Most of what you said is exactly my point to him, even if not my opinion. buuut...
Fortunately, no. Jesus word hasn't been revealed to them, so they can't possibly be judged by that level of revelation. In this case, it is said that such people would be judged on whether they would have had the heart to accept the word if they knew of it.
Even if we can agree to disagree, the day still ends with me believing we're both going to live our lives and die, while you believe I'm going to Hell for no reason other than the fact that I don't believe Jesus was the son of god.
Trust me, SteGriff. I'd love to be Christian. I would really love to believe there's an afterlife where I can see all of my friends and family. You have no idea how much the average atheist dreads the idea of death.
However, I can't believe it. I just can't. You can't just truly believe something because you want to believe it. Try to believe there's a nice, big bag of Sweet Tarts in your desk drawer. You'd very much like it to be true, and it would come as a very pleasant surprise if it were, but you have no reason to believe it is. You might could believe it if you grew up being taught by your parents and teachers and friends that there are Sweet Tarts in the drawer, but because that didn't happen, the idea sounds irrational and all-around strange.
Oh, and I didn't even get to the best part. Half of the friends who still believe in the Sweet Tarts are going to start descriminating against you, and they'll almost universally be convinced that you'll go to hell for not believing in Sweet-Tarts.
All that, and whether you were right or wrong, no ****ing Sweet-Tarts for you.
(I probably don't need to add to this, but for the metaphorically challenged readers out there, the Sweet-Tarts in the drawer are supposed to be heaven.)
Quote from EmpiresBane »
I would like to point out right now that the all-caps was a joke as to what commonly happens when religion is discussed on the internet.(*cough*youtube comments*cough*) You guys have exceeded my expectations. Maybe it's because we're not a bunch of ten-year-olds? Sadly, mature internet groups are in the minority.
Anyways, I was going to write up a response to all of your arguements, but i realized i'm to tired for it to be any good. Which is really, quite sad considering that I'm sure it would change quite a few of your minds about certain aspects. Hopefully I'll have it tomorrow. Also, I apologize if I sound(ed) like a ****.
In retrospect, I suppose I over-reacted.
The debate board on my favorite forum got closed a few months ago and I haven't had a good debate in a while. Plus, nothing gets me angrier than religious hate, on either end of the spectrum.
Which brings me to...
Quote from Snowman »
-comic-
There are people who simply believe that there's a God who tampers with the earth in very minor ways, or puts false evidence there just to "test our faith". I say, who are we to argue that? If God isn't human, why would he think or act like a rational human?
Furthermore, can you really blame them? If you were raised being told something, sent to a school for it, and pondered on it for hours every night, would it not take more than a good argument to make you change your mind? Especially when part of your philosophy is that the people arguing with you are outright wrong?
So long as a person doesn't interfere with your beliefs or discriminate against you, what would drive you to do so against them? My last girlfriend found her own religion to be unlikely, but held on to it because it helped her cope with the deaths of loved ones. Does that really make you hold contempt for her?
People like you are why religious discrimination against atheists is so widespread. Quite frankly, I just don't even see why you would want to make someone an atheist. Sure, making them less dedicated to their religion could lead them to a better life, but you're trying to take away their hope. And you don't just think this of the religious extremists, you think this of EVERY religious person to have ever been born.
A lot of history's best scientists and authors were religious. You, Snowman, ACTUALLY believe that Einstein, Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, Homer, and Lewis Carrol were all complete, blithering idiots?
My god, and you believe they're blind.
--
Over the course of this topic, it's been suggested that a good percent of the population is damned to hell for eternity, and the rest of it is made up of angry, screaming, irrational wastes of life.
My mother is a psychologist. I think of myself as a physicist. My big sister is a PhD in Biochemistry.
We are Christians, and we know that these phenomena can be explained away. However, we believe they are from God. I think you would find it easier if you saw these things.
It's always, always a welcome experience to have a civil, friendly debate with a well-informed opposition.
Herein lies the problem: I would never, ever say that these occurrences are not acts of God. The problem is, I can't say they are, either. It will never happen, but I just don't see myself believing until I witness something completely, unquestionably divine.
And, on another topic you brought up, I don't plan to raise my children Atheist. I plan to adopt, and I'll raise them as whatever my partner is-- and if I don't marry, I'll simply raise them non-denominational Christian, and from there, allow them to go in whatever direction they want. I don't care to spread my beliefs, I just want a world where everyone is free to believe what they want. Life will be easier for my child if he or she can relate to people on that level I'll never be able to, and if he or she can go to sleep at night knowing a loving god is watching him or her.
EDIT: I am currently taking part in a debate without insults, in which each side is genuinely becoming more educated about the opposition, and the objective seems to be to make the opponent feel warm and fuzzy.
It might seem crazy to some people, but whether it is or not, doesn't matter. Would you rather someone be a tad crazy and happy or sane and sad?
I'd rather be sane. I'd rather be grounded in reality than lying to myself about it. I'd prefer it if other people would do the same.
So you'd rather be depressed all your life than believe that there might be something greater than you out there? I can't find words to describe that...
Sure, making them less dedicated to their religion could lead them to a better life, but you're trying to take away their hope.
Life is plenty worth living without religion, you know. Perhaps these people should try it some time. I don't want to take away their hope, I merely want them to find it in reality, not some fantasy. Real hope is so much better than the fake stuff.
Really, though, my most major gripe with religion is the bit where it pretends to know things. Is there a hard, seemingly-unanswerable question? Don't think about it; here's a convenient answer, instead!
What created the universe?
What is the origin of life?
What happens after we die?
I don't know these things, nor do I pretend to, nor should anyone pretend to.
I am very much an empiricist, and the way religion tends to invent answers doesn't mesh well with my views at all. The only things we can know are those which we have experienced for ourselves. We can think we know other things with varying degrees of confidence via logic, reasoning, and sharing of experiences, but we cannot be 100% sure unless it is personally experienced.
Also, determinism: Everything is one large chain of happenstance. It's different from fatalism in that nothing is set in stone until it happens. Free will is preserved, but what happened is the only possible outcome given the conditions at the time. If you were to rewind time and let it play out once more, having changed nothing, then you would be met with the very same string of events. True proponents of free will and chaos would not agree with that last statement.
Taking these views into mind, it should be clear why I do not find religion to be appealing or even rational. Science, however, ends up being very attractive. Science doesn't pretend to know anything. It acknowledges that it could be wrong and makes very few statements with absolute certainty. The only things it labels as objective fact are those which can be directly observed (bonus points for being measurable). Everything else is a theory, a statement made with varying degrees of certainty.
I really do not see how people can believe in a "God". As others have brought up, if god were real then there would be no disease, no evil, no bad. Someone might argue "But then there would be no free will" I believe this is a silly statement, for if god exsisted, he would wish for no bad and there would be non. Christians believe god created people, therefore he created there desire to do things, he created there desire to do bad, and there desire to do good. He did not create a desire to have a collection of every type of round object in the world, or the majority of things possible in our world so nobody will, therefore if the taking our desire to do evil away is destroying free will, then we had non in the first place.
Big, poorly thought-out post incoming. Expect a lot of typos, because I just typed and kept going.
Quote from MrQuizzles »
Quote from Peri »
Sure, making them less dedicated to their religion could lead them to a better life, but you're trying to take away their hope.
Life is plenty worth living without religion, you know.
The point I was making there was that it might be to you, but not to someone else. If you convince someone there is no god, they'll probably be fine, but if you convince a fully matured person that he's been wrong his entire life and there's no-one watching out for him, he'll probably become pretty unstable.
Quote from MrQuizzles »
Perhaps these people should try it some time. I don't want to take away their hope, I merely want them to find it in reality, not some fantasy. Real hope is so much better than the fake stuff.
Again, what's fake to you is real to them, you're as ignorant as the people who think atheists are some kind of god-hating cult. Hope for something not real isn't the same thing as fake hope-- especially if the person believes it is real.
And, it's better? Ok, then;
"fake hope"; "I can't wait until I get to heaven and see my husband!"
"real hope"; "I hope I don't die tomorrow, it'd suck to lose consciousness forever."
I don't know why you think crushing realism is so much better than hopeful dreaming. They're not hurting anyone else, and they're certainly helping themselves.
Quote from MrQuizzles »
Really, though, my most major gripe with religion is the bit where it pretends to know things. Is there a hard, seemingly-unanswerable question? Don't think about it; here's a convenient answer, instead!
What created the universe?
What is the origin of life?
What happens after we die?
I don't know these things, nor do I pretend to, nor should anyone pretend to.
Then don't tell other people they're wrong. I mean, I know I contradict myself on occasion, but you rant about how any religious person must be an empty, brainless shell of a person, then say you don't even know you're right?
I mean, you believe you could be turning every person you convert away fromt he truth, and you're okay with that?
Quote from MrQuizzles »
The only things we can know are those which we have experienced for ourselves.
If you want to get technical, we can't even know these. Who are you to say you're not in an insane asylum right now, raving to yourself about minecrafts and internets?
Sure, the idea sounds ridiculous to you, but I'm sure a lot of insane people would find the idea that they're insane to be ridiculous.
Quote from MrQuizzles »
Also, determinism: Everything is one large chain of happenstance. It's different from fatalism in that nothing is set in stone until it happens. Free will is preserved, but what happened is the only possible outcome given the conditions at the time. If you were to rewind time and let it play out once more, having changed nothing, then you would be met with the very same string of events.
Agreed. I wasn't aware there was a name for this belief, though.
Quote from MrQuizzles »
Taking these views into mind, it should be clear why I do not find religion to be appealing or even rational. Science, however, ends up being very attractive. Science doesn't pretend to know anything. It acknowledges that it could be wrong and makes very few statements with absolute certainty. The only things it labels as objective fact are those which can be directly observed (bonus points for being measurable). Everything else is a theory, a statement made with varying degrees of certainty.
Sure, science is a lot more likely. But more attractive? You do know about that whole "heaven" dealie the Christians got goin' on, right? I'd really like it if science had one of those.
Also, I really hate the idea that science and religion can not be observed at once. Is it neccessarily wrong to believe a God created the big bang, then let the rest unfold?
---
Quote from Arzock »
As others have brought up, if god were real then there would be no disease, no evil, no bad.
The ignorance in this post. Oh, my god. Seriously, Arzock, you do know that the "Kind loving Christian God" isn't the only one people believe in, right? In fact, there are people who believe events like disease and natural disasters happen because God is angry.
In fact, most religions-- INCLUDING Judaism, and therefore Christianity-- were founded on the belief that, if God wasn't happy, he would cause all that "disesase, evil and bad" on purpose. Remember that time in the bible where he killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt? That's in the BOOK of the religion you're TARGETING. Seriously, do some research, man.
if god exsisted, he would wish for no bad and there would be non.
Again, the atheist assumes that the only possible god would be loving and sane. Why is the idea of a crazy dickhead god implausible, Arzock?
Again, you express the ridiculous idea that every Christian has the same silly, hypocritical outlook, and let us know that you're only atheist because you don't understand Christianity.
---
Quote from Maggarg »
If miracles were real, we wouldn't see asthma or cholera or some comas healed by God, these things often exhibit spontaneous remission for reasons sadly not quite understood. If God wanted to help, we'd see eyes and legs grow back, motor neuron syndrome and Alzheimer's go into remission.
As to religion providing hope, plenty of other things do. Smiles, a sunny day.
See: Everything else in this post.
Does God not being there to hold your hand every step of the way mean he doesn't exist? Maybe he wants you to earn his respect.
------
In short, I'm ****ing appalled that my fellow atheists seem to run on the idea that God doesn't exist SOLELY because he hasn't stopped everything bad from happening. In order to reject the opposition, you must first understand it. It's like FSTDT in here, only the roles are switched. I need to go lie down.
I don't know why you think crushing realism is so much better than hopeful dreaming.
Crushing realism isn't necessarily better, it's just inevitable. It also tends to be far less crushing when you're both aware of and prepared for it. Why, you could go so far as to actually make stuff happen so your hopes are fulfilled instead of dashed miserably.
Quote from Peri »
Then don't tell other people they're wrong. I mean, I know I contradict myself on occasion, but you rant about how any religious person must be an empty, brainless shell of a person, then say you don't even know you're right?
I mean, you believe you could be turning every person you convert away from the truth, and you're okay with that?
It's not so much telling people they're wrong as it is pointing out that they don't actually know. If you don't know something, then acknowledge it. Which is worse: Admitting that you don't know something and attempting to uncover the truth or pretending to know something you don't and then spreading your ignorance?
I don't believe that I could be turning people away from the truth because I believe that the only way to discover the truth is through investigation. If someone already has an "answer" that goes unchallenged, what motivation do they have to seek the real truth? The real enemy here is ignorance. It's dangerous, and many people seem dead set in it.
Quote from Peri »
If you want to get technical, we can't even know these. Who are you to say you're not in an insane asylum right now, raving to yourself about minecrafts and internets?
Sure, the idea sounds ridiculous to you, but I'm sure a lot of insane people would find the idea that they're insane to be ridiculous.
No, that's actually not insane at all. That's taking some pages from the metaphysical philosophy of Solipsism. I don't much like it and greatly prefer to view the world from the standpoint of Realism. This is an act of preference since it's all non-falsifiable. In the end, it doesn't change reality, but it does change the way one regards it.
Quote from Peri »
Sure, science is a lot more likely. But more attractive? You do know about that whole "heaven" dealie the Christians got goin' on, right? I'd really like it if science had one of those.
Also, I really hate the idea that science and religion can not be observed at once. Is it neccessarily wrong to believe a God created the big bang, then let the rest unfold?
When I say 'attractive', I mean it lines up with the way I view reality. My beliefs fit science very well and vice versa, so I would naturally be drawn to it. It makes a great deal of sense to me.
And yes, it is wrong to believe a god created the big bang because doing so is just wild conjecture without consequence or substantiation. You're adding superfluous elements to reality, and there's just no reason for them to be there, nor can you provide any reason for them to be there. Parsimony is an elegant thing, and it tends to remove such constructs from the picture.
And yes, it is wrong to believe a god created the big bang because doing so is just wild conjecture without consequence or substantiation. You're adding superfluous elements to reality, and there's just no reason for them to be there, nor can you provide any reason for them to be there.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Or, theories, for that matter?
As I've pointed out before, God could be a cruel ****. There could be advanced civilizations staring right down at us from space, seeing us as no more significant or intelligent than we see newborn children. We don't and can't know what started the universe, and we'll likely never even understand how it functions or go far beyond our own planet.
The point is: We don't know **** about science, and we know even less about how the mind of God works, if he exists.
We keep assuming that he'd act human, but he could have a mind no more advanced than a dog. He could have thousands of other universes that interest him more than ours. There's an infinite number of possibilities, and without any evidence against them, they're still technically plausible.
If they aren't plausible, please answer the following. Without going to look, how do you know there isn't a box of chocolates in your mailbox? This is an argument I used earlier. There's no reason for it, but it's not impossible by any means, and if it's possible, you can't just say "No, there's not. It's something you pulled out of your ass, and as such, it's wrong." There could be a damn rhinoceros in your mailbox. You don't know, and you can't outright say it's wrong.
Quote from Arzock »
Again, the atheist assumes that the only possible god would be loving and sane. Why is the idea of a crazy dickhead god implausible, Arzock?
We can conduct this arguement civilly, it would not do good for either of us to get angry at the other over and arguement.
Anyway, I say this because the majority of the christian population I have met implies that their godi s "loving" "kind" and "good".
And you assume that because Christianity is wrong, every religion is wrong?
I just said that you were falling in to the same mindset that several others were: "Either god is nice, or god doesn't exist." The only people you're hurting with talk like that is atheists. You're not going to convert anyone by being so damn pessimistic, and you spread the stereotype that we're all depressed, angry, and god-hating.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Or, theories, for that matter?
I'm not trying to prove the contrary. I'm merely pointing out that you don't have anything to substantiate your claim, thus it would be incorrect to make it.
Quote from Peri »
Without going to look, how do you know there isn't a box of chocolates in your mailbox? This is an argument I used earlier. There's no reason for it, but it's not impossible by any means, and if it's possible, you can't just say "No, there's not. It's something you pulled out of your ass, and as such, it's wrong." There could be a damn rhinoceros in your mailbox. You don't know, and you can't outright say it's wrong
You seem to have mistaken my position. I'm firmly against coming to any conclusion without evidence. I would definitely not say "no there's not" without good reason to do so. What I would do is say that I don't know if there's a box of chocolates in my mailbox. I'd be surprised if there was, but there always could be one there. I completely agree, it would be wrong of me to say that there isn't without knowing for sure.
Similarly, it would be wrong of me to say that there is a box of chocolates in my mailbox without looking or having any reason to believe it. Similarly, it would be wrong to say that god created the big bang.
Similarly, it would be wrong of me to say that there is a box of chocolates in my mailbox without looking or having any reason to believe it. Similarly, it would be wrong to say that god created the big bang.
I'm not saying either of those things. I only said they were possible and we're not fit to say otherwise.
If we have the same position, why are we arguing? >->
I bring religion down to this : Humans created everything, and the idea about god. Why would he send a different message to someone halfway across the world, in a completely different language? He had to have known all the warand chaos they would cause.
I'm not saying anyone should stop or start worshipping him, or change their ideas. Just think about it for a minute or two.
I was reading the Bible once, at my friends house out of boredom. I found a passage completely unrelated to their discussion of 'Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it' and twisted it, easily, to make a point in their discussion. I therefore made it true that trees wouldn't make a noise, since God made it so, and ended the discussion after about thirty minutes of debate. But I completely made up that fact, and told them after that I pulled it from the bible. We three are now Athiest.
1:00 - 1:35
Gotta love the Hitchhiker's guide :biggrin.gif:
I disagree. I think that a lot of scientists (particularly those who publish towards "popular science") are so determined to prove their hypotheses that they will hinge on little, tentative evidence.
Physicists do not understand everything that they need to [b]to prove[/b] their theorems on the genesis of the Universe.
Christians have heard all that they need to in order [b]to believe[/b] the Genesis of the Universe.
I personally believe everything is quantum until proven to be true or false, but in order to prove something, sometimes we must take into account an [b]if[/b] clause. For example:
[a] is quantum : For it has not been proven
[b] is quantum : For it has not been proven
If [b] is true/false : If clause
Then [a] is true/false : For it would be proven
I hope that makes sense. I'm taking quantum as the "it's neither this nor that until it's prove to be one of them."
Quote from SteGriff »
Again, you fail to distinguish between fact, and belief.
I have seen enough evidence of God's existence to believe it.
But is it fact, can you prove that it was God's doing and not something else.
Pascal's wager has been proven to be a bad argument, you know.
Quetzalcoatl is pissed that you're worshipping someone else and will banish you to thousands of years of torment because of it. He has no gripe with people who take a neutral stance like I do and will simply give me the nothingness I believe in.
This and more. There is no way to know what kind of qualifications any kind of god will want. Regardless of what you believe in, you may be rewarded or punished or whatever. What the hell does some uber-powerful thing care if you've spent your life believing? What if it draws enjoyment or power from the number of shoes you owned during your life?
Quote from Peri »
"fake hope"; "I can't wait until I get to heaven and see my husband!"
"real hope"; "I hope I don't die tomorrow, it'd suck to lose consciousness forever."
I don't know why you think crushing realism is so much better than hopeful dreaming. They're not hurting anyone else, and they're certainly helping themselves.
(first of all, that is not really "real hope" just because the word hope is in there =/)
The problem with "fake hope" is that it can be crushed. If someone has already faced reality, what more can be done to mar their composure? There is no horrible, stunning revelation to be had unless you are directly contacted by some greater being which turns out to exist.
If you base your positive thinking in life on something based off of nothing, there is a much better chance of your belief dying (and your hope with it) than there is of a more rational thought-based form of positive thinking.
Based on Fantasy: "by golly, I imagine the pixies will fix my car overnight and then I'll be able to make it to work!"
Grounded in Reality: "hopefully the damage isn't too bad and I'll be able to get it fixed for not much while I bike instead for a few days. It's kind of cold out though."
As you can see, the "fake hope" is making you a lot happier! What could go wrong? :0
Fantasy Result: "What the hell my car is still totally broken. Goddamn fairies. Now I'm going to be late."
Reality Result: "I biked to work and it was an enjoyable ride, even if I did have to leave early! I also got some exercise."
---------
And yeah I'm atheist. Notions of god seem to be poorly-defined constructions to cover up what we don't know. Instead of facing the unknown, which we by nature fear, religion seeks to explain the unknown by means of extraordinary things. [As science grows to explain more things, religion retreats and seeks to explain fewer things. I can't imagine why.]
I can personally say I am an incredibly positive, optimistic person. I hope death doesn't suck, though :biggrin.gif:
---------
Now - don't take this as any form of personal attack, please, this is just my observation and comparison by which I mean no offence [and I invite any counters to my viewpoint] - but I feel like religion is a crutch for the weak.
It is only necessary for those people who need answers (i.e. those who cannot handle science's approach of "all we can really do is try to figure it out while taking the occasional guess which must then be proven"), who need moral guidance (I am aware of some who say that it is only religion that keeps them "good" -- the thought of some entity watching over them is what keeps them from stealing or murdering etc.), or who need hope (because they cannot face reality's harshness). Among other things.
As you would not (or at least should not) take the crutches from one with a broken leg, religion should not be wrenched out from underneath those who depend on it. If a perfectly healthy person were to be walking around with crutches, though, you would ask "what's wrong with you?" and deign to free them from the inconvenience of carrying the things around, despite them occasionally coming in handy.
(note that I feel bad for writing this ._.)
I don't know if people turn out this way because of religion and I'm certainly not suggesting it; I'm simply bringing it up as something to consider.
---------
edit of course, religion is just one of those things that I only end up discussing for its own sake; I've never really known anyone who actually brought up religion in regards to anything but "oh hey what do you believe in?". It doesn't affect the rest of my life much if at all, which is nice or I might be out a few friends o_o;
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Most of what you said is exactly my point to him, even if not my opinion. buuut...
Even if we can agree to disagree, the day still ends with me believing we're both going to live our lives and die, while you believe I'm going to Hell for no reason other than the fact that I don't believe Jesus was the son of god.
Trust me, SteGriff. I'd love to be Christian. I would really love to believe there's an afterlife where I can see all of my friends and family. You have no idea how much the average atheist dreads the idea of death.
However, I can't believe it. I just can't. You can't just truly believe something because you want to believe it. Try to believe there's a nice, big bag of Sweet Tarts in your desk drawer. You'd very much like it to be true, and it would come as a very pleasant surprise if it were, but you have no reason to believe it is. You might could believe it if you grew up being taught by your parents and teachers and friends that there are Sweet Tarts in the drawer, but because that didn't happen, the idea sounds irrational and all-around strange.
Oh, and I didn't even get to the best part. Half of the friends who still believe in the Sweet Tarts are going to start descriminating against you, and they'll almost universally be convinced that you'll go to hell for not believing in Sweet-Tarts.
All that, and whether you were right or wrong, no ****ing Sweet-Tarts for you.
(I probably don't need to add to this, but for the metaphorically challenged readers out there, the Sweet-Tarts in the drawer are supposed to be heaven.)
In retrospect, I suppose I over-reacted.
The debate board on my favorite forum got closed a few months ago and I haven't had a good debate in a while. Plus, nothing gets me angrier than religious hate, on either end of the spectrum.
Which brings me to...
There are people who simply believe that there's a God who tampers with the earth in very minor ways, or puts false evidence there just to "test our faith". I say, who are we to argue that? If God isn't human, why would he think or act like a rational human?
Furthermore, can you really blame them? If you were raised being told something, sent to a school for it, and pondered on it for hours every night, would it not take more than a good argument to make you change your mind? Especially when part of your philosophy is that the people arguing with you are outright wrong?
So long as a person doesn't interfere with your beliefs or discriminate against you, what would drive you to do so against them? My last girlfriend found her own religion to be unlikely, but held on to it because it helped her cope with the deaths of loved ones. Does that really make you hold contempt for her?
People like you are why religious discrimination against atheists is so widespread. Quite frankly, I just don't even see why you would want to make someone an atheist. Sure, making them less dedicated to their religion could lead them to a better life, but you're trying to take away their hope. And you don't just think this of the religious extremists, you think this of EVERY religious person to have ever been born.
A lot of history's best scientists and authors were religious. You, Snowman, ACTUALLY believe that Einstein, Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, Homer, and Lewis Carrol were all complete, blithering idiots?
My god, and you believe they're blind.
--
Over the course of this topic, it's been suggested that a good percent of the population is damned to hell for eternity, and the rest of it is made up of angry, screaming, irrational wastes of life.
You people are so damn cheery.
^ this.
It's always, always a welcome experience to have a civil, friendly debate with a well-informed opposition.
Herein lies the problem: I would never, ever say that these occurrences are not acts of God. The problem is, I can't say they are, either. It will never happen, but I just don't see myself believing until I witness something completely, unquestionably divine.
And, on another topic you brought up, I don't plan to raise my children Atheist. I plan to adopt, and I'll raise them as whatever my partner is-- and if I don't marry, I'll simply raise them non-denominational Christian, and from there, allow them to go in whatever direction they want. I don't care to spread my beliefs, I just want a world where everyone is free to believe what they want. Life will be easier for my child if he or she can relate to people on that level I'll never be able to, and if he or she can go to sleep at night knowing a loving god is watching him or her.
EDIT: I am currently taking part in a debate without insults, in which each side is genuinely becoming more educated about the opposition, and the objective seems to be to make the opponent feel warm and fuzzy.
This is awesome.
Why is sane and happy not an option?
Atheist, by the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMsExmLc4_w
Life is plenty worth living without religion, you know. Perhaps these people should try it some time. I don't want to take away their hope, I merely want them to find it in reality, not some fantasy. Real hope is so much better than the fake stuff.
Really, though, my most major gripe with religion is the bit where it pretends to know things. Is there a hard, seemingly-unanswerable question? Don't think about it; here's a convenient answer, instead!
What created the universe?
What is the origin of life?
What happens after we die?
I don't know these things, nor do I pretend to, nor should anyone pretend to.
I am very much an empiricist, and the way religion tends to invent answers doesn't mesh well with my views at all. The only things we can know are those which we have experienced for ourselves. We can think we know other things with varying degrees of confidence via logic, reasoning, and sharing of experiences, but we cannot be 100% sure unless it is personally experienced.
Also, determinism: Everything is one large chain of happenstance. It's different from fatalism in that nothing is set in stone until it happens. Free will is preserved, but what happened is the only possible outcome given the conditions at the time. If you were to rewind time and let it play out once more, having changed nothing, then you would be met with the very same string of events. True proponents of free will and chaos would not agree with that last statement.
Taking these views into mind, it should be clear why I do not find religion to be appealing or even rational. Science, however, ends up being very attractive. Science doesn't pretend to know anything. It acknowledges that it could be wrong and makes very few statements with absolute certainty. The only things it labels as objective fact are those which can be directly observed (bonus points for being measurable). Everything else is a theory, a statement made with varying degrees of certainty.
I really do not see how people can believe in a "God". As others have brought up, if god were real then there would be no disease, no evil, no bad. Someone might argue "But then there would be no free will" I believe this is a silly statement, for if god exsisted, he would wish for no bad and there would be non. Christians believe god created people, therefore he created there desire to do things, he created there desire to do bad, and there desire to do good. He did not create a desire to have a collection of every type of round object in the world, or the majority of things possible in our world so nobody will, therefore if the taking our desire to do evil away is destroying free will, then we had non in the first place.
The point I was making there was that it might be to you, but not to someone else. If you convince someone there is no god, they'll probably be fine, but if you convince a fully matured person that he's been wrong his entire life and there's no-one watching out for him, he'll probably become pretty unstable.
Again, what's fake to you is real to them, you're as ignorant as the people who think atheists are some kind of god-hating cult. Hope for something not real isn't the same thing as fake hope-- especially if the person believes it is real.
And, it's better? Ok, then;
"fake hope"; "I can't wait until I get to heaven and see my husband!"
"real hope"; "I hope I don't die tomorrow, it'd suck to lose consciousness forever."
I don't know why you think crushing realism is so much better than hopeful dreaming. They're not hurting anyone else, and they're certainly helping themselves.
Then don't tell other people they're wrong. I mean, I know I contradict myself on occasion, but you rant about how any religious person must be an empty, brainless shell of a person, then say you don't even know you're right?
I mean, you believe you could be turning every person you convert away fromt he truth, and you're okay with that?
If you want to get technical, we can't even know these. Who are you to say you're not in an insane asylum right now, raving to yourself about minecrafts and internets?
Sure, the idea sounds ridiculous to you, but I'm sure a lot of insane people would find the idea that they're insane to be ridiculous.
Agreed. I wasn't aware there was a name for this belief, though.
Sure, science is a lot more likely. But more attractive? You do know about that whole "heaven" dealie the Christians got goin' on, right? I'd really like it if science had one of those.
Also, I really hate the idea that science and religion can not be observed at once. Is it neccessarily wrong to believe a God created the big bang, then let the rest unfold?
---
The ignorance in this post. Oh, my god. Seriously, Arzock, you do know that the "Kind loving Christian God" isn't the only one people believe in, right? In fact, there are people who believe events like disease and natural disasters happen because God is angry.
In fact, most religions-- INCLUDING Judaism, and therefore Christianity-- were founded on the belief that, if God wasn't happy, he would cause all that "disesase, evil and bad" on purpose. Remember that time in the bible where he killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt? That's in the BOOK of the religion you're TARGETING. Seriously, do some research, man.
Again, the atheist assumes that the only possible god would be loving and sane. Why is the idea of a crazy dickhead god implausible, Arzock?
Again, you express the ridiculous idea that every Christian has the same silly, hypocritical outlook, and let us know that you're only atheist because you don't understand Christianity.
---
See: Everything else in this post.
Does God not being there to hold your hand every step of the way mean he doesn't exist? Maybe he wants you to earn his respect.
------
In short, I'm ****ing appalled that my fellow atheists seem to run on the idea that God doesn't exist SOLELY because he hasn't stopped everything bad from happening. In order to reject the opposition, you must first understand it. It's like FSTDT in here, only the roles are switched. I need to go lie down.
Crushing realism isn't necessarily better, it's just inevitable. It also tends to be far less crushing when you're both aware of and prepared for it. Why, you could go so far as to actually make stuff happen so your hopes are fulfilled instead of dashed miserably.
It's not so much telling people they're wrong as it is pointing out that they don't actually know. If you don't know something, then acknowledge it. Which is worse: Admitting that you don't know something and attempting to uncover the truth or pretending to know something you don't and then spreading your ignorance?
I don't believe that I could be turning people away from the truth because I believe that the only way to discover the truth is through investigation. If someone already has an "answer" that goes unchallenged, what motivation do they have to seek the real truth? The real enemy here is ignorance. It's dangerous, and many people seem dead set in it.
No, that's actually not insane at all. That's taking some pages from the metaphysical philosophy of Solipsism. I don't much like it and greatly prefer to view the world from the standpoint of Realism. This is an act of preference since it's all non-falsifiable. In the end, it doesn't change reality, but it does change the way one regards it.
When I say 'attractive', I mean it lines up with the way I view reality. My beliefs fit science very well and vice versa, so I would naturally be drawn to it. It makes a great deal of sense to me.
And yes, it is wrong to believe a god created the big bang because doing so is just wild conjecture without consequence or substantiation. You're adding superfluous elements to reality, and there's just no reason for them to be there, nor can you provide any reason for them to be there. Parsimony is an elegant thing, and it tends to remove such constructs from the picture.
We can conduct this arguement civilly, it would not do good for either of us to get angry at the other over and arguement.
Anyway, I say this because the majority of the christian population I have met implies that their godi s "loving" "kind" and "good".
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Or, theories, for that matter?
As I've pointed out before, God could be a cruel ****. There could be advanced civilizations staring right down at us from space, seeing us as no more significant or intelligent than we see newborn children. We don't and can't know what started the universe, and we'll likely never even understand how it functions or go far beyond our own planet.
The point is: We don't know **** about science, and we know even less about how the mind of God works, if he exists.
We keep assuming that he'd act human, but he could have a mind no more advanced than a dog. He could have thousands of other universes that interest him more than ours. There's an infinite number of possibilities, and without any evidence against them, they're still technically plausible.
If they aren't plausible, please answer the following. Without going to look, how do you know there isn't a box of chocolates in your mailbox? This is an argument I used earlier. There's no reason for it, but it's not impossible by any means, and if it's possible, you can't just say "No, there's not. It's something you pulled out of your ass, and as such, it's wrong." There could be a damn rhinoceros in your mailbox. You don't know, and you can't outright say it's wrong.
And you assume that because Christianity is wrong, every religion is wrong?
I just said that you were falling in to the same mindset that several others were: "Either god is nice, or god doesn't exist." The only people you're hurting with talk like that is atheists. You're not going to convert anyone by being so damn pessimistic, and you spread the stereotype that we're all depressed, angry, and god-hating.
I'm not trying to prove the contrary. I'm merely pointing out that you don't have anything to substantiate your claim, thus it would be incorrect to make it.
You seem to have mistaken my position. I'm firmly against coming to any conclusion without evidence. I would definitely not say "no there's not" without good reason to do so. What I would do is say that I don't know if there's a box of chocolates in my mailbox. I'd be surprised if there was, but there always could be one there. I completely agree, it would be wrong of me to say that there isn't without knowing for sure.
Similarly, it would be wrong of me to say that there is a box of chocolates in my mailbox without looking or having any reason to believe it. Similarly, it would be wrong to say that god created the big bang.
I'm not saying either of those things. I only said they were possible and we're not fit to say otherwise.
If we have the same position, why are we arguing? >->
I'm not saying anyone should stop or start worshipping him, or change their ideas. Just think about it for a minute or two.
I was reading the Bible once, at my friends house out of boredom. I found a passage completely unrelated to their discussion of 'Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it' and twisted it, easily, to make a point in their discussion. I therefore made it true that trees wouldn't make a noise, since God made it so, and ended the discussion after about thirty minutes of debate. But I completely made up that fact, and told them after that I pulled it from the bible. We three are now Athiest.
1:00 - 1:35
Gotta love the Hitchhiker's guide :biggrin.gif:
We still never settled the tree argument.
I personally believe everything is quantum until proven to be true or false, but in order to prove something, sometimes we must take into account an [b]if[/b] clause. For example:
[a] is quantum : For it has not been proven
[b] is quantum : For it has not been proven
If [b] is true/false : If clause
Then [a] is true/false : For it would be proven
I hope that makes sense. I'm taking quantum as the "it's neither this nor that until it's prove to be one of them."
But is it fact, can you prove that it was God's doing and not something else.
This and more. There is no way to know what kind of qualifications any kind of god will want. Regardless of what you believe in, you may be rewarded or punished or whatever. What the hell does some uber-powerful thing care if you've spent your life believing? What if it draws enjoyment or power from the number of shoes you owned during your life?
(first of all, that is not really "real hope" just because the word hope is in there =/)
The problem with "fake hope" is that it can be crushed. If someone has already faced reality, what more can be done to mar their composure? There is no horrible, stunning revelation to be had unless you are directly contacted by some greater being which turns out to exist.
If you base your positive thinking in life on something based off of nothing, there is a much better chance of your belief dying (and your hope with it) than there is of a more rational thought-based form of positive thinking.
Based on Fantasy: "by golly, I imagine the pixies will fix my car overnight and then I'll be able to make it to work!"
Grounded in Reality: "hopefully the damage isn't too bad and I'll be able to get it fixed for not much while I bike instead for a few days. It's kind of cold out though."
As you can see, the "fake hope" is making you a lot happier! What could go wrong? :0
Fantasy Result: "What the hell my car is still totally broken. Goddamn fairies. Now I'm going to be late."
Reality Result: "I biked to work and it was an enjoyable ride, even if I did have to leave early! I also got some exercise."
---------
And yeah I'm atheist. Notions of god seem to be poorly-defined constructions to cover up what we don't know. Instead of facing the unknown, which we by nature fear, religion seeks to explain the unknown by means of extraordinary things. [As science grows to explain more things, religion retreats and seeks to explain fewer things. I can't imagine why.]
I can personally say I am an incredibly positive, optimistic person. I hope death doesn't suck, though :biggrin.gif:
---------
Now - don't take this as any form of personal attack, please, this is just my observation and comparison by which I mean no offence [and I invite any counters to my viewpoint] - but I feel like religion is a crutch for the weak.
It is only necessary for those people who need answers (i.e. those who cannot handle science's approach of "all we can really do is try to figure it out while taking the occasional guess which must then be proven"), who need moral guidance (I am aware of some who say that it is only religion that keeps them "good" -- the thought of some entity watching over them is what keeps them from stealing or murdering etc.), or who need hope (because they cannot face reality's harshness). Among other things.
As you would not (or at least should not) take the crutches from one with a broken leg, religion should not be wrenched out from underneath those who depend on it. If a perfectly healthy person were to be walking around with crutches, though, you would ask "what's wrong with you?" and deign to free them from the inconvenience of carrying the things around, despite them occasionally coming in handy.
(note that I feel bad for writing this ._.)
I don't know if people turn out this way because of religion and I'm certainly not suggesting it; I'm simply bringing it up as something to consider.
---------
edit of course, religion is just one of those things that I only end up discussing for its own sake; I've never really known anyone who actually brought up religion in regards to anything but "oh hey what do you believe in?". It doesn't affect the rest of my life much if at all, which is nice or I might be out a few friends o_o;
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).