"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Boydie88

3,283 posts

148 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
TheHeretic said:
CommanderJameson said:
Boydie88 said:
Religious argument... There must have been a start point in which everything started, therefore God created it.

...Who/what created God then? How did God come to exist?
Good luck with that.

You'll probably get a boatload of verbose sophistry that boils down to "er, dunno".
The verbatim answer is timeless, space less, and so on. Basically, they change the goalposts for their particular chap. They apply a standard to physics, which is not applied to their own deity.
Spot on. I don't have any issue with 'religionists' living by their beliefs (despite the age of discovery we live in and so much of all that's bad (don't start a good and ad debate again!) in the world stemming from religion), but trying to write off physics with statements which contradict their own beliefs really gets me.

IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
TheHeretic said:
You mentioned the new covenant, and yet the evidence to back that up is? Does the new covenant mean the oldmcovenant was wrong? Did we really need a scapegoat death and torture in order to get this new covenant?
Christians need to invoke the 'new covenant' to distance themselves from the atrocities detailed in the OT. The problem is the new covenant relies on one fundamental thing - Jesus was representing the same got of the OT. The same god who is unchanging, constant and consistent.

Christians HAVE to ignore this to hold a world view that is acceptable today of not keeping slaves and not committing genocide. Many Christians also jump through hoops to justify homosexuality while others keep more traditionally to their texts and are, at least internally, homophobes. This new covenant perpetuates the misogynistic world view and treats dissent to authority as dissent to god.

Strangely Brown

9,973 posts

230 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Gow3r said:
you either believe it all or none of it....some of it cannot be the word of God and some it not. Ok?
Gow3r said:
what we know as the Bible is the revealed word of God, not the rest of it, not the Catholic Bible, not the Gospel of Thomas
You really see no contradiction there?

IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Gow3r said:
Also the tweaking thing, in the NT, there is in one of the gospels I forget which a bracketed section, where the modern day translators are unsure whether this was in the orginal text or not so they have bracketed it and it is best understood as not just in case, now nothing in those brackets is off the chart or crazy, but they are very careful not to abuse it or twist it for their own agendas.
Given the divine origin of the book surely there can be no room for error - this is your god's manifesto, it's utterly central to how people get to know him and he would not have allowed anything to be in there by mistake. Not even a typo. So, after much prayer and meditation, our translator would either put it on or not and it would be god's will done. Back in reality it shows a deep lack of faith to hedge one's bets.


Gow3r said:
And on the last point, is that not a question of Faith? It is what I believe, that the God of the Bible is the one True God and his Son Jesus died in my place for my sin so I can be in relationship with him. I am not sure there is anything I will be able to say that is going to convince you, especially as we disagree on the authorship of the BIble. I believe it, and you dont so of course we have differing opinions, it shapes our world view
Given the shaky nature of the origins of the text and the number of re-writes of large portions of the OT to reflect the political, societal and which particular god the proto-Jews were worshipping I'd find it concerning at best.

Even on the mechanics of the crucifixion (nearly spelt that crusifiction) and requirements for being saved there is no reasonable path to that conclusion. The only thing that actually makes sense is that the new religion's figurehead got nailed by the authorities and they needed a way to explain that off to their funding base. Er, followers.

MiseryStreak

2,929 posts

206 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
It's getting really interesting, some great posts by IanT, The Heretic, Chris GB (except the stuff about botty sex - what are gays supposed to do, live a celibate life? Not even Catholic Priests can muster the willpower to do that) and others, then someone starts throwing insults around that might get the thread locked.

Come on guys, try and focus on the debate and stop trying to score points off each other, leave your egos at the door (or even better abandon them altogether but we won't go there).

Back to the topic, regarding 'before' the big bang, there might well have been something that existed [.......] the Big Bang, but words fail us here because the Big Bang is a theory about the start of space and time (and the early universe), therefore you can't have a before time, it's not possible. There are theories about fields of potential, quantum fluctuations etc.

What I think this thread needs is more pictures, words can get a bit tiring and unsatisfactory (especially when they degenerate to name calling). I like this one, it doesn't say an awful lot but it's quite pretty, no?



I've seen the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and as lovely as it was, I didn't want to look at it for the rest of my life like the stars and Milky Way over the Whitsunday Islands, nor did it give me the clarity and sense of my place in the universe, maybe it's because I'm an atheist, or maybe it's why...

mattnunn

14,041 posts

160 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
MiseryStreak said:
What I think this thread needs is more pictures, words can get a bit tiring and unsatisfactory (especially when they degenerate to name calling). I like this one, it doesn't say an awful lot but it's quite pretty, no?

So we're back to where we started. No one knows how the universe started, some choose maths, some choose folklore, some choose philosophy, all contradict each other, all are argued internally and externally. Don't kid yourself that any particular theory of inflation is correct and undisputed, with each idea comes a set of questions, it's just religions questioned are easy to ask, you have to be pretty skilled to argue the magnetic monopole problem etc...

But to describe yourself as an atheist is a position of belief, based on no particular evidence you position is correct, as it is to describe yourself Hindu or existentialist.

So can we end there?

Strangely Brown

9,973 posts

230 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
mattnunn said:
to describe yourself as an atheist is a position of belief
Actually, it's precisely the opposite. You still don't get it, do you.[*]


[*] That's rhetorical, by the way. Please don't bother answering.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
Actually, it's precisely the opposite. You still don't get it, do you.[*]


[*] That's rhetorical, by the way. Please don't bother answering.
He won't; but he'll probably quote you in some more content-free gobbledegook.

mattnunn

14,041 posts

160 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
mattnunn said:
to describe yourself as an atheist is a position of belief
Actually, it's precisely the opposite. You still don't get it, do you.[*]


[*] That's rhetorical, by the way. Please don't bother answering.
That's a complete failure of logic.

Theist = belief in God

Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.

If i said I had a purple dragon singing the blues on my nose, you can't say I don't, you might believe a don't. If I said you had a purple dragon singing the blues on your nose you can say, for a fact, you don't, no belief needed - which leads us to why the existentialist view is probably the wisest to embrace, the universe is just a canvas.

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
An agnostic viewpoint would seem to be the most logical. I'm happy with the answer "I don't know and might never know, but am interested in finding out". At the moment it seems to me that the scientific route is more likely to provide answers than the religious route.

NobleGuy

7,133 posts

214 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
ewenm said:
An agnostic viewpoint would seem to be the most logical. I'm happy with the answer "I don't know and might never know, but am interested in finding out". At the moment it seems to me that the scientific route is more likely to provide answers than the religious route.
Hurragh. Possibly the first bit of sense seen on these pages for a long time.

mattnunn

14,041 posts

160 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
ewenm said:
An agnostic viewpoint would seem to be the most logical. I'm happy with the answer "I don't know and might never know, but am interested in finding out". At the moment it seems to me that the scientific route is more likely to provide answers than the religious route.
Shame there's no club for people like you to join.

NobleGuy

7,133 posts

214 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
mattnunn said:
ewenm said:
An agnostic viewpoint would seem to be the most logical. I'm happy with the answer "I don't know and might never know, but am interested in finding out". At the moment it seems to me that the scientific route is more likely to provide answers than the religious route.
Shame there's no club for people like you to join.
One already exists. It's called being normal.

Strangely Brown

9,973 posts

230 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
He won't; but he'll probably quote you in some more content-free gobbledegook.
Hey, waddayaknow... he did.

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
mattnunn said:
Shame there's no club for people like you to join.
There are various humanist and secular "clubs" around, but I don't define myself that way. I'll stick to my athletics club and maintaining my interest in maths and physics.


Strangely Brown

9,973 posts

230 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
mattnunn said:
Strangely Brown said:
mattnunn said:
to describe yourself as an atheist is a position of belief
Actually, it's precisely the opposite. You still don't get it, do you.[*]


[*] That's rhetorical, by the way. Please don't bother answering.
That's a complete failure of logic.

Theist = belief in God

Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
I did. You're wrong.

OED said:
atheist

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
Please note that it says, "does not believe" i.e. no belief. It does not say belief in no god. An absence of belief in something is NOT the same as a belief in the absence of something.

The logic fail is yours.

NobleGuy

7,133 posts

214 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
mattnunn said:
Strangely Brown said:
mattnunn said:
to describe yourself as an atheist is a position of belief
Actually, it's precisely the opposite. You still don't get it, do you.[*]

[*] That's rhetorical, by the way. Please don't bother answering.
That's a complete failure of logic.

Theist = belief in God

Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
I did. You're wrong.

OED said:
atheist

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
Please note that it says, "does not believe" i.e. no belief. It does not say belief in no god. An absence of belief in something is NOT the same as a belief in the absence of something.

The logic fail is yours.
Oh man...more 'my logic is better than yours' rolleyes
Mindless.

mattnunn

14,041 posts

160 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
Strangely Brown said:
mattnunn said:
Strangely Brown said:
mattnunn said:
to describe yourself as an atheist is a position of belief
Actually, it's precisely the opposite. You still don't get it, do you.[*]


[*] That's rhetorical, by the way. Please don't bother answering.
That's a complete failure of logic.

Theist = belief in God

Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
I did. You're wrong.

OED said:
atheist

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
Please note that it says, "does not believe" i.e. no belief. It does not say belief in no god. An absence of belief in something is NOT the same as a belief in the absence of something.

The logic fail is yours.
My dictionary says

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Genuinly you're arguing not believing in God and believing in a not God are different, and you're the former? Do you also look down on the believers in not gods in the same way you look down on believers in gods?

the reality is if you believe in a not god you're an atheist

if you don't believe in god you're an athiest

either way you win nothing and lose nothing, so why bother at all?

We had the absence of evidence is evidence of absence conversation about 95 pages back, it's very dull. just accept atheism is a silly flag to wave, fall back to anti theism and be honest with yourself.

MiseryStreak

2,929 posts

206 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
mattnunn said:
just accept atheism is a silly flag to wave, fall back to anti theism and be honest with yourself.
I can't agree with that, any part of it.
I think it's fairer to say, as an atheist, you're not waving a flag at all. As Alan Watts introduced himself at a radio interview with a Minister and Rabbi once, Alan Watts, no label.
More importantly, the prefix 'a' to a word means not or without, i.e. atheism - without theism or 'without belief in one god as creator of the universe'. I think this is the accepted definition by everyone (except you clearly), isn't it?
I'm not anti theist (as carmonk might claim to be, I'm not sure), as I don't wish to force my viewpoints onto others and I'm happy for them to have faith or not and believe in whatever they want, I believe that a proper atheist should not take the religious viewpoint of indoctrination. Some might say this makes me an apologist, but I don't think so, as I'm not making apologies for anyone, what a fking boring place with nothing to learn if everyone thought the same as me.
Lastly, who isn't being honest with themselves? You seem to be to be the most confused person on here, you claim to be irreligious, sometimes agnostic, other times appearing to be a hardened religious zealot, I think you might be the one not being honest with yourself.

Damn it, you've made me resort to name calling.

So, no pictures then? Just more silly words.

Strangely Brown

9,973 posts

230 months

Tuesday 1st May 2012
quotequote all
mattnunn said:
Genuinly you're arguing not believing in God and believing in a not God are different
That's because they are.

mattnunn said:
Do you also look down on the believers in not gods in the same way you look down on believers in gods?
The evidence is the same for both. It's just that the more we learn, one is increasingly more probable than the other.

mattnunn said:
the reality is if you believe in a not god you're an atheist
Only because you meet the definition of atheist through the absence of belief in god. Not because you believe in the absence of god.

mattnunn said:
if you don't believe in god you're an athiest
Yes. That is exactly what the word means.

mattnunn said:
either way you win nothing and lose nothing
I'm not trying to win anything.

mattnunn said:
so why bother at all?
Because they are different positions. Atheism is NOT a belief. It is, by definition, an absence of theist belief. a-theism. See?

mattnunn said:
We had the absence of evidence is evidence of absence conversation about 95 pages back, it's very dull.
Looks like you still don't understand it.

mattnunn said:
just accept atheism is a silly flag to wave, fall back to anti theism and be honest with yourself.
I am scrupulously honest with myself. I have an absence of belief in God, a god or gods. I am an a-theist. The opposite of a theist. That is not necessarily the same thing as someone who believes in the definite absence of God, a god or gods. To take the label of anti-theist would mean, quite literally, that I am against theists rather than a-theist which simply means NOT theist.

Edit to fix quoting.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 1st May 18:05

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED