An End to " It Takes Faith to be an Athiest too!"

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: DarknStormy
Okay ... you'll have to give me a few minutes to digest that question ... I'm having a brain fart

I can't wrap my head around it. (I'm having a sjogrens moment so be patient please) I'm thinking that would actually be a good topic for a thread of it's own. Would you like to start it in the religion forum??

You can do the honours if you think it's a good one

a reply to: ArtemisE

See atheism is different because if Jesus shows up on the White House lawn to marrow...... I'm converting... Instantly. As is every other atheist on the planet.

Speak for yourself. I admire George Carlin and Abraham Lincoln. Doesn't mean I worship them. I don't like worship. It feels too denigrating, and I don't admire anyone who asks for that from me.

It was my understanding that the bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus died for a second time, so thats why i take it with a pinch of salt, im sure the story's got tweaked and names got changed and or altered etc. Also there's the translation from language to language altering things further.

I understand the core christian values but i certainly dont take every word 100% literally.

originally posted by: CrikeyMagnet
I think what you're describing is more akin to Agnosticism.

I don't specifically believe in a god or gods, but am open to the idea of something of that sort existing, and would be open to believing it if I could see proof. Similarly, I believe in scientifically derived predictions for the physical behaviour of matter and energy, but, having no view into the real math behind the scenes, I can't say that I believe (or have faith) in those concepts either.

Honestly, I only have circumstantial evidence that anyone on this site exists. How's that for keeping an open mind?

Science needs to stick to Data collection, Philosophy and Religion have no place in scientific en-devour, but by the same token, IT has no place in the same flip of that debate.

Data, is just data, the more of it you have the better, at some point we could very well get an answer to Outside causes, or we might not.

Until than, its all subjective speculation,

And the truly Scientifically unbiased choice, IS agnostic.

a reply to: benrl

So by that logic, science has no place in religious endeavour either? Sort of like Politics and religion?

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: benrl

So by that logic, science has no place in religious endeavour either? Sort of like Politics and religion?

Politics is based on social structures and cultural values.

It is not scientific in the least.

And that purely depends on the form of government we are talking about, In the US, YES it has no place in STRUCTURAL form of government.

BUt representation of the peoples values is expected in a Republic, so you get cross over.


ETA: Hit enter too soon,

AS for Religion, Religion has neither the call to "Unbiased views" that Science is supposed to, so as far as its own internal logic, they would be free to apply science.

BUT Science is SCIENCE AND SHOULD be held to a far higher standard than Religion or Politics.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

As long as someone is alive, they have an opportunity to convert to belief in Jesus and 'be saved'. That's the Christian belief. Jesus is Mercy Incarnate.

People that never heard of Jesus.
All that screaming and gnashing of teeth down there.
Must be them.

What about the de-converters, those who tried and gave up due to no evidence and much evidence of no evidence?
Huh?

How can anyone believe anything concretely with no evidence?
Where is god or Jesus, other than residing within the brains of believers.
Then he/they then I guess would be real thoughts.

a reply to: benrl

OK that's fair enough, but when religion says to not invent evil things (It condemns inventors of evil things), such as weapons of mass destruction, maybe terrorism, actually any endeavour with evil ends, would you say that's a fair point? It's not actually saying "Don't use science" but what ever you pursue, pursue it for the betterment of humanity and not the destruction of the planet and it's people.

All this is doing is trying to regulate certain aspects of science so we don't end up wiping each other off the face of the planet. Is that a bad influence on science or a smart observation as to what we should be doing as humans?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: DarknStormy
Okay ... you'll have to give me a few minutes to digest that question ... I'm having a brain fart

I can't wrap my head around it. (I'm having a sjogrens moment so be patient please) I'm thinking that would actually be a good topic for a thread of it's own. Would you like to start it in the religion forum??

I don't understand either, but I do understand the 'bunk' part.
(The NT being bunk, written from memory with poetic license due to political pressure)

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: benrl

All this is doing is trying to regulate certain aspects of science so we don't end up wiping each other off the face of the planet. Is that a bad influence on science or a smart observation as to what we should be doing as humans?

Thats not sciences job, its sciences job to provide information, data.

It is the greater society that needs to make the choice what we do with that data.

Science is a tool, a set of rules for observing the world around us, IT IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY or world view, that leads credence to our own personal ideologies.

Regulation of it, is in the hands of the people we chose to govern us to do that.

And that, should tell you that the problem is not Science, it we humans and what we chose to do with it.

Sounds to me like some folks that call themselves atheists are actually agnostic. And yes, it does take faith or "belief" to say absolutely that God does not exist.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Sounds to me like some folks that call themselves atheists are actually agnostic. And yes, it does take faith or "belief" to say absolutely that God does not exist.

And it takes guts and openmindedness to say you just don't know.
(agnosticism)

reply to post by: Toadmund

The question wasn't the legitimacy of the New Testament, If Jesus arrived tomorrow would you do a U-turn and convert to Christianity though religion is based off faith (No physical evidence) and not physical evidence? And would your sudden conversion be justified in the eyes of Christianity or the Bible?

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Sounds to me like some folks that call themselves atheists are actually agnostic. And yes, it does take faith or "belief" to say absolutely that God does not exist.

So you wouldn't bat an eye if someone straight out told you they worshipped giant purple unicorns that orbit Saturn?

originally posted by: DarknStormy
reply to post by: Toadmund

The question wasn't the legitimacy of the New Testament, If Jesus arrived tomorrow would you do a U-turn and convert to Christianity though religion is based off faith (No physical evidence) and not physical evidence? And would your sudden conversion be justified in the eyes of Christianity or the Bible?

Nobody wishes Jesus was real more than me, with the exception of all those others who wish that too.
I'd rather religion was based on fact.
I don't buy the faith thing, and that that (faith), is the basis of religion.

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: ArtemisE

If Jesus turned up tomorrow and you decided that you would convert because of it, what makes you think you would get away with it?

Get away with what?
You think J-man is some sort of petty jerk?

2nd, the Big Bang theory is, a theory.

So is gravity.

Hmmm....

This is an interesting trend lately....

threads that say: "This is how atheists think. Here is my response".

Very curious.......

originally posted by: ArtemisE
As an athiest who loves debateing religion a lot of times I get the " Well atheism takes faith too argument.

Well I may have thought of the "trump card" to it.


See atheism is different because if Jesus shows up on the White House lawn to marrow...... I'm converting... Instantly. As is every other atheist on the planet.

However once the Big Bang was discovered and confirmed. Christians didn't throw out there creation story. That's the difference. Once you figure out something is wrong. You throw it out and come up with a better way.

Any other atheists converting? Lmao

So let me get this straight....your claim is that, since christians are so stubborn that they outwardly ignore fact, their religion must be true?


And do we even need to mention that, in fact, the prevalence of atheism has been rising exponentially for some time now, which pretty much kills your entire theory?

a reply to: Toadmund

I think it's quite nice being agnostic. I'm open to all the possibilities.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Yes, that would be a bit alarming, because we can prove that there are no purple unicorns orbiting Saturn.

But I am open to the idea that, one day, we may finally meet our creator(s). I respect those that believe whatever they believe and I respect those that believe in nothing, but I don't like to say absolutely one way or another....because we just don't know.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Yes, that would be a bit alarming, because we can prove that there are no purple unicorns orbiting Saturn.

We're assuming that since they are unicorns, they are also magical and can foil our pithy technology with a swish of their majestic tail hairs. They only show themselves to people who believe in them. They are also the source of dreams and inspiration and, oh, let's see, they were the primary workforce in the construction of the electromagnetic spectrum. And because they are "supernatural", they can break just about any law of physics they want! Which means they can keep us in the dark about their existence until such a time as they feel they should reveal themselves. Because there's no way we can outwit them and their magical-ness.

Sounds a little broken, doesn't it? In every sense of the word.