Any atheist among us?

[SoCal Operator]

I actually like this. This discourse has been very civil, people can express their views without feeling threatened, someone even said "I believe you are wrong" and didn't start a flame war. As for the Bible, I am not Christian, but I don't think the book should be dismissed because of some fallacies. It still has good lessons in it. In the end, it comes down to what you feel is right about it.

P.S. In case anyone was wondering, I'm a Pastafarian.

[snuffaluff]

.....
To play a little devils advocate though... Texas Guy, the bible is an article of faith. The faithful need it, and while I may be on the same side of the street as you in some ways... a critical analysis of any article of faith is a lost battle before you start it. The book has value to those who subscribe to that belief system because they believe God spoke through his servants on Earth to have the thing written, over the course of about 2500 years... by as many as 500 different authors... and after which he completely stopped doing the miracle thing... and that value cannot be detracted from by simple logic.

Anyhow, I've taken up enough space with this... hopefully I put forth some thought provoking arguments and lost no friends in doing so. :o

I'll start out with this. This is the most factual statement so far. The bible itself is something to behold. No other book could be written in the same manner as the Bible]Now, Genesis 2 states that Eve came from the rib of Adam. That is, God created Adam, Adam named all the animals, and then God gave him crazy knockout juice, took his rib, and made Eve from it. (which reminds me of a really inappropriate joke) We all know the story. The odd thing is that Genesis 1, verse 27... which, in my hard copy of the bible is all of 2 pages before Genesis 2's verse, clearly states that men and women were created at the same time.[/quote]

Good example. Maybe Genesis 2 is the detailed version of Gen. 1:27 ?

Jordan also touched on the Red Sea and how the Jewish people made it across dry land because God parted the waters for them.
You have to remember that we are talking about God here. He also led them by a pillar of fire during the night, and a pillar of smoke/cloud during the day. While they wondered around in the desert for 40 years he provided all for them, not even their sandals wore out. BTW, it was more like 2 or 3 million people, not "several thousand". This number of people brings up even more questions, like, how'd they survive in the desert? God my friend, he provides all they need, and they needed a lot. I'll post an email I received awhile back about this in a later post. Back on topic, you cannot say the God couldn't do these things, just like it's very difficult to prove they did, if you can at all(I don't think things like this will ever be proven; just like evolution)

I've been distracted so many times, i'm just posting this as is... hahaha
I'll come back in a bit.

[snuffaluff]

Oh yeah, I was going to post this email.....(sorry for the format)

Moses and the people were in the desert, but what was he going to do with
>them?
>
>They had to be fed, and feeding 2 or 3 million people requires a lot of
>food.
>
>According to the Quartermaster General in the Army, it is reported that
>Moses would have to have had 1500 tons of food each day.
>Do you know that to bring that much food each day, two freight trains, each
>at least a mile long, would be required!
>
>Besides you must remember, they were out in the desert, so they would have
>to have firewood to use in cooking the food.
>This would take 4000 tons of wood and a few more freight trains, each a
>mile long, just for one day.
>
>And just think, they were forty years in transit.
>
>And Oh yes! They would have to have water. If they only had enough to drink
>and wash a few dishes, it would take 11,000,000 gallons each day and a
>freight train with tank cars, 1800 miles long, just to bring water!
>
>And then another thing!
>
>They had to get across the Red Sea at night. Now, if they went on a narrow
>path, double file, the line would be 800 miles long and would
>require 35 days and nights to get through. So there had to be a space in
>the Red Sea, 3 miles wide so that they could walk 5000 abreast to get over
>in one night.
>
>But then, there is another problem...............each time they camped at
>the end of the day, a campground two-thirds the size of the state
>of Rhode Island was required, or a total of 750 square miles long........
>think of it! This much space for camping.
>
>Do you think Moses figured all this out before he left Egypt? I think not!
>
>You see, Moses believed in God. God took care of these things for him.

[Jordan]

BTW, it was more like 2 or 3 million people, not "several thousand".

See... the issue with that is, well, there haven't been many mass emmigrations of that size in the history of mankind (at least... since cultures developed who had an interest in recording history) that have gone COMPLETELY undetected. No verification by artifacts, other contemporary sources... nothing, just the bible.

Nobody can say it didn't happen, but sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, and frankly, the way science and history work is that you compile evidence to support your theories, you can't just fall onto the point that it can't be disproven.

Philosophically speaking, I hope dearly that it all happened. A world with a personified deity who directly interacts with us is exciting!!! Why, its downright sexy. For the same reason, I hope vampires, pirate ghosts, underwear gnomes and Santa Claus exist... but without finding an underground textile manufacturing plant in the northpole, we have to fall back on what we do have evidence for, that this is an orderly universe in which all things can eventually be explained. Like Einstein said, "Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe." We are all reading from the same page, those of you who give your faith to God and those of us who instead give it to future members of our species who might unlock the remaining mysteries that confound our orderly universe... its just that neither of us completely understands the handwriting.

[spydermdz]

I my view there is just about nothing good in the bible. Even the decalogue is flawed. Though shall not kill? What about self defence. Thought shall not covet thy neighbor wife? This is flawed be cause it is an attack on thought not action. It also eliminates choice for the wife. Aside from the nit picking, the main problem is that there is no I in the bible only we. The bible advocates self-lessness and thus colectivism.
Some common forms of god are logicall impossible. I really don't have time to get into this but for the disproof of this model of god read Objectivism: The Philiosophy Ayn Rand.

Dude, you are seriously showing your arse. Please use your head and think cognitively. Perhaps thats what makes you and your God-less cohorts not christian. YOU DONT UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE CONCEPT CALLED FAITH. Faith is believing in something without seeing it. In order for one to call himself a christian, we must believe in things we cant see. (Ephesians 2:8) If you cant do that, well ok. But trying to explain God or pick his brain is comical and makes you look like a total moron.

Stick with knife chat.


On another note, trying to argue or convince someone on an internet forum that they just didnt evolve and come from nowhere is retarded. So I will leave this picture for you all.



On another note, for any fellow military service member on board, the saying rings true. "If there is no such thing as God, then why is it that there has never been an atheist in a foxhole?" I rest my case. You guys have fun trying to convince the blokes on board God exists. IMO, you are beating a dead horse. Physically and Spiritually.

[Chucula]

Dude, you are seriously showing your arse. Please use your head and think cognitively. Perhaps thats what makes you and your God-less cohorts not christian. YOU DONT UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE CONCEPT CALLED FAITH. Faith is believing in something without seeing it. In order for one to call himself a christian, we must believe in things we cant see. (Ephesians 2:8) If you cant do that, well ok. But trying to explain God or pick his brain is comical and makes you look like a total moron.

Stick with knife chat.

and now we are getting ugly :D
politics and religion... :rolleyes: how about we pull out the ol' lock and throw away the key

[cobrajoe]

and now we are getting ugly :D
politics and religion... :rolleyes: how about we pull out the ol' lock and throw away the key

Yes, lets please keep it civil. There has been a few good thoughts on each side, so why stoop to name calling?

Each person is entitled to their own beliefs, that is a cornerstone on which our constitution was written. Granted the right to free speach is annother cornerstone, but when friendly discussion turns to insults and name calling, all forward progress just stops.

[spydermdz]

No, forward progress stops when a person set in their mindset against something starts a thread pretending to be inquisitive about it. In fact, there was no progress from the start.

I am sorry if any "atheists" were offended. :eek:

[Terry Trahan]

I think we can keep this going in the vein it was meant in, as long as
we keep the insults out of it.
I know I am learning alot from both sides of the argument.
Over 15 replies, and only one bad one, that's not to bad for a subject like this.

[spydermdz]

I think we can keep this going in the vein it was meant in, as long as
we keep the insults out of it.
I know I am learning alot from both sides of the argument.
Over 15 replies, and only one bad one, that's not to bad for a subject like this.

Roger, Terry. Thats right. My post was the only "bad" one. So I will stay out of the thread unless someone makes a comment towards me that I feel the need to address. Good luck on the thread.

[snuffaluff]

See... the issue with that is, well, there haven't been many mass emmigrations of that size in the history of mankind (at least... since cultures developed who had an interest in recording history) that have gone COMPLETELY undetected. No verification by artifacts, other contemporary sources... nothing, just the bible.

Nobody can say it didn't happen, but sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, and frankly, the way science and history work is that you compile evidence to support your theories, you can't just fall onto the point that it can't be disproven....

Ok, so because there's not enough evidence to prove it scientifically, you won't believe it? Why is that? There are plenty of things in the scientific world that are taught as fact when they aren't. I really don't want to get into this one, but evolution is the main theory taught as fact, and to me, that's wrong. Big Bang is taught as fact when it isn't. Infact, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science ALL done by man? At the very least, I can say that I believe the bible to be God inspired; that, in it's most simplistic way, was written by men who were indwelled with the spirit of God as what to write.

[cdf]

Personally , I'm an agnostic , none of the conventional explanations / models I have been exposed to seem to add up . The Question is way above my paygrade . I would never deny the existance of God , neither am I convinced of it .

In the event that he does exist ( I'm not ruling this out ) , his scope and intent are unknown to me .

Chris

[Michael Cook]

There are plenty of things in the scientific world that are taught as fact when they aren't... evolution is the main theory taught as fact, and to me, that's wrong. Big Bang is taught as fact when it isn't. Infact, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science ALL done by man?

:spyder: Evolution is not taught as fact by people who understand science or the scientific method. Science is just a tool for verifying emperical observations. That's it. Stating that there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting evolution is not the same as calling it a fact.

Science does not address any of the same issues that religion addresses. Articles of faith cannot be examined using the scientific method. :spyder:

[Jordan]

Snuff, I am a fairly simple guy. I go by what I can observe in my environment, and I try to take those observations and extrapolate explanations regarding what I do not have the power to observe due to biological or scientific limitations. That is why I have made the choice to believe that human beings are the latest in a chain of evolutionary changes which began with single celled acquatic organisms. And why I believe, with equal vigor, that the universe began with a massive explosion long, long ago. These theorems make sense to me because they follow my own empirical observations of the world around me. I see a solid fossil record that indicates the advent of our species from the ape, I see an astronomical record that indicates a universe expanding outward from a central point. To me, these are tangible. Whether these things are caused by, or guided by, a deity... well, I couldn't say. But, that deity doesn't balance out the equation in my mind the way these theories do.

See... I feel that religion is built around a premise that people try to modify as new evidence becomes available, whereas I feel that science is the result of observing evidence and then formulating a premise based on the available evidence. When evidence materializes which disproves the current premise in religion, it seems to me that the evidence is looked upon as suspect rather than the premise. Whereas, in science, it seems to me that when a premise becomes obsolete, scientists look at the new set of data, and formulate a new hypothesis. In doing so, I am forced to stand on the shoulders of giants and have faith in the fact that their observations are accurate, and I have to have faith that at some point, these unprovable theories will be validated by NEW evidence.

If you don't mind me asking, why is it that the God construct attracts you the way it does? What makes that universe easier to understand in your mind? I don't mean that as a conversion tact or an insult, mind you. I do not pretend to think that my way is better than yours... I'm just curious.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Dear Friends,

I normally would not jump into such a topic, however there is a point that I believe needs clarifying...

Thou shall not kill? What about self defense?

I have spoken with many ordained ministers of different faiths on this very topic, and we need to be more specific. The command is not "Thou shalt not kill"]innocent[/B] life. Someone attempting to do you harm is not considered innocent, and so the dynamics of the situation are changed.

You would be surprised how much more sense the Bible makes when explained by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. :D

--------
Hannibal

[edkrueger]

If you look at the church from an outside viewpoint it is a business. The church "sells" salvation for a "profit". And if you don't think the church profits, how do you think the "staff" (pastors, cardinals, etc.) get paid. Now I'm not saying that the church dosn't turn around and do some positive things with this profit, they do, but that in turn ultimatly helps them acquire more profit. The church is structured just like business, you can't deny that.

Obviously... People work for profit and are self interested but this does not mean that they are greedy and there is nothing wrong about business.

[edkrueger]

Dear Friends,

I normally would not jump into such a topic, however there is apoint that I believe needs clarifying...



I have spoken with many ordained ministers of different faiths on this very topic, and we need to be more specific. The command is not "Thou shalt not kill"]innocent[/B] life. Someone attempting to do you harm is not considered innocent, and so the dynamics of the situation are changed.

You would be surprised how much more sense the Bible makes when explained by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. :D

--------
Hannibal

Ok perhaps thats what it means but, thats not what it says. Also reading the bible you do get a sense that self defence is wrong. (The new testament)

[para-force]

Ok perhaps thats what it means but, thats not what it says. Also reading the bible you do get a sense that self defence is wrong. (The new testament)

I don't know about Christian law, but I know that the Torah and The Talmud are very lenient towards the principles of defending one's self in the presence of an aggressor.

Here's an interesting read about the Torah and self defense if anyone's interested.
http://tinyurl.com/yx5km8

[snuffaluff]

:spyder: Evolution is not taught as fact by people who understand science or the scientific method. Science is just a tool for verifying emperical observations. That's it. Stating that there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting evolution is not the same as calling it a fact.

Science does not address any of the same issues that religion addresses. Articles of faith cannot be examined using the scientific method. :spyder:

I agree with what you are saying here. My question is this: Why isn't creation taught in schools then? Wouldn't it be "fair" to teach more than one point of view on the subject? I think it would. When I was in school, I don't recall evolution being taught as theory. Yes, it was presented as the theory of evolution, but without knowing what the other side thinks. Well, I hope you see the point.

[snuffaluff]

Snuff, I am a fairly simple guy. I go by what I can observe in my environment, and I try to take those observations and extrapolate explanations regarding what I do not have the power to observe due to biological or scientific limitations. That is why I have made the choice to believe that human beings are the latest in a chain of evolutionary changes which began with single celled acquatic organisms. And why I believe, with equal vigor, that the universe began with a massive explosion long, long ago. These theorems make sense to me because they follow my own empirical observations of the world around me. I see a solid fossil record that indicates the advent of our species from the ape, I see an astronomical record that indicates a universe expanding outward from a central point. To me, these are tangible. Whether these things are caused by, or guided by, a deity... well, I couldn't say. But, that deity doesn't balance out the equation in my mind the way these theories do.

See... I feel that religion is built around a premise that people try to modify as new evidence becomes available, whereas I feel that science is the result of observing evidence and then formulating a premise based on the available evidence. When evidence materializes which disproves the current premise in religion, it seems to me that the evidence is looked upon as suspect rather than the premise. Whereas, in science, it seems to me that when a premise becomes obsolete, scientists look at the new set of data, and formulate a new hypothesis. In doing so, I am forced to stand on the shoulders of giants and have faith in the fact that their observations are accurate, and I have to have faith that at some point, these unprovable theories will be validated by NEW evidence.

No offense taken at all.
I'm a fairly simple guy myself. I also go by what is tangible in this world, and what I observe here and there.
If you believe that life began from a single celled aquatic organism, may I ask where you believe that organism came from? If man did evolve from apes, where are all of those "inbetweens"? The 3/4 man 1/4 ape? And what about all the "inbetweens" of other species of animals?
You said something that caught my eye. "When evidence materializes which disproves the current premise in religion, it seems to me that the evidence is looked upon as suspect rather than the premise."
Did you have something particular in mind when you said this? I'd like to know what scientific fact has proven something wrong in religion.(christianity since that's what we're really talking about here)

why is it that the God construct attracts you the way it does? What makes that universe easier to understand in your mind?

I have a very difficult time thinking that the pretty much perfect way that nature intertwines itself came from some chance explosion that spurred on life as we know it. To me, it all seems way too perfect to fit the chance of evolution being real. Someone created all this, just like the example of a watch. All those small pieces working together in unison, to make the whole thing function. Nature is the same to me. Everything working together for the function of the whole.