Disregarding what you term a "threat", and disregarding the hereafter, a sound position is...regardless of anything else...that if one follows His teachings, one will have a better life. The 'peace that passes all understandings' fills a God shaped void in many people's lives that can't be filled by anything else.
I fail to see how my life would be any better following a fairy tale. I fail to see how that would help me believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible? In this country, religious fundamentalist have the lowest level of education and the lowest income, and that's before they give 10% of it away. Look at all the time lost as well. What would be the next best thing you could do with this time? In economics this is called an "opportunity cost". But, I guess some people just want the blue pill.
Some folks have found a better life just by following His teachings about love, forgiveness, judging others, hypocrisy, wealth and poverty, etc..
You don't seem content to simply discuss your views and your opinions on this subject...you put forth a lot of effort to point out how 'stupid' other folks are...folks who don't see things the same way that you do.
People are what they are, not what they 'tell' people they are. People's actions show what and who they are despite what they claim to be. If people are known by their fruits, then their 'beliefs' should identify themselves in the same way. In modern times, can you name any charitable ministry, or outreach, or any other entity designed to help others that was ever started by the Atheists...? Show us one...if you can...then compare 'that' to many hundreds of hospitals and colleges, and children’s homes, and crisis centers that were started by followers of Christ.
At this point, I think it is evident that AS's posts follow a predictable pattern:
“We can therefore express the major elements in the New Atheists’ agenda as follows: Religion is a dangerous delusion: it leads to violence and war. We must therefore get rid of religion: science will achieve that. We do not need God to be good: atheism can provide a perfectly adequate base for ethics.” ― John C. Lennox, Gunning for God
Of course you're missing the fact that most everything claimed in that statement is true.
I take issue with two points:
I would clarify that religion CAN be a dangerous delusion, but not necessarily always.
I highly doubt science/facts/truth will ever 'get rid of religion'. Religion is based on emotional need and the confirmation bias that accompanies it is immune to facts.
"If the cure for ignorance were simply a dose of the truth We could eradicate the disease of the elderly and inoculate our youth"
I am not missing the fact that most everything claimed in that statement is true. I do, however, get the fact that you are making a truth claim for which you have not provided sufficient evidence.
Peter Atkins (a highly regared athiest) makes this positive assertian: "Science is omnipotent."
Do you disagree with him also?
A) what truth claim are you referring to?
B) I would have to get a clarification from that guy on what he means by 'omnipotent'. Does he mean infallible? Does he mean all powerful in that he believes science will eventually be able to explain all? Perhaps he clarified in another portion of the video/debate?
In answer to A):
I quoted you. Don't you read your own post, or do you view with the same sense of babbling as the rest of us?
In answer to B):
Atkins give sufficient dialog to understand his meaning.
A) I guess you're referring to me referring to the truthfulness of your quote. You need evidence that religion can lead to violence and war? Really???
Do you also need examples of non believers who do good? Again, really???
B) I didn't think he was very clear but IF he means that he thinks science is all,powerful or infallible, then, no, I don't agree. Again, really????
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Evolution in itself is a broad descriptive term used in many ways. We all can agree that animals have changed over time, with time being relative to the situation, and have "evolved". No one can debate that. Survival of the fittest passes on genetics, and genetic traits become recessive or dominant and are either expressed in the individuals or are suppressed in individuals. We have scientific proof of that. I have even seen it with my own eyes in my hospitals microbiology lab while studying drug resistance in bacteria.
What we do not have proof of, and what is only a hypothesis or theory, whichever you will, is that human life evolved from a Big Bang and single cell life forms to what we are today.
As far as I am aware cro-magnun and Neanderthal barely overlap in existence on earth. So how does cro-mag evolve from them with no DNA sequence to support that. Fossil records have only left us with more unanswered questions. I say this to say then from what or where did they evolve. The simple answer is we don't know. And scientist do not agree on where they started. Some say Central Asia, some Africa, some say spaceships. Even after analyzing the same DNA hundreds of times. Who knows.
Point being when you say proof of evolution, you must be more descriptive of what "evolution" you are referring to. Cause Big Bang and single cell to multicellular evolution are not fact nor have they been proven or replicated by science to date.
Kevin, Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are three seperate fields of study, and should not be conflated.
As for Neanderthals, they are more our cousins then our ancestors. We and they evolved from a common ancestor from about 660,000 years ago. As for the Cro-Magnon, they did not evolve from Neanderthals.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Disregarding what you term a "threat", and disregarding the hereafter, a sound position is...regardless of anything else...that if one follows His teachings, one will have a better life. The 'peace that passes all understandings' fills a God shaped void in many people's lives that can't be filled by anything else.
I fail to see how my life would be any better following a fairy tale. I fail to see how that would help me believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible? In this country, religious fundamentalist have the lowest level of education and the lowest income, and that's before they give 10% of it away. Look at all the time lost as well. What would be the next best thing you could do with this time? In economics this is called an "opportunity cost". But, I guess some people just want the blue pill.
Some folks have found a better life just by following His teachings about love, forgiveness, judging others, hypocrisy, wealth and poverty, etc..
You don't seem content to simply discuss your views and your opinions on this subject...you put forth a lot of effort to point out how 'stupid' other folks are...folks who don't see things the same way that you do.
People are what they are, not what they 'tell' people they are. People's actions show what and who they are despite what they claim to be. If people are known by their fruits, then their 'beliefs' should identify themselves in the same way. In modern times, can you name any charitable ministry, or outreach, or any other entity designed to help others that was ever started by the Atheists...? Show us one...if you can...then compare 'that' to many hundreds of hospitals and colleges, and children’s homes, and crisis centers that were started by followers of Christ.
Sure, we can start with the Bill Gates Foundation. They even provided lab top computers to my son's school.
If you look at the actual studies regarding Charitable giving and volunteer work, after we pull out things like ushering at one's own chruch, on a per person basis, Atheist actually give more and volunteer more time then the faithful. (Uslaner 2002, Galen 2012)
As for love, forgiveness, judging others, hypocrisy, wealth and poverty, do you really need Jesus for any of that?
As for my discussion style on this topic, yes, I approach it as a search for the truth, not opinion, but the truth, so when someone attempt to present their opinion as truth, I will attempt to show the error in their reasoning.
Now contrast that with my response to someone like Bassman for Scott F who admit their beliefs are 100% faith based, and not founded in truth. I thank them for their honesty and move on, unless of course it's someone who used their faith as an excuse for immoral thinking, such as someone who recently attempted to use it to justify their anti-Semitic beliefs, it which case I will give them no quarter.
You. You seem harmless, but fun to debate.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/04/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Disregarding what you term a "threat", and disregarding the hereafter, a sound position is...regardless of anything else...that if one follows His teachings, one will have a better life. The 'peace that passes all understandings' fills a God shaped void in many people's lives that can't be filled by anything else.
Antlers,
I get what you're saying and was just talking about this with my buddy the other night. I believe the world would be a better place if people followed Jesus' teachings. However, that can be done without believing he is/was/became 'God'. (Please, nobody bring up C.S. Lewis' classic argument...it doesn't hold water). After all, many of his teachings are found in many other moral 'manifestos'.
It's entirely possible for an Atheist to follow the teachings of Jesus and, one could possibly argue, even be a 'disciple' of his...(how's that for a brain teaser!)
Your earlier reference to humility is a big part of it, I think. Humility and empathy toward one another would go a long way to curing many of mankind's ills....but again, you don't need a god (or the specific Christian God) to accomplish that.
Like I stated in the OP, if a particular flavor of Faith makes you a better human then so be it. But it is a Manichean world view that states only those who believe in a specific version of god (theirs) can be moral and upright. Just not true. The danger of conflating faith with fact is that it can lead to arrogance, bigotry, condemnation, exclusion, disharmony and a whole slew of ills. That's why I enjoyed Scott's response so much. He admitted his was faith alone and didn't try to proselytize or convince others he had the 'truth'. For how could one try to convert unless one is convinced they 'know' they're right?
Thanks for your thoughts and have a good Holiday weekend.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
What do you have to gain if you are right and what do you have to lose if you are wrong?
Mike
Ah, there lies the crux of the matter, doesn't it, Mike?
Was pondering that very question this week at work prompted by many of the Pascal Wager responses to this thread.
How many believers would still follow the teachings of their faith if all it offered was the command to do right for the sake of doing right?
It seems hard to find a religion that doesn't operate on the carrot and stick principle and many, many of the replies to this thread (and others) show that as a major modus operandi of believers.
A) your life will be 'better' if you follow God (insert proper version). You'll have an eternal afterlife of pleasure in one form or the other.
B) if you don't follow, you will pay eternally in one way or the other (for most American Christians this means eternal torture) and your life in the here and now can't possibly be as good as theirs.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Open question to Christians who use Pascal's Wager...
Apart from Antelope's deconstruction of its fallacious nature, how do explain or respond to Paul's emphatic claim that 'if the resurrection be not true, we are of all men most miserable."?
Curious...
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
.B) if you don't follow, you will pay eternally in one way or the other (for most American Christians this means eternal torture) and your life in the here and now can't possibly be as good as theirs.
Eternal torture......But he loves you!!
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Like I stated in the OP, if a particular flavor of Faith makes you a better human then so be it. But it is a Manichean world view that states only those who believe in a specific version of god (theirs) can be moral and upright. Just not true. The danger of conflating faith with fact is that it can lead to arrogance, bigotry, condemnation, exclusion, disharmony and a whole slew of ills. That's why I enjoyed Scott's response so much. He admitted his was faith alone and didn't try to proselytize or convince others he had the 'truth'. For how could one try to convert unless one is convinced they 'know' they're right?
Thanks for your thoughts and have a good Holiday weekend.
That is absolutely valid concerning religions... and being Jesus was inclusionary not exclusionary, it's easy to follow his life example.
How many believers would still follow the teachings of their faith if all it offered was the command to do right for the sake of doing right?
There 'are' those who's motivation is simply to "do right for the sake of doing right." That's likely a healthier, more moral, more altruistic motivation than that of receiving an eternal reward. Jesus' love for us is His only motivation for doing what He did. And that alone, in turn, motivates many of His disciples likewise. They've learned (and are motivated) by His example.
How many believers would still follow the teachings of their faith if all it offered was the command to do right for the sake of doing right?
There 'are' those who's motivation is simply to "do right for the sake of doing right." That's likely a healthier, more moral, more altruistic motivation than that of receiving an eternal reward. Jesus' love for us is His only motivation for doing what He did. And that alone, in turn, motivates many of His disciples likewise. They've learned (and are motivated) by His example.
You talk of Jesus Love, but humans do not go to hell in the OT, it's only with the "Loving Jesus", that we are introduced to an infinite punishment for finite crimes.
When evaluating the teaching attributed to Jesus, you need to look at both sides of the equation.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/04/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
People are what they are, not what they 'tell' people they are. People's actions show what and who they are despite what they claim to be. If people are known by their fruits, then their 'beliefs' should identify themselves in the same way. In modern times, can you name any charitable ministry, or outreach, or any other entity designed to help others that was ever started by the Atheists...? Show us one...if you can...then compare 'that' to many hundreds of hospitals and colleges, and children’s homes, and crisis centers that were started by followers of Christ.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Sure, we can start with the Bill Gates Foundation. They even provided lab top computers to my son's school.
[quote=GeorgiaBoy]At this point, I think it is evident that AS's posts follow a predictable pattern:
“We can therefore express the major elements in the New Atheists’ agenda as follows: Religion is a dangerous delusion: it leads to violence and war. We must therefore get rid of religion: science will achieve that. We do not need God to be good: atheism can provide a perfectly adequate base for ethics.” ― John C. Lennox, Gunning for God
Peter Atkins (a highly regared athiest) makes this positive assertian: "Science is omnipotent."
Do you disagree with him also?
A) what truth claim are you referring to?
B) I would have to get a clarification from that guy on what he means by 'omnipotent'. Does he mean infallible? Does he mean all powerful in that he believes science will eventually be able to explain all? Perhaps he clarified in another portion of the video/debate?
In answer to A):
I quoted you. Don't you read your own post, or do you view with the same sense of babbling as the rest of us?
In answer to B):
Atkins give sufficient dialog to understand his meaning.
GB, are you trotting out Atkins and his silly statement that "Science is all knowing". To me, that is a highly arrogant, and moronic statement.
I don't agree. However, from reading your posts, arrogant and moronic seems to be part of both your internal and external dialog.
Besides, if you don't like Atkins "silly" statement, take it up with him. As fellow athiest, I'm sure you may speak freely...and dishonestly.
Let's disregard that you ignored my terminology and inferred terminology I never expressed... again...
So believing in God, though anyone intelligent will admit they can't know everything of God or much really, is fine until proven falsified?
Kent
Is it "fine", well, without evidence it's not logical. In addition, is there any way your God CAN be falsified?
Of course, if your religion impelled you to give all your money and your best rifles to me, I'd be "fine" with that.
I'm fine with math/science saying infinity is real without proof... and God infinite without the same proof.
I also claim you can't separate or 'secular' science from God. How do you use part of yourself to denounce yourself.
If you can falsify infinity then you can God.
Have at it.
Kent
Kent just because you can define something is such a way that it can exist, doesn't actually mean it does exist. Infinity is a mathematical concept, and a very strange one at that. In many math equations, you won't actually use infinity, instead you will use the limit as you approach infinity....
As for your attempt to define God as infinite, you first need to demonstrate:
1. That God exists. 2. That God is infinite 3. That God is "part of us".
Oh, and a definition of your God would be nice as well.
Your hand waving does nothing to forward the discussion.
All you have to say is you don't believe in God, I'll believe you.
The projection of handwaving is ironic as that's all you do, beyond saying you don't believe in God. Even from a baptized ex christian.
The theory that God exists is as valid as a theory that life started on it's own... prove one falsify the other.
Kent
Kent, I've stated many times that I do not believe any god has met his burden of proof.
As for a "theory of God", you need to show how this is a well substantiated explanation that was repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experiment.
What observations and experiments do you have supporting the existence of your God. As for Abiogenesis, 65 years ago we were able to produce over 20 amino acids, the building blocks of life, withing a laboratory. As a result, the difference is we have evidence on the side of abiogenesis, but not on the side of your God.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
One side uses that as an argument "for" and the other side uses the same argument "against"...
The only thing Ingwe has faith in is the infallible .270 Winchester.
If there is a Hell....you'll spend eternity smoking a turd in it for that.....
Poobah, thank you for the promotion to the illustrious brotherhood of turd smokers. I'll be sure to pick something mild, wrapped in a good Connecticut tobacco leaf.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Kent, I've stated many times that I do not believe any god has met his burden of proof.
As for a "theory of God", you need to show how this is a well substantiated explanation that was repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experiment.
What observations and experiments do you have supporting the existence of your God. As for Abiogenesis, 65 years ago we were able to produce over 20 amino acids, the building blocks of life, withing a laboratory. As a result, the difference is we have evidence on the side of abiogenesis, but not on the side of your God.
At one time you did think God met the proof, you are disingenuous.
