New ALabama governor openly asks for non-Christians to convert

[No Limit]

Right, but how a otherwise rational person can do something like that is truly amazing to me.

 

[Krynn72]

Why are atheists getting into such detailed debate about interpretation of a ludicrous work of fiction?

Because people use these ludicrous works of fiction as basis for morality.

At least, thats why I debate it.

 

[Sheepo]

Then I don't understand what you said the original quote for. In what way are we not accepting of these people, if questioning their beliefs isn't it?

Well I was addressing what No Limit said. "Acceptable in a society", as I've said, was oddly vague and I was never sure how I was meant to take it. Both posts can be seen below:

You saying you basically agree with Erestheux didn't really register in my head, because I still can't quite process his senseless ramblings.

But everything else you just said to me sounds like this: "if people want to believe in silly things let them belive in silly things without pissing all over their parade. Eventhough what they believe is almost certainly bullshit, we can't prove it beyond certain so just let it be."

Why is that ever acceptable in a society where we believe critical thinking is a good thing? Or did I miss the day when critical thinking became something we frowned upon?

Critical thinking has nothing to do with it. It is entirely possible for some one to believe in science and reason, but still chock the creation of everything up to a diety. The fact that it can't be disproven makes it a plausible belief, therefore it seems perfectly acceptable to me*. Besides, my problem with what you're saying is that it's all or nothing. You can be not silly, or you can be silly as all **** (here replace silly with ignorant, stubborn, bigoted, and hateful). The fact is that there are plenty of reasonable, nice, moderate christians, and I don't think they should be harassed because they're not as true to christianity as the biggest idiotic assholes in the world. If for any reason, not that one.

*I'm not sure what you mean by acceptable here. Everyone that can be peaceful and productive in society should be accepted, regardless of belief.

Edit: Haha, you misunderstood that phrase badhat. I didn't mean logical proof. I meant faith is logic proof in the same sense glass can be bullet proof.

Hence why I said "as certain as we can be about anything." There is enough evidence to disprove so many things said in all religions that the chances of the God from the bible, or any diety envisioned by man existing are, by any practical measure, zilch.

Frankly, the really important matter, "Was the universe created by any sort of divine force?" is the one that is really impossible to prove and, just phrased that way, could really go either way. If the answer were yes, well, I think I would have a hard time viewing the vast majority of religious and mythological histories unlikely, atleast in some incredibly vague interpretations.

 

[Eejit]

Because people use these ludicrous works of fiction as basis for morality.

At least, thats why I debate it.

Except they all pick and choose pieces of morality from it to suit themselves.

 

[Krynn72]

Well I was addressing what No Limit said. "Acceptable in a society", as I've said, was oddly vague and I was never sure how I was meant to take it. Both posts can be seen below:

I see. Well, I'm quite certain that he wasn't suggesting that people be shunned from society for being theists.

Frankly, the really important matter, "Was the universe created by any sort of divine force?" is the one that is really impossible to prove and, just phrased that way, could really go either way. If the answer were yes, well, I think I would have a hard time viewing the vast majority of religious and mythological histories unlikely, atleast in some incredibly vague interpretations.

Well, certainly the more vague you get the better it increases the likelihood of it. But sure, lets deal with the hypothetical for a second and say we discovered that there was a divine creator, I would still believe that nothing mankind ever said about such an entity would be based on truth. Especially modern deities. If anything, the divine creator would have revealed himself to some of the earliest men, otherwise we'd have fairly credible records of it. So the Egyptian Gods would be more likely to be the true gods than any Christian or Muslim god.

But still that would only apply in the hypothetical situation. Once we start separating out the different beliefs inside of theism, we're getting down to such incredibly small amounts of "likelihood units" that its fairly safe to say theres no chance in hell any of it is true, because out of all the infinite number of possible explanations there are, a divine creator is already specific enough to be all but impossible.

 

[Danimal]

All I smell is dick-sweat and atheist semen in this thread.

 

[Shift]

Shift, please learn how to type coherently. The number of words that you miss out of your posts renders your argument almost incomprehensible. Also trying to use words with more syllables just to sound smart but not using them in the right context is shooting yourself in the foot. It feels like you are trying to be the intelligent face of Christianity when there is nothing intelligent about it. Any fool can believe in God but it takes a great deal more intellect and thought to believe that there aren't any Gods.

Unbelievable. That’s another reason why you can’t debate with most atheists; they are so bigoted, that they refuse to even accept that a Christian may indeed have intelligence. I type too fast and therefore I miss words out, I also think too quickly and sometimes find it hard to get my exact thoughts down, so yes, at times bits of my posts will appear somewhat confusing. So what is that another mark of stupidity of the face of Christianity? I am not trying to sound smart and I am certainly not trying to be the ‘intelligent face of Christianity’, I will however defend the scripture, for which I do know something about, which I think you will find was the original debate on here.

Oh also, shall I give you the list of Christians in the world who are a HELL of a lot more intelligent than you?

Which is why I tried numerous times to get Shift to explain to me who is going to hell and who isn't.

And numerous times I explained it. Regardless of whether he thought he was killing someone for Christ, that action alone is a complete contradiction, as Jesus himself said no one should murder. He may have faith in Christ, but he certainly isn’t striving not to sin as he blatantly murdered someone in cold blood. A true disciple of Christ is one who has faith in him, and strives to be just like him, that means, NOT murdering people, that guy ticks only one of those boxes. I mean seriously, why is that so hard to grasp?

Shift, we already addressed the earth being made in 6 days part. I agreed with you that the bible never said this. But I asked you another question about what the bible did say. The bible said the earth came first and light came later. Does that mean the earth was made before the sun? Or was the bible mistaken when it said light (it really meant something else...what in that case)?

Take a look at the link below, it explains the post I made before about Genesis in a lot more detail, since you seem to be incapable of actually reading mine.

http://www.gci.org/bible/genesis/sixdays

You can argue all you want that people were too stupid to understand this mistake back in the day, but today we are smart enough to understand it

Correct me if I am wrong, but this strikes me as an insinuation that everyone who lived back then were stupid? I sincerely hope it wasn't..

So why would God make this simple mistake when he knew we would eventually come to understand how the earth and the sun and just about all matter came in to existance?

Because, as I said, it was written thousands of years ago to people who had very little grasp of the knowledge required to understand the universe. Why would God give it for us to understand, when he would have also known that eventually we would get a full grasp of physics etc and be able to understand the universe ourselves?

 

[No Limit]

And numerous times I explained it. Regardless of whether he thought he was killing someone for Christ, that action alone is a complete contradiction, as Jesus himself said no one should murder. He may have faith in Christ, but he certainly isn’t striving not to sin as he blatantly murdered someone in cold blood. A true disciple of Christ is one who has faith in him, and strives to be just like him, that means, NOT murdering people, that guy ticks only one of those boxes. I mean seriously, why is that so hard to grasp?

I asked you numerous times if a christian that believes in christ looks at porn throughout their life anyway (eventhough they know is wrong) if they are going to hell. You haven't answered it.

The only thing in your link having to do with the question I asked you about the sun being made before the earth is this:

However, if we say that the account is written from a limited perspective, we admit that the account is not abstract truth. When God called for light, he meant light at a specific point on earth, not light in general, because light already existed in outer space. When verse 14 says, Let there be sun and moon, it really means, Let earth's surface have a clear view of the sun and moon, or perhaps, Let the sky be clear.

However, when we understand the Bible this way, we are not interpreting it literally. Perhaps the creation story was not meant to be interpreted literally.

I see, so when you have absolutely no explaination as to why God said earth came before the light you just make shit up? And you make shit up that makes absolutely no rational sense?

We know that sun was there billions of years before the earth. We know that for a fact. So why would God go to such great lenghts to block out the sun and the moon and all the stars from earths view for billions of years. How exactly do you think he did that? By throwing up a huge blanket around the earth? Why wouldn't he explain this in any more detail knowing that humans would eventually come to understand how the unvierse, how the sun, and how the earth was made. Is he testing us?

Or is this the part where you say it is not our job to question how God thinks eventhough it is your job to question what he means?

Correct me if I am wrong, but this strikes me as an insinuation that everyone who lived back then were stupid? I sincerely hope it wasn't..

Well God clearly thought they were stupid since he didn't bother with explaining even the most basic scientific processes and where he did try to explain it he got it totally wrong to the point where you have to make up stores about what he must have meant.

Did God even mention once the eath was round? Did he even once suggest evolution? Did he even once suggest the true age of the universe? Nope. So he must have thought that people back then were total ****ing retards and if he did any such thing they simply wouldn't understand.

Because, as I said, it was written thousands of years ago to people who simply no grasp of science whatsoever. Why would God give it for us to understand when he also knew that eventually would get a full grasp of physics and be able to understand the universe ourselves?

Why would he give us information that clearly makes no sense and force you to come up with such absurd theories as him covering the earth in some form of blanket that blocked out all light. And if such absurd theories were correct why wouldn't he have mentioned it? You can't possibly tell me you think that by saying that light came first and God covered the earth from the light for a long time that this would have confused people thousands of years ago. How would it have confused them?

So again, is this the part where eventhough this line of thinking is clearly irrational you fall back on the argument that it is not your job to explain that?

 

[voodoospriest]

I hope I never claimed to be smarter all Christians. I'm just certain I'm smarter than you.
Also if you are so willing to accept that the six days of creation may have been figurative in light of scientific discovery finding that literal translations were bat shit insane, why can't God and Jesus be fictional characters to scare those with little moral fibre into doing the right thing out of fear of eternal punishment?

 

[CptStern]

Correct me if I am wrong, but this strikes me as an insinuation that everyone who lived back then were stupid? I sincerely hope it wasn't..

if he isnt saying it I most certainly am. they were stupid in comparison to people of today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

 

[Shift]

I asked you numerous times if a christian that believes in christ looks at porn throughout their life anyway (eventhough they know is wrong) if they are going to hell. You haven't answered it.

Specifically, I don’t know, it depends. If the person acknowledges that it’s a sin, repents, and at least tries to stop it, then they are most likely a Christian and are saved anyway. However, if the person looks at porn regardless of knowing it’s a sin, then they are obviously not trying to turn away from sin, and therefore they are most likely not a Christian (and if they stay on that path their entire life then yes, they will go to Hell).

Why wouldn't he explain this in any more detail knowing that humans would eventually come to understand how the unvierse, how the sun, and how the earth was made. Is he testing us?

I think he could very well be testing us, since being a Christian is about faith, faith in God, in Jesus and his actions. If everything was just handed to us on a plate (God just revealed everything to us), then there would be no need for faith, which is an essential ingredient in regards to a Christian’s spirituality.

Besides I think a large degree of this life is about the search for truth, it’s a great passion of humanity and it’s a very important part of our growth and progression. If God just gave us everything at the start, then what would there be to understand? Or what would there be to explore? There would have been no yearning to expand our intelligence and understanding because we simply would have known everything already.

Or is this the part where you say it is not our job to question how God thinks eventhough it is your job to question what he means?

There is a very fine line between interpreting the text of scripture and understanding the mind of God.

Well God clearly thought they were stupid since he didn't bother with explaining even the most basic scientific processes and where he did try to explain it he got it totally wrong to the point where you have to make up stores about what he must have meant.

Did God even mention once the eath was round? Did he even once suggest evolution? Did he even once suggest the true age of the universe? Nope. So he must have thought that people back then were total ****ing retards and if he did any such thing they simply wouldn't understand.

You are talking about a point in time in which the term ‘physics’ hadn’t even been invented yet, or better yet, even ‘science’. How could people living at the time have possibly been able to understand the science behind the Earth, the Universe and themselves? Not to mention, as I said before, I think God wanted humanity to discover these things for ourselves, I mean it would make sense given our massive instinct to discover and explore.

And if such absurd theories were correct why wouldn't he have mentioned it?

Well that’s why one has to be careful when it comes to interpreting biblical text, it’s important to cover what is being said exactly. The problem is, it isn’t stated why God approached the creation of Earth the way he did, so we can only speculate as close to the text as possible. Its why you could probably debate for days on Genesis, but as I’ve said, its primary purpose was to state who did it, establish God as the creator of all. It doesn’t function as a scientific document on creation, and therefore over analyzing it is pointless, as is judging it on its scientific merits, especially as a Christian, since it doesn’t hold much relevance on my life.

I'm just certain I'm smarter than you.

Congratulations?

Also if you are so willing to accept that the six days of creation may have been figurative in light of scientific discovery finding that literal translations were bat shit insane, why can't God and Jesus be fictional characters to scare those with little moral fibre into doing the right thing out of fear of eternal punishment?

Because Christianity is not about scare tactics?

if he isnt saying it I most certainly am. they were stupid in comparison to people of today:

Maybe in comparison with people of today yes, but to say they were just stupid in general is absurd. You may as well call the ancient Egyptians and Greeks stupid while you are at it…

 

[No Limit]

So to be a christian you can still continue to sin as long as you try really really hard not to. Got it.

Can I ask you one more specific question? What if someone in the christian faith doesn't even agree with you that looking at porn is a sin? They go to church each sunday, they read the bible regularly, and they do their absolute best to follow the teachings of Jesus. But when it comes to porn they simply don't agree it's a sin and do it anyway without any guilt. Are they going to hell?

Also, you are totally wrong about what the ancients knew when it comes to science. By the time the Old Testament was established many people not only thought the earth was round but they were certain of it. They knew how the earth revolved around the sun and that this process took around 365 days to complete. You asked me earlier if I thought the ancients were stupid. Compared to us today they obviously were, but in their time they were actually pretty brilliant in many respects. It is you that thinks they were stupid because you assume God thought they were stupid. Just because the english term "physics" hadn't been established the concept of physics, mathematics, and other science was around for hundreds, if not thousands of years before the OT was established.

Yet you can not explain to me why God wouldn't explain some very basic things and instead he would try to mislead us on purpose. You didn't explain to me how and why God blocked out the light from the earth for billions of years. You didn't explain to me why he would go through all that trouble. And you didn't explain to me that if he did that why he wouldn't simply say that.

It wouldn't have confused the ancients no matter how stupid you happen to think they were. Instead of saying the earth came first then came light which is 100% wrong (unless you start trying to understand the mind of God by coming up with things you think he meant, such as it was from the perspective of the earth). Instead of saying that he could have simply said light came first then earth but the light was blocked out for billions of human years. Nothing confusing about that no matter how dumb you happen to be.

For you to say that there is a fine line between interpreting scripture and trying to understand the mind of God is a bunch of bullshit. You have tried to understand the mind of god all throughout this thread when you continually tried to justify the old testament laws and you are doing it now when you say god could have been trying to test us which is why he gave us misleading (I would argue false) information. What kind of test is that exactly? "I am going to give you information that makes absolutely no sense then tell you that my information is infallible and see who still believes in the information."

Isn't that a bit of a dick move since any rational person (God giving us reason and all that) would come to the conclusion that it's total bullshit? As many rational people have done today? But I guess being a dick is nothing new for God. Thousands of children die each year before they can even take their first breath or have an opportunity to embrace Christ. Thousands of children in Africa starve each year without being given the chance to learn of Christ's teachings. Millions of people in our history have been tortured, enslaved, and killed because of unclear and ambiguous language in religious text (which you say is on purpose). Hundreds of wars were started as a result.

But yeah, I know, not your job to explain that. Your job is to have blind faith that god is just ****ing with you just so he can see how long you believe in him for. That's far more rational than simply coming to the realization that it's probably all a bunch of bullshit.

 

[flamingdts]

I don't know why, but I'm a nosey person and I like to read posts that get people banned.

Dead Phil's banned status got me to this thread.

The whole time I was reading his posts, I got the image of a guy who goes around to different national debates yelling "Stop debating, I don't care what you guys think! Stop wasting my time!"

Anyways, do carry on.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Nah, I think it's pretty dead. Guess he got his wish in the end.

 

[Shift]

So to be a christian you can still continue to sin as long as you try really really hard not to. Got it.

Can I ask you one more specific question? What if someone in the christian faith doesn't even agree with you that looking at porn is a sin? They go to church each sunday, they read the bible regularly, and they do their absolute best to follow the teachings of Jesus. But when it comes to porn they simply don't agree it's a sin and do it anyway without any guilt. Are they going to hell?

You are still playing around with this whole idea that salvation is somehow by works, but it isn't, its by grace. When someone confirms Jesus in their lives and are baptized, that person's salvation is like a envelope being signed, stamped and sent away to God, its a sealed and done deal. This is does not however give anyone a clear argument to say 'oh well that guy can just go and sin away then' because to confirm Jesus into your life brings about a lot of changes to lifestyle etc, stuff I'm not going to explain because you can't explain it to anyone who hasn't been saved. But a Christian will recognize their sin clearly and will strive not to commit it, they still most certainly will commit it, but the difference is they have recognized that it is a very bad thing and that they shouldn't.

So people who think that murdering anyone is fine, or that looking at porn all their lives is fine or anything else you happen to throw up to that nature in this almost endless argument, then they simple must not be a Christian, because God hasn't worked in their lives (made them recognize and turn away from all sin), regardless of whether they say they accept Christ or not.

Also, you are totally wrong about what the ancients knew when it comes to science. By the time the Old Testament was established many people not only thought the earth was round but they were certain of it. You asked me earlier if I thought the ancients were stupid. Compared to us today they obviously were, but in their time they were actually pretty brilliant in many respects. It is you that thinks they were stupid because you assume God thought they were stupid. Just because the english term "physics" hadn't been established the concept of physics, mathematics, and other science was around for hundreds, if not thousands of years before the OT was established.

I am so glad that you have informed me that actually it is I who think they are stupid, not the other way around, thanks for clearing that up for me!

If you actually read what I said, I stated that we as a species are born to discover, discover more about ourselves and the world around us, and thats exactly what we do, its why as you say, we are smarter than the ancients. If God handed everything out to us on a plate, whether it be all the secrets of the universe (including the precise accounts on how it was created and all the core details on how he created Earth) or the precise accounts for how Earth worked and all the core details involved with how it keeps us alive etc, then a) there would be nothing left to discover from a scientific standpoint and thus we wouldn't progressed to the stage of species we are at now and b) we wouldn't have understood any of it anyway. And the latter point is not a question of whether they were stupid or not, its a simple question of not having the means to understand it (the correct terminology, mathematical and physics based equations and models etc). It would have been meaningless to people back then.

Yet you can not explain to me why God wouldn't explain some very basic things and instead he would try to mislead us on purpose. You didn't explain to me how and why God blocked out the light from the earth for billions of years. You didn't explain to me why he would go through all that trouble. And you didn't explain to me that if he did that why he wouldn't simply say that.

It wouldn't have confused the ancients no matter how stupid you happen to think they were. Instead of saying the earth came first then came light which is 100% wrong (unless you start trying to understand the mind of God by coming up with things you think he meant, such as it was from the perspective of the earth). Instead of saying that he could have simply said light came first then earth but the light was blocked out for billions of human years. Nothing confusing about that no matter how dumb you happen to be.

Why do you keep saying I didn't this or that, when its based on a topic I admitted earlier, that I don't have all the answers to. Don't put words in my mouth by saying that I said God is misleading us, you asked whether we were being tested, and I answered in saying that we are, but that is not based solely off Genesis but a lot of things regarding Christianity, hell faith is one big test in itself!

I have said before, Genesis is not a scientific document and is only treated as explaining who made everything, that was its primary purpose. I don't know why God didn't explain things in it much more clearer, or why things appear to be out of chronological order, but there are arguments that say that throughout the Old Testament things are not necessarily read in chronological order due to the way it was translated from the Hebrew (which could also be the case with Genesis). Also its important to interpret the text of Genesis, rather than just reading it as it is, the latter of which will just confuse most people, and former of which will allow people to make more sense out of what the text is actually telling us.

At the end of the day however, its a non-point. Genesis is there to state who made everything, it doesn't interest me when people talk about whether or not the 'Day's were actual 24 hour days or massive periods of time, or the sun was there first and God was just blocking it from Earth's perspective etc, because as a Christian it has virtually no relevance on my life. If I want to look for evidence for the proof of God and his power in the Bible specifically, then I will look at the miracles of Jesus and all those who witnessed them, and of course his ressurection.

For you to say that there is a fine line between interpreting scripture and trying to understand the mind of God is a bunch of bullshit. You have tried to understand the mind of god all throughout this thread when you continually tried to justify the old testament laws and you are doing it now when you say god could have been trying to test us which is why he gave us misleading (I would argue false) information.

I will admit that you do have to try and understand the mind of God at times to give more relevance to scripture, which as you say I was doing, when I was discussing the Old Testament stuff, but that was however based purely on your inability to understand what Jesus was saying in that verse in Mathew. Since I was just circulating the same thing over and over, it went from interpretation of scripture to interpretation of God's plan, just to try and get you to understand, it still didn't work though did it? Which begs the question of whether or not you are actually qualified at all to judge the Bible on what it says, when really you don't understand it all.

Isn't that a bit of a dick move since any rational person (God giving us reason and all that) would come to the conclusion that it's total bullshit? As many rational people have done today?

No because of the very obvious point, that the Bible is not solely based on chapter one of Genesis...

But I guess being a dick is nothing new for God. Thousands of children die each year before they can even take their first breath or have an opportunity to embrace Christ. Thousands of children in Africa starve each year without being given the chance to learn of Christ's teachings. Millions of people in our history have been tortured, enslaved, and killed because of unclear and ambiguous language in religious text (which you say is on purpose). Hundreds of wars were started as a result.

And billions of people from now and way into the future will surely go to Hell because they didn't recognize Christ as their savior, billions are going to Hell which ever way you spin it, thats just the way it is. Also it may interest you to know (or yet again probably not) that its not the choice of any person to come to faith, it is simply as a result of God choosing and working with that person, he knows everyone he is going to save, so all these people unborn children who never get to the see the light of day, if any of them were intended to be saved, then they will be.

And ah right, so all the people who have lived in oppressive countries and died because of their beliefs, their deaths were pointless were they? That is an absolutely atrocious thing to say, at the very least they died for what they and I thought was a greater cause than anything, something you simply wouldn't know anything about. What exactly do you believe in? Oh thats right, nothing, unless you're a hypocrite? As an atheist you must surely acknowledge the pointlessness of your existence, that for instance when we are thrown in a life or death situation we would rather save ourselves then look out for others. Or that when you feel love for a woman, thats just your brain's reaction to finding a suitable person to reproduce with, and that the mere fact that we can appreciate things like music, and poetry and art, is due solely to a rebellion against our DNA (Richard Dawkin's words, not mine).

He also said something else:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

I would say that is exactly, what you as an atheist, should believe too. So tell me, how can you justify if God is being a evil or not, when really in your world, there is no sense of good and evil, why should you even care that thousands of children have died in Africa? If we are all just machines roaming through a pointless world, all out for number one, why should we even care about anything other than more ways of amusing ourselves until we eventually die right?

 

[Eejit]

So why do you think the Bible is so much more true than the books other religions are based on?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Oh boy.

If you actually read what I said, I stated that we as a species are born to discover, discover more about ourselves and the world around us, and thats exactly what we do, its why as you say, we are smarter than the ancients. If God handed everything out to us on a plate, whether it be all the secrets of the universe (including the precise accounts on how it was created and all the core details on how he created Earth) or the precise accounts for how Earth worked and all the core details involved with how it keeps us alive etc, then a) there would be nothing left to discover from a scientific standpoint and thus we wouldn't progressed to the stage of species we are at now and b) we wouldn't have understood any of it anyway.

So, the bible is ambiguous on purpose... and we have that to thank for all scientific endeavor? Haha, give me a break.

Besides, I don't think you really understand the nature of skeptical thinking if you believe for a second that all rational inquiry would end at that. "Someone said the universe is 13 billion years old... in book form? Well, that's all sewn up then. What's for dinner?"

And the latter point is not a question of whether they were stupid or not, its a simple question of not having the means to understand it (the correct terminology, mathematical and physics based equations and models etc). It would have been meaningless to people back then.

Um. He's God. He'd figure it out.

I mean, granted I'm handing out tips to the all-knowing here, but uhh... maybe release more than a couple books? What's stopping him? Agent waiting on a better offer? Manuscript tied up in editing? Publisher thinks it's too prosaic for today's youth?

Religious texts are truly the greatest examples of "always leave your audience wanting."

Also its important to interpret the text of Genesis, rather than just reading it as it is, the latter of which will just confuse most people, and former of which will allow people to make more sense out of what the text is actually telling us.

Fair enough. And what might that be?

Genesis is not a scientific document and is only treated as explaining who made everything

Genesis is there to state who made everything

"God done it." Gotcha. Him forbid that point was lost in translation somehow!

And billions of people from now and way into the future will surely go to Hell because they didn't recognize Christ as their savior, billions are going to Hell which ever way you spin it, thats just the way it is. Also it may interest you to know (or yet again probably not) that its not the choice of any person to come to faith, it is simply as a result of God choosing and working with that person, he knows everyone he is going to save, so all these people unborn children who never get to the see the light of day, if any of them were intended to be saved, then they will be.

This is just... so intensely depressing. I will never understand how someone can take this on board and not only worship the one enforcing it, but use it as a source of strength in their everyday lives. I was chosen by God to be saved, hallelujah! Never mind those billions of people who weren't afforded such grace, "that's just the way it is."

Nice use of evasive language there to avoid implicating God, by the way. I guess he chose you for a reason!

And ah right, so all the people who have lived in oppressive countries and died because of their beliefs, their deaths were pointless were they? That is an absolutely atrocious thing to say, at the very least they died for what they and I thought was a greater cause than anything, something you simply wouldn't know anything about.

Really? I mean, do I even need to make the comparison?

What exactly do you believe in? Oh thats right, nothing, unless you're a hypocrite? As an atheist you must surely acknowledge the pointlessness of your existence, that for instance when we are thrown in a life or death situation we would rather save ourselves then look out for others. Or that when you feel love for a woman, thats just your brain's reaction to finding a suitable person to reproduce with, and that the mere fact that we can appreciate things like music, and poetry and art, is due solely to a rebellion against our DNA (Richard Dawkin's words, not mine).

I would say that is exactly, what you as an atheist, should believe too. So tell me, how can you justify if God is being a evil or not, when really in your world, there is no sense of good and evil, why should you even care that thousands of children have died in Africa? If we are all just machines roaming through a pointless world, all out for number one, why should we even care about anything other than more ways of amusing ourselves until we eventually die right?

This is the most divine drivel I've heard in ages, and I've been listening to the ramblings of Karl Pilkington. You tout the fact you used to be an atheist, and yet... you don't get it. Not even a little bit. Either that or you're trying really hard not to for the sake of your belief.

Why should we care? Because we can. Because we're compelled to by basic human empathy. Why should you care? So you don't fail God's cosmic soul divining test? Go on, give me a better reason, preferably something more relevant than "acting through the will of christ" or some such nonsense.

 

[Shift]

BadHat, I've tried giving you the God's honest truth and word of God in a positive light.
To be honest I've got to a point at which I'm just ridiculously frustrated with this entire argument. You and others (mainly NoLimit) keep hammering at relatively insignificant points in terms of the grand points of true Christianity which are;
-Anyone who believes in Christ is saved.
-This salvation is by the grace of God and NOT by our own efforts.
-This was made possible because of Jesus' death and ressurection.

Also NoLimit provoked me in saying that all who died and suffered atrocities because of their faith did so for nothing and that it was all pointless, which really bothered me and provoked my rant about atheism. Also if you say I don't get atheism, you're also completely dissagreeing with Dawkins as I know where he stands on the matter.

And I guess the question is more why can we care? It's true that everyone has it in their nature but according to all atheist scientists and philosophers I've read, we're nothing more than machines circulating a chemical balance in a pointless existence that happened by accident. So where did this 'basic human empathy' come from?
I believe the morals we have are God-given, NOT necessarily through the bible, or people trying to live to a 'rule-book' but because we were created in his image.

And to what you found intensely depressing; Okay, I said it very harshly ( As said, already aggrivated) but at least it shows hope for those who are saved! Which also, are in the billions. Which is so much better than the entire efforts, emotions, relationships and endevours of the human race being completely futile. I re-iterate Dawkins;

-The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
-The argument of this book (The Selfish Gene) is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.
-We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.
-They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.
-Each generation is a filter, a sieve; good genes tend to fall through the sieve into the next generation; bad genes tend to end up in bodies that die young or without reproducing.
-If there is mercy in nature, it is accidental. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent

If you were wondering where I got the blunt impression of atheism from, it's him. If he's right the implications are so much more depressing is how I see it.

 

[Vegeta897]

What exactly do you believe in? Oh thats right, nothing, unless you're a hypocrite? As an atheist you must surely acknowledge the pointlessness of your existence, that for instance when we are thrown in a life or death situation we would rather save ourselves then look out for others. Or that when you feel love for a woman, thats just your brain's reaction to finding a suitable person to reproduce with, and that the mere fact that we can appreciate things like music, and poetry and art, is due solely to a rebellion against our DNA (Richard Dawkin's words, not mine).

I would say that is exactly, what you as an atheist, should believe too. So tell me, how can you justify if God is being a evil or not, when really in your world, there is no sense of good and evil, why should you even care that thousands of children have died in Africa? If we are all just machines roaming through a pointless world, all out for number one, why should we even care about anything other than more ways of amusing ourselves until we eventually die right?

This is so stupid I'm having trouble getting a solid grasp on how stupid it really is.

So if I don't believe in god or a supreme being or whatever, then I am a soulless, cold, calculating robot who is only interested in his own survival? I wasn't aware that being an atheist meant that I have no feelings, emotions, or morals. Love is a feeling. It's deep and powerful, and can make a person do just about anything for the sake of it. But it's not a religion. Neither is one's sense of right and wrong, or good and evil.

Having a religion can help to reinforce all of these things, but it is not a prerequisite.

 

[No Limit]

So just to summarize.

• Billions of women, children, and men have been chosen by God to go to hell. All those poor kids in Africa that don't know what religion even is because they are far too busy trying to put something in their stomach were put in that position by God. They, like billions before them, are going to burn in hell and that's just the way it is, **** them. Like I said, above, God is a psychotic asshole that gets a hard on for suffering and misery.
  
  
• Holy war is cool as long as it is a Christian holy war because it is fighting for what Christians believe in. With that said Scott Roeder is going to hell cause he just killed one abortion docotor. And every one knows it's not a war when you just kill one guy.
  
  
• Christians know the true meanings of Gensis which to everyone else seem like the ramblings of a mad men. They just can't tell us because it's a secret.
  
  
• Atheists are ****ing idiots because they refuse to explain every little thing that happens as "God did it!".

And yes shift, our existance is only as meaningful as we make it. Not sure why you find this idea so absurd. Once you're gone you're gone. Live with it. That might seem depressing to you but who knows, maybe it can help you live a better life if you realize you only get one. Or keep doing what you're doing. Which is making up your own way to interpret the bible which makes it as easy as possible for you to do what you want to do but still pretend that you will have eternal life after all of this is done. Since the idea of not existing scares you so much.

 

[Sheepo]

Also if you say I don't get atheism, you're also completely dissagreeing with Dawkins as I know where he stands on the matter.

Um, you realize atheism isn't the worship of Richard Dawkins, right?

 

[Bad^Hat]

BadHat, I've tried giving you the God's honest truth and word of God in a positive light.
To be honest I've got to a point at which I'm just ridiculously frustrated with this entire argument. You and others (mainly NoLimit) keep hammering at relatively insignificant points in terms of the grand points of true Christianity which are;
-Anyone who believes in Christ is saved.
-This salvation is by the grace of God and NOT by our own efforts.
-This was made possible because of Jesus' death and ressurection.

I understand all of this, as I believe I've already said. I'm not as concerned with the "how" or "if" as I am with the "why" and the "the f*ck?!"

Also NoLimit provoked me in saying that all who died and suffered atrocities because of their faith did so for nothing and that it was all pointless, which really bothered me and provoked my rant about atheism. Also if you say I don't get atheism, you're also completely dissagreeing with Dawkins as I know where he stands on the matter.

Firstly, yeah, he's good at that.

Secondly, you're confusing "atheism" as a basic description of someone's stance on theism with a broader view of secularism and scientific understanding. Yeah, if you listen to Dawkins' analysis, we're cellular machines who work on impulse and instinct, and there's nothing for us but the observable reality around us. This could be what an atheist believes or has come to understand, or it could not. The word "atheist" describes no such thing, it is literally only meant to indicate a non-belief in God, or Gods, or any kind of supernatural deity. The fact that you'd extrapolate all this other crap and try to herd it under the umbrella of atheism says nothing about us and everything about how you feel towards people without religion.

And I guess the question is more why can we care? It's true that everyone has it in their nature but according to all atheist scientists and philosophers I've read, we're nothing more than machines circulating a chemical balance in a pointless existence that happened by accident. So where did this 'basic human empathy' come from?
I believe the morals we have are God-given, NOT necessarily through the bible, or people trying to live to a 'rule-book' but because we were created in his image.

Right, so you're not using your religion as a reason to be compassionate, you're using it as an explanation for why you and others are compassionate. Based on what? Again, it comes back to the same tired method of slapping a "God did it" sticker on something without actually adding anything that couldn't be accomplished by natural means. What's so special about morals that they must necessarily come from a higher power? Could they not just be a product of our evolution, of societal norms meant to reinforce our will to survive and further our species? There are entire fields of science built around studying these things. How could you possibly say that morality as a whole came from a singular source when it's so easily observable as a (somewhat) unique function of particular societies? Are these people just living in denial of the one true morality? Did the devil influence them in some way? Of course ****ing not, that's just the way their society was founded and developed, and it's upon those foundations that they will prosper or perish. The reasons are complex and dynamic and can't be easily explained away by something as rigid and unchanging as God or the bible.

Oh wait, I guess christians shouldn't look to the bible for moral understanding? My mistake, I thought you'd been trying to argue for Christ's definition of morality this entire thread.

And to what you found intensely depressing; Okay, I said it very harshly ( As said, already aggrivated) but at least it shows hope for those who are saved! Which also, are in the billions. Which is so much better than the entire efforts, emotions, relationships and endevours of the human race being completely futile.

At least it shows hope for the people who God cherry picks for immortality, regardless of how they live their lives or the many, many reasonable explanations they might have for not believing? Wow, thanks God for giving me a chance to win the ****ing cosmic lottery.

Again though, you're implying there's no "hope" for anyone, that everything is "futile" as long as an afterlife doesn't exist. And... you're saying our lives are meaningless and shallow? Haha, jog on.

I re-iterate Dawkins;

If you were wondering where I got the blunt impression of atheism from, it's him. If he's right the implications are so much more depressing is how I see it.

Good to know your sources are so impartial. I guess that just about explains it all, don't it.

 

[Asknoone]

And to what you found intensely depressing; Okay, I said it very harshly ( As said, already aggrivated) but at least it shows hope for those who are saved! Which also, are in the billions. Which is so much better than the entire efforts, emotions, relationships and endevours of the human race being completely futile.

You should be laughed at, so I am laughing at you. Ha ha ha ha. Ha.

 

[leib10]

I have a question to atheists, since I live right in the middle of the Bible Belt and don't meet many here. How has atheism/agnosticism made your life better? This isn't meant as an indictment of either belief system, nor is it meant to troll, but more for the satisfaction of my curiosity.

 

[Eejit]

I no longer worry that the religion I had inherited from my family was not the 'correct one' out of thousands of choices since I realised that they're all equally without merit or evidence and can all be ignored.

 

[CptStern]

I have a question to atheists, since I live right in the middle of the Bible Belt and don't meet many here. How has atheism/agnosticism made your life better? This isn't meant as an indictment of either belief system, nor is it meant to troll, but more for the satisfaction of my curiosity.

? really? in every conceivable way? when I rejected creationism at an early age I actively searched for answers instead of getting the generic answer I had been getting all those years: "it's all part of god's plan". this led me to a road of self-discovery. had I left my understanding of the world around me to my religious upbringing it would have tempered my pov on dozens of major issues from the origin to the universe to people's rights over their own body to systemic/institutional intolerance to political philosophical ideology. it opened up a door to discovery and closed a door to institutionalised ignorance. I wouldnt be half the person I am had I remained religious

 

[Sheepo]

? really?


Not much really. It's pretty much exactly the same, but I suppose I'll start saving some time and effort once I become an adult and stop attending church. I guess it's comforting to not think there's something wrong with me because I don't experience whatever spiritual magic seems to be affecting others.

 

[xcellerate]

I no longer worry that the religion I had inherited from my family was not the 'correct one' out of thousands of choices since I realised that they're all equally without merit or evidence and can all be ignored.

That's ridiculous, we know Christianity is the one true religion. It says so right in the bible.

 

[voodoospriest]

That's ridiculous, we know Christianity is the one true religion. It says so right in the bible.

LOL... You are a funny funny person. It's people like you who make me squirt milk out my nose.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I have a question to atheists, since I live right in the middle of the Bible Belt and don't meet many here. How has atheism/agnosticism made your life better? This isn't meant as an indictment of either belief system, nor is it meant to troll, but more for the satisfaction of my curiosity.

It hurts my brain less.

 

[Krynn72]

I have a question to atheists, since I live right in the middle of the Bible Belt and don't meet many here. How has atheism/agnosticism made your life better? This isn't meant as an indictment of either belief system, nor is it meant to troll, but more for the satisfaction of my curiosity.

I don't fear that my friends and family who "live in sin" are going to hell. I no longer have the nagging notion that my motivations and morality have been lead by others who knew less of the world than anybody living today does. It has opened my mind to the infinite possibilities surrounding the creation of life. It has given me the capacity required to attempt to understand nature, in all forms, as it truly is. It has freed me from believing that my life must go according to "god's plan" and the notion that I have no say in the circumstances or events of my life. It has enabled me to feel compassion for all people, and lets me fight for the rights of everyone, rather than the cherry picked few that my old denomination allowed.

You know, to name a few.

 

[Shift]

First of all, apologies for my very late reply, things have been far too busy around here of late. But anyway…

I understand all of this, as I believe I've already said. I'm not as concerned with the "how" or "if" as I am with the "why" and the "the f*ck?!"

The ‘why?’ is pretty obvious.

Secondly, you're confusing "atheism" as a basic description of someone's stance on theism with a broader view of secularism and scientific understanding. Yeah, if you listen to Dawkins' analysis, we're cellular machines who work on impulse and instinct, and there's nothing for us but the observable reality around us. This could be what an atheist believes or has come to understand, or it could not. The word "atheist" describes no such thing, it is literally only meant to indicate a non-belief in God, or Gods, or any kind of supernatural deity. The fact that you'd extrapolate all this other crap and try to herd it under the umbrella of atheism says nothing about us and everything about how you feel towards people without religion.

I’m not trying to herd anything under atheism. Richard Dawkins’ ideology hits the nail on the head and any atheist who disagrees with him is a complete hypocrite as far as I am concerned. You said atheism is the non-belief in God which ultimately means the non-belief in a spiritual realm and everything associated it, which then, I think we will agree, means believing in nothing, but the observable and physical universe around us.

With this understanding, then it is definitely true to state that we are nothing more than a mistake, nothing more than mere biological machines who accidentally rebelled against our DNA in the evolutionary process and are now able to think for ourselves; achieved our higher state of consciousness because of a freak accident. Hell, using this ideology, the entire universe was a freak accident, everything, from the love you feel for family, the sexual desire you feel for a woman or man, morality in general, has a basic, underlying, biological explanation and at the end of the day, none of it really matters anyway, because we are but a mere spec of dust in a dark, vast, un-ruling cosmos and all we will have when we are cast into the eternal pit of nothingness, is whatever legacy we could construct out of our short lives.

I think when Dawkins claims that there is no good, evil or justice, just pitless indifference; he is explaining the very definition of life without a higher purpose. No God, no creator, no spirituality, no soul, just us, and the accident that was the universe. If that makes you uncomfortable, or you feel like it takes purpose out of your life, then I’m sorry because in your world, nothing has purpose, it just ‘is’.

And for the record, I don’t have anything against atheists themselves, but I have serious problems with their ideology.

Right, so you're not using your religion as a reason to be compassionate, you're using it as an explanation for why you and others are compassionate. Based on what?

Well put it this way, I’d find it very hard to accept any emotion if I knew its reason was down to some chemical processes happening in my brain reacting to a specific stimuli, just as I wouldn’t take sexual desire seriously if I knew it was solely based upon a primitive instinct to mate and have children…

Again, it comes back to the same tired method of slapping a "God did it" sticker on something without actually adding anything that couldn't be accomplished by natural means.

I think science and God must come together and I think they work in harmony with each other, and to dismiss either one of them would be disastrous. You have dismissed the idea of God and are left with science to explain everything, a method that dictates that because it is scientific, it has obviously been proven with observable evidence, yet I have yet to see ANY positive, observable evidence for the multiverse theory, or for the theory of multiple dimensions, or for a universe being able to spawn from nothing.

Also I am certainly not just slapping a 'God did it' sticker on everything, I believe there is certainly a scientific understanding to everything in terms of how it functions and works, but I think science alone does not qualify when it comes to some of life's deeper mysteries.

What's so special about morals that they must necessarily come from a higher power? Could they not just be a product of our evolution, of societal norms meant to reinforce our will to survive and further our species?

Our morals are what separate us from basically every other species on Earth; they are probably the one of the most defining features of our subconscious and our ability to make decisions freely and they dictate whether we have a society of anarchy or order. I would say they are definitely special enough to link towards a higher power, especially considering that we seem to be the only species on the planet that contains this higher consciousness and that the Bible directly links it towards God.

How could you possibly say that morality as a whole came from a singular source when it's so easily observable as a (somewhat) unique function of particular societies?

It’s unique to our species? I’m not sure what you mean here.

Oh wait, I guess christians shouldn't look to the bible for moral understanding? My mistake, I thought you'd been trying to argue for Christ's definition of morality this entire thread.

Huh? Morality in general is the main crux of this post, not necessarily Christ’s definition.

At least it shows hope for the people who God cherry picks for immortality, regardless of how they live their lives or the many, many reasonable explanations they might have for not believing?

That makes absolutely no sense. Those who are chosen by God to be saved will believe, they aren’t going to have all these reasonable explanations for not believing.

Again though, you're implying there's no "hope" for anyone, that everything is "futile" as long as an afterlife doesn't exist. And... you're saying our lives are meaningless and shallow? Haha, jog on.

Shallow? I couldn’t comment, but meaningless? Well if we are only mere biological machines, and we have no higher purpose, and we are just an insignificant race of people in a tiny corner of the universe, and nothing happens after death, then please tell me what meaning our lives have, other than entertaining ourselves in various ways until we die.

Good to know your sources are so impartial. I guess that just about explains it all, don't it.

At least Dawkins is honest and can face up to the consequences of atheistic thinking.

 

[PvtRyan]

First of all, apologies for my very late reply, things have been far too busy around here of late. But anyway…



The ‘why?’ is pretty obvious.



I’m not trying to herd anything under atheism. Richard Dawkins’ ideology hits the nail on the head and any atheist who disagrees with him is a complete hypocrite as far as I am concerned. You said atheism is the non-belief in God which ultimately means the non-belief in a spiritual realm and everything associated it, which then, I think we will agree, means believing in nothing, but the observable and physical universe around us.

With this understanding, then it is definitely true to state that we are nothing more than a mistake, nothing more than mere biological machines who accidentally rebelled against our DNA in the evolutionary process and are now able to think for ourselves; achieved our higher state of consciousness because of a freak accident. Hell, using this ideology, the entire universe was a freak accident, everything, from the love you feel for family, the sexual desire you feel for a woman or man, morality in general, has a basic, underlying, biological explanation and at the end of the day, none of it really matters anyway, because we are but a mere spec of dust in a dark, vast, un-ruling cosmos and all we will have when we are cast into the eternal pit of nothingness, is whatever legacy we could construct out of our short lives.

I think when Dawkins claims that there is no good, evil or justice, just pitless indifference; he is explaining the very definition of life without a higher purpose. No God, no creator, no spirituality, no soul, just us, and the accident that was the universe. If that makes you uncomfortable, or you feel like it takes purpose out of your life, then I’m sorry because in your world, nothing has purpose, it just ‘is’.

And for the record, I don’t have anything against atheists themselves, but I have serious problems with their ideology.

I never understand this line of thought. First of all, life is meaningless unless the meaning has been declared higher up and handed down to you? So the meaning of your life is really someone else's meaning (namely: God's)? How meaningful is your life then, really? But I assume you believe in that meaning strongly as well, so why couldn't you have come to that meaning on your own, why did it have to come from higher up?

Why does it matter if we're an accident? Why does it matter when there's no absolute, handed-down, good and evil? Don't you have the same sense of basic good and evil that was supposedly given to you? Would that change if you found out there is no God? If not, why would you need a God for it in the first place then?

Secondly, and more importantly: why is life meaningless when this life, this universe, this reality is all there is? Why is it without purpose if after you die, you stop to exist? I would flip it upside down: your life here on Earth is utterly meaningless if it really is only an 80-year exercise of good behavior so you can get into eternally blissful paradise. Think about it: the life after this one in your eyes is perfect, it's a life with God in heaven and no matter how you interpret heaven, it's inarguably a better place to be than Earth. It's perfect, without end. Why exactly isn't your only desire in life to die? Logically, it should be. Death is the best possible thing that could ever happen to anyone on Earth.

My life however, is most likely the only one I'll have, I am my brain and when my brain dies, I die. As such, I have all the more reason to make something of it. And an atheist has all the more reason to actually protect life on Earth, because when something beautiful is gone, it's gone. Why do you care when children in Africa die of preventable disease? You really shouldn't. Because they literally have gone to a better place, there's no arguing about that. Helping them logically only hurts them because you keep them stuck here on Earth for a few more miserable meaningless decades. What's the point? I'm not saying that's how you feel about it, I'm saying that's how you should feel about it if you truly believe in a higher purpose, a life after death. But you don't, I think the only people who truly believe in an afterlife are suicide bombers.

The only reason you have to fix the things that are wrong here on Earth is because God told you so. There, that's your meaning of life for ya.

And to quote Tim Minchin lyrics:

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:
"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly"

 

[Shift]

I never understand this line of thought. First of all, life is meaningless unless the meaning has been declared higher up and handed down to you? So the meaning of your life is really someone else's meaning (namely: God's)? How meaningful is your life then, really? But I assume you believe in that meaning strongly as well, so why couldn't you have come to that meaning on your own, why did it have to come from higher up?

Why does it matter if we're an accident? Why does it matter when there's no absolute, handed-down, good and evil? Don't you have the same sense of basic good and evil that was supposedly given to you? Would that change if you found out there is no God? If not, why would you need a God for it in the first place then?

Secondly, and more importantly: why is life meaningless when this life, this universe, this reality is all there is? Why is it without purpose if after you die, you stop to exist? I would flip it upside down: your life here on Earth is utterly meaningless if it really is only an 80-year exercise of good behavior so you can get into eternally blissful paradise. Think about it: the life after this one in your eyes is perfect, it's a life with God in heaven and no matter how you interpret heaven, it's inarguably a better place to be than Earth. It's perfect, without end. Why exactly isn't your only desire in life to die? Logically, it should be. Death is the best possible thing that could ever happen to anyone on Earth.

My life however, is most likely the only one I'll have, I am my brain and when my brain dies, I die. As such, I have all the more reason to make something of it. And an atheist has all the more reason to actually protect life on Earth, because when something beautiful is gone, it's gone. Why do you care when children in Africa die of preventable disease? You really shouldn't. Because they literally have gone to a better place, there's no arguing about that. Helping them logically only hurts them because you keep them stuck here on Earth for a few more miserable meaningless decades. What's the point? I'm not saying that's how you feel about it, I'm saying that's how you should feel about it if you truly believe in a higher purpose, a life after death. But you don't, I think the only people who truly believe in an afterlife are suicide bombers.

The only reason you have to fix the things that are wrong here on Earth is because God told you so. There, that's your meaning of life for ya.

First of all, I don't consider my life to be just a test to get into Heaven, that is simply not the point, there is no test, its decided by one agreement which is faith in Christ which in turn carries with it a whole, life-changing experience. Just because I know there is a better life after death, it doesn't mean I view this one negatively, quite the opposite. I too think this planet, our species, the universe, are truly remarkable creations and I live for and cherish every moment I have on this planet, I am a Christian and I live for God yes, but that doesn't mean I become a monk, or have to live by a set of rules, far from it actually.

And under God we have an explanation and most of all we have importance, we aren't just a mistake, a cosmic roll of the dice in the grand scheme of time. Under God, our morality and our emotions are divine creations, beautifully crafted constructs that give deeper meanings to those times when we realize we love someone more than anything, or when we feel utter and incomprehensible joy or when we feel that strong brotherly bond with a friend, rather than subjecting them to bleak, physical processes in the brain; mere products of evolution.

I think you have also missed the biggest underlying point I was trying to make too, which is that I believe atheistic thinking falls flat on its face, primarily because of what you just said, and because Bad Hat reacted in a bad way to my definition of atheism being bleak. Its because we all deep down, want to have purpose, and none of us wants anyone to come along and say the love they have for someone else means nothing. We all know of the sheer power of love, friendship and joy, and about the beauty of life in general, and say if any one of us had a friend in danger in a life or death situation, we would strive to do whatever we could to help them. We recognize that life is a privilege and we all strive to be good people and pride ourselves in that respect, it is a basic desire of pretty much every human being.

The fact is, that Dawkins' quote is correct in terms of an explanation of life without a higher purpose, but I certainly don't think that applies to the life we lead.

 

[Sheepo]

I just don't understand why meaning and purpose have to be spoonfed to us by a higher power. I don't understand why life is a mistake if a bearded old man doesn't plan it. I don't understand why we can't find our own purpose and meaning in life and why that's not as beautiful as being told what we're supposed to do.

 

[PvtRyan]

First of all, I don't consider my life to be just a test to get into Heaven, that is simply not the point, there is no test, its decided by one agreement which is faith in Christ which in turn carries with it a whole, life-changing experience. Just because I know there is a better life after death, it doesn't mean I view this one negatively, quite the opposite.

But you should. That's just simple logic. You cannot possibly argue with that.

I too think this planet, our species, the universe, are truly remarkable creations and I live for and cherish every moment I have on this planet,

But you shouldn't. That's just simple logic. You cannot possibly argue with that.

I am a Christian and I live for God yes, but that doesn't mean I become a monk, or have to live by a set of rules, far from it actually.

But you should. That's just simple logic. You cannot possibly argue with that.

If I truly believed in God and heaven and all that shit, all I'd be occupied with in life is how to get into heaven. It's just 80 years here on Earth (if you're unlucky) so that's a small sacrifice to make.

And under God we have an explanation

No you don't. All you've done is introduced more questions: "why is there a God" and "why did God create us". You haven't explained a damn thing, you just did a bunch of hand-waving and TADA!

To quote more Tim Minchin:

Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the ****ing Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

and most of all we have importance, we aren't just a mistake, a cosmic roll of the dice in the grand scheme of time.

So the life of unplanned children is bleak and meaningless? They weren't created to serve a purpose, they were just that roll of the dice that mommy and daddy lost when daddy got really drunk and fumbled with the condom and said "screw it". The reason, or lack of, why you are here isn't important, it's what you do with your life now that you're here. And in that sense, an atheist has far more reason to do something with it. The only logical reason you do anything on Earth is because God wants it.

Under God, our morality and our emotions are divine creations, beautifully crafted constructs that give deeper meanings to those times when we realize we love someone more than anything, or when we feel utter and incomprehensible joy or when we feel that strong brotherly bond with a friend, rather than subjecting them to bleak, physical processes in the brain, mere products of evolution.

So emotions aren't beautiful unless it's magic? At some level, you are a machine, whether it's a machine using proteins or a machine using divine magic. In some way, you are the product of some sort of mechanic, be it molecules or magic. You are a machine, god or no god. If you experience joy, I see no reason why that's not chemicals doing their work, or why introducing magic would make it more meaningful. At some point, you're processing input and responding with some output.

I think you have also missed the biggest underlying point I was trying to make too, which is that I believe atheistic thinking falls flat on its face, primarily because of what you just said, and because Bad Hat reacted in a bad way to my definition of atheism being bleak. Its because we all deep down, want to have purpose, and none of us wants anyone to come along and say the love they have for someone else means nothing. We all know of the sheer power of love, friendship and joy, and about the beauty of life in general, and say if any one of us had a friend in danger in a life or death situation, we would strive to do whatever we could to help them.

Yes, but like I said: you have no reason to help that friend. I do, because if that friend dies, I lose that friend forever. And then you may respond by saying that my love for that friend is just chemicals, to which I respond: your love is at some point mechanical too, but you just think the mechanics are magic. But that changes nothing.

My claim is that logically, every true Christian should wish to die as soon as possible.

The axiom here is that every person seeks to maximize their happiness.

Under Christian doctrine, maximum happiness is not found in life, but in the afterlife.

So therefor: a true Christian should want to be in the afterlife, because that's where he can maximize happiness. And to be in the afterlife requires you to die.

If I remembered my discrete math classes I'd write out the math, but I don't.

But it doesn't matter whether happiness in life is 10, 100, 1000 because happiness in the afterlife is +infinity. So happiness in the afterlife > happiness in life.

You can say all you want that your life here on Earth is precious to you, and you know what? I believe you. But it shouldn't be the case. That's just cold hard logic.

 

[Krynn72]

I’m not trying to herd anything under atheism. Richard Dawkins’ ideology hits the nail on the head and any atheist who disagrees with him is a complete hypocrite as far as I am concerned. You said atheism is the non-belief in God which ultimately means the non-belief in a spiritual realm and everything associated it, which then, I think we will agree, means believing in nothing, but the observable and physical universe around us.

With this understanding, then it is definitely true to state that we are nothing more than a mistake, nothing more than mere biological machines who accidentally rebelled against our DNA in the evolutionary process and are now able to think for ourselves; achieved our higher state of consciousness because of a freak accident. Hell, using this ideology, the entire universe was a freak accident, everything, from the love you feel for family, the sexual desire you feel for a woman or man, morality in general, has a basic, underlying, biological explanation and at the end of the day, none of it really matters anyway, because we are but a mere spec of dust in a dark, vast, un-ruling cosmos and all we will have when we are cast into the eternal pit of nothingness, is whatever legacy we could construct out of our short lives.

I think when Dawkins claims that there is no good, evil or justice, just pitless indifference; he is explaining the very definition of life without a higher purpose. No God, no creator, no spirituality, no soul, just us, and the accident that was the universe. If that makes you uncomfortable, or you feel like it takes purpose out of your life, then I’m sorry because in your world, nothing has purpose, it just ‘is’.

I'm going to say something about this, in case nobody else does. Despite you claiming that atheists aren't real atheists if they don't agree with Dawkins, there is only one thing that atheism means. You know what it is, but you then take a leap of faith (surprise surprise) and say that all sorts of other bullshit must inherently come with having no belief in a deity. Several things you've said are just false, like that it means an atheist must reject any form of "spiritual realm" which is simply bullshit. Thats like saying if you don't believe Jesus existed, then you don't believe Italy existed.

But thats small muffins compared to your more heinous claim that all atheists must also agree with Dawkins about there being no good/evil/justice and there only being pitiless indifference. This notion is a ****ing travesty unto mankind, Dawkins is a fool for thinking it, and you're a fool for thinking atheists by definition buy into it. There is "good" and there is "evil" and they can both be qualified quantitatively through observation of this physical existence using the scientific process. Rather than basing our assumptions of morality on something a supernatural, non-existent being wants us to do, we can base it on an actually definable concept of human wellbeing. With a definable basis, we can then begin to make strides in understanding morality by observing the repercussions that actions have on people's wellbeing. We've begun doing this already. Does allowing people to murder each other whenever they want improve people's wellbeing? We've seen the outcome of such behavior, and it is not conducive to our wellbeing. Therefore we can check off "willy-nilly murdering" as "immoral." Thats the most basic example I can give to show that the process does work, and its a hell of a lot clearer than "don't kill because some dude that nobody living on earth has ever met says not too. Unless you're told that he does want you to, in which case, yeah do it."

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't have morals, and doesn't mean that what morals we do have are arbitrary and relativistic. If you want to learn more about how many of us atheists to live our lives morally, get this book by Sam Harris. The Moral Landscape. And of course, don't presume that this just means there are "HURR STILL ONLY TWO" ways atheists have morals and values. Just like not every atheists believes everything spewed from Dawkins' face, not every atheists believes in this either. Atheism means one lacks belief in God. That... is... all.

 

[Sheepo]

I find the "If you're an atheist you must agree with absolutely everything Dawkins says" assertion horrendously ironic because the main substance of this thread is Shift arguing against those trying to insist that all Christians must have the exact same narrow interpretation of the bible. "It's unfair to judge all of Christianity by the most extreme and stupid examples, but atheism, yeah, you all prescribe to the same doctrine as the guy whose ideas I can most easily argue against".

 

[Krynn72]

Yeah, well... what goes around comes around I suppose. Doesn't make him any less wrong of course.

 

[Sulkdodds]

To be fair, the Christian castle in the clouds is a rather more complicated and assumption-rich structure than the relatively simple assertion that one does not believe in god (or even that "go does not exist"). Christians tend to possess a bevy of colourful narratives about crucifixions and whales in addition to other, secular, narratives.

Of course the argument is moot because there are about a million variants of Christianity.

PS: Italy did not exist until the late 19th century. Suck it, atheistfags.