Atheism

Originally posted by The MISTER
I thought I'd discuss this one point at a time... As a Bible believing christian I have to consider the fact that if the events that happened in the Bible were true then other people could write about them. Bruce Lee existed and I'm sure anyone could write a book about his life before he wrote a book about his life.

Bruce Lee lived in a time where facts could be independently verified, materials could easily be printed in days/hours, and didn't need to be passed down through generations of oral history. Saying that people wrote about events in the Bible doesn't make them true. You're failing at basic rigor here by providing exactly zero evidence for the Bible being true.

Also, most of the books of the Bible weren't written by people who witnessed it personally. Particularly, the Gospels.

Applying modern standards to ancient texts is dangerous. Say a sentence to someone, then have him say it to someone else. Then another, another, etc. for maybe 30 people. Have the 30th person say the sentence. It will be nothing like the original. Now multiply that by decades of time, thousands of people, all while mingling with other stories and myths in the popular zeitgeist, all with a scientifically uninformed and superstitious populace, and a council of equally-uninformed clergy deciding which of the texts are true, and in what ways. Still want to tell me everything happened exactly as written?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Biography vs Autobiography...I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Inspired meaning kept true and without error. The God of the old testament was very much like a new parent in my mind. Not because I'm a fool but because he seemed frustrated with his creation of God-like creatures. Why would he create us in his image in the first place? I'd guess so that we could choose things for ourselves. God's omniscience ( if you can imagine he exists ) isn't under our definition. If he truly holds all power omniscience is something he can adjust. Just as a human could fast forward to the end of every movie God could know whatever he wants to but has no desire to know everything and thus created a situation where he removes his control. The outcome surprised him as the Bible says that he repented that he had made man on the earth. How could an all knowing God repent? The only way that I can imagine this is if he purposely created a situation where he could be surprised. Men are apes that are God-like. The mental is the area where we are God-like and not the physical. Our physical bodies are just like our animal brethren

Almost hard to comment because this is just one large assumption, and it actually (and amusingly) doesn't match any religious doctrine I'm familiar with. You're just ad-libbing here to justify your belief.

Different people wrote the Bible, at different times, with different views of God. Is it any wonder He seems different in various books? Your (albeit creative) musings on the omniscience of God are nothing but vague guesses, based on nothing but your own hunches and interpretations.

Originally posted by The MISTER
thus the evolution confusion.

Evolution's such a nauseatingly proven fact that I'm not sure what confusion you're referring to. Anyone claiming otherwise is either scientifically uninformed, pushing rhetoric they've been fed by someone with an agenda, or they in fact are the person with an agenda.

But let's try not to turn this into an evolution discussion, I'm much more interested in actually hearing your response to my original points against theism.

Originally posted by The MISTER
His act of destroying the first version of earth with a flood was like wiping the slate clean and starting anew.

Are you really claiming this to be historical fact? The flood is entirely metaphoric. There's not a grain of literal truth to it.

Which also bring up the original point of predecessors to Christianity in mythology. Noah's Ark was not the first flood myth in which a divine being destroyed the Earth. Not only is it not literally true (which can easily be proven, and has been, through geological observations), but it also raises the question of its inclusion at all if it borrows from earlier non-Christian sources. How does the existence of pagan ideology factor into your story of God's maturation through the Old Testament?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Based on the quote of mine you pulled, your post should have been a defense of the veracity of the Bible in the face of competing mythological precursors and contemporaries. It was not. Instead, it was one person's justification of a few tendencies of the Bible, which again is simply stating a personal belief and does nothing to counter the oppositions I've laid out.

This may seem more cruel than intended. I like that you're responding and discussing this, and want you to know I don't intend any of this personally. But I didn't see much merit in your post, and I'm not going to hide the fact that I think so.

Originally posted by Digi
There's a lot to be said to that, and it will be, but I'll need a bit of time. Thanks for responding though.

Originally posted by Digi
Bruce Lee lived in a time where facts could be independently verified, materials could easily be printed in days/hours, and didn't need to be passed down through generations of oral history. Saying that people wrote about events in the Bible doesn't make them true. You're failing at basic rigor here by providing exactly zero evidence for the Bible being true.

Also, most of the books of the Bible weren't written by people who witnessed it personally. Particularly, the Gospels.

Applying modern standards to ancient texts is dangerous. Say a sentence to someone, then have him say it to someone else. Then another, another, etc. for maybe 30 people. Have the 30th person say the sentence. It will be nothing like the original. Now multiply that by decades of time, thousands of people, all while mingling with other stories and myths in the popular zeitgeist, all with a scientifically uninformed and superstitious populace, and a council of equally-uninformed clergy deciding which of the texts are true, and in what ways. Still want to tell me everything happened exactly as written?

Almost hard to comment because this is just one large assumption, and it actually (and amusingly) doesn't match any religious doctrine I'm familiar with. You're just ad-libbing here to justify your belief.

Different people wrote the Bible, at different times, with different views of God. Is it any wonder He seems different in various books? Your (albeit creative) musings on the omniscience of God are nothing but vague guesses, based on nothing but your own hunches and interpretations.

Evolution's such a nauseatingly proven fact that I'm not sure what confusion you're referring to. Anyone claiming otherwise is either scientifically uninformed, pushing rhetoric they've been fed by someone with an agenda, or they in fact are the person with an agenda.

But let's try not to turn this into an evolution discussion, I'm much more interested in actually hearing your response to my original points against theism.

Are you really claiming this to be historical fact? The flood is entirely metaphoric. There's not a grain of literal truth to it.

Which also bring up the original point of predecessors to Christianity in mythology. Noah's Ark was not the first flood myth in which a divine being destroyed the Earth. Not only is it not literally true (which can easily be proven, and has been, through geological observations), but it also raises the question of its inclusion at all if it borrows from earlier non-Christian sources. How does the existence of pagan ideology factor into your story of God's maturation through the Old Testament?

Based on the quote of mine you pulled, your post should have been a defense of the veracity of the Bible in the face of competing mythological precursors and contemporaries. It was not. Instead, it was one person's justification of a few tendencies of the Bible, which again is simply stating a personal belief and does nothing to counter the oppositions I've laid out.

This may seem more cruel than intended. I like that you're responding and discussing this, and want you to know I don't intend any of this personally. But I didn't see much merit in your post, and I'm not going to hide the fact that I think so.

I'm not put off by the bluntness of your post. I actually prefer to have sincere discussion where no sugar coating is necessary. 😎
The fact of the matter is I've heard for a long time that the Bible is full of contradictions and myths but consider my position. I've been taught to believe that truth is in the Bible. I read the Bible for myself and find truth in it. I realize that truth is rare and absolute truths cannot be confirmed at all. Next I am presented with claims that scientists have actually found truth and it is that the Bible is not a miraculous text. These are the same scientists that have throughout the years considered no truths to be absolute in science. This has led me to be more skeptical in humans than in the Bible. That being said I do not want to just put on blinders if there are some obvious examples of how the Bible errs. As of now I'm more interested in what evidence that we have that the flood of the Bible did not happen. The reason being because you accept this evidence. That gives it some credibility.

Evolution is a fact. The confusion that I was referring to is the idea that we would be somehow physically different from the rest of the beasts that adapt/evolve constantly. The realization of freedom of choice is the only thing that makes us different from the beasts that operate off instinct. As far as living cells forming from inanimate objects I await good evidence that dead things can produce living things but will accept any good evidence I'm presented with.

To address the mythological precursors and contemporaries: If there was a great flood I would not find it surprising that more people wrote about it than the people who wrote the Bible. This could apply to any story in the Bible or in a history book that is true. The fact that Bible stories exist outside of the Bible could lead a person to believe one of two things. Either that the stories are false mythology, or that they are evidence that certain events did actually occur. I obviously choose the latter but remain open to evidence that these stories where false.

I hope that was better!

Originally posted by The MISTER
Evolution is a fact. The confusion that I was referring to is the idea that we would be somehow physically different from the rest of the beasts that adapt/evolve constantly. The realization of freedom of choice is the only thing that makes us different from the beasts that operate off instinct. As far as living cells forming from inanimate objects I await good evidence that dead things can produce living things but will accept any good evidence I'm presented with.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is no "confusion" on that issue to anyone except you... You are the only person who keeps insisting that we are "fundamentally different" from animals, none of the people supporting evolution have given any support to that claim and have actually told you why you are wrong, several times.

There's something fundamentally different about us for sure. It just isn't physical. Animals are intelligent and use language (dolphins) so the difference is more than just intellect as well.

Earlier we spoke on this and I used the example that humans could annihilate the earth and everything on it if they willed. I think you said that we couldn't. I think you're mistaken. Humans are owners. We own the animals that we choose to own from the microscopic to the whales. We own the earth and are currently killing many of its creatures. Given time and with research humans could discover the best way to detonate the entire planet. I think anyone who disagrees seriously underestimates the imaginations of humans. A group of detached humans would rationalize detonating this planet if they believed that there was something to be gained by doing it. Perhaps an idea with Earth destroyed permanently humans would be forced to take to the stars as a species. Hopefully that would never happen but I'm human, so that's one who has imagined it. Actually the movie Titan A.E. doesn't leave much to the imagination.

The bottom line is that healthy humans are responsible for our actions, can choose our own paths, and can be guilty of wrongdoings. Animals are creatures that are innocent of guilt as their instinct frees them from accountability.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If that's so then I suppose the missing link thing has been cleared up. If I'm not mistaken that's what the whole ordeal was about.

There's something fundamentally different about us for sure. It just isn't physical. Animals are intelligent and use language (dolphins) so the difference is more than just intellect as well.

Earlier we spoke on this and I used the example that humans could annihilate the earth and everything on it if they willed. I think you said that we couldn't. I think you're mistaken. Humans are owners. We own the animals that we choose to own from the microscopic to the whales. We own the earth and are currently killing many of its creatures. Given time and with research humans could discover the best way to detonate the entire planet. I think anyone who disagrees seriously underestimates the imaginations of humans. A group of detached humans would rationalize detonating this planet if they believed that there was something to be gained by doing it. Perhaps an idea with Earth destroyed permanently humans would be forced to take to the stars as a species. Hopefully that would never happen but I'm human, so that's one who has imagined it. Actually the movie Titan A.E. doesn't leave much to the imagination.

The bottom line is that healthy humans are responsible for our actions, can choose our own paths, and can be guilty of wrongdoings. Animals are creatures that are innocent of guilt as their instinct frees them from accountability.

Originally posted by 753
We are seriously ecologically impactating and thanks to nuclear weapons we could wipe most multicellular life from the earth along with ourselves. But seriously, you're delluded in your anthropocentrism. We don't 'own' this planet let alone control it, we've just caused some damage to it. Nature as a whole remains so far beyond our microbian perspective, we can't even see it properly. Single cell organisms and viruses could wipe us out even more effectivelly than we could them by the way.

I'm certain that your community has displaced many animals that once called that area home. You and your fellow humans own that area now. It's yours in a way that it could never be theirs because the only creature we know of that could own your land now is another human. It's not anthropocentric to acknowledge that all life on earth including the microbes are threatened by humanities ideas.

If an alien race showed up proving that we were not extremely significant and offered us a large ship that could fight, travel safely through space, and hold most of us, in exchange for the permission to detonate the earth and replace it with some earth size space station there are humans that would go for it. That's a wild idea imagined up but take out the aliens and just give us enough time and we COULD go at that without alien help.

Just imagine if we all believed that the detonation of the earth would reveal resources key to our survival. Humans would immediately begin seeking the answer of how to do it while the other creatures would be oblivious to our ideas. What evidence do we have that any other creature claims ownership of areas that it hasn't seen yet? Humans do this regularly so the idea that as a whole we do not believe that the earth is ours lacks evidence to support it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If that's so then I suppose the missing link thing has been cleared up. If I'm not mistaken that's what the whole ordeal was about.

There's something fundamentally different about us for sure. It just isn't physical. Animals are intelligent and use language (dolphins) so the difference is more than just intellect as well.

Earlier we spoke on this and I used the example that humans could annihilate the earth and everything on it if they willed. I think you said that we couldn't. I think you're mistaken. Humans are owners. We own the animals that we choose to own from the microscopic to the whales. We own the earth and are currently killing many of its creatures. Given time and with research humans could discover the best way to detonate the entire planet. I think anyone who disagrees seriously underestimates the imaginations of humans. A group of detached humans would rationalize detonating this planet if they believed that there was something to be gained by doing it. Perhaps an idea with Earth destroyed permanently humans would be forced to take to the stars as a species. Hopefully that would never happen but I'm human, so that's one who has imagined it. Actually the movie Titan A.E. doesn't leave much to the imagination.

The bottom line is that healthy humans are responsible for our actions, can choose our own paths, and can be guilty of wrongdoings. Animals are creatures that are innocent of guilt as their instinct frees them from accountability.

So far we do not have the arsenal to destroy the Earth... undoubtedly many lifeforms could be driven extinct, but, ultimately it is almost 100% certain that bacteria will outlive us. Deep sea bacteria will be almost completely unaffected by nuclear war. They are actually more successful than humans, and actually bacteria have impacted the environment more than humans as well (atmospheric oxygen only exists because of bacteria dating from the earliest stages of life).

You definitions of "owning" the planet are ludicrous and seem to be used only by yourself. There is no scientific concept of ownership that would justify such a statement.

I wonder why atheism is in the religion forum...it's technically not a religion.

Originally posted by vince_slice
I wonder why atheism is in the religion forum...it's technically not a religion.

*sigh*

It's obviously relevant to religious discussion. You're just choosing to ignore that fact if you act otherwise. Try not to bring pointless semantic discussion into this thread, we have enough of that on this forum.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, that's pretty much all wrong. The difference you're proposing between free will and instinct is simply not supported by psychology at all... humans follow instincts and psychological mechanisms like all other animals. It is simply your human-centric viewpoint that you view actions by animals as "instinct" and those by humans as "choice"... actually there is not any difference at all between those things.

So far we do not have the arsenal to destroy the Earth... undoubtedly many lifeforms could be driven extinct, but, ultimately it is almost 100% certain that bacteria will outlive us. Deep sea bacteria will be almost completely unaffected by nuclear war. They are actually more successful than humans, and actually bacteria have impacted the environment more than humans as well (atmospheric oxygen only exists because of bacteria dating from the earliest stages of life).

You definitions of "owning" the planet are ludicrous and seem to be used only by yourself. There is no scientific concept of ownership that would justify such a statement.

You are suggesting that a human cannot overcome instinct with will. I'd have to disagree. Instinct is not the same as free will. I'll accept any of that empirical evidence I've heard about that conclusively proves that humans cannot overcome instinct with willpower.

What do you mean by free will though? There's no coherent definition of it in a religious sense. Everything we do is a causal reaction that which came before it. Do be otherwise would be in defiance of the laws of physics that control the entire universe, and we are a part of the universe.

So sure, with how you're using the terms, we can overcome "instinct" with "will" (another ill-defined term, imo). But we can't overcome deterministic reactions to, well, anything, which makes religious ideas of free will wishful thinking.

Also, your earlier points about the flood, and numerous religions writing about it, is still complete bunk. When I said that geological observations have ruled out any such flood-event in human history, that doesn't just include Christian history but ALL of human history. Flood myths are common, but there was no historical flood that matches any of them. It's just a story Christianity borrowed from earlier sources and made its own. Why so many insist on obvious myths being literal fact is beyond me, when they are both implausible and scientifically unproven (and often times have evidence directly against them). There were a hundred mythological figures in antiquity, none of them more valid than any other, Jesus just managed to be the only one to survive the onslaught of reasonable inquiry.

Originally posted by Digi
What do you mean by free will though? There's no coherent definition of it in a religious sense. Everything we do is a causal reaction that which came before it. Do be otherwise would be in defiance of the laws of physics that control the entire universe, and we are a part of the universe.

Indeed our wills cannot bend the nature of the universe. However we have evidence that our wills have affected more change in less time than what we have observed occurring naturally outside of our wills' influence. Our size may be insignificant but our scope is infinite. Shakyamunison has not seen multiple universes but he can realistically imagine them and teach others what he has discovered with his mind. Whether these universes manifest physically or not does not take away from the fact that his mind has manifested something that is real. An idea is created that is unique to the universe as it is one individuals personal take on things. Other creatures have language (dolphins) but the opinion based creating and sharing of new ideas seems distinctively human and directly related to the freedom of thought about all perceived aspects of our situation. Free Will= the ability to create new ideas based on shared and personal opinions.

Originally posted by Digi
So sure, with how you're using the terms, we can overcome "instinct" with "will" (another ill-defined term, imo). But we can't overcome deterministic reactions to, well, anything, which makes religious ideas of free will wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, your earlier points about the flood, and numerous religions writing about it, is still complete bunk. When I said that geological observations have ruled out any such flood-event in human history, that doesn't just include Christian history but ALL of human history. Flood myths are common, but there was no historical flood that matches any of them. It's just a story Christianity borrowed from earlier sources and made its own. Why so many insist on obvious myths being literal fact is beyond me, when they are both implausible and scientifically unproven (and often times have evidence directly against them). There were a hundred mythological figures in antiquity, none of them more valid than any other, Jesus just managed to be the only one to survive the onslaught of reasonable inquiry.

Originally posted by Digi
*sigh*

It's obviously relevant to religious discussion. You're just choosing to ignore that fact if you act otherwise. Try not to bring pointless semantic discussion into this thread, we have enough of that on this forum.

Pointless semantic discussion?

So you're telling me that if I'm an atheist and I hear a theist accuse me of blatantly false things based on their ignorant interpretation of what an atheist is, I should do nothing, simply because you deem it pointless semantics? Your attitude is the type of attitude that helps perpetuate their ignorance on atheism.

If a theist tells me that I totally reject god and that my rejection in god requires as much dogmatic faith as his or her belief in god, I should let that slide? If a theist tells me that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive and you're either one or the other, I should let that slide? If a theist tells me that all atheist believe in the dogmatic doctrines of science and are closed-minded to spirituality, I should let this slide too? What if the theist accuses atheist like myself as wanting to destroy and burn all religion and that's the central goal of an atheist?

All of those pertain to the meaning of what atheism is, but are they pointless to discuss, debate, and refute? Of course not.

I've been accused of all these blatant misinterpretations and gross generalizations by theists, and I tell them that I'm no more atheist than they are when it comes to Zeus, Thor or any other deity, the only difference is I go one god further (burrowed from Richard Dawkins). Their answer to me is that I'm just debating pointless semantics, and they continue accusing me of things that aren't simply true of atheists in general.

Atheism should be no more relevant to religion, than non-stamp collecting to stamp collecting or someone who doesn't collect stamps vs. someone who does. It only becomes relevant when stamp collectors suddenly feel threatened by those who don't collect stamps. Similarly religion for some reason often feel threatened if someone simply disbelieves in god. Part of the reason is their ignorance of atheism really is, and it doesn't help if we ignore their ignorance and label any attempt to refute their false interpretations as "pointless" semantic discussion.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Animals are intelligent and use language (dolphins) so the difference is more than just intellect as well.

dolphin communication, while complex and likely inclusive of some abstract symbols, is not a language in the same way human languages are.

afaik, it is the closest thing that exists in nature (though Cracked.com did a good article recently [with some notable exceptions] about animals seeming to acquire understanding of abstract human terms and social norms when speaking), but it is not the same as human language.

This makes sense, of course, as human language is a property of the human brain, and dolphin communication is a product of theirs.

Originally posted by vince_slice
Pointless semantic discussion?

So you're telling me that if I'm an atheist and I hear a theist accuse me of blatantly false things based on their ignorant interpretation of what an atheist is, I should do nothing, simply because you deem it pointless semantics? Your attitude is the type of attitude that helps perpetuate their ignorance on atheism.

If a theist tells me that I totally reject god and that my rejection in god requires as much dogmatic faith as his or her belief in god, I should let that slide? If a theist tells me that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive and you're either one or the other, I should let that slide? If a theist tells me that all atheist believe in the dogmatic doctrines of science and are closed-minded to spirituality, I should let this slide too? What if the theist accuses atheist like myself as wanting to destroy and burn all religion and that's the central goal of an atheist?

All of those pertain to the meaning of what atheism is, but are they pointless to discuss, debate, and refute? Of course not.

I've been accused of all these blatant misinterpretations and gross generalizations by theists, and I tell them that I'm no more atheist than they are when it comes to Zeus, Thor or any other deity, the only difference is I go one god further (burrowed from Richard Dawkins). Their answer to me is that I'm just debating pointless semantics, and they continue accusing me of things that aren't simply true of atheists in general.

just breaking the post in two to highlight something. In the preceding, we have the religious philosophy of an atheist in terms of what it means to be one and how it fits with philosophical thiesm, then you say the following:

Originally posted by vince_slice
Atheism should be no more relevant to religion, than non-stamp collecting to stamp collecting or someone who doesn't collect stamps vs. someone who does. It only becomes relevant when stamp collectors suddenly feel threatened by those who don't collect stamps. Similarly religion for some reason often feel threatened if someone simply disbelieves in god. Part of the reason is their ignorance of atheism really is, and it doesn't help if we ignore their ignorance and label any attempt to refute their false interpretations as "pointless" semantic discussion.

well, sir, you have answered your own question. Why is atheism being discussed on a religion forum? because of the very same issues you brought up between thiesm and athiesm. The first 2/3 of your post is, if you read the OP, exactly why Digi made this thread in the first place.

Also, check out some of the other threads on the forum. This forum could be renamed "theology" or some other philisophical term, as "religion" is discussed less than personal ideas about religions are. Most threads that fall specifically under the "religious studies" umbrella would probably be those about Islam, and I think Shakey has some Buddhism ones that would qualify.

Originally posted by vince_slice
I wonder why atheism is in the religion forum...it's technically not a religion.

ah, missed the edit...

anyways, for the same reason that Anarchy would be discussed on a politics board.

Originally posted by vince_slice
I wonder why atheism is in the religion forum...it's technically not a religion.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You are suggesting that a human cannot overcome instinct with will. I'd have to disagree. Instinct is not the same as free will. I'll accept any of that empirical evidence I've heard about that conclusively proves that humans cannot overcome instinct with willpower.

Like, what if someone jumps in front of a car to save another person? You could claim that this violates the "instinct" to save yourself, and is an example of free will. But you could just as easily interpret it as an instinctive altruism, and you wouldn't be wrong either. Its all hard-wired to the brain either way.

Originally posted by vince_slice
Pointless semantic discussion?

So you're telling me that if I'm an atheist and I hear a theist accuse me of blatantly false things based on their ignorant interpretation of what an atheist is, I should do nothing, simply because you deem it pointless semantics? Your attitude is the type of attitude that helps perpetuate their ignorance on atheism.

Nope, two different arguments. I'm all about disambiguation when it comes to peoples' beliefs. All I said was, atheism is relevant to religious discussion. It is. The "semantic" comment was just that I'd rather discuss atheism/theism in this thread, not whether or not this is the right place for the thread. One debate is clearly less fun and productive.

inamilist's points all apply as well, and are basically just an elaboration of my own.