Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not an atheist but I AM skeptical of religions. I am particularly skeptical of Jesus Christ as many here already know. I think skeptics have a lot to offer a religious discussion by raising inconvenient truths religions don't like to talk about, funny enough like Jesus Christ now that I mention it.
But it appears that after 10 years here in the Christian/Religion forums I have worn out my welcome so it's time for me to say goodbye and depart to find another religion forum to haunt under a different avatar. I've had a good time here, folks. I will say on balance the mods have been more than fair, especially to me--notwithstanding a few suspensions I didn't feel I deserved. But one gets indications they're not welcome and so I leave.
Skeptics, keep fighting the good fight against lies and obfuscations religion try to spread. Good luck.
I'm sorry to see you go Thrillobyte - I hope you reconsider and return.
I don't think anyone on here is unwelcome - (save for a few posters that no longer seem to frequent the forum that used to drive me nuts) - everyone's contribution adds something to the discussion - even if all it does it make you think for a few minutes of the day.
I don't hang out here much these days but I love to pop in once in a while to see some friendly and familiar posters. x
Question:
Why should it take '18+ years of extremely disciplined and diligent meditation' before 'encountering' anything? Why should it be so hard to achieve? Why shouldn't it come easily?
For arguments sake, what if you had spent 18+ years of extremely disciplined and diligent meditation and never actually got there - popped your clogs before you achieved anything? Doesn't that seem like a waste of a life to you?
What were you trying to achieve anyway?
EDIT. Didn't mean that to sound so harsh. Just asking a question...
Good to hear from you Cruithne. I take no offense. They are legitimate questions. At the time I was trying to reach the Nirvana Buddha sought. The encounter was completely unexpected and life-changing. I don't believe it is necessary for it to be so hard. It is all about altering your state of mind sufficiently to see reality devoid of our sensory system. Be quiet and know that "I Am." As I understand it even sincerely devout prayer can evoke it. My current view is that 18+ years of extremely disciplined and diligent meditation is NOT necessary because whether or not we believe or pay any attention to it, it is within our consciousness anyway. It usually manifests as a faith in God that is not dependent on proof or even personal experience. It is an inner sense of the presence of God within that sustains their faith NOT the often absurd "precepts and doctrines of men" that they embrace in their religions. I can only say that the effort was more than worth it in my case.
If this is seriously where you're connecting religion with "harmful", it's an awful justification for actually using that terminology. It would mean that literally any two opposite views are "harmful".
It is always amusing to return to find my position decried for something it does not actually say. Absolutely nothing I have said so far even remotely or minutely implies I think any too opposing views are harmful. Quite the opposite - if you return to my analogy about water.
A big fail in your Beatles analogy however is that it is more an example of subjective difference of opinion. We can disagree at length without much harm at all about who makes the best music or who the sexiest woman in the world is. But we would be arguing subjective only which is fine. That is not really analogous to objective disagreements over facts about the world - specifically facts that matter in relation to our well being or even eternal well being.
Further I feel you might be taking parts of my position in isolation from the context of the rest of my position. I am not _just_ saying that the problems is differences. Differences can be and often are a good thing in fact! No the reason I discuss religion as harmful is because of the differences it engenders but also A) specifically that they are by definition irreconcilable differences and B) specifically because they are differences that are elevated in importance and relevance often to the point of being related to your _eternal_ well being. Neither of these things can really be allocated to a difference in musical tastes.
The "harm" comes from the relative ability to discuss and resolve the differences in views. If you disagreed with my claim that water was made up of a certain amount of hydrogen and a certain amount of oxygen we could get down to the evidence and resolve our difference quickly. When opposing views are harder to resolve in this way - the potential for harm is greater. When a view comes entirely without any evidence - and almost by definition no evidence is possible or every going to be forthcoming - then that potential is maximised.
And that has been the core of my point(s) basically and not remotely similar to what you just summarised them as above. Over the years as an atheist you appear to be more an apologist for religion than many theists I see writing on this forum - but I have to be clear given what you said in the rest of your post in lines line "It would be very difficult to know whether the presence of religion has led to more harm than good." that when I write my points above I focus solely on religion here and now. Not what it has done - not done - or may have done in the past. If I think it ridiculous that an adult has training wheels on their bicycle _now_ I am not talking about what benefit it might have afforded them as a child. Similarly when I talk of the overall net harms of religion _today_ I am not discussing whether it had any benefit in the infancy of our species in relatively more ignorant and desperate times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And yet, I've heard atheists
I am going to leave off most of the rest of your post as as I keep having to repeat to you quite a lot - you should take this up with them. I do not speak for them on any level. If you want to discuss anything I have said with me however - I am here. I really do not care what "atheists" - or this nebulous term "positive atheists" which I've only heard 3 people maximum ever use as a term - think or say.
Your last comment suggest it is you who don't understand what evidence means: You went off the road. You started on the road of 'no evidence', then detoured onto the road of 'having evidence'. I see the sun, I don't need to show evidence that it exist, for you see the sun. Same with love. However, when it comes to god, people ask for evidence because they can't see it.
But you altogether missed the point I am making.
No, I understood very well your point, and the error in it. Please continue and I will demonstrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
That atheists ask for evidence of god, yet there is a long list of things they believe for which no evidence exist. Like I said the big bang, by definition, is based on the belief that law and matter originated out of nothing.
1) We have evidence for the big bang. Red shift, Delta Cephieds, etc. I am sure we can explain this in the science section if you wish.
2) you have not defined the big bang correctly. Your beliefs, yes, but not the big bang. Again, I am sure we can explain this in the science section if you wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
I could go on to enumerate many more but the beliefs are so strongly rooted I will be wasting my time. But I'll just say that the 'evidence' for your beliefs [including the theory of evolution] is as reliable as the hairs used in crime investigations, which was the practice for many years.
Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.
Lemaitre was religious, as were the fathers of evolution, Darwin and Mendel. We do not accept the big bang and evolution because they support our views on gods, but because of the evidence for them.
If you have problems about this, you can always ask in the science section. I check their very often.
Let's suppose for the sake of time that no one here has based their lack of belief in god on emotional reactions to events in their life or the problem of evil argument.
My problem with the 'emotional reactions' argument is it is an excuse that I see no evidence for, and in an attempt to dismiss atheism as invalid. For someone who describes themselves as an atheist to use the same argument ...
As for the problem of evil argument, it is an argument for a god who does not care about us, does not know about us, or a god that does not exist, ect.
So I need to explain myself here, it IS a rational argument for atheism, along with several other positions. But I see no one saying evil exists, therefore atheism is true, which is how I read your comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
My point was simply that atheism isn't necessarily a product of reasoning or thinking about evidence, contrary to Transponder's saying "Religion is based on Faith; atheism on validated evidence and reason."
I am (in part) with Transponder on his idea of the two types of atheism, the rational and the natural. But both are at the end based on probability. Without rationally looking at the evidence, which is more likely, I drive a VW Golf or a gold plated Porsche? With instinct on it's own, you would think the Golf. It is an instinctive probability people have based on the evidence that improbable things are usually less likely.
Neither of which is what I would describe as "other failures to think logically". Going on this instinctive probability is a fallacy, but it is used because it often works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And I also asked them to define "faith", which is an important term here as well.
I find the words 'faith' and 'belief' are often used dishonestly by the religious as they are both flexible in their meaning. It is a way to dismiss atheism as a belief based on faith while ignoring the evidence.
How disingenuous! 'The universe began from a big explosion that originated who knows how.' This is where my discussion ends. As Vic just showed scientists do believe law and matter was created out of nothing in the so called big bang. As for my camp, I don't know who you're talking about. I don't go to Church and I don't interpret the Bible literally. You shouldn't even be mentioning Genesis as you have no idea what the author was referring to and for what purpose.
No, Vic got much, if not all of that wrong too.
The Barrow and Tipler reference is taken out of context. They were not arguing for creation ex nihilo, they were pointing out this as a problem for the Hawking-Penrose singularity.
Perhaps Vic should stop reading William Lane Craig, the source of this dishonest, out of context quote.
Also, the nothing Vic's scientists were talking about was not absolutely nothing, creation ex nihilo. And if I understand Vilenkin's idea, neither was he. This can be explained in the science section if you wish.
This forum doesnt prove or disprove anything. Its mainly for entertainment purposes. You shouldnt look down upon others.
O.k. entertainment could be one use. I use it to spread and check on information. That of course, requires more than just this forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
