Elevating the atheism/religion discussion

[jhbball]

It is because it follows the same "my god being made-up means yours is" atheistic pseudo-logic, when in actuality, we (meaning modern-day believers) didn't introduce God into the world scene anyway.

If this is the best you guys have, then I really feel sorry for the future of non-believers when asked to provide any non-emotional reason for the their rejected of a God/gods.

No, you didn't introduce 'your god'. You just blindly followed what your parents taught you at at a young age, and back-filled the rest.

 

[dphantom]

No, you didn't introduce 'your god'. You just blindly followed what your parents taught you at at a young age, and back-filled the rest.

Why do you say that. Some of the most brilliant thinkers of today and years past have believed in God. I highly doubt such people blindly follow anything. Instead, they would carry out an in depth examination of such a belief and decide for themselves whether to accept God or not.

Of course there are many smart people who reject God. I doubt they also simply blindly followed what their parents taught.

 

[momeNt]

No, you didn't introduce 'your god'. You just blindly followed what your parents taught you at at a young age, and back-filled the rest.

Somebody was the first to believe. So explain that instead of dismissing the argument.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you say that. Some of the most brilliant thinkers of today and years past have believed in God. I highly doubt such people blindly follow anything. Instead, they would carry out an in depth examination of such a belief and decide for themselves whether to accept God or not.

Of course there are many smart people who reject God. I doubt they also simply blindly followed what their parents taught.

Personally, his argument has made my "BS to ignore" list a long time ago...as they follow the same pattern...."you're religious because your parents were".

Same brainless atheist argument. Nothing new to see here.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Personally, his argument has made my "BS to ignore" list a long time ago...as they follow the same pattern...."you're religious because your parents were".

Same brainless atheist argument. Nothing new to see here.

But isn't it true? Doesn't about 6.9 billion data points make it a fairly strong assertation?

 

[Retro Rob]

But isn't it true? Doesn't about 6.9 billion data points make it a fairly strong assertation?

So what, though? Aren't these discussions supposed to address the veracity of said belief? How does identifying the origin of my belief prove anything as regard to the belief itself?

It doesn't matter if I saw Jesus in a dream as a life-long atheist, or if my mom beat me over the head with a bible....criticizing how I got my religion is the same as criticizing where Bill Gates got his business expertise from.

It's a pointless discussion to have.

 

[dphantom]

But isn't it true? Doesn't about 6.9 billion data points make it a fairly strong assertation?

No it is not. Your assumption is that all 6.9 billion data points believe in God because their parents did. I fail to see how that can be a valid assumption.

It is no more valid than thinking all atheists are atheists because their parents were atheists.

 

[Paul98]

No it is not. Your assumption is that all 6.9 billion data points believe in God because their parents did. I fail to see how that can be a valid assumption.

It is no more valid than thinking all atheists are atheists because their parents were atheists.

Data points, they don't all have to believe what their parents did, and not all will. It's that most will. They arguing for one god over another and would be arguing the opposite if they were born somewhere else or to different parents.

 

[alzan]

So what, though? Aren't these discussions supposed to address the veracity of said belief? How does identifying the origin of my belief prove anything as regard to the belief itself?

It doesn't matter if I saw Jesus in a dream as a life-long atheist, or if my mom beat me over the head with a bible....criticizing how I got my religion is the same as criticizing where Bill Gates got his business expertise from.

It's a pointless discussion to have.

It is a pointless discussion to have. But it's no more pointless than stating your belief in a deity, or a deities' son vs. any other myth- or legend-based being. They both miss the point entirely.

Using Santa Claus as an example: the myth/legend of Santa Claus was built around a historical person, indeed a Saint of the church. The modern image and idea of Santa Claus is an amalgamation of cultural icons, most (all) of which celebrate the idea of giving to the poor or the less fortunate.

To believe in the physical being of Santa, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. is infinitely less important than living and acting in the ways they lived and espousing their ideals.

The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was espoused by Jesus but existed long before he is rumored to have lived; but that doesn't change the fact that it's a damned good code to follow.

Giving to the poor or less fortunate as Santa Claus would is also a damned good code to live by.

You and other Christians, as well as Muslims, Jews, etc., do yourselves and others a great disservice by constantly trying convert non-believers with the verbal bullying. You would convert many more by exemplifying the ideals of Jesus.

 

[dphantom]

Data points, they don't all have to believe what their parents did, and not all will. It's that most will. They arguing for one god over another and would be arguing the opposite if they were born somewhere else or to different parents.

All right now it is most instead of all. - moving the goal post a bit

But you still miss the point and that is what is fundamental to Christianity. As a Christian, you have to accept Jesus/God as your personal savior. Just following along because your parents did does not really mean anything. Certainly parents have influence over religious choice as in other choices. But to think anyone has a belief system simply because of what their parents did is using very flawed thinking.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It is a pointless discussion to have. But it's no more pointless than stating your belief in a deity, or a deities' son vs. any other myth- or legend-based being. They both miss the point entirely.

Using Santa Claus as an example: the myth/legend of Santa Claus was built around a historical person, indeed a Saint of the church. The modern image and idea of Santa Claus is an amalgamation of cultural icons, most (all) of which celebrate the idea of giving to the poor or the less fortunate.

To believe in the physical being of Santa, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. is infinitely less important than living and acting in the ways they lived and espousing their ideals.

The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was espoused by Jesus but existed long before he is rumored to have lived; but that doesn't change the fact that it's a damned good code to follow.

Giving to the poor or less fortunate as Santa Claus would is also a damned good code to live by.

You and other Christians, as well as Muslims, Jews, etc., do yourselves and others a great disservice by constantly trying convert non-believers with the verbal bullying. You would convert many more by exemplifying the ideals of Jesus.

I love the use of all the "Atheist" talking points....I would say that (we)Christians are to be examples of what they(we) believe and not use the Bible as a hammer against somebody`s head. Yet even as examples there will always be those who use silly Atheist talking points and silly Atheist examples to try to explain away somebody`s faith or belief in God....or the trinity or the resurrection...etc.....nobody`s mind has ever been changed one way or the other......especially here on these forums......
This site should be renamed -- AtheistFront.........lolol

 

[Retro Rob]

To believe in the physical being of Santa, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. is infinitely less important than living and acting in the ways they lived and espousing their ideals.

If you received a letter from someone who supposedly was your Great Great Grand-father, I guess it doesn't matter if he actually wrote it, as long you "lived and acted in the ways espoused" from therein, and it doesn't matter if it came from him or some random homeless man living under a bridge who doesn't know if you exists or not.



I find you to be patently intellectually dishonest if you actually think it doesn't matter if [insert person here] actually existed or not if you plan on following their teaching(s).

That letter, or the Bible/Koran etc, has to be more than just words on a sheet of paper for it to mean anything to you. If Jesus wasn't real (or believed to be real), then there would be no reason to follow what he was said to have said, no more than you'd have reason to follow anything allegedly written by your great great grand-father.

Believing that person was real make all the difference. Without it, it would mean nothing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

But to think anyone has a belief system simply because of what their parents did is using very flawed thinking.

If you are born to a Hindu family odds are you are Hindu. If you are born to a Muslim family odds are you are Muslim. If you are born to a Christian family odds are you are Christian.
And this is not by a small margin. It is not like if you were born to a Muslim family you have a 51% chance of being Muslim (even that would be statistically significant), but it is more like 99% (pulling that number out of the air, but I doubt it is far off) chance.

This is the 6.9 billion data points I'm talking about. When we look at variables that affect religious affiliation the parent’s religion is primary factor by an extremely large margin, with what country you are born in being a distant second. Reasonableness of the religions claims don’t even show up on the list of variables.

Therefore it is safe to claim that the vast majority of religious people do not look at their beliefs but instead just follow what they were taught as a kid.

We also don’t find that when people do convert to a different religion that a majority choose any given religion, it is scattered fairly randomly among the religions, the primary factor being their significant others religion, and country being a closer second. So, once again we see that they did not really examine the religion but went with what someone else told them to believe.

 

[momeNt]

How did atheists come into being when many of their parents were religious?

Same goes with homosexuals for that matter. Pretty much all homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals parents. Not everything is passed down. I understand it's two completely different things, but the argument is absurd in both cases. A lot of people find religion even though they weren't raised around it, and the opposite is true for atheists.

 

[alzan]

I love the use of all the "Atheist" talking points....I would say that (we)Christians are to be examples of what they(we) believe and not use the Bible as a hammer against somebody`s head. Yet even as examples there will always be those who use silly Atheist talking points and silly Atheist examples to try to explain away somebody`s faith or belief in God....or the trinity or the resurrection...etc.....nobody`s mind has ever been changed one way or the other......especially here on these forums......
This site should be renamed -- AtheistFront.........lolol

Quite a statement from some who uses a completely mythical character as an avatar. Silly Star Wars fan(s)

If you received a letter from someone who supposedly was your Great Great Grand-father, I guess it doesn't matter if he actually wrote it, as long you "lived and acted in the ways espoused" from therein, and it doesn't matter if it came from him or some random homeless man living under a bridge who doesn't know if you exists or not.



I find you to be patently intellectually dishonest if you actually think it doesn't matter if [insert person here] actually existed or not if you plan on following their teaching(s).

That letter, or the Bible/Koran etc, has to be more than just words on a sheet of paper for it to mean anything to you. If Jesus wasn't real (or believed to be real), then there would be no reason to follow what he was said to have said, no more than you'd have reason to follow anything allegedly written by your great great grand-father.

Believing that person was real make all the difference. Without it, it would mean nothing.

As I suspected the point flew right over your head.

One doesn't have know or believe someone existed to know the value of their words nor to apply the words to one's life. What does it matter to me or anyone to know that the originator of the Golden Rule actually existed? The Rule has guided the good and wise for millennia.

 

[Retro Rob]

As I suspected the point flew right over your head.

One doesn't have know or believe someone existed to know the value of their words nor to apply the words to one's life. What does it matter to me or anyone to know that the originator of the Golden Rule actually existed? The Rule has guided the good and wise for millennia.

You don't understand.

Christianity, for instance, is much more than 'winsome words', or 'wise sayings'...as wise words can be uttered by anyone. Christianity is about what the death of Jesus opens up for his followers, so without us believing he was real, then he didn't die, and salvation doesn't exist.

This is Christianity 101.

Regardless if you reject the existence of Jesus/Muhammed or whatever, you'd do yourself a good service by becoming more educated on the tenets of said belief system before critiquing it.

 

[sandorski]

You don't understand.

Christianity, for instance, is much more than 'winsome words', or 'wise sayings'...as wise words can be uttered by anyone. Christianity is about what the death of Jesus opens up for his followers, so without us believing he was real, then he didn't die, and salvation doesn't exist.

This is Christianity 101.

I'm sure the same arguments were once made for Zeus, Thor, and a myriad of other gods. IOW, we understand that is what you Believe, but we are more interested in what is the truth of it.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm sure the same arguments were once made for Zeus, Thor, and a myriad of other gods. IOW, we understand that is what you Believe, but we are more interested in what is the truth of it.

Well, where's your evidence of such arguments? More than one source, please.

 

[sandorski]

Well, where's your evidence of such arguments? More than one source, please.

Do you think that followers of such gods did not have arguments for their existence? That they did not Believe?

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you think that followers of such gods did not have arguments for their existence? That they did not Believe?

You said the "same" arguments, and I don't know if they did use the "same" arguments.

I am, however, disappointed that you're filling a gap in your knowledge with guesses.

Sound familiar?

 

[sandorski]

You said the "same" arguments, and I don't know if they did use the "same" arguments.

I am, however, disappointed that you're filling a gap in your knowledge with guesses.

Sound familiar?

So why the name change RobM?

 

[Retro Rob]

You said the "same" arguments, and I don't know if they did use the "same" arguments.

I am, however, disappointed that you're filling a gap in your knowledge with guesses.

Sound familiar?

...and to add, so what if they used the same arguments? I'm pretty sure atheists used the "same arguments" that absence of evidence means evidence of absence as regards this Biblical King until the 1800s when evidence was found.

Everyone uses the "same arguments" to support a view at some point in time, and even if the same arguments are used, that doesn't mean that it leads to the same conclusion.

 

[Retro Rob]

So why the name change RobM?

This one is a bit more "catchier", to me anyway.

 

[alzan]

You don't understand.

Christianity, for instance, is much more than 'winsome words', or 'wise sayings'...as wise words can be uttered by anyone. Christianity is about what the death of Jesus opens up for his followers, so without us believing he was real, then he didn't die, and salvation doesn't exist.

This is Christianity 101.

Regardless if you reject the existence of Jesus/Muhammed or whatever, you'd do yourself a good service by becoming more educated on the tenets of said belief system before critiquing it.

One does need the false promise of heaven to see the value in good deeds, solidarity, or respectable morals and ethics.

Have no doubt; I received the brainwashing that is Christianity 101 as a youth. Had loads of fun at the church picnics, getting all dressed up as an acolyte and processing with the cross or diocesan flag, watching the various priests copping a buzz from ablutions, checking out the gals and wondering just what was under those cassocks.

Then one day on a field trip with our priest, visiting temples, cathedrals, the basilica and other places of worship; as we listened to him explaining the various faiths, it dawned on me that all the various faiths were teaching the same basic ideas just with different casts of characters. And lo and behold I was freed from the chains of organized religion.

So yeah, I'll critique Christianity and it's followers as and when I please.

 

[sandorski]

...and to add, so what if they used the same arguments? I'm pretty sure atheists used the "same arguments" that absence of evidence means evidence of absence as regards this Biblical King until the 1800s when evidence was found.

Everyone uses the "same arguments" to support a view at some point in time, and even if the same arguments are used, that doesn't mean that it leads to the same conclusion.

Here's the link you wanted: Aristotle

The age of the arguments is not the point. The point is that gods come and go, come into fashion and fall out. Yet here we are thousands of years later and still nothing of substance under girds Theistic Claims of any deity.