I think Im an atheist.

[Jim H]

As far as the Resurrection accounts go, I see what you mean about discrepancies there, however, they strike me as the kind of discrepancies that are evident in real eyewitness testimony.

You see, that'd be a huge issue for me if I were a Christian.  Having read quite a bit about eyewitness testimony, I'm well aware of how huge divergences from reality can be (even mere minutes after an event, let alone decades), and you've admitted there could be problems with what the witnesses saw and heard.  It would be difficult for me, personally, to try to follow teachings and ideas that I knew could possibly vary significantly from what actually was said by the man.  Maybe a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but this would be irreconcilable for me. 

I guess that's where faith comes in, eh?   

[AndyC]

I should start by saying that the following is not meant to apply to present company or this thread in particular.

It's these kinds of discussions that have convinced me that there is very little difference between those with very strong beliefs that would seem on the surface to be opposite each other. The most outspoken and inflexible Christians and Atheists I've encountered think very much alike. Both insist for something to be true, it must also be fact. Both are hung up on specific details of scripture, as opposed to the larger picture, and argue like lawyers about wording, rather than deeper meaning. Both see religion as an all-or-nothing proposition, where it's either all good, true and valuable, or it's all crap. Both seem to place too much importance on specific stories, rather than the lessons in them. It's not enough that there might be something to learn from the story of Noah's Ark, neither side seems to think the story has any value unless an old man really did build a boat and save all the animals. They argue opposite sides of the issue, but the mentality is the same.

[Flick James]

As far as the Resurrection accounts go, I see what you mean about discrepancies there, however, they strike me as the kind of discrepancies that are evident in real eyewitness testimony.

You see, that'd be a huge issue for me if I were a Christian.  Having read quite a bit about eyewitness testimony, I'm well aware of how huge divergences from reality can be (even mere minutes after an event, let alone decades), and you've admitted there could be problems with what the witnesses saw and heard.  It would be difficult for me, personally, to try to follow teachings and ideas that I knew could possibly vary significantly from what actually was said by the man.  Maybe a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but this would be irreconcilable for me. 

I guess that's where faith comes in, eh?   

That's exactly where faith comes in. Indy has Christian faith. He feels confident in it and as far as I can see cannot be shaken in it. Indy is also an intelligent person and I respect him a great deal. Now, I agree with you Jim H in that I cannot reconcile the same things.

In the grand scheme of things for me it's not about that, that I agree with you and disagree with Indy. Ultimately what matters to me is that one is a decent person. I'm jaded somewhat because I've been witness to some downright shady and hypocritical behavior in Christians I have known, to include my experiences as a former Christian. But then so I have with non-Christians, just in different ways. Indy has proven himself to be a very decent person, and so despite disagreements over religious matters, I ultimately regard him in light of the former rather than the latter. Sorry Indy for talking about you in the third person like that.

[indianasmith]

Hey, fi you are gonna be that nice, you can 3rd person me all day long!

WRT the comment on the Resurrection narratives - they all agree on the central elements of the story.  The tomb was empty.  Men in white told them Christ was risen.  They turned back to tell the disciples, and then they saw Jesus himself.  No contradictions there.  But everyone told the story slightly differently, just as you or I would do.

  I think an attorney would find such testimony more believable than four tales that were carbon copies of each other.

[Newt]

[vukxfiles]

Atheism is the only way a person can truly be free. You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) without being afraid something not proven to exist will kill you. You have a better understanding of the universe, and are more of an open-minded person (because religious people defend their beliefs at ANY cost). You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any). 

[Newt]

Atheism is the only way a person can truly be free. You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) without being afraid something not proven to exist will kill you. You have a better understanding of the universe, and are more of an open-minded person (because religious people defend their beliefs at ANY cost). You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any). 

You sure you're not confusing atheisim with anarchism?  There are all sorts of 'rules' that are not legislated as law: social understandings as to what is and is not acceptable behaviour.  Going strictly by what is "your country's law" is not going to fly anywhere. 

[vukxfiles]

Atheism is the only way a person can truly be free. You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) without being afraid something not proven to exist will kill you. You have a better understanding of the universe, and are more of an open-minded person (because religious people defend their beliefs at ANY cost). You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any). 

You sure you're not confusing atheisim with anarchism?  There are all sorts of 'rules' that are not legislated as law: social understandings as to what is and is not acceptable behaviour.  Going strictly by what is "your country's law" is not going to fly anywhere. 

But if breaking those laws won't get you to jail, then I see no reason to strictly follow them. And there are lwas concerning social behavior, for instance, a person can sue you for harassing them. But there are lots of rules that religion makes that aren't in law. It isn't in the law that you shouldn't masturbate, have sex before marriage, watch violence or sex on tv, use profanity, talk bad things about religion, etc. And it isn't important to follow these rules if youre an atheist because you don't believe in them, it is only a matter of taste, whether you want to have sex before marriage or not.

[Newt]

Atheism is the only way a person can truly be free. You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) without being afraid something not proven to exist will kill you. You have a better understanding of the universe, and are more of an open-minded person (because religious people defend their beliefs at ANY cost). You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any). 

You sure you're not confusing atheisim with anarchism?  There are all sorts of 'rules' that are not legislated as law: social understandings as to what is and is not acceptable behaviour.  Going strictly by what is "your country's law" is not going to fly anywhere. 

But if breaking those laws won't get you to jail, then I see no reason to strictly follow them. And there are lwas concerning social behavior, for instance, a person can sue you for harassing them. But there are lots of rules that religion makes that aren't in law. It isn't in the law that you shouldn't masturbate, have sex before marriage, watch violence or sex on tv, use profanity, talk bad things about religion, etc. And it isn't important to follow these rules if youre an atheist because you don't believe in them, it is only a matter of taste, whether you want to have sex before marriage or not.

Social 'rules' are far, far more basic and all-pervasive than simply mores about premarital sex.     Most people have NO idea of just how thoroughly their behaviour is 'regulated' by social restraints.  A person would have a great deal of difficulty separating out every bit of social law/conditioning from their daily behaviour: barring pathological conditions, most would find it impossible.  And not all transgressions are subject to legal charges: get real!

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" won't get you very far unless you are a self-sufficient hermit in a remote location.

[vukxfiles]

Excuse me!

The bible and religion in general has nothing to do with that. Religion makes stupid rules that have no objective or logical significance, and thus obeying those rules just because the religion tells you to is retarded. I'm not talking about basic social rules that nobody even likes breaking. Catholicism says that people shouldn't use condoms. You think this rule is good?? It has no objective basis, because I don't see how I destroy another person's rights by putting a rubber on my penis.

Catholicism says priests cannot have sex. Does this have an objective basis? He has male genitalia and thus he can have consentual sex like everyone else.

Islam says women should cover their bodies. Does this have an objective basis?? A woman doesn't destroy another person's rights if she wears clothes that she wants (unless it breaks public indecency laws, or unless she stole the clothes).

Oh, and did I mention that many things from the bible that people believe happened couldn't have happened because they contradict with physics and biology.

[Newt]

You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) ... You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any).

HOW is this restricted to religion?  Religion may be what you intended to address, vukxfiles, but it came off much broader.  "You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any)" is downright chilling in a social context.  I, for one, do not want to meet or have to interact with any children/persons raised to believe there are no rules.

[vukxfiles]

You aren't bound by stupid worthless rules which aren't written in your country's law, you can do anything you want (if it is legal) ... You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any).

HOW is this restricted to religion?  Religion may be what you intended to address, vukxfiles, but it came off much broader.  "You don't force your children to belive in the same rules as you do (because there aren't any)" is downright chilling in a social context.  I, for one, do not want to meet or have to interact with any children/persons raised to believe there are no rules.

Well I was referring to religious rules which have no reason to exist. I wasn't referring to rules in the law or basic moral rules. Sorry, I wasn't thinking how others might interpret what I wrote.

And the first quote is true, you can do what you want if it isn't illegal, and I think everything that shouldn't be done is illegal, except some things like cheating on one's partner, but still that has a reason for not being illegal because it has no objective basis, polygamy exists everywhere in the animal kingdom, and humans are nothing more than animals with an advanced brain.

[Flick James]

vukxfiles,

I don't believe in any organized religion, as my previous posts in this thread will readily indicate, but I don't discredit religious texts as having absolutely no merit. At least 4 of the 10 commandments are useful for any civilization. I'm not meaning to make any assumptions or put words in your mouth, but your position and general posture make you appear no less closed-minded that the most vehement and provincial of Christian Coalition members.

I agree that religion has placed numerous limits on the progress of the human mind, but if one is truly open-minded one cannot deny that these institutions have also assisted human development in some ways. Religious faith, despite it's many faults and fumblings, gave humanity a means of abstract thought, the same means of thought that make scientific inquiry possible. I agree that religion does not preemt morality, but one also cannot deny that religion has assisted humanity throughout history in developing a moral compass.

I reject religion, but I don't blame religion for the evils of humanity. I blame humanity.

I don't mean you any disrespect, vukxfiles, and I don't mind if you feel the need to call me out on anything I'm mistaken about, it's just a vibe I get from your posts. I certainly don't agree that atheism makes one more open-minded.

[vukxfiles]

Yes, religion helped mankind before, and thus has no use or reason to still exist, because humanity and civilisation has become more complex. It can only slow us down. It became a burden, a burden that still does a lot of evil in the world.

Think of religion as those training wheels children's bikes have. It is useful at a young age, but later after you get the hang of riding the bike, those wheels aren't useful anymore. They become a burden and limit the way you drive your bike, and in some situations can trip over something and break your neck.

Have you understood the metaphores in that??

[Flick James]

Yes, religion helped mankind before, and thus has no use or reason to still exist, because humanity and civilisation has become more complex. It can only slow us down. It became a burden, a burden that still does a lot of evil in the world.

Think of religion as those training wheels children's bikes have. It is useful at a young age, but later after you get the hang of riding the bike, those wheels aren't useful anymore. They become a burden and limit the way you drive your bike, and in some situations can trip over something and break your neck.

Have you understood the metaphores in that??

Yes.