what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)

[Sarcasmo]

Originally Posted by stimpee

What's funny is that most religious people (especially Christians in this country) feel like their rights are being trampled on by atheist groups, when there has been a steady increase in religiosity since the early 1800's. You can't be oppressed if you're the majority opinion, and if you're seriously upset about some rocks with words on them being removed from public property, then you're not very secure in your faith to begin with. There is no reason, at least to my way of thinking, that science and faith can't coexist. Science is, after all, just a tool by which we attempt to understand what's around us, not some competing faith.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo

What's funny is that most religious people (especially Christians in this country) feel like their rights are being trampled on by atheist groups, when there has been a steady increase in religiosity since the early 1800's. You can't be oppressed if you're the majority opinion

I wish someone would tell that to the populist commentators in this country, many of whom make a healthy living from regular frothing about how white people are the real victims of racism, how men are more discriminated against than women, how homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals, how Muslims are always getting special treatment and Christians are the most vilified, etc etc.

Of course there are Christians being persecuted around the world in different ways - and certainly there are a greater number of more vocal/vociferous non-believers around these days. Christians living in countries where their religion in the dominant one (such as the US and UK) will of course feel the brunt of that. But still - perspective frequently seems to go out the window.

-

OK... would I be pushing it too far by posting another pic?



(that's the last one from me before you have permission to call me Mongoose )

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

we have a couple of friends in common, i just hope they don't see that and somehow side with them

I'm sure they won't, but if they do (based solely on what you wrote) then I'd suggest they were never great friends to begin with.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Assuming you mean the walking on water story, the 'or' is a bit misleading. The story is obviously for the religious - but clearly there are plenty of believers who take a more conventional logic (ie. less literalist) approach to biblical stories than others, which is probably why I didn't interpret the picture as being about biblical literalism. Personally I took it as an atheist-centric reference to the famous burden of proof argument for God's existence.

Just to be clear, posting it was no more than a little good-humoured mischief making on my part. True, I consider the logic of the religious person deeply muddled when it comes to the issue of belief in God or gods (I'm sure plenty think mine equally muddled) - but it would be a far stretch for me to conclude from it that religious people reject logic in any other area of their life.

What do we mean by "God´s existence"?
You see, I grew up in Hungary during the Communism where religion was strictly forbidden so I´m still trying to sort things out. (I got the Bible For Dummies for a couple of years ago and that was my first book ever about religion.)
I may be wrong but as I understand "God" is something bigger than everything and anybody and that "God"/divinity is what some people experience as a kind of magical revelation (e.g. the ability to walking on water, making vine of the water, hear God´s voice etc). I´m not surprised people, religious or not, need some kind of proof, unless they have experienced the "magic" themselves. I´m still not clear about it but it might be some difference between what we call "believers" and "religious" people. For me, the "believer" sounds like a person who believes without any proof or own experience. But it´s maybe just a translation/language thing so I may be wrong.

However, I think that "God"/divinity exists in everything and everybody even though some of us has experienced it in some way and some of us not.
Personally, I don´t belong to any particular religion just because I haven´t find the genre that fits my experience. The "making vine of water" variant sounds quite interesting though

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Andrea

What do we mean by "God's existence"?

The question: Does God exist?

And in my opinion the correct response (which you rightly identify) should always be to answer with the following question:

How are we defining God for the sake of the present argument?

After all, there are several ways, each of which might elicit a quite different response or provoke a quite different discussion...

- God as described in the Old/New Testament, the Qu'ran, or other holy books?
- God merely as a Being who (note the pronouns here) concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings?
- God merely as some unifying spiritual force that connects every living thing?
- God merely as a synonym for 'whatever created everything that exists'?
- God merely as a synonym for 'everything that exists'?
- etc.

Only then can we can go on to explore:

- the question of God's existence.
- the question of whether it's even possible for humans to know the answer to such a question!

[bryantm3]

well, i don't believe i can really define who G-d is, i don't know how he works but i know that he's there. i would probably go with #2 in your list because i don't think G-d limits himself to a certain race or religion... that is asinine. but i do believe that he's active in our lives. as for all the pain and suffering in the world, i'm not going to even pretend to try to understand all that. i don't know why it happens. does that trouble me sometimes? yes, it does. but i think that G-d has a hold on it, and there must be some sort of reason why things happen the way they do. i just don't think it's in the grasps of any human to try to understand.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

well, i don't believe i can really define who G-d is, i don't know how he works but i know that he's there. i would probably go with #2 in your list because i don't think G-d limits himself to a certain race or religion... that is asinine. but i do believe that he's active in our lives. as for all the pain and suffering in the world, i'm not going to even pretend to try to understand all that. i don't know why it happens. does that trouble me sometimes? yes, it does. but i think that G-d has a hold on it, and there must be some sort of reason why things happen the way they do. i just don't think it's in the grasps of any human to try to understand.

Do you think he'd be for legalization of marijuana though?

[bryantm3]

LOL nice one.

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo

For my own part, I don't get into any kind of semantic or personal arguments about my faith, because I understand how counterintuitive a lot of what I accept as truth may seem to others, and that's fine. It's not my job to convert people. It's my job to show love and compassion and self-sacrifice, and be an example of what I believe.

Good point. I hate churches as institutions, and usually despise their pompous decision makers, but I respect and support the empathic, humanitarian, "good" views and actions that religion and belief often bring with them.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

well, i don't believe i can really define who G-d is, i don't know how he works but i know that he's there.

Why do you always write "G-d" instead of "God"? Does this have anything to do with the no-image rule? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm just curious.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Deckard

- the question of whether it's even possible for humans to know the answer to such a question!

The nature of man is agnostic. Which means, simply, "without knowledge."

How is it that man truly "knows" things? Through the application of empirical methods. Unfortunately, God - if there is a God - by definition, is not temporeal/corporeal, therefore, empirical methods always yield the same incomplete results. The human senses lack the ability to discern the spiritual.

At this point, many venture the fool's folly and proclaim that due to the lack of empirical data and the inability of science to quantify God, God, therefore, does not exist. . . nevermind the fact that many of these people have never tackled a serious course in physics, let alone analytics. For if they had, they would be embarassed by their own fatuous reasoning.

. . I will end now as I have to go home. . . but I will chime in more