|
Religion is and will always be our way of coping with things we don't understand
The more science starts to shed light on ideas, religions begin to change their tones. Prime example...Christians who acknowledge evolution. If you are a Christian and believe in evolution, then you can't use the bible as the all knowing book that has all the answers. Once you throw one part out, the rest goes with it. This is what religion doesn't seem to understand, and why there are so many sects of so many different religions.
Just break down Christianity
Non Denominational
Catholic
Baptist
Anglican
Methodist
...so on and so forth
Right here is the reason in not believing. Everyone has their take on the bible. That being said, everyone is supposed to have their own take on it. The book is full of scriptures that can be turned into what you want it to mean. This isn't an uncommon way of writing. Many people believe this is how Nostradamus worked as well. You write something vague and doll it up with words that have multiple meanings and phrases that can be construed in many ways, then years down the road something happens and we assume that what was written was meant for this event in time.
If you are reading the bible and coming to the conclusion that
- The world was created in 7 days
- The Great Flood
- Jonah surviving being eaten by a whale
- Jesus being the Son of God
and all that other stuff in the bible...
You are a wishful thinker and I commend you for having so much faith. I really wish I could have that much faith in something so ridiculous...but unfortunately, I have thoughts...and those can really fuck up the whole faith thing. (Thank you Lewis Black)
For me to believe Christianity is more than just a way to keep people in line, then I would have to believe in the creationism story. I'm sorry, I'm just not that narrow minded. Honestly the book loses all credit in the first chapter and yet people still use it as though it is the ultimate truth. It blows my fucking mind. People can fire back and forth at each other over religion and we will never get anywhere. The only way we get anywhere is acceptance. Everyone has their opinions, and I really don't fucking care if your religion tells you to preach the gospel to all the world...that scripture is out dated. Obviously if we aren't living in the African jungle right now, we know what the fuck Christianity is. We don't need you to tell us your beliefs, we get it. People get mad at Atheists for attacking Christianity, and I'm sorry but you know, it wasn't us who started it.
As for how I deal with it, I enjoy the motto "To each his own" until someone comes and tells me why I am going to hell. When that happens, I have the tendency to tell them why they are a fucking idiot. Seems like a fair trade off. If they are this great Christian then there should be nothing that I can say to convince them they are on the wrong path, so why are they bothered by it so much? Listen I know from the Christian perspective why I'd be going to hell if it existed. I really don't need your list, I understand.
Reasons why I am going to hell
- Lust: I enjoy wanting things, be it sex, money, worldly possessions.
- Gluttony: Chances are everyone wastes food, or money or something so good luck on the heaven thing.
- Greed: I'm a degenerate poker player, enough said.
- Sloth: I'm surely not using all my talents and skills to will of god if he existed.
- Wrath: I've hated people, and I still hate people.
- Envy: I definitely wish I was Justin Timberlake...that kid can dance like nobodies business
- Pride: I'm always proud. I don't let things go to my head, but I'm proud of the things of done in life, and I don't credit god for them
The Seven Deadly Sins, I've covered them all.
Now I want to respond to this...
On January 30 2008 03:44 TechniQ.UK wrote:
What is it in particular that convinces you Christianity is the one true religion?
i.e. What makes it more "correct" than any other religion in the world.
Basically if you look at the main stream religions that exist today, if you believe in a god you can narrow it down to about 4, Muslims worship a god who many christians including myself believe to be a small g (god) a diety that links back to satan why is this allah not the same as the God of the bible? 1. The bible teaches that Yah'shua (Jesus) was THE saviour, he was the messiah the prophet, however the quran contradicts this by saying that Yah'shua is only to come later a 2nd time and isnt as important as mohammed. The quran is like the 3rd or 4th holy book in the world in chronological order of the abrahamic religions, it came after Yah'shua returned to heaven and its saying that all the rules have changed and that in some twisted way that theres a new more important prophet and salvation comes through all this other stuff and doesn't mention faith much, also theres parts where the quran says that allah went down to hell and started torturing souls there for i think it was amusement?? Sorry but going from us being saved and being back in the love of the father and then out of nowhere its like all of this stuff, no im sorry but this isn't our Lord and saviour and its not the God of the bible. There is also a lot of evidence to show that most of islam is based on idolatry of like stones, which the bible also warns against.
Sikhism is kinda like i don't know much about God but its like hes everywhere, created life and is kinda just there, salvation comes through enlightenment, this is basically buddhism, sikhism and other indian/eastern religions in a nut shell, so theres nothing much going on there they get information from so called gurus with like 0 evidence.
Judaism is basically what came before Christianity but has decided not to move on when Christianity came, why? im not sure but there is quite a lot of parts of judaism who do believe in the messiah so there i think on the way to salvation.
Allah is the same fucking God you worship...deal with it. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, not the son of god. I don't believe in Islam either, but to say the God Muslims worship is a deity smaller than the God you worship is beyond fucking amazingly stupid.
Sikhism believes in one God, and believes he is omnipresent. God is everywhere, not far off from the Christian God who is all knowing eh?
Judaism didn't move on because they don't fucking have to. According to the Bible, THEY ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE. They don't need Jesus, he didn't come to help them.
Those are 4 major religions no doubt, but to say they are the biggest you are wrong. I would imagine you have heard of Buddhism and Hinduism?
On January 30 2008 03:44 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Can you explain the Holy Trinity to me?
I read the Bible, but that thing doesnt make fucking sense at all.
Ok basically The son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all part of 1 God, they are all linked in some way but they're existing in 3 persons. I can't really go into this much because its so beyond what we understand theres really no way for us to know on what levels are they the same person etc... However Yah'shua made it clear that he and the Father were one. The bible also makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is also a part of this unity.
Not the hardest concept to wrap your head around. Christians may not admit it but the trinity is just 3 deities that form one God. God the son (Jesus), God the father, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is really the only relative unknown in that equation.
On January 30 2008 03:44 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Can Buddhists and Hindus get into heaven?
Yes if they believe in Yah'shua with their whole heart and confess him before others and follow some important rules in the bible for salvation then theres no reason why not. Unless their religion is worshipping other idols or gods because that is a serious sin and the bible says you cannot be a person with 2 masters (sin or salvation, God or some other idol).
Buddhists and Hindus can't get into Christian heaven because...well THEY ARE BUDDHISTS AND HINDUS!
  
|
this was originally going to be a comment on the Christianity blog, but it got out of hand so I posted it here.
|
Christian's View of why you go to hell
-You dont believe Christ
-You dont spread his word
Its simple as that
Theres nothing else that judges you from heaven or hell
(yes, obviously i have christian faith, but im slowly diminishing) :-/
|
here's one to heresy, cheers! 
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
You wish you were Justin Timberlake? 
|
I don;t know i f you realize but when you posted this here you did the same like the man that said to you that you're going to hell.
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference.
On a more related note I'm going to hell cuz I wish I were Bisu.Or Bill Gates. I think Bill Gates more.
|
Hungary11305 Posts
There are lots of reasons to critisize religion, christianity, church. But please don't do it in such a superficial way as in this blog, unless you are trying to verify the "pride" thing.
|
Calgary25991 Posts
Given that Every. Single. One. of your posts at TeamLiquid is about Christianity, would it not make more sense to find another community to post in?
|
On January 30 2008 06:31 Folca wrote:
Christian's View of why you go to hell
-You dont believe Christ
-You dont spread his word
Its simple as that
Theres nothing else that judges you from heaven or hell
(yes, obviously i have christian faith, but im slowly diminishing) :-/
So what you are saying is you can sin and not repent and get into heaven? But if you are saved and you live a sin free life, but don't talk about your faith with other people then you go to hell? Sorry but I have to disagree with that one.
|
NOOOOOOOOOOO. I SO saw this coming once the Christianity Questions blog came up. Another one of those threads that go absolutely nowhere with religion arguments that have been done on this forum way too much.
|
On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference.
Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect.
|
Go somewhere else.
Your biased bull-crap isn't of much use to this forum.
|
On January 30 2008 06:53 Chill wrote:
Given that Every. Single. One. of your posts at TeamLiquid is about Christianity, would it not make more sense to find another community to post in?
Actually my first 2 blogs were about Starcraft, then my next 2 blogs were about an article I was writing...and yes they were about religion.
I fucking gave you a warning, you didn't need to open it and read it to find out what it was about...but thanks anyways.
|
hmm ok its fine if you want to rant i wasn't imposing beliefs i was merely answering questions other people had asked me which was the true nature of the blog post.
|
What Mindcrime said...
I don't have faith...I don't believe in God sure.
I know I am doing exactly the same thing he is doing...THAT IS WHY I SAID THIS IS A RESPONSE TO HIS BLOG
Please fucking read the entire thing, or none of it
|
Calgary25991 Posts
On January 30 2008 07:16 suresh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 06:53 Chill wrote:
Given that Every. Single. One. of your posts at TeamLiquid is about Christianity, would it not make more sense to find another community to post in? Actually my first 2 blogs were about Starcraft, then my next 2 blogs were about an article I was writing...and yes they were about religion. I fucking gave you a warning, you didn't need to open it and read it to find out what it was about...but thanks anyways.
I want you not to try to systematically break down religion in a thousands words. Who are you trying to convince, and of what? It's just flame bait.
|
On January 30 2008 07:22 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:16 suresh0t wrote:On January 30 2008 06:53 Chill wrote:
Given that Every. Single. One. of your posts at TeamLiquid is about Christianity, would it not make more sense to find another community to post in? Actually my first 2 blogs were about Starcraft, then my next 2 blogs were about an article I was writing...and yes they were about religion. I fucking gave you a warning, you didn't need to open it and read it to find out what it was about...but thanks anyways. I want you not to try to systematically break down religion in a thousands words. Who are you trying to convince, and of what? It's just flame bait.
Like I said in the blog, someone asked me to write about why I was an Atheist and my thoughts and experiences with religion...
|
On January 30 2008 06:33 Snet wrote:You wish you were Justin Timberlake?
YES HAVE YOU SEEN THAT NIGGA MOVE...Mind boggling, he is like water 
Plus he is banging
|
Atheism requires no faith at all Yes it does. Agnosticism doesn't.
|
Faith is a religious word
|
On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect.
I'd say that Atheism can require faith.
If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist.
I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly.
You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith.
A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists.
|
AWESOME, CAN I BE CHRISTIAN IF I DON'T BELIEVE IN MORAL ABSOLUTES IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER? CAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST MAH TAKE ON TEH BIBLE LOLZ.
Good post though, it's absolutely mindboggling that anyone can honestly subscribe to this idiocy. And one thing on heaven and hell. Let's say you live a virtuous life blah blah blah etc and you go to heaven, you're really not going to feel remotely bad for a countless number people down south burning in eternal torment for all eternity? That won't rouse the smallest bit of compassion or guilt in you? Not all of these people even sinned in copious amounts, some of them just never had exposure to Christianity. No, even if I believed anything written in the bible was true, I still wouldn't worship.
Further, given parallels to every single mythological figure ever, I don't believe jesus ever existed. Most records of his existence have a nice and convenient 200 year gap as well.
If you believe Jesus even existed, I hate you and want you to die a slow death. WRAaaaaAATTTHH!
|
On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists.
I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith?
|
On January 30 2008 06:31 Folca wrote:
Christian's View of why you go to hell
-You dont believe Christ
-You dont spread his word
Its simple as that
Theres nothing else that judges you from heaven or hell
(yes, obviously i have christian faith, but im slowly diminishing) :-/
Ohhh yeah, one thing even a retard can observe about humanity and religion is that people are 349058390.5x more likely to fight for beliefs than uphold them. The more extreme the belief, the more likely.
On January 30 2008 06:53 Chill wrote:
Given that Every. Single. One. of your posts at TeamLiquid is about Christianity, would it not make more sense to find another community to post in?
They're good posts though, so stop whining, noob!
|
On January 30 2008 07:30 L wrote: Yes it does. Agnosticism doesn't.
Agnosticism is the belief that the truth value of the existence of god(s) is unknowable. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
So... no, atheism doesn't require faith and agnosticism is irrelevant to that fact.
|
8751 Posts
On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly.
You're making an error here. Faith isn't required for axioms.
|
On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith?
My point was simply this:
You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.
In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct.
(But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.)
|
On January 30 2008 07:58 NonY[rC] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You're making an error here. Faith isn't required for axioms.
I was just using the first definition of faith from google - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. I guess I should have specified.
For some other definitions, faith is not required for axioms.
|
On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.)
No, I simply see no reason to believe.
|
Chiming in randomally on the issue of faith
Soren Kierkegaard brings up interesting thoughts on the issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard#Thought
Other random thoughts:
At some level since we cannot do absolute everything for ourselves (as far as research observation and experience) we must choose to trust one source of authority over another.
I think atheism is appealing since you can, in theory, test the sources of authority personally.
|
On January 30 2008 08:12 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.) No, I simply see no reason to believe.
Heh, you're right.
But I wonder if one could also say... I believe because I simply see no reason not to believe.
In which case, one would not require faith to believe in God either.
|
On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible. In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.)
faith is belief in the absence of evidence, there is no evidence for god so there is no reason to believe that there could be such thing as the creator of the universe.
you don't need to disprove leprechauns to know they aren't real 
|
On January 30 2008 08:31 LiAlH4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 08:12 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 08:07 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:53 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 07:32 LiAlH4 wrote:On January 30 2008 07:03 Mindcrime wrote:On January 30 2008 06:36 FirstBorn wrote:
While he condemned you lack of faith, you condemn the christians faith. Being a christian is a lot like being an atheist. While the first says God exists and has no way to prove it, the second says God does not exist and can't prove it also. So they both can't do anything but to believe. Not that of a big difference. Atheism requires no faith at all. If you disagree with that then your definition of "atheism" is incorrect. I'd say that Atheism can require faith. If you don't believe in God, then you presumably have faith that God doesn't exist. I suppose you could argue that it's not a matter of faith in that you somehow know God doesn't exist. But if you know God doesn't exist, then you're probably basing this knowledge on some objective line of study (be it philosophical or scientific), and by doing so you'd have to have some level of faith in that line of study - for example, faith that your sensory perception of the worlds is correct; or that the relevant scientific experiments were conducted correctly. You are right, though, that atheism does not require faith. A person who has never even considered the possibility of the existence of a God does not need faith not to believe in a God. But, I think, from the moment one considers the possibility of a God existing, some small measure of faith is required to not believe a God exists. I've lived my whole life in the Western world. I've obviously been exposed to Christianity. I've considered the existence of the various interpretations of the Christian God and... I simply see no reason to believe at all. How is that in any way based on faith? My point was simply this: You consider the possibility of something and decide, based on any number of reasons, that that something was impossible.In order to make such a judgment, you needed reasons. At some point in your reasoning you would have had to make an assumption - although it might be something very inane and seemingly straightforward, such as the assumption that the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to all situations. And at some level, you would have to have faith that your assumption was correct. (But this kind of faith is a very ordinary kind of faith - like having faith that the sun will rise the next morning because it always has and you have no reason to believe that it won't. Belief in a God, or anything beyond the ordinary workings of the world is a much more extraordinary kind of faith. And it certainly would seem that atheism does not require such an extraordinary sort of faith - at least until the sun stops rising in the morning.) No, I simply see no reason to believe. Heh, you're right. But I wonder if one could also say... I believe because I simply see no reason not to believe.In which case, one would not require faith to believe in God either.
No, the default position is disbelief. If I claimed that there was a tiny invisible leprechaun that sits on my left shoulder and makes all my decisions for me, would you initially believe it without testing it in any way?
|
On January 30 2008 09:00 Rev0lution wrote:faith is belief in the absence of evidence, there is no evidence for god so there is no reason to believe that there could be such thing as the creator of the universe. you don't need to disprove leprechauns to know they aren't real
Precisely. Faith is belief without evidence. If you have evidence then it isn't faith in the religious sense.
Also, to the blog owner: Bravo.
|
There is no god. <--- Good Link.
Or else if there is a god, it is not the god that we as people envision.
For the record. I'm not Atheist, I'm Agnostic.
|
omg i dont get why people put so much effort into trying to prove that religion doesnt exist.
if they already believe it, then there is just no point of returning. they are 120% consumed by the poison and even if you pulled them so hard that you tore their limbs off and they are hanging by their tendons and ligaments they would still be holding onto their faith by their teeth.
just realize that religion is so powerful because it's much easier to take the blue pill than the red pill and hope that these maniacs dont mass too much power that they can fully take over the government and the law.
edit: what im trying to say is that it really is futile to argue with someone who is already living a life where it is fueled by blind, illogical belief in something extremely miraculous. to try to get them to realize they are wrong would be like saying to a man who's been bringing home the bacon for 40 yrs working as the guy in an assembly line who screws bolts onto cars that the next day there would be a machine doing his job. he would be uneducated, unwanted and too old to learn new things and his whole world would implode. how can you possible be able to convince someone of something like that?
for the past years i've been constantly trying to push this anti-religion thing and the only thing i've gotten is that my friends who are religious or slightly religious get pissed off at me. shit they're not going to church every sunday and they're not waiting till marriage to fuck but damn they say that they believe in god and all that jazz. other friends believe in karma, astrology and all that scooby doo. come to realize that humans have evolved to a level in intelligence where the weak minded absolutely need to fill their heads with something that is larger than themselves, even if it is pure undiluted maggot shit, and there is nothing you can do about it but sit back and spectate and let the mayhem run its course.
|
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before.
|
I'm only here for the arguments, ma'am
|
On January 30 2008 12:13 -WGT-Stars- wrote:
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before.
wow worst response ever...you win
wasn't aware the definition of sin has changed over the years.
|
On January 30 2008 12:34 suresh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 12:13 -WGT-Stars- wrote:
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before. wow worst response ever...you win wasn't aware the definition of sin has changed over the years.
You didn't get the memo? There are 40 deadly sins now.
|
On January 30 2008 12:13 -WGT-Stars- wrote:
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before.
oops, did you just prove the OPs argument LOL?
|
On January 30 2008 12:34 suresh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2008 12:13 -WGT-Stars- wrote:
Dude; no one cares what you think about christianity. Really; I'm christian and i don't care what you're saying nor am I going to argue with you because it will be pointless. There's like 100000 different ways we can argue about this. But i'm just letting you know.
Edit: BTW do you really think those things are really the 7 deadly sins now? This is a new era were it's harder being a christian then ever before. wow worst response ever...you win wasn't aware the definition of sin has changed over the years.
Like the other guy said 8[ theres like 1000000 ways to sin....lol those 7 deadly sins mean nothing anymore really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.yardbarker.com/m/1366/xl/Jessica_Biel_at_GB-CHI.jpg)
