“The work of God”?

[KS55]

Science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive.

Science has shown us there’s a Big Bang, which religion arrived at there being a beginbefore science.

Science has shown us the universe is incredibly finely tuned and “looks as though it’s been created” I think, according to Einstein?

Also, eye witness accounts are taken in a court of law now, especially independent ones, so why are they so readily dismissed now?

Atheism doesn’t have a monopoly on science, it’s a belief that also takes faith.

Are you going to claim you know more about science than Francis Collins or John Lennox?

By the way, your comparison to a flat earther would be a reasonable one if we’d found the body of Christ and then I still believed in the Gospels, that would be a ridiculous thing for me to do as there is evidence I can view about the truth, just like now, where I can see the curvature of the world.

It’s a lazy, stupid argument.

Twice now, you have stated that atheism requires faith. This is a old ploy by religious people to try to establish that faith is a legitimate source of truth or belief. But it is just a ploy. Atheism does not require anything resembling faith, it merely calls for evidence. Which article of faith (that is a belief that something is true, despite a lack of evidence) does atheism require?

 

[SWP's back]

Why are you so angry?

Because you’re a good poster and you’re either lying or purposely mis-describing something.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is only a absence of one particular (peculiar) belief. It’s not a worldview, it’s not a religion, it’s not (for the most part - ie for the majority) based in any science. Everyone is born an atheist, theism is learned and dependent upon one’s received teachings, period in history and geographical birthplace. Chances are you’d be a Muslim if you were born in Sudan or believe in fucking sun gods if born in what is now Southern Mexico (800 years ago) or Egypt 4,000 years ago.

You (personally) don’t take a scientific, philosophical stance against Zeus. You simply don’t believe such a character exists. You also do the same for about 4,500 other flavours of deity. I personally just go one deity further than you.

You can (and may) believe in whatever the fuck you like (and bully for you!) but please don’t mischaracterise an absence of belief in that specific thing for other posters.

 

[SWP's back]

For the record, atheism comes with attachments, around views on morality and a scientific view of how the universe came to be.

No it doesn’t. Again that’s a wilful mischaracterisation

You don’t believe there’s a higher morality than your own brain, you believe the universe came to be by random chance.

There is no such thing as steadfast morality. Your morality is born only of the social zeitgeist of your time on earth and is entirely man made. If you want to not kill because you think you’d go to hell then that’s on you. I decide not to kill because I’m not (again for the most part) a ****

Whether you admit it or not, it is a belief system.

It is the exact opposite.

 

[Ban-jani]

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's nothing to do with science. It's to do with not believing in fairytales

Do you acknowledge that if you are an atheist, then you are then making a scientific assumption based on the universe?

 

[KS55]

For the record, atheism comes with attachments, around views on morality and a scientific view of how the universe came to be.

You don’t believe there’s a higher morality than your own brain, you believe the universe came to be by random chance.

Whether you admit it or not, it is a belief system.

Oh, and now you use the ploy of using "belief system" as synonymous with "religious belief system". You sound like a sophist or a polititian. You wont persuade anybody of anything using semantic mumbo jumbo. St. Anselm's ontological proof? Better stick to bigging up your own belief.

 

[Chippy_boy]

And @Ban-jani, sorry to disappoint you mate, but there is the square-root of fuck all chance of their being a "God" in the sense that Christians might believe in one. Sure, there will likely be beings in the universe which are vastly more intelligent than us. Heck, I am even prepared to speculate that perhaps the universe as we perceive it has been created by such a being - although I think the chances of that are remote.

But the idea that there is some God in the Christian sense - an all powerful, omni-present being who is looking down on all of us and knows all our inner-most thoughts etc. Frankly, it's utterly ludicrous. It beggars belief that in the 21st century anyone could still believe in such utter poppycock.

What is pretty patently evident is that humans when in deep shit, feel comforted by the idea of someone who's got your back, so to speak. Religion is nothing more than a mental crutch to enable people to get through the crap which actual life throws at them. It's a convenient lie, that is all.

 

[wattle]

Do you acknowledge that if you are an atheist, then you are then making a scientific assumption based on the universe?

No I don’t. I’m saying I’m not nuts enough to believe in a man in the sky with a beard

 

[KS55]

Do you acknowledge that if you are an atheist, then you are then making a scientific assumption based on the universe?

More semantic nonsense. @wattle stated it plain. The difference between the steady state view of the universe and the big bang view needed no religious dimension.
Ok, what assumption?

 

[Magicpole]

Atheism has everything to do with science, it claims there is no intelligent design to the universe, that’s a scientific, philosophical and faith based belief system.

No I was, I’ve been an atheist most of my life, I talked about my conversion a few pages back, my parents are agnostic.

If someone commits a murder and there’s a billion theories about who did it and why, does it mean the actual truth isn’t the truth because of other theories?

The truth is the truth. It's that simple. The world 8s 4.5billion years old. People have never lived to be 800. The Ark never happened. Nobody comes back from the dead. Can walk in water, raise the dead. Zombies did not leave their g4aves as Jesus die and walk about. L8tts wife wasn't turned into a pillar if salt. Angels weren't going to get raped until the gut offered up his own daughters. Mises never existed. The Egypt plagues never happened. The sea did not part. I could go on throughout the book. A guy didnt live inside a giant fish.

If anybody claims any of thst shit is real, they are deluding themselves. How can a book be true when it's filled with nonsense any God worth his salt woukd know. Gay people? A God creates them so they can be persecuted? Women are inferior and possessions? It's all made up, a great story and made many great films, but so is Jason and the Argonuats. And all the Greek and Roman classicaltales. written by men.

Unlike you, I was force fed this utter shite and believed most of it, until my critical faculties kicked in. This caused me a shit storm of grief at school and at home. To my mother's dying day she hoped I would return to Faith. But when you realise it's all too contradictory, scientifically baseless and at times hateful and awful, you can't go back. You don't want to. It's a weight off.

 

[SWP's back]

Do you acknowledge that if you are an atheist, then you are then making a scientific assumption based on the universe?

No because that’s bullshit.

 

[KS55]

The truth is the truth. It's that simple. The world 8s 4.5billion years old. People have never lived to be 800. The Ark never happened. Nobody comes back from the dead. Can walk in water, raise the dead. Zombies did not leave their g4aves as Jesus die and walk about. L8tts wife wasn't turned into a pillar if salt. Angels weren't going to get raped until the gut offered up his own daughters. Mises never existed. The Egypt plagues never happened. The sea did not part. I could go on throughout the book. A guy didnt live inside a giant fish.

If anybody claims any of thst shit is real, they are deluding themselves. How can a book be true when it's filled with nonsense any God worth his salt woukd know. Gay people? A God creates them so they can be persecuted? Women are inferior and possessions? It's all made up, a great story and made many great films, but so is Jason and the Argonuats. And all the Greek and Roman classicaltales. written by men.

Unlike you, I was force fed this utter shite and believed most of it, until my critical faculties kicked in. This caused me a shit storm of grief at school and at home. To my mother's dying day she hoped I would return to Faith. But when you realise it's all too contradictory, scientifically baseless and at times hateful and awful, you can't go back. You don't want to. It's a weight off.

Yes. Me too. Brought up in a strongly Christian home, but started to ask questions and, about aged 16, realized I had been cruelly lied to.

 

[Ban-jani]

Because you’re a good poster and you’re either lying or purposely mis-describing something.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is only a absence of one particular (peculiar) belief. It’s not a worldview, it’s not a religion, it’s not (for the most part - ie for the majority) based in any science. Everyone is born an atheist, theism is learned and dependent upon one’s received teachings, period in history and geographical birthplace. Chances are you’d be a Muslim if you were born in Sudan or believe in fucking sun gods if born in what is now Southern Mexico (800 years ago) or Egypt 4,000 years ago.

You (personally) don’t take a scientific, philosophical stance against Zeus. You simply don’t believe such a character exists. You also do the same for about 4,500 other flavours of deity. I personally just go one deity further than you.

You can (and may) believe in whatever the fuck you like (and bully for you!) but please don’t mischaracterise an absence of belief in that specific thing for other posters.

I’m not lying, believe me.

I am merely saying that there are attachments to taking a view something isn’t true.

It’s not an attack on atheists either, as you’ve pointed out I too take that view with other concepts of God.

I take a scientific view of Zeus, in that he’s not real, I take a philosophical view that his teachings or whatever, isn’t relevant.

 

[KS55]

I’m not lying, believe me.

I am merely saying that there are attachments to taking a view something isn’t true.

It’s not an attack on atheists either, as you’ve pointed out I too take that view with other concepts of God.

I take a scientific view of Zeus, in that he’s not real, I take a philosophical view that his teachings or whatever, isn’t relevant.

As an atheist, i would love you to explain to me what all these "attachments", assumptions, and the like that i have without realizing.

 

[SWP's back]

I am merely saying that there are attachments to taking a view something isn’t true.

What attachments do you have towards unicorns being make believe?

 

[tonea2003]

I’m not lying, believe me.

I am merely saying that there are attachments to taking a view something isn’t true.

It’s not an attack on atheists either, as you’ve pointed out I too take that view with other concepts of God.

I take a scientific view of Zeus, in that he’s not real, I take a philosophical view that his teachings or whatever, isn’t relevant.

whats the difference between zeus and god because i don't see one

oh yes i do zeus didn't pretend to be benevolent

 

[Two Gun Bob]

Ban appears to be engaging the nay-seers and treading water nicely considering his short tenure as a Born Again Christian. Maybe that's because he's well read and educated on the nuances of hearty debate, being an affiliate paid up member of our political forum. So why does he continue to debate with folk who think his stance is reprehensible to any or all modern day thinking, when he could simply go and read a nice book or go for a walk enjoying his new found religion to himself without fear of hindrance. And then it got me thinking about Hitchens and how he was so convinced there wasn't a god that it became a major preoccupation of his to fight theocracy head on instead of reading a nice book or going for a walk.

Actually here is Christopher answering that very point eloquently enough from an audience member. Why do we all bother to argue the toss when we have entrenched our battle lines unto sand. Is it in the forlorn hope of changing a given mindset, or it it just to pacify ourselves because we believe so strongly in our own divine right-eousness. Who is right and who is wrong and the only way to find out is by the continuance of hearty debate, except the Christians are lacking in the manpower dept at the moment to field a full side. All that may change when vmshail wakes up.

 

[Ban-jani]

Ban appears to be engaging the nay-seers and trotting along nicely considering his short tennure as a Born Again Christian. Maybe that's because he's well read and educated on the nuances of hearty debate, being an affiliate paid up member of our political forum. So why does he continue to debate with folk who think his stance is reprehensible to any or all modern day thinking, when he could simply go and read a nice book or go for a walk enjoying his new found religion all to himself without fear of hindrence. And then it got me thinking about Hitchens and how he was convinced there wasn't a god that it became a major preoccupation of his to fight theocracy head on instead of reading a nice book or going for a walk.

Actually here is Christopher answering that very point eloquently enough from an audience member. Why do we all bother to argue the toss when we have entrenched our battle lines unto sand. Is it in the forlorn hope of changing a given mindset, or it it just to pacify ourselves because we believe so strongly in our own divine right-eousness. Who is right and who is wrong and the only way to find out is by the continuance of hearty debate, except those Christians are lacking in the manpower dept at the moment to field a full side. All that may change when vmshail wakes up.

I just enjoy a chat about the big questions and a debate. It’s why I spend so much time on Bluemoon.

Thank you for your kind words, I think very highly of you as well.

 

[wattle]

I’m not convinced @Ban-jani isn’t on the complete wind up here. No one can change this much because of a dream haha

 

[Ban-jani]

What attachments do you have towards unicorns being make believe?

Haha, well a unicorn isn’t claiming to be the creator of the universe and the standard of morality.

If you don’t believe there is a creator then that means human consciousness is the standard of morality and the universe is meaningless, formed from a random occurrence.

That’s both a scientific and a philosophical stance.

Being an agnostic is actually what you describe, in that it’s a lack of belief.

 

[Ban-jani]

I’m not convinced @Ban-jani isn’t on the complete wind up here. No one can change this much because of a dream haha

I’d actually love to wind people up this much but sadly I’m not.

You would think differently if you’d experienced the same dream, although it did take me many weeks to change my mind.