Religious vs. Atheist "converters"

[Cowgirl]

There's proof of species changing. There is also proof of species NOT changing.

There is no proof that horses, bats, and humans all have a common ancestor.

That leap takes faith.

Then I guess I have faith. In science.

 

[This_person]

Then I guess I have faith. In science.

That statement makes you one of the most honest people on here on this subject!

 

[Zguy28]

One can't prove or disprove, that man is here due to evolution or creation. The problem with many christians is that they are not willing to look outside the box (or bible), so they can't relate to not believing in an entity. There are tons of books out there to support my thought process.

Perhaps because some don't need to?

Give me a perfectly sound reason why all of them should.

I just don't understand the refusal to try and understand a different point of view. I also don't understand how someone can be told "it's true", and just accept that based on a single book that they are told is the word of god, because it says it's "inspired by god".

For some its just plain faith (not the blind kind, but the certainty of what cannot be physically seen). For some they see no need to look further, for what they see is convincing to them of what is unseen.

Perhaps that plays into the whole theme of Election/Predestination that is so often argued about.

The book was written by men who wanted to control people. Those same men determined what was deemed acceptable for that book (not the gnostic scriptures Nag Hammadi Library ).

What evidence do you present that the authors of the New Testament wrote it in order to control people?

I guess it's easier for them to make statements like "people who do not believe are more ignorant of their arguments of what they do believe than most religious people are about arguments regarding why they believe."

I think maybe he was making an anecdoctal statement based what he has personally observed. That doesn't make it right necessarily.

Atheists are no more more ignorant than christians, if you use the word ignorant correctly.

Just a few more examples why I don't believe.

Perhaps you haven't examined the arguments in support of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection as thoroughly as you should?

You can listen to Professor Craig present part of it here: Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30)

 

[This_person]

Most atheists (not lumping all into this) come from some sort of religious background. Generally they ended up asking questions that were answered unsatisfactorily (is that a word?) and took to researching the answers themselves using the data available (Bible, Talmud, Q'uran, Buddhist/Hindu Scrolls, Pagan Folklore, etc.).

Already having the mindset that 2+3 doesnt equal 4, they have a bit of skepticism missing from the devout, blind faith alread predisposes you to jumping without looking (to clarify jumping=believing, without looking=without question).

Pointing out errors in your instruction books does not mean we are studying the Bible to strengthen our disbelief, thats just an idiotic claim, we already dont believe and whatever is in your book wont change that.

So, once you know you don't believe, you keep studying because......?

But

• When the devout get on and claim another beliefs book excuses an action, and your book has the same excuses, pointing it out is nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy For what point? Does the fact that it's hypocritical change the validity of their claims?
• When the devout claim the earth is 6000 years old, because the book says so, pointing out facts that argue differently is just stating the obvious I'll definately give you this one... The book makes no such claim, and any suggestion it does starts with proof that starts with "if we assume...", which makes it wrong from the get-go
• When the devout claim the book was written by Godly inspired, pointing out many have made this claim is making a parrallel Again, for what point? If others have claimed it, would it change the potential that either one or the other could be correct?
• When the devout claim the book is Godly, God is never wrong, so the Book is never wrong. Pointing out contradictions (that do exist), fallacy's (that do exist), inconsistancies (that do exist), belies the Book is never wrong claim. Or, at least the interpretations are?
• When the devout ignore that the book, as it exists today, only does so because of a Committee 1600 years ago got together and threw out any Gospels (that were just as valid) that didnt fit their agenda to make Christ the man into Christ the son of God, you really (really) should wonder about the validity of the book. I don't know anyone who claims the Bible to be a complete, thorough, detailed book of all existing knowledge of history, philosophy, and/or science. That parts are removed does not remove the parts that are there.
• When the devout attempt to use justifications from their book, to enact legislation and laws that affect all, not just followers of their sky pixie (Toxic this is a general statement, not directed at just Christians). Arguing against those justifications isnt a "war on ___________ religion" its a defense for all other beliefs. Thats the devouts real problem , they want their belief recognized over any others (look at Pixie and Zsguy's conversation), yet can not understand that all the other beliefs have just as valid claim as their own. We can certainly agree on this 100%. Religion is not how laws should be made. However, not all arguments against laws can use religious freedom as an answer, either. If the SINGLE reason for believing a law should be made is "my God says so", it's wrong. But, "thou shalt not murder" being a religious concept does not stop it from being the correct concept.
• When the devout claim we have free will pinting out, if God is all seeing and all knowing, then any path we decide to take has already been seen, which belies any claim of free will. (because if God has already seen us doing it, then he also already knows what we are going to do, thats Fate not free will). Pointing it out makes the devout uncomfortable and is nothing more than pointing out an inconsistancy of the belief

No, it's pure lack of understanding of God. If you have the free will to turn left, and choose to turn right, but it was filmed and I watched it, and the film was played again so I KNEW you were going to choose to turn right, that doesn't make your free will go away because I knew the outcome. God is not restricted to our concept of time (in my understanding), so His knowledge of what I may or may not choose does not preclude my choice. We've had this discussion before.

You continue to claim the Theory of Evolution is equal to the story of Genesis (in whatever convoluted form). In order for it to be valid, you have to allow it to be disprovable. Where is the "control" environment for your belief? There is on in all other Scientific theories. The devout do not allow this, to do so would also disprove the anchor of their belief. That alone eliminates your belief as being equal to the Theory of Evolution.

So, where is the "control" on evolution?

That neither is testable nor provable makes them equals in testable and provableness.

Until you can provide me with the exact conditions whereby abiogenesis happened (which, we don't know, we can only guess at), and then provide me the means by which it happened (which we don't know, we can only guess at), and then establish all of that repeatedly for peer review and repeatability, it's not science. It's conjecture.

We've had that discussion before, too. Each of the things you claim make ID not science are equally true of abiogenesis/human evolution.

 

[Zguy28]

Most atheists (not lumping all into this) come from some sort of religious background. Generally they ended up asking questions that were answered unsatisfactorily (is that a word?) and took to researching the answers themselves using the data available (Bible, Talmud, Q'uran, Buddhist/Hindu Scrolls, Pagan Folklore, etc.).

There are also many examples of the reverse. Most notable are Lee Strobel, Lew Wallace, CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Francis Collins.

Already having the mindset that 2+3 doesnt equal 4, they have a bit of skepticism missing from the devout, blind faith alread predisposes you to jumping without looking (to clarify jumping=believing, without looking=without question).

I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say in this paragraph.

Pointing out errors in your instruction books does not mean we are studying the Bible to strengthen our disbelief, thats just an idiotic claim (kinda like saying Barrack is bad for enacting McCains legislation, but it was ok when McCain wanted it),

What does it mean then?

we already dont believe and whatever is in your book wont change that.

As I said, not necessarily the case. In fact, I'd wager that more people have had their lives changed by reading the Bible than you believe.
But

• 
  

  [*] When the devout get on and claim another beliefs book excuses an action, and your book has the same excuses, pointing it out is nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy

  I understand. I assume you are talking about the Koran and the Old Testament?
  
  I find a similar hypocrisy in atheists who claim the religious has been responsible for deaths of millions, yet ignore genecides by openly atheistic tyrants like Stalin and Chairman Mao.
  

  [*] When the devout claim the earth is 6000 years old, because the book says so, pointing out facts that argue differently is just stating the obvious

  Not all devout believe this. In fact, I'd say its not even a majority.
  

  [*] When the devout claim the book was written by Godly inspired, pointing out many have made this claim is making a parrallel

  Okay...yeah I see that.
  

  [*] When the devout claim the book is Godly, God is never wrong, so the Book is never wrong. Pointing out contradictions (that do exist), fallacy's (that do exist), inconsistancies (that do exist), belies the Book is never wrong claim.

  I'd be more than willing to look at them with you if they do exist. The copies that we have are historically accurate to the originals. There may be minor errors in the copies, but nothing that changes the meaning of what it says.
  
  There is a great book on it by FF Bruce (an esteemed textual critic) called New Testament Documents by FF Bruce Contents Page
  

  [*] When the devout ignore that the book, as it exists today, only does so because of a Committee 1600 years ago got together and threw out any Gospels (that were just as valid) that didnt fit their agenda to make Christ the man into Christ the son of God, you really (really) should wonder about the validity of the book.

  What makes them valid?
  
  It is true they were excluded because they did not fit within the orthodox tradition passed on from the Apostles. The books that were kept were also universally accepted as Scripture throughout the church.
  
  FF Bruce also has a great book called the Canon of Scripture. Heck, even Bart Ehrman (a non-Christian) will tell you that the Four Gospels are some of the greatest ancient historical documents we have and that they date from within a few years of Christ.
  

  [*] When the devout attempt to use justifications from their book, to enact legislation and laws that affect all, not just followers of their sky pixie (Toxic this is a general statement, not directed at just Christians). Arguing against those justifications isnt a "war on ___________ religion" its a defense for all other beliefs. Thats the devouts real problem , they want their belief recognized over any others (look at Pixie and Zsguy's conversation), yet can not understand that all the other beliefs have just as valid claim as their own.

  I'm actually against legislating Christianity on the masses.
  

  [*] When the devout claim we have free will pinting out, if God is all seeing and all knowing, then any path we decide to take has already been seen, which belies any claim of free will. (because if God has already seen us doing it, then he also already knows what we are going to do, thats Fate not free will). Pointing it out makes the devout uncomfortable and is nothing more than pointing out an inconsistancy of the belief

  Its not an inconsistency. Knowing what will happen is a lot different than determining it.
  
  Just because a person can decide to do A, doesn't mean they will. Foreknowledge that they will choose B, does not take away the free will to do A.
  
  

  You continue to claim the Theory of Evolution is equal to the story of Genesis (in whatever convoluted form). In order for it to be valid, you have to allow it to be disprovable. Where is the "control" environment for your belief? There is on in all other Scientific theories. The devout do not allow this, to do so would also disprove the anchor of their belief. That alone eliminates your belief as being equal to the Theory of Evolution.

  I know this isn't directed at me, but I will withhold opinion on the merits of evolution.
  
  Although I will say that Creationism has no place in science class, since its not testable and predictions cannot be made on it.

 

[pixiegirl]

I'm struggling to see how you can correct a fact? Isn't a fact truth?

EDIT: I have sat down and thought about this for a while and I'm thinking that perhaps I wasn't too sarcastic or snotty. I do think you weren't being truthful.

But anyways, arguing with you does not seem to get anywhere, but I think you should be fair and show the entire context of our argument:


I apologize for this last part. Looking back I can see how it comes across with an attitude.

Is that why you yelled at me in the next post?

I didn't yell at you dude. I told you that you were wrong.

I consider this a pretty hostile tone. Maybe I'm just strange like that?

If it was hostile it was directed at Kain who I quoted and responded too. I'm already tweaked at her because she thinks she's smart and keep accusing my boyfriend of stuff she has no clue about and he has no involvement in. Soooo, if it was hostile it wasn't directed at you. But you sure didn't hesitate quoting me and calling me a liar.


Here is where I accused you of lying. Since just the fact that you are on here calling people who share insecure, and telling people that their way is not the right way is doing the same as sharing.

I'm not doing anything. I gave my OPINION on it and shared my belief. Show me where I once told you that your way was wrong. I told you your account of promoting being a foundational teaching of Christianity was wrong and that it was the foundational teaching of certain organized religions. That's not telling you that your opinion or belief is wrong.

I'm of the opinion that EVERYONE'S core beliefs are their own and everyone is entitled to them. I don't care if you believe in a magical dragon if it's what you truely believe than you are entitled to it because who the hell am I to tell you you're wrong.

 

[AtomicGarden]

I don't generally like to use the term Atheist to describe myself, because that denotes the disbelief in the existence of god or gods. This does not have to preclude any rational reason as to why someone chooses not to believe. In a general sense, the term atheist has become an umbrella term to also include people with a perceived rational thought process for rejecting the existence of god, religion, the supernatural, etc... I prefer to call myself a Nihilist or Materialist as it covers the bases of rational thought process for denial of the existence of god, the rejection of religion, and the idea that there is no meaning or purpose in life. My philosophy is live it up, because you're gonna die.

I also come from a religious background (raised in a Lutheran household), but I can't say I ever believed...in fact I found it all very disturbing and perverted even at a young age. What, with being told Christianity was good, the way, the light yadda yadda, and then being told that cults were bad and that their beliefs were silly. People, statistically, are going to take on the beliefs, religions, ideologies and so on of the people or culture they grew up with...if you were to have grown up in India you would have a greater chance of being Hindi than ever being Christian. You are taught at a very early age, and its hard to shake those beliefs, often to the point of missing the main points of trying to live a good life as a good person and taking on these fundamentalist stances on literal interpretations.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of evolution to an extent. There is a clear evolutionary lineage of man from different forms of primates and genetics to help back it up. But in the end...does it really matter...its an argument in futility for those devout believers on both sides (though I will say I side with those with empirical data). My question is this...do you know every single process and ingredient that goes into a hot dog? does it still taste good (assuming you like hot dogs)? Then eat it and don't worry about it. Same goes for life in general...live it up and don't worry about how it came to be...you may find its made of pig guts.

 

[This_person]

I don't generally like to use the term Atheist to describe myself, because that denotes the disbelief in the existence of god or gods. This does not have to preclude any rational reason as to why someone chooses not to believe. In a general sense, the term atheist has become an umbrella term to also include people with a perceived rational thought process for rejecting the existence of god, religion, the supernatural, etc... I prefer to call myself a Nihilist or Materialist as it covers the bases of rational thought process for denial of the existence of god, the rejection of religion, and the idea that there is no meaning or purpose in life. My philosophy is live it up, because you're gonna die.

I also come from a religious background (raised in a Lutheran household), but I can't say I ever believed...in fact I found it all very disturbing and perverted even at a young age. What, with being told Christianity was good, the way, the light yadda yadda, and then being told that cults were bad and that their beliefs were silly. People, statistically, are going to take on the beliefs, religions, ideologies and so on of the people or culture they grew up with...if you were to have grown up in India you would have a greater chance of being Hindi than ever being Christian. You are taught at a very early age, and its hard to shake those beliefs, often to the point of missing the main points of trying to live a good life as a good person and taking on these fundamentalist stances on literal interpretations.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of evolution to an extent. There is a clear evolutionary lineage of man from different forms of primates and genetics to help back it up. But in the end...does it really matter...its an argument in futility for those devout believers on both sides (though I will say I side with those with empirical data). My question is this...do you know every single process and ingredient that goes into a hot dog? does it still taste good (assuming you like hot dogs)? Then eat it and don't worry about it. Same goes for life in general...live it up and don't worry about how it came to be...you may find its made of pig guts.

Nuck and Bob, when I say that without a moral standard to follow the atheist attitude is pure selfishness (except for what they learn from others), this guy here is clearly who I'm talking about. They exist, and here is the proof.

 

[AtomicGarden]

Aww gee thanx! <3

High and mighty christian "morals" - Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com

 

[Zguy28]

Aww gee thanx! <3

High and mighty christian "morals" - Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com

I don't think he was insulting you.

I commend your honesty in stating that atheism/secular humanism really does not give purpose to life.

 

[mAlice]

I don't think he was insulting you.

I commend your honesty in stating that atheism/secular humanism really does not give purpose to life.

Please explain, as a christian, what your purpose in life is, that an atheist is lacking.

 

[Zguy28]

Please explain, as a christian, what your purpose in life is, that an atheist is lacking.

I'm speaking of objective purpose, as in it comes from outside of yourself.

As a Christian, I believe my objective purpose is to glorify God in this life (which I fail miserably short of all too often). In addition, I believe God's purpose for Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to serve others which ultimately is about accomplishing God's will, not my own. By default, atheism lacks this particular purpose.

Does an atheist have any objective purpose? If so, where does it come from?

 

[sk8enscars]

I'm speaking of objective purpose, as in it comes from outside of yourself.

As a Christian, I believe my objective purpose is to glorify God in this life (which I fail miserably short of all too often). In addition, I believe God's purpose for Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to serve others which ultimately is about accomplishing God's will, not my own. By default, atheism lacks this particular purpose.

Does an atheist have any objective purpose? If so, where does it come from?

I was finished on this conversation but you worded your question beautifully and I just had to say it! That's what I've been trying to figure out this whole time.

 

[mAlice]

I'm speaking of objective purpose, as in it comes from outside of yourself.

As a Christian, I believe my objective purpose is to glorify God in this life (which I fail miserably short of all too often). In addition, I believe God's purpose for Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to serve others which ultimately is about accomplishing God's will, not my own. By default, atheism lacks this particular purpose.

Does an atheist have any objective purpose? If so, where does it come from?

Well, I think initially my purpose in life is to survive. Put a roof over my head, feed my family, clothes on my back. Beyond that my purpose is to love and care for those close to me. To help those in need when I can. Beyond that my purpose is to enjoy my life.

It comes from the drive to survive, the need for creature comforts, the desire to learn and experience.

 

[sk8enscars]

Please explain, as a christian, what your purpose in life is, that an atheist is lacking.

The first answer that popped into my head was "To make it to heaven" which is probably the most selfish one. :blushes:

But no really... to follow a Christ-like life, to glorify God and to share this with other people in hopes they will do the same. I'm not professing to be good at all these things, but I hope to be one day.

 

[sk8enscars]

Well, I think initially my purpose in life is to survive. Put a roof over my head, feed my family, clothes on my back. Beyond that my purpose is to love and care for those close to me. To help those in need when I can. Beyond that my purpose is to enjoy my life.

It comes from the drive to survive, the need for creature comforts, the desire to learn and experience.

What happens when you die?

 

[mAlice]

The first answer that popped into my head was "To make it to heaven" which is probably the most selfish one. :blushes:

But no really... to follow a Christ-like life, to glorify God and to share this with other people in hopes they will do the same. I'm not professing to be good at all these things, but I hope to be one day.

Is that your only purpose in life?

 

[mAlice]

What happens when you die?

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

 

[Zguy28]

Well, I think initially my purpose in life is to survive. Put a roof over my head, feed my family, clothes on my back. Beyond that my purpose is to love and care for those close to me. To help those in need when I can. Beyond that my purpose is to enjoy my life.

It comes from the drive to survive, the need for creature comforts, the desire to learn and experience.

Is that objective though?

If it comes from yourself, can't you change your self-appointed purpose?

 

[vraiblonde]

If it comes from yourself, can't you change your self-appointed purpose?

Why would she want to?