What would it take?

Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
What would it take?

 This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: I would

deludedgod wrote:

I would also point that when you started your thread, Colby, you asked what evidence would it take for us to believe. You said nonsense like "why is it that the evidence is good enough for some but not enough for others".

Now you are doing a complete about-face and insisting that your faith is not based on logic or rationality, but rather emotion.

Which means that you are contradicting yourself.

Furthermore, Colby, you said things like "we are ignoring God". But, as you have just seen, we have all come to the rational conclusion that there is no God. At first you argued against this. BUT NOW, you are turning 180 degrees and taking Kierkegaard's leap, which you freely admitted above.

So, make up your mind. 

 

What


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This was your attitude at

This was your attitude at the beginning of the thread:

This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

This is your attitude now:

This ten year old boy affirmed why we have faith in my eyes. IT is for hope and having a greater purpose in life than just satisfying ourselves. I thought who's business is it to try to attack someones hope and why do they care. I looked also at why I care that anyone questions my Faith and my hope or why I feel the need to question them in what they believe. So if you ask me now what would it take for me not to believe I would have to say there is nothing that could take my faith from me. A ten year old boy and his courage in the face of death were proof to me of a loving and comforting God. It may be irrational to you but not to me it is very real and I choose Christ by faith.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If we all die then why do

If we all die then why do we attempt with medicle science to prolong it. Is that a rational thing to do. Is it a scientific fact that people die that everything dies, it is a law of nature. Why do we see it as rational to attempt to live as long as possible with un-natural methods. Is it for hope and comfort is that rational.

OK. I am having an argument with someone about this at the moment. This is called the argument from despair, and it is ridiculous.

The atheist appreciates life far far more than you think. This is what I had to say on the subject:

When man realizes that he is the product of a three billion year continuum, an ancient struggle to which he owes his existence and his consciousness, he shall desist from this delusion of his image in mirror of a deity, and stand in childlike awe before the secrets which science has and shall unlock

Each one of us is here by trillion to one odds. The number of genetic permutations that could have been instead of us...outnumbers the atoms in the universe. The fact that we will one day die makes us the lucky ones.

The fact that life comes only once is what should make it taste so sweet. We must make the most of the time we have here on this Earth. Every second is precious. We should wake up and think "what is the most constructive thing to better myself and humanity that I could do today"?

As an Atheist I understand that this is my only life, and so I do everything I can to to better it. Kf I did not, what kind of lack of appreciation would I show for the infinitesimal probabilities by which we have our lives? Would I be spitting in the face of all those who had fallen so I could live?

Imagine a spark illuminating a dark vastness for but a split-second. This is our conciousness. It is the ultimate product of evolution: A being capable of thinking and analyzing. It is the most beautiful thing in the universe. However, it's time is very, very short. So, while it is still lit, this spark has a duty to mankind.

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I was trying to see if there

I was trying to see if there was anyway other than physucal proof that any of you would believe in Christ or God. My own personal opinions on the issue are clear that I believe by faith. I have never waivered from that. I also stated that the proof that Athiests demand will never be seen. My recent comments were a reflection of my thoughts on the issue, my faith and what it takes for me to believe has never changed.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: If we

deludedgod wrote:

If we all die then why do we attempt with medicle science to prolong it. Is that a rational thing to do. Is it a scientific fact that people die that everything dies, it is a law of nature. Why do we see it as rational to attempt to live as long as possible with un-natural methods. Is it for hope and comfort is that rational.

OK. I am having an argument with someone about this at the moment. This is called the argument from despair, and it is ridiculous.

The atheist appreciates life far far more than you think. This is what I had to say on the subject:

When man realizes that he is the product of a three billion year continuum, an ancient struggle to which he owes his existence and his consciousness, he shall desist from this delusion of his image in mirror of a deity, and stand in childlike awe before the secrets which science has and shall unlock

Each one of us is here by trillion to one odds. The number of genetic permutations that could have been instead of us...outnumbers the atoms in the universe. The fact that we will one day die makes us the lucky ones.

The fact that life comes only once is what should make it taste so sweet. We must make the most of the time we have here on this Earth. Every second is precious. We should wake up and think "what is the most constructive thing to better myself and humanity that I could do today"?

As an Atheist I understand that this is my only life, and so I do everything I can to to better it. Kf I did not, what kind of lack of appreciation would I show for the infinitesimal probabilities by which we have our lives? Would I be spitting in the face of all those who had fallen so I could live?

Imagine a spark illuminating a dark vastness for but a split-second. This is our conciousness. It is the ultimate product of evolution: A being capable of thinking and analyzing. It is the most beautiful thing in the universe. However, it's time is very, very short. So, while it is still lit, this spark has a duty to mankind.

 

 

 

 

Should you not by the very essence of science value the laws of nature over your own need to prolong life. Is it not more important to live by the facts of life than it is to dodge them.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:

Colby R wrote:

I never said I was posting the story as proof to you, I said it was proof to me. So please read the posts in context if you are going to respond.

I think we all realized it was "proof" to you. I certainly did. The problem -- the continuing problem -- is that you permit anecdote and emotion to confirm your belief in jesus, but do not accept the same as proof for other gods. Tragedy has always been a part of humanity, and the majority of humans throughout history have not been christian. Obviously, the majority of humanity has not required a belief in christ to get by. So if this story is proof to you, it shouldn't be. If believing 2 + 2 = 5 gave someone hope in trying times, it would not serve to prove that 2 + 2 = 5.  Frankly a story of tragedy and hope would not even serve to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.

Colby R wrote:

If we all die then why do we attempt with medicle science to prolong it. Is that a rational thing to do. Is it a scientific fact that people die that everything dies, it is a law of nature. Why do we see it as rational to attempt to live as long as possible with un-natural methods. Is it for hope and comfort is that rational.

Why prolong life? Maybe because we want to keep on living? I for one find this life enjoyable enough that I would like to continue it, regardless of whatever hardships might come my way. Those who don't think life is worth living, of course commit suicide. I understand why you attempt this question; when I was a believer, I too felt that the only thing for an atheist to do was to kill himself, because without god, life has no meaning, so why would you want to live? But I came to realize, you don't need some supernatural being with the prospects of heaven or hell to find a reason to live. In fact, since there is no afterlife, I cherish this life all the more. This is all you have, make the most of it.

It is a more pertinent question why those who believe there is a better life than this one would seek to prolong this life, rather than moving on immediately to that celestial paradise they so ardently yearn for.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Should you not by the very

Should you not by the very essence of science value the laws of nature over your own need to prolong life. Is it not more important to live by the facts of life than it is to dodge them.

Logical fallacy. (It is called appeal to nature, but I forgot it's latin name). You evidently never took basic logic courses. A fact, let us affix it as fact X, can only stand at a definite truth value Y if it is an established axiom. For instance, the fact "life has a set span X", is not axiomatic therefore the truth value affixed to X is not 1. 

A fact is only a fact until we change a fact. We are on the brink of biotechnology revolution. There will be medical progress within your lifetime that you cannot imagine. You should be very grateful to the unfathomable probabilities that you were born in this era, for we scientists are doing something our forefathers could not- we can play God with life. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Its not a logical fallacy

Its not a logical fallacy and I thought you said there was no God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
It is a logical fallacy,

It is a logical fallacy, and you just commited another fallacy: The assertion fallacy aka argumentum ad nauseam. Which means that you made an assertion and backed it up with nothing, you merely stated it without evidence.

And playing God is a metaphor, or are such literary devices too advanced for you? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: It is a

deludedgod wrote:

It is a logical fallacy, and you just commited another fallacy: The assertion fallacy aka argumentum ad nauseam. Which means that you made an assertion and backed it up with nothing, you merely stated it without evidence.

And playing God is a metaphor, or are such literary devices too advanced for you? 

Sarcasm is obviously beyond you.

Its not a logical fallacy because all you preach is what are the facts what is the proof. Well the fact are the LAWS of nature dictate that everything dies. If following natural and scientific law is what you live by and rationalize your life by, then it would stand to reason that attemting tp prolong life is irrational and a direct violation of the very way you choose to live your life.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Its not a logical fallacy

Its not a logical fallacy because all you preach is what are the facts what is the proof. Well the fact are the LAWS of nature dictate that everything dies. If following natural and scientific law is what you live by and rationalize your life by, then it would stand to reason that attemting tp prolong life is irrational and a direct violation of the very way you choose to live your life.

I have already pointed out in my above post that just because everything dies does not mean that we should not make it's time as good as possible on Earth. I have already explained why this is. I pointed out that we must do a service to the billion years of evolutionary honing, and use our very special talents very wisely. Furthrmore, we are satisfying an evolutionary instinct, a drive to live. You know why we don't kill ourselves as Camus asked (he was clinically depressed?) It is in the driving force of our genes that we have the will to live, for obvious evolutionary reasons.

So, it is not irrational, you just don't understand evolutionary physcology. Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins.

because all you preach is what are the facts what is the proof.

And I'm just waiting for you to tell me what is wrong with that?

Oh, and lastly, sarcasm is beyond me when it is not funny. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: because

deludedgod wrote:

because all you preach is what are the facts what is the proof.

And I'm just waiting for you to tell me what is wrong with that? 

The facts and proof don't allow for god and jesus.  That's what's wrong with them. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and lastly, sarcasm is

Oh, and lastly, sarcasm is beyond me when it is not funny. 

Not all sarcasm is funny or meant to be.

 

So it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God as a comfort or as a way life began or to give meaning to life. Or do the rues of logic only work in your favor.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I sense genuine

I sense genuine inquisitivness in that question. The answer might very well be yes. You should read Scott Atran. He is a neurologist who wants to know why people believe in religion. His work on the subject is very respected.

However, the problem I have with religion is not the fact that it is irrational. Humans are not inherently rational, and we certainly do not adhere to every instinct evolution patched together in life forms (because we create society).

The problem I have with religion, especially monotheism is that:

a) It is dogmatic

b) It is often forced on other people

c) It is often observed to stifle free thought

d) It is sustained by fear. It is the only system of belief that still maintains the idea of the afterlife and hell. I get appalled when monotheists tell people you must believe or you will go to hell.

Lastly, it is the only system of beliefs that adheres to mythology in the face of progress. NEarly every other system of religious belief has learned to accept science, they have also learned that the holy books are just stories. Stories that help guide people in the right direction like Aesop's fables. They are not real. But the monotheists have put up a violent struggle against reason, logic and science. It is dangerous and ignorant.

Your proposition based on the appeal to nature fallacy that you continue to blindly state is nonsense. By your logic, I should not wear a bullet-proof vest when venturing into an area where I might be exposed to gunfire, because it would be unnatural.

Furthermore, the fact that you even ask if there can be evidence for religious nonsense is well, nonsense. It shows that you have the same ability as in 1984, where the citizens could believe that war was peace and freedom was slavery if Big Brother said so. You freely admit that religion is based on supernatural concepts. Ergo, they cannot be verified. No evidence could possibly be presented otherwise it would not be supernatural. I already pointed out this logical contradiction as well as many others (ie transposing physical naturalism onto transcendant supernaturalism). These are all examples of religious doublethink.

You then defended your position by saying that your faith is sacroscant and not subject to logic or evidence. Typical cop-out. You would require evidence for everything else in this world, but when your arguments fall, you retreat dogmatically to faith. You admitted this yourself! Imagine a doctor strolling into the clinic and saying to his patient "You know what? I don't feel the need to take a urine test today. God will cure you". If you were the patient, would you find that acceptable? What about the architect who designed your house? "Hey, I don't need to insert foundation beams. It is a waste of time. I'm sure God will hold up the house just fine!" 

Would you tolerate that? Of course not! Why is it that this should be any more shielded from sane, rational inquiry than anything else?? Can you give me justification for your faith. And not an appeal to emotion (logical fallacy) like you did last time.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This is a

Colby R wrote:

This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

 

I wrote a long reply to you before but the site crashed as soon as i sent it and i was so frustrated that i haven't tried rewriting it. Well now i am. 

So far from my follow atheists I seem to differ quite a bit. Most seem to explain what evidence they could be given to believe in christ, god, any supernatural being.

I on the other hand think there is no evidence that you or anyone can give me to believe. All evidence that could be given has a more likely explantion that is perfectly natural and does not attest to any of these absurd ideas that you believe in.

Lets take an example that was given in my Atheist and Agnostic Society here were i go to college at. A being shows up in the middle of a room of atheists(including me). He is able to supposedly commit miracles and seems to know at least all things that we can ask him. I believe from what i've read in this thread many here might except he is god, please correct me guys(and girls) if i'm wrong.  Now would i accept it? No, because i can think of many many natural reasons why this being might a) know this stuff and b) be able to commit miracles.  For example, what if this being was an alien that has developed either a) the ability or b) the technology to be able to read anyones mind? this is a much more likely explantion then this being is god or christ or who ever you wish to attribute this being to. 

For another example i'll take the one given in this thread ie if we found and could prove Noah's Ark. Some explantions thati could think of which are much more lucky are : "Noah and family" were people who made some kind of trip on some huge boat during huge flood of the nile river or what ever river /lake which is near the boat we find. This then since it was so miraclous of an adventure since they surved say also a horrible strom that also destroyed all other ships was attributed to being given divine guidence and protection. All this could have been passed on and reintrpreted to become the story that we know. All much more plausible then god created a world wide flood killing animals and all humans and had a family keep 2 of each animal since said animals did nothing wrong.

So these are the reason of which i think there is no way you could prove any "supernatural" being to me, and yes by christian defintion god is supernatural you can't just go around redefining god to be natural so you can prove him to me.

So i'm sorry you'll never be able to get me to believe in it, now will i suggest to you that there isn't a possiblity that it exists? Of course not, that would be foolis, but i will not proclaim a postive believe in something i have no ability to empircaly sense, since by defintion supernatural is above all senses that i have i can not sense it. 

Sorry if this seems like a rant and/or rambling on, i've been meaning to reply to you to show that some are even more sceptical of supernatural claims then others.

Thanks for reading,

Zach 

 


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Oh, and

Colby R wrote:

Oh, and lastly, sarcasm is beyond me when it is not funny.

Not all sarcasm is funny or meant to be.

 

So it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God as a comfort or as a way life began or to give meaning to life. Or do the rues of logic only work in your favor.

 

I already adressed this. You have not even made the effot to read, or even answer it. We as humans, or any species when we evolve want to know why we exist, why we are here, how we are here. Sadly, when we have no proof, or means to get proof we invent things that kind of make sense. "A glowing ball of fire, we make fire, so maybe something bigger then us made that fire in the sky! The sun god sol was born" etc etc etc. Now, that comforted people, it was a answer for people, then we got the means to understand, and prove how/why we are here and exist. However people do not want to give that old idea up. Hell an afterlife or perfect happiness, that is pretty comforting to most.

 

As for the story you gave, even though it is not even close to the orginal question you asked I will answer it. It's not that I do not believe in eternity or infinity. I very much do, however for something with a begining this is a impossiblity. I already addressed why in my last post check it out. Now I do not want eternity, I will be happy to embrace death when my chance comes. I know my existence will disappear, my thought will ceace to exist. However their is no way for me to expience or know how non existence could possibly feel, since I will no longer feel. However knowing before I die that I lived my life, to the fullest. I left behind my genes to pass on to the future. I left existence better then when I came into it. Just knowing that I can be happy never thinking again. It is scary, but trying to obtain any form of eternity you will never end up happy. Now for the kid, he felt comfort in believing in an afterlife. However comforting it would be for him, what if you had one though after you died, and could know their is no afterlife the only comfort you had. The last though you expierences was your mind fading away, and their is no heaven, or hell. Would it then be comforting? I'd be pissed myself, believing for no reason, knowing that it really should not of comforted me, and has not. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Shanks
Shanks's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-03-25
User is offlineOffline
First God would have to

First God would have to appear before my eyes.

And then he'd have to heal a amputee.

Seems pretty simple for a all powerful being.Smile


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So it is not

Quote:
So it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God as a comfort or as a way life began or to give meaning to life. Or do the rues of logic only work in your favor.

It is true: it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God, it is evolutionary instinct to:

- seek comfort (and this is a result of being increasingly social)

- eliminate the unknown and unexplained

If you can shoot two rabbits with the same bullet, that would be two needs with the same imaginary friend, why not give people what they desire? Why not name yourself "high priest" or something? Why not keep the masses in a state of complete sheep-like obedience, almost completely subject to your control?

Quote:
I was trying to see if there was anyway other than physucal proof that any of you would believe in Christ or God. My own personal opinions on the issue are clear that I believe by faith. I have never waivered from that. I also stated that the proof that Athiests demand will never be seen. My recent comments were a reflection of my thoughts on the issue, my faith and what it takes for me to believe has never changed.

My "The gods that have suddenly become silent" has remained unanswered. Colby R, perhaps you would care to read & answer... that way you'll understand why at least I require really solid proof.

Quote:
Should you not by the very essence of science value the laws of nature over your own need to prolong life. Is it not more important to live by the facts of life than it is to dodge them.

He didn't say dodge. He said "alter".

Quote:
d) It is sustained by fear. It is the only system of belief that still maintains the idea of the afterlife and hell. I get appalled when monotheists tell people you must believe or you will go to hell.

There was a picture with a girl sitting on the lap of her grandpa. Grandpa was reading her a story, and she was saying: "Oh, grandpa, I love it when you tell me the story of how sinful I am and how I deserve to rot in Hell..."

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Shanks wrote: First God

Shanks wrote:

First God would have to appear before my eyes.

And then he'd have to heal a amputee.

Seems pretty simple for a all powerful being.Smile

Welcome Mechazawa!

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:   So it is

Colby R wrote:
 

So it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God as a comfort or as a way life began or to give meaning to life. Or do the rues of logic only work in your favor.

 

Someone else might be able to categorize it better than this, but that's essentially the black-or-white fallacy.   If humans did indeed have an evolutionary instinct to seek God, God existing is not *the* answer to why humans would do that, it is only one answer.  Humans *want* to believe all kinds of things that aren't true.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: Colby R

Spewn wrote:
Colby R wrote:
 

So it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God as a comfort or as a way life began or to give meaning to life. Or do the rues of logic only work in your favor.

 

Someone else might be able to categorize it better than this, but that's essentially the black-or-white fallacy.   If humans did indeed have an evolutionary instinct to seek God, God existing is not *the* answer to why humans would do that, it is only one answer.  Humans *want* to believe all kinds of things that aren't true.

The worst fallacy being used here is an appeal to nature, concluding that god must exist because of a presumed 'evolutionary instinct' to believe in one.

There also seems to be an implication that we should believe in his god, which would be an appeal to tradition or a false dilemma (black and white fallacy). But this is not explicitly stated.

Furthermore, the whole thing is based on an as-yet unestablished premise: That there is an instinct to seek god.

The last sentence is just a troll, and an ironic one.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Furthermore, the whole

Furthermore, the whole thing is based on an as-yet unestablished premise: That there is an instinct to seek god.

So the fact that every civilization and culture have sought a God or gods that means there is no instinct to do so. Thats a very rational thought.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Colby R

Colby R wrote:

Furthermore, the whole thing is based on an as-yet unestablished premise: That there is an instinct to seek god.

So the fact that every civilization and culture have sought a God or gods that means there is no instinct to do so. Thats a very rational thought.

I said that it hadn't been established. That's not the same thing. However, there are examples of civilizations which have not, such as many generations of Chinese, which is a substantial fly in the ointment for any such claim. Any claim of such an instinct would have to be established by science, and it would have to account for the exceptions.

I would be willing to entertain the idea that there may be a natural cause for people seeking religion, but I won't take it as a given until I see it proven.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Not every civilization

Not every civilization saught a god. Thats a un-true statment. All civilizations saught an answer, but alas most did arrive at a supernatural answer at first. Not all, however most. People do not like to be wrong. So when these answers were made up, say the sun god sol 10,000 years ago if you did not worship him, or send him scarifices, or maybe even try to find another answer he would burn you alive. All religions followed that pattern, so even when we had good explainations offered you would be put to death, or killed for them. People were afraid to go against the religion. Not until around 200 years ago people could not believe in god and not die. Is it not funny how these new theories we use today were researched and found then? Such as evolution? Funny that once it was alowd someone found evolution and gave it to the masses?

 

I was never drawn to a god myself, I had it forced on me. Later around 13-14 I became an atheist. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Colby R

Colby R wrote:

Furthermore, the whole thing is based on an as-yet unestablished premise: That there is an instinct to seek god.

So the fact that every civilization and culture have sought a God or gods that means there is no instinct to do so. Thats a very rational thought.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, that isn't a fact.  Does the fact that you keep coming up with fallacy-filled arguments indicate anything to you?

 


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So the fact that

Quote:

So the fact that every civilization and culture have sought a God or gods that means there is no instinct to do so. Thats a very rational thought.

Oh, but you are unfortunately very wrong. Do not forget that current day religions fall into two categories: theistic and NON-theistic. Furthermore, most non-theistic religions have "stood the test of time" far better than Christianity. So it is safe to say that at least 1/2 of the world population doesn't believe in a god, and I'm not refering only to atheists here.

However, since the non-theistic religions exist, and their sole purpose seems to be spiritual comfort, some rules and a few explanations, this is more proof for what I said: that the instinct is not to seek a god, but to seek comfort, and, possibly, a raison d'etre; a god is simply an accessory.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
 Could I have some

 Could I have some examples of these cultures or civlizations that you speak of, and remember a tribe does not equal a civilization or a culture. I can offer you what I believe is an Athiest web site that seems to agree with me, so examples please.

I would also point out that on e of the largest Christian revolutions today is happening in China.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Buddism would be a

Buddism would be a non-theistic religion by definition, since they do not believe in a god. Buddah was not a god, they never claimed that.

 

Other then that off the top of my head I can not think of another good example that would get through your skull because your definition of "civilization" is bad.

 

Largest in China? Well thats a bad thing, however China is one of the biggest atheistic countries in the world, so Christian revolution won't do much. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: Buddism

James Cizuz wrote:

Buddism would be a non-theistic religion by definition, since they do not believe in a god. Buddah was not a god, they never claimed that.

 

Other then that off the top of my head I can not think of another good example that would get through your skull because your definition of "civilization" is bad.

 

Largest in China? Well thats a bad thing, however China is one of the biggest atheistic countries in the world, so Christian revolution won't do much. 

Really it seems my definition is right on with the actual definition in the dictionary:

civ·i·li·za·tion (sv-l-zshn)

n. 1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Yes that is the definition,

Yes that is the definition, glad you can use the dictionary. Thing is, that would cover just about any soceity, big or small if the soceity stood on it's own. Even tribes could be considered that, especially if they recorded their own history.

 

 Sidenot: I can not remember the name but it was in Africa, people who first saw white man come to them in airplanes, and give them some stuff before leaving. 40 years later, when we returned they were still worshiping those people as GODS that come in the giant birds to save them. Now, this tribe or civilization had no knowledge of science what so ever. Do you think they were gluible, or just did not understand what came to them.  Shit, now i'm going to be racking my head trying to figure out the area.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The same sort of thing

The same sort of thing happened in the South pacific. It was called a "Cargo Cult." It's talked about in "The God Delusion."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
OK, Colby R, let me stop

OK, Colby R, let me stop laughing.

I actually LIVE in China, and speak Mandarin, thus I think it would be fair to say I can speak from more experience on such a matter than yourself.

It is true that Christianity is growing here, and Christian churches are too. However, I found that the Christianity here is a very different breed from the insanity spewed forth in American by the KJV and the Evangelicals, the hell-mongerers and creationists.  

Here in china, religion is mostly an excuse to piss off the government. For centuries, this society ruled the world. They are extremely pragmatic and intelligent. If you told the average Han Chinese about the beliefs of Christianity, they would widen their eyes in horror and start laughing that men could believe such stupid nonsense as Second Coming and Hell and other insane dogma.

Either that, or they simply wouldn't be able to understand that people believe this garbage. I certianly fail to comprehend it... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, it was not their

Yeah, it was not their fault they believed the people who came were gods. They lived oblivious to everything around them, then they see a bird like figure come thousands of times bigger then any bird they ever seen. Imagine seeing a plane for the first time, roaring accross the sky somthing louder then you could imagine, land and different colour people come out. These people only stay a little while trying to help, do not try to explain why they come and then leave. I think it was during the war, they had to make a landing their. What other explanation then a god or gods could they come up with? It would of been to amazing to be anything else to them. They were still living as if it was 8000 years ago.

 

In that you should understand why gods exist. Although I do not believe in aliens, for the fact their is no proof, same with god. Their is alien life of course, what I meant was intelligent alien life, such as our own or more advanced. Bacteria was found on mars, well a sort of bacteria there still not sure yet. However, which amazes me, of all things is on some pyrmids are drawings of grey disks, with people pointing to them, and little grey men. Could they be fake? Well most likely yea, but it would make a lot of sense wouldn't it? Aliens come and teach us a few things and left, we always wondered why we had a certain burst of knowledge 9000 years ago. Of course thats just wishful thinking, in all likely hood it was the own intelligence of the people then, and they were fake.

 

Also another funny thing is, do you really thing god made 185 billions galaxies, put them in a order that they are all going away from a central point like a ball, and he made somewhere along the lines if my average is right 1.435*10(To the power of 54363243) planets in this universe, and only gave our planet life? Let alone he made all those planets, stars(more stars then planet btw, by a thousand fold, also black holes, quasars and other stuff) in an instant. Then he takes 5 days to make earth? Earth is not a complex planet, heck most of the planets in our solar system are more complex. Well gods all powerful so yeah he could make them all in an instant, but not earth? It's just a big contridiction. He also made our planet have age? Fossils? The whole universe is in a chaotic state trying to destroy itself constantly, it is not a well oiled machine, or near perfect. Heck our own planet tries to destroy us constantly, but like a leach we stay clung to life, like every other organism on this planet.

 

Why does every aspect in our universe point to no god? No one would/could really look at this universe and be proud he made it. It's like a 25 year old getting a Ph.D. and submitting a colouring book as his theist statment(He also coloured outside the lines). 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Why are you laughing? If

Why are you laughing? If what I stated is true then I dont see the need to laugh. I havent heard anyone preach out of the KJV of the bible in about 10 years. For the most part Christian evangelists have gone away from the believe or burn message to the more PC health and wealth message. I dont agree with either but thats not the issue. I will take your word on the reason people are accepting the faith but the fact reamains that the rise of Christianity in China is among the largest evangelical movements in the world. 


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Thats false. The more and

Thats false. The more and more time that goes by the worse the evangelicals get. Groups like "god hates fag/fag enablers" is growing, and so are evangelicals in general.

 

Btw, Colby R what is wrong with not believing because their is no evidence? Would you believe me if I tould you a chair existed and told you to sit down, you did not see it could not feel it. Yet you would have to believe with your logic, since you can not absolutly disprove the chair. Although no proof the chair exists is absolute proof it does not in science. However why do people change this tone when it comes to god? Is it hope? Dispair? Un-Caring?

 

 Also, I know I shouldn't even ask, but why have you not addressed a lot of my points and just ignored them? Did they make sense and when you just started to doubt the little bit you did the Christian things and threw you fingers into your ears shouting "Jesus Jesus Jesus" until you have no doubt?

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I hope that you are right

I hope that you are right about the evangelicals, Colby.

Personally, whenever someone preaches believe or burn, I almost want to throw up. What kind of God would eternally torture those who had the misfortune to be born into a different creed of faith, or had used logic to come to the conclusion of his nonexistence? Surely men of logic, God would nod more approvingly to than those who claim to be his men, doing nothing with their lives except muttering verses of scripture under their breath?

Believe or burn is a centuries old tactic of the Church. They used to steal a very (very) large amount of money from people (it used to be possible to purchase insurance out of hell or buy your grandfather out of purgatory). The fact that people still believe it is essentially a form of self-subjugation. The fact that children are raised with it is sickening child abuse.

  I will take your word on the reason people are accepting the faith but the fact reamains that the rise of Christianity in China is among the largest evangelical movements in the world.

I never knew they were Evangelicals. It is actually Catholicism that gained a foothold in Asia, never Lutheranism. The European Jesuits were the first to come here.

Interestingly enough, you just reminded me of something. I just returned from Vietnam, a short stopover in Ho Chi Minh city. Vietnam is a communist nation with 55 ethnicities and four big belief groups: Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics and Muslims. And all these people lived in complete peace. No messages of violence, no indoctrination, religion very much plays a background, personal role in people's spiritual lives.

 

Unlike in the West. When I go back, I am astounded by just how much like war the whole business seems to be. I think that if people could just live their spiritual lives in peace without having to attempt to instill fear in the hearts of others, preach insanity, or HTT syndrome, or forced upbringing of a child with a certain religion, or the rest of the general obscenity that comes with organized religion in the west. I feel always that if we could learn to be more like the East, it would be far better.  I certainly would have no more reason to post here... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A plate of spaghetti

Ramen


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I can not resepond to every

I can not resepond to every single post. I try to respond to as many as I can and to issues I think pertain to this issue. If a tree fall in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise arguments I cant respond to all the time. Also please dont speak about fringe fanatics as if they are the majority or even close. They are a small faction in the Christian community just like every other community has it wackos.

Deluded that was a good post and I agree with many of your points. Not for the same reasons but I agree. I think another misconception of many Christians and probably of myself that many of you have is, that we agree with whatever a church says. Thats not the case, I have the ability to read the bible and come to my own conclusions as to what it is teaching. I would say a huge issue is people believing in CHrist and never picking up the bible to see what it says and just listening to a preacher.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:

Colby R wrote:
I haven't heard anyone preach out of the KJV of the bible in about 10 years.

So did real christianity only start 10 years ago?

Colby R wrote:

For the most part Christian evangelists have gone away from the believe or burn message to the more PC health and wealth message. I dont agree with either but thats not the issue.

The issue is that everyone revises christianity to suit their liking. The christian evangelists and the "PC" christians you mention are just as convinced that their version is correct as you are of yours. So you shouldn't get too chuffed when you hear about "christianity" gaining ground in some other country -- very likely their beliefs are at odds with yours.

I'd like to know if you still regard the sad story of the 10-year-old as proof.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
As a personal proof as I

As a personal proof as I stated yes I do. I never expected you to accept it as proof. Also I think there is a happy medium in the bible one that is not PC nor hateful but honest, this is where I sit.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:

Colby R wrote:
As a personal proof as I stated yes I do. I never expected you to accept it as proof.

If you continue to accept the sob story as proof, kindly explain how a practicioner of another religion cannot proffer their own sob story as proof, and how I cannot use a sob story to prove 2 + 2 = 5, if believing 2 + 2 = 5 gives me hope.

Colby R wrote:
Also I think there is a happy medium in the bible one that is not PC nor hateful but honest, this is where I sit.

And why is this "happy medium" so elusive, that so many who love jesus (as you do), and treat the bible as the word of god (as you do) find a medium of their own, so different than yours? Why is there no demonstrable objective standard for jesus?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: As a

Colby R wrote:
As a personal proof as I stated yes I do. I never expected you to accept it as proof. Also I think there is a happy medium in the bible one that is not PC nor hateful but honest, this is where I sit.

So...you would say the chair is half there? Eye-wink

This isn't a glass half full / half empty kind of topic.  Either god exists or he doesn't.  Either Christianity is true or it's not.  That's why moderation in religion is intellectually bankrupt. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Technically it is possible

Technically it is possible that there's a god but the Bible has a lot of facts wrong. Maybe the people who wrote the Bible were the ones who were "angry at God" (like they accuse us of being) and decided to portray him in the worst possible light.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team