Atheism

[ItinerantLurker]

Why put your faith in the text?

I was astounded when I first read the NT.

It does go way beyond fiction.

I strongly doubt that man could ever compile a story so complex.

I've read and re-read the NT and don't see anything that's particularly more complex as other religious stories.

It is all based on Love, which is even more astounding.

Mmmmm. . .I wouldn't say that "all" of it is based on Love, but many of Christ's teachings about love are, indeed, quite astounding. That being said, does "astounding" = "true"?

I suppose you will have to just make up your own mind in the end IL.

Really? So there's just no convincing arguments/evidence at all that could inform my decision that don't require me to already believe it?

Better men than you and I have bit the bullet regarding Jesus Christ.

Does this somehow affect whether or not Jesus Christ was God?




Lurker

 

[David777]

Hello ItinerantLurker.

Evidence, what about that most peculiar nation they call Israel.

Formerly God's chosen people, not now.

A nation without a territory for so long, but, since 1948 they have
a territory to call their own. I find the Jews probably the most hated
race of people to ever exist.

They are surrounded by Islamic nations whose greatest ambition
is to exterminate the Jews.

Such a small nation (6M people), but firepower probably within the
top five nations on earth. Also, nuclear weapons.

I do not think you will find a race of people with such an extraordinary
history. Come now IL you will have to agree.

 

[Beans]

Hi Lurker.
I think if you look at other world religions (apart from Christianity) you will see that they have also been corrupted from their original purpose (like Christianity has).
When a belief becomes wide spread it then becomes political currency to be exploited by the ruling classes.
Do you really think that the religious establishment has faithfully represented the teachings of Jesus for the past 2000 years, or that the teachings of Jesus are being truly represented today?
What you are citing, the changing theologies throughout the history of Christianity, are simply the effects that different political and popular trends had on the population.

Limited though our knowledge may be, we have yet to find a need for a creator-god. This strikes me as a remarkable oversight for any creator.

The above strikes me as an unusual statement, since it is only the in the last 100 or so years that atheism has become widespread. In human history far more people have believed there is a Creator than not. Not that that represents evidence, but just that those who are "yet to find a need for a creator-god" are in a great minority, but that is a side point.

What I really wanted to say is, that (as you may have gathered through your own reading) the most significant parts of the bible (IMO) are in fact the TEACHINGS of Jesus. The book (the Bible) was written by people, and contrary to many other Christians, I do not feel that I have to defend the "Infalibilty" of the bible. I do however believe that Jesus had a very special message for humans about love and that the best record of that message is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. This message had NOT been faithfully represented by "The Church" throughout history (especially "love your enemies", but not exclusively). One of the main problems with Christianity is that Christians feel that they need to conquer people of other faiths instead of loving them. There are a lot of truths in other faiths, we do not need to try to tear them down.
I believe there are many paths up the mountain, and sheep in other folds and try to see "that of God" in every human being.

Lurker, I became "a believer" because science was not answering my questions. I looked at the teachings of Jesus and saw that He was teaching that there is more to life than just surviving. I found that true happiness comes from loving and helping others, something that science and "survival of the fittest" does not place much (if any) importance on.
I hope that makes some sense to you?

Love Beans

 

[Fraction]

Evidence, what about that most peculiar nation they call Israel.

Formerly God's chosen people, not now.

A nation without a territory for so long, but, since 1948 they have
a territory to call their own. I find the Jews probably the most hated
race of people to ever exist.

They are surrounded by Islamic nations whose greatest ambition
is to exterminate the Jews.

Such a small nation (6M people), but firepower probably within the
top five nations on earth. Also, nuclear weapons.

I do not think you will find a race of people with such an extraordinary
history. Come now IL you will have to agree.

Israel and history of the Jewish people and their accomplishments or suffering are in fact NO proof at all. You (like others in this thread, on both sides) try to cling onto evidence that does not exist. This could be convincing to you, but you cannot apply it to a debate. No one can win a debate this huge. People have been fighting and destroying everything over these types of beliefs since the start of time. Proof? There is NONE that a human can provide. God will prove himself to each person individually. Jesus Christ understood the difficulty of having faith in something you cannot see, is God going to leave us hanging when we struggle? I mean no offense in my response to you directly, but this has nothing to do with proof. We need to encourage people to be open about it. If they are open then God WILL get into them. They may not be believers now, but if they are just waiting for it patiently it will happen. God works in very amazing ways that no one can comprehend. I am merely saying that instead of trying to prove it, talk about it like you would talk about a hobby or interest. Plant a seed, get them to open up.

Hi Lurker.
I think if you look at other world religions (apart from Christianity) you will see that they have also been corrupted from their original purpose (like Christianity has).
When a belief becomes wide spread it then becomes political currency to be exploited by the ruling classes.
Do you really think that the religious establishment has faithfully represented the teachings of Jesus for the past 2000 years, or that the teachings of Jesus are being truly represented today?
What you are citing, the changing theologies throughout the history of Christianity, are simply the effects that different political and popular trends had on the population.



The above strikes me as an unusual statement, since it is only the in the last 100 or so years that atheism has become widespread. In human history far more people have believed there is a Creator than not. Not that that represents evidence, but just that those who are "yet to find a need for a creator-god" are in a great minority, but that is a side point.

What I really wanted to say is, that (as you may have gathered through your own reading) the most significant parts of the bible (IMO) are in fact the TEACHINGS of Jesus. The book (the Bible) was written by people, and contrary to many other Christians, I do not feel that I have to defend the "Infalibilty" of the bible. I do however believe that Jesus had a very special message for humans about love and that the best record of that message is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. This message had NOT been faithfully represented by "The Church" throughout history (especially "love your enemies", but not exclusively). One of the main problems with Christianity is that Christians feel that they need to conquer people of other faiths instead of loving them. There are a lot of truths in other faiths, we do not need to try to tear them down.
I believe there are many paths up the mountain, and sheep in other folds and try to see "that of God" in every human being.

Lurker, I became "a believer" because science was not answering my questions. I looked at the teachings of Jesus and saw that He was teaching that there is more to life than just surviving. I found that true happiness comes from loving and helping others, something that science and "survival of the fittest" does not place much (if any) importance on.
I hope that makes some sense to you?

Love Beans

HEY! Ever hear the phrase "history repeats itself"? This is exactly what I though about reading your response, mostly when you said talked about feeling the need to conquer. All throughout time this has been implemented. Not only this but persecution as well. I hear stories from my non christian friends about christians treating them really bad. A lot of these people are really surprised when I embrace them without judging them. They are blown away! Anyway, I agree with what you have said in your response. It was a very good one!

 

[ItinerantLurker]

I do not think you will find a race of people with such an extraordinary
history.

The Greek city-states come to mind off the top of my head.

Come now IL you will have to agree.

Surely having a rich and tragic history is not evidence of the truth of a culture's religious beliefs. Otherwise that would be evidence of. . .well. . .Judaism.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Hi Lurker.
What you are citing, the changing theologies throughout the history of Christianity, are simply the effects that different political and popular trends had on the population.

Precisely, which implies that our current doctrines and theologies are also effects of different political and popular trends. How else can we explain the lack of a definite and consistent understanding of most issues from the church over the last two thousand years?

The above strikes me as an unusual statement, since it is only the in the last 100 or so years that atheism has become widespread.

Indeed (although I wouldn't call it "widespread"), as we come to understand more and more about how our universe works we've found that natural phenomena does not require supernatural intervention.

What I really wanted to say is, that (as you may have gathered through your own reading) the most significant parts of the bible (IMO) are in fact the TEACHINGS of Jesus. The book (the Bible) was written by people, and contrary to many other Christians, I do not feel that I have to defend the "Infalibilty" of the bible. I do however believe that Jesus had a very special message for humans about love and that the best record of that message is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. This message had NOT been faithfully represented by "The Church" throughout history (especially "love your enemies", but not exclusively). One of the main problems with Christianity is that Christians feel that they need to conquer people of other faiths instead of loving them. There are a lot of truths in other faiths, we do not need to try to tear them down.
I believe there are many paths up the mountain, and sheep in other folds and try to see "that of God" in every human being.

While I believe that Christ's teachings do indeed deserve much profound respect and admiration - I think this is due to their being an amazing and honest attempt to understand a meaningful altruism and not because Jesus was God. I also agree that the records we have of those teachings are very imperfect, of questionable authorship, and probably contain quite a bit of ad hoc material.

Lurker, I became "a believer" because science was not answering my questions. I looked at the teachings of Jesus and saw that He was teaching that there is more to life than just surviving. I found that true happiness comes from loving and helping others, something that science and "survival of the fittest" does not place much (if any) importance on.
I hope that makes some sense to you?

While that does make sense to me, I don't see why this should be exclusive to Christianity, as if atheism and all other belief systems could not offer any more meaningful goals other than "survival". If we are, to quote Sagan, "the custodians of life's meaning" then what would stop us from finding a worthy goal without faith in Christ?




Lurker

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

From beans post:

I think if you look at other world religions (apart from Christianity) you will see that they have also been corrupted from their original purpose (like Christianity has).
When a belief becomes wide spread it then becomes political currency to be exploited by the ruling classes.
Do you really think that the religious establishment has faithfully represented the teachings of Jesus for the past 2000 years, or that the teachings of Jesus are being truly represented today?
What you are citing, the changing theologies throughout the history of Christianity, are simply the effects that different political and popular trends had on the population.

Yes, when the merchant gets it from the people they slice it, dice it, repackage it in parts and parcels so they can sell it back to the ones who gave it to them as something they could never attain on their own.They offer a wide variety of flavors by extracting certain elements.By far the best selling flavors are judgement,greed and ambition. They even resell it to other value added producers.There is a big pile of "love thy enemy" sitting somewhere.
Sorry for the rant.



There will be no proof of God,by God's design.It has been hidden so that we can produce a substance that cannot be produced out of time.A form of matter in an energy flux called faith.
You can't produce it unless you believe something impossible.
So I have no problem if someone says its impossible that God exists.
Because it means it's not to late to produce God's favorite substance.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Neal Young was a miner for a heart of Gold.
According to scripture God is a miner for a heart of gold also.
If he became to real to me I could never produce much faith could I?
Jesus said to those who saw him"you believe because you see,blessed is he who does not see and yet believes.

Why would I want to rob the world of it's potential for blessings by proving the existence of God?How would I please him then?
Let the scientists be right so I can continue to please God while I have time.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Nevermind, found it.




Lurker

 

[David777]

Strange...

Interesting choices you make regarding evidence.

Evidence appears to be what you decide is the evidence.

Your evaluations are extremely subjective not objective.

God decided what evidence would be sufficient. His son
Jesus Christ is the real evidence, has been and always
will be the defining evidence.

Alas, IL decided that it was not evidence.

 

[s.i.e.]

*bump*

Then why are you here, Lurker...if you've already fully understood their error, and seemingly "closed the book" on it, as such?

What are you searching for, if you already know the answers? I don't personally believe you are here simply to gain "followers" in your way, or to gain the personal puffery you may get from winning a debate...although I could be wrong.

What doubt, in all your "understanding" do you still lack conviction on?

Lurker...you've been sitting back shooting down whatever I, or some others, have brought up...yet: what of yourself? What do you want? What do you seek? What remains wanting, in you, in spite of your well-woven logical/rational premise's?

Give us something of you?

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Interesting choices you make regarding evidence.

Evidence appears to be what you decide is the evidence.

Your evaluations are extremely subjective not objective.

I'm afraid you have that backwards. So far all the evidence you've provided is utterly subjective in that it requires that one already believe like you do in order to be convincing.

God decided what evidence would be sufficient. His son
Jesus Christ is the real evidence, has been and always
will be the defining evidence.

We know that Jesus was God how?

Alas, IL decided that it was not evidence.

That would only be evidence if you had established that Jesus was God, obviously if someone doesn't already believe that Jesus was God then using Jesus' being God as evidence that Jesus was God is a bit problematic.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Lurker...you've been sitting back shooting down whatever I, or some others, have brought up...yet: what of yourself? What do you want? What do you seek? What remains wanting, in you, in spite of your well-woven logical/rational premise's?

A desire to understand how I should come to know that Jesus was God. The scriptures seem quite obviously errant or, at the very least, woefully incomplete on a wide range of subjects; Christianity lacks any consistent set of views on all but the most basic of doctrines throughout its history; and the universe seems bereft of evidence for any particular creator-god. I light of this, how can I come to sincerely believe?

I come to this question not as an atheist, but as a Evangelical Christian who began asking questions about his faith years ago and, through study of both science and scripture, has traversed Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution to arrive at last at a point of near-agnosticism.




Lurker

 

[s.i.e.]

A desire to understand how I should come to know that Jesus was God. The scriptures seem quite obviously errant or, at the very least, woefully incomplete on a wide range of subjects; Christianity lacks any consistent set of views on all but the most basic of doctrines throughout its history; and the universe seems bereft of evidence for any particular creator-god. I light of this, how can I come to sincerely believe?

Why is it that you continue to even bother questioning it, Lurker? The majority of you sounds conslusive - case closed - on the issue.

What keeps you in the hunt at all? Why not just become Stephen Hawking, fully?

 

[David777]

Again IL.

Is this the origin of your faith IL.


An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence."



Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science. This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children. Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.


New atheists believe (faith) that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all. Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.


Your faith is greater than mine IL. Your faith rests purely on the power of the rational mind does it not IL.


My faith rests in one much higher and greater than an idea.


Your approach whether you can admit it or not is purely subjective.
Based on the idea of empiricism.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence."

Um. . .I'm not "attacking" the concept of faith, I just don't happen to have faith in the same stuff you do and I'm asking what evidence and/or arguments could I look to supporting the belief in any one religion.

Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.

Well experience seems to pretty clearly show that empiricism is an excellent way to come to true conclusions whereas emotions and unrestrained subjectivism are not.

. . .we can discover God through non-empirical means.

Such as?

New atheists believe (faith) that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all.

Since empiricism reduces what is knowable down to what is consistent with reality the only faith required is that reality is real. Nor does acknowledging the value of empiricism limit one to acknowledging that empirical evidence is the only thing with value.

Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible.

I can't just "decide" to reckon Christianity to be true any more than you could decide to reckon Hinduism as true. Obviously, there is a lot more than a simple matter of choice here.

Your faith is greater than mine IL. Your faith rests purely on the power of the rational mind does it not IL.

My brain is all I've got to process information. I would, however, disagree that I'm only using my "rational" mind - plenty of phenomena we've discovered through science violently contradict what would seem "rational" to us.

Your approach whether you can admit it or not is purely subjective.
Based on the idea of empiricism.

On the contrary, reality exists completely independent of my beliefs, desires, or personal perspective ergo requiring that evidence be consistent with reality is, by definition, not subjective.



Lurker

 

[s.i.e.]

Since empiricism reduces what is knowable down to what is consistent with reality the only faith required is that reality is real. Nor does acknowledging the value of empiricism limit one to acknowledging that empirical evidence is the only thing with value.

Well, that of course depends on what or how you define "what is real". Sorry...just having some fun with this.

Here's the deal Lurker: you're a smart guy, and I don't believe anyone here can have a fruitful argument over this with you, that would cause either side to change one's mind one way or another.

The question is why are you here, and what are you wanting?

Because if it's really hard evidence you're wanting (which you already have explored, read about, and researched), there are far better websites that would be happy to play apologetics with you. But you've already rejected that, and very likely, consider all of us faith-based Christians either naive, plain stupid, or needy/proletariat types that use the concept of Jesus as a really-really good placebo. But then again, you wouldn't go to such folks to try to gain wisdom, would you?

So, you lack faith in your big-bang theories, etc? You lack the kind of faith a Stephen Hawking seems to have, perhaps? What can you possibly gain, or hope to see, from us here? We certainly can't help increase your faith in big-bang/evolution...but we are also helpless in trying to convince you (for those who may be trying to do so) that Jesus is God and created all things and can save your soul.

Help our dilemma here?? We'd like to help...but not sure what you want, or what you seek. Again, if it's clear evidence, or "the smoking gun", you won't find it here. I would tell you that you likely won't find it anywhere...but I would say that about either creationism or evolution or big-bang theories, etc. Anyways...if that's it, there are a lot of better websites / resources that may help far more than a forum.

 

[David777]

Dear ItinerantLurker.

We have arrived at a most interesting place.

I claimed that you were being subjective, you replied that
you were being objective.

Then you made this statement:

"My brain is all I've got to process information."

Now read the following extract,

Wikipedia Internet site

"Despite this, subjectivity is the only way we have to experience the world, mathematically, scientifically or otherwise. We share a human subjectivity, as well as individual subjectivity and all theories and philosophies that dictate our understanding of mathematics, science, literature and every concept we have about the world is based on human or individual perspective. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas."

Your thoughts are subjective IL, not objective.

I am certain that if you think more deeply about this you will
understand.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

We have arrived at a most interesting place.

I claimed that you were being subjective, you replied that
you were being objective.

Then you made this statement:

"My brain is all I've got to process information."

Now read the following extract,

Wikipedia Internet site

"Despite this, subjectivity is the only way we have to experience the world, mathematically, scientifically or otherwise. We share a human subjectivity, as well as individual subjectivity and all theories and philosophies that dictate our understanding of mathematics, science, literature and every concept we have about the world is based on human or individual perspective. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas."

Your thoughts are subjective IL, not objective.

I am certain that if you think more deeply about this you will
understand.

I do get what you're trying to say, and to an extent I agree that perfect objectivity is unattainable. That being said, empiricism provides us with a much more objective methodology of discovering truth than any other method I know of.

In addition, if you take that quote at face value you are also admitting that all your arguments are subjective thus rendering your remark,

"Your evaluations are extremely subjective not objective."​

rather curious.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Here's the deal Lurker: you're a smart guy, and I don't believe anyone here can have a fruitful argument over this with you, that would cause either side to change one's mind one way or another.

I'm asking for evidence and trying to examine that evidence as carefully as possible. To me that's not an "argument".

The question is why are you here, and what are you wanting?

Already answered - I have an interest in these topics and I enjoy engaging with those who hold different views than my own on them.

Thanks.



Lurker

 

[s.i.e.]

I'm asking for evidence and trying to examine that evidence as carefully as possible. To me that's not an "argument".

c'mon Lurker...if you believe that's why you're here, you're not being real with yourself. If you truly want evidence, go to the sources/websites/authors/apologists who have dedicated their lives to answering such questions as you say you are searching for the answers to, not some forum full of tom **** and harry's, or sally-sue's! You know that's not going to give you what you're looking for, and I have presumed thus far that you're smarter than that.

So, what you will get here is a bunch of people who have - at some point in their lives - settled this issue....so, what you'll get is a bunch of folks who have their opinions set, as you have your opinions set. And then you say you're not looking for an argument? Call it what you will, but you're looking for some sort of mental arm-wrestling, and I can't imagine what you could possibly hear here, in these forums, that might change your mind. At least, when it's "hard evidence" that you're looking for.

Because there is none.

There is no "smoking gun" proof that you'll find, that will "empirically prove" (which you say is the best method for finding truth) that God exists, or that He alone is the source that caused this big-blue-marble to come into existence.

You won't find it. And neither will the "scientists". It's all theories...and it all comes down to what you want to open yourself up to, and what you want to settle on, and put your belief in.

I suggest you go somewhere else where you can actually find the "evidence" that you seek, and not just a discussion with a bunch of believers.

If that's in fact what you are seeking.