Red Mosquito

Rangi Guy wrote: Not ignoring it - believing that Jesus was God in human form - his words just kind of superseded the earlier stuff handed down before.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. I wouldn't say that i believe in my brother, i know the guy. You only believe in something when you don't know for sure. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, Atheism doesn't portray that level of questioning. A true scientist is completely open to the fact there might be a God, he or she is just waiting for the empirical evidence to prove it, evidence that will never appear to us.

the question is, why would you postulate something which there is no evidence of? Anyway, who anyone would like some evidence against god only needs to do any kind of anthropological investigation into the origins of religion, and recognize it's context in the history of human evolution. game over. basically the postulation of god looks to be a product of animism, our tendency to explain anything we don't understand by the spirit.

Rob wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote: Not ignoring it - believing that Jesus was God in human form - his words just kind of superseded the earlier stuff handed down before.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

I agree with this - I'm not ignoring the Mosaic laws. Before Jesus came people were getting too caught up in the legalistic side of the laws.
These people believed that law takes precedence over people which in turn dishonored God’s name when they make the genuine needs of people secondary to an imperative to fulfill the letter of the law.

why doesn't god show up anymore? why doesn't he act in such fantastic ways as he did in the scriptures? because people have better explanations for most of those phenomenon nowadays, and can't be tricked into thinking they witnessed a miracle, either.

I'm an atheist but I still have a measure of respect for religious belief. In many respects, you might even say I'm somewhat envious as I can easily imagine the sense of guidance and comfort it would provide. I do tend to believe that a desire for spiritual experience is an inherent part of the human condition and that we are arguably poorer for its absence in our lives (or seek to compensate for this in other ways).

I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying there's no evidence for God, therefore we can all stop worrying about it now; that seems entirely too dismissive of something that's guided the intellectual and moral thoughts of humanity for thousands of years.

Rangi Guy wrote:

Rob wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote: Not ignoring it - believing that Jesus was God in human form - his words just kind of superseded the earlier stuff handed down before.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

I agree with this - I'm not ignoring the Mosaic laws. Before Jesus came people were getting too caught up in the legalistic side of the laws.
These people believed that law takes precedence over people which in turn dishonored God’s name when they make the genuine needs of people secondary to an imperative to fulfill the letter of the law.

If the fulfillment of God's law doesn't serve the needs of the people, then why does it exist? I take your post to mean that people shouldn't neglect the needs of the society in order to adhere to God's law. But if God is objectively moral, and the bible is his word, then the laws of the bible (including old testament, mosaic law) would surely be the way to a loving, moral existence. He did create the universe with us in mind, right? We were created in his image and we're the ultimate creation. And while I can appreciate the nicer tone in the new testament, Jesus did make it a point to defend and condone all of the laws in the old testament (he did, in essence, author it). He also introduces us to Hell, a place of eternal torture - something that Yahweh apparently hadn't thought of yet.

Which leads me to believe that morality is something that is continuously built upon, through experience, empathy and education, and not something derived from God. The New Testament is morally superior than the Old testament, sure, but it seems to me that the (general) moral foundation of western civilization is much better still.

Rob wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote:

Rob wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote: Not ignoring it - believing that Jesus was God in human form - his words just kind of superseded the earlier stuff handed down before.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

I agree with this - I'm not ignoring the Mosaic laws. Before Jesus came people were getting too caught up in the legalistic side of the laws.
These people believed that law takes precedence over people which in turn dishonored God’s name when they make the genuine needs of people secondary to an imperative to fulfill the letter of the law.

If the fulfillment of God's law doesn't serve the needs of the people, then why does it exist? I take your post to mean that people shouldn't neglect the needs of the society in order to adhere to God's law. But if God is objectively moral, and the bible is his word, then the laws of the bible (including old testament, mosaic law) would surely be the way to a loving, moral existence. He did create the universe with us in mind, right? We were created in his image and we're the ultimate creation. And while I can appreciate the nicer tone in the new testament, Jesus did make it a point to defend and condone all of the laws in the old testament (he did, in essence, author it). He also introduces us to Hell, a place of eternal torture - something that Yahweh apparently hadn't thought of yet.

Which leads me to believe that morality is something that is continuously built upon, through experience, empathy and education, and not something derived from God. The New Testament is morally superior than the Old testament, sure, but it seems to me that the (general) moral foundation of western civilization is much better still.

It does fulfill the needs of the people - it's just that the people got all caught up in being legalistic, so if they saw someone in need who required help on say the sabbath - they were more concerned with keeping the sabbath as a day of rest instead of helping said person. This isn't the way it was intended, but that's where it was headed.

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm an atheist but I still have a measure of respect for religious belief. In many respects, you might even say I'm somewhat envious as I can easily imagine the sense of guidance and comfort it would provide. I do tend to believe that a desire for spiritual experience is an inherent part of the human condition and that we are arguably poorer for its absence in our lives (or seek to compensate for this in other ways).

I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying there's no evidence for God, therefore we can all stop worrying about it now; that seems entirely too dismissive of something that's guided the intellectual and moral thoughts of humanity for thousands of years.

Well said Spenno. I'm with you on that.

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm an atheist but I still have a measure of respect for religious belief. In many respects, you might even say I'm somewhat envious as I can easily imagine the sense of guidance and comfort it would provide. I do tend to believe that a desire for spiritual experience is an inherent part of the human condition and that we are arguably poorer for its absence in our lives (or seek to compensate for this in other ways).

I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying there's no evidence for God, therefore we can all stop worrying about it now; that seems entirely too dismissive of something that's guided the intellectual and moral thoughts of humanity for thousands of years.

Maybe God is nothing more than an indwelling presence. Something that is a part of us, instead of something superior. Finding extraordinary value in the ordinary things in life (relationships, music, experiences, etc...) seems like a good way to fulfill oneself spiritually.

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm an atheist but I still have a measure of respect for religious belief. In many respects, you might even say I'm somewhat envious as I can easily imagine the sense of guidance and comfort it would provide. I do tend to believe that a desire for spiritual experience is an inherent part of the human condition and that we are arguably poorer for its absence in our lives (or seek to compensate for this in other ways).

I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying there's no evidence for God, therefore we can all stop worrying about it now; that seems entirely too dismissive of something that's guided the intellectual and moral thoughts of humanity for thousands of years.

While I appreciate this sentiment, a large part of me thinks religion has had its time and now we need logic and reason. We have the tools and knowledge and it seems foolish for us to honor old superstitions just for the sake of history.

theplatypus wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:One thing that annoys me about atheists is that some of us are more than willing to take on Christianity, but then give Muslims some kind of "cultural" pass. Fuck that shit. I realize that has a lot to do with the fact that many Christians in power are rich white guys, but still. I hate it when liberal atheists aren't willing to take on Islam. That was always one of my favorite things about Hitchens, he took on everybody with equal gusto.

100% agree. Islam is fucking poison.

I've thought about that a lot over the years, and it's frustrating because my Muslim friends and family are genuinely the warmest, kindest, most generous and thoughtful people I know-- more than any Christian or atheist I've ever met. I want to point to the egregious violence, cruelty and hatefulness in the Quran and say HOW IS IT POSSIBLE YOU'RE NOT JUMPING SHIP. HOW

I just want to echo this. All the Muslim friends I have are some of the nicest people I know, and the Muslim lass we have living with us at the moment from Paris - she is just amazingly nice, so kind gentle - an amazing influence on our kids.

Having faith adds meaning to our lives I think. it brings comfort to people to believe that there is a purpose and God has a plan for them, also or maybe especially in harder times, bereavement etc. it can bring a lot of succour. I get a little sad when i think that i gave it up, and why.
Our generation were among the first to sort of see behind the curtain and realise there's other ideas and different ways. It was the emergence of the internet & the outside world getting a lot bigger but a lot closer and all of it available to us, as well as at the same time blow after devastating blow being dealt to our church & horrifying revelations about priests being made and made publicly for the first time. People here but mostly young people abandoned the church almost over night. Certainly we werent made go to mass on sunday anymore like we'd always had.
Really doesn't bother me if people have faith, more power to them. But I'm not crazy about the atheist who at least sneers and is dismissive and ever so pleased with themselves. I know too many of those guys.

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. I wouldn't say that i believe in my brother, i know the guy. You only believe in something when you don't know for sure. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, Atheism doesn't portray that level of questioning. A true scientist is completely open to the fact there might be a God, he or she is just waiting for the empirical evidence to prove it, evidence that will never appear to us.

the question is, why would you postulate something which there is no evidence of? Anyway, who anyone would like some evidence against god only needs to do any kind of anthropological investigation into the origins of religion, and recognize it's context in the history of human evolution. game over. basically the postulation of god looks to be a product of animism, our tendency to explain anything we don't understand by the spirit.

Do you postulate the existence of consciousness? Because there is no evidence of that. I can go on with many examples. And what evidence are you exactly looking for?

pnjguy wrote:

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. I wouldn't say that i believe in my brother, i know the guy. You only believe in something when you don't know for sure. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, Atheism doesn't portray that level of questioning. A true scientist is completely open to the fact there might be a God, he or she is just waiting for the empirical evidence to prove it, evidence that will never appear to us.

the question is, why would you postulate something which there is no evidence of? Anyway, who anyone would like some evidence against god only needs to do any kind of anthropological investigation into the origins of religion, and recognize it's context in the history of human evolution. game over. basically the postulation of god looks to be a product of animism, our tendency to explain anything we don't understand by the spirit.

Do you postulate the existence of consciousness? Because there is no evidence of that. I can go on with many examples. And what evidence are you exactly looking for?

I imagine there is some angle to your argument because I really don't understand it. I take my experience of consciousness or self-awareness as evidence of consciousness...

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. I wouldn't say that i believe in my brother, i know the guy. You only believe in something when you don't know for sure. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, Atheism doesn't portray that level of questioning. A true scientist is completely open to the fact there might be a God, he or she is just waiting for the empirical evidence to prove it, evidence that will never appear to us.

the question is, why would you postulate something which there is no evidence of? Anyway, who anyone would like some evidence against god only needs to do any kind of anthropological investigation into the origins of religion, and recognize it's context in the history of human evolution. game over. basically the postulation of god looks to be a product of animism, our tendency to explain anything we don't understand by the spirit.

Do you postulate the existence of consciousness? Because there is no evidence of that. I can go on with many examples. And what evidence are you exactly looking for?

I imagine there is some angle to your argument because I really don't understand it. I take my experience of consciousness or self-awareness as evidence of consciousness...

Yet you discount other people's experiences of God?

pnjguy wrote:

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. I wouldn't say that i believe in my brother, i know the guy. You only believe in something when you don't know for sure. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, Atheism doesn't portray that level of questioning. A true scientist is completely open to the fact there might be a God, he or she is just waiting for the empirical evidence to prove it, evidence that will never appear to us.

the question is, why would you postulate something which there is no evidence of? Anyway, who anyone would like some evidence against god only needs to do any kind of anthropological investigation into the origins of religion, and recognize it's context in the history of human evolution. game over. basically the postulation of god looks to be a product of animism, our tendency to explain anything we don't understand by the spirit.

Do you postulate the existence of consciousness? Because there is no evidence of that. I can go on with many examples. And what evidence are you exactly looking for?

I imagine there is some angle to your argument because I really don't understand it. I take my experience of consciousness or self-awareness as evidence of consciousness...

Yet you discount other people's experiences of God?

I think I can say with some certainty that what I am experiencing is consciousness, however a religious experience, or an experience of god is not necessarily an experience of god. Likely, they are having some kind of intellectual/emotional/"spiritual" breakthrough, and conflating it with the experience of god.

I don't really get this whole "faith envy" concept that Birds in Hell, dimejinky, and a lot of other atheists talk about. I can only think it must be related to being in a culture that fosters so much credibility for religion.

To me, faith in the divine seems like one of the most deplorable predilections of humanity. It goes against everything we should be striving for: progress, rationality, critical thinking, observable truth. I don't understand how it could be considered admirable at all. How is it good or admirable to derive comfort or meaning from something that is not only unquantifiable and improvable, but based on (often antiquated) scriptures and teachings that are fundamentally problematic on deeply troubling levels?

pnjguy wrote:

Dev wrote:

pnjguy wrote:Atheism bothers me (along with the fundamental religious, to me they're both the same). Really, we're all agnostics because we are debating a question (Is there a God?) for which there is not and cannot be empirical evidence. I don't KNOW God exists, i believe that he does. Knowledge isn't the same thing as belief. I wouldn't say that i believe in my brother, i know the guy. You only believe in something when you don't know for sure. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong, Atheism doesn't portray that level of questioning. A true scientist is completely open to the fact there might be a God, he or she is just waiting for the empirical evidence to prove it, evidence that will never appear to us.

the question is, why would you postulate something which there is no evidence of? Anyway, who anyone would like some evidence against god only needs to do any kind of anthropological investigation into the origins of religion, and recognize it's context in the history of human evolution. game over. basically the postulation of god looks to be a product of animism, our tendency to explain anything we don't understand by the spirit.

Do you postulate the existence of consciousness? Because there is no evidence of that. I can go on with many examples. And what evidence are you exactly looking for?

This seems like kind of a silly, quasi-profound line of thinking. Earth exists physically and we are physical organisms that exist upon it. This is scientifically quantifiable information. The fact that we can recognize this indicates that we are conscious. It's not that complicated.

I don't have a problem with a culture that discards the concept of God in favor of logic, rationale, and goodwill to better humanity. I do take issue with considering the alternative mindset to be a deplorable condition that holds humanity back. Words and ideas and critical thinking are necessary tools in fostering reason and logic, but they don't always produce results. Why? Because a lot of people are full of shit. We all want to talk about fixing this and helping that, but when it's time to put the chips down...well, we've got stuff going right now, man. Despite all of the observable, tangible negatives that these ancient religions still afflict humanity with, a lot of really good people doing really good things hold the personal belief that a divine creator is guiding their way. I think more communication and tolerance needs to be exercised from both ends of the spectrum.

I’m not being intolerant of anyone. I am criticizing the concept of faith in the divine, which I think is inherently negative.

When you boil it down, religious faith essentially comes down to someone saying trust me, someone thinking I just feel that it’s real, someone deciding I don’t need quantifiable proof – I just know. That, to me, is a breakdown in rational thought that doesn’t deserve to even be taken seriously, let alone considered admirable. And I think lending legitimacy to that kind of anti-logic lays a terrible foundation for (not) understanding the world, which - yes - hinders progress.