Riddle me this Athiests...

reply to post by novastrike81


Well good for you. By the way I wasn't lying directly, however I will admit I was generalizing. What I should have said was that religious fundamentalists and zealots aren't open to new scientific discoveries. As you've pointed out many religious people are open to scientific findings and find ways to incorporate it into their beliefs or even adapt their beliefs.

Not every religious person feels the need to defend the Bible as absolute truth and reject all scientific evidence to the contrary, my apologies. I'll have to go back and edit the post

reply to post by CHA0S

Now, I can see exactly why you might be against religion, but why do you reject the whole idea of God, or a higher power, a super-consciousness, it doesn't really matter what you call it, I want to know how you can be so sure no such being exists. You proclaim those with faith have belief in something totally fictional and man-made - and that could be true, but you have no evidence of your proclamation either.

Which God would you want us to accept as plausible? Can we pick Osiris or Odin? Does it have to be the Judaic-Christian God?

Where does mythology end and plausibility begin? If you can answer me that, then I'll give the matter more serious consideration.

Bring me one science textbook which states God does not exist. At least Christians have a book (however laughable that may be) to back them up.

Which God would you want us to accept as plausible? Can we pick Osiris or Odin? Does it have to be the Judaic-Christian God?

Where does mythology end and plausibility begin? If you can answer me that, then I'll give the matter more serious consideration.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the bible, and the teachings of any organized religion are probably wrong, but they still have a right to believe in a higher being, working for the greater good, from which they can draw strength.

No one is saying they don't have the right to faith or worship. We're saying they don't have the right to shove their beliefs in our face and tell us to believe or rot in hell. Damn hypocrites can't even follow their own deities teachings properly.

but despite all this, it still gives you no right to claim there is no God.

Sure it does. Why should I uphold any more respect for the Judaic-Christian God than Osiris?

Where does mythology end and plausibility begin? If you can answer me that, then I'll give the matter more serious consideration.

you are completely ignoring the scientific method all together

Really? Please point out where the scientific method says we should accept invisible unfalsifiable things. How are we ignoring the scientific method by not accepting non scientific explanations? Perhaps your ignoring the scientific method in your argument of frustration?

The way I see it, you need to refine your scope of scrutiny to the aspects of organized religion which are extremely detrimental to society and our collective growth.

Which God would you want us to accept as plausible? Can we pick Osiris or Odin? Does it have to be the Judaic-Christian God?

Where does mythology end and plausibility begin? If you can answer me that, then I'll give the matter more serious consideration.

Until you do that, you'll look just as stupid as them, and be violently opposed.

I beg to differ. I see nothing wrong with deny things as existing until they are proved to be existing. It's not us Atheists who are bombing people for believing in invisible things. It's religions that have caused most of the worlds bloodshed. Now that is what's truly stupid. Causing deaths over pissing matches of who's deity has a bigger penis.

It's just as arrogant to say God does exist as it is to say he doesn't.

So, your saying it's arrogant to not accept invisible unfalsifiable thing?

Would you be happy if I praised Ra every morning for helping the sun to rise another day?

In the end, you Atheists do nothing but promote the idea that you must be on one "side" of the team or the other.

I disagree, all we're asking is that people think before they accept any old idea.

Would you feel better if I got people to believe that a giant anus eating bug created the universe and humans for the sole purpose of farming humans so it could eat our anus?

I'm not sure exactly where your having a problem here.

You can tell them they are wrong about everything, but you can't tell them it's wrong to have faith.

No one's saying that. We just feel that perhaps they should say screw God and respect our opinions instead of shoving God in our face.

PRAISE OSIRIS! THE ONE TRUE GOD!

reply to post by CHA0S


Why dont people get this - science books do not state that a Jar of Jam did not make the universe, or that cats do not have bionic legs, nor that unicorns are not real, or that there are no trolls.

The fact is that god does not exist - just like trolls, fairies and Tron. Now when and if there is some evidence to the contrary science will address it - until then science has no need to address the ridiculous fairy tales of yester-year. Thats pretty clear isn't it !?!!

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by CHA0S

 

Why dont people get this - science books do not state that a Jar of Jam did not make the universe, or that cats do not have bionic legs, nor that unicorns are not real, or that there are no trolls.

The fact is that god does not exist - just like trolls, fairies and Tron. Now when and if there is some evidence to the contrary science will address it - until then science has no need to address the ridiculous fairy tales of yester-year. Thats pretty clear isn't it !?!!

I see trolls on ATS all the time.

OT post, sorry couldn't resist.

reply to post by novastrike81


HAHA! You get a star for that.

I believe in trolls on ATS too!

Also going to say sorry to the OP

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by CHA0S

 

Why dont people get this - science books do not state that a Jar of Jam did not make the universe, or that cats do not have bionic legs, nor that unicorns are not real, or that there are no trolls.

The fact is that god does not exist - just like trolls, fairies and Tron. Now when and if there is some evidence to the contrary science will address it - until then science has no need to address the ridiculous fairy tales of yester-year. Thats pretty clear isn't it !?!!

I see trolls on ATS all the time.

OT post, sorry couldn't resist.

Oh - troll

[edit on 20-5-2010 by audas]

reply to post by audas


I never called you a troll. I said there are trolls on ATS. It was satire taken from your post. I also said it was an off topic (OT) post.

WOOOOOOOOSH!! Over your head it goes.

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by audas

 

I never called you a troll. I said there are trolls on ATS. It was satire taken from your post. I also said it was an off topic (OT) post.

WOOOOOOOOSH!! Over your head it goes.

Used to dealing with people suffering delusions of deities.....rarely come across brains on this site.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Yes, I have to agree that a lot of the fundamentalists are not privy to anything outside their views; my wife is one of them. I hope she doesn't catch me typing this reply. The church I go to does in a way do that, they preached that you should take the Bible literally. Still being in my infancy on this learning curve I fell for the whole bait and switch of the YEC (young earth creationists).

I'll stick with the whole Genesis story since it's the most popular. No where does the Bible give an account to the age of the universe or Earth. The YEC take Paul's quote out of context (2 Peter 3:1-8). To prove this I'll give you the first 8 verses and put emphasis on the highlighted areas.

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Sorry to kill those who hate scripture but you can clearly see how YEC take it out of context and apply it to Genesis. All this really says is that God doesn't operate by OUR time frame and thus Peter put a stop to their heretical claims.

Once I learned the meaning of this, because I was taught the aforementioned, I realized the problems with a YEC view. It doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, it just means that some people have the wrong interpretation; my wife and most of my church members included. I don't bring it up because it's not a big issue to me and I don't want to sleep on the couch.

For the record, not every creationist is a young earth creationist. That's a common misconception; just like the whole evolution is false claim. YEC is the reason we take so much heat if you ask me.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by novastrike81


As i said - Jam made the universe - I think it was strawberry.... . . .I have not seen any evidence to suggest that strawberry Jam did not make the universe - must be true. And it says so in a book I wrote. I wrote it after some random dude told me that Jam made the universe. Must be true. Better be true because I have rejected al rational thinking, science and progressive understanding in order to hold onto this idea - and anyone who thinks otherwise I am going to kill for being an unbeliever.

When we invade Iran it will because the strawberry jam commanded it.

Sometimes people question the Jam - but they have NO PROOF.

We go to Jam Church and I read stories out of my book about Jam and tell people how to live their life, they must obey the lessons of the Jam, they give me money to spread the word.

Sometimes people ask me if jam made the universe who made the jam - i tell them they don't understand what faith it.

reply to post by audas


You don't have any evidence to suggest that Jam did make the universe either. We can use circular reasoning all you want. To me the only evidence an atheist will accept is if you place God in front of them. It's quite pointless to argue with them because they will use illogical claims like Jam made the universe to prove their point. Even though Jam has no intelligence; even though the only intelligent thing Jam did was go with peanut butter and make a good sandwich.

If you want to believe we're a cosmological accident then go ahead; an accident that has a probability of 1 x 10^120 of occurring. If you don't believe that you'll believe we were created by extra-terrestrials; something that is lacking just as much evidence as God. You have just as much faith in one form of creation like I do. I'm not going to ask for evidence because there is none. That's why it's called faith.

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by novastrike81

 

As i said - Jam made the universe - I think it was strawberry.... . . .I have not seen any evidence to suggest that strawberry Jam did not make the universe - must be true. And it says so in a book I wrote. I wrote it after some random dude told me that Jam made the universe. Must be true. Better be true because I have rejected al rational thinking, science and progressive understanding in order to hold onto this idea - and anyone who thinks otherwise I am going to kill for being an unbeliever.

When we invade Iran it will because the strawberry jam commanded it.

Sometimes people question the Jam - but they have NO PROOF.

We go to Jam Church and I read stories out of my book about Jam and tell people how to live their life, they must obey the lessons of the Jam, they give me money to spread the word.

Sometimes people ask me if jam made the universe who made the jam - i tell them they don't understand what faith it.

I disagree, I think it was orange marmalade. I just don't see how strawberry jam has the right properties to create a universe. Orange Marmalade has the whole essence of the orange in it in which to work it's creative powers. Strawberry jam just has a few pieces of strawberry and lots of mushy garbage.

I think your crazy for thinking strawberry jam can create a universe when it's quite obvious orange marmalade is the key.

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by audas

 

You don't have any evidence to suggest that Jam did make the universe either. We can use circular reasoning all you want. To me the only evidence an atheist will accept is if you place God in front of them. It's quite pointless to argue with them because they will use illogical claims like Jam made the universe to prove their point. Even though Jam has no intelligence; even though the only intelligent thing Jam did was go with peanut butter and make a good sandwich.

If you want to believe we're a cosmological accident then go ahead; an accident that has a probability of 1 x 10^120 of occurring. If you don't believe that you'll believe we were created by extra-terrestrials; something that is lacking just as much evidence as God. You have just as much faith in one form of creation like I do. I'm not going to ask for evidence because there is none. That's why it's called faith.

It appears the logic is escaping you. There is exactly the same degree of probability, logic, reasoning, and believability that God made the Universe as there is that Strawberry Jam made the universe - they are equally probable, reasonable assumptions - which is ZERO.

On the other hand, reasoning, logic, science is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the universe - we understand how planets are formed, suns, galaxies - we can look back into time with the aid of immensely powerful space based telescopes - and watch the universe evolving.

You on the other hand reject all this evidence because it clashes with your belief that Strawberry Jam made the universe (or whatever you wish to call your fantastic being).....

Originally posted by audas

It appears the logic is escaping you. There is exactly the same degree of probability, logic, reasoning, and believability that God made the Universe as there is that Strawberry Jam made the universe - they are equally probable, reasonable assumptions - which is ZERO.

On the other hand, reasoning, logic, science is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the universe - we understand how planets are formed, suns, galaxies - we can look back into time with the aid of immensely powerful space based telescopes - and watch the universe evolving.

You on the other hand reject all this evidence because it clashes with your belief that Strawberry Jam made the universe (or whatever you wish to call your fantastic being).....

How is what you gave evidence? It's just illogical that strawberry jam, something created by mixing ingredients together, is the creator of the universe. This implies that there is something higher than strawberry jam. Strawberry jam doesn't occur naturally. You need pectin to make jam, jam.

Logic must be escaping you.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by novastrike81]

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by novastrike81

 

As i said - Jam made the universe - I think it was strawberry.... . . .I have not seen any evidence to suggest that strawberry Jam did not make the universe - must be true. And it says so in a book I wrote. I wrote it after some random dude told me that Jam made the universe. Must be true. Better be true because I have rejected al rational thinking, science and progressive understanding in order to hold onto this idea - and anyone who thinks otherwise I am going to kill for being an unbeliever.

When we invade Iran it will because the strawberry jam commanded it.

Sometimes people question the Jam - but they have NO PROOF.

We go to Jam Church and I read stories out of my book about Jam and tell people how to live their life, they must obey the lessons of the Jam, they give me money to spread the word.

Sometimes people ask me if jam made the universe who made the jam - i tell them they don't understand what faith it.

I disagree, I think it was orange marmalade. I just don't see how strawberry jam has the right properties to create a universe. Orange Marmalade has the whole essence of the orange in it in which to work it's creative powers. Strawberry jam just has a few pieces of strawberry and lots of mushy garbage.

I think your crazy for thinking strawberry jam can create a universe when it's quite obvious orange marmalade is the key.

STUPID thing to say, there is so much evidence for Strawberry Jam - my book, faith, and of course every says so.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by audas

It appears the logic is escaping you. There is exactly the same degree of probability, logic, reasoning, and believability that God made the Universe as there is that Strawberry Jam made the universe - they are equally probable, reasonable assumptions - which is ZERO.

On the other hand, reasoning, logic, science is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the universe - we understand how planets are formed, suns, galaxies - we can look back into time with the aid of immensely powerful space based telescopes - and watch the universe evolving.

You on the other hand reject all this evidence because it clashes with your belief that Strawberry Jam made the universe (or whatever you wish to call your fantastic being).....

How is what you gave evidence? It's just illogical that strawberry jam, something created by mixing ingredients together, is the creator of the universe. This implies that there is something higher than strawberry jam. Strawberry jam doesn't occur naturally. You need pectin to make jam, jam.

Logic must be escaping you.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by novastrike81]

Man made God - the same as he made Jam - but the difference here is that Jam made God and man

reply to post by audas


Then what made us? Something must have caused all of what we see today to come around. You can say jam all you want but jam is a created product. If we made God and we made jam are you implying that we made the universe?

Man made God - the same as he made Jam - but the difference here is that Jam made God and man

Nice contradiction. If man made Jam then how can Jam make God and man? You really seem to be fishing to keep up now. Just admit that Jam didn't create everything and we can move along.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by novastrike81


God - the idea of God, the notion of God, the construct of God - "GOD" - is something man made up. We made it up the same as we made up Thor, Zeus or any other of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of deities....we made it up to explain things. Wether than is entropy, serendipity, synergy, coincidence, the unknown - we made it up to help us deal with the fears of the unknown.

God is for people who are filled with fear, who are unable to grasp the complexities of the explanations offered to them.

We created God - he did not exist until we dreamt him up.

How did the universe first start - no one knows for sure - there are several competing theories - however one it was initiated it has evolved since then . In ways we are quite certain about.

To me we live in sort of [necessary?] chaos.

& it is up to us, IF we choose, to impose whatever order we are both inspired [compelled] AND capably empowered to impose.

Not trying to be overly personal, just using this as a starting point [spur?] of discussion of our common conceptions.
novastrike81:

and then I stand before my superiors and give an account of why I made the decision I did instead of making the right decision based on my emotions

Who are your 'superiors'?
I accept that we are all part of the undifferentiated Universe. Only if we [choose to?] aggregate into some form of society do we attribute or elect to give someone/something the assignment of 'authority'.

Everyone is in large part as authoritative or not as anyone else.
the only increase or decrease with which i might regard their experience is if they have been paying as neutral/objective attention or less so much.
Pre-conceptions can sometime color our actual experience. Of course previous experience can color it too, but at least that is something of actual experience.

If one or something is going to do judging with actual possible real ramifications i would like it to come from someone with as broad an experience base & considered thoughtful reasoning as possible.

The presumption of some magic/mystic pre-existing order obviates the need to create it if we actually want it.

Honestly it is a cop-out.

And excuse me all to heck, but i am not going to give a pretense or absurd presumption credit to that for being in any way reality & sound logic based.

Religion's pretense to be 'moral' means we don't do the hard thinking of how do we create an ethical, functionally workable system to live in.
It panders invariably to our evolutionary instincts, & really has very little to do with a higher, inspired or visionary perspective on a possibly better future.

A better future doesn't happen by magic.
Religion is peddling magic & in all probability not only doesn't lead to a better future it leads to a worse & very likely extinguishment of our species.

One doesn't have to care about the species or anything else. That is perfectly logical. It is also an evolutionary inclination, but as long as we acknowledge it as such i don't find it a problematic as a base for a systematic, shared perspective.

To me our concern of our collective & personal future survival & hopefully prosperity is both far more real than religion as well as far more fragile.

It is a much harder commitment than religion, because it is an actual conscious choice of something we all know is loaded with ambiguity & choices & subject to the whims of the macro-universe.
But i feel certain it is the only sensibly viable path to any kind of better, more productive & enjoyable future,
as well as far more likely a path for humanity to survive.

People, humanity & life are real & god is imaginary.
Imagination [including religious] may be a source of ideas,
but it is only potentially usefully productive [or destructive] if it is applied to real things.

I am on the side of reality, religion is on the side of imagination, often psychotic imagination.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by slank]

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by novastrike81

 

God - the idea of God, the notion of God, the construct of God - "GOD" - is something man made up. We made it up the same as we made up Thor, Zeus or any other of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of deities....we made it up to explain things. Wether than is entropy, serendipity, synergy, coincidence, the unknown - we made it up to help us deal with the fears of the unknown.

God is for people who are filled with fear, who are unable to grasp the complexities of the explanations offered to them.

We created God - he did not exist until we dreamt him up.

How did the universe first start - no one knows for sure - there are several competing theories - however one it was initiated it has evolved since then . In ways we are quite certain about.

I'm filled with fear? No, I accept a lot of complexities offered to me because they go in line with scripture.

What is your idea then for our Creation? So you know, at Creation, or the "Big Bang" (whatever you wish to call it) Einstein, Hawking and others, through evidential research, showed that as well as matter and space being created at this "Big Bang", time itself was also created. This is now of universal acceptance in cosmological studies. There was no 'before' the moment of Creation, as time itself had not been created. This is borne out both by the Special and General Theories of Relativity and by Genesis 1: In the beginning God created....." (i.e. in the Hebrew "at the beginning of time").

Actually Zeus and Thor are the same god with different names. They both represent thunder/lightning. They just come from different cultures.

E.g., very early Judaism seems to have lacked an afterlife entirely. The reason God was smiting left and right, and sending plagues and commanding genocides, is pretty much that he was supposed to help or punish you in this world, not in an afterlife.

E.g., traditional Buddhism lacked any kind of a separate afterlife too, and explicitly rejected the concept usually called a "soul". This life was the "afterlife" for your previous incarnation, and the "non-soul" (no, really, they actually called it that) were just some fluid mental processes which just exist without a support for a while and then transfer in a new human. (Pretty much, see: dualism.)

E.g., Japanese "gods" aren't even as much gods, as just the most powerful of spirits. There is no fundamental difference between the spirit of a tree, the spirit of your dead great grandma, and the spirit called Amaterasu. (The Sun, basically, and the most powerful and important spirit by far. Plus, a direct ancestor of the imperial family.) It's nothing like the abrahamic or even classic western religions, where there's a fundamental difference between the spirit of great-grandma and God. For the Japanese Amaterasu is just one very powerful and important spirit indeed, but otherwise nevertheless just an extreme of that continuum of natural spirits, from the weakest to to the most powerful.

E.g., the Aesir and Vanir of old Norse religion, like the gods of so many other religions, weren't eternal or immortal at all. They had to keep munching on Idun's apples (disappointingly, it's not even an euphemism) or they'd start aging and eventually die. And they were not creator gods at all. The universe was created simply when the extreme heat of Muspelheim met the frozen cold of Niflheim, and the Gods too were created together with the rest of the universe, instead of being the ones who created it.

Even their afterlife, was not as much about reward or punishment.

Valhalla was just for those who qualified to work for Odin or Freya as mercenaries, and it was a place of employment not of reward. Those guys were not supposed to sit around singing hymns and playing the harp, but train daily in deadly combat, in preparation for the Ragnarok days when they'll march into battle for their employer. It wasn't that happy a place either. By modern standards a place where you hack each other to pieces each day, with real sharp weapons, then get put together and get hacked again the next day, would count more like Hell than as a reward.

Again, it was more like a place of employment than of reward, and to get there you didn't have to qualify as "I was a good person", but really as "I'm a fearless mercenary, and I already fought to death once. I can do it again for you." Even if you died fighting a peasant to rape his daughter, you were still elligible for Valhalla because you did fight bravely to death. Good peaceful persons went to Hel's domain anyway, because Odin didn't need them as His soldiers.

The land of the other dead wasn't as much "Hell", as in a place of punishment (as I was saying, lots of good persons went there too), but more like a place of eternal death. If you read the metaphors for it, and put two and two together, that's what it really says. Hel, the ruler thereof, is described as someone half blue and half white, i.e., like the corpse of someone who died on their side and the blood settled that way. It's not the Devil, it's a corpse.

But at any rate, there was no cosmic justice in it. A brave murderer and rapist went to Valhalla, while the girl raped and murdered by him went to the other place.

E.g., ancient Egypt didn't really have an afterlife as places of reward and places of punishment either. If you were good, you'd just be allowed to live in a shadow realm that was just like the real world in all aspects. You'd still have to work the fields or practice your crafts and trade for a living, and everything else. The reward was really nothing more than being allowed to continue living, but not anything beyond that. And the punishment wasn't some place of eternal torment, but really having your soul devoured and annihilated. The punishment was just ceasing to exist. The End. Game Over. Oblivion.

Is any one account "better or more valid" than another? Better/more valid in what sense? Better/more valid for the society that believed in the religion/myth? I don't think that all religion is based on some schizophrenic episode ascribed to whatever humans first concocted these stories, nor are they simply pure flights of the imagination. Many of them were just a form of pre-scientific understanding to these individuals.