Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

May 10, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Comments
101 - 120 of 288 Comments Last updated Jun 2, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
May 17, 2013
 
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>What is useful to you, I find as trash, without the nutrient value.
Of course you do.

You are quite clearly, insane.

As such, you find "value" in ... literally nothing at all!

And you casually dismiss 1000's of human-years of accumulated scientific achievement, just because you are too uneducated to comprehend it.

Or because you find it... "icky".

As I said?

You are quite insane.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
May 17, 2013
 
Twilight wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspected it ALL along.FINALLY,SOMETHING WITH REAL FACTS AND NOT BIBLE SCRIPTURES! I do believe in god, I also believe in science. This should be told to everyone.
I wanted more info, but the link is broken.:-(
I really wanted to look up the article.:-D
Here you go:
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Alas, this link appears to be defunct-- I'd have loved to read the original bit.

Do you have a different source?

All I could find was this, dated back to 2005
" http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.p... ;
and this (same article, different site)
" http://globalhealth.washington.edu/docs/Bezru... ;

Apparently the original Journal is not on-line.

Still, thanks for the interesting bit.
Misa

Saint Austell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
May 17, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You had an actual... point?
You damn betcha I missed it
Obviously.

It was simply this: if there is no evidence for something, it does not follow that the thing in question does not exist. That's it. No more, no less.

As I pointed out, the history of science is filled with counterexamples to the idea that absence of evidence _proves_ non-existence.

Of course it would be irrational, in that scenario, to believe completely that the thing _does_ exist. But that doesn't argue against my original point.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemolog...
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
But you are wrong-- the RATIONAL view, if there is no evidence, is to assume the idea is false.
Belief does not need to be all-or-nothing. Are you familiar with Bayesian inference? You probably are, but possibly not with its name.

The very rough idea is that the more evidence you accumulate in favour of a proposition, the greater your degree of belief in that proposition (and of course your degree of belief decreases if expected evidence is not found, or evidence to the contrary is found).

That is a far more precise notion of rationalism than simply saying "if there is no evidence... assume the idea is false", which often leads to error.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
May 17, 2013
 
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Simple concept here, try to follow along.
I say the scientific community says (as a group, although certainly not 100%- always one wacko out there) there is no proof for anything.
Did I mention you are insane?

You are.

You apparently only see the world in black or white--with nothing in-between.

Sadly for you? The Universe is neither black nor white--it is shades of grey-- an infinity of shades of grey, in fact.

Take Quantum Mechanics: that is probabilistic. There is nothing in that theory that is either 0% or 100%, it's all in-between.

But obviously, that's not good enough for YOU.

You demand a Light Switch.

Exactly as an insane person would...

... sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
May 17, 2013
 
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Simple concept here, try to follow along.
I say the scientific community says (as a group, although certainly not 100%- always one wacko out there) there is no proof for anything.
This is taught and expounded upon by the professionals.
It seems obvious to me that 'soul' is an 'anything', real, imaginary, chocolate covered, whatever, still an 'anything'.
You do not deny this, yet request proof about attributes of the soul.
Doesn't your request strike you as 'odd'.
A primary pillar of your belief system - science - says something is not possible, and yet you want to see it.
What your belief system says does not exist, is what you most want to see in these discussions, not from your own group, but from others.
You want pixie dust.
Nothing you said-- not one word-- is supportive of your claim for the existence of this ... "soul" thingy.

Nothing.

You have no supportive arguments. You have zero evidence.

You don't even present a philosophy!

You simply attacked ME. You built a straw-man of what you THINK I am-- and you flailed at that-- in a vain attempt to knock it down.

It is quite safe to assume that there is no soul, until you at least >>TRY<< to argue in support of it.

Instead of acting like... a dick.`

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
May 17, 2013
 
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
science is NOT belief system,nor is atheism
and it surely does NOT say theres no proof of anything!
perhaps you started dipping in the jar early today?
He is quite insane, as far as I can tell.

He writes lovely word-salad, devoid of actual content.

His stuff is kind of like styrofoam peanuts... light, fluffy, makes a lovely squeaky-noise when squished.

But not all that useful once you've removed the valuables from within.

:D
Misa

Saint Austell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
May 17, 2013
 
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>And what is it that you thinks prevents scientists from doing human vivasections?
They would not learn anything new?
It's unethical and illegal.

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Ethics _the discipline_ is worth studying.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but your point above doesn't address that.
BeHereNow wrote:
...Epistemology is not a dead subject, in science or any other area.
I didn't say it was. Just that it has been becoming less worth studying as a discipline.
BeHereNow wrote:
Within the last half century the Scientific method has expanded to include computer models for experiments - not possibloe without epistemology.
The only epistemology required to develop computer models was that already subsumed into the sciences.
xianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
May 17, 2013
 
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously.
It was simply this: if there is no evidence for something, it does not follow that the thing in question does not exist. That's it. No more, no less.
if god is defined as being everywhere,there should be evidence of it everywhere,

if theres no evidence it obviously doesnt exist

nice vid on god
http://youtu.be/ODetOE6cbbc

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
May 17, 2013
 
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
if god is defined as being everywhere,there should be evidence of it everywhere,
if theres no evidence it obviously doesnt exist
nice vid on god
http://youtu.be/ODetOE6cbbc
You make a very excellent point.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
May 18, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
One flaw, but otherwise okay. We do not believe there is "no god," we simply do not believe in the gods presented. A gnostic atheist believes there is no god, an agnostic atheist believes that there might be a god but those presented are unsupported. I do wish people would actually learn the difference between theism and gnosticism.
oops, it seems I am about to quibble with two persons I mostly agree with on matters of definition. I generally like both you and Bob, but I have these differences on definition. I am not so sure how different our views are, because that is not clear enough unless our definitions are clear.

I regard the words agnostic and gnostic as referring to whether or not one makes a knowledge claim about one's own knowledge, first of all. Agnostic means not to make a knowledge claim, and can be used as a modifier for one's opinion - or lack thereof - for many matters, not just religion. I am agnostic about the Big Bang, for example. I do not claim to know whether it is a true or false theory. I also do not have any belief about whether it is true or false. I generally think that scientists are a bit too pushy in asserting that they know things, and my reaction is often "not so fast." That does not mean I think the opposite of what they claim to be true, or that what they claim is definately not true.

Agnosticism with regard to the God issue, is best defined as not claiming knowledge about the existence of a God, god, Gods, or gods. I am an agnostic in that sense. Not making a knowledge claim about my own knowledge.(I have strong suspicions that no one knows, ever has known, or ever will know, but that is another matter).

I do not believe in any God or gods that I have ever heard about, but that non-belief makes me an atheist with regard to them - not a complete atheist, not a gnostic atheist, and not an agnostic.
I would define a complete atheist as someone who does not believe in any God, Gods, god, or gods, without the qualifier "that I have ever heard about". I would define a gnostic atheist as one who claims to know there is no God.

I define myself as an agnostic atheist, with the qualifier "that I have ever heard about."

I hope this explanation makes sense to you and makes it clearer than if I were too argumentative with you, or with Bob. I wonder whether you - or he - would accept my version of agnostic atheism (with qualifier) as a very reasonable attitude to take. I also wonder whether you would accept my definations, and the way they differ slightly from yours.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
May 18, 2013
 
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
if god is defined as being everywhere,there should be evidence of it everywhere,
if theres no evidence it obviously doesnt exist
nice vid on god
http://youtu.be/ODetOE6cbbc
depends on how you define god. If one defines god as everything that exists everywhere, even in dimensions not known to humans, then that god so defined does exist. It is a far cry from the Christian version of God, if that is the one you are discussing as being what God is (or is not).
I think a case can be made for the existence of the Christian God, since it is enough of a nasty actor and this is enough of a nasty universe that they are not badly matched. In which case I am closer to agreeing with your topix name, that Christianity is (largely) evil - which I think is a clearly proven case - rather than that it is false - which I regard as a merely sensible opinion about something (the orthodox Christian view) that is unproven nonsense and horrid.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
May 18, 2013
 
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously.
It was simply this: if there is no evidence for something, it does not follow that the thing in question does not exist. That's it. No more, no less.
As I pointed out, the history of science is filled with counterexamples to the idea that absence of evidence _proves_ non-existence.
Of course it would be irrational, in that scenario, to believe completely that the thing _does_ exist. But that doesn't argue against my original point.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemolog...
<quoted text>
Belief does not need to be all-or-nothing. Are you familiar with Bayesian inference? You probably are, but possibly not with its name.
The very rough idea is that the more evidence you accumulate in favour of a proposition, the greater your degree of belief in that proposition (and of course your degree of belief decreases if expected evidence is not found, or evidence to the contrary is found).
That is a far more precise notion of rationalism than simply saying "if there is no evidence... assume the idea is false", which often leads to error.
Here you are arguing with Bob, and here I disagree with each of you slightly, as I tried to explain above. I tried to explain it in such a way as to state my own views, both about what are proper definitions of certain words, and about what is the most rational opinion to hold: i. e. agnostic atheism (with the qualifier that atheism refers to all gods I have ever heard of, and with the definition of agnostic as not making a knowledge claim regarding my opinion). If you and Bob would please read and reply to my comment or comments above, maybe they we could see whether we are much closer together than we seem - and we are certainly closer together in views than we are to the true believer types, whom we all oppose. Maybe we can find ways to narrow our apparent slight differences, with enough qualifiers, to get to the common core of opinion which we share. Then the nuances will appear to be as slight as I suspect they are. And the real differences will be more interesting to discuss, when we have clearly idenfified them. I much prefer slight quibbles and clarifications with the wise people to arguing with superstitious idiots, except when I am in a bad mood and need to unload my hostilities on someone distant and stupid~ I am feeling only slightly hostile today, due to weather forecast of possible tornado activity tomorrow night, which makes me hostile to believers in an allgoodallpowerful God, whom I usually regard as mostly being brainwashed and stupid.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
May 18, 2013
 
I think it is interesting to explore what one means by "knowing" as part of a detailed discussion about what one knows about God. Though I insist that I am an agnostic atheist with regard to most Gods, I do claim to have a certain type of knowledge with regard to the God defined as existing, and as being allgood and allpowerful. I claim that cannot be possible, given the horrid things in the universe, and especially on this planet. Senator Cruz, and a dead squirrel on the road, are both proof to me that there cannot be an allgoodallpowerful God. Both prove the existence of some type of "evil." Evil in my view involves infliction of pain, and suffering of pain. It does not necessarily imply free will, which I do not really believe in.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
May 18, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I "know" the exact same as you: zip, nada, nothing.
But you idiotic True Believers™ claim you "know" far more than that...
That was #81, in reply to the apparent true believer, and was in the context of discussion of a soul and afterlife. If you can take such a nice agnostic view with regard to the soul, why not also an agnostic position with regard to a God? And then add the atheist position which is most compatible with an agnostic view, since the two fit together perfectly, are a modest claim, and unassailable, I think. If you merely do not believe in any God you have ever heard of, and do not claim to know, on what ground could any rational person attack you? Same with not believing in an afterlife, but not claiming to know? Seems to me that is the high ground and no attacker is rational against it.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
May 18, 2013
 
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
what is True atheist?
I dont believe worhip god ergo atheist,could god exist,sure,thats why Im also agnostic,,
heck there could be millions of gods,until someone proves them real,Ill remain atheist
the labels are Irrelevant imo as long as One is honest
and from my experience atheists beat theists hands down in honesty,
www.godchecker.com
that was to beherenow and seems to be very close to the view I have been expressing.

however, it does no harm to educate people properly with regard to definitions, so they will understand.

agnosticism deals with knowledge claims.
atheism deals with belief.
one gets to select one from column a and one from column b.

one also gets to explain whether one refers to the Christian God, the Monotheistic God of the big three religions, the Greek gods, any god one has heard of, any god one has skimmed godchecker to see discussed, or any possible definition of God whether one has heard of it or not.

I get the impression that you and I make the same selections.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
May 18, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Sincere educated people still believe in God.
Sincere educated people who believe in God vote.
President Obama and Vice President Biden believe in God and made this known during the 2012 campaign.
Peace
OK, but there are differences in the type of God that people believe in, and the type of ethics (including political and social policy) that people believe in and think to be consistent with their religious views.

If you are in the peace and religion camp that is better than being in the atheism and war camp, in my view. If your ethics include letting government fund the food stamp program adequately to take care of all those who need food (especially if it includes healthy fruits and vegetables from local farmers' markets, and excludes bottle deposits), then you can believe in the Virgin Mary for all I care. I am a very tolerant agnostic atheist. I like kind compassionate believers better than I like any agnostic/atheist/skeptic type who is cruel and hard-hearted. I do not advocate wiping out left-wing religion - we need it to help combat right-wing religion. I even like lefty Mormons like Huntsman and the Udalls. By left I mean kind and compassionate and peace-loving, and liberty-loving in the true sense, not as an excuse for an attitude of the devil take the hindmost.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
May 18, 2013
 
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> That was #81, in reply to the apparent true believer, and was in the context of discussion of a soul and afterlife. If you can take such a nice agnostic view with regard to the soul, why not also an agnostic position with regard to a God? And then add the atheist position which is most compatible with an agnostic view, since the two fit together perfectly, are a modest claim, and unassailable, I think. If you merely do not believe in any God you have ever heard of, and do not claim to know, on what ground could any rational person attack you? Same with not believing in an afterlife, but not claiming to know? Seems to me that is the high ground and no attacker is rational against it.
Are you familiar with the Dawkins scale? The one where he defines a scale from 1 (true believer) to 7 (exact opposite)?

Here: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei... ;

And here:
Dawkin Scale wrote:
1) Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2) De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3) Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4) Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5) Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6) De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7) Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
I am a 6, with respect to the very generalized meme "god"--that is, the one which is so ill-defined, it can be twisted to mean just about anything: from the blind, non-sentient rules of the Universe (Einstein's so-called god) to Ancient Aliens with Amazing Powers/Technology and any branches in-between.

However. Once a god has been defined? Such as, the god described in the BuyBull or Quoran?

That god-- I'm a 7. Because the definitions within the books in question describe a being which cannot exist. You simply cannot have a square-circle, no matter how much you twist reality.

Unfortunately, the nebulous, un-defined deities are seldom on anybodies' Agenda. Your average god-zealot, has a *firm* definition in mind, when he's thinking about "god".
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
May 18, 2013
 
True Christian witness wrote:
Uneducated and poor people who are meek and not self righteous, are able to discern the truth when it is presented and proven to them, especially by the proof in the Bible. JOhn 17:17
The true Atheist is of his own making, no one is born an Atheist, just as no one is born with beliefs.
A true Chistian is one that has been taught the truth of God's word, and tries to live as Jesus would in this unrighteous world.
John 17:3
Please be specific with regard to how one lives as Jesus would. Would Jesus have supported the US invasion of Iraq? Would Jesus support adequate government funding of food stamps, or would he say just let them starve, or work for low wages enough to stay alive, or beg from the rich. Your ethical views are not not specific, nor are your religious views when you use the word "truth." Do you think people will go to hell if they do not believe Jesus is the virgin-born only son of God sent to earth to save only those who believe that he was sent to shed his blood as a sacrifice for the sins of those wo believe that he was the virgin-born son of God, etc. etc? If so, you are nuts. but if you believe in peace and oppose war, and are for kind and compassionate government policies, you might be a very "nice" person anyhow.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
May 18, 2013
 
havent forgotten wrote:
that was to beherenow and seems to be very close to the view I have been expressing.

however, it does no harm to educate people properly with regard to definitions, so they will understand.

agnosticism deals with knowledge claims.
atheism deals with belief.
one gets to select one from column a and one from column b.

one also gets to explain whether one refers to the Christian God, the Monotheistic God of the big three religions, the Greek gods, any god one has heard of, any god one has skimmed godchecker to see discussed, or any possible definition of God whether one has heard of it or not.

I get the impression that you and I make the same selections.
Of course?

There is Theoretical Fun. A game that can be amusing to play, especially when trying to talk to your typical god-robot.

With Theoretical Fun, the idea goes like this: since even the most avid godbot admits that Faith is a requirement, due to a lack of evidence?

Then we can safely say, that it's all Theoretical anyhow-- no evidence.(Here, I'm using the common definition of "theoretical' not the scientific one--just to be clear.)

So since it *is* theoretical? That means it likely does not matter *which* deity we choose from among the herd.

So, we non-believers can play with the minds of god-robots, by "choosing" from among the many different gods, that abound in human history-- even including the ones from fiction (such as Cthulhu).

My current "choice" is Thor, the Thunder God.

Mainly because it amuses me, to put Thor against the more common gods, such as Jesus or Moohumud.

I rather enjoy, contrasting Thor's willingness to actually fight evil--directly, and with prejudice.

In contrast with Jesus, who was pretty much a panzy/pacifist (except for those two times, when he tossed the money-changers (and expressed an opinion on Capitalism--he was against it) and that poor Fig, who failed to produce fruit out-of-season (which goes to show Jesus would have hated Fig Newtons).

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
May 18, 2013
 
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> OK, but there are differences in the type of God that people believe in, and the type of ethics (including political and social policy) that people believe in and think to be consistent with their religious views.
If you are in the peace and religion camp that is better than being in the atheism and war camp, in my view. If your ethics include letting government fund the food stamp program adequately to take care of all those who need food (especially if it includes healthy fruits and vegetables from local farmers' markets, and excludes bottle deposits), then you can believe in the Virgin Mary for all I care. I am a very tolerant agnostic atheist. I like kind compassionate believers better than I like any agnostic/atheist/skeptic type who is cruel and hard-hearted. I do not advocate wiping out left-wing religion - we need it to help combat right-wing religion. I even like lefty Mormons like Huntsman and the Udalls. By left I mean kind and compassionate and peace-loving, and liberty-loving in the true sense, not as an excuse for an attitude of the devil take the hindmost.
Just so you know?

Lincoln-log-for-brains is only a common Troll.

He really does not engage in conversation-- but rather copy-pastes short "pithy" sh7t from various Liars For Jewsus websites here and there.

You can tell, when he is *not* copy-pasting too-- his grammar and spelling quickly drops to something a 2nd grade drop-out might struggle with...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

7 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 21 min Buck Crick 375
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 224,176
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 3 hr Reason Personified 272
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr Richardfs 218
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 6 hr NightSerf 21,394
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 19 hr DonPanic 1,285
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu religionisillness 834
•••
•••