way, Ice isn't wet, neither is steam, yet both are water which is.

philologos

smash wrote: »

That is, in a word, disgusting.

Also very condescending.

It's disgusting that man has rebelled against God, and that they have rejected good in favour of what is evil. The reality is, we've all done what is clearly wrong, we've all sinned (Romans 3:23). As a result we are guilty before God, and we are deserving of His condemnation and wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Luckily God in His abounding mercy sent His Son Jesus into the world to die in our place on the cross.

As a result we have an opportunity to repent and to believe in Jesus, and begin a new relationship with God and live with Him (John 3:16-17). Or reject Him, and be condemned (John 3:18).

What is disgusting is that man refuses to acknowledge His Creator.

Also, how is it condescending for God to reveal His word to us?

Opticom

Sarky wrote: »

Oh dear. Complete misunderstanding of chemistry, emergent properties/processes and complexity. You only said you loved science to get the ride, didn't you?

Still trying to swipe at strawman, despite the fact the subject is the non physical, not the little known section of the physical universe.

smash

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that's not exactly a great example. Both can exist as a liquid, so would therefore be measurably "wet". Iron, gold, any metal you care to mention can be wet on that score.. To put it another way, Ice isn't wet, neither is steam, yet both are water which is.

How about cornstarch mixed with water? It's both a solid and a liquid!

I'd like to know how believers of god can explain how we are all created in his image, yet last year NASA discovered Arsenic-Based life forms on Earth.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

So, am I not permitted to post on this thread as much as any atheist or agnostic is?

No, you're allowed here of course (though that's for moderators to decide), but arguing the same refuted points over and over again gets boring after a while.

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

I don't believe in any gods. I don't need to have evidence against gods for that position. The deistic god is one that doesn't intervene in affairs at all. If you wish to subscribe to such an entity, then make a case for it. If not, then present evidence for one that works along the lines of the bible by means of miracles. Look up atheism and look up agnosticism. You don't understand either.

You're non belief in something is a poor argument for claiming it cannot exist. Still waiting on a good argument for atheism.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Still trying to swipe at strawman, despite the fact the subject is the non physical, not the little known section of the physical universe.

He was trying to point out how you label the unknown with a magical label instead of trying to understand it.

Pushtrak

Opticom wrote: »

You're non belief in something is a poor argument for claiming it cannot exist. Still waiting on a good argument for atheism.

What is atheism? Find me a definition of what I'm defending.

dark crystal

philologos wrote: »

It's disgusting that man has rebelled against God, and that they have rejected good in favour of what is evil. The reality is, we've all done what is clearly wrong, we've all sinned (Romans 3:23). As a result we are guilty before God, and we are deserving of His condemnation and wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Oh, that God, giving us all free will and then condemning us for using it! He sounds pretty unmerciful to me...

Luckily God in His abounding mercy sent His Son Jesus into the world to die in our place on the cross.

As a result we have an opportunity to repent and to believe in Jesus, and begin a new relationship with God and live with Him (John 3:16-17). Or reject Him, and be condemned (John 3:18).

Condemned to what, exactly?

What is disgusting is that man refuses to acknowledge His Creator.

Also, how is it condescending for God to reveal His word to us?

Personally, God hasn't revealed a single word to me....In fact, his silence is deafening.

smash

philologos wrote: »

It's disgusting that man has rebelled against God, and that they have rejected good in favour of what is evil. The reality is, we've all done what is clearly wrong, we've all sinned (Romans 3:23). As a result we are guilty before God, and we are deserving of His condemnation and wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Luckily God in His abounding mercy sent His Son Jesus into the world to die in our place on the cross.

As a result we have an opportunity to repent and to believe in Jesus, and begin a new relationship with God and live with Him (John 3:16-17). Or reject Him, and be condemned (John 3:18).

What is disgusting is that man refuses to acknowledge His Creator.

Also, how is it condescending for God to reveal His word to us?

Please DO NOT tell me that I have 'sinned' and will face a 'wrath' and be condemned by a god in which you believe in. It's pathetic and insulting.

The fact that you state you are here to preach underlines the fact that you have no interest in a discussion.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

You're non belief in something is a poor argument for claiming it cannot exist. Still waiting on a good argument for atheism.

No one is claiming something cannot exist

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

What is atheism? Find me a definition of what I'm defending.

Either you believe there cannot be any God, or there could be

So which is it ?

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Either you believe there cannot be any God, or their could be

So which is it ?

You are ridiculously wrong.

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

No one is claiming something cannot exist

So God could exist ?

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

So God could exist ?

Not under the "evidence" given by the religions of the world. But there is no evidence to suggest god definitely doesn't exist. Like has been repeated so many times, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. If you can't see the difference try think about it for a while.

Pushtrak

Opticom wrote: »

Either you believe there cannot be any God, or their could be

So which is it ?

There could be. An atheist is one who isn't convinced enough in it to believe. Not one who believes there couldn't be. I don't think anyone really believes one could not, or at least they are a serious minority. It isn't about what is possible. It is about what is probable.

Paparazzo

Opticom wrote: »

So God could exist ?

He could exist. Absolutly anything could exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

Not under the "evidence" given by the religions of the world. But there is no evidence to suggest god definitely doesn't exist. Like has been repeated so many times, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. If you can't see the difference try think about it for a while.

There could be no religions and still a God, how on earth is agnosticism the best argument you can put up for atheism ?

Sarky

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that's not exactly a great example. Both can exist as a liquid, so would therefore be measurably "wet". Iron, gold, any metal you care to mention can be wet on that score.. To put it another way, Ice isn't wet, neither is steam, yet both are water which is.

There's always one. Fine, assume I added "at room temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure". Or replace wetness with being a bloody good solvent. Or expanding when frozen. Or something that doesn't combust, despite being made entirely of components that are famous for it. All properties of water that "magically" appear out of nowhere when two elements that don't possess them combine. Emergent properties. Same principle with consciousness. Basic processes interacting with each other cause unpredictable effects, despite those processes obeying very simple rules at all times. Consciousness is not an argument for god any more than water being wet (at room temperature under one atmosphere of pressure <glare>) is.

I did say it was a very simple example. I left out parts because you don't, for example, explain momentum to children by starting with quantum physics. That said, even the basics seem to be having trouble getting through. I may have to resort to sock puppets and sing-alongs.

Pushtrak

Opticom wrote: »

There could be no religions and still a God, how on earth is agnosticism the best argument you can put up for atheism ?

If that were the case, two possibilities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism or a interventionist god that hasn't revealed itself. I don't subscribe to either thought. Which is the one you adhere to? And for what reason do you adhere to it?

Edit: Actually throw in pantheism or panentheism. Probably something I'm missing out, too.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

There could be no religions and still a God, how on earth is agnosticism the best argument you can put up for atheism ?

Your question doesn't make sense. There is no argument for atheism?! As stated before possibly the best argument that one could give for atheism is the lack of evidence provided by religions.

Opticom

Paparazzo wrote: »

He could exist. Absolutly anything could exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

By trying to claim the provabilty of a hypothetical teapot, is equivalent to the provability of an unrelated entity, the teapot is as leaky an argument for atheism as you'll ever find.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

By trying to claim the provabilty of a hypothetical teapot, is equivalent to the provability of an unrelated entity, the teapot is as leaky an argument for atheism as you'll ever find.

Lets turn this around. Lets ignore the term atheism and all the rest. The way I stand is that I have a lack of belief in a deity due to the lack of evidence in the existence of one.

How am I meant to provide an argument towards that besides what I've stated? In fact the burden is on you to provide the evidence to make me believe in a deity. See how ridiculous what you are demanding is?

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

There is no argument for atheism?!

Is that a statement or a question ?

shizz wrote: »

As stated before possibly the best argument that one could give for atheism is the lack of evidence provided by religions.

If that's the best one, then that’s pretty weak, as I said an entity such as God could easily exist without there being any religion or human life.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Is that a statement or a question ?

It was a statement with a small wonder as to the ridiculousness of the question.

Opticom wrote: »

If that's the best one, then that’s pretty weak, as I said an entity such as God could easily exist without there being any religion or human life.

...sigh.

Refer to my newest post.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Do you not agree that making such a judgement on the Bible without giving it a fair consideration is much like writing a book review without having read the book you're talking about?

Well I've read the Bible, old and new. I've read a good chunk of the Talmud(which BTW has some choice moments of WTF?, just as much as the OT or the Quran, but seems rarely commented on such). I've read the Quran and a goodly chunk of Haddith. I've had a go of reading the bhagavad gita(loooong effin slog) and the tenets of Buddhism and a couple of other religious texts(the Dao etc). My personal impressions were as mixed as the "truths" contained within. IMHO of course. Actually Buddhism and especially the Buddha were a bit of a surprise for me, especially as it's the go to "non religion, that really is, but isn't" for the "I'm an atheist, but dig buddhism with a small b" brigade. I found it terribly self centred, nay selfish and internal and vague, with a nice side order of magical thinking dressed up as otherwise.

On the personalities behind the major faiths, the Hindu dudes and dudesses seemed the most human, Jesus about the most likeable and "Mines a Guinness, what are you having J" as written, Moses comes across as a bit of a wanker and the more fundy end of Judaism is OCD made flesh as a faith, Buddha comes across as a right killjoy and not exactly great company(who really had women issues) and Muhammed comes across as being horribly schizo a person, vacillating between "oh that makes good sense" to "what the jumpin fcuk are you on about you dangerous, deluded, self serving, slaver, war mongering primitive". Luckily for most of them they had later followers who had serious minds that served to dial down the madness. Islam a perfect example of that, where later Muslim scholars showed an amazing grasp of humanity and philosophy that countered the early daftness. Actually early medieval Islamic philosophy is well worth a read.

Anyhooo... while as a dyed in the wool agnostic I'm open to any possibilty the universe may throw up, even though I'm woefully inadequate to the task of navigating the more esoteric possibilities, I found the religious explanations to be too simplistic, at times downright murderous and base and all about generating a self replicating meme. It's possible a god may exist, an alpha and omega(though A to Z covers more bases), none of the packaged for consumption religions make any sense to me in the face of that possibility. They sell their god short. They make Him all too human. Hell they make Him a him for the most part. Or a Her. Both are equally daft. They make their God all too human and while I hold humanity above all, the religious seem to make their human god the worst of us. Petty, Vengeful, judgemental, in need of worship and very very narrow in scope. If God exists out there, it seems like a bit of an insult to me. Indeed if it does exist, it would likely find easy going non believers as a better bet. IMHO St Dawkins is more likely than St Billy Graham.

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

It was a statement with a small wonder as to the ridiculousness of the question.

O.k. as long as I'm clear that your position is there is no argument for atheism.