Is there a god?

[john9blue]

and what about theists? is there a difference between a theist saying "i know god exists" and a theist saying "i don't know whether god exists or not"? does one require "more proof" than the other?

Ugh. You STILL don't get it.

There's a DIFFERENCE whether you make a statement of KNOWLEDGE (ie. "I know this to be true") or a statement of OPINION (ie. "I think/believe/guesstimate this to be true").

answer the questions please

it goes both ways. my cousin, for example, is an open atheist, and our family doesn't seem to mind at all. i find that only the extreme fundamentalists are openly hostile to atheists for no reason.

Anecdotal.

of course it's anecdotal, you're not going to see a news story that reads "local christian group is tolerant of atheists, more at 11"

So you're not an atheist then? You believe in a god?

i think some solid arguments have been made for god's existence, but i don't think it's anywhere close to proven yet. i'd say i believe in god with 25% certainty or so

[the carpet man]

oh, wow. by the time i return i am subject to several attacks. if it would help your troubled minds then i have spent several years working with the ogoni of nigeria. at great personal cost and effort. but i do not expect you to understand or believe this, because you sound like people who do very little yourselves except spout on here. and people like you (angry, impotent) tend to choose not to believe that there are people out there who are more than angry and impotent.

the reason i do not care about issues that i have stated i have no care for is because i find them laughably trivial. gay men cannot marry? a kitten has died? i shed many tears for this cruel, cruel world.

[natty dread]

i have spent several years working with the ogoni of nigeria.

Did you teach them the missionary position?

[pmchugh]

...
There are no contradictions, though there is a growing movement to divide Christianity along those lines. I have are being used.

I''ll give you credit for attempting to defend the bible, I honestly thought you would run. I could go through and address each point but since you said you are pretty much done I will sum up.

The thing is I barely scratched the surface of the problems of the bible and a lot of your answers are incredibly pessimistic and quite frankly horrible. The thing I don't get is that you seem to live your entire life by a book written for a people so simplistic that they had to be taught how to be nice to their slaves and so barbaric that stoning people to death for adultery was a major step forward. And of course there are complete contradictions within the bible, I could compile a list if you want to defend that point.

If someone came out and printed the first Bible today people would dismiss it as utterly vile nonsense and quite frankly I don't see how any rational person can believe in it. I like to think that deep down you know that most of the bible, particularly the OT is a load of bollocks! However I have heard religious people say the same thing about me and believing in God... so I guess I am equally deluded

[pmchugh]

Also people who complain about the big bad nasty hateful and angry athiests arguing against religion, maybe you shouldn't come into threads with the title, "Is there a God?".

[Woodruff]

Ok, so what's your basis for this claim? Exactly who are these "atheists" who are "devoted" to atheism? Every atheist I know would admit that god is real if they saw credible enough evidence of it. How is that "devotion" to atheism? How is that opposite of free thought?

pretty much every atheist i meet online

You don't pay attention very well. You've met several atheists in these very fora who are not "devoted" to atheism to any point where they would reject God if they saw credible enough evidence of it. Several have stated so explicitly, including me.

and i can tell with a decent degree of accuracy if someone is an outspoken atheist just by looking at them (or at least enough of an atheist to post it as their religious views on facebook )

By just looking at them, eh? So I suppose then that you subscribe to the theory that you can tell if someone is a criminal or not simply by looking at them? By basic facial features? That did used to be an actual theory...perhaps you'd like to revive it?

if that's not borderline cult-status then i don't know what is

You're the one sounding sort of cult-like here, John.

Sorry but those aren't "spreading beliefs" per se. As far as I can see, most atheists generally aren't out there telling people to become atheists. Most of the atheist narrative seems to me to be either directed to other atheists, or else it's just pointing out the discrimination, hate and bigotry and other harmful effects of some religious practices (not all), or defending atheism as a viewpoint from the attacks of religious people.

The reality is, that atheism is still, in many parts of the world, something you can get discriminated for - and even killed. There are places where you can get life in prison or even a death sentence just by being an atheist (or admitting being one).

okay, per se. so why do atheists in first world countries act so hostile towards religious people in first world countries because of what happens in third world countries?

I can't speak for anyone else, but most of the time, if I get hostile toward a religious person regarding something happening in a third-world country, it will be because of what that individual's religion may be doing in that third-world country...for instance, inciting the murder of homosexuals. Other than that, not much.

and what about theists? is there a difference between a theist saying "i know god exists" and a theist saying "i don't know whether god exists or not"? does one require "more proof" than the other?

How do you "prove" an opinion?

however, none of those reasons are why i personally dislike atheists (they are mostly bad reasons). i dislike them for logical inconsistency and double standards when it comes to proof.

How do you "prove" an opinion?

[Woodruff]

religious people in first world countries are ostracizing and marginalizing atheists in first world countries

i think this is the story in a book, and not reality in a country. and even if it is reality, which it is not, i marvel at the horrors a citizen in a first world, secular, country is suffering at the hands of religious oppression.

It is actually a frighteningly frequent occurrence in the United States Air Force, a place where separation of church and state should have particularly strong meaning. Now, it's not typically of the "maim and kill" variety (though it has proven to be so on occasion), but it doesn't have to be for "ostracizing and marginilizing" to be taking place.

Fortunately for me, I didn't have to personally endure it (I was smart enough and cared enough about serving in the military to keep my mouth shut), but I witnessed it and was involved in two court-martials regarding it.

[natty dread]

It is actually a frighteningly frequent occurrence in the United States Air Force

I've heard a bit about this... from what I heard, anyone who's not a full-on, right-wing fundamentalist christian gets ostracized and possibly abused in the USAF... so now there's a group of closet-atheists and moderate christians, who together pretend to be fundie christians so that they have some chance to succeed in their careers there.

But hey, atheists are never discriminated against anywhere, oh no.

[Woodruff]

It is actually a frighteningly frequent occurrence in the United States Air Force

I've heard a bit about this... from what I heard, anyone who's not a full-on, right-wing fundamentalist christian gets ostracized and possibly abused in the USAF.

It's not THAT bad...but you'd better not be loudly outspoken about being an atheist (or Mormon or Muslim or quite a number of other things).

so now there's a group of closet-atheists and moderate christians, who together pretend to be fundie christians so that they have some chance to succeed in their careers there.

No, no pretending necessary. Just don't get involved in discussions of that nature. Keep your mouth closed. If I were directly asked, I would say I was an atheist (most of my immediate supervisors knew...the ones I trusted). If I didn't trust someone who asked, I would simply say that it was a personal matter to me and I didn't care to discuss it, which always ended the conversation.

[natty dread]

It's not THAT bad...

Well maybe it's not that bad everywhere... from what I heard these incidents happened in some cadet academy. I can try to find the articles I read this in.

[chang50]

religious people in first world countries are ostracizing and marginalizing atheists in first world countries

i think this is the story in a book, and not reality in a country. and even if it is reality, which it is not, i marvel at the horrors a citizen in a first world, secular, country is suffering at the hands of religious oppression.

It is actually a frighteningly frequent occurrence in the United States Air Force, a place where separation of church and state should have particularly strong meaning. Now, it's not typically of the "maim and kill" variety (though it has proven to be so on occasion), but it doesn't have to be for "ostracizing and marginilizing" to be taking place.

Fortunately for me, I didn't have to personally endure it (I was smart enough and cared enough about serving in the military to keep my mouth shut), but I witnessed it and was involved in two court-martials regarding it.

Raised in W.Europe I never came across this barbarity.Makes me wonder if the us should really be considered '1st world'.It may have enormous economic power and wealth but a frighteningly high number of religious nutjobs and archaic laws preventing atheists standing for elected office in several states.From a distance it appears to be nothing like it's boasts,'land of the free,home of the brave'.

[Woodruff]

It's not THAT bad...

Well maybe it's not that bad everywhere... from what I heard these incidents happened in some cadet academy. I can try to find the articles I read this in.

That would undoubtedly be The Air Force Academy, yes.

[Woodruff]

religious people in first world countries are ostracizing and marginalizing atheists in first world countries

i think this is the story in a book, and not reality in a country. and even if it is reality, which it is not, i marvel at the horrors a citizen in a first world, secular, country is suffering at the hands of religious oppression.

It is actually a frighteningly frequent occurrence in the United States Air Force, a place where separation of church and state should have particularly strong meaning. Now, it's not typically of the "maim and kill" variety (though it has proven to be so on occasion), but it doesn't have to be for "ostracizing and marginilizing" to be taking place.

Fortunately for me, I didn't have to personally endure it (I was smart enough and cared enough about serving in the military to keep my mouth shut), but I witnessed it and was involved in two court-martials regarding it.

Raised in W.Europe I never came across this barbarity.Makes me wonder if the us should really be considered '1st world'.It may have enormous economic power and wealth but a frighteningly high number of religious nutjobs and archaic laws preventing atheists standing for elected office in several states.From a distance it appears to be nothing like it's boasts,'land of the free,home of the brave'.

The laws don't prevent atheists from holding elected office, so much as the idiots that think that atheists have no moral center.

[PROFITS]

...
There are no contradictions, though there is a growing movement to divide Christianity along those lines. I have are being used.

I''ll give you credit for attempting to defend the bible, I honestly thought you would run. I could go through and address each point but since you said you are pretty much done I will sum up.

The thing is I barely scratched the surface of the problems of the bible and a lot of your answers are incredibly pessimistic and quite frankly horrible. The thing I don't get is that you seem to live your entire life by a book written for a people so simplistic that they had to be taught how to be nice to their slaves and so barbaric that stoning people to death for adultery was a major step forward. And of course there are complete contradictions within the bible, I could compile a list if you want to defend that point.

If someone came out and printed the first Bible today people would dismiss it as utterly vile nonsense and quite frankly I don't see how any rational person can believe in it. I like to think that deep down you know that most of the bible, particularly the OT is a load of bollocks! However I have heard religious people say the same thing about me and believing in God... so I guess I am equally deluded

There are no contradictions in The Bible.

[pmchugh]

...
There are no contradictions, though there is a growing movement to divide Christianity along those lines. I have are being used.

I''ll give you credit for attempting to defend the bible, I honestly thought you would run. I could go through and address each point but since you said you are pretty much done I will sum up.

The thing is I barely scratched the surface of the problems of the bible and a lot of your answers are incredibly pessimistic and quite frankly horrible. The thing I don't get is that you seem to live your entire life by a book written for a people so simplistic that they had to be taught how to be nice to their slaves and so barbaric that stoning people to death for adultery was a major step forward. And of course there are complete contradictions within the bible, I could compile a list if you want to defend that point.

If someone came out and printed the first Bible today people would dismiss it as utterly vile nonsense and quite frankly I don't see how any rational person can believe in it. I like to think that deep down you know that most of the bible, particularly the OT is a load of bollocks! However I have heard religious people say the same thing about me and believing in God... so I guess I am equally deluded

There are no contradictions in The Bible.

Jesus lineage from David. Two gospels, two different lineage's. Not a contradiction... ok.

And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.

[natty dread]

Oh, but the other lineage is probably just allegory.

[PLAYER57832]

...
There are no contradictions, though there is a growing movement to divide Christianity along those lines. I have are being used.

I''ll give you credit for attempting to defend the bible, I honestly thought you would run. I could go through and address each point but since you said you are pretty much done I will sum up.

The thing is I barely scratched the surface of the problems of the bible and a lot of your answers are incredibly pessimistic and quite frankly horrible. The thing I don't get is that you seem to live your entire life by a book written for a people so simplistic that they had to be taught how to be nice to their slaves and so barbaric that stoning people to death for adultery was a major step forward. And of course there are complete contradictions within the bible, I could compile a list if you want to defend that point.

If someone came out and printed the first Bible today people would dismiss it as utterly vile nonsense and quite frankly I don't see how any rational person can believe in it. I like to think that deep down you know that most of the bible, particularly the OT is a load of bollocks! However I have heard religious people say the same thing about me and believing in God... so I guess I am equally deluded

You are not so much decrying the book as humanities' history. Why we are the way we are is another entire topic. But, I will say this. Christ, the Bible provide hope and answers that work for many people. Many (not all, of course) people who dislike the Bible are disliking what some people say about it, how it has been used, not really the whole message.

People have different ideas about things. The problem here, in this thread and elsewhere (not necessarily with you) is not that people disagree, but that each group seems intent upon convincing the other. But, when it comes to atheism, they are as bombastic as the most bombastic of Christians, but try to claim superiority of intellect, not just difference of thought or such. This is what I object to. As a scientists, there is no more harmful road than saying things like "only based on proof", etc. If scientists only relied on what is already actually proven, we never would have achieved the ends humanity has reached. Religion doesn't have to be everyone's answer. However, to disdain it and dismiss it as inferior thinking is, well inferior thinking... and a complete failure to understand. That is problematic in science.

[PLAYER57832]

Jesus lineage from David. Two gospels, two different lineage's. Not a contradiction... ok.

And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.

I will answer this. The most common answer is that one is a top down lineage and the other is reversed. It gets confusing. The answer was posted a while back in this thread.. you can google it if you wish.

[pmchugh]

Jesus lineage from David. Two gospels, two different lineage's. Not a contradiction... ok.

And that my friend is the tip of the iceberg.

I will answer this. The most common answer is that one is a top down lineage and the other is reversed. It gets confusing. The answer was posted a while back in this thread.. you can google it if you wish.

You are entirely correct, it gets confusing when you attempt to explain things that don't make sense.

How about... Jesus last words on the cross. I look forward to another non-explanation.

[pmchugh]

People have different ideas about things. The problem here, in this thread and elsewhere (not necessarily with you) is not that people disagree, but that each group seems intent upon convincing the other. But, when it comes to atheism, they are as bombastic as the most bombastic of Christians, but try to claim superiority of intellect, not just difference of thought or such. This is what I object to. As a scientists, there is no more harmful road than saying things like "only based on proof", etc. If scientists only relied on what is already actually proven, we never would have achieved the ends humanity has reached. Religion doesn't have to be everyone's answer. However, to disdain it and dismiss it as inferior thinking is, well inferior thinking... and a complete failure to understand. That is problematic in science.

I think it is frustrating for everyone involved when people disagree with your fundamental understanding of everything but I find these conversations interesting none the less. Sorry if I come across as "I am more intelligent than you" it is just hard not to be sarcastic when people believe in something with as many holes in it as the bible (in my opinion).

[Symmetry]

People have different ideas about things. The problem here, in this thread and elsewhere (not necessarily with you) is not that people disagree, but that each group seems intent upon convincing the other. But, when it comes to atheism, they are as bombastic as the most bombastic of Christians, but try to claim superiority of intellect, not just difference of thought or such. This is what I object to. As a scientists, there is no more harmful road than saying things like "only based on proof", etc. If scientists only relied on what is already actually proven, we never would have achieved the ends humanity has reached. Religion doesn't have to be everyone's answer. However, to disdain it and dismiss it as inferior thinking is, well inferior thinking... and a complete failure to understand. That is problematic in science.

I think it is frustrating for everyone involved when people disagree with your fundamental understanding of everything but I find these conversations interesting none the less. Sorry if I come across as "I am more intelligent than you" it is just hard not to be sarcastic when people believe in something with as many holes in it as the bible (in my opinion).

Hmm, could I ask which theologians you're familiar with? It might seem a bit bad if you haven't at least looked at say, Augustine or Aquinas (just hitting the A's here). It'd be as if a proponent of creationism said that their were holes in the argument for evolution without reading any work by those who outline the argument, for example Darwin or Dawkins (I've skipped to the D section for this one).

[pmchugh]

Hmm, could I ask which theologians you're familiar with? It might seem a bit bad if you haven't at least looked at say, Augustine or Aquinas (just hitting the A's here). It'd be as if a proponent of creationism said that their were holes in the argument for evolution without reading any work by those who outline the argument, for example Darwin or Dawkins (I've skipped to the D section for this one).

You are quite right I haven't read their works. However their is a significant difference here, evolution is a scientific theory, the Bible is a book that all further knowledge about God is derived from. You must analyse in the very least Darwin's work to criticise evolution and since then additional evidence has been produced that MUST also be addressed to pick holes in it. With the bible, since it is the singular source and no additional works claim the same level of supernatural significance you may directly analyse it.

The bible is the argument and quite frankly it is beyond defence.

[natty dread]

Hmm, could I ask which theologians you're familiar with?

Why do you need "theologians" to explain the bible to you?

Oh hey, wait. Are these the guys who decide what is allegorical and what is literal? Oh, now it all makes sense! Yay!

[chang50]

Hmm, could I ask which theologians you're familiar with?

Why do you need "theologians" to explain the bible to you?

Oh hey, wait. Are these the guys who decide what is allegorical and what is literal? Oh, now it all makes sense! Yay!

And theologians themselves cannot agree which bits are parable and which are literal.The rule of thumb seems to be,a passage is allegorical or literal when it supports a particular argument or point of debate and not when it does not.You just can't lose...

[the carpet man]

heheh so it is only theologians who pick and choose?

i have heard something of the global warming debate. it sounds like scientists just believe what they want to in this debate also? some say it is definitely not exist and others say it is going to kill us all in 5 years. they are either conmen or practicing an imprecise discourse (science)