ES Atheists...non believers [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : ES Atheists...non believers

Pages : [1] 2

buenosdiaz

January-26th-2009, 06:50 PM

WVUforREDSKINS

January-26th-2009, 06:50 PM

yes I have

Dance04

January-26th-2009, 06:54 PM

no, and I have not because then I would be a hypocrite

SkinsTerps26

January-26th-2009, 06:57 PM

When I was a kid I used to pray to God for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike, and prayed to God for forgiveness.

greenspandan

January-26th-2009, 06:57 PM

nah. but i get the need to call out for help, even if it's a longshot, in a desperate situation.

buenosdiaz

January-26th-2009, 06:59 PM

When I was a kid I used to pray to God for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike, and prayed to God for forgiveness.

lol :applause:

SpringfieldSkins

January-26th-2009, 07:00 PM

Yes I have.

In situations where all is lost, I've been known to pray. It's nothing formal, no kneeling at the side of the bed or anything. It's more of me just looking up into the sky asking for help. I don't expect for help really, but I figure that since there is nothing else left I might as well try.

Example... my uncle was basically on his death bed a couple of years ago. We rushed to the hospital as he had yet another heart attack. He had an enlarged heart and wasn't given much time. Sometime during that experience I left the hospital to smoke a cigarette. I looked up into the sky, with tears in my eyes, and asked for help for my uncle. He passed away later that evening.

MonkFan8

January-26th-2009, 07:00 PM

Nope. Haven't ever felt the need as far as I can recall, either.

Raub

January-26th-2009, 07:06 PM

Yeah. It's usually followed by the phrase "I'll never drink again!"

:cheers:

Predicto

January-26th-2009, 07:07 PM

When I was a kid I used to pray to God for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike, and prayed to God for forgiveness.

Emo Phillips is a Tailgater?!?!?!?!?! :notworthy

Predicto

January-26th-2009, 07:08 PM

Yes I have.

But I'm not really an athiest, I'm an agnostic (and I wish I had more faith than I do).

PokerPacker

January-26th-2009, 07:12 PM

before I was an atheist.

skinsfan_1215

January-26th-2009, 07:14 PM

What Predicto said.

Kunia5

January-26th-2009, 07:28 PM

Most of the Founding Fathers were deists, Unitarians. Jefferson even edited the Bible, so it didn't have any miracles. Don't know about atheists. But they sure weren't Jesus freaks. Religious doubt seems to inevitably arise whenever people are comfortable and educated.

desioreo87

January-26th-2009, 08:12 PM

GibbsFactor

January-26th-2009, 08:30 PM

When I was a kid I used to pray to God for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike, and prayed to God for forgiveness.

Very nice!

Skins PR

January-26th-2009, 08:39 PM

What i have a problem wrapping my head around is non-existence.

When you die, there is no more consciousness, can you imagine not-existing?

Scares me... but you know, that is actually the goal of some religions.

JOSH8572

January-26th-2009, 08:39 PM

there is nothing wrong with a little prayer in a time of need who knows one day when we die me might all be wrong. It;s worth a shot. however i asked god for some help and he just blew me off

during the rams game
during the dallas game
and during the cin game really hard

i guess god is a dallas fan

WVUforREDSKINS

January-26th-2009, 09:02 PM

renaissance

January-26th-2009, 09:07 PM

I don't pray but every once in a while I ask god for some help.

#98QBKiller

January-26th-2009, 09:09 PM

I consider myself more agnostic than atheist but yes I have asked for help from above.

Bang

January-26th-2009, 09:09 PM

Nope.

~Bang

Henry

January-26th-2009, 09:10 PM

Oh I talk to God occasionally. Don't know if he's there or not, and I figure if he is he's got more important things to worry about than my little problems, but once in awhile I'll take a moment to let him know how things are going.

Metskins

January-26th-2009, 09:11 PM

As a "non-believer", I struggle with my faith sometimes.

I don't however buy the whole fox hole thing.

PokerPacker

January-26th-2009, 09:17 PM

As a "non-believer", I struggle with my faith sometimes.

I don't however buy the whole fox hole thing.

me neither. Some of us may look for something to happen that is out of our control, but it doesn't have to be supernatural.

Hunny

January-26th-2009, 09:26 PM

IONTOP

January-26th-2009, 10:06 PM

Mufumonk

January-26th-2009, 10:10 PM

Like Predicto......I'm an agnostic though a rather spiritual one. I just have zero faith and belief in organized religion.

grego

January-26th-2009, 11:12 PM

Religious doubt seems to inevitably arise whenever people are comfortable and educated.

i can see that in some cases.

at my church, however, there are a large number of members from NIH. even a nobel prize winning physicist. and dr francis collins, human genome DNA guru, spoke there last year.

educated or not, everybody has reasons for believing whatever they believe. ones motivation is the key.

:2cents:

Who Del

January-26th-2009, 11:17 PM

Agnostic here.

I have prayed before. But not to any single entity or "God" I just pray and ask for something, anything to watch over me and my loved ones. And sometimes for guidance if I'm in a bind and I can't get my head wrapped around it enough to figure it out on my own.

Yusuf06

January-27th-2009, 12:23 AM

Meh, the whole foxhole thing is silly. Everybody uses the typical phrases like OMG, or what in God's name, Jesus freakin' Christ etc. but doesn't really mean them.

I don't pray anymore as I think it's just a waste of time. If it makes you feel better great. But for me, that ship has sailed.

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 12:26 AM

Meh, the whole foxhole thing is silly. Everybody uses the typical phrases like OMG, or what in God's name, Jesus freakin' Christ etc. but doesn't really mean them.

I thought they were talking more along the lines of turning to religion in times of desperation rather than exclamations of surprise or pain.

WigSkin

January-27th-2009, 02:47 AM

No Sir, never prayed. Even in school when we had morning assembly (they used to try and get us to say the 'lords' parayer) I just stood there thinking about what I was having for lunch and stuff...

CMonster

January-27th-2009, 02:54 AM

I am agnostic...spiritual but not religious.

And while I think everyone should be entitled to believe in anything they want, I take offense to being labeled a non-believer.

Agnostic/Atheist people should be labeled rationalists, not non-believers.

Think about that one.

Jumbo

January-27th-2009, 02:56 AM

HogNose

January-27th-2009, 03:09 AM

When I was a kid I used to pray to God for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike, and prayed to God for forgiveness.
:rotflmao:

"That's Gold, Jerry! Gold."- Kenny Bania :applause::notworthy

aREDSKIN

January-27th-2009, 04:20 AM

Hell yea.....................Just in case ;)

Runs with Scissors

January-27th-2009, 04:59 AM

I'm an atheist,so praying to something that isn't there,doesn't make much sense.I don't believe in Bigfoot,so if I fall and break my leg hiking,I won't yell for him to carry me out of the woods.

The whole 'no atheist in foxholes" is a lie,usually told by people who tell alot of them.

WigSkin

January-27th-2009, 05:14 AM

The whole 'no atheist in foxholes" is a lie,usually told by people who tell alot of them.

Amen to that! ;) heh, heh...

#98QBKiller

January-27th-2009, 06:51 AM

I don't believe in Bigfoot,so if I fall and break my leg hiking,I won't yell for him to carry me out of the woods.

:rotflmao:

Good point

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 06:55 AM

I'm a deist. But i do hope for things when i get relly nervous, (only during sporting events). I often find myself with eyes closed when the redskins are on the goalline saying (please score please score).

What i have a problem wrapping my head around is non-existence.

When you die, there is no more consciousness, can you imagine not-existing?
Do you believe that there was consciousness before you were conceived? AFAIK sperm don't have any sort of thought process, unless you believe in "energy" being a life form or tied into our existence.. and the whole energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change form deal

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 06:57 AM

Anyways, non-believer.. Obama gave us a shoutout during his inauguration speech.. hollur

I used to be Christian and though I was never what you might call evangelical I did help teach vacation bible school, speak with others about my faith, etc

That greatly wore off and I feel like I understand things a lot better now

I'm not going to discredit most faiths but it personally is just not for me, my morals have stayed, but I had my own personal beliefs even as a Christian

techboy

January-27th-2009, 06:57 AM

Agnostic/Atheist people should be labeled rationalists, not non-believers.

As you take offense at "non-believer", I suspect many theists might take offense at the "non-rationalist" implied category.

Personally, I prefer "non-theist".

Die Hard

January-27th-2009, 07:00 AM

As an athiest....... I'd pray... but who'd hear me?! :)

Seriously though, I don't pray. Adversity and despair is part of life... I've come to accept it. And 100% of the time so far.... I've gotten through it. And I can say that with absolutely certainty because I'm here typing this post.

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 07:00 AM

I talk to Sean... Even though I don't believe in Heaven, I believe he is somewhere looking over us... I'd actually like to think that you go to what you believe in... So if I believe nothing happens, nothing happens, if you believe you go to Heaven, you go to Heaven...

When he passed and my father a few months later that was one point where I had trouble with being non-religious.. well maybe not so much that, but almost feeling void if they weren't somewhere special

oh and I never answered the original question:

No, I do not pray. Without any belief in a God I do not believe it right for me to do so. I can't expect a deity to invest anymore effort in me than I "him."

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 07:03 AM

skinfan13

January-27th-2009, 07:09 AM

Corcaigh

January-27th-2009, 07:13 AM

Personally, I prefer "non-theist".

:D

And there are two types of politicians - Republicans and non-Republicans.

Midnight Judges

January-27th-2009, 07:19 AM

I don't have any imaginary friends.

Die Hard

January-27th-2009, 07:27 AM

:d

and there are two types of politicians - republicans and non-republicans.

lmao

mrhetzler

January-27th-2009, 07:30 AM

What i have a problem wrapping my head around is non-existence.

When you die, there is no more consciousness, can you imagine not-existing?

I always tell people that it's probably a lot like it was before you were born. Do you remember that non-existence?

Balls City

January-27th-2009, 08:02 AM

Great, now I have a question - since practically none of you atheists admit to praying... what the hell do you scream during sex? It for sure ain't "Oh God."

Die Hard

January-27th-2009, 08:37 AM

Great, now I have a question - since practically none of you atheists admit to praying... what the hell do you scream during sex? It for sure ain't "Oh God."

What's next.... you want pictures of our "O Face"?

Balls City

January-27th-2009, 08:40 AM

What's next.... you want pictures of our "O Face"?

I'd be surprised if you had one. The few atheists I do know get the least amount of ass out of the group.

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 08:40 AM

great, now i have a question - since practically none of you atheists admit to praying... What the hell do you scream during sex? It for sure ain't "oh god."

you're on the pill, righhhhhtttaguauufgughhhhh?!?!

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 08:41 AM

I'd be surprised if you had one. The few atheists I do know get the least amount of ass out of the group.
I don't make it a point to discuss religion with one night stands.

HogNose

January-27th-2009, 08:45 AM

what the hell do you scream during sex? It for sure ain't "Oh God."

"Oh Hell!"

SkinsBry

January-27th-2009, 08:49 AM

I don't have any imaginary friends.

Downright peaceful to not participate in any "My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend" arguments, fights, wars, etc.

Balls City

January-27th-2009, 08:49 AM

you're on the pill, righhhhhtttaguauufgughhhhh?!?!

That's what I'm talking about!

"You don't press charges, right?"

BigMike619

January-27th-2009, 08:53 AM

Its interesting to see those who pray but dont believe in God.

Who are you praying to?

What exactly are you looking for?

skinsfan_1215

January-27th-2009, 08:55 AM

Its interesting to see those who pray but dont believe in God.

Who are you praying to?

What exactly are you looking for?

It's much easier for us agnostics...

#98QBKiller

January-27th-2009, 08:57 AM

I'm not going to discredit most faiths but it personally is just not for me, my morals have stayed, but I had my own personal beliefs even as a Christian

You don't have to be a part of an organized religion to have morals. I think that's one of the arguments that gets under my skin the most when I have conversations with religious people.

This one lady at work asked me what would stop me from going out and killing someone without organized religion. I told her that you have to be a weak-minded person to depend on the threat of being tossed into an imaginary inferno to keep you from doing things that are naturally off of most people's moral compasses.

The few atheists I do know get the least amount of ass out of the group.

Isn't "getting ass" against your religion?

:nono: Better get married first.

BigMike619

January-27th-2009, 08:58 AM

It's much easier for us agnostics...

I guess I still dont get it.

Im not trying to be confrontational at all..I hope you know that.

But is it that you believe in a higher power and just not God?

agnostic means to question all of it, right?

so who are you praying to? in your head...

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 09:04 AM

You don't have to be a part of an organized religion to have morals. I think that's one of the arguments that gets under my skin the most when I have conversations with religious people.

This one lady at work asked me what would stop me from going out and killing someone without organized religion. I told her that you have to be a weak-minded person to depend on the threat of being tossed into an imaginary inferno to keep you from doing things that are naturally off of most people's moral compasses.

Isn't "getting ass" against your religion?

:nono: Better get married first.
agreed.. and as stated even as a Christian I had certain beliefs that don't go so well with theirs

but I didn't just change my view on abortion or anything (on a personal level) or anything

skinsfan_1215

January-27th-2009, 09:04 AM

I guess I still dont get it.

Im not trying to be confrontational at all..I hope you know that.

But is it that you believe in a higher power and just not God?

agnostic means to question all of it, right?

so who are you praying to? in your head...

Well really for me agnostic is just that I understand that there's no way of knowing what it true. I would be an atheist, but I don't think there's any rational way to claim that without a doubt God doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think that if there is a higher power, it wouldn't be one particular religion or the other. Not the Christian god, not Muslim, nothing like that.

So basically if I found the need to pray, I would just do a standard Christian-style prayer, because that's what I'm familiar with. Only it wouldn't be direct at, say, Jesus and his father. It would be directed at some sort of greater being, non-denominational of course.

BigMike619

January-27th-2009, 09:06 AM

Well really for me agnostic is just that I understand that there's no way of knowing what it true. I would be an atheist, but I don't think there's any rational way to claim that without a doubt God doesn't exist.

I think most Christians I know question everything every once in a while. I mean, we dont know for sure but there is just a feeling I have. Thats all I can say.

Anyway, I think that if there is a higher power, it wouldn't be one particular religion or the other. Not the Christian god, not Muslim, nothing like that.

My brother is muslim and I am christian. I would hate to think that we couldnt be in Heaven together because of that.

So basically if I found the need to pray, I would just do a standard Christian-style prayer, because that's what I'm familiar with. Only it wouldn't be direct at, say, Jesus and his father. It would be directed at some sort of greater being, non-denominational of course.

I can dig it..:cheers:

#98QBKiller

January-27th-2009, 09:08 AM

Well really for me agnostic is just that I understand that there's no way of knowing what it true. I would be an atheist, but I don't think there's any rational way to claim that without a doubt God doesn't exist.

Anyway, I think that if there is a higher power, it wouldn't be one particular religion or the other. Not the Christian god, not Muslim, nothing like that.

So basically if I found the need to pray, I would just do a standard Christian-style prayer, because that's what I'm familiar with. Only it wouldn't be direct at, say, Jesus and his father. It would be directed at some sort of greater being, non-denominational of course.

:applause:

Very good explanations. All of this pretty much sums up my personal feelings on religion/greater powers as a whole.

No Excuses

January-27th-2009, 09:19 AM

No because I know prayers don't solve anything. I'd rather spend the thought on finding a solution for my problems than asking for help from something that I don't know if it exists or not.

BigMike619

January-27th-2009, 09:21 AM

No because I know prayers don't solve anything. I'd rather spend the thought on finding a solution for my problems than asking for help from something that I don't know if it exists or not.

you ever think that by praying you are saying it out loud and can solve it that way?

dont get me wrong, I dont agree with your statement at all as a christian but I find that if I say my problem out loud and put it in the air I can find a solution better and faster.

just a thought...:cheers:

No Excuses

January-27th-2009, 09:26 AM

you ever think that by praying you are saying it out loud and can solve it that way?

dont get me wrong, I dont agree with your statement at all as a christian but I find that if I say my problem out loud and put it in the air I can find a solution better and faster.

just a thought...:cheers:
Or maybe it could be that you can find solutions to your problems quickly because you are most likely a smart and rational person. It might not be god listening to your prayers :D

Whatever floats other peoples boats. I'm not one of those atheists who shoves his opinion down others or mocks those with faith. If anything, I know faith has saved people from going insane in some really hard times. It's just that I chose to solve my problems my own way :)

BigMike619

January-27th-2009, 09:28 AM

Or maybe it could be that you can find solutions to your problems quickly because you are most likely a smart and rational person. It might not be god listening to your prayers :D

Whatever floats other peoples boats. I'm not one of those atheists who shoves his opinion down others or mocks those with faith. If anything, I know faith has saved people from going insane in some really hard times. It's just that I chose to solve my problems my own way :)

wow, I dont think I came across like I was trying to shove something down your throat but if thats how you took it then thats how you took it.

:cheers:

No Excuses

January-27th-2009, 09:32 AM

wow, I dont think I came across like I was trying to shove something down your throat but if thats how you took it then thats how you took it.

:cheers:
Not at all. Sorry if it seem like that's what I implied. I didn't take your comment in any negative way.

AllWorldSkinFan

January-27th-2009, 09:47 AM

What strikes me as kinda odd, or perhaps even arrogant is that religious people seem to imply that there is some kind of difference between praying and whispering with your hands clasped in front of your face, sometimes while kneeling.

Bliz

January-27th-2009, 09:50 AM

I guess I still dont get it.

Im not trying to be confrontational at all..I hope you know that.

But is it that you believe in a higher power and just not God?

agnostic means to question all of it, right?

so who are you praying to? in your head...

There are lots of different types of agnostics. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article about several of the different major agnostic philosophies.

Rather than questioning it all, I would characterize it as a firmly held conviction that the details are inherently unknowable, and beyond our comprehension anyway. That whatever is out there is probably a LOT different than we think it is.

If God is an old white man with a gray beard and heaven is a place in the clouds with halos and winged angels and all of my friends, relatives (the ones I like, anyway) and pets...well, I would be pretty surprised. :)

#98QBKiller

January-27th-2009, 09:52 AM

If God is an old white man with a gray beard

The best description I've heard is "Bearded Skydaddy."

:rotflmao:

sly

January-27th-2009, 10:29 AM

desioreo87[/B]] What i have a problem wrapping my head around is non-existence.When you die, there is no more consciousness, can you imagine not-existing?

Do you believe that there was consciousness before you were conceived?

I definitely agree with the first post. That idea comes into my head sometimes... because all your great memories... your education... your thought processes.... your personality.... would all be gone. And *never* come back. That can be scary.

I think that's what pushes me sometimes. No day is guaranteed... and I want to accomplish so much in my life... as well as pass whatever knowledge I have along to my kids, nieces, and nephews. If there is no god... those are your connections to immortality. As long as you're remembered, you really can never die.

I want to believe in God... I grew up in a great Christian church and think religion is an important foundation for a family. But, I'm also a "realist"... a term some people have used in the thread.

IONTOP

January-27th-2009, 10:44 AM

I'm sorry, I just have to chime in here: I think thats very strange

All I know is that if I'm right, the world would be a much more peaceful place... "Oh, you don't believe in my religion? That's cool, enjoy your heaven, and I'll enjoy mine"

Thiebear

January-27th-2009, 10:56 AM

How about "pro-Jesus" and "anti-Jesus" :D :silly:

That kind of stuff works so well in other conversations. :cool:

Look at you mixing up all the threads into one central conversation: Genius.

I normally bounce a few ideas off of Odin, he's a good listener but hasn't been coming through lately. I might have to go older.

Kosher Ham

January-27th-2009, 11:01 AM

Great, now I have a question - since practically none of you atheists admit to praying... what the hell do you scream during sex? It for sure ain't "Oh God."

I scream, "Yea Me!!!"

At that point I should be cheered for, or her.

CrabR

January-27th-2009, 11:15 AM

whatever...

question

have you ever found yourself praying?

No

this past summer I almost died due to heart failure, took them 45 mins to get me out of the water then another 20 mins to a hospital

Never prayed, never entered my mind

Predicto

January-27th-2009, 11:29 AM

you're on the pill, righhhhhtttaguauufgughhhhh?!?!

oh dear LOLOL

Metalhead

January-27th-2009, 11:30 AM

I'm pretty much athiest. I've hoped for luck, but not praying in a religious way by any means, and certainly not to a god. And I may use the phrase "thank god" a bit but it's more of an expression, not literal.

I find religions fairly interesting...just not the zealous, mass following they promote.

Predicto

January-27th-2009, 11:31 AM

Thiebear

January-27th-2009, 11:38 AM

I guess actually i've prayed for my children to be okay.
I also say God bless you and God ******* and Good God Woman and Jesus quite loud and often.
I also give my children bibles and send them off to church.

Its all about where you were born. I spent and still spend many a Sunday at Church.
I don't get it though when you look at humanity throughout the history of the Earth.
We base everything on this one spec in of Trillions and Trillions and Trillions of others in space.. as if we're the center of it all.

Bang

January-27th-2009, 11:44 AM

Great, now I have a question - since practically none of you atheists admit to praying... what the hell do you scream during sex? It for sure ain't "Oh God."

I will if I feel like it. I also say "god Damn" and "Good God" and "Jesus Christ", even "Christ Almighty" when I'm making a point. I even say "I swear to God" to relay sincerity.

Because I say it doesn't mean I believe it's real.

But as far as praying.. nah, it's pointless. If I don't believe it's real, then there's nothing there to hear my prayer. At that point saying "Oh God help me!" doesn't make me a hypocrite,, it makes me an idiot. I may as well pray to the wall since i believe I'm going to get the same response.

~Bang

Yusuf06

January-27th-2009, 11:51 AM

I hope the religious folks don't find this to be offensive but, here goes....

I see religion as a crutch and I honestly don't mean that in a bad way. I think some people can handle the concept of being utterly, completely alone (spiritually) in the universe and death being "it" and some can't. Those that can't handle this will remain religious while those that can't will eventually let it go.

I'm an agnostic so I believe that one can't categorically state with any degree of certainty that there isn't a God. However, many of the things I've read make it pretty clear that Christianity, Islam and even Judaism were derived from prior faiths that thought about God and death in very different terms than today's religions. Therefore, if there is a God out there he's probably shaking his head that we've gotten it so screwed up.

For the most part, I just don't worry about it any more. The one thing I do struggle with is whether I should discuss what I know with my family. I mean, I fully understand how much religion means to people that buy into it and I don't want to be a dick.

So, just out of curiosity, how do those of you who have done a good bit of research about religion and concluded that it's nonsense handle this issue with your families? Do you just avoid it?

techboy

January-27th-2009, 12:26 PM

If God is an old white man with a gray beard and heaven is a place in the clouds with halos and winged angels and all of my friends, relatives (the ones I like, anyway) and pets...well, I would be pretty surprised. :)

Me too. :)

:D

And there are two types of politicians - Republicans and non-Republicans.

When Republicans outnumber Democrats, Socialists, etc. the same way we outnumber you, then that too will be a fair term. :D

However, many of the things I've read make it pretty clear that Christianity, Islam and even Judaism were derived from prior faiths that thought about God and death in very different terms than today's religions.

Don't make me come back there. ;)

CowboysNickster

January-27th-2009, 12:42 PM

One of my favorite poems is this untitled poem by atheist Samuel Putnam (1838-1896). He eloquently and rationally ponders why non-believers don't accept the notion of a divine entity:

You say there is a God
Above the boundless sky,
A wise and wondrous deity
Whose strength none can defy.
You say that he is seated
Upon a throne most grand,
Millions of angels at his beck . . .
Why don't he lend a hand?

See how the earth is groaning,
What countless tears are shed,
See how the plague stalks forward
And brave and sweet lie dead.
Homes burn and hearts are breaking,
Grim murder stains the land;
You say he is omnipotent . . .
Why don't he lend a hand?

Behold, injustice conquers;
Pain curses every hour;
The good and true and beautiful
Are trampled like the flower.
You say he is our father,
That what he wills doth stand;
If he is thus almighty
Why don't he lend a hand?

What is this monarch doing
Upon his golden throne,
To right the wrong stupendous,
Give joy instead of moan?
With his resistless majesty,
Each force at his command,
Each law his own creation . . .
Why don't he lend a hand?

Alas! I fear he's sleeping,
Or is himself a dream,
A bubble on thought's ocean,
Our fancy's fading gleam.
We look in vain to find him
Upon his throne so grand,
Then turn your vision earthward . . .
'Tis we must lend a hand.

'Tis we must grasp the lightning,
And plow the rugged soil;
'Tis we must beat back suffering,
And plague and murder foil;
'Tis we must build the paradise
And bravely right the wrong;
The god above us faileth,
The god within is strong.

Here are some interesting morsels from some famous non-believers :):

~ No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear, greed, imagination and poetry. - Edgar Allan Poe

~ I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them.- Galileo Galilei

~ The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool - Voltaire

~ I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: 'the lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' and god granted it. - Voltaire

~ I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

~ I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. - Frank Lloyd Wright

~ Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.- Thomas Jefferson

~ If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. - Isaac Asimov

~ Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men. - Francis Bacon

~ In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. - Friedrich Nietzsche

~ And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. - Bertrand Russell

~ A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens

~ Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea. - Anonymous

~ Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. - Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney

~ An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support. - John Buchan

~ I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’. - Mike Fuhrman

~ When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig

~ Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams

~ I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. - Thomas Edison

techboy

January-27th-2009, 12:50 PM

Here are some interesting morsels from some famous non-believers

Galileo was Catholic.

*EDIT* Actually, while we're at it, Francis Bacon doesn't belong on that list either (I'll give you Voltaire ;)).

Here is Francis Bacon's essay, Of Atheism (http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html):

I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty, without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them, that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think, that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged, that he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves, without having respect to the government of the world. Wherein they say he did temporize; though in secret, he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced; for his words are noble and divine: Non deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones diis applicare profanum. Plato could have said no more. And although he had the confidence, to deny the administration, he had not the power, to deny the nature. The Indians of the West, have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, etc., but not the word Deus; which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it. So that against atheists, the very savages take part, with the very subtlest philosophers. The contemplative atheist is rare: a Diagoras, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are by the adverse part branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists, indeed are hypocrites; which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end. The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division, addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth, by little and little, deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion. They that deny a God, destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on, when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such, as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations. Never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith: Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus.

*EDIT 2* I take it back. You can't have Voltaire, either. He wasn't a fan of Christianity, but he was definitely a deist. See here (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter197.html):

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.

Same goes for Jefferson, actually.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a history buff, and highly suspicious of out of context quotes. I couldn't help myself. :)

You can definitely have Douglas Adams, though. Excellent author (one of my favorites), and certainly was an atheist.

hokie4redskins

January-27th-2009, 01:44 PM

I want to believe in God... I grew up in a great Christian church and think religion is an important foundation for a family. But, I'm also a "realist"... a term some people have used in the thread.

What's so "realistic" about atheism? A microscopic piece of matter randomly floating around in a vast nothingness which suddenly, accidentally, and inexplicably explodes creating ever-expanding universe that produces life, logic, and reason on a tiny blue speck floating through infinity?

Talk about believing in miracles. What would Vegas put on those odds? Six trillion to one? It's a suckers bet. You want to put all your chips in on that, you're welcome.

I've been mocked by atheists for my Catholic faith and how "unrealistic" the Church is, in particular the notion of a virgin birth. I always thought that a divine entity clever enough and all-powerful enough to create this universe could easily make a Virgin carry his Son.

Regardless, the idea of this entire universe happening by sheer accident does not seem logical or "realistic" by any stretch of the imagination.

:twocents:

Midnight Judges

January-27th-2009, 01:49 PM

jroc96

January-27th-2009, 01:50 PM

Yes I have.

But I'm not really an athiest, I'm an agnostic (and I wish I had more faith than I do).

Whats a agnostic???

techboy

January-27th-2009, 01:52 PM

Whats a agnostic???

In the most commonly used sense, an agnostic is a person who doesn't believe in any kind of higher power or particular theistic view, but hasn't ruled it out either.

Bumper sticker: "Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!"

#98QBKiller

January-27th-2009, 01:52 PM

That's not a fundamental of atheistic beliefs. That's a scientific theory. There is absolutely nothing about atheism that says we have to pretend we definitively know how the universe began. Although I can definitively tell you how it didn't begin. :)

Good point. I'd also like to point out that the Big Bang Theory isn't any more ridiculous than a story about a talking snake and people eating magic apples.

jroc96

January-27th-2009, 01:52 PM

In the most commonly used sense, an agnostic is a person who doesn't believe in any kind of higher power or particular theistic view, but hasn't ruled it out either.

Bumper sticker: "Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!"

Thanks

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 01:56 PM

Corcaigh

January-27th-2009, 01:59 PM

But I'm not really an athiest, I'm an agnostic

Really. You think there's a chance that Thor or the vengeful and smiting Christian god exists?

Corcaigh

January-27th-2009, 02:00 PM

In the most commonly used sense, an agnostic is a person who doesn't believe in any kind of higher power or particular theistic view, but hasn't ruled it out either.

Are you agnostic with regard to belief in Thor or Zeus?

techboy

January-27th-2009, 02:04 PM

Are you agnostic with regard to belief in Thor or Zeus?

No, statistically, I'm an atheist. I only believe in one more God than you. That's a rounding error. :)

Although, I do feel compelled to note that I actually have solid reasons to definitively reject Thor and Zeus. ;)

grego

January-27th-2009, 02:04 PM

I see religion as a crutch and I honestly don't mean that in a bad way. I think some people can handle the concept of being utterly, completely alone (spiritually) in the universe and death being "it" and some can't. Those that can't handle this will remain religious while those that can't will eventually let it go.

that seems like a bit of a broad brush.

i see myself more like c.s. lewis- a very reluctant believer. quite the opposite of a crutch, my feelings tell me to do and believe what i want. my rational, thinking side tells me otherwise.

sly

January-27th-2009, 02:09 PM

PleaseBlitz

January-27th-2009, 02:09 PM

whatever...

question

have you ever found yourself praying? i'm not trying to judge you or anything i just came across a quote saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" and thought it was pretty funny...

so im curious if any of you who usually don't believe in god have ever resorted to prayer...

I am agnostic. No one in my family is religious. We recently buried my father and found that it is basically impossible to have a funeral without religion. We ended up having the Chaplain of the county fire department preside over the service. We had never met him before. He ended up being a super nice guy, but thats kind of besides the point.

Not once during my fathers battle with cancer, death, or funeral did i have any desire to pray to any god.

Bang

January-27th-2009, 02:11 PM

What's so "realistic" about atheism? A microscopic piece of matter randomly floating around in a vast nothingness which suddenly, accidentally, and inexplicably explodes creating ever-expanding universe that produces life, logic, and reason on a tiny blue speck floating through infinity?

Talk about believing in miracles. What would Vegas put on those odds? Six trillion to one? It's a suckers bet. You want to put all your chips in on that, you're welcome.

I've been mocked by atheists for my Catholic faith and how "unrealistic" the Church is, in particular the notion of a virgin birth. I always thought that a divine entity clever enough and all-powerful enough to create this universe could easily make a Virgin carry his Son.

Regardless, the idea of this entire universe happening by sheer accident does not seem logical or "realistic" by any stretch of the imagination.

:twocents:

Isn't it rather convenient to say that a supernatural all powerful being snapped it all into existence?

I think you've demonstrated THE fundamental difference between atheists and those who believe.. (aside from the actual belief) ...we're willing to say we don't have the slightest idea how it all came about, and can accept that we just might be nothing more than a biological phenomenon. Higher purpose and meaning to our lives isn't predicated on there being a God or a Devil.
You guys believe you've got all the answers.

This is a fact: We don't have the slightest idea, and any theist can tell me they KNOW it to be otherwise til the cows come home,, there is a HUGE difference between faith and fact. Your belief may be so strong that you leave no possibility in your mind for there to not be a God, but that is in no way proof of anything.
Same as science is pretty sure the Big Bang happened, but they can't prove it, and even if they did, the question of what caused it then still exists. In my mind, this is a question that cannot be answered. Faith can teach you to believe God caused it, but there's no way to prove that either.

We don't know. I don't, and neither does anyone else walking on the planet. Maybe one day we will, but that day hasn't come yet.

Me, I don't believe in any of it. But, that isn't to say I'm right, either. As is the same with ALL OF US, I simply don't know.

~Bang

Prosperity

January-27th-2009, 02:12 PM

used to be an agnostic, now I believe in one God

the reasons I'll keep to myself

PleaseBlitz

January-27th-2009, 02:12 PM

On the other side of that coin, i swear constantly.

Goddamn this and jesus ****ing christ that. All the time. Dozens of time a day, often dozens of times and hour. :)

Bliz

January-27th-2009, 02:33 PM

Whats a agnostic???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism) (also called "hard agnosticism," "closed agnosticism," "strict agnosticism," or "absolute agnosticism") refers to the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a God exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism) (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deity is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."
Apathetic agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathetic_agnosticism) (also called Pragmatic agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_agnosticism))—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Agnostic theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism) (also called religious agnosticism, spiritual agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Knowledge_and_belief))
Agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of a deity, and do not believe in any.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#cite_note-8)

G-Prime

January-27th-2009, 02:38 PM

thehogs

January-27th-2009, 02:39 PM

No, havent prayed since I was a child. I am an atheist now, no doubt.

The foxhole thing doesnt surprise me - stick someone in a horrifying scenario facing a possible grotesque end its no surprise they fall back on those things they were brought up on as a child to comfort and help them. There are plenty of stories of men shoutig for their mum in the middle of a battle field. No surprise that some start praying too as fear envelopes them and they hit that child-safety button somewhere inside them. What this has to do with proving that people really do believe in God, I'm not sure. It does show how people regress to a whole number of memories etc locked in their head from when they were younger as the face terrible scenes. :2cents:

PleaseBlitz

January-27th-2009, 02:40 PM

Dan T.

January-27th-2009, 02:41 PM

Does screaming "Oh God" during sex count?

BigMike619

January-27th-2009, 02:42 PM

Most "believers" completely misunderstand agnostics and athiests, and your post illustrates that.

while I dont agree I have noticed it on both sides.

start an agnostic thread and see how long before a christian comes in and denounces it and vice versa.

Midnight Judges

January-27th-2009, 02:42 PM

PleaseBlitz

January-27th-2009, 02:44 PM

while I dont agree I have noticed it on both sides.

start an agnostic thread and see how long before a christian comes in and denounces it and vice versa.

Yep.

Now seems like an appropriate time to post this, solely because it seems like the "in" thing to do. :)

http://ronsworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/christianity-thumb.jpg

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 02:47 PM

Most "believers" completely misunderstand agnostics and athiests, and your post illustrates that.

SnyderShrugged

January-27th-2009, 02:48 PM

I think that most folks are agnostic at various points in their lives, but some change to believeers after a profound or moving event in their lives. For me, there were a number of very personal events that molded my firm belief in God (I am a christian who is a practicing United methodist).

I wouldnt expect anyone who hasnt had that defining moment to be as firm in their belief as I am, it just isnt realistic.

However, pure atheism is really something I dont understand as it seems top be an outright rejection of even the possibility of a higher power of any form. I know many believe this way, for one reason or another. It's actually kind of sad to me to know those folks will never feel the clarity and faith that helps me in any and all days.

lastly, I wish that the hatred for each other from all sides of this debate could get beyond the bashing of one anothers views and just accept that it is a very personal thing and few outside influences from an internet forum will do anything to change those personal beliefs. Only the journey of their lives can do that (IMHO)

CowboysNickster

January-27th-2009, 02:49 PM

Galileo was Catholic.

*EDIT* Actually, while we're at it, Francis Bacon doesn't belong on that list either (I'll give you Voltaire ;)).

Here is Francis Bacon's essay, Of Atheism (http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html):

*EDIT 2* I take it back. You can't have Voltaire, either. He wasn't a fan of Christianity, but he was definitely a deist. See here (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter197.html):

Same goes for Jefferson, actually.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a history buff, and highly suspicious of out of context quotes. I couldn't help myself. :)

You can definitely have Douglas Adams, though. Excellent author (one of my favorites), and certainly was an atheist. I shouldn't use the term "non-believer". It is too absolute. Some are non-believers and some are skeptical in their approach to religion. Not that they don't believe but aren't willing to blindly "drink the kook-aid" and ignore more rational and plausible explanations and theories. Actually, I prefer the term Free Thinkers or even Rationalists because they allow room to question and think for one's self what to believe.

But truly, whose "camp" people are in is completely immaterial to me. Labels are often the domain of those who have need to separate out people who are different in order to weaken or disparage them. Agnostic and atheists aren't fortifying an army to convert the rest of you. Believe what you will as far was we are concerned. Whether or not Jefferson or Voltaire were really Christians or Atheist neither strengthens nor wanes my personal beliefs. My thoughts do not require company to sustain them. I included the quotes not to substantiate my ideas but because I applaud the use of thought in discussion. I simply find those quotes on religion thought-provoking. But you are right, any quote can misconstrued and/or taken out of context and I was incorrect to use such an absolute term (non-believers) to generalize all of their beliefs. Now, being the free-thinker that I am, I take ideas for what they are worth and come up with my own conclusion as to their substance and meaning. Others should do the same. ;)

MonkFan8

January-27th-2009, 02:57 PM

rincewind

January-27th-2009, 02:57 PM

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]
Here are some interesting morsels from some famous non-believers :):

~ Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea. - Anonymous

Huh? :wtf:

KAOSkins

January-27th-2009, 03:01 PM

techboy

January-27th-2009, 03:12 PM

Huh? :wtf:

Dude, that guy "Anonymous" has more quotes attributed to him than all the other great thinkers of the world combined. :silly:

Corcaigh

January-27th-2009, 03:52 PM

Jesus spoke to me.

He told me he doesn't want me for a sunbeam.

Midnight Judges

January-27th-2009, 03:54 PM

Dude, that guy "Anonymous" has more quotes attributed to him than all the other great thinkers of the world combined. :silly:

He wrote some pretty good music too! Is there anything that guy couldn't do?

Bang

January-27th-2009, 04:03 PM

most atheists (not all) are because it's the "in" thing to do to stomp on religion. Now I'm not an atheist, I believe Christ is my lord and savior and died for me. I don't push my beliefs on anyone else, but by God whenever a religious thread starts atheists come out of the work to crap on it, because it's the "in" thing to do.. Now it's my turn bitches *squat*

That's a stretch.

Can we say that most (not all) religious people believe it because long long long ago their ancestors were given the option of converting or being put to death by those who did believe, and since they'd rather not die, they decided to give it a shot, and have passed it on down through the ages until it's an ingrained part of our lives?
No?
How about if i said that most (not all) religious people are so because of a deep seated insecurity that says to them there must be something higher than themselves because they can't fathom the notion that this might just be all there is to it, and they absolutely MUST have meaning to themselves beyond their own lives?
What if I expounded to say most (not all) religious people need this insecurity so they have a scapegoat (Satan) for their failings, and a hero they can credit for their triumphs?
No?
Too broad a brush?

I'd be pretty arrogant to think I had most (not all) religious people all figured out, huh?

~Bang

CrabR

January-27th-2009, 04:17 PM

most atheists (not all) are because it's the "in" thing to do to stomp on religion.

BULL

I jump in threads because this is a DISCUSSION board, i do not go to religious boards telling them they are wrong.

PS
this thread is for 'ES Atheists...non believers', so i guess you are here for Jesus cause it is the "in" thing to do

PSS
I could care less who worships what, it is all silly tro me, been there and done that, and still cannot believe i belived that

Die Hard

January-27th-2009, 04:41 PM

I'd be surprised if you had one. The few atheists I do know get the least amount of ass out of the group.

I think that has more to do with you... and the type of people that want to hang around you.

Henry

January-27th-2009, 04:54 PM

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 05:26 PM

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 05:30 PM

Jumbo

January-27th-2009, 05:44 PM

Seriously? I would have never pegged you as a devout Christian.

I'd say that's putting it mildly for anyone who has any discernment and is familiar with G's posting history.:D

Of course, there is always the "I am only human and full of sin and those sins are forgiven by God (even as I enthusiastically continue to embrace them)" dealio to cover such stuff. :cool:

Do you think happily crapping on someone to show them how wrong it is to crap on someone isn't the best way to emulate Jesus' teaching or represent Christianity? :silly:

grego

January-27th-2009, 05:49 PM

Would it be fair for me to say that most Christians are because they are scared of the unknown or that they were deluded as children, much like Santa Claus?

We can go on making idiotic assumptions if you'd like!

no atheist here will admit its 'cool' to stomp religion? i think the criticism of g prime is a little over the top. maybe 'most atheists' wasnt the proper term, but lets not pretend that that angle doesnt exist.

i dont get the whole getting defensive thing anyway. someone offending anothers 'non belief'? odd. kind of like the darwin fish on a car- whats the point, other than to annoy?

Bang

January-27th-2009, 05:53 PM

no atheist here will admit its 'cool' to stomp religion? i think the criticism of g prime is a little over the top. maybe 'most atheists' wasnt the proper term, but lets not pretend that that angle doesnt exist.

i dont get the whole getting defensive thing anyway. someone offending anothers 'non belief'? odd. kind of like the darwin fish on a car- whats the point, other than to annoy?

Do you like generalizations about your belief?

Seriously, According to G- Prime, most of us, which could include me, haven't got any brains in their head beyond petulant "stomping" on religion. We're just a bunch of noisy kids rebelling for no other reason than to rebel. It's the "in thing".

Could it be that there's PLENTY of us who have thought long and hard about it and concluded it's not something we believe in?

Nah,, how stupid of me. Of course we're nothing more than God Bashers.

Oh, and as to the Darwin fish,, here's a thought. Maybe the people with one on their cars are merely expressing their belief .. the same way the people with fish on theirs,
If it annoys you, that would be your problem, no? Do you view everyone wearing a Cowboys jersey as just being out to annoy you? (assuming your a Redskins fan)

~Bang

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 05:54 PM

no atheist here will admit its 'cool' to stomp religion? i think the criticism of g prime is a little over the top. maybe 'most atheists' wasnt the proper term, but lets not pretend that that angle doesnt exist.
I don't find "religion stomping" cool. I do, however, enjoy bothering the loons who demonstrate on campus and such. that's less to do with religion and more to do with them deserving a good bothering.

i dont get the whole getting defensive thing anyway. someone offending anothers 'non belief'? odd. kind of like the darwin fish on a car- whats the point, other than to annoy?

The darwin fish is funny. Its called "satire". And its not our "non-belief" that I deemed was being slighted, but rather our character.

rincewind

January-27th-2009, 05:54 PM

Talk about believing in miracles. What would Vegas put on those odds? Six trillion to one? It's a suckers bet. You want to put all your chips in on that, you're welcome.

And imagine the odds you'd get on Immaculate Conception...

techboy

January-27th-2009, 06:37 PM

And imagine the odds you'd get on Immaculate Conception...

At a protestant bookie, not very much higher than the atheist one... ;)

Do you like generalizations about your belief?

I was gonna stick up for you, but by the time I got back to this thread you and others had done quite well for yourselves. :)

tryfuhl

January-27th-2009, 06:49 PM

no atheist here will admit its 'cool' to stomp religion? i think the criticism of g prime is a little over the top. maybe 'most atheists' wasnt the proper term, but lets not pretend that that angle doesnt exist.

i dont get the whole getting defensive thing anyway. someone offending anothers 'non belief'? odd. kind of like the darwin fish on a car- whats the point, other than to annoy?

What was the point of the Jesus fish other than to annoy or rub your belief in anyone's face?

Just because you agree with him doesn't mean that he can't be called out on what he says. You guys are the ones getting offended that others have different beliefs while we're just sitting back with our own. I shouldn't have to defend my beliefs anymore than you should.

I'm trusting that you've done some sort of survey to determine how popular god bashing is.. and aren't just saying it because you don't understand that people do not believe in him?

Lombardi's_kid_brother

January-27th-2009, 08:00 PM

Lombardi's_kid_brother

January-27th-2009, 08:03 PM

Anyway, I am in one of those weird in-between places where I often find myself. I have 18 years of serious religious indoctrination in my past, and that's pretty hard to overcome. I also think that a "church life" and "church family" is good for people in general (though it should probably be one of those churches in a Main Line town where they don't believe too much). Generally speaking, I think society is better off with a little religion around, right up to the point that society becomes West Texas or Iran or something similar.

Having said, that rational intellectual part of my brain tells me to reject fairy tales.

So I have issues - with God and West Texas apparently.

grego

January-27th-2009, 09:36 PM

Do you like generalizations about your belief?

Seriously, According to G- Prime, most of us, which could include me, haven't got any brains in their head beyond petulant "stomping" on religion. We're just a bunch of noisy kids rebelling for no other reason than to rebel. It's the "in thing".

no. i acknowledged that 'most' wasnt the best term. but it does happen- rebellion against religion to be cool. no?

Oh, and as to the Darwin fish,, here's a thought. Maybe the people with one on their cars are merely expressing their belief .. the same way the people with fish on theirs,
If it annoys you, that would be your problem, no? Do you view everyone wearing a Cowboys jersey as just being out to annoy you?

expressing a belief in 'nothing'? thats my point. why? it seems- just like the darwin fish people- you've gotten worked up over 'nothing'. why would you even bother?

hokie4redskins

January-27th-2009, 09:41 PM

And imagine the odds you'd get on Immaculate Conception...

Man, that's my whole point. You need to learn to read.

If God exists and wants an Immaculate Conception, those odds are 1:1. The Dude created the universe. Think, man.

SpringfieldSkins

January-27th-2009, 09:48 PM

no. i acknowledged that 'most' wasnt the best term. but it does happen- rebellion against religion to be cool. no?

Quite the contrary with me. I don't think I'm "cool" because I'm a non-believer. As a matter of fact I don't really prefer to talk with many people about it in person... unless I'm drunk. I view myself as a more of a heretic to be honest. I think that my own personal beliefs would make people think that I am totally "not cool".

Bang

January-27th-2009, 09:48 PM

no. i acknowledged that 'most' wasnt the best term. but it does happen- rebellion against religion to be cool. no?

Of course, there's immature morons everywhere.

Some of them bash religion just for the sake of attempting to be cool, others march at Marine funerals with "God Hates Fags" signs.

y'know?

~Bang

grego

January-27th-2009, 09:49 PM

What was the point of the Jesus fish other than to annoy or rub your belief in anyone's face?

having a fish on your car is rubbing it in your face? ok. i do have a theory that some atheists are a bit overly sensitive. interesting.

heres what i'm saying. the fish has historical symbolism. some person with 'anti' christian beliefs went to the trouble of designing a fish with legs that says 'darwin' instead of 'jesus'.

the person putting the regular fish on their car has an obvious, normal, unselfish interest -one can safely assume- in displaying it. the person with the darwin fish is only doing so as a jab.

my thing is, if i dont believe in something, and it gives me no measure of benefit to do so, i sure as hell am not going to waste my time, money or breath over refuting an opposing belief. i'm going go say 'ok' and go an about meaningful things in my life.

see what i mean?

ps- and i didnt even get into darwins beliefs on things like race. i'm betting most displaying the fish dont know about them. saw a darwin fish on a car and a black lady was driving. if it wasnt so sad i might have laughed.

grego

January-27th-2009, 09:51 PM

Of course, there's immature morons everywhere.

Some of them bash religion just for the sake of attempting to be cool, others march at Marine funerals with "God Hates Fags" signs.

y'know?

~Bang

agreed on that. :(

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 10:04 PM

the person putting the regular fish on their car has an obvious, normal, unselfish interest -one can safely assume- in displaying it. the person with the darwin fish is only doing so as a jab.

Unselfish? They're self-promoting, "Look at me, I'm a Christian." The Darwin Fish (I kinda like the bigger fish eating the smaller fish) is a satire of that. satire is funny.

SpringfieldSkins

January-27th-2009, 10:08 PM

Unselfish? They're self-promoting, "Look at me, I'm a Christian." The Darwin Fish (I kinda like the bigger fish eating the smaller fish) is a satire of that. satire is funny.

Satire isn't funny to everybody. :silly:

grego

January-27th-2009, 10:14 PM

Unselfish? They're self-promoting, "Look at me, I'm a Christian." The Darwin Fish (I kinda like the bigger fish eating the smaller fish) is a satire of that. satire is funny.

oh, i do love satire. my favorite kind of comedy.

i get the joke, but one is a statement of belief, whether one agrees or disagrees. one is mocking said symbol.

i just dont get the mindset. maybe i'm just not a big 'prius with a thousand bumper stickers proclaiming every contrarian belief- just to rub your nose in it- while simultaneously giving my life meaning' kind of guy?

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 10:21 PM

oh, i do love satire. my favorite kind of comedy.

i get the joke, but one is a statement of belief, whether one agrees or disagrees. one is mocking said symbol.

i just dont get the mindset. maybe i'm just not a big 'prius with a thousand bumper stickers proclaiming every contrarian belief- just to rub your nose in it- while simultaneously giving my life meaning' kind of guy?
They're both statements of belief. one is your belief the other is a scientific-based belief structured in the form of a satire.

grego

January-27th-2009, 10:39 PM

They're both statements of belief. one is your belief the other is a scientific-based belief structured in the form of a satire.

even if i give you that they are both simply statements of belief, so the one says 'look at me! i'm an person who believes theres no god- mocking the christians! woo-hoo!'

to what end? for what benefit?

not to complicate it, but its almost like pascals wager.

i just dont get the point of shouting an unbelief about a non entity from the rooftops. since there is no inherent benefit, it seems like the kid who colors his hair pink just to get attention- just to be 'contrarian', and take a jab at the man.

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 10:47 PM

even if i give you that they are both simply statements of belief, so the one says 'look at me! i'm an person who believes theres no god- mocking the christians! woo-hoo!'
they're not mocking Christians, they're mocking the idiots who put those on their car. If Christians didn't flaunt their religion on their cars, you wouldn't see the darwin fish there either.

to what end? for what benefit?
to what benefit do some christians put a fish on their cars? there is no benefit, its just a statement about one's self.

not to complicate it, but its almost like pascals wager.
Pascal's wager is stupid and I wish you didn't just bring it up (especially without a real tie in).

i just dont get the point of shouting an unbelief about a non entity from the rooftops.

They're flaunting their support for Darwinism/evolution.

Dance04

January-27th-2009, 10:48 PM

Man, that's my whole point. You need to learn to read.

If God exists and wants an Immaculate Conception, those odds are 1:1. The Dude created the universe. Think, man.

The odds of a all mighty power appearing out of nothing are the same odds as some big bang happening from nothing.

Think, man.

grego

January-27th-2009, 11:04 PM

they're not mocking Christians, they're mocking the idiots who put those on their car. If Christians didn't flaunt their religion on their cars, you wouldn't see the darwin fish there either.

why not? why not have their own symbol independent of the christian fish? the point of the fish is supposed to be that there is something more- something greater than us. the point of the darwin fish is that there is nothing more. so, why display it?

do you see no difference in a darwin fish and, say, a star of david, or islamic crescent and star?

i do.

do you get what i'm saying, or are you just playing dumb, or contrarian?

either i'm not making my point very well, or i need to re examine what it is i'm trying to convey. its like militant, organized atheism. whats the point?

alrighty. time for bed. good night all.

PokerPacker

January-27th-2009, 11:06 PM

why not? why not have their own symbol independent of the christian fish? the point of the fish is supposed to be that there is something more- something greater than us. the point of the darwin fish is that there is nothing more. so, why display it?
Did you even read what I posted?

techboy

January-27th-2009, 11:17 PM

The odds of a all mighty power appearing out of nothing are the same odds as some big bang happening from nothing.

Think, man.

There are a couple of problems with this response.

1. Even if you argue (as you do) that these odds are just as bad as the odds of the universe coming into existence from nothing, by nothing, and for no reason, the point is that these odds are so infinitesimal in the naturalistic worldview as to be meaningless. The atheist has no explanation for this occurence (though some will argue he doesn't need one).

The theist can happily agree with you, then say God existing is a miracle, as is the universe, which of course is possible in a theistic universe, but not in an athestic one.

In other words, you've sunk your own case. :)

2. Most theistic worldviews don't involve God coming into being, but being the eternal, uncaused caused of all things. So what you write isn't really a valid criticism in any case.

grego

January-27th-2009, 11:23 PM

Did you even read what I posted?

yes- why?

now i'm really going to bed....

techboy

January-27th-2009, 11:24 PM

yes- why?

now i'm really going to bed....

I wish you the best of luck. My experience has been that this kind of statement rarely works out. :)

Dance04

January-27th-2009, 11:24 PM

There are a couple of problems with this response.

1. Even if you argue (as you do) that these odds are just as bad as the odds of the universe coming into existence from nothing, by nothing, and for no reason, the point is that these odds are so infinitesimal in the naturalistic worldview as to be meaningless. The atheist has no explanation for this occurence (though some will argue he doesn't need one).

The theist can happily agree with you, then say God existing is a miracle, as is the universe, which of course is possible in a theistic universe, but not in an athestic one.

In other words, you've sunk your own case. :)

2. Most theistic worldviews don't involve God coming into being, but being the eternal, uncaused caused of all things. So what you write isn't really a valid criticism in any case.

Tech your one very smart man, but at the end of the day, the probability is still the same. There are times you sway me to see your side.

so I'll rephrase.

The odds of the big bang are the same odds as god being the eternal, uncaused cause of all things.

Bottom line, they both come down to faith. The probability remains the same.

Simply because you believe one to be true, does not make it true.

techboy

January-27th-2009, 11:28 PM

The odds of the big bang are the same odds as god being the eternal, uncaused cause of all things.

The Big Bang is a solidly, scienfically established theory that has stood the test of time, so I agree. :D

Seriously, though, you're missing the point. Even if we grant that the odds are equally infinitesmal, as you argue, that's a stake in the heart of atheism, because while the naturalistic worldview doesn't really have a mechanism to allow for events that are so fantastically improbable as to be effectively impossible, the theistic worldview does. It's called a miracle.

Further, if the universe did come out of nothing, by nothing, and for no reason, that'd be a miracle, thus proving the existence of God. ;)

techboy

January-27th-2009, 11:33 PM

yes- why?

now i'm really going to bed....

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I should have gone to bed an hour and a half ago.

In a move worthy of one of my students, I have completely pinned all my hopes on a snow (ice) day tomorrow. I am going to be seriously hurting if the alarm goes off at 5:20 and I don't hear "Fairfax County Public Schools are closed". :)

Dance04

January-28th-2009, 12:17 AM

The Big Bang is a solidly, scienfically established theory that has stood the test of time, so I agree. :D

Seriously, though, you're missing the point. Even if we grant that the odds are equally infinitesmal, as you argue, that's a stake in the heart of atheism, because while the naturalistic worldview doesn't really have a mechanism to allow for events that are so fantastically improbable as to be effectively impossible, the theistic worldview does. It's called a miracle.

Further, if the universe did come out of nothing, by nothing, and for no reason, that'd be a miracle, thus proving the existence of God. ;)

The Big Bang could have occured without divine intervention. Just because you call it a miracle does not mean it is a divine event orchestrated by a higher power.

It could be a freak accident. It could be what we define as sheer luck.

Since no one on earth can prove otherwise, it comes down to faith.

I mean, did god come from nothing? how did he come to be? How could he exist if the universe did not exist and it was nothing. Who created god if he didn't come from nothing? The creation / coming to be of god is unknown. But it needs to be explained. Ah, I know, it's a miracle. there you go! that proves he exists.

I don't buy it.

You choose to call it a miracle, which is your short sighted proof.

But it's proof nonetheless, right?

There is no more proof of god's existence other then the belief of his existence.

There is no more proof of the big bang then the belief that it occured. Atheists don't have an answer yet. That part of history has yet to be written

Thanks for the well mannered debate. I'm happy we didnt end up throwing **** at each other. but like I said.

I don't buy it.

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 12:20 AM

techboy

January-28th-2009, 12:50 AM

There is no more proof of the big bang then the belief that it occured.

Wrong (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html).

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html), for instance, is very strong evidence that the Big Bang occured.

(You're wrong about the rest, too, but I'd just be repeating myself. :))

for the record, I did not endorse those odds. :)

It doesn't really matter whether you endorse them or not. The math is the math. Consider this piece of a larger work (http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/) from Roger Penrose, an eminent mathematical physicist at Oxford (here's his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose)). Relevant excerpts:

Try to imagine the phase space (cf. p. 177) of the entire universe! Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a `pin' which is to be placed at some point in the phase space (Fig. 7.19 not shown). Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator's aim depends upon the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively `easy' to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. (Recall that the entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the volume of the phase space concerned.) But in order to start off the universe in state of low entropy-so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics-the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result? In order to answer this question, we must first turn to a very remarkable formula, due to Jacob Bekenstein (1972) and Stephen Hawking (1975), which tells us what the entropy of a black hole must be.

and (skipping over a lot of mathematical physics)

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10^123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

And that's just the odds of one particular factor of our universe being the way we need it to be by random chance. There are literally dozens more, all equally impossibly improbable.

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 12:53 AM

Wrong (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html).

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html), for instance, is very strong evidence that the Big Bang occured.

(You're wrong about the rest, too, but I'd just be repeating myself. :))

It doesn't really matter whether you endorse them or not. The math is the math. Consider this piece of a larger work (http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/) from Roger Penrose, an eminent mathematical physicist at Oxford (here's his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose)). Relevant excerpts:

and (skipping over a lot of mathematical physics)

And that's just the odds of one particular factor of our universe being the way we need it to be by random chance. There are literally dozens more, all equally impossibly improbable.
I'm of the thought-train that with our current base of knowledge, the odds are undefined. (I'll admit I didn't thoroughly go through what you posted; its late)

No Excuses

January-28th-2009, 01:22 AM

no. i acknowledged that 'most' wasnt the best term. but it does happen- rebellion against religion to be cool. no?

Cool thing? Seriously? Do you know how much backlash the "non-believers" have to take, especially amongst family?

If it was the cool thing to do, majority of this world would be atheist. Give me a break.

Thiebear

January-28th-2009, 03:37 AM

I never understood the fish on the car?
I'm sure this was covered by the big guy as a no-no.

I'm pretty sure at 40, i don't do anything that's "cool" anymore.

techboy

January-28th-2009, 04:26 AM

I never understood the fish on the car?
I'm sure this was covered by the big guy as a no-no.

The Greek for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior" spelled out the Greek word for "fish", Ich'thys. It's a symbol of being a Christian, used during a time when the Church had not yet made the shift from being persecuted to being the one doing the persecuting (that last bit's a joke. Sort of.)

P.S. Across all of Fairfax County, students (and at least one teacher) are awakening to the news that yes, there is a God. :D

Thiebear

January-28th-2009, 05:38 AM

The Greek for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior" spelled out the Greek word for "fish", Ich'thys. It's a symbol of being a Christian, used during a time when the Church had not yet made the shift from being persecuted to being the one doing the persecuting (that last bit's a joke. Sort of.)

P.S. Across all of Fairfax County, students (and at least one teacher) are awakening to the news that yes, there is a God. :D

I'm definitely not able to debate you in what is in the bible, i just went by the council in 787AD that had to say the cross and pictures of Jesus and the Israel Star is o.k.

So i'm guessing an engraved fish "could" fall in that description in an peripheral kinda way?

SnyderShrugged

January-28th-2009, 06:45 AM

You assume far, far too much.

In what way? Please explain.

G-Prime

January-28th-2009, 06:50 AM

BULL

I jump in threads because this is a DISCUSSION board, i do not go to religious boards telling them they are wrong.

PS
this thread is for 'ES Atheists...non believers', so i guess you are here for Jesus cause it is the "in" thing to do

PSS
I could care less who worships what, it is all silly tro me, been there and done that, and still cannot believe i belived that

If you're an atheist why do you care if people talk about religion? What draws you to religious threads then? There's no God for you, so where's the appeal?

I'll tell you.. You want to take the opportunity to

1. *****
2. Look cool
3. Act better than someone else.

Thiebear

January-28th-2009, 06:57 AM

If you're an atheist why do you care if people talk about religion? What draws you to religious threads then? There's no God for you, so where's the appeal?

I'll tell you.. You want to take the opportunity to

1. *****
2. Look cool
3. Act better than someone else.

Why do Religious people come into an Atheist thread

1. *****
2. Look cool
3. Act better than someone else

or just maybe: Discussion.
Right?
Aren't those cheerleader asses off limits to a christain male with a girlfriend named rachel? Just sayin...

gbear

January-28th-2009, 07:34 AM

Agnostic here. I like to believe there is a God who wants good things, but I honestly don't know. I figure if that's the God that ends up being there, I'm covered. If not, I probably won't care if I'm excluded or if there is nothing. Dodney Dangerfield's loosly remembered quote of "I never wanted to be a part of agroup that wouldn't have me for a member anyway" comes to mind.

On the praying side...I tend to think of it as more reflection.

"This hurts. How much of this am I suposed to take?"
"Is anything good going to come from all of this?"
"How on earth can I be a little more patient with this?"
"Am I carrying a torch that people are following right off a cliff?"

Zguy28

January-28th-2009, 08:39 AM

Unselfish? They're self-promoting, "Look at me, I'm a Christian."

why not? why not have their own symbol independent of the christian fish? the point of the fish is supposed to be that there is something more- something greater than us. the point of the darwin fish is that there is nothing more. so, why display it?

Huh. I always thought the point of having a fish symbol was to identify with other Christian believers. As far as I know, that's what my friends believe too. :whoknows:

Midnight Judges

January-28th-2009, 08:42 AM

Huh. I always thought the point of having a fish symbol was to identify with other Christian believers. :whoknows:

It is. But there are also variations including a fish that says Darwin on it and another one where the big fish eats the little fish.

Zguy28

January-28th-2009, 08:44 AM

It is. But there are also variations including a fish that says Darwin on it and another one where the big fish eats the little fish.Yeah, I've seen those. I say "hey, whatever floats your boat. Its your car."

Where I draw the line and what I can't stand is when people put decals on their car that are profanity. Other than that. Who really cares?

skinsfan_1215

January-28th-2009, 08:49 AM

Wow this thread got scary since I was last in here.:doh:

Henry

January-28th-2009, 08:51 AM

Wow this thread got scary since I was last in here.:doh:

I wasn't gonna say anything. :)

Leave it to the Christians to hi-jack a perfectly good athiest thread. ;)

Zguy28

January-28th-2009, 08:53 AM

I wasn't gonna say anything. :)

Leave it to the Christians to hi-jack a perfectly good athiest thread. ;)Hey, you know I am one of the most open Christians here, and yet I only stepped in this morning to correct what I perceived as a misconception. :)

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 08:57 AM

Hey, you know I am one of the most open Christians here, and yet I only stepped in this morning to correct what I perceived as a misconception. :)

don't worry, you're not the one ruining the thread. :)

Bang

January-28th-2009, 09:05 AM

Hey, you know I am one of the most open Christians here, and yet I only stepped in this morning to correct what I perceived as a misconception. :)

As far as I'm concerned, you and Techboy are welcome in any religious or atheist thread. Always an appreciated perspective, and you both never fail to teach me something.

~Bang

BigMike619

January-28th-2009, 09:07 AM

Yeah, I've seen those. I say "hey, whatever floats your boat. Its your car."

Where I draw the line and what I can't stand is when people put decals on their car that are profanity. Other than that. Who really cares?

Ive seen those too and in the past I let them get me worked up because I felt like they were just trying to be rude towards what I believed but now I tend to go more like you.

its not me who has to deal with it...

Henry

January-28th-2009, 09:09 AM

Hey, you know I am one of the most open Christians here, and yet I only stepped in this morning to correct what I perceived as a misconception. :)

No worries Z. You're ok.

We consider you an honorary heathen. :)

Zguy28

January-28th-2009, 09:41 AM

No worries Z. You're ok.

We consider you an honorary heathen. :)Thanks....I think.:silly:

talk show host

January-28th-2009, 09:47 AM

The Big Bang could have occured without divine intervention. Just because you call it a miracle does not mean it is a divine event orchestrated by a higher power.

It could be a freak accident. It could be what we define as sheer luck.

Since no one on earth can prove otherwise, it comes down to faith.

I mean, did god come from nothing? how did he come to be? How could he exist if the universe did not exist and it was nothing. Who created god if he didn't come from nothing? The creation / coming to be of god is unknown. But it needs to be explained. Ah, I know, it's a miracle. there you go! that proves he exists.

I don't buy it.

You choose to call it a miracle, which is your short sighted proof.

But it's proof nonetheless, right?

There is no more proof of god's existence other then the belief of his existence.

There is no more proof of the big bang then the belief that it occured. Atheists don't have an answer yet. That part of history has yet to be written

Thanks for the well mannered debate. I'm happy we didnt end up throwing **** at each other. but like I said.

I don't buy it.

If you're talking about proof, i dont think the scientific method will ever be able to explain precisely how the universe came into existence, so short of "devine revelation" we will never know for sure. Even then, the answer would probably be beyond our ability to comprehend (as i will attempt to explain). The only thing we do know for sure is that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. all scientific evidence points toward it, which brings up the issue of causality.

Whether a person beleives the big bang just happend spontaneously or whether a person beleives that God caused the big bang, the exact circumstances surrounding that cause is still a mystery. Since nothing in the observable universe just "happens" and there is a cause/effect for everything we can observe, we have no reference point to begin to come up with a scientific explaination what "caused" the big bang.

As to those who brought up the question Gods beginning, according to the Bible, God had none. Everything in our universe exists in atleast 4 (and possibly more) dimensions (the three spacial dimensions + time). For a Christian to beleive that God created everything, they must also accept that he created time as well. So for the Christian, the problem of Gods "beginning" is solved, because for God to have created time, he must have existed "before" its creation - I use quotes because obviously, nothing could exist before time, as the word "before" is a concept used to describe events happening within the scope of time itself. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to get at: If God created everything, then God obviously resides outside of the physical universe; therefore he also exists outside of time.

Whatever "caused" the big bang, it came from a source beyond the dimensions we are familiar with in this universe. Whether a person attributes this cause to God or some spontaneous occurrence, the cause must have come from beyond the 4 dimensions we are familiar with presently. Unfortunately, its beyond our comprehension to fully comprehend dimensions beyond those in which we exist. We can theorize, but we could never test the theories to determine whether they have any merit or not. Just as a one dimensional being could not begin to comprehend the true nature of a 2, 3, or 4 dimensional universe, its beyond the capacity of our brains to understand a cause with extra-dimensional origins. I realize this is not a satisfying explaination, but its how I view things, so I thought I would chime in.

grego

January-28th-2009, 09:52 AM

Cool thing? Seriously? Do you know how much backlash the "non-believers" have to take, especially amongst family?

If it was the cool thing to do, majority of this world would be atheist. Give me a break.

yeah. seriously.

i actually think it works both ways. among young people, i have yet to see christians being thought of as cool. among the scientists i mentioned earlier- francis collins and bill phillips- they are in the vast minority and viewed as oddities for their faith.

if you grew up in a christian or religious family, like it sounds like you did, then i'm sure you are seen as odd by your family if youre an atheist. but lets be honest- teenagers are rebellious if nothing else. and they all think they know everything. you have plenty of time to develop theories on life. ;)

im sure if you grow up in the bible belt, you'd be seen as odd if you are an outspoken atheist. outspoken christians are generally seen as just a little bit odd- certainly not cool.

much of it probably depends on the individual and their personality, rather than their beliefs. but generally speaking, its not exactly cool to be a christian.

techboy

January-28th-2009, 09:52 AM

I'm definitely not able to debate you in what is in the bible, i just went by the council in 787AD that had to say the cross and pictures of Jesus and the Israel Star is o.k.

So i'm guessing an engraved fish "could" fall in that description in an peripheral kinda way?

What I didn't make clear, I suppose, is that the no-no is on icons that represent God (and even then, some branches have different readings of this).

The fish is not a symbol of God at all. It's a symbol of being a Christian, coming from the days when it was more of a secret society, and members wanted to furtively alert each other.

Dodney Dangerfield's loosly remembered quote of "I never wanted to be a part of agroup that wouldn't have me for a member anyway" comes to mind.

Groucho Marx.

I wasn't gonna say anything. :)

Leave it to the Christians to hi-jack a perfectly good athiest thread. ;)

Let's be fair, here. The thread was started by a theist, and made it more or less unmolested (minus a view jokes) through 85 posts, which is not bad for any topic on the internet.

Further, the "peace" was broken by two non-theists one of whom felt compelled to apologize in advance to theists for what he was about to say, and the other of whom published a library of quotes under a false premise.

Honestly, the fact that any of us waited that long is a testament to amazing self-control. :D

Thiebear

January-28th-2009, 09:55 AM

Here's how it works:
Mods decide the thread is too long and getting overheated.
They call the "Cooler"
Techboy comes in and posts a couple factually untouchable quotes and wahlah!
the end.

Bang

January-28th-2009, 10:05 AM

yeah. seriously.

i actually think it works both ways. among young people, i have yet to see christians being thought of as cool.

Well, let's face it,, typically among youth especially "Cool" is usually someone who is rebellious or 'dangerous to the establishment' in some way.
Kids live under everyone's thumb. They have no adult rights, no freedom of their own, they're subject to the rules of their parents and every institution they're a part of. It's only as an adult do we realize that is the norm, and we all live like that.. but in the youth mind, anyone who breaks from that is typically thought of as more cool, because they "fight back".
Chicks like the bad guy and every guy wants to be like him, right?

This is simply kids being kids, and the religious aspect of it has no bearing. If the situation were reversed and a kid lived in a predominantly atheist society, believing in God would make him popular among the other kids.

~Bang

gbear

January-28th-2009, 10:09 AM

Techboy, thanks for the attribution. I don't know why I thought Dangerfield.

IONTOP

January-28th-2009, 10:14 AM

Uh oh... Atheist picture time... (all in good fun)

http://www.nullifidian.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/abstinence.jpg

http://www.funnyharhar.com/img6/Motivational-atheists.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2510824325_046dc95448.jpg

And my personal favorite

G-Prime

January-28th-2009, 10:15 AM

Why do Religious people come into an Atheist thread

1. *****
2. Look cool
3. Act better than someone else

or just maybe: Discussion.
Right?
Aren't those cheerleader asses off limits to a christain male with a girlfriend named rachel? Just sayin...

I don't push my beliefs on anyone else. I don't try to define what being a christian is supposed to be for other people. I live my according to what I believe, that includes having a girlfriend named Rachel and having cheerleaders shaking their ass on my sig.

That's my point. I didn't come in here and tell people to not be atheist, by all means go right ahead. But when a religious thread starts up, you have a ton of atheist coming in telling us faithful how dumb we are.

I don't care if you're an atheist, I am suspect of the motives of those outspoken against religion. For those who believe in nothing spiritual are awfully vocal for not caring.

Not believing in God and hating God are two different things. I think some atheists are confused on the term.

Henry

January-28th-2009, 10:15 AM

Let's be fair, here. The thread was started by a theist, and made it more or less unmolested (minus a view jokes) through 85 posts, which is not bad for any topic on the internet.

Further, the "peace" was broken by two non-theists one of whom felt compelled to apologize in advance to theists for what he was about to say, and the other of whom published a library of quotes under a false premise.

Honestly, the fact that any of us waited that long is a testament to amazing self-control. :D

Hey, I was just kidding, but if we're REALLY being fair here, the OP asked a loaded question. It was bound to attract a few jabs in response.

In my opinion, things were going along swimmingly until a certain self-professed Christian with dancing half-naked schoolgirls in his sig decided to jab the bees nest with a stick.

Frankly, I don't see that as an indictment on people I see as true Christians anyway (such as yourself), if you follow me.

techboy

January-28th-2009, 10:29 AM

Hey, I was just kidding, but if we're REALLY being fair here, the OP asked a loaded question. It was bound to attract a few jabs in response.

I agree, and I knew you were joking. I'm just pretty sensitive to that kind of complaint (when it is seriously offered), because I am always trying to walk the fine line between the goal of correcting errors and offering relevant facts and arguments, and the unintended side-effect of annoying people or sounding preachy.

In my opinion, things were going along swimmingly until a certain self-professed Christian with dancing half-naked schoolgirls in his sig decided to jab the bees nest with a stick.

There are a number of Christians on this board that should pay closer attention to the feedback they are getting from others.

techboy

January-28th-2009, 10:33 AM

Uh oh... Atheist picture time... (all in good fun)

Since I'm being a humorless nitpicker anyway, today (3 of the 4 were pretty funny :)), Epicurus lived way before 33 AD, that quote is wrong (he used "the gods", not "God"), and he wasn't an atheist.

Happy to help. :D

grego

January-28th-2009, 10:58 AM

Well, let's face it,, typically among youth especially "Cool" is usually someone who is rebellious or 'dangerous to the establishment' in some way.
Kids live under everyone's thumb. They have no adult rights, no freedom of their own, they're subject to the rules of their parents and every institution they're a part of. It's only as an adult do we realize that is the norm, and we all live like that.. but in the youth mind, anyone who breaks from that is typically thought of as more cool, because they "fight back".
Chicks like the bad guy and every guy wants to be like him, right?

This is simply kids being kids, and the religious aspect of it has no bearing. If the situation were reversed and a kid lived in a predominantly atheist society, believing in God would make him popular among the other kids.

~Bang

i agree with the theory, just not sure about the conclusion. while being opposed to the authority is cool, i'm not sure religion- or christianity specifically- would be considered cool in an atheist society. maybe, but i'm not sure i see it. maybe taoism or buddhism or something.

grego

January-28th-2009, 11:02 AM

I don't care if you're an atheist, I am suspect of the motives of those outspoken against religion. For those who believe in nothing spiritual are awfully vocal for not caring.

thats what i was trying to explain to pokerpacker for about 3 pages.

so, i'm not crazy- just bad at conveying what im trying to say, i suspect. or the victim of a 'contrarian for the sake of being contrarian' viewpoint.

PleaseBlitz

January-28th-2009, 11:03 AM

PleaseBlitz

January-28th-2009, 11:04 AM

Since I'm being a humorless nitpicker anyway, today (3 of the 4 were pretty funny :)), Epicurus lived way before 33 AD, that quote is wrong (he used "the gods", not "God"), and he wasn't an atheist.

Happy to help. :D

It doesnt really matter who said it or when. :)

Henry

January-28th-2009, 11:10 AM

thats what i was trying to explain to pokerpacker for about 3 pages.

so, i'm not crazy- just bad at conveying what im trying to say, i suspect. or the victim of a 'contrarian for the sake of being contrarian' viewpoint.

Eh. I haven't noticed the technique of talking down the beliefs of others in order to prop one's own as exclusive to atheists. And I suspect the motives of anyone who does it.

sly

January-28th-2009, 11:15 AM

Just as a one dimensional being could not begin to comprehend the true nature of a 2, 3, or 4 dimensional universe, its beyond the capacity of our brains to understand a cause with extra-dimensional origins.

One word: Mushrooms.

GibbsFactor

January-28th-2009, 11:23 AM

grego

January-28th-2009, 11:25 AM

Eh. I haven't noticed the technique of talking down the beliefs of others in order to prop one's own as exclusive to atheists. And I suspect the motives of anyone who does it.

i'm not talking about talking down. i'm talking about people who believe in 'nothing' when it comes to god caring enough to give it 5 minutes of their day, or put a bumper sticker on their car, or whatever. as opposed to someone who had an actual religious belief in 'something'.

its the whole 'belief in nothing' thing that causes some to question motives. again- 'why d' ya care??'

i sure as heck wouldnt.

No Excuses

January-28th-2009, 11:28 AM

yeah. seriously.

i actually think it works both ways. among young people, i have yet to see christians being thought of as cool. among the scientists i mentioned earlier- francis collins and bill phillips- they are in the vast minority and viewed as oddities for their faith.

if you grew up in a christian or religious family, like it sounds like you did, then i'm sure you are seen as odd by your family if youre an atheist. but lets be honest- teenagers are rebellious if nothing else. and they all think they know everything. you have plenty of time to develop theories on life. ;)

im sure if you grow up in the bible belt, you'd be seen as odd if you are an outspoken atheist. outspoken christians are generally seen as just a little bit odd- certainly not cool.

much of it probably depends on the individual and their personality, rather than their beliefs. but generally speaking, its not exactly cool to be a christian.

No. I grew up in the war zone of Kashmir. I belong to a Hindu family and I've seen in front of my eyes the kind of destruction and hate religion brings out of people. Suicide bombers, men covered in black with rifles killing in the name of god, have you experienced that before? I've seen Muslim and Hindu race wars take place a block down from my house as a little boy. Religious extremism is something not many understand in America because no one has seen it up close.

And I'm sure there are plenty of people who became atheists because they see what kind of things religion can lead people into becoming.

GibbsFactor

January-28th-2009, 11:32 AM

I think the "coolness" argument is hurt pretty badly when the coolest person alive right now in many people's minds is Barrack Obama, who is religious, and generally most agnostics/athiests fall on his side of the political spectrum.

Food for thought.

I bet that 90% of all atheists and agnostic people started out under some religion.

You grow up hearing all of these miraculous stories, all of these wonderful tales from the past. You learn the tooth fairy is fake, that Santa Claus is fake, that women wear push up bras and that movies use special effects.

So you start looking into the history of religion and the wholes are glaring. You realize that it does in fact take FAITH to believe so unrelenting in the tellings of your particular religion. You hear about how the universe comes to be about (which still does not disprove God, most scholars of Cosmogony essentially come back to a higher being).

I think it's human skepticism. Atheist have been force fed what they believe is a lie. Agnostics may believe in the higher power but not the way it's worshipped.

Henry

January-28th-2009, 11:49 AM

i'm not talking about talking down. i'm talking about people who believe in 'nothing' when it comes to god caring enough to give it 5 minutes of their day, or put a bumper sticker on their car, or whatever. as opposed to someone who had an actual religious belief in 'something'.

its the whole 'belief in nothing' thing that causes some to question motives. again- 'why d' ya care??'

i sure as heck wouldnt.

Why not? Christians are always talking about how everyone else should share their worldview. Why would that mindset be exclusive to Christians?

GibbsFactor

January-28th-2009, 11:54 AM

I'm reminded of that South Park series when Cartman froze himself 500 years into the future. In the future, there were three main groups, all athiest (one being made up of otters, hey it's South Park) and they were at war with one another. Brilliant concept. And totally correct.

grego

January-28th-2009, 12:01 PM

No. I grew up in the war zone of Kashmir. I belong to a Hindu family and I've seen in front of my eyes the kind of destruction and hate religion brings out of people. Suicide bombers, men covered in black with rifles killing in the name of god, have you experienced that before? I've seen Muslim and Hindu race wars take place a block down from my house as a little boy. Religious extremism is something not many understand in America because no one has seen it up close.

And I'm sure there are plenty of people who became atheists because they see what kind of things religion can lead people into becoming.

well, i cant say for sure, not having grown up in a place like that, but i'd also question the religions that this was happening in, not just whether or not god exists. i wont take the thread in a different direction, but suicide bombers have no place in some religions.

grego

January-28th-2009, 12:05 PM

Why not? Christians are always talking about how everyone else should share their worldview. Why would that mindset be exclusive to Christians?

because if you believe in something, like christianity, there are benefits to said belief. if you really believe in atheism, there are no eternal consequences or benefits to belief- or unbelief. so why bother?

now, i'm not saying people cant speak their mind. sure they can. i just wonder why you would, under those pretenses?

like i said, i'm just not a big, in your face, look at me, bumper sticker philosophy kind of guy, i guess.

techboy

January-28th-2009, 12:17 PM

It doesnt really matter who said it or when. :)

You're right. It's a fatally flawed argument regardless of how it's stated, or who stated it. :)

IMO, they all break the first commandment and not consistent with who and what God is.

There should be no need for any symbols as God has said he is.

Well, the fish is not a symbol of God. It's a symbol of a person, i.e., the person is claiming to be a Christian.

Henry

January-28th-2009, 12:24 PM

Bang

January-28th-2009, 12:31 PM

because if you believe in something, like christianity, there are benefits to said belief. if you really believe in atheism, there are no eternal consequences or benefits to belief- or unbelief. so why bother?

now, i'm not saying people cant speak their mind. sure they can. i just wonder why you would, under those pretenses?

like i said, i'm just not a big, in your face, look at me, bumper sticker philosophy kind of guy, i guess.
People are clannish, and like to identify with people of like minds or beliefs.
(For example, When i see a person wearing Redskins gear, I give them the thumbs up and flash my gear right back. The two of us share a bit of common pride, even if only for a second.)
Me, I wouldn't put a Darwin fish on my car because I believe religion is a private matter. And likewise, so is the lack thereof. If I choose to tell someone my belief or discuss it with them, that's one thing. Professing my belief to any moron on the road.. it's simply not anyone's business but mine.

Others do want to take a poke at religion, and if you thought about it from their perspective, you might understand why.
From the atheist standpoint, religion is one of the more ****ed up things that has ever happened to this world. It permeates every aspect of life, and there are plenty of folks who follow it that are not what you could consider tolerant of other beliefs besides their own. In a global sense, it keeps people at each others throats rather effectively. As it is, here we are involved in yet another holy war versus the radical muslims. (At least it's a holy war to them).. from the atheist perspective, all of this death and carnage and destruction is over a fairy tale.
And that might tend to make a person just a bit frustrated.

~Bang

grego

January-28th-2009, 12:54 PM

People are clannish, and like to identify with people of like minds or beliefs.
(For example, When i see a person wearing Redskins gear, I give them the thumbs up and flash my gear right back. The two of us share a bit of common pride, even if only for a second.)
Me, I wouldn't put a Darwin fish on my car because I believe religion is a private matter. And likewise, so is the lack thereof. If I choose to tell someone my belief or discuss it with them, that's one thing. Professing my belief to any moron on the road.. it's simply not anyone's business but mine.

Others do want to take a poke at religion, and if you thought about it from their perspective, you might understand why.
From the atheist standpoint, religion is one of the more ****ed up things that has ever happened to this world. It permeates every aspect of life, and there are plenty of folks who follow it that are not what you could consider tolerant of other beliefs besides their own. In a global sense, it keeps people at each others throats rather effectively. As it is, here we are involved in yet another holy war versus the radical muslims. (At least it's a holy war to them).. from the atheist perspective, all of this death and carnage and destruction is over a fairy tale.
And that might tend to make a person just a bit frustrated.

~Bang

i get annoyed at the 'in case of rapture, this car will be unmanned' type bumper stickers. and, while i'm at it, the 'i hope one day the air force will have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber while teachers have everything they need'- suck it, moron. and leave the military out of it. sorry, i digress.

well, at the very least, it seems most clever darwin fish people are doing it out of frustration. thats pretty much what i figured- take a jab at the 'morons' whose beliefs divide and f things up. if i felt that way, i might be tempted to speak my mind about it.

still, if i'm looking at worldwide death and carnage, i'm not blaming folks who worship before the 1 o clock game.

Kosher Ham

January-28th-2009, 01:32 PM

G-Prime,

I dont think any of us non-knowers hate your God.

I fall somewhere between Atheist and Agnostic.

IONTOP

January-28th-2009, 02:10 PM

If you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours...

pjfootballer

January-28th-2009, 02:44 PM

What Predicto said.

What Predicto and Skinsfan_1215 said.

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 03:42 PM

Well, let's face it,, typically among youth especially "Cool" is usually someone who is rebellious or 'dangerous to the establishment' in some way.
Kids live under everyone's thumb. They have no adult rights, no freedom of their own, they're subject to the rules of their parents and every institution they're a part of. It's only as an adult do we realize that is the norm, and we all live like that.. but in the youth mind, anyone who breaks from that is typically thought of as more cool, because they "fight back".
Chicks like the bad guy and every guy wants to be like him, right?

This is simply kids being kids, and the religious aspect of it has no bearing. If the situation were reversed and a kid lived in a predominantly atheist society, believing in God would make him popular among the other kids.

~Bang

Being an atheist in a christian society as a kid, I can tell you that this is not the case. I got more ridicule from it than "cool points." Certainly not to the point of hate, but definitely razzing. Take my word for it, being an atheist does not make you cool amongst the kids.

Metskins

January-28th-2009, 04:18 PM

Bang

January-28th-2009, 04:22 PM

Being an atheist in a christian society as a kid, I can tell you that this is not the case. I got more ridicule from it than "cool points." Certainly not to the point of hate, but definitely razzing. Take my word for it, being an atheist does not make you cool amongst the kids.

I agree, bear in mind, all of us who are atheist in America are such in a predominantly Christian society, so we all know that. I was just running a hypothetical situation to someone saying that some atheists are such because it's cool to be outside the norm.

When I was a teenager and these things began to have meaning, I learned real quick that it's not something your friends will accept very easily.

~Bang

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 04:28 PM

I agree, bear in mind, all of us who are atheist in America are such in a predominantly Christian society, so we all know that. I was just running a hypothetical situation to someone saying that some atheists are such because it's cool to be outside the norm.

When I was a teenager and these things began to have meaning, I learned real quick that it's not something your friends will accept very easily.

~Bang

I'm a little confused at to where you stand on this. In your initial post were you referring to kids below high school aged?

Bang

January-28th-2009, 05:27 PM

I'm a little confused at to where you stand on this. In your initial post were you referring to kids below high school aged?
I don't really stand anywhere.
It all started when someone (I think g-prime) said most atheists were just trying to be cool. (I assumed that would be teenagers,, I can't fathom an adult needing to be rebellious in order to be cool)
The conversation followed with someone else about the nature of what's cool, and I'm just saying that as a general rule kids think the rebels are the cool ones.

I personally never met anyone who doesn't believe just to be cool, but then again I'm not in any teenage cliques. I'm sure there probably are kids who disbelieve just to be different. I think by nature many of us are different, anyway. My main group of friends when I was a teenager were all Catholic.

~Bang

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 05:57 PM

I don't really stand anywhere.
It all started when someone (I think g-prime) said most atheists were just trying to be cool. (I assumed that would be teenagers,, I can't fathom an adult needing to be rebellious in order to be cool)
The conversation followed with someone else about the nature of what's cool, and I'm just saying that as a general rule kids think the rebels are the cool ones.

I personally never met anyone who doesn't believe just to be cool, but then again I'm not in any teenage cliques. I'm sure there probably are kids who disbelieve just to be different. I think by nature many of us are different, anyway. My main group of friends when I was a teenager were all Catholic.

~Bang

okay, so it was hypothetical speculation.

well it was wrong :)

techboy

January-28th-2009, 06:18 PM

If you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours...

I reject all other gods because, through faith and evidence, I have come to accept Christianity, and Christianity is exclusive.

I don't really understand how that helps me understand why you're an atheist, though. ;)

It's believing that Jesus ever really existed

This is a joke, right?

Bang

January-28th-2009, 06:55 PM

It's believing that Jesus ever really existed.

Card carrying atheist here.
Guess what? Jesus existed.
But as to whether he's the Son of God is where we have a disagreement.

~Bang

SpringfieldSkins

January-28th-2009, 06:58 PM

Card carrying atheist here.
Guess what? Jesus existed.
But as to whether he's the Son of God is where we have a disagreement.

~Bang

Agreed.

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 07:00 PM

his name was Jeshua, folks.

Bang

January-28th-2009, 07:18 PM

his name was Jeshua, folks.

Yeah, but that doesn't fit so nicely in the fish decal.

Sorry,, i couldn't resist.

~Bang

Sebowski

January-28th-2009, 07:49 PM

I reject all other gods because, through faith and evidence, I have come to accept Christianity, and Christianity is exclusive.

I don't really understand how that helps me understand why you're an atheist, though. ;)

This is a joke, right?

ummmm.... Evidence? Link?

Maybe you meant hearsay and conjuncture?

To the OP, never prayed or plan on it. Wouldn't even know how how really. I imagine it is like making a birthday or wishbone wish (not that I do that)?

WVUforREDSKINS

January-28th-2009, 07:57 PM

ummmm.... Evidence? Link?

Maybe you meant hearsay and conjuncture?

You have no idea what you've just done

HOF44

January-28th-2009, 08:00 PM

ummmm.... Evidence? Link?

Be prepared, you have just unleashed TECHBOY!!! :D

Hope you didn't have anything else planned for tonight. ;)

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 08:02 PM

you know the drill, guys: under the desks.

Slacky McSlackAss

January-28th-2009, 08:04 PM

:munchout:

Looks like I found something to keep me entertained tonight.

Oh and for the record...Polytheism FTW!!!

Bang

January-28th-2009, 08:08 PM

I believe this may be the first time I've used this one.

:munchout:

~Bang

Sebowski

January-28th-2009, 08:12 PM

Haha. I maybe I should clarify that "Link?" was a rhetorical question.

HOF44

January-28th-2009, 08:14 PM

Haha. I maybe I should clarify that "Link?" was a rhetorical question.

LOL.

Agree or disagree with TB you must admire the intellect. When you challenge him, bring your A game. ;)

GibbsFactor

January-28th-2009, 08:32 PM

I believe this may be the first time I've used this one.

:munchout:

~Bang

It's awesome isn't it!!

You've got to have Redskins fans sitting on the corner munching out when Jessica explains to Romo why she gained weight to get his attention away from TO in your next cartoon!

Zguy28

January-28th-2009, 08:39 PM

Look it all comes down to faith...

that's 98% of any religion. It's believing that God created Adam. It's believing that Jesus ever really existed and that he rose from the dead. It's believing in the end of the world according to Revelations.

All of it's highly suspect. Some people just don't care and still believe. I'm not one of them.I'd take it even further than what culture, today, commonly refers to as "faith" or "belief".

Its being certain of what is we can't see with our two eyes or touch with our hands. :2cents:

techboy

January-28th-2009, 11:13 PM

ummmm.... Evidence? Link?

Sure thing. :)

Maybe you meant hearsay and conjuncture?)

Some... ;)

Haha. I maybe I should clarify that "Link?" was a rhetorical question.

Well, I'd let you off the hook, but you also asked for evidence, and apparently, I've got some fans depending on me for a light evening of entertainment (sorry I'm late... I was watching The Dark Knight with my wife). ;)

Anyway... For me, the case for the existence of God is less a matter of one particular argument (though one does stand out for me, as I will elucidate below), and more a matter of accumulation. Any one of these arguments might be dismissed, but together, I think they amount to a formidable amount of evidence for the existence of God in general, and the Christian God in particular. I'll start with the general in my next post, and move to the specific after that. :)

techboy

January-28th-2009, 11:18 PM

*Editor's note: Don't mind me, just cleaning up for the next time.*

The Existence of God: The General Arguments

Speaking generally, there are several philisophical arguments that convince me that God exists. Before I get into those, I want to just discuss very briefly how philisophical arguments work.

For a philisophical argument to be considered valid, the conclusion must follow inescapably from the premises. Each of the arguments I present below is valid, in the sense that if one accepts each of the premises as true, one must accept the conclusion as correct.

For a philisophical argument to be considered sound, each premise must be more plausibly true than its negation. I believe each of the premises of these arguments are, in fact, more plausibly true than their negations.

Since the arguments are logically valid if you, the reader, wish to reject one of the arguments I present here, you must show that one of the premises is not more plausibly true than its negation, proving the argument unsound. Otherwise, the argument stands.

So what good philisophical arguments are there for the existence of God?

First, there is the Leibniz Cosmological Argument. Gottfried Leibniz was one of the greatest Philosophers and Mathemeticians in history, and one of the most famous questions he asked was "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

His thinking on this question led him to an argument, one version of which runs like this:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

To keep this post as brief as possible, I will direct the interested observer to this Q&A piece (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5847) by Dr. William Lane Craig (who is the source for the above formulation). In that piece Dr. Craig briefly discusses the premises and defends against objections that are raised against them, though I will, of course, be happy to answer any objections here as well.

Next, there is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Basically, this is a very simple (but powerful) argument that can be summed up as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Theists and atheists alike have always agreed that there must, at the beginning, be an uncaused cause. Theists have always said that was God. Until recently, atheists could say that no, the universe is eternal.

The best science of the day, though, now tells us that the universe came into existence about 15 billion years ago. Further, the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf) shows that any expanding universe (such as ours) cannot extend infinitely into the past.

From there, as Dr. Craig writes in The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html):

Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Again, (relative) brevity should win out, so please follow the link for more details, which is especially appropriate in this case because Dr. Craig is the primary driving force behind the discussion of this argument in today's philisophical circles.

Moving on, there is the Fine-Tuning Design Argument. One of the most puzzling things about our universe is that the more science advances, the more it becomes clear that our universe appears to be amazingly fine tuned for life.

Dr. Robin Collins (the foremost proponent of this argument) discusses this in his THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT (http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetlay.htm):

A few examples from the literature of this fine-tuning are listed below:

1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)

2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)

3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)

4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )

5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)

The fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is not controversial, as we see in How bio-friendly is the universe? (http://d.scribd.com/docs/1m6v6mx7h4nzlvxtocr5.pdf), an article in the International Journal of Astrobiology 2 (2) : 115–120 (2003) by P C W Davies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies):

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.

The question then becomes, why the universe is the way it is. The odds of any one free paramater (like Collins discusses above) being the way we need it, just by random chance, are so infinitesemal as to be meaningless, to say nothing of all of them together. Collins frames his argument like this:

1. The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

3. From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provides strong evidence to favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

Generally, two objections are raised to this argument, and neither are really effective in my view.

The first is that fantastically probable events occur every day, and that's true. If I flip a coin a million times, whatever result I get would be fantastically improbable. The problem with that is that it (and all other fantastically improbable events raised as an objection) assumes that all results are equal, as in the case of the coin flip. The results in the case of the universe, though, are not equal. Looking at the free parameters discussed by Dr. Collins, any of the other "settings" would prevent life. To return to the coin flip example, if I held a gun to your head and said that unless one particular result came up, I'd kill you, and then that result came up, would you breathe a sigh of relief that you were just lucky, or would you assume that I had somehow fixed the game in your favor? (Just ask onlike poker players, who assume cheating over far less ;))

The second objection is what's known as the "anthropic principle", which is basically "of course we're here, if we weren't, we wouldn't know it". However, as Dr. William Lane Craig illustrates in his The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html), that doesn't really make sense:

This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie{16}): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

Would anyone really remark "Well, of course I'm alive! If I weren't, I wouldn't be around to note it! Random chance!"?

For more on the Teleological argument, as well as responses to criticisms of it, please follow the links, and for a more scholarly treatment, heavy on the statistics, try Dr. Collins' How to Rigorously Define Fine-Tuning (http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/FINETUNE/chapter%203%20how%20to%20rigorously%20define%20fin e-tuning.doc).

My favorite general argument for the existence of God (and the one I find to be the most powerful), though, is the Moral Argument. Imagine a world in which Jeffrey Dahmer, rather than being condemned by society as the monster he is, is instead lauded as a hero because he advances the cause of social Darwinism by removing the weak from the gene pool. If there is no God, no source of objective morals and duties, then we have no grounds to condemn him. Society has decided that he is good. What grounds do we have to disagree? Without some higher standard, our condemnation loses any force, and becomes yet another opinion.

The upshot of this is, in the words of Neitszche "If God is not, all is permissible".

The reason I think that this is one of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is that it matches with the human moral experience. Most everybody agrees that there are, in fact, certain things that are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. We want to condemn Jeffrey Dahmer, regardless of whether or not his society embraces him. It doesn't matter to us that all of Spartan society "voted" that death by exposure is the appropriate measure to take for a deformed child- we want to call it murder. If Adolf Hitler had won WWII, and brainwashed or killed everyone that disagreed with the Holocaust, leaving the entire world in agreement that this was perfectly good and acceptable, we still believe that it was evil, no matter what this imaginary society says.

To put the argument succinctly:

1. Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God.
2. Objective moral values and duties and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

I believe that premise 1 is self-explanatory and fairly non-controversial. On the atheistic worldview, morals and duties arise from men themselves, perhaps as a result of blind evolution, yet any moral or duty created by man can be changed by man, and evolution is interested only in survival, not objectivity, meaning that any morals and duties that evolved can simply evolve again, which is hardly objective.

Premise 2, as I said, matches our moral experience and is agreed upon by most everyone.

Thus, premise three follows inescapably.

The Summation: One note here, I haven't once mentioned the Bible or Jesus, and yet we're at a place where simple logic points us to an all-powerful, personal creator that exists outside time and space (the Cosmological Arguments), that carefully fine tuned that universe to support life (Teleological Argument), and that is moral (Moral Argument).

All-powerful, outside time and space, personal, moral... Hmm... Sound familiar? ;)

Each brick adds to the wall of evidence. One particular brick might not be enough to convince, but together it makes a very strong proof, and I haven't even gotten to the best one yet, which I will save for my second post. :)

PokerPacker

January-28th-2009, 11:31 PM

and the fun begins

:munchout:

Who Del

January-28th-2009, 11:35 PM

I can prove there is no God. Ready? I'm on this planet. Alive and well. What God in there right mind would consider me something to be proud of?

akorn22

January-28th-2009, 11:43 PM

I pray because I beleive in a higher being that may or may not be able to help you out once in a while. I do not beleive in a God in a religious sense

21DIEHARDSKINSFAN21

January-28th-2009, 11:53 PM

11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote huge blocks of text or pictures. If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not necessarily the entire post. It wastes space on the database and unnecessarily extends and clutters threads.

AND FROM A STICKY THREAD CURRENTLY AT THE TOP OF THE STADIUM
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=278189

READ IT !!! :)
very good read. i am Christian believer so thank you for more fine-tuned reason to believing then just the Bible and Jesus.

and just a common sense argument:

Science has claimed we humans evolved from apes. If that was the case, how come we dont evolve from apes to this day?

And if we was to still, evolve from apes...where did apes come from?

techboy

January-29th-2009, 12:00 AM

*Editor's Note: Don't mind me, I'm just cleaning this up and adding some new stuff, since although this round's over, the next is sure to be right around the corner. :)

The Existence of God: Christianity Specific

Now, one thing that I will immediately confess is that the wall of logical arguments we have built here brick by brick doesn't really say anything directly about which God it is. Here is where I turn to the central event of Christianity, the Resurrection. If it's true, then it validates Jesus' claim that he was God, and so proves Christianity to be true, and God to thus exist (obviously). If I have to, I can address the nonsensical "Jesus-myth hypothesis", but here and for now I will assume that my readers haven't fallen down that particular silly rabbit-hole.

Part One: Approaches to the Evidence

One of the first things I always hear in response to the evidence I'm about to present is that I'm "just quoting the Bible", or "Just because the Bible says it's true doesn't mean it is!", to which I'd have to reply no, and I'm not saying that's the case, respectively. :)

What the reader needs to understand is that below, I am using the approach of the historian, not the theologian. The historian has tools he can use to look at even the worst and most biased of sources, and from them arrive at factual information.

A.N. Sherwin-White (here's his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._N._Sherwin-White)) was an eminent historian of ancient Rome at Oxford University. He wrote Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (http://books.google.com/books?id=ys43PAAACAAJ&dq=roman+society+and+roman+law+in+the+new+testamen t), among other works. My next couple of quotes will be from that book.

On page 186 he writes (emphasis is the author's):

So much for the detailed study of the Graeco-Roman setting of Acts and Gospels. But it is fitting for a professional historian to consider the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally, and boldly to state a case. Though for two short periods of our history we are lucky enough to have two major contemporary historians of remarkably objective character in Thucydides and Polybius, we are generally dealing with derivative sources of marked bias and prejudice composed at least one or two generations after the events which they describe, but much more often, as with the Lives of Plutarch or the central decades of Livy, from two to five centuries later. Though connecting links are provided backwards in time by series of lost intermediate sources, we are seldom in the happy position of dealing at only one remove with a contemporary source. Yet not for that do we despair of reconstructing the story of the tyranny of Pisistratus or of the tribunates of the Gracchi.

Sherwin-White goes on to say that the New Testament texts are much better than those, being vastly earlier and much better attested, but that's not my point this time.

My point here is simply that historians can and do pull historical facts from the worst, most biased, legend tainted sources, and so it is possible to derive facts from the texts of the New Testament, without treating them as holy or special, but just by applying those same methods.

Michael Grant (here's his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(author))) was another eminent classical historian, and in his Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (http://books.google.com/books?id=YbMMAAAACAAJ&dq=jesus+an+historians+review+of+the+gospels) writes on page 201:

A short way back, exception was taken to the view that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong. Should we, therefore, accept the opposite opinion, which has been locked in an agonizing struggle with it for two hundred years, that all the contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine? No, that is also too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields. When, for example, one tries to build up facts from the accounts of pagan historians, judgement often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation- which is sometimes, but by no means always, available- but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability. The same applies to the Gospels. Their contents need not be assumed fictitious until they are proved authentic. But they have to be subjected to the usual standards of historical persuasiveness.

Grant definitely follows through with this in his book, taking a very skeptical stance. For instance, he rejects as genuine any fulfilled prophecy, assuming that it was either written after the event or inserted later.

So, I'm not asking the reader to treat the Bible as a holy book, or divinely inspired, or anything like that. I am simply asking instead that we approach the texts of the New Testament as historians, like Grant and Sherwin-White, and see what facts we can uncover from the data.

As we will see, it's quite a lot. :)

Part Two: Jesus Claimed to be God

The high Christology of the early Church came from Jesus himself. One example of this comes from the Parable of the Tenants.

Mark 12 (ESV)
The Parable of the Tenants
1(A) And he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted(B) a vineyard(C) and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and(D) leased it to tenants and(E) went into another country. 2When the season came, he sent a servant[a] to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3(F) And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4(G) Again(H) he sent to them another servant, and(I) they struck him on the head and(J) treated him shamefully. 5(K) And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. 6He had still one other,(L) a beloved son.(M) Finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 7But those tenants said to one another,(N) 'This is the heir. Come,(O) let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8And they took him and killed him and(P) threw him out of the vineyard. 9What will the owner of the vineyard do?(Q) He will(R) come and destroy the tenants and(S) give the vineyard to others. 10(T) Have you not read(U) this Scripture:

(V) "'The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
11this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"
12And(W) they were seeking to arrest him(X) but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they(Y) left him and went away.

Before we look at what this saying of Jesus is, uh, saying, I'd like to take a moment to explain why I chose this passage.

One of the things Jesus scholarship tries to do is determine what, if anything, can be determined about the life, works, and sayings of Jesus in an historical sense. Scholars only take seriously those things that can be verified via one or more historical criteria. It doesn't mean that other things in the text didn't happen, necessarily, just that they can't be proven.

It turns out that the Parable of the Tenants is accepted as an authentic saying of Jesus by scholars, even the most radical (such as the infamous Jesus Seminar, which famously voted and found only about 20% of the sayings of Jesus to be authentic).

There are a number of reasons for this. The saying is early, and multiply and independently attested. It is unlikely to be a later Christian invention, because, among other reasons, it includes no mention of ressurection. It also has been found to be very accurate in terms of actual absentee landowner practices of the day, historically, and it reflects and employs stock images found in rabbinic parables of the day, so it coheres with a Jewish mileu.

So, it's pretty much accepted that this is a provably genuine saying of Jesus. As Dr. Craig Evans (his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Evans)) notes in his Fabricating Jesus ( http://books.google.com/books?id=PmbUAAAACAAJ&dq=Fabricating+Jesus:+How+Modern+Scholars+Distort+ the+Gospels) on page 138:

When understood properly and in full context, everything about the wicked vineyard tenants- including its context in the New Testament Gospels- argues that it originated with Jesus, not with the early church.

But what is Jesus saying? In this parable, as in other rabbinic parables of the day, the Vineyard is Israel and the owner is God (a common reference because of Isaiah 5). The tenants are the Jewish religious leaders (which is why they are angered). The servants are the prophets of God, sent to Israel, but beaten, turned away, and sometimes killed (as the history of the Old Testament shows).

And then we come to the son, Jesus. The son in this parable is the owner's only son. He is unique. He is more important than the servants. He is last to be sent.

This passage clearly shows that Jesus thought he was the unique Son of God, unique in relationship, above all the prophets. Further, in this passage, he predicts his own death at the hands of the Jewish authorities, outside the walls of Jerusalem.

All of this was blasphemy to the Jewish leadership, as can be seen from their reaction, and is why they eventually had him killed.

Another reason to believe that the historical Jesus had a divine self-understanding is found in Grant's Jesus on page 160 (emphasis is the author's):

But Jesus' specific claim that, as inaugurator of the Kingdom of God, he was able to forgive sins seemed, as the Pharisees and scribes had already noted in Galilee, to lend a sinister overtone to his own assertion, or the assertion of his disciples, that he was God's son. For since Jews regarded the forgiveness of sins as the prerogative of God alone, the claim to confer this forgiveness, especially if supported by a claim to the Sonship of God, implied that he himself was divine; in which case the sacrosanct Jewish monotheism was deliberately breached.

So, we have two historically supported authentic sayings of Jesus, accepted as genuine by even the most skeptical scholars, that tell us that Jesus had a divine self-understanding.

I can add more if needed, but for (relative) brevity's sake, I will provide this link (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03f.html) to Glenn Miller's excellent list of all of the explicit and implicit claims of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers that he was God.

The question then, really, is was he right. Which brings us to...

[b]Part Three: God raised Jesus from the dead

There's actually quite a lot of evidence for Jesus' Resurrection in a variety of forms, and countless books and articles have been written on the topic (and I will provide some links for further reading, if interested, at the end), but again, here we are only making use of facts that can be derived by the solid historical method, and in this section, I will further limit myself by only using facts agreed upon by the vast majority of critical scholars, a method used by people like Craig and Dr. Gary Habermas.

Of course, scholarly consensus only allows us to know that we are on firm ground, and is not a replacement for actual evidence, so for each fact, I will also present a couple of the best arguments for it, and of course I will expound on any point if asked.

Fact #1 Jesus died by crucifixion

Grant notes on page 162 that:

Then follows the horrible conclusion of the story, the Crucifixion. This again must be true because no one would have invented such a degraded end, a fatal objection to Jesus' Messiahship in Jewish eyes.

An important fact to keep in mind for later is that Crucifixion was, indeed, a cursed death in the eyes of the Jews (which all Jesus' disciples were). Here, Dr. Grant is using the Criterion of Embarrassment, an important historical tool, but that's not the only reason the Crucifixion is seen by scholars of all stripes as fact.

As Dr. William Lane Craig notes inThe Evidence for Jesus (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html):

According to the gospels Jesus was condemned by the Jewish high court on the charge of blasphemy and then delivered to the Romans for execution for the treasonous act of setting himself up as King of the Jews. Not only are these facts confirmed by independent biblical sources like Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, but they are also confirmed by extra-biblical sources. From Josephus and Tacitus, we learn that Jesus was crucified by Roman authority under the sentence of Pontius Pilate. From Josephus and Mara bar Serapion we learn that the Jewish leaders made a formal accusation against Jesus and participated in events leading up to his crucifixion. And from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, we learn that Jewish involvement in the trial was explained as a proper undertaking against a heretic. According to Johnson, "The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion."{11} The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact." {12}

Fact #2 Jesus was honorably buried by Joseph of Arimathea

Grant again appeals to the Criterion of Embarrassment, on page 175:

After the Crucifixion, Joseph of Arimithea, a member of the Sanhedrin who did not share its unfavourable opinion of Jesus, sought and obtained permission from Pilate to grant the body private burial, thus rescuing it from the two common burial-grounds reserved for executed criminals (1). This story is likely to be true since the absence, which it records, of any participation by Jesus' followers was too unfortunate, indeed disgraceful, to have been voluntarily invented by the evangelists at a later date.

Further, historians assign more reliability to reports that have multiple attestation (more than one source reports something) and to reports that are early (close to the actual events). In the case of the burial of Jesus, we have upwards of 5 independent sources, dating as early as 7 years (or earlier) from the event.

As Dr. Craig notes in his 2006 debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm ):

We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus' crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.

To expound a bit upon this, the Pauline report Dr. Craig is referring to is the kerygma (a formula used by the early church to state beliefs) in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which scholars have dated to within 18 months to 5 years of the Resurrection, because while Paul wrote this letter perhaps 20 years later, he very likely received this formula when he first met with Peter and the others, which happened at the much earlier date. Consider this from Dr. Gary Habermas (his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas)) in his Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? (http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm):

Paul probably received this report from Peter and James while visiting Jerusalem within a few years of his conversion.[46] The vast majority of critical scholars who answer the question place Paul’s reception of this material in the mid-30s A.D.[47] Even more skeptical scholars generally agree.[48] German theologian Walter Kasper even asserts that, “We have here therefore an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of 30 AD . . . .” [49] Ulrich Wilckens declares that the material “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.”[50]

Also, as noted in the Craig-Ehrman debate, Joseph of Arimathea, as a Jewish member of the Sanhedrin, is highly unlikely to have been a Christian invention for another reason besides embarrassment. Dr. Craig puts it thusly:

There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus' burial by Joseph is "very probable," since it is "almost inexplicable" why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. [1]

Finally, there is no competing burial tradition.

To sum it up, as Dr. Craig notes in the Evidence article:

According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."{15}

Fact #3 Jesus' disciples genuinely believed that they had experiences with the risen Jesus, despite having every reason not to

As Grant notes on page 176 of Jesus:

The Ressurection is the subject of some of the greatest pictures ever painted, but there is no actual description of it, and nobody claimed to have seen it happen. Yet those who believed that Jesus had appeared to them on the earth after his death have their alleged experiences recorded in a number of passages of the New Testament. Their testimonies cannot prove them to be right in supposing that Jesus had risen from the dead. However, these accounts do prove that certain people were utterly convinced that that is what he had done.

Some excerpts from the Habermas article:

From considerations such as the research areas above, perhaps the single most crucial development in recent thought has emerged. With few exceptions, the fact that after Jesus’ death his followers had experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus is arguably one of the two or three most recognized events from the four Gospels, along with Jesus’ central proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his death by crucifixion. Few critical scholars reject the notion that, after Jesus’ death, the early Christians had real experiences of some sort.

An overview of contemporary scholarship indicates that Fuller’s conclusions are well-supported. E.P. Sanders initiates his discussion in The Historical Figure of Jesus by outlining the broad parameters of recent research. Beginning with a list of the historical data that critics know, he includes a number of “equally secure facts” that “are almost beyond dispute.” One of these is that, after Jesus’ death, “his disciples . . . saw him.”[83] In an epilogue, Sanders reaffirms, “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”[84]

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.
This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

Further, the disciples not only believed it, but they were willing to die for those beliefs, as recorded both in the records of the New Testament as well as extra-Biblical writings like Josephus and Polycarp.

What's more is that the disciples had absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus would return from the dead. As Grant noted earlier, they were shattered by Jesus' shameful death. As Jews, his crucifixion seemed to argue that he had been cursed by God. Further, Jews of the day had no conception of the ressurection as an event that occured in time. To those Jews that believed in ressurection, it was to be a general event for all the righteous at the end of time.

Consider this from a short article Dr. Larry Hurtado (here's his faculty page, as he doesn't seem to have a wikipedia entry (http://www.div.ed.ac.uk/larryhurtado)), That Curious Idea of Resurrection:
How early Christians grappled to accept the idea that Jesus returned from the dead. (http://www.slate.com/id/2186654). The relevant excerpt:

The ancient Jewish and early Christian idea of personal resurrection represented a new emphasis on individuals and the importance of embodied existence beyond the mere survival or enhancement of the soul, although there was debate about the precise nature of the post-resurrection body. Some seem to have supposed it would be a new body of flesh and bones, closely linked to the corpse in the grave but not liable to decay or death. Others imagined a body more like that of an angel. But whatever its precise nature, the hope of resurrection reflected a strongly holistic view of the person as requiring some sort of body to be complete. With ancient Jews, early Christians saw resurrection as an act of God, a divine gift of radically new life, not an expression of some inherent immortality of the soul. That is, the dead don't rise by themselves; they are raised by God and will experience resurrection collectively as one of the events that comprise God's future redemption of the world and vindication of the righteous.

So we see that the disciples had absolutely no reason to expect that Jesus would return from the dead, and every reason not to. Further, as Jews, they did have accepted frameworks for the dead, such as visions of the person in Abraham's Bosom.

Fact #4 The conversion of James, the brother of Jesus

James was a skeptic who did not accept Jesus' ministry. Yet, after Jesus' crucifixion, James went from skeptic to vocal leader in the early church who believed so strongly that he was martyred for his faith, as recorded by Jospehus and others.

This point is agreed upon by virtually every critical scholar for a variety of reasons, but one of the most important is the Criterion of Embarrasment. It was embarrassing to the early church and to James that he rejected Jesus, and if they were making up the story, they probably wouldn't have put that in.

Fact #5 The conversion of Paul, an enemy of Christianity

We know more about Paul than perhaps any other Biblical figure because of his prolific letters, which comprise a treasure trove of historical data. From these letters, as well as other sources, we learn that Paul was a Jewish official who brutally oppressed the early Christians, sometimes putting them to death, until one day he experienced what he saw as the risen Christ, and became a fervent Christian, enduring repeated beatings, torture, and martyrdom.

An important thing to note about Paul is that although he was not around for the actual events, he did interview and fact-check with the disciples, so he would have been able to judge the validity of the claims of the early Christians. This also makes his letters the excellent source of information that they are.

Fact #6 The empty tomb

To be totally honest, unlike most of the other points I have presented, this one does not enjoy nearly unanimous support by the community of scholars. However, as noted in the Habermas article, roughly 75% of critical scholars accept one or more arguments for the empty tomb:

Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.
So, we're still on pretty solidly accepted ground, here.

As Grant writes in Jesus on page 176:

Even if the historian chooses to regard the youthful apparition as extra-historical, he cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb. True, this discovery, as so often, is described differently by the various Gospels- as critical pagans early pointed out. (3) But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.

There are several points that support the historicity of the empty tomb (Dr. Craig lays out eight here, for instance (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html)), but I'll just mention the three I find most convincing.

1)The Disciples and early Christians preached the risen Jesus in Jerusalem, the very place He was buried. The Roman authorities and Jewish leaders found this rather inconvenient, and could they have produced the body, they would have, ending the whole thing right there before it could even begin.

Further, it seems inconceivable that the disciples could convince anyone (including themselves) that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead if they could just pop over to the tomb and see the body still there. And someone would have, if for no other reason than that Second Temple Judaism burial practices involved removing the bones from the tomb after a year or two, for placement in ossuaries to await the ressurection at the end of time.

2)As with the story of the burial of Jesus, we have very early and multiple independently attested sources indicating that the tomb was empty.

3) Perhaps the most persuasive argument is the fact that the Gospels report that it was women who found the tomb empty. Again, we can apply the Criterion of Embarrassment.

The story of the women finding the empty tomb is highly embarrassing and difficult for the early Christians for two reasons.

First, it shows the Disciples in a rather bad light. Even though mere women (keep in mind that this is first century Palestine we're talking about) remained loyal and had gone to the Tomb to annoint Jesus' body, the Disciples at the time were huddled in a room, in hiding, having lost their faith, and basically being totally pathetic and faithless.

Second, under Jewish Law, women weren't even allowed to be witnesses in court. Highly embarrassing, as the primary witnesses to the event were totally worthless by the prevailing cultural standards.

In any case, though it does not enjoy quite the same support among critical scholars, the strength of the evidence makes me comfortable asserting the historicity of the empty tomb. As Dr. Craig notes in the article I linked above:

Taken together these eight considerations furnish powerful evidence that the tomb of Jesus was actually found empty on Sunday morning by a small group of his women followers. As a plain historical fact this seems to be amply attested. As Van Daalen has remarked, it is extremely difficult to object to the fact of the empty tomb on historical grounds; most objectors do so on the basis of theological or philosophical considerations.{87} But these, of course, cannot change historical fact. And, interestingly, more and more New Testament scholars seem to be realizing this fact; for today, many, if not most, exegetes would defend the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus, and their number continues to increase.{88}

Inference to the best explanation: the argument

Having listed these six facts, what are we to do with them? (Here of course, I diverge from the majority of critical scholars, though in logic, not in evidence. :))

In order to determine what most probably happened, historians use a technique known as “Inference to the Best Explanation”. This technique says that the theory which best fits all the facts, without being ad-hoc, is the most likely to be true, and while I would agree that naturalistic explanations should be given priority in historical investigation, no non-adhoc naturalistic explantion fits all the facts.

For example, the idea that the early Christians experienced guilt-induced visions for failing their leader fits the fact that they had some sort of experience with the risen Jesus, but cannot explain the empty tomb, or the conversion of Paul and James, who had no reason to feel guilty. It also fails because as we have seen, the disciples had no reason to expect to meet the risen Jesus, and every reason not to. If they had been hallucinating, they would have sen something they expected, such as Jesus in Abraham's bosom.

Another idea might be that the disciples were lying (and perhaps stole the body). This would cover the empty tomb, but does not account for the fact that the disciples genuinely believed they had experienced the risen Jesus, to say nothing of the fact that liars make poor martyrs. It also doesn't explain why Paul and James would be on board.

All other naturalistic explanations similarly fail, or are so ad hoc as to be useless.

On the other hand, we have seen that there are good reasons to believe in God generally, so we should at least include the possibility that God exists and took action in our pool of live options.

Further, Jesus made claims and statements that indicated a divine self-understanding, so explaining the Ressurection in that context is not ad hoc.

Finally, let's look at the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead. Such a thing, we have seen, can be in our pool of live options. It is not ad hoc, because Jesus had a divine self-understanding. The disciples claimed it was true. It fits all the facts.

It is easily the best explanation, outstripping all rival hypotheses.

God really did raise Jesus from the dead.

This verified his claim to divinity. Jesus was (is) God.

Further Reading
That's just one approach. For more, I recommend the following articles. Dr. Craig is my favorite author on the subject, and they are more scholarly. I also list some more popular level stuff.

Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html) by Dr. William Lane Craig (probably the best)

The Evidence for Jesus (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html), also by Dr. Craig

The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction? (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/resurrec.html) by Pat Zukeran

Cruci-fiction and Resuscitation: The Greatest Hoax in the History of Humanity? (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/crucific.html) by Russ Wise

Evidence for the Ressurection (http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html) by Josh McDowell

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History? (http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html) by Edwin M. Yamauchi

Beyond Blind Faith (http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/religions/faith/faith2.html) by Paul E. Little

Finally, one very good book on this subject is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He used to be an atheist and a reporter for the Chicago Tribune (so he's a good writer). In the book, he goes around the country and interviews a variety of top-notch experts on issues surrounding Jesus of Nazareth and his claims. I've already sent a few copies to Extremeskins members, but the offer is general.

PM me your address, and I'll send you a copy, free of charge. :)

Slacky McSlackAss

January-29th-2009, 12:06 AM

This thread is not as fun as I thought it would be :(

Somebody start an argument!!!!!!!!!!

techboy

January-29th-2009, 12:09 AM

The Existence of God: The Executive Summary

Basically, here's the upshot of all of that. Individually, I think any of the arguments are good. Together, though, we find that simple logic points us to an all-powerful, personal creator that exists outside time and space (Cosmological Arguments), that carefully fine tuned that universe to support life (Fine-Tuning Design Argument), and that is moral (Moral Argument).

Using that framework, we can look at the evidence that Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead. No other explanation of the facts works, and the supernatural one is made plausible by the general case for the existence of God, and thus the supernatural.

Thus, a very strong case is made that God exists, and He revealed Himself in Christ. (As a side note, that is what allows me to reject all the other gods. If it wasn't for that, I'd have to be an agnostic. How else would you prove that, say, Thor wasn't just hiding?)

Who Del

January-29th-2009, 12:11 AM

techboy... what if God was one of us? just a slob like one of us? just a stranger on the bus... trying to make his way home?

Jumbo

January-29th-2009, 12:11 AM

very good read. i am Christian believer so thank you for more fine-tuned reason to believing then just the Bible and Jesus.

and just a common sense argument:

Science has claimed we humans evolved from apes. If that was the case, how come we dont evolve from apes to this day?

And if we was to still, evolve from apes...where did apes come from?

Also, yours is not a "common sense" argument. It's a nonsense argument arising from a very mis-informed false premise. Be prepared for techboy or someone else to clue you in to how little you grasp regarding evolution. Carry on.

PokerPacker

January-29th-2009, 12:15 AM

techboy

January-29th-2009, 12:16 AM

very good read. i am Christian believer so thank you for more fine-tuned reason to believing then just the Bible and Jesus.

You're welcome.

and just a common sense argument:

Science has claimed we humans evolved from apes. If that was the case, how come we dont evolve from apes to this day?

And if we was to still, evolve from apes...where did apes come from?

That might be "common sense", but it does not accurately reflect the Theory of Evolution, so it's not valid.

Further, it's not an argument that even needs to be made. Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of Genesis. There are plenty of Christians that believe in the Theory of Evolution.

It can even further be argued that evolution is yet another proof of the existence of God. :)

Watch this short video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc).

techboy

January-29th-2009, 12:19 AM

Also, yours is not a "common sense" argument. It's a nonsense argument arising from a very mis-informed false premise. Be prepared for techboy or someone else to clue you in to how little you grasp regarding evolution. Carry on.

I'm too tired to give out the specifics, as I should have been in bed two hours ago (and this time, there will be no snow day to save me :(), but as i noted above, this is correct in two senses.

Perhaps PeterMP will stumble onto this and add something more.

MonkFan8

January-29th-2009, 12:19 AM

Also, yours is not a "common sense" argument. It's a nonsense argument arising from a very mis-informed false premise. Be prepared for techboy or someone else to clue you in to how little you grasp regarding evolution. Carry on.Allow me. We didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them.

And techboy, but I'm sorry, the moral argument for God's existence is so weak it's ridiculous.

STBonecrusher21

January-29th-2009, 12:20 AM

This thread is not as fun as I thought it would be :(

Somebody start an argument!!!!!!!!!!

It's startin to heat up now!

:munchout: