JEST2ASK

I also often try to objectively look at the influence of my heritage and how that affects my thought process and value system. Unfortunately it is (What Ifs) that as much as I would like to is beyond my ability. I cannot not honestly say what part is the result of active thought and what part is pre-disposed (gentics / nature / nurture)


In regards to the second part I do not simply tolerate other beliefs I "Try" to examine them looking for value .

TO MG55 ---I did once ... I sincerly tried to be a Christian ... there would be considerably less stress in my life if I could "Really" believe. However honesty does not allow me the luxury of that particular self-deception ... True I may in fact be deluding myself about that ... but I do not "Believe" that is the case. ... I hope to shortly start a thread around that but just getting my thoughts together on what to say & how to say it is work... plus I am avoiding it because once I start that here it will effect my off line life, and I have not yet found the resolve to face up to those decision.

JEST2ASK

:boohoo:

Back that bus up .... you left "all" the passengers standing on the corner .

Would you please give a source for those accusations.

I am an Atheist with regards to any God concept of any religion I have been exposed to ... I simply DO NOT believe ... I do not claim to know ... nor have I ever said that there is NO Possibility of something existing outside the realm of science .... I would be be interested in Poll of how many atheist on this site agree with your charges ( how many are are riding on that bus you are driving )

Wayne Delia

"So many?" Atheism is characterized by a lack of belief in gods of any kind, and does not deal with any particular belief at all. Those relatively few atheists who are convinced that no gods exist, and assert it as fact, are making the same mistake that fundamentalist Christians make when they assert that God exists without any support at all. Understandably, it's a much tougher burden of proof on the so-called "strong atheist" since it's impossible to prove a universal negative. All Christians have to do, for example, is come up with evidence of their God, which although hasn't been done, is much easier than proving that no gods of any kind exist.

Quote:

I've yet to see many (if any) atheists on this board examine the potential for parts of religion to be right.

That's just plain silly. I'd freely concede that probably almost half of the Bible is correct, but that's just the mundane, everyday details such as geography, sociopolitical descriptions, and the mind-numbingly boring endless lists of geneaologies in the Old Testament. They could very well be right, but if they are, so what? The metaphysical, paranormal, supernatural, unfalsifiable claims are what constitutes the smell reminiscient of the southbound end of a northbound bull.

Quote:

And then again, what if not parts of a religion are right, but the entire religion is right?

For most relatively well-defined religions, such as Christianity, it's simple to demonstrate that certain essential parts are impossible. Jesus made several wild-ass claims about what Christians can do simply by virtue of being Christian: receive anything asked for in prayer (Mark 11:22-24), heal any illness, handle poisonous snakes, drink any poisonous liquids safely (Mark 16:17-18) which flat out don't work. Those parts of the Christian religion are wrong, which implies the entire religion can't be completely right.

Quote:

How can you honestly say that a religion is 100% wrong without having full knowledge of everything?

There, there. Calm down. It's just your own strawman argument that is upsetting you. Now, who are those awful heathen atheists who have claimed that Christianity is 100% wrong? Anyone in this thread? Anyone at all? See, it's nothing to worry about. The boogey-man under your bed is all in your imagination. Nobody actually made that claim.

Quote:

How does coming to a conclusion, that is complete opinion, in anyway remove the possibility of a religion being completely right?

In my case, the conclusion is based on demonstrable claims made as part and parcel of the religion being hopelessly wrong in the testable stuff, and the complete failure of the religion to demonstrate that it is in any way right about the untestable stuff.

Quote:

For example, everyone on this board would say Christianity is wrong, definately the fundamentalist view.

Please don't pretend to speak for me. You're not smart enough to do so. I would not say "Christianity is wrong," because you would jump to the panicked conclusion that I meant 100% wrong. What I would actually say is that Christianity is not proven right, because certain elements are unfalsifiable.

Quote:

Now that is 100% opinion.

Actually, it's 100% strawman, since I (for one) am not making that argument.

Quote:

Science does not have even close to all the answers,

Why should science be responsible for proving the claims of the Bible?

Quote:

and can't touch the Bible and the supernatural.

Why would science concern itself with claims of the Bible? Science is involved with observation, hypothesizing, testing, re-testing, and evaluating evidence and conclusions in a highly structured iterative process. Science need not concern itself with every crackpot idea that comes down the pike, whether it's Velikovsky's origins of the solar systems by way of planets being belched out of Jupiter's red spot and careening around riccocheting like planet-sized billiard balls, or Christianity's fantasy that the earth stops in its rotational tracks for 24 hours, the earth was flooded with water higher than all mountains, or that well-meaning first-century radical preachers were resurrected after being crucified.

Quote:

Yet all atheists on this board conclude Christianity can't be true because they say so. How does that work?

It appears to be quite simple. You make up bullshit out of thin air, then pretend that all atheists are taking that position that you made up for them. It's a logical fallacy called the "strawman argument." Here's an example: I'm an atheist on this board. Produce a quote from me in which I explicitly state that Christianity is wrong because I say so (apart from this reference, of course). If you can't, and I know you can't because I've never said it, then you have two choices: retract your claim, or be branded a liar - yet again.

Quote:

You don't like something and don't agree with it, so its wrong?

That pretty much describes it, I think. You're not happy with the fact that atheists simply withhold belief in your God, due to a lack of evidence, even though you withhold belief in the gods of many other non-Christian religions yourself, so your only option is to make up ridiculous, absurd positions for atheists and insist that's what they are arguing.

Quote:

Atheists are not open minded.

As opposed to you, of course? You're the poster-boy for open-mindedness, I'm sure. I'm so sure of it that I will give you this opportunity to proclaim that everything about any arbitrary non-Christian religion is correct. To make it easy, we'll start with Islam. If you're not able to admit that everything about Islam is correct, then (cue Dragnet theme song) you're not open-minded, and have no right criticizing anyone else for not being open-minded.

Quote:

The Atheist stance is all science and atheists are right, all religion is false.

I think I see your problem now. You're not too clear on the definition of "atheist" for starters. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods of any kind. It makes no claim about the necessary correctness of anything professed by the atheist. Further, you're misunderstanding "science" and the scientific procedure. Science is all about discovering, correcting, and improving on mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, is unable to admit any mistakes.

Quote:

How is that not close minded?

It's more "ignorance" than close-mindedness, but ignorance is correctable, and I wish you the best of luck in clearing up your misunderstandings.

WMD

Starboy

The problem with Magus55's accusation is that he forgets that when it comes to all the other religions/god(s) atheists don't believe he also doesn't believe. If he wants to answer his own question he needs to explain why he doesn't believe in Zeus. I suspect it's pretty much for the reasons an atheist doesn't believe in Zeus. Magus55 has to confront why he was suckered into believing in god instead of Vishnu or any other god he doesn't believe in. His reasons for believing in god are probably just as good as any other adherent of any other religion he doesn�t believe in.

Starboy

BrazenPenguin

Yes, that is the book. I will read the loooong rebuttal more thoroughly during the weekend. I would like to read a book written by a person who did the same things that Lee Strobel did only in the end didn't become a Christian. To be able to see both sides of the story. It is true though that it is nearly impossible to write unbiased, everybody is guilty of that.

BrazenPenguin

Thats true. But lack of evidence does not mean something didn't happen. If the major counties nuked each other to death, and everybody was destroyed but the Inuits. Even if they didn't have records of the Vietnam War, would that mean it didn't hapen? No, of course not. But there are records of these miracles, they are all in the Bible, which, as some of you have pointed out, is at least half valid. Obviously though you don't accept the Bible hands down, once again, its a faith thing.
The Jews regarded Jesus as a great teacher, what did they write about him? Are there any detailed records of him that they have written? Just wondering.
No, that is because i don't have faith in the Qu'ran or Allah.

Mullibok

There are no records about Jesus outside of the Christian religious ones. Some people question if he really existed, and if so, to what extent anything said about him can be said to be true. There's an old poll about it in BC&H somewhere.

Mullibok

Heck, think that's long, there's a link in the yellow aside in that article that advertises a whole book written to counter Strobel.

Ad Astra

Isn't that basically saying: "I don't believe in Allah because I don't believe in Allah."? Not only does that not make sense, but it isn't an answer, either.

BrazenPenguin

It makes me really mad when people are like, you don't think this is true, so you are closeminded. What is a person suposed to do? Be open-minded and believe everything? Yes, that is what many people imply when the charge a person with being closeminded. I firmly believe that Incubus is the best band in the world. Nothing that anybody tells me will change this. Does that make me closeminded? The only way that I would rate Incubus as a lesser band would be if they starting sucking or I heard another band that was better. My search for the best band in the world is like a person's search for a religion/belief. However, my God does not change, and I have not found a better religion/belief. While I try to find this best band, I will think, Incubus is the best until i find something better. Closed minded? I guess so, we all are. Whats so wrong with it? Im not trying to just pick on you, WMD.We could say that to Atheists. And Atheists could say that to Buddhists, and Buddhists could say that to Muslems, and Muslems could say that to Christians, and Christians could say that to Wiccas, and conservatives could say that to liberals, and vegans could say that to omnivores, and france could say that to amercia ect......