Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[Sonofason]

Now you reveal your gross ignorance of statistics and probability.


Bold empty claims remain bold empty claims until supported.
You sound like someone who wants to make unsupported bold empty claims and not be called out for it.

Bold empty threats are just as worthless as bold empty claims.

You calling me out on something is like me taking a nap.

 

[Sonofason]

Here, I agree with you. The website in question really does provide dates for the Gospels that are seriously out of line with current scholarship.

(That doesn't change my opinion of them, but I don't like untruth on either side of an argument. If you can't fight fair, take the gloves off and go home!)

I'm glad we can agree on something. I do not like any sort of dishonesty either.

You bring up scholarship. Can you tell me what you think is a reasonable estimation of the date in which the book of Mathew was written, and the reasoning for that estimation, and why you believe it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why do you assume that the possibility is small. If God exists without you knowing it, the possibility of God existing is 100%. The possibility of something existing is not something we can reasonably place odds on. Either the thing exists, or it does not. There can be no 50% chance of God existing. He either exists or he does not. There are no odds, there are no probabilities of his existence. It's either all or nothing. And you not knowing has zero affect on that reality.

People making claims do not have a burden of proof, unless it is their desire to convince someone that their claim is true. I am perfectly happy making claims and providing what I believe is evidence. Proving something to someone means absolutely nothing to me. If you should burn in a hell because you did not believe me, it honestly is not my problem, but yours.

Ok, agreed. But now let's see how it works out (a little play on Pascal's Wager). If neither you nor I should burn in hell because we do, don't, can't or won't believe, but we both simply cease to exist because that's what death means -- why then it's nobody's problem. Not mine. Not yours. It's all perfectly fair and even. So unlike what you think your nasty god proposes!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm glad we can agree on something. I do not like any sort of dishonesty either.

You bring up scholarship. Can you tell me what you think is a reasonable estimation of the date in which the book of Mathew was written, and the reasoning for that estimation, and why you believe it?

In the article that was linked (regarding when the Gospels were written), the author -- in every case -- says this: "written xx years after." He does not say "after what," but what he clearly means (though he does not say it) is "after the birth of Christ." For this reason, every date that he gives is about 30 years too late.

Scholars are in pretty general agreement that Mark was written first (though after the first letters of Paul), anywhere between 65 and 73 CE. (1 Thessalonians is probably around 52 CE.)

Matthew and Luke clearly take a lot from Mark, but add material that seems to be from a commonly circulated source of sayings about Jesus now called "Q" (from the German Quelle meaning "source").

Just a note -- I realize that Paul existed, was a real person. I am fairly certain (though I can't know) the same about Jesus. What I question is not Christ's existence, but what is (later) said about him.

 

[Sonofason]

Ok, agreed. But now let's see how it works out (a little play on Pascal's Wager). If neither you nor I should burn in hell because we do, don't, can't or won't believe, but we both simply cease to exist because that's what death means -- why then it's nobody's problem. Not mine. Not yours. It's all perfectly fair and even. So unlike what you think your nasty god proposes!

Ok, agreed. But now let's see how it works out (a little play on Pascal's Wager). If neither you nor I should burn in hell because we do, don't, can't or won't believe, but we both simply cease to exist because that's what death means -- why then it's nobody's problem. Not mine. Not yours. It's all perfectly fair and even. So unlike what you think your nasty god proposes!

Okay, sorry about that. There was actually no good reason for me to even mention hell in my previous comment. It was completely unnecessary for me to bring it up to make my point.

 

[Sonofason]

In the article that was linked (regarding when the Gospels were written), the author -- in every case -- says this: "written xx years after." He does not say "after what," but what he clearly means (though he does not say it) is "after the birth of Christ." For this reason, every date that he gives is about 30 years too late.

Scholars are in pretty general agreement that Mark was written first (though after the first letters of Paul), anywhere between 65 and 73 CE. (1 Thessalonians is probably around 52 CE.)

Matthew and Luke clearly take a lot from Mark, but add material that seems to be from a commonly circulated source of sayings about Jesus now called "Q" (from the German Quelle meaning "source").

Just a note -- I realize that Paul existed, was a real person. I am fairly certain (though I can't know) the same about Jesus. What I question is not Christ's existence, but what is (later) said about him.

Okay thanks. Seems to be a reasonable answer to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no reason nor desire to share my most precious experiences with faithless people. It's personal.

You have no obligation to back up your claim, of course. Just don't be surprised if I give your vague hearsay the weight it deserves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I give you ever single piece of matter as my evidence that God exists. He created all of it from nothing.
The physicists and mathematicians who traced the Big Bang concur. According to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point. Remember, a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small. Infinitesimally small, is not really really small. It was infinitely smaller than that. Infinite is endless. Infinitely is endlessly. That point was endlessly small. That is, that point was so small no one could ever calculate it. That's because there was nothing there to calculate. Because at the center of it all was the Originator of it, not a piece of matter, but a non-physical being from which all matter emanated by His very word.

But you will reject this evidence. Not because the reasoning is unsound, but because the evidence does not convince you. Not being convinced by evidence says very little about the evidence. But it says a lot about the person who is considering the evidence.

Try rephrasing your "reasoning" for clarity:

- the Big Bang happened.
- therefore, __________.
- therefore, God exists.

How do you fill in the blank?

 

[McBell]

You calling me out on something is like me taking a nap.

:eyeroll:
avoidance mixed in with a sad weak attempt at insult...

Seems honest discussion with you is nigh impossible.

 

[Segev Moran]

I dona't really think there is anything in the Bible stating that life only exists on earth.

Exactly!!!

But many of us believe that might be the case.

Why?

We could be wrong.

Obviously.

So, if we do find life elsewhere in the universe, say thousands of years from now, you won't see me squirming. I'll be okay with it.

Doesn't the bible speak of Adam And Eve?
Aren't they the Humanoid form that God created that are what we call today Human?
Doesn't the bible speak of other Stars as lights for planet Earth?
Doesn't the bible speak of the fact that those stars can fall down to earth?

 

[sunflower]

I'm not completely an atheist, I am in terms on a journey to find out if I relate with any particular religion. however I relate most with the title of an atheist, because even if I was to discover a religion I connect with I feel as though I would still be skeptical and not be able to completely agree with all aspects of said religion. This is also known as being pantheist.

My personal opinion and view on God (Christianity)
I do believe there is a higher power, however I am questionable on if this higher power is known. I believe every religion has their own views on who/what this higher power is, but it is the same higher power at the end of the day. My thing is, I grew up in a very conservative Christian family and I went to a baptist church every Sunday and bible study every Wednesday for my whole childhood up until I was roughly 15. And there was something always 'not right' about who they discussed God was.... In a logical sense I can not bring myself to believe that this one person, that has only a book written forever ago as proof of his existence, is practically the controller of my life. So around the age of 13 I began to look into other religions, to educate myself on what it is they believe and how it compared to how I was raised. And most religions I studied covered nearly the same thing, there was a God(s) who they believed to be the higher power who should be worshiped and considered in every life decision being made. And this does not settle right with me.

Long story short.... As a questioning atheist my point of view on God (Jesus Christ) is that is just one religions perception and name for the higher power that many religions study.

 

[viole]

No, God is not a fictional character. A lot of fictional stuff has been written about Him by people like...well you for example. But God is very real.

I think, with a high level of confidence, that God has been made up. We have examples of gods being made up all the time, and you know that. Unless you believe that the maya gods or things like apollo, thor, zeus, etc. have not been made up.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I give you ever single piece of matter as my evidence that God exists. He created all of it from nothing.
The physicists and mathematicians who traced the Big Bang concur. According to their theory all of the matter in the universe - in fact, the universe itself - was contained within a single point. Remember, a single point in mathematics is infinitesimally small. Infinitesimally small, is not really really small. It was infinitely smaller than that. Infinite is endless. Infinitely is endlessly. That point was endlessly small. That is, that point was so small no one could ever calculate it. That's because there was nothing there to calculate. Because at the center of it all was the Originator of it, not a piece of matter, but a non-physical being from which all matter emanated by His very word.

But you will reject this evidence. Not because the reasoning is unsound, but because the evidence does not convince you. Not being convinced by evidence says very little about the evidence. But it says a lot about the person who is considering the evidence.

Well, I too will reject this "evidence," and for what I consider to be a very good reason. There is no possible explanation, that I can imagine, for why an entity that exists in a completely non-physical, non-temporal way could possibly suddenly desire to create time, space and matter, and to create them in such a way that is so utterly filled with misery. So many horrible, horrible diseases caused entirely by "created" organisms -- what for? To create life so that it can die - what for?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is simply a fundamental difference between saying "I don't believe you because you don't have evidence" and "I don't believe you because I hold another belief which I find to be more credible"

It goes to the basis for the disbelief. Either you are skeptical or you hold a belief that is mutually exclusive from what is being proposed.

If someone claims that they found the answer to a question but you don't believe them based on the fact that they didn't provide a satisfactory reason is different than not believing them because you already have a different answer.

 

[Acim]

My post wasn't technically my post?

My words from previous post were not technically your post.

 

[Acim]

Not quite. While the sentence structure is inverted, it certainly contains a positive: "in order to describe something, you must begin with some positive framing which provides context for paring down using not statements.

Because I do not observe what you are saying "it certainly contains a positive" then I reject such certainty, until you show otherwise where that was contained in your written expression.

See? Once I provided a little positive context, you quickly homed in on an immensely smaller universe of possibilities to consider in understanding my meaning.

Now, let's consider snurzzles. Do I believe in them or not? Would it be helpful if I learned "you cannot hang snurzzles on your wall?" Well, not very much, no!

I disagree, it would be a little bit helpful.

I can hang 99 bottles of beer on the wall. I can hang my enemies testicles on the wall. I can hang paper on the wall. Nope, not getting much closer. How about, "snurzzles don't taste like turnips?" Once again, almost everything that isn't a turnip doesn't taste like a turnip, so my field of consideration isn't narrowed at all.

Still a little helpful.

Yet, knowing you continue on this tangent, I'll just interject that my not statements with regards to Love, were far (exponentially) bigger in scope than what you're trying to get across here. But, please continue....

So, am I a snurzzlist, an asnurzzlist, or agnostic about snurzzles? None of them! I am ignorant about snurzzles, so far, and therefore have no opinion, and nothing to base an opinion on. If I get no further information, I'll drop the issue altogether and never think of it again.

Soooo, because you had to resort to a made up concept, that shows what exactly? I spoke of Love. Surely, you've heard about it. Surely you've experienced it. You even expressed as much, and then chose to filter it down to something I must accept (an emotional feeling). So, that relates to snurzzles, how? Cause, I'm now a wee bit curious about what more, if anything you wish to say about snurzzles, even if that is more not statements. For I currently have some idea about them. Such that I today, could write a poem about snurzzles, using the information you've expressed about them, and kinda sorta thinking by the time I'm done with such a piece, I could share with it with other people who will plausibly tell me, they like (or dislike) snurzzles. Granted, if you are one of those people, you might have a boatload of criticisms of how I chose to describe snurzzles, but depending how your criticisms are framed, I may do a little rewriting to be even more accurate.

So, let me tell you about this idea of "God/god." I am an atheist about all of the various notions of God/god that I have so far heard enough about that I can form some sort of picture. I am ignorant of any God/god that has never been defined for me so that I can picture it. I am agnostic as to whether there might be a definition of God/god that might somebody be provided me that I might believe -- I only know that none has been so far.

And if I tell you "money is my god" you'd maintain lack of belief, lack of ability to form a picture of my god?
Dictionary provides various definitions of god(s) and if they apply to anything, then you are in tangentially rejecting existence of those things, while essentially saying "that's not god." Yet, if we explore that further, it would be because you really just reject that definition of god and/or what it can plausibly apply to.

But the "definition" of God/god -- that it somehow equates to "love" -- is meaningless to me, for the reasons I gave. Love is an emotion felt by creatures for reasons of evolutionary success. It binds where binding is needed. Where binding is not needed, neither is love. The fern that spreads spores on the wind has no love for its offspring.

And I disagree that this is "love" so we are at an impasse perhaps, but not because neither of us hasn't presented anything positively affirming or not-statements (such as you have above) about the idea, but because of simple rejection. Guess what? There is not a concept or idea that you can express, where I cannot reject it, regardless of how true it is for you or anyone else. Yet, would be real interesting if I further made claims along lines of "never seen any evidence for that" when such evidence is presented to me. Just play the denial game around that, and how's anyone to know the difference?

 

[Acim]

Explain why you think it is inaccurate. I am harsh, because it is my nature to be blunt. I'm sorry if that offends you.

The parts I see as inaccurate are:
- discernment - you do not have in you
- it would be impossible for you to have it.
- It is very likely that you never will have it
- And, I'm okay with that.

The last one might be more in vein of harsh than inaccurate, but would also be representative of your plausibly currently lacking discernment (about own self). If you truly believe discernment is a gift from Holy Spirit, then you'd essentially have to elevate your judgment to equal to that of Holy Spirit for those things to be accurate. So, are you really (really really) wanting to go out on that limb?

 

[ArtieE]

My words from previous post were not technically your post.

Your words weren't in my post?

 

[Acim]

Your words weren't in my post?

I'm going to go with, technically, no. At least not given the interface available to end users.

 

[Sonofason]

You have no obligation to back up your claim, of course. Just don't be surprised if I give your vague hearsay the weight it deserves.

Indeed, and you of course ought not ever expect God to reveal Himself to you for keeping such a closed mind.