Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[Trimijopulos]

No, it isn't.

The Big-Bang theory is but an Ex Nihilo Creation Myth produced by a pastor which requires from me to believe that we know what happened just after the BB but not before.
Thank you, but it is of no use to me to read an article providing evidence for the BB because I have not the required training.

No, there is no consensus among the scientific community on the position of God.

Have you ever wondered why?
Anyhow, I am not interested in God but in gods (“The God is the father of the gods”, as many popular traditions inform).

There has also never been a scientific study that has reached the conclusion that Bigfoot doesn't live in my urethra. So what? Does that mean the position that Bigfoot doesn't exist or that he doesn't live in my urethra requires faith?

If we also count small chapels, there are millions of “Houses of gods or God” on this planet and millions of people who believe in gods, purify themselves to satisfy the gods and they even kill their firstborns obeying the gods.
No parallels can be drawn between gods and your Bigfoot or mermaids, dragons, and elves.

The story told about gods is the same all over the earth. Do you have a similar story about creatures of the imagination? You do not!

How did it happen and the idea of gods appeared for the first time?
How did it happen and the absurd ideas of immortality and afterlife appeared for the first time?

Why are there no answers for the above questions?
Because intelligent people regard the myths of their ancestors as fairy tales.

oj;2745181][/color]

sooo dragons exist too then?

Do you pray to dragons?

If you haven't studied physics, why do you claim that the Big Bang Theory is faith-based? Do you feel the same about Plate Tectonics and Evolution? You think of them as based on faith?

As regards BB, please see above.
As regards Plate Tectonics, Evolution and Ice ages, the answer is “no”.
As regards the theory that blames my car for global warming, the answer is “yes”.

 

[Tristesse]

Well, the famous Big-Bang theory is based on faith, but I have not studied astrophysics and I cannot discuss cosmological theories

No, it isn't.

We are here dealing exclusively with the gods of our ancestors and I wish to make it clear that I am not referring to the gods of the theologians but to the gods of the archaic oral traditions.

You wrote: “ I believe all gods are either myths or irrational thinking. Does this clear up my position?” Your position is quite clear. However, that is also the position of the scientific community and as you see it is based solely on belief.

Ok, archaic gods of oral traditions? This definition is also inclusive of yahwee, the god of the old testament. So, you're being very vague. And it's not the position of the scientific community that they are myths, I'm sure a lot of scientists believe that, but there are many scientists who are religious. Your point is moot and irrelevant to the discussion.

Myths about gods are not fairy tales for the simple reason that it is impossible for two peoples without contact between them to create simultaneously an identical imaginary story with lots of identical details.

Thats not true, many cultures have many different ideas of a god and none of them are identical, well, most arent. Even amoungst christianity there are 1,000's of different denominations all positing different beliefs about their one true deity. And each one thinks their particular interpretation is correct. Now, most of them are mutaully exclusive which means that they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong, and until someone demonstartes otherwise thats the position thats most rational.

There was never a scientific study which reached the conclusion that the gods of the myths were products of the imagination. It is just easier for everybody to believe so.

Therefore it is not only the religious people who base their beliefs in faith.

Irrelevant. Whether or not a study was done is irrelevant to whether or not a god is exists. However, certain studies have been done, there was a study on whether prayer was effective in healing people, and that study failed on all levels. The information is online for you to look up. But your point is still irrelevent. And I never said that it was only religios people who base some of their beliefs on faith, there are a great number of non-religious people who do so as well, and I'm equally opposed to that.

You’ve answered my question by stating that so much the gods without divine attributes as the gods with divine attributes are either myths or irrational thinking.

.

I never said that. If someone believes in a god, devine or not, it needs to be demonstrated and not asserted. I never said that it was only devine gods that people believe on faith, I said it was all gods. Stop arguing against a position I don't take.

Myths are irrational only when one judges by their more recent variation. If you take a myth and trace his course back in time you will end up facing at the report of an event.

Ok, but the event is one I have contention with. The person reporting the event I believe is mistaken. Particularly, when we're talking about a period of time when mytical thinking was the norm and we had vertually no scientific knowledge, it's easy to assume that some god is responsible for lightning/thunder etc...

The myth of the creation of humankind by a God is indeed an entirely irrational one.

You’ll be astonished, though, on what you will find at the end of the trip if you decide to trace the origins of the myth of the creation of humankind by going back in time.
Just before the concept of a male god who was creating humans out of clay, Marduk was creating humans out of his blood and bone (the reference to the bone resulted in the funny story of Adam’s rib in the OT). A contemporaneous concept was about the slaughtering of a god and mixing his blood with earth in order to fashion humans.
The irrationality commences to diminish when women are involved in the creation: the gods call the “goddess of the land” and instruct her to produce humans. Still earlier, the goddess of the land did not possess the ability to produce men and thus she had to call a number of anonymous Mother-wombs and it was them who produced the human kind.

I agree, those are all myths. What does any of this have to do with science operating on faith? You're not making any sense and you're not bringing anything relevant to the table, so, whats the contention?

Anyone who has reached that far into the past of mythology knows very well who these Mother-wombs were. They were women kept in enclosures where gods or semi-gods or gods by two thirds, as Gilgamesh was, were visiting and raping them in order to produce either “slaves of the gods” or “sons of God.” .

Irrelevant. Can you please state a coherent point of disagreement.

There is nothing irrational about tortured miserable women bearing children to their rapists.

Myth is not fairy tale! But science does operate on faith sometimes.

No, science operates on gathering eveidence to understand this world we live in, there is no faith required. The process of science also alows us to change our minds when the evidence leads elsewhere, thats the oposite of faith. Faith is the belief people have without evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[riley2112]

Faith is the belief people have without evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.

faith

   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

No where does it say that faith is something that there is no evidence for. faith is the “assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” It takes faith to believe in God…you can’t see Him…but I can see the evidence that He exists all around me.

 

[Tristesse]

faith

   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

No where does it say that faith is something that there is no evidence for. faith is the “assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” It takes faith to believe in God…you can’t see Him…but I can see the evidence that He exists all around me.

There are different definitions of faith. There is faith in the religious sense, no. 3, which is the one I most often refer to. Considering we're in the religious forums. However, I would define faith and trust differently. But religious faith is the one that I was defining, which is either lacking in evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Obviously a matter of faith for someone who hasn't studied and verified for themselves any truth behind these theories.

I have very little math myself. There's no way for me to verify the Big Bang Theory or even study it. What I figure is that scientists don't conspire. They compete, fiercely. So if one of them tries to pull a fast one, there are a million guys standing around just itching to knock him down. So my best move is to accept, tentatively, the major scientific theories.

As for Evolution and Plate Tectonics, I have studied them a bit and see nothing in them to make me suspicious. They seem reasonable explanations. Everything we've learned or discovered since Darwin -- DNA for example -- has worked to confirm the initial theory. Until it's knocked down by something new, it seems the best theory to explain how life changes.

One has to have enough faith in a theory at least enough to be willing to test the theory. This IMO is the same amount of faith asked by Jesus.

We certainly see that in different ways. Actually, I don't even believe that Jesus existed. I see the Bible as a compilation put together by theologians over many years and eventually codified. (Nat Geo has a great feature article this month about the KJV Bible, by the way. I recommend it to everyone here.)

When your ignorant about something like heaven or astrophysics, you need to put your faith in someone who supposedly has more knowledge through personal experience. Yes you need to have faith in Jesus to be willing to test what he taught.

I know of no experts on Heaven. And I've never encountered anyone who seems to know more about God (or Heaven) than I do.

But let me ask: Do you have enough faith in me to test what I teach?

What his theory was, is that love, forgiveness, charity would lead to a better spiritual nature for man, not materialism. You need faith in the teacher to be willing to trust in what they teach. However once you discover the truth of it for yourself you are no longer relying on faith.

I've spent my life chasing God, and I'm a pretty good teacher. But I don't ask anyone to have faith in me. I stand or fall on my current ability to theologize -- to explain my worldview.

Ask me a hard question about God. If I stumble in my answer, don't believe me.

 

[riley2112]

There are different definitions of faith. There is faith in the religious sense, no. 3, which is the one I most often refer to. Considering we're in the religious forums. However, I would define faith and trust differently. But religious faith is the one that I was defining, which is either lacking in evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I still fail to see any evidence to the fact that faith is belief without evidence. Or do you just have faith that is what it means. vain attempt at humor.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I still fail to see any evidence to the fact that faith is belief without evidence. Or do you just have faith that is what it means. vain attempt at humor.

The world is supported on the back of Words. And those Words are standing on the backs of other Words... and it's Words all the way down.

Words mean what we think they mean. It can be a scary thought, but I'm pretty sure it's so.

 

[riley2112]

The world is supported on the back of Words. And those Words are standing on the backs of other Words... and it's Words all the way down.

Words mean what we think they mean. It can be a scary thought, but I'm pretty sure it's so.

Ok, let us do it your way, what do you think
abrogate means, I think it means little red wagon. Do you see a problem with your statement now

 

[Tristesse]

I still fail to see any evidence to the fact that faith is belief without evidence. Or do you just have faith that is what it means.

Well, the word faith, like many other words has multiple definitions, the definition you posted talked about religious faith, but it did not elaborate on what that meant. If you are part of a religion and you have a dogma that is unquestioning, but you have no evidence to support your claims, you're relying on faith that the doctrine is correct. Faith in that sense is a dangerous thing. However, if you had scrolled down the page on the dictionary website that you got those definitions from you would have noticed slightly different definitions for the word faith.

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

 

[riley2112]

Well, the word faith, like many other words has multiple definitions, the definition you posted talked about religious faith, but it did not elaborate on what that meant. If you are part of a religion and you have a dogma that is unquestioning, but you have no evidence to support your claims, you're relying on faith that the doctrine is correct. Faith in that sense is a dangerous thing. However, if you had scrolled down the page on the dictionary website that you got those definitions from you would have noticed slightly different definitions for the word faith.

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

may I have the link to that cite

 

[Tristesse]

Ok, let us do it your way, what do you think
abrogate means, I think it means little red wagon. Do you see a problem with your statement now

Abrogate can mean to abolish or to treat as nonexistent. Those two definitions are not exactly the same, yet the word means either or. Definitions are a funny thing in that regard.

 

[Tristesse]

may I have the link to that cite

It's the same one you used. Just google faith, I think it's one of the first links.

 

[riley2112]

found it , thank you any way

 

[riley2112]

you seem to be correct. It does mean many things.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[Tristesse]

found it , thank you any way

Cool. Thats why I find definitions of words to be somewhat misleading, a word can have many different defintions, but it's how you use the term that matters.

 

[riley2112]

Abrogate can mean to abolish or to treat as nonexistent. Those two definitions are not exactly the same, yet the word means either or. Definitions are a funny thing in that regard.

yes they are , I am starting to like you .:bow:

 

[Tristesse]

you seem to be correct. It does mean many things.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Why highlight the word material? Has there ever been any evidence that you've been presented with that wasn't material?

 

[Tristesse]

yes they are , I am starting to like you .:bow:

Awesome! You're the first.

 

[riley2112]

Why highlight the word material? Has there ever been any evidence that you've been presented with that wasn't material?

Evidence too, can be a funny thing, and yes I believe I have had a sort of immaterial evidence or my beliefs would not be as they are. And I doubt that I am the first to like you, you seem so :rainbow1:likable.

 

[Nakosis]

I have very little math myself. There's no way for me to verify the Big Bang Theory or even study it. What I figure is that scientists don't conspire. They compete, fiercely. So if one of them tries to pull a fast one, there are a million guys standing around just itching to knock him down. So my best move is to accept, tentatively, the major scientific theories.

So you have reasons for putting some faith in their claims.

As for Evolution and Plate Tectonics, I have studied them a bit and see nothing in them to make me suspicious. They seem reasonable explanations. Everything we've learned or discovered since Darwin -- DNA for example -- has worked to confirm the initial theory. Until it's knocked down by something new, it seems the best theory to explain how life changes.

Knowledge certainly helps to determine what is trustworthy.

We certainly see that in different ways. Actually, I don't even believe that Jesus existed. I see the Bible as a compilation put together by theologians over many years and eventually codified. (Nat Geo has a great feature article this month about the KJV Bible, by the way. I recommend it to everyone here.)

No reason to place faith in someone you don't believe existed. So what reason would you have for testing the truth of his claims?

I know of no experts on Heaven. And I've never encountered anyone who seems to know more about God (or Heaven) than I do.

That's were I think Jesus does. But one is going to know that without first having faith in him. Why would you listen to someone you have no faith in?

But let me ask: Do you have enough faith in me to test what I teach?

Maybe, enough to test your claims. Beyond that it depends on how verifiable your claims are.

I've spent my life chasing God, and I'm a pretty good teacher. But I don't ask anyone to have faith in me. I stand or fall on my current ability to theologize -- to explain my worldview.

Ask me a hard question about God. If I stumble in my answer, don't believe me.

How does your view/concept of God differ from that of Jesus?