On Atheism vs. Christianity

Page 31 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: spittledip

Again, you are simplifying God too much.
On what basis can you make that claim? In reality, I'm not talking about God, per se, but about omnipotence. Please pay closer attention.

He is more than just "all-powerful." Just b/c you have the power to do something does not mean that you do it.
I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it is inconsistent to claim that things happen in opposition to the will of a being whose will cannot be opposed.

Even people operate at this level. There are often things we would like to do that are within our power, but we do not do them b/c we are more than just bags of blood and guts and bones chasing after every stimulus. He could have created a planet of "yes-men," but apparently he wanted people who had the capacity to make their own minds up about him, just as you and I are demonstrating here. Maybe if you or I were all-powerful we would create a world whose inhabitants were all yes-men, but God is not you or I. He has other characteristics that guide His decisions. He has His own Free-will and his own reasons for doing what He does.
I'm not talking about free will. This has absolutely nothing to do with fre will. Please pay attention so that you do not introduce any further irrelevant diversions.

What this has to do with the price of tea is that when you create a strawman God, it makes it much easier to poke holes in the beliefs of other people.
As I said above, I'm not necessarily talking about your God. If you don't believe that your God is omnipotent, then my argument doesn't apply to your God.


Isn't that the purpose of the strawman? Also, you seem to have such a limited concept of what God is- you seem to think God is just an "it" with power. To understand concepts about God, or even to have a meaningful conversation about God, you have to let go of the notion that He is a simpleton powerhouse or whatever limiting ideas you have.
Any other attributes are totally irrlevant.

This also brings up what Moon and other moon said to me. They sthink that religious belief is something you compartmentalize- it is only experiential and that there is no reasoning behind it. After thinking about it, I decided that was wrong. I do not put my rational self in a jar when I think about religious things, nor do I put away emotions when I think about intellectual things. I do not believe in living a fractured existence. God is not fractured either- He is perfectly whole and all that He is operates together, just like a psychologically healthy person should. As soon as you determine what God should or shouldn't do based upon one characteristic you are compartmentalizing Him.
Blah blah blah.... I hope it makes you feel good to type things like this out, because it does absolutely nothing for me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Please pay attention.

(edit: in reference to God doing other than His will when He has power to do otherwise)You can even take examples from the Bible when people intervened and asked God to do or not do something, and He heard them and did as they asked.
That the Bible describes an inconsistent god-concept does not invalidate my argument. If the Bible said there were square circles, that wouldn't mean that square circles are a coherent idea.

I notice that you like to take ideas out of context in order to invalidate what I have written, and coupling it with insults. Doing this only makes your own points look shaky as you are unable to support them without lying about what I have written.

Do note(first addressing the dishonest remarks):
-We are talking about omnipotence in relation to God. Why else would we talk about omnipotence, especially as the main topic of this ENTIRE thread is God??

-Very obviously free will is a major component when we are talking about God being all powerful and controlling every aspect of life. First it works as an example, as is clearly written in the paragraph that you so neatly dissected (take things in context). Second I explained that different persons do different things with their power depending on their other characteristics. I know you are not dumb, so I must assume that you are purposely avoiding the point. I took blame for lack of clear explanation before, but now I know that was not the case.

-The final paragraph is incredibly relevant. We are talking about if a God exists, whether or not he would be limited by His omnipotence to force everything to His will. The point was similar to a previously mentioned one. Just like people, a God would interact using His entire person, not just one facet of his person. Again, this is not a complex point and you are not dumb, so I am guessing you are being obtuse.

To address the more honest points:
- there is a huge difference between "will being opposed" and "choosing." Just b/c there may be a preference does not mean the preference will be chosen despite the power to opt for the preference.

-I am talking about an idea and the possibility of an idea, and you are trying to refute the idea. It does not matter if the idea has a subject or not.

-You mistake inconsistency with complexity. So when you change your mind, does that make you inconsistent?



 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Skoorb

Nope, I'm serious. I see no intellectual harmony in a person who is sure that God doesn't exist and yet considers their life worthy of anything at all. It is no more worthy of existence than a rock or cattle--that's what their philosophy says by its very definition, if they are going to take it to its logical progression, which seems reasonable considering they in essence claim to worship logic.
Until now I never realized that you were an idiot. Man am I shocked.:shocked:

I know I'm late to the game but WOW. That's sad for anyone to think like that let alone a "believer" of God hell even someone with hopefully some common sense. If he thinks that God is so great why doesn't he end his life so he can be with him?
 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Originally posted by: spittledip
That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.

And yet you have failed to provide one.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
542
126
Originally posted by: spittledip
I notice that you like to take ideas out of context in order to invalidate what I have written, and coupling it with insults.
Rather, I respond to each claim of yours directly, whereas you do not; and instead you make vague and unsubstantiated claims about context.

Doing this only makes your own points look shaky as you are unable to support them without lying about what I have written.
You are cordially invited to demonstrate where I have allegedly "lied" about anything you've said. Please, be my guest.

Do note(first addressing the dishonest remarks):
-We are talking about omnipotence in relation to God. Why else would we talk about omnipotence, especially as the main topic of this ENTIRE thread is God??
I'm only talking about omnipotence. You can look back over my argument -- it's right here to see.

-Very obviously free will is a major component when we are talking about God being all powerful and controlling every aspect of life.
It is irrelevant to my argument.

First it works as an example, as is clearly written in the paragraph that you so neatly dissected (take things in context). Second I explained that different persons do different things with their power depending on their other characteristics. I know you are not dumb, so I must assume that you are purposely avoiding the point. I took blame for lack of clear explanation before, but now I know that was not the case.
I do not have to address free will, because as I have said, it is irrelevant to the argument.

-The final paragraph is incredibly relevant. We are talking about if a God exists, whether or not he would be limited by His omnipotence to force everything to His will. The point was similar to a previously mentioned one. Just like people, a God would interact using His entire person, not just one facet of his person. Again, this is not a complex point and you are not dumb, so I am guessing you are being obtuse.
No, it is simply irrelevant, and you are apparently either incapable of grasping my argument or doing everything in your ability to avoid confronting it directly. Here, I will state it again:

The will of an omnipotent being is unopposeable. Therefore, nothing can happen in opposition to the will of an omnipotent being. You claim that things happen in opposition to the will of an omnipotent being. This is absurd.

The only way to avoid absurdity is to deny that omnipotence means an unopposable will, or to deny that things happen in opposition to the will of an omnipotent being. Pick one.

To address the more honest points:
- there is a huge difference between "will being opposed" and "choosing." Just b/c there may be a preference does not mean the preference will be chosen despite the power to opt for the preference.
Nonsense. Things that one "chooses" represent an act of will.

-I am talking about an idea and the possibility of an idea, and you are trying to refute the idea. It does not matter if the idea has a subject or not.
I don't know what "the possibility of an idea" means.

-You mistake inconsistency with complexity. So when you change your mind, does that make you inconsistent?
I have never claimed that the changing of one's will is internally inconsistent. I'm dealing exclusively with your suggestion that an omnipotent being can will one thing, and yet a different thing happens in opposition to that will.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: actuarial
Serious question for the theists: what do you guys think of Scientology?

I think Scientology is no different than any other religion in the sense that it caters to the needs of those who find it does. Scientology simply transitioned from one kind of provider into another which encompassed the former and expanded from that basis into what Hubbard viewed as a faith based organization. Folks find comfort and answers and change from the practice so it moves people from where they are to where they get based on what the practitioners are able to apply to their individual needs and abilities.
The paying of money to secure this advancement is in keeping with Hubbard's thinking, I think. That folks value more when they invest more. I could be wrong but feel that is or was his thinking.
That folks lived on other planets or star systems in former lives again is for the mind of the individual to agree or dismiss.

So, at the end of the day, it is simply another of the many religions but with a somewhat different reason to follow its philosophy than the more mainstream ones.

EDIT: I edit to observe that Moonbeam's often stated process of getting rid of the pain of the past to eliminate the limiting aspects of it is sort of like Scientology's Auditing process... I wonder :+)
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: spittledip
I notice that you like to take ideas out of context in order to invalidate what I have written, and coupling it with insults.
Rather, I respond to each claim of yours directly, whereas you do not; and instead you make vague and unsubstantiated claims about context.

Doing this only makes your own points look shaky as you are unable to support them without lying about what I have written.
You are cordially invited to demonstrate where I have allegedly "lied" about anything you've said. Please, be my guest.

Do note(first addressing the dishonest remarks):
-We are talking about omnipotence in relation to God. Why else would we talk about omnipotence, especially as the main topic of this ENTIRE thread is God??
I'm only talking about omnipotence. You can look back over my argument -- it's right here to see.

-Very obviously free will is a major component when we are talking about God being all powerful and controlling every aspect of life.
It is irrelevant to my argument.

First it works as an example, as is clearly written in the paragraph that you so neatly dissected (take things in context). Second I explained that different persons do different things with their power depending on their other characteristics. I know you are not dumb, so I must assume that you are purposely avoiding the point. I took blame for lack of clear explanation before, but now I know that was not the case.
I do not have to address free will, because as I have said, it is irrelevant to the argument.

-The final paragraph is incredibly relevant. We are talking about if a God exists, whether or not he would be limited by His omnipotence to force everything to His will. The point was similar to a previously mentioned one. Just like people, a God would interact using His entire person, not just one facet of his person. Again, this is not a complex point and you are not dumb, so I am guessing you are being obtuse.
No, it is simply irrelevant, and you are apparently either incapable of grasping my argument or doing everything in your ability to avoid confronting it directly. Here, I will state it again:

The will of an omnipotent being is unopposeable. Therefore, nothing can happen in opposition to the will of an omnipotent being. You claim that things happen in opposition to the will of an omnipotent being. This is absurd.

The only way to avoid absurdity is to deny that omnipotence means an unopposable will, or to deny that things happen in opposition to the will of an omnipotent being. Pick one.

To address the more honest points:
- there is a huge difference between "will being opposed" and "choosing." Just b/c there may be a preference does not mean the preference will be chosen despite the power to opt for the preference.
Nonsense. Things that one "chooses" represent an act of will.

-I am talking about an idea and the possibility of an idea, and you are trying to refute the idea. It does not matter if the idea has a subject or not.
I don't know what "the possibility of an idea" means.

-You mistake inconsistency with complexity. So when you change your mind, does that make you inconsistent?
I have never claimed that the changing of one's will is internally inconsistent. I'm dealing exclusively with your suggestion that an omnipotent being can will one thing, and yet a different thing happens in opposition to that will.

If you cannot admit the very obvious difference between wanting and "willing something to be," then we cannot have a meaningful discussion. A father may want something for his child, but the child chooses differently than what the father wants. The father may continue to want the child to do differently, and could enforce it, but chooses not to, letting the child do what he wants. It is so simple and obvious. We are done here.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Skoorb

Nope, I'm serious. I see no intellectual harmony in a person who is sure that God doesn't exist and yet considers their life worthy of anything at all. It is no more worthy of existence than a rock or cattle--that's what their philosophy says by its very definition, if they are going to take it to its logical progression, which seems reasonable considering they in essence claim to worship logic.
Until now I never realized that you were an idiot. Man am I shocked.:shocked:

I know I'm late to the game but WOW. That's sad for anyone to think like that let alone a "believer" of God hell even someone with hopefully some common sense. If he thinks that God is so great why doesn't he end his life so he can be with him?

I understand what your saying. I can see threw your eyes. But the problem is your not trying to see threw his eyes. Because you cann't grasp the feeling of brlief and its spiritual concepts.

A true chtistian or so called. Isn't on the same playing field as the rest who don't believe, A True WORD follower. Would have to be a survivalist to live in todays world . < This guy will die befor he goes against the WORD.

So called Christians Once God is removed from them and They except for themselves I AM THAT I AM Or The HERE RIGHT NOW!

They lose the idea the trueth that is the natural order of things Which GOD did create . They no longer believe that I WILL BECOME WHAT I BECOME. This is lost to them . I tell ya right now you take this Idea away from Half ass Christians and they will become Rabbit dogs . Trust me on this . You take a Professed believer in spirtualism and Remove that belief . You will Have a wild animal in your mist . You better try and see things from his point of view. To understand what he is saying . Trust me on his one OK!
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
The reason I say above. Once there on the same apples to apples game others are on It will be dog it dog. Well see if it comes to that who is superior.

If I am an ANIMAL I am going to be the ALPHA or die trying! Along with millions of other ANIMAL

Than once I am the Alpha > I will reinvent Religion to mantain control threw deception and trickery. Its A CIRCLE.

THE best part of religion I like . not! Its so transparent yet all seem to be blind.

DID God say I am the Alpha and the Omega? Or Did A ManChild who became Alpha Male . Invent god in his Image. DeClaireing a lie. THe He was god and he was also the Alpha and the Omega.

If God is omnipresent and omnipotent . He would Never Ever LIE and Say there was a Beginning or an end. Only a manchild would declair such a thing . If that Manchild also claim to be GOD he is Anti GOD. FOR GOD Has NO Beginning NO ending. Only a liar would say such. GOD cann't LIE Because he is GOD.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
542
126
Originally posted by: spittledip
If you cannot admit the very obvious difference between wanting and "willing something to be," then we cannot have a meaningful discussion.
You are cordially invited to explain how that distinction applies to an omnipotent being.

A father may want something for his child, but the child chooses differently than what the father wants.
A father is not omnipotent, under ordinary circumstances.

The father may continue to want the child to do differently, and could enforce it, but chooses not to, letting the child do what he wants.
It is incoherent to say that a father wills to do X but chooses to do Y, in particular exclusion to X. Choosing is an act of will.

It is so simple and obvious. We are done here.
It is only simple to the simple-minded. It seems you have categorized yourself.

 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Too many of you are arguing against theism because you've seen what happens with organized religion. Don't be retarded, people are fallible, and anytime a group of people get together with common interest, their failings inherently show through. Take any organized anything, and you can see the same problems as you see with religion. The difference with religion is that faith is a powerful thing. We all have faith, no matter if we realize it or not. Our very existence, no matter what you believe about it, must be accepted by faith, because nobody really knows for sure what life is about. Evolutionists have "data" from mostly 1 planet in infinity planets out there, from trillions or more of years ago, and they think they can derive the origins of the universe from that. How pompous can you get? And talk about a leap of faith. Theists can only believe what their religious texts and leaders tell them about God. So because most theists are so dependent on their leaders, they follow them into many retarded things, such as the crusades and such.

You'll find that for that reason alone, the theists worth being around have what they believe to be a personal relationship with God. They don't go telling you about the awesome marriage seminars or anti-gay meetings they attended all last week, they'd rather talk with you about life and the world we live in, because that's what matters. That's a perfectly valid, and very rational way to live your life. You'd be a fool to think it's not. What's happened, is so many people think they're smart these days (or maybe it's always been this way...), and now it's cool thing to do to rag on religion as if it's something for the stupid masses. Well, maybe that has some substance... Point is, extreme statements like "you're retarded to not agree with me" really just show your ignorance and intolerance. One day, all of you will hopefully know enough to know that you really don't know it all. On that day, you'll see how retarded you've been all your life.

One last thing, there is a common myth that theism, or specifically Christianity, is incompatible with evolution as we know it. All I'll say about that is this. How much sense would it make for an allknowing God to create a world with only seeds of grass and newly born cats and dogs? Not much, because they'd pretty much not survive. For a world to be created out of the blue, it must have been created as if it had been in existence from infinity ago. If you follow that line of thinking, then obviously nothing would have been created brand new, so evolution and the biblical account of creation can be very compatible. It's really quite obvious, the thing stopping most Christians from seeing it is the fact that most are rather resistant to change. It's most unfortunate really, there have been times in history when the religious drove the growth of the world.
 

El Guaraguao

Diamond Member
May 7, 2008
3,469
5
81
I can go to a museum and look and maybe touch dinosaur bones
I can go to a observatory and gaze upon light that takes many many light years to reach earth
I can go to a institute and witness the method of radiocarbon technology

This is all in reference to some things atheist bring up in conversations like this, (5000-10,000 year old VS million + year old earth..etc)

But If I wanted to experience "god" I can walk into church and hear another MAN tell me about. maybe close my eyes and do some imagining. and then at the end, give them some money. preferably 10% of my income. as if my bills weren't enough, ha
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
I do find it funny that you posted that right after I addressed like all of those points. Ya I know, we posted close together. As fail as most organized religion may be, there's good people in there, so don't write them all off. All the world needs is more love
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Originally posted by: themusgrat
The difference with religion is that faith is a powerful thing. We all have faith, no matter if we realize it or not. Our very existence, no matter what you believe about it, must be accepted by faith

No. One doesn't have to.

Evolutionists have "data" from mostly 1 planet in infinity planets out there, from trillions or more of years ago, and they think they can derive the origins of the universe from that. How pompous can you get?

As pointed out over and over in this thread, science is NOT a faith.


Point is, extreme statements like "you're retarded to not agree with me" really just show your ignorance and intolerance. One day, all of you will hopefully know enough to know that you really don't know it all. On that day, you'll see how retarded you've been all your life.

Now you are implying people are retarded because they don't believe as you do and you got a high on the thought that you know better than they do ("On that day").

It's really quite obvious, the thing stopping most Christians from seeing it is the fact that most are rather resistant to change. It's most unfortunate really, there have been times in history when the religious drove the growth of the world.

This I agree with you. Religion = opposite of growth in society. People holding on to religion are stuck in medieval ages mentality.

 

El Guaraguao

Diamond Member
May 7, 2008
3,469
5
81
Originally posted by: themusgrat
I do find it funny that you posted that right after I addressed like all of those points. Ya I know, we posted close together. As fail as most organized religion may be, there's good people in there, so don't write them all off. All the world needs is more love

yea man, i don't care if you spend all day fasting or spend half the day praying to a god. its simply none of my business. if you can sit down with me and enjoy a few beers, your cool in my book.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,722
6,201
126
Originally posted by: mofoe2001
Originally posted by: themusgrat
I do find it funny that you posted that right after I addressed like all of those points. Ya I know, we posted close together. As fail as most organized religion may be, there's good people in there, so don't write them all off. All the world needs is more love

yea man, i don't care if you spend all day fasting or spend half the day praying to a god. its simply none of my business. if you can sit down with me and enjoy a few beers, your cool in my book.

The church of beer.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,722
6,201
126
Belief and the brain's 'God spot'

Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival. Steve Connor reports


The search for the God spot has in the past led scientists to many different regions of the brain.

In pictures: celebrity atheists
A belief in God is deeply embedded in the human brain, which is programmed for religious experiences, according to a study that analyses why religion is a universal human feature that has encompassed all cultures throughout history.


Scientists searching for the neural "God spot", which is supposed to control religious belief, believe that there is not just one but several areas of the brain that form the biological foundations of religious belief.

The researchers said their findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival, which could explain why a belief in God and the supernatural became so widespread in human evolutionary history.

Related articles
?Pope makes waves in Westminster
?The march of the atheist movement
"Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent, and found in all cultures," said Professor Jordan Grafman, from the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, near Washington. "Our results are unique in demonstrating that specific components of religious belief are mediated by well-known brain networks, and they support contemporary psychological theories that ground religious belief within evolutionary-adaptive cognitive functions."

Scientists are divided on whether religious belief has a biological basis. Some evolutionary theorists have suggested that Darwinian natural selection may have put a premium on individuals if they were able to use religious belief to survive hardships that may have overwhelmed those with no religious convictions. Others have suggested that religious belief is a side effect of a wider trait in the human brain to search for coherent beliefs about the outside world. Religion and the belief in God, they argue, are just a manifestation of this intrinsic, biological phenomenon that makes the human brain so intelligent and adaptable.

The latest study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved analysing the brains of volunteers, who had been asked to think about religious and moral problems and questions. For the analysis, the researchers used a functional magnetic-resonance imaging machine, which can identify the most energetically-active regions of the brain.

They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum ? and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God.

The study found that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex ? which are unique to humans ? and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates, Professor Grafman said.

"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday," Professor Grafman said.

The search for the God spot has in the past led scientists to many different regions of the brain. An early contender was the brain's temporal lobe, a large section of the brain that sits over each ear, because temporal-lobe epileptics suffering seizures in these regions frequently report having intense religious experiences. One of the principal exponents of this idea was Vilayanur Ramachandran, from the University of California, San Diego, who asked several of his patients with temporal-lobe epilepsy to listen to a mixture of religious, sexual and neutral words while measuring their levels of arousal and emotional reactions. Religious words elicited an unusually high response in these patients.

This work was followed by a study where scientists tried to stimulate the temporal lobes with a rotating magnetic field produced by a "God helmet". Michael Persinger, from Laurentian University in Ontario, found that he could artificially create the experience of religious feelings ? the helmet's wearer reports being in the presence of a spirit or having a profound feeling of cosmic bliss.

Dr Persinger said that about eight in every 10 volunteers report quasi-religious feelings when wearing his helmet. However, when Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist and renowned atheist, wore it during the making of a BBC documentary, he famously failed to find God, saying that the helmet only affected his breathing and his limbs.

Other studies of people taking part in Buddhist meditation suggested the parietal lobes at the upper back region of the brain were involved in controlling religious belief, in particular the mystical elements that gave people a feeling of being on a higher plane during prayer.

Andrew Newberg, from the University of Pennsylvania, injected radioactive isotope into Buddhists at the point at which they achieved meditative nirvana. Using a special camera, he captured the distribution of the tracer in the brain, which led the researchers to identify the parietal lobes as playing a key role during this transcendental state.

Professor Grafman was more interested in how people coped with everyday moral and religious questions. He said that the latest study, published today, suggests the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so, but when there is a mystery about something, the same neural machinery is co-opted in the formulation of religious belief.

"When we have incomplete knowledge of the world around us, it offers us the opportunities to believe in God. When we don't have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations," said Professor Grafman, who believes in God. "Maybe obeying supernatural forces that we had no knowledge of made it easier for religious forms of belief to emerge."
 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
So the article postulates that religious belief is an evolved coping mechanism. The fact that humans might be biologically predisposed to use irrational beliefs as a crutch does not make them true. It also says that atheists show the same brain activity when pondering moral issues. These articles are actually damaging to some of the ideas you've posted. What's the point?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,722
6,201
126
Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Moonbeam, why don't you just link these articles instead of posting walls of text in the thread?

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
So the article postulates that religious belief is an evolved coping mechanism. The fact that humans might be biologically predisposed to use irrational beliefs as a crutch does not make them true. It also says that atheists show the same brain activity when pondering moral issues. These articles are actually damaging to some of the ideas you've posted. What's the point?

Why don't you consolidate your posts instead of making two? I think more people will be more easily able to refer to the article if I post its text or refer to parts of it for comment. I think it makes for a clearer discussion.

Now as to your argument that a predisposition to believe in the irrational does not make the irrational true, that was not the argument that was being made. The argument being made was that doing so is adaptive, that you rationalists may be a threat to human survival and should be exterminated. Oh wait, it didn't go so far as saying that last part maybe, but perhaps some might make that interpretation, especially in the face of "all the religious folk are nuts" and "religion should be done away with" types.

And why does the fact that atheists are using the same parts of the brain that religious people do when thinking about moral issues show, not as you want to imply, that the religious folk are like atheists, but the opposite, that atheists are making religious decisions about morality. The problem, if you haven't realized it yet, is that different people look at the same things and believe different things about them, things I would claim are conditioned into them by their experience and LR might say is genetically programmed which this last of my articles seems to strongly imply.

As to what is the point of posting things damaging to my position, there are two answers that come to mind. Do you really know what my position is accurately enough to say that? Why would a person interested in truth confine himself to points of view that only mirror his or her own? A seeker should be happy to deal entertain all points of view, no?

Have you noted that I am not a person of faith? I do not believe in a religious God. The idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient sets up in my mind absurdities I can't rationalize away. I wanted a God I could prove exists and I could not find Him.

What I discovered instead was that everything that I had wanted from religion, meaning, purpose, joy, all that religion in its essence is, I found hidden within my own heart and that I could and would have never discovered that with reason. I bought what I found at great price. I killed my God, my joy, my hope, my sense that the world was just, and immortality among other things. I jumped into Hell. My life went totally black.

In just one second of one night I accepted total defeat and died. A blast of wind it my house and I awoke. When you lose everything that can be taken, when you give it up, all you have is what can't be taken and that is who you really are.

I could not find God out there because he was in here in me, buried under all my stupid beliefs. I found my peace by subtraction.

My words are for those who suffer.

A great big question for me is whether the blackness I experienced is like chemical depression or different. Is the answer to all feelings of blackness to go deeper, or is there a separate kind of blackness that demands and should be immediately treated chemically. I do not know.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

Actually, people gather together b/c they are supposed to according to the scriptures. I don't know how it is for all religions, but Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are supposed to gather together.

There is conflict between the 2 groups usually b/c of moral and political reasons. Also, there is a conflict due to both groups not wanting the others to disseminate false information , i.e. the other group's beliefs.

That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.

Doesn't sound like you read my post. My central point was that if most theists were not also members of organized religion, there would be essentially no conflict with athiests. But theists take their belief in god and run with it, generally also believing a host of other myths propagated by organized religion. You believe there is a god that started the universe billions of years ago, whatever, fine. You also believe a few thousand years ago that the same god made man, took his rib and made women, then kicked them out of paradise because they ate a fruit a talking snake gave them, and you now want to teach this to children in public school as "history"? Then we have a problem.

Theism vs atheism is not cause for there to be any political or moral conflict between the groups. Whether the universe was brought into existence billions of years ago by some sort of deity has nothing to do with homosexuality, abortion or murder. Religion claims that it does, but simple theism has no rational relation to such topics.

And sorry, it is a fact that noah's ark could not have held 2 animals of every species, seeing as how there are billions of species, each species would probably be inbred into extinction if it only had one male and female in existence, noah couldn't have then dispersed the animals to all the appropriate continents, etc, etc. Shall we get into the 10 plagues, or raising the dead, or santa clause? These are myths and superstitions that religious theists believe when they have no reason to, and which reason argues against. Belief in a creator of the universe doesn't necessitate believing in religious propaganda. And don't start with the "you can't disprove any of those things" bs. One can't disprove leprechauns either, that's not an argument that logically leads to their existence or gives one any reason to believe in them.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

Actually, people gather together b/c they are supposed to according to the scriptures. I don't know how it is for all religions, but Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are supposed to gather together.

There is conflict between the 2 groups usually b/c of moral and political reasons. Also, there is a conflict due to both groups not wanting the others to disseminate false information , i.e. the other group's beliefs.

That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.

Doesn't sound like you read my post. My central point was that if most theists were not also members of organized religion, there would be essentially no conflict with athiests. But theists take their belief in god and run with it, generally also believing a host of other myths propagated by organized religion. You believe there is a god that started the universe billions of years ago, whatever, fine. You also believe a few thousand years ago that the same god made man, took his rib and made women, then kicked them out of paradise because they ate a fruit a talking snake gave them, and you now want to teach this to children in public school as "history"? Then we have a problem.

Theism vs atheism is not cause for there to be any political or moral conflict between the groups. Whether the universe was brought into existence billions of years ago by some sort of deity has nothing to do with homosexuality, abortion or murder. Religion claims that it does, but simple theism has no rational relation to such topics.

And sorry, it is a fact that noah's ark could not have held 2 animals of every species, seeing as how there are billions of species, each species would probably be inbred into extinction if it only had one male and female in existence, noah couldn't have then dispersed the animals to all the appropriate continents, etc, etc. Shall we get into the 10 plagues, or raising the dead, or santa clause? These are myths and superstitions that religious theists believe when they have no reason to, and which reason argues against. Belief in a creator of the universe doesn't necessitate believing in religious propaganda. And don't start with the "you can't disprove any of those things" bs. One can't disprove leprechauns either, that's not an argument that logically leads to their existence or gives one any reason to believe in them.

It seems logical to me to take a belief and run with it. Atheists certainly do, as does everyone else. That's the nature of human beings.

No reasonable theist claims that you can prove everything about God, and certainly not everything in the Bible.

My reason for believing in God, and believing that there is a God, is not based on myth or superstition. It is reached by secular reason.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
542
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21

My reason for believing in God, and believing that there is a God, is not based on myth or superstition. It is reached by secular reason.

Care to explain this allegedly "secular" reasoning process that leads you to believe that there is a god?

What is "secular reason," anyway? Something is either rational or it isn't.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
It seems logical to me to take a belief and run with it. Atheists certainly do, as does everyone else. That's the nature of human beings.

No reasonable theist claims that you can prove everything about God, and certainly not everything in the Bible.

My reason for believing in God, and believing that there is a God, is not based on myth or superstition. It is reached by secular reason.

Yes, that's fine. My point, once again, is that if you take THEISM and "run with it" that does not necessitate following a RELIGION, and it's the religious dogma that causes issues, not the theism.

If a theist says "I think there's a god, so I'm going to be a good person because I think the creator of the universe would want me to be one," I don't think many would have an objection to that. The problem arises when a theist says, "I think a deity created the universe, so I will follow the orders of a religious organization run by fellow men who know absolutely nothing more about this god's will than I do and I'll espouse belief in various miracles which today if someone claimed to have seen we would promptly lock them up in a rubber room, and I'll oppose gay people marrying and evolution because my religion tells me it's wrong."

Homosexuality, evolution, heliocentric theory, cloning, abortion, etc. None of these issues has any reason to cause conflict between an athiest and a theist due to their respective difference of opinion on the beginnings of the universe. I'm not saying reasonable people can't disagree about these issues, but the motivation for their disagreement should have nothing to do with what spark billions of years ago started the whole show. These issues only became contentious or controversial because the theists advanced religious systems and texts which require suspending reason and adhering to faith in opposition to incontrovertible evidence.

As a corollary, consider if athiests "ran with" the belief that since there's no god, there is no point to life at all and we have no reason to be good people. They formed groups dedicated to causing chaos and destruction and opposing order, essentially organized anarchy. These people would be as screwed up as religious theists.

However, the overwhelming majority of athiests do not "run with" this belief. They don't spend a lot of time on the issue at all. No, they don't think the universe was created by an intelligent entity, pass the coffee please? But most theists ran with the belief in god and carried it to an illogical set of conclusions.

As to your final sentence, you can believe in god if you like. You can even feel you've reached that decision based on secular reasoning and deduction. No problem with that. But you cannot claim to believe that Jesus rising from the dead and performing miracles is historical fact based on secular reasoning and deduction, because secular reasoning can only lead to the opposite conclusion.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Atreus21

My reason for believing in God, and believing that there is a God, is not based on myth or superstition. It is reached by secular reason.

Care to explain this allegedly "secular" reasoning process that leads you to believe that there is a god?

What is "secular reason," anyway? Something is either rational or it isn't.

'Rational' is bouncing this something off what you accept as truth. Truth to the individual even contains some doubt to the extent you introduce the unproven. But to simplify, your truth is what you define it to be based on your mind's deductive process. How can one debate the same issue with you if their Truth is based on a different set of criteria and fully agree. Among this criteria is the individual mind process.
We each evolve from parents and from their parents and so on. Although each mind functions within parameters to be termed 'normal' there are differences. Generally Accepted Mind Function allows for variables including the ability to seek a higher power (god) and to reject that notion. As humans we seek to learn. We thrive with knowledge. But that knowledge is across the spectrum of what our own mind determines relevant and needed.
It is as easy for a person to accept as truth the notion of a God as it is for another to not only reject that notion but accept what ever their mind seeks to sate.
I can't play the piano at all but I can paint a landscape and write a poem. I know some who can do neither and some who can do both. And even some who can do a bit of it all. We are all controlled by how our mind functions based on brain function and how it interacts with the other factors introduced to it. Drugs comes to mind and especially LSD.

Edit: My first para said, in essence, that doubt based on what that individual finds to be the unknown element... meaning that some can without doubt accept God even if to you it is an unknown element. To them it is fact. It, therefore, is an argument without resolution between the Atheist and the Priest.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |