Expressing Atheism

[MrColossal]

One last time, by testing the claims made by the religion.

[Moox]

A disgusting generalization. There is no way whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God.  Christianity encompasses many people from many cultures. If one Christian in Spain makes a claim that God lives in Idaho does that mean that the Christian God doesn't exist if he can not be found in Idaho? Absolutely not. Typical Pelosi logic. You cant pick and choose things that agree with your point of view and throw out the rest.

[MrColossal]

The Bible makes claims. We can test them. Sorry!

also: "There is no way whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God" therefore "There is no way whatsoever to prove the existence of a God" It works both ways!

To bring it around to the subject, I think conversations like these are almost subconsciously avoided in real life. Has anyone ever had a true religious debate in real life?

[Moox]

The Bible makes claims. We can test them. Sorry!

What are these claims in the bible? You are also picking the side of strict interpretation of the bible when in fact there are many Christians that believe in a loose interpretation. Once again, Pelosi logic at its finest. You are attempting to rationalize your disregard for a religion by making generalizations about it. There are many many many Christian denominations with their own beliefs however you encompass them all with one set of beliefs that you feel disproves the existence of God. The bible to some is the word of God, to others it is a book that outlines morals to live by. Picking the first and generalizing all Christians as believers in a false God is just pathetic. I am happy for you finding joy in being an atheist, however when you choose to attack others in order to rationalize it you are creating more animosity between believers and the nonbelievers.

[space boy]

Quite simply, I accept that its impossible to know if there is a supreme deity, and I'm not inclined to believe either way. I accept that it is entirely possible that there is a god, whether I believe so or not. At the moment, from my experiences in life I *think* that there isn't, but should I have experiences to the contrary, I may change that view. Calling myself an atheist would suggest I adamantly believe there is no god, and that is not the case. I am always open to changing my views should I receive new evidence or experiences that require me to.

See that's what I meant with misunderstanding. Being an atheist doesn't automatically suggest that you have made up your mind on that matter and it cannot be changed. It simply refers to your current opinion. The type of atheist you are talking about would be a strong atheist. And I'm just as critical of that stance as I am of believers. That's why you have those little words like "weak" or "strong" to specify your stance a bit more. If someone knows what a weak atheist is they know my opinion about god.

But anyway, feel free to call me a weak atheist agnostic if you like. (see, this is why I don't like labels, its too hard to make one word explain complex personal beliefs).

As far as not wanting to label yourself, names like agnostic or atheist shouldn't be seen as something that describes the whole person. These are no ideologies or ways of life but simply opinions about a specific topic. Judging the whole person because they call themselves "atheist" or "deist" or whatever is just stereotyping. These "labels" reflect your opinion towards a certain thing and not your whole personality. As an analogy, I couldn't just say i like missy elliotts music but "refuse to be labeled" as a missy elliott fan. If i like her music, that's what I am. And when I don't believe in god, I am an atheist, no matter if i like to be called that or not.

[MrColossal]

Any extraordinary claim made by anyone can be tested. I'm not picking and choosing. If there are 1000 denominations of christians out there and each of them make seperate claims about how a god affects the earth, we should test every single one. Not with the express purpose of disproving it but to see if they are right. You're putting words into my mouth and also trying to insult me for no reason.

I don't need to supply the claims because I'm not the one trying to prove an extraordinary claim. Burden of proof and all that.

[Moox]

Bottom line is that there is no way to disprove the existence of God just like there is no way to prove he doesn't exist. Choosing to believe one or another does not make anyone less intelligent, it does not make one superior, and it does not prove one is correct. The animosity exists because people try to cross the line in order to belittle one side in order to create a facade of greatness. There should not be arguments over the existence or lack thereof but rather mutual agreement that either side could be correct. This is why it troubles me when yourself and others attempt to rationalize your beliefs through the attempts at disestablishing the beliefs of others.

[MrColossal]

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about people being less intelligent or me being smarter, sorry. I don't know what you think I'm saying but when someone makes a claim like:

"Putting a bag of skittles under your pillow at night will turn it into gold by morning."

This is a claim that can be tested very easily. We test it, find out that it's false [I'm sure you'll forgive me stating this claim false without actually testing it first] and then move on. "Turns out I was wrong, sorry." And we go on with our lives.

If a religious sect makes a claim like "This shroud has the image of Jesus Christ on it and it is 2000 and some years old and is covered in his blood." We can test it and find out that it is actually paint and dates to around the 1540's [if memory serves]. The claim proves to be wrong, this isn't cherry picking, this is finding a testable claim and testing it.

My superiority hasn't just boosted up but the general ultimate knowledge of the world has just gone up. Now we know something we didn't know before. Everyone wins especially religious people because they can stop worshipping a false relic. Why would you be against that?

Obviously there is a way to prove the existence of god for yourself because you believe in the christian god and not some random forest spirit from the deep amazon. If your proof is testable, why would you not want to test it to see if you're right? "I believe in god because I feel his love." ok fine, go ahead! "I believe in god because I feel his love and it says so in the bible" Getting closer to a discussion on origins of the bible, the authors, the editing, stuff like that "I believe in god because I feel his love, it says so in the bible and he cured my cancer." BING! Now we have a claim! This stuff is important!

I want to have all the knowledge of the world in my brain. I want to know as much as I can about everything, that involves debating, discussing, and testing claims made by countless people. From scientists to teachers to religious figures. I will never just say "I do not want to delve deeper into this conversation..." If it helps me grasp a little more of what I see as truth out of this universe, down the rabbit hole I go. Sorry?

[space boy]

The bible illustrates a set of laws and morals for living, this is its most important contribution to modern society. The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

[Moox]

The superiority statement was in reference to Stupot's post, pardon me if that wasn't clear.

Dating of religious relics and investigating the biblical text I am also all for, however that is not relevant to proving or disproving the existence of God.

[Moox]

The bible illustrates a set of laws and morals for living, this is its most important contribution to modern society. The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

There is also parts of the Bible that say not to eat shellfish. You can find parts in any book that you dont agree with. There are those that go with the strict interpretation and then there are those that go with a loose. I follow the latter. The bible sets moral boundaries for living and as a human I try to live within those as best I can.

[MrColossal]

and I can't believe I didn't remember this before

Evenwolf: If you're eager to make a video.. Participate in the Blasphemy Challenge! I'm thinking of making an animated Hooray! to take part

http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

[space boy]

There is also parts of the Bible that say not to eat shellfish. You can find parts in any book that you dont agree with. There are those that go with the strict interpretation and then there are those that go with a loose. I follow the latter, the bible sets moral boundaries for living and as a human I try to live within those as best I can.

So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

I'd also like to recommend a website
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[Moox]

So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

Not at all. Loose interpretation means reading the bible and formulating your own set of moral principles based on what you value in life as well as the time period. Just as with interpretation of the constitution there is many ways to look at the bible. The way I interpret the bible might be very different from the way the guy next to me does. It is a personal experience, nothing that should be generalized.

[evenwolf]

Moox, I have trouble responding here because my intent is not to challenge your religion.

That was sort of the point of the thread.  To avoid such things.   It would be a contradiction I think for me to go after your throat and persecute this or that when I have my own beliefs I feel I should be protected of having.     Sometimes however, I am up for a fiery debate. 

I suppose that's why threads with any religion at all, always turn into the same thing.    Somebody, somewhere wants a fiery debate.


Eric:   The title & website really turned me off.   Like... that would be really fucking bold.   But I was thinking a fictional piece tackling contradictions could be good.   I don't know.   The thing about two brothers, one in heaven and one in hell could be good. 

Spaceboy: the amputee question is a good one.  thanks for presenting it to me

[space boy]

So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

Not at all. Loose interpretation means reading the bible and formulating your own set of moral principles based on what you value in life as well as the time period. Just as with interpretation of the constitution there is many ways to look at the bible. The way I interpret the bible might be very different from the way the guy next to me does. It is a personal experience, nothing that should be generalized.

Since you base your morality on the bible, and I don't think you would kill a person who works on the weekend or kill a child that has stolen candy, I thought you could explain to me how the fragments i mentioned fit into that. I don't understand how that would fit at all and I also don't understand why someone would need an ancient scripture to tell wrong apart from right in the first place, especially a scripture as morally questionable and selfcontradicting as the christian bible. I can't say my question has been answered, but let's leave it at that.

[Khris]

Thanks for the amputee site, space boy. That's one of the best reads about the existence of God ever. I can't help but smile when reading something like that.
It feels great if someone finds the perfect words to prove something you always instinctively thought to be true.

[Venus]

I'm an atheist and so totally support MrC's argument on this whole proof debate, but would like to add that science (and we are applying scientific methods to prove something, right?) does not work as most religious people would like it to.

If a scientist makes a claim, the others who disagree do not have to provide evidence that he is wrong. It is the one making the claim that has to bring forward proofs. What the disagreeing scientists then do is checking whether these proofs are indeed solid. This is something that can be tested. If those presented proofs turn out to be null and void, then the claim has no backing up and is therefore not accepted. If you make a claim, you got to provide evidence. If that evidence crumbles and does not withstand testing, your claim is worth nothing.

I'm still waiting for religions to present evidence for the existence of God that don't fall to pieces the moment they are scientifically tested. Until then, I'll just lean back comfortably without having to disprove some (in my opinion absurd) claim (because that would lead to the situation MrC and LimpingFish described). You can't disprove claims. You can just provide evidence for them and these, in order to make the claim valid, have to withstand scientific tests. And the "evidence" presented by religious people/groups/whatever don't.

EDIT: Fixed some typos...

[Pelican]

See that's what I meant with misunderstanding. Being an atheist doesn't automatically suggest that you have made up your mind on that matter and it cannot be changed. It simply refers to your current opinion. The type of atheist you are talking about would be a strong atheist. And I'm just as critical of that stance as I am of believers. That's why you have those little words like "weak" or "strong" to specify your stance a bit more. If someone knows what a weak atheist is they know my opinion about god.

Quick clarification, since the labelling issue is getting a little off-topic:
I really don't mind how my beliefs are described, and I will admit to being a little hazy on how people perceive the difference between agnostic and atheist. I am simply hesitant to call myself an atheist, because it is only the Christian god that I don't think exists - because of personal experiences in my life. I am not denying the existence of ANY god or supreme being, just the one view of it that I was brought up with. Anyway, I've said my bit, lets not get bogged down with the labels, ok? If what I've said makes me an atheist, then fine I'm an atheist.

Whatever the label, it doesn't make it any less difficult to express my views. Its rather insulting that while I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments for theism, I'm not afforded the same respect in return.

[LimpingFish]

I'm sure some hardline theists refuse to entertain any discussion about the existence of God, as it is simply unfathomable to them. They believe, without question, that God exists. Just as the hardline agnostic ultimately believes the question itself is irrelevent to both points of view, the hardline theist's belief is absolute.

And I respect that. But to deny non-theists the right to express their views, on all facets of the issue, is simply unfair and unreasonable.