It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[Unveiled Artist]

Again, I have not said all religion is bad and always abused. I condone open discussion that is centered around facts and evidence and rational thought, sprinkled generously with empathy and concern for ones fellow humans on this planet. I believe the more educated and informed people are, the less influence religion will have on people in general, and it will be a good thing. Am I going to go to a church/temple/etc... while they're having services and tell them they're wrong and they're religion is wrong? No. Am I going to tell a dying child that thinks they're going to heaven that heaven doesn't exist? No. Am I going to have honest discussions about my views with other adults who are willing to discuss it though they have differences of opinion? Yes. I know my title correctly labels me as a jerk but I'm not an a****le. I don't think it's irrational to discuss religion when we have policy makers who are science deniers and would rather base decisions based off religious views then reason. Especially when their decisions affect everyone.

I didn't say you thought religion as a whole is bad or abused. I am saying religion is being abused and people in general see religion as if it in itself does harm to others and influences others to harm people. I am saying people are the ones that do harm in the name of their religion. They have a choice to kill or to help. Religion doesn't force them to do anything. If god is fake (in a god-religion), how can a fake god coerce someone to do anything?

Religions that make fantastical claims but cannot back them up with evidence and sound reasoning should be called out for their BS just like non-religious claims should be called out.

Religions don't make fanatical claims. Some religions do others do not. That isn't what religion means, though. So religion isn't a good word to describe what you're saying. When you say "religions do X" and "religions are making false claims" or so have you, you are generalizing a boat load of people that do not share Christian views or ways of seeing things.

You focus on Christianity a lot; so, we can talk about that. I disagree that Christianity is false (or however you put it in some posts back) and that it's based on mythological claims that give believers fuzzy feelings without scientific evidence to back it up.

I see value in religion (practicing in one's faith: Hindu, Pagan, Christian, so have you) because it changes a person for the better. That is what religion should do. If it does not (if people abuse religion) it's no longer religion. In America, it becomes politics.

People talk about religion as if it were politics. Religion is a personal belief system. Each individual has different beliefs and it affects people differently. Fuzzy feelings etc is a matter of opinion; and, I never got that when I was at the Church "fuzzy feelings" and things of that nature.

Instead, I learned about sacrifice-giving myself up for others. I learned about changing my life for the better-repenting or forgiving myself for deeds I want to change for a better life. I learned a lot from the religion Catholicism; and, these things are real. They actually and literally helped me. They weren't fake.

Even if they were fake, they still have value to people who believe in it. Individual people. We and I mean 'we' can't generalize what a group of politicians do with religion on the millions of religious depending on where they live and what year they were raised do not have the same feelings.

Also, relating religion to Christianty is a huge no-no. (In my words). It's saying, as I observed from people in general that religion has to be bad (my words) or misused because of their experience with Christianity.

Throughout your posts, I see a lot of heavy leaning towards Christianity. Yes, politicians use religion for their benefit and some religious abuse religion and indoctrinate others...

but my point is I see this and I know religion is not like that. I see through all the mess and smokes and mirrors. I talk with people genuinely who are religious and honestly believe in Christ or so have you. I don't agree with their religion for example, I dont agree that a man can be god; but, that is just a belief. It does nothing without the person's interpretation and motivation to do something good with that belief or something bad.

Religions are influencial but it takes the person to do the actions. Some people are more impressionable than others depending on the religion. I just hope that people can see how what they do in the name of their religion affects people negatively. It's not the religion. Just people need to be more self reflective and accepting to other people's points of view. Christianity is the only religion I know of that has a problem with this. (I'm not familiar with Muslim). Nichiren Shoshu is another but I didn't stay with them long because of it.

It's with the people. If religions are fake, how can it do anything.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So the only thing that can possibly be good about someone else's religion is the parts that are similar to your religion.

I suppose.

What is your empirical evidence and line of reasoning to support that Hinduism is false?

That Christianity is true, which I've explained already and below

So it's ok to pay taxes that finance drones bombing people in foreign countries and giving tax breaks to the mega rich but it wouldn't be Christian to pay taxes that also support people getting access to medical care and medicine they need to live. I find it funny that when the religious right mobilizes to pass laws based on their religious principles it's only laws that discriminate against people not to help people.

When did I say it wouldn't be Christian to pay taxes that support people getting access to medical care and medicine they need to live?

So your evidence amounts to "It's written down in an old book therefore its true"? By that standard of "evidence" Mormonism and Scientology are undeniably true religions as well. Any religion/story that is written down and had witnesses are ALL true. Gee, isn't that convenient.

No, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying? Neither Mormonism nor Scientology have the witness Christianity does, multiple eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection who then went onto die for their claim. Does any religion? They didn't simply believe a book, but saw the risen Christ with their own eyes, and were ready to die for it.

 

[Aiviu]

Can you rewrite this possibly? I don't know what you're trying to say.

I just thought you complaining about christians which doesnt makes sense since your title is about christian complaining about atheists.

 

[james bond]

wow.
You completely destroyed your first claim with the second claim.

Marx said, "Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

Lenin wrote, "A Marxist must be a materialsist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and communism, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."

All of this points to the hating of Christianity started by Charles Lyell who influenced Darwin.

 

[1robin]

Not defending the teleological argument is wise because it is a horrible argument. Now back to the core of what we were debating about. What patterns are you willing to defend that show intelligent design is a plausible?

I said that I did not originally intend to defend the argument. I did not say it was a bad argument or that I could not defend it. In fact I said I had no problem defending an argument which has only gained credibility with recent scientific discoveries if that is what you wish to discuss.

It also appears you wrongly said I didn't want to defend the teleological argument then you seemed to ask me to defend it. Please decide which it is. I vote for my defending the argument as it is as sound an argument as any I could hope for. However until you clear up what you want to do I will only briefly respond with issues about the argument.

The patters or data I wish to discuss are massive but I will just give a few examples at this time.

1. The coming in to being of everything natural that exists from literally nothing.
2. Constants that are interwoven into natural laws but which are not produced by natural law. These include but are not limited to:
3. The expansion rate of the universe both prior to plank time and afterwards.
4. The gravitational constant.
5. The ration between the strong and weak nuclear forces.
6. Symmetry issues concerning the early universe.
7. Issues in information theory.
8. Issues concerning Aquinas' fifth way.
9. Issues contained in Paley's natural theology.
10. The extremely fine tuned operations within stars which produce the necessary chemical evolution concerning elements like carbon or those heavier than lead.

I can keep going for hours but I must stop somewhere.

Before we see how deep the rabbit hole goes let me briefly describe the argument. Each value I listed and the hundreds I did not must be virtually exactly what they are to have a universe that can potentially support any type of life any scientist can rationally show could possible exist, not just carbon based life. Each one of these parameters are fine tuned to an unbelievably tiny range of life permitting values. Each one can be seen as a lottery or multiplicative probability. It is far more exact than the following but I am going to generalize. Number one has zero probability of occurring within a God like agent causation but that is no fun so lets say that every other value necessary has 1 chance in a million, and there are hundreds of those necessary values, so the probability would be 1/1000000 X 1/1000000 X 1/1000000n where n = the number of necessary values. In essence it can be compared to a man winning the lottery over and over and over hundreds or thousands of time. Virtually every human who has ever lived would say that some intelligent cause made the man win the lottery thousands of times, however Atheists deny that intelligence is behind the universe winning the lottery for life thousands of time. Atheists use double standards based on preference but for these issues the theist is being consistent.

Hope that gets the ball rolling but I typed the above in a hurry so there might be a mistake or two but hopefully you get what I am driving at.

Prediction: At some point I will ask who created the creator because you will trot out the tired argument that something complex cannot exist without a creator. Since a creator god would undoubtedly be a complex being it would need a creator. This will be the point where rational discourse with you becomes impossible.

I can not believe you made this argument. This argument is what Dawkins calls his central argument. His use of this argument was evaluated by several well credentialed philosophical professors who have forgotten more about philosophy than me and you combined would ever know. Their conclusion was that his argument (and yours as well) was the worst argument against the existence of God in the history of western thought. Source upon request. Just because I want to toy with you on this, I will await for you to officially make the argument you mentioned above before I annihilate it in less than two sentences. Please do not forget to put this argument forward.

BTW I want to tell you I appreciate your being civil, after your original post to me a few days ago I expected the worst but you have been respectful so far, please keep it up.

 

[JustWondering]

I didn't say you thought religion as a whole is bad or abused. I am saying religion is being abused and people in general see religion as if it in itself does harm to others and influences others to harm people. I am saying people are the ones that do harm in the name of their religion. They have a choice to kill or to help. Religion doesn't force them to do anything. If god is fake (in a god-religion), how can a fake god coerce someone to do anything?



Religions don't make fanatical claims. Some religions do others do not. That isn't what religion means, though. So religion isn't a good word to describe what you're saying. When you say "religions do X" and "religions are making false claims" or so have you, you are generalizing a boat load of people that do not share Christian views or ways of seeing things.

You focus on Christianity a lot; so, we can talk about that. I disagree that Christianity is false (or however you put it in some posts back) and that it's based on mythological claims that give believers fuzzy feelings without scientific evidence to back it up.

I see value in religion (practicing in one's faith: Hindu, Pagan, Christian, so have you) because it changes a person for the better. That is what religion should do. If it does not (if people abuse religion) it's no longer religion. In America, it becomes politics.

People talk about religion as if it were politics. Religion is a personal belief system. Each individual has different beliefs and it affects people differently. Fuzzy feelings etc is a matter of opinion; and, I never got that when I was at the Church "fuzzy feelings" and things of that nature.

Instead, I learned about sacrifice-giving myself up for others. I learned about changing my life for the better-repenting or forgiving myself for deeds I want to change for a better life. I learned a lot from the religion Catholicism; and, these things are real. They actually and literally helped me. They weren't fake.

Even if they were fake, they still have value to people who believe in it. Individual people. We and I mean 'we' can't generalize what a group of politicians do with religion on the millions of religious depending on where they live and what year they were raised do not have the same feelings.

Also, relating religion to Christianty is a huge no-no. (In my words). It's saying, as I observed from people in general that religion has to be bad (my words) or misused because of their experience with Christianity.

Throughout your posts, I see a lot of heavy leaning towards Christianity. Yes, politicians use religion for their benefit and some religious abuse religion and indoctrinate others...

but my point is I see this and I know religion is not like that. I see through all the mess and smokes and mirrors. I talk with people genuinely who are religious and honestly believe in Christ or so have you. I don't agree with their religion for example, I dont agree that a man can be god; but, that is just a belief. It does nothing without the person's interpretation and motivation to do something good with that belief or something bad.

Religions are influencial but it takes the person to do the actions. Some people are more impressionable than others depending on the religion. I just hope that people can see how what they do in the name of their religion affects people negatively. It's not the religion. Just people need to be more self reflective and accepting to other people's points of view. Christianity is the only religion I know of that has a problem with this. (I'm not familiar with Muslim). Nichiren Shoshu is another but I didn't stay with them long because of it.

It's with the people. If religions are fake, how can it do anything.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that belief in mythological stories and characters as being real is detrimental overall to humanity and you don't. You don't think that religion can be harmful yet some religions, not just Christianity, have some pretty *** backward ideas that cause people to do irrational and harmful things to themselves and others. What I have been saying all along is that people should be encouraged to educate themselves, be intellectually honest if someone challenges them on something that doesn't make sense. Most people are comfortable in their little bubbles but the way things are going in this world, there are serious issues that we all need to take serious. That trumps staying nice and comfy in our little bubbles.

 

[JustWondering]

That Christianity is true, which I've explained already and below

What you consider evidence is not convincing at all to me.

When did I say it wouldn't be Christian to pay taxes that support people getting access to medical care and medicine they need to live?

Looking back at the post it looks like I put a period when I should have put a question mark. I originally gave a response to another poster that I thought it was funny that many Christians sing the praises of capitalism which promotes a dog eat dog mentality, and encourages hoarding wealth. You then chimed in with a sarcastic remark that Jesus would be a soviet communist, insinuating that you agree with the other posters mentality. I then posed the question (or meant to) if you thought it was fine to give tax money to bomb people in other countries while at the same time thinking it was wrong to use tax money for a universal health care system that benefits everyone.

No, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying? Neither Mormonism nor Scientology have the witness Christianity does, multiple eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection who then went onto die for their claim. Does any religion? They didn't simply believe a book, but saw the risen Christ with their own eyes, and were ready to die for it.

No, your bible tells you there were multiple witnesses. If evidence existed that backed up the claims of the bible that would be nice to see. There is no logic in your argument that your holy book makes valid claims because it says in the bible that it's own claims are valid. If you want to take the claims of your religion as true that's fine, just be honest that you don't have any actual evidence or rational arguments (which you have yet to supply) supporting your beliefs.

 

[JustWondering]

I just thought you complaining about christians which doesnt makes sense since your title is about christian complaining about atheists.

They can complain all they want. My thread title is a smartass response to another thread.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What you consider evidence is not convincing at all to me.

Looking back at the post it looks like I put a period when I should have put a question mark. I originally gave a response to another poster that I thought it was funny that many Christians sing the praises of capitalism which promotes a dog eat dog mentality, and encourages hoarding wealth. You then chimed in with a sarcastic remark that Jesus would be a soviet communist, insinuating that you agree with the other posters mentality. I then posed the question (or meant to) if you thought it was fine to give tax money to bomb people in other countries while at the same time thinking it was wrong to use tax money for a universal health care system that benefits everyone.

I am against foreign interventions that are not in self-defence, and I support nationalised healthcare.

No, your bible tells you there were multiple witnesses. If evidence existed that backed up the claims of the bible that would be nice to see. There is no logic in your argument that your holy book makes valid claims because it says in the bible that it's own claims are valid. If you want to take the claims of your religion as true that's fine, just be honest that you don't have any actual evidence or rational arguments (which you have yet to supply) supporting your beliefs.

I'm not asking you to take it as a holy book presumptively, if you read my original post it was about the letter of Paul to the Corinthians, this a real letter, treat it as the historical letter it is, and scholars would agree it is, and the creed found within dates back to within five years of Jesus' death. It was what Paul himself received, a former persecutor of the church who was converted miraculously to live a dangerous and poor life for Jesus, who then received the creed from the Apostles and testifies to their witness. Further if Paul was lying, those Corinthians he sent a letter to would know and be able to verify it themselves, as many of the witnesses were still alive at the time, indeed it is almost as if he is challenging them to do so, by saying 'many of whom are still alive'. By confirming the Apostles were witnessing Jesus' resurrection from the very beginning, they lived dangerous lives, many of whom going onto die for their faith for what they witnessed.

This is not a "the Bible says its own claims are valid therefore the Bible is true" argument, to continue framing it as such would be attacking a straw man. The Bible is made up of 66 books written over centuries, and I am treating one of them, the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, as the historical document without assuming any divine inspiration or holiness to begin with, merely assessing it as the real letter it was in the first century.

 

[JustWondering]

The patters or data I wish to discuss are massive but I will just give a few examples at this time.

1. The coming in to being of everything natural that exists from literally nothing.

The universe as we know it now came about from the big bang, which was when a super condensed ball of matter/energy exploded. So the universe did not come from nothing. If you are insinuating that the condensed matter/energy just puffed into existence out of nothing then you will have to provide evidence to back it up to be taken seriously.

2. Constants that are interwoven into natural laws but which are not produced by natural law. These include but are not limited to:
3. The expansion rate of the universe both prior to plank time and afterwards.
4. The gravitational constant.
5. The ration between the strong and weak nuclear forces.
6. Symmetry issues concerning the early universe.
7. Issues in information theory.
8. Issues concerning Aquinas' fifth way.
9. Issues contained in Paley's natural theology.
10. The extremely fine tuned operations within stars which produce the necessary chemical evolution concerning elements like carbon or those heavier than lead.

You seem to be starting with the ASSUMPTION that the universe is fine tuned. I thought you were going to give rational arguments and possibly evidence to support that assumption. Just because the universe operates in a certain way does not prove there is any intelligence behind it. I could propose that gravity is actually the work of invisible goblins that personally move things to make it seem as gravity is a standard law of physics. There is no way to prove or disprove this claim of invisible gravity goblins. Your argument is also impossible to prove or disprove. Even if you can somehow make an ironclad argument that the universe is indeed the product of intelligent design, that intelligence could be anything, even multiple intelligences.

Before we see how deep the rabbit hole goes let me briefly describe the argument. Each value I listed and the hundreds I did not must be virtually exactly what they are to have a universe that can potentially support any type of life any scientist can rationally show could possible exist, not just carbon based life. Each one of these parameters are fine tuned to an unbelievably tiny range of life permitting values. Each one can be seen as a lottery or multiplicative probability. It is far more exact than the following but I am going to generalize. Number one has zero probability of occurring within a God like agent causation but that is no fun so lets say that every other value necessary has 1 chance in a million, and there are hundreds of those necessary values, so the probability would be 1/1000000 X 1/1000000 X 1/1000000n where n = the number of necessary values. In essence it can be compared to a man winning the lottery over and over and over hundreds or thousands of time. Virtually every human who has ever lived would say that some intelligent cause made the man win the lottery thousands of times, however Atheists deny that intelligence is behind the universe winning the lottery for life thousands of time. Atheists use double standards based on preference but for these issues the theist is being consistent.

Again, you cannot start with the assumption that the universe is fine tuned. That is what you are trying to prove, remember? As for the chances of life forming on earth, well that is a 1 in 1 chance, because it happened. You can try playing games with probabilities that you pulled out of thin air but it's more likely that life is a natural result of how things work in this universe. Instead of life being super rare which you are hinging your entire argument on, all it needs to form are the right conditions/environment. Which can be found throughout this immense universe. There are people who have won the lottery multiple times by the way. I'm pretty sure that's not because of your god either.

 

[JustWondering]

I am against foreign interventions that are not in self-defence, and I support nationalised healthcare.

Groovy.

I'm not asking you to take it as a holy book presumptively, if you read my original post it was about the letter of Paul to the Corinthians, this a real letter, treat it as the historical letter it is, and scholars would agree it is, and the creed found within dates back to within five years of Jesus' death. It was what Paul himself received, a former persecutor of the church who was converted miraculously to live a dangerous and poor life for Jesus, who then received the creed from the Apostles and testifies to their witness. Further if Paul was lying, those Corinthians he sent a letter to would know and be able to verify it themselves, as many of the witnesses were still alive at the time, indeed it is almost as if he is challenging them to do so, by saying 'many of whom are still alive'. By confirming the Apostles were witnessing Jesus' resurrection from the very beginning, they lived dangerous lives, many of whom going onto die for their faith for what they witnessed.

This is not a "the Bible says its own claims are valid therefore the Bible is true" argument, to continue framing it as such would be attacking a straw man. The Bible is made up of 66 books written over centuries, and I am treating one of them, the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, as the historical document without assuming any divine inspiration or holiness to begin with, merely assessing it as the real letter it was in the first century.

You can treat it as an historical document all you like. My point about evidence still stands. Where is the evidence outside the bible supporting it's claims. No one is debating Christianity exists. I'm arguing that it's fantastical claims are just as much mythology as the claims made about Zeus, Ra, or any other mythological being. Mythological beings Christians would laugh if someone said they believed in them. If you are intellectually honest what really makes your religion anymore plausible than another?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here is the crux of the discussion, though:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that belief in mythological stories and characters as being real is detrimental overall to humanity and you don't.

Not all religions fit this definition. You are speaking of specific religions that have influence over people.

At the end, do you agree that it takes the people to harm people?

Cause what I keep thinking is a deity floating from the Bible, going into people's heads or bodies like Caspar or the Exorcist and walking like zombies saying "god told us to do this... brains.. brains...."

I know it sounds ridiculous, but guns don't get up and shoot people. People pick up guns and shoot. Yes, we can get rid of the guns because they are influential but they are not the cause. People still do harm without guns (or without religion).

If people's bad actions are dependent on religion then those without it wouldn't commit any crimes because they wouldn't have religion as a cause of their actions.

Does that make sense?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

You can treat it as an historical document all you like. My point about evidence still stands. Where is the evidence outside the bible supporting it's claims. No one is debating Christianity exists. I'm arguing that it's fantastical claims are just as much mythology as the claims made about Zeus, Ra, or any other mythological being. Mythological beings Christians would laugh if someone said they believed in them. If you are intellectually honest what really makes your religion anymore plausible than another?

Pointing to a book of the Bible and treating it as the historical letter it is, is not an invalid argument. You don't need to look to something outside of these 66 books when you're not presuming them to be divinely inspired in the first place. I just explained the argument as to why this makes Christianity more plausible. There are no historical letters for Zeus or Ra which establishes these eye witnesses, neither for Hinduism or other religions.

I'm establishing that Jesus rose from the dead, not that 'Christianity exists', and pointing to a letter that Paul sent to the Corinthians. We don't have to bring in terms like the Bible into this at all, you can just read it as the historical letter it is. To say "well evidence doesn't exist outside of this" doesn't mean much, when you do have evidence in the historical text.

Do you understand the argument I am making? It seems with every reply you're not quite getting what I'm trying to say, I'm happy to clear up any points of confusion.

 

[JustWondering]

Here is the crux of the discussion, though:

Not all religions fit this definition. You are speaking of specific religions that have influence over people.

At the end, do you agree that it takes the people to harm people?

Cause what I keep thinking is a deity floating from the Bible, going into people's heads or bodies like Caspar or the Exorcist and walking like zombies saying "god told us to do this... brains.. brains...."

I know it sounds ridiculous, but guns don't get up and shoot people. People pick up guns and shoot. Yes, we can get rid of the guns because they are influential but they are not the cause. People still do harm without guns (or without religion).

If people's bad actions are dependent on religion then those without it wouldn't commit any crimes because they wouldn't have religion as a cause of their actions.

Does that make sense?

I never said all religions are the same or even bad. When someone is raised to worship an invisible being that is the ultimate unquestionable authority and it supposedly hates certain things and people, that's going to warp someone's worldviews if they don't have anything to counter it and balance things out. So open discussion and encouraging people to educate themselves will help counter the crazier stuff from such religions. Non-believers speaking up so that theists think twice about trying to impose their personal religious beliefs on others that don't want any part of it is also important. What you don't seem to get is that ideas are powerful things. Countering harmful ideas/ideology is basically what I'm talking about.

Since you want to talk about Christians consider this. Some Christians use the excuse that they proselytize and attempt to legalize their beliefs because it's for the good of others. When an Atheist speaks out against religion it is usually also for the good of others. I think you have it in your head that I am anti-religion when I'm more pro-critical thinking and pro-evidence. It's not like I don't understand the theistic mindset, I was religious once myself.

 

[JustWondering]

Pointing to a book of the Bible and treating it as the historical letter it is, is not an invalid argument. You don't need to look to something outside of these 66 books when you're not presuming them to be divinely inspired in the first place. I just explained the argument as to why this makes Christianity more plausible. There are no historical letters for Zeus or Ra which establishes these eye witnesses, neither for Hinduism or other religions.

I'm establishing that Jesus rose from the dead, not that 'Christianity exists', and pointing to a letter that Paul sent to the Corinthians. We don't have to bring in terms like the Bible into this at all, you can just read it as the historical letter it is. To say "well evidence doesn't exist outside of this" doesn't mean much, when you do have evidence in the historical text.

Do you understand the argument I am making? It seems with every reply you're not quite getting what I'm trying to say, I'm happy to clear up any points of confusion.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. How is a religious leader writing a letter to someone proof of supernatural events? There are tons of witnesses that say they've seen big foot. Do you think big foot exists now? I mean, there are witnesses, and they're even alive and well. You can talk to them and not have to rely on documents that are thousands of years old that are supposedly written by first hand witnesses. One of your witnesses accounts said the earth shook and people rose from the grave and walked around when Jesus died. I certainly think there would be Roman accounts of such an amazing thing happening, but there aren't. Just because someone said something happened doesn't mean it did. People can be delusional or lie, but most likely Jesus started as a normal man and had his life massively exaggerated upon after his death by others seeking converts. I guess it worked.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you have it in your head that I am anti-religion when I'm more pro-critical thinking and pro-evidence. It's not like I don't understand the theistic mindset, I was religious once myself.

When you mentioned Christianity earlier as an example I stuck with that since I am not familiar with other religions outside of Buddhism and some pagan ones that do (edit: don't) do things so strongly as Christianity does.

From that point of view, I have never experienced that. I can only speak generally that many religions do not indoctrinate. I wish people had the experiences that I had then they would see that there is evidence and so forth for these experiences but not "tested" in the manner you'd do a science project. It's hard to see that when one is stuck in a harmful religion that in itself shouldn't teach people to be harmful. I'd address the people who are doing these things in the name of religion. We can take the paddle from the parent but that parent may use another way of abusing or punishing that child; so, in that sense it isn't the thing that causes the hurt-it's a tool for pain. It's the person.

I just find people are addressing the wrong thing when they want to help others get out of indoctrination. I see a lot of beauty in Christianity and I see a lot of hate. However, Christianity did not make me hate people nor did it influence me to do harm. I'm not the only one.

So, from your perspective, I would personally address the people. I guess everyone has different methods of helping people outside of indoctrination and I think education would help, but like abuse and rape, there is a inner issue involved and I think education isn't deep enough to help it. (I wouldn't single it out, just sayin')

 

[1robin]

The universe as we know it now came about from the big bang, which was when a super condensed ball of matter/energy exploded. So the universe did not come from nothing. If you are insinuating that the condensed matter/energy just puffed into existence out of nothing then you will have to provide evidence to back it up to be taken seriously.

Oh yes it did. The idea of creation ex nihilo has been around since at least the Greeks, and modern cosmology has pretty much proven the theory correct. Don't take my word for it lets look at one of the best credentialed cosmologists alive:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

You are making some of the easiest to refute arguments I have ever seen. You say the universe came from a ball of matter/energy. Well, that ball you refer to existed for 10^-47 seconds. Where did you ball of energy come from, what created it, what was there before it came into being a very very finite time ago? Everything the begins to exist has a cause and explanation either within it's self or external to its self, please provide the answers to these problems.

You seem to be starting with the ASSUMPTION that the universe is fine tuned. I thought you were going to give rational arguments and possibly evidence to support that assumption. Just because the universe operates in a certain way does not prove there is any intelligence behind it. I could propose that gravity is actually the work of invisible goblins that personally move things to make it seem as gravity is a standard law of physics. There is no way to prove or disprove this claim of invisible gravity goblins. Your argument is also impossible to prove or disprove. Even if you can somehow make an ironclad argument that the universe is indeed the product of intelligent design, that intelligence could be anything, even multiple intelligences.

Once again do not take my word for it. Let me supply another of history's greatest scholars and non-theists as I did above. Here is just one of the millions of necessary constants for a life permitting universe.

During the last 30 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.

The reference for this claim is page 126 in Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) and the relevant quote from Hawking is:

I am not assuming fine tuning. I am putting forth the facts that show (even to non-theistic scientists) that the universe is fine tuned. Almost no one denies this fact on either side of the isle. The only difference is that when some secular scientists find the fine tuning so distasteful that they leave science and jump into the field of philosophy where they have no competence and start making up scientific fantasies to explain the fine tuning that almost everyone affirms, except for you of course.

Again, you cannot start with the assumption that the universe is fine tuned. That is what you are trying to prove, remember? As for the chances of life forming on earth, well that is a 1 in 1 chance, because it happened. You can try playing games with probabilities that you pulled out of thin air but it's more likely that life is a natural result of how things work in this universe. Instead of life being super rare which you are hinging your entire argument on, all it needs to form are the right conditions/environment. Which can be found throughout this immense universe. There are people who have won the lottery multiple times by the way. I'm pretty sure that's not because of your god either.

I did not start with that assumption, I started with evidence and data and then deduced and inferred that fine tuning is by far the best conclusion to draw. Look, you appear to be abysmal at statistical data usage, probability, philosophy, cosmology, astro-physics, and your abortive attempts at theology. You made so many boasts that I anticipated a challenging debate, instead I have some of the worst reasoning I have come across in a long while. Please pick up your game, you can even just copy and paste arguments from scholars if you want.

 

[Acim]

It seems to me that some Christians, being submerged in a social group that is all about Jesus, assume that Atheists don't believe as they do because one of the following:

1. They are bad people who want to sin and so screw god and his rules.
2. Had something bad happen to them or a loved one and blame god for it.
3. Haven't been exposed to the gospel yet so you need to tell them about it and "save" them.

There is at least one other possibility though:

4. They find the claims/stories of Christianity unconvincing and not rooted in reality.

No anger or sin required, just reason and evidence (or lack thereof). Your religion is not the center of the universe. People do not need deep emotional reasons to disbelieve in Christianity.

Some of us are like this, many of us are not. We realize it is often point #4.
How might this thread change anything, especially if there are atheists amongst us who don't believe because of 1, 2 or 3? Or who have combination of 4 and 1 (for example) on display?

Wish to note that as a Gnostic Christian, I don't assume it is first part of 1, though second part of 1 is seemingly rooted in how 4 would play out. I've encountered a number of atheists who are former orthodox Christians and who thus seem to fit the mold of #2. And #3 is the type that Gnostics are highly unlikely to go along with orthodox Christians on. Though, there's a thread to #3 that I think comes up in all sorts of debates (religious or otherwise) and just needs 'gospel' removed (and replaced with 'truth') to have it make sense.

The 4th one though is the debate I encounter on this forum most often, and which seems to beg the fundamental question of what it (truly) means to be atheist. Is it that you lack a belief, or that you instead have lots of experience, understanding of those beliefs, but find them unconvincing? The latter is rejection, the former is... well, it comes up so very rarely, why put a label on it?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. How is a religious leader writing a letter to someone proof of supernatural events? There are tons of witnesses that say they've seen big foot. Do you think big foot exists now? I mean, there are witnesses, and they're even alive and well. You can talk to them and not have to rely on documents that are thousands of years old that are supposedly written by first hand witnesses. One of your witnesses accounts said the earth shook and people rose from the grave and walked around when Jesus died. I certainly think there would be Roman accounts of such an amazing thing happening, but there aren't. Just because someone said something happened doesn't mean it did. People can be delusional or lie, but most likely Jesus started as a normal man and had his life massively exaggerated upon after his death by others seeking converts. I guess it worked.

How many bigfoot witnesses are willing to die for their witness? The Apostles knew him best, believed He had risen, and died for it. And from the creed which was dated back within 5 years of Jesus' life, this was the earliest belief, it didn't develop over decades. How would you explain the Apostles' belief in Jesus' resurrection, which they were willing to die for? Did they all hallucinate the same thing at the same time? And Jesus was their close friend, they couldn't have been fooled by anyone else. They saw him die on the cross, and His tomb was then empty. And if the tomb wasn't empty, the Pharisees would have leapt at the chance to produce the body and prove them wrong.

 

[JustWondering]

Oh yes it did. The idea of creation ex nihilo has been around since at least the Greeks, and modern cosmology has pretty much proven the theory correct. Don't take my word for it lets look at one of the best credentialed cosmologists alive:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

You are making some of the easiest to refute arguments I have ever seen. You say the universe came from a ball of matter/energy. Well, that ball you refer to existed for 10^-47 seconds. Where did you ball of energy come from, what created it, what was there before it came into being a very very finite time ago? Everything the begins to exist has a cause and explanation either within it's self or external to its self, please provide the answers to these problems.

You are the one making the claim the universe came from nothing, please present your evidence for this. How do you KNOW what came before the big bang? You don't. Neither do I. NO ONE does. However, I am not the one saying the universe puffed into existence from nothing, you are. You have yet to present a feasible argument or evidence to support your claim, try again.

Once again do not take my word for it. Let me supply another of history's greatest scholars and non-theists as I did above. Here is just one of the millions of necessary constants for a life permitting universe.

During the last 30 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.

The reference for this claim is page 126 in Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) and the relevant quote from Hawking is:

I am not assuming fine tuning. I am putting forth the facts that show (even to non-theistic scientists) that the universe is fine tuned. Almost no one denies this fact on either side of the isle. The only difference is that when some secular scientists find the fine tuning so distasteful that they leave science and jump into the field of philosophy where they have no competence and start making up scientific fantasies to explain the fine tuning that almost everyone affirms, except for you of course.

From: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com

God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

I did not start with that assumption, I started with evidence and data and then deduced and inferred that fine tuning is by far the best conclusion to draw. Look, you appear to be abysmal at statistical data usage, probability, philosophy, cosmology, astro-physics, and your abortive attempts at theology. You made so many boasts that I anticipated a challenging debate, instead I have some of the worst reasoning I have come across in a long while. Please pick up your game, you can even just copy and paste arguments from scholars if you want.

No, you used made up probabilities in a failed attempt to say "gee, it's very unlikely a universe should exist where life can exist, therefore god!". There is only one universe we know of that exists and it works the way it works. Saying that the universe is fine tuned is an empty claim, and flat out assumption based on YOUR preconceived beliefs. Saying I don't know why the universe is the way it is or fully understand how it came to be is an intellectually honest stance on this subject. You have yet to provide any feasible arguments for you position, try again.