I think Im an atheist.

[Anonymous]

And as far as I'm concerned, religious beliefs should grow and change with our knowledge. I assure you, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Sorry to walk in on your discussion unannounced like this but I am just interested and curious in this line of thinking.  

Doesn't god have a plan for humanity, an perfect, objective plan which all true believers should follow which decides if you can go to heaven or not? If religion should adapt and change itself to newfound knowledge then doesn't that clash with a definitive, objective truth set by god? If god is almighty and has a purpose for humanity then how can religious people have the courage to change their definition and perspective on him? Aren´t you worried that this new view on him might be wrong? Or that if you are right, aren't you sad that you won´t see your parents in heaven if their definition of gods intentions were different from yours?  

Also, how do religious people deal with their friends different believes and the afterlife anyway? I recently had a Muslim friend express concern over my lack of faith since it means when I die I would be sent to hell (Althrough he diden´t frase it like that of course). Doesn't that bother you immensely? The fact that your non believing friends won´t be with you in paradise?  


Had a major hard time getting these thoughts down to text so I hope you can understand them.

[Jim H]

Then what is the point of "peaceful" conversation if everyone already knows we won't get anywhere with it?

Ask the folks who love to debate politics.  Sometimes I don't understand it myself.  If you're truly set and unalterable in your opinions, and not willing to learn from people who hold different beliefs, then you get nowhere through either friendly conversation or confrontation.

Still, it's much more pleasant than unpeaceful conversation. 

Hows this for a potential benefit from peaceful conversation: you can learn from the other guy and adjust your own beliefs? 

Personally, I enjoy religious and political debate.  Once upon a time I thought I could actually convince people of stuff, but I know now that was a foolish fantasy.  Change almost always comes from within, at best you can plant a seed which grows slowly.  Just don't expect anyone to ever change their opinions, even objectively wrong ones.  And just enjoy the ride of these conversations.  If you can not, best to stay out of it.

[AndyC]

And as far as I'm concerned, religious beliefs should grow and change with our knowledge. I assure you, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Sorry to walk in on your discussion unannounced like this but I am just interested and curious in this line of thinking. 

Doesn't god have a plan for humanity, an perfect, objective plan which all true believers should follow which decides if you can go to heaven or not? If religion should adapt and change itself to newfound knowledge then doesn't that clash with a definitive, objective truth set by god? If god is almighty and has a purpose for humanity then how can religious people have the courage to change their definition and perspective on him? Aren´t you worried that this new view on him might be wrong? Or that if you are right, aren't you sad that you won´t see your parents in heaven if their definition of gods intentions were different from yours? 

Also, how do religious people deal with their friends different believes and the afterlife anyway? I recently had a Muslim friend express concern over my lack of faith since it means when I die I would be sent to hell (Althrough he diden´t frase it like that of course). Doesn't that bother you immensely? The fact that your non believing friends won´t be with you in paradise?   


Had a major hard time getting these thoughts down to text so I hope you can understand them.

I'm again seeing the assumption that certain specific beliefs are universal. There are mainstream Christian churches that have pretty much rejected the whole idea of Hell.

The greatest assumption, however, is that we already have all the answers. God has revealed his perfect plan and there's nothing more. I find that hard to believe, personally. If there is a perfect plan for humanity, an ultimate purpose, we have to work out what it is. Religion is in large part a search for truth, or at least it should be, and knowledge brings us closer to the truth. I don't suggest religious beliefs should go whichever way the wind blows. One of the strengths of religion is its continuity, its stability. Being slow to change, it is a valuable common ground for old and young, and a stabilizing influence on society. However, it should not stagnate, nor should it deny what has been thoroughly proven and known for generations.

We might have to reconsider some of our assumptions about things like an afterlife (personally, I find traditional ideas of Heaven to be rather scary) and what it means to be a believer, particularly in a time when different cultures interact to an unprecedented degree. It's arrogant for any one group to assert that their way is the only way, and that all others, in spite of having belief systems just as old and embracing much the same values, are damned just because they don't do things in exactly the same way.

There is also the common assumption that religions don't already change. We assume all the beliefs are original, but ideas find their way in over the centuries and take root, and then are defended as if they were always there. Whole new beliefs have arisen just to reconcile bits of the Bible that seem contradictory when taken literally. Whether those beliefs (the Trinity, for example) are even valid is a matter for scholarly debate. My point here is that there's room for things like evolution and quantum theory and an Earth that wasn't constructed as-is a few thousand years ago. And it's much easier to incorporate new knowledge into religious beliefs than it is to concoct elaborate (and sometimes downright ridiculous) explanations for why the world around us doesn't fit with what Grandpa was taught in Sunday school.

[Leah]

So RC, you're an atheist, eh? Well, I'm not very religious to Christianity. I would be a follower for Hinduism, since there isn't ONE GOD, but over 300! see, people say that God has an unimaginable power, but can he control them all at once? Over the past few years, there has been some natural disasters from Mother Nature and Father Time. But If God could save us, then why didn't he? Is There even a God to believe in for all of our problems? I say that God's powers should be divided up, so there's one specific element to His power that another God-figure could control. It's all about control.

[indianasmith]

This is a fascinating thread that continues to generate interest and commentary.
First of all, to VucXfiles, you'll notice my avatar is a dinosaur skull - a mosasaur, to be precise.  I dug that critter myself.  I have no problem with the idea of evolution as a tool that God used to diversify the life he created on this earth.  So you can't say "All religious people reject evolution."  Most religious people accept it at some level, while reserving doubts as to its purely random nature.

You also have a fondness for saying that this or that is "scientifically impossible".  Are you claiming that man has now learned all that is knowable?  Every year science discovers that long-held assumptions are inaccurate.  Until mankind learns the solution to ALL the mysteries of the universe, we cannot categorically state that certain kinds of events are impossible, or that certain entities cannot exist.  The most we can do is say that their existence cannot be proven.

Anonymous, I guess you would say I am the closest thing to a fundamentalist on this board.  I believe in the God of the Bible, and the Jesus Christ was His Son, and that He came to show us the Way to the Father's presence in heaven.  Yes, it does bother me that many of my friends may not be there with me in the hereafter.  But, by trying to explain my beliefs carefully and politely, without screaming or flame wars or coercion, I feel I have done all I can to put the truth out there.  I'm certainly not likely to win anyone over to my way of thinking by screaming and hollering and threatening them with damnation and hellfire.  The best way to win people is to start by loving them for who they are, and that is what I generally try to do.

  That being said, I also recognize that the Bible is a very ancient book in which God spoke to people who did not have the understanding of the world that we have today.  So he explained things in simple terms that they could understand, and I do think you can not take everything literally (i.e., the six days of creation as 24 hour days) without fundamentally contradicting the idea that the Universe has a Grand Designer who created it to run according to His laws.

  What I treasure the most about this forum is that we can discuss anything with a minimum of hostility and a great deal of respect . . . AHD's obsession with Biblical excreta notwithstanding.

[Mofo Rising]

It sounds like you have a problem with Catholicism, but even then some of your arguments fall flat. Yes, the priests are not allowed to sex, yes, the Vatican rejects the theory of evolution, but it's inaccurate to say that they don't support science. The Vatican donates ever year to medical research, and members of the Catholic faith are free to donate their money if they so choose as they see fit.

I don't want to hijack this thread to evolution, because the canard that evolution=atheism is tired indeed.

I would like to point out, though, that the Vatican does not reject the theory of evolution. They actually have a fairly nuanced viewpoint. Evolution does explain the mechanism by which life arose on this planet. However, they still, naturally, believe that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. They also hold that the flowering of human consciousness and the appearance of the human soul is a "special creation" by God. That is, the human soul was directly created by God, and cannot be explained through the mechanisms of evolution.

In fact, Catholic schools teach evolution unabashedly, which is more than can be said for many public schools these days.

The Wikipedia article (I know, I know), sums it up rather well.

[vukxfiles]

What you are talking about isn't evolution, it is creationism, and the church uses creationism to pretend they are into science, when in fact creationism isn't science at all, it is pseudo-science, just like ghost busters.

for indianasmith, how can you prove the Bible is god's words? How can you prove at all who wrote it? And how can you prove Jesus was the son of god? Is it because it was stated in an old book that nobody knows who wrote?

[dean]

What you are talking about isn't evolution, it is creationism, and the church uses creationism to pretend they are into science, when in fact creationism isn't science at all, it is pseudo-science, just like ghost busters.

I'm sorry, I don't generally wish to offend people with fundamentalist opinions but Ghostbusters is real.  FACT.  The TV told me so...   

But aside from that silliness, I liked Mofo's point; that certain religious groups have accepted evolution as part of 'gods plan' and I quite liked the comment made that evolution doesn't explain the idea of a soul, and that perhaps that is the true creation [I'm paraphrasing badly here mind you]. 

People have been debating about the existence of a soul for as long as we came across the concept.  I'm pretty sure that argument is still sitting at an inconclusive crossroad.  I'm pretty interested in accepting the legitimacy either argument until somebody delivers the knock-out punch.

[AndyC]

What you are talking about isn't evolution, it is creationism, and the church uses creationism to pretend they are into science, when in fact creationism isn't science at all, it is pseudo-science, just like ghost busters.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you've reached the point of incoherent knee-jerk attacks on every point someone tries to make, particularly factual ones from people who know something of what people believe, as opposed to sweeping pronouncements about "the church" and "religious people," it's time to take a break from this thread. At the rate things are going, it's going to get locked, which would be a shame when all but one person have managed to exercise some self-control.

for indianasmith, how can you prove the Bible is god's words? How can you prove at all who wrote it? And how can you prove Jesus was the son of god? Is it because it was stated in an old book that nobody knows who wrote?

Indy can't prove it, but he believes it. That's what faith means, and it's no skin off your nose. Grow up.

[indianasmith]

What you are talking about isn't evolution, it is creationism, and the church uses creationism to pretend they are into science, when in fact creationism isn't science at all, it is pseudo-science, just like ghost busters.

for indianasmith, how can you prove the Bible is god's words? How can you prove at all who wrote it? And how can you prove Jesus was the son of god? Is it because it was stated in an old book that nobody knows who wrote?

I'm a historian by trade.  No past event can be scientifically proven to have happened before the age of photography.  All we have go on for most historical events is that ""it was stated in an old book."  However, if you apply the test of history to the New Testament narratives, they hold up pretty well.  They were written a short time after the events happened, the historical framework is highly accurate, there is no historical evidence that directly contradicts the central claims of the narrative, the accounts are remarkable consistent with each other.  Obviously, I can't "prove" it to be 100% true - but neither can you "prove" God doesn't exist, no matter how loudly or rudely you state it.
  As for the "no one knows who wrote" statement, authorship of nearly all the works of the New Testament is pretty well established (the Book of Hebrews is anonymous, and some of Paul's letters are disputed by some scholars,although I think he wrote them all).  One thing to remember is that in the second and third century there were numerous forgeries written in the name of the Apostles of Jesus - The Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Judas Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas - and the church rejected ALL of them.  Why?  Because they knew which books had been written by the Apostles and had been passing them around as Scripture for a century or more at that point.  So when someone popped up with a "Gospel of Thomas" over 100 years after Thomas died, most of the church simply ignored it or rejected it as the obvious forgery that it was.  The Anti-Marcionite prologue, written barely a century after the crucifixion of Christ, listed 22 of the 27 New Testament books as being apostolic in authorship and universally recognized by the church.  It's a shame the manuscript was damaged, because the Prologue not only listed authorship but gave a short history of each work. 
  Not everyone agrees with my interpretation of events - Flick and I have debated back and forth on this thread and elsewhere regarding the historical accuracy and authenticity of the New Testament documents.  But the fact that close to a billion people share my beliefs to some degree should at least give one pause before dismissing them so cavalierly.
  Vuk, why is it so important to you that religion be nonsense and there not be a God?  You have been so vehement in this thread it truly seems that there is something very personal at stake in it for you.  Why do you hate the idea of God so much?

[Flick James]

What you are talking about isn't evolution, it is creationism, and the church uses creationism to pretend they are into science, when in fact creationism isn't science at all, it is pseudo-science, just like ghost busters.

for indianasmith, how can you prove the Bible is god's words? How can you prove at all who wrote it? And how can you prove Jesus was the son of god? Is it because it was stated in an old book that nobody knows who wrote?

As a man who also rejects religion, I'm still waiting for a response from you that indicates a valid argument. I really want you to get there, so you can be a better atheist. Your arguments for atheism, that is, the belief that there is no God or intelligent Creator, all come down to:

"Religion is responsible to so much evil in the world." Yawn. Great. Wonderful. Yes, we all know religious intolerance has wrought loads of suffering throughout history. It has also contributed to positive advancements and postive people. I mean, do you refuse to acknowledge Albert Schweitzer? Neither of these items proves or disproves the existence of God, only the follies and achievements of the institution of religion, which has been my point all along.

"You can't prove the existence of God/Jesus as the Son of God/authenticity of the Bible/etc." You're going to have to do better than that. You also can't disprove the existence of God. That argument means nothing and achieves nothing. Many scientists believe in chaos, yet the existence of chaos cannot be proven. Invalid argument.

"Science is right." Right about what? Is this an argument? If you are an atheist, then great, but you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator. I'm sure you would like to believe that the purpose of science is to disprove the existence of God, and that all scientists are somehow default atheists, but that's absurd.

Again, your refusal to believe or accept anything contrary to what your flawed and repetitive arguments state is no less narrow-minded than a Westboro Baptist Church member.

I still don't get atheism. vukxfiles just typifies my experience with atheists. They exhibit such a vehement insistence that atheism is right. Isn't that what fundamentalist people of religion do?

So, my question to you would be, what can possibly be gained from viscious attacks of people's faith? Is it supposed to sway minds? Is it supposed to make more atheists? I assure you, it does just the opposite. It polarizes people even further. I suspect you don't really have any motivation to sway minds OR make the world a better place. No, I believe wholeheartedly your primary aim is to demean and humiliate.  

[vukxfiles]

Yes, my primary aim is to demean and humiliate, that's the only way of fighting agaist something aggressively without real war.

And to answer the question of why I hate the idea of god so much, because it destroys liberty and individualism. If god exists then we are just peons on a chessboard. If god exists then I go to some hell for doing things that aren't illegal in the first place, and I'd rather rot under groung than go to a place where I obey an entity that means nothing to me. I am not an individual if God exists.

BTW, I'm not really an atheist, I am an antitheist. Antitheism is actuve opposition to theism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

And even if there was a god and i believed in him, I'd like to spit in his face. I'm nobody's chained dog.

[Newt]

I'm nobody's chained dog.

Beg to differ: you are clearly chained to this 'battle' by this attitude (and whatever in your personal history that gave rise to it).  It determines your behaviour and thereby how people react to and treat you.  You are effectively a prisoner: chained and barking.

[Flick James]

Yes, my primary aim is to demean and humiliate, that's the only way of fighting agaist something aggressively without real war.

And to answer the question of why I hate the idea of god so much, because it destroys liberty and individualism. If god exists then we are just peons on a chessboard. If god exists then I go to some hell for doing things that aren't illegal in the first place, and I'd rather rot under groung than go to a place where I obey an entity that means nothing to me. I am not an individual if God exists.

BTW, I'm not really an atheist, I am an antitheist. Antitheism is actuve opposition to theism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

And even if there was a god and i believed in him, I'd like to spit in his face. I'm nobody's chained dog.

Really? Here's a quote from you from when you first entered the thread:

Atheism is the only way a person can truly be free.

So, first you're an atheist and now suddenly you're an antitheist? Looks like once your arguments started getting invalidated you jumped ship, went to wikipedia, and found something else to call yourself. At least it's progress.

[vukxfiles]

Actually I was always an antitheist AND an atheist. I don't believe in god (atheist) and am opposed to god (antitheist). And I am not trolling here, these are my actual views of religion. Don't worry, i found "antitheism" on wikipedia a very long time ago. But someone can be an antitheist and still be lieve in god, but I don't.