| Author |
Topic: Guide to world religions |
russellm
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-16-2006 03:05 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
If someone says they are atheist, then they should be able to tell you "why" they are atheist.
That is only true in the parts of US and Iran.
IP: Logged |
TropicalEsq
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Let me ask you a question. Why do you believe you are a non-believer?
Because I do not believe in a God. Since I do not believe that a God exists, I believe I am a non-believer. Do you think belief in God is the default condition? In other words, people must believe in God unless they have a good reason not to?
IP: Logged |
Sue in NYC
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:06 PM
The Religions Taoism: Shiit Happens Hinduism: This shiit has happened before Confucianism: Confucius say, "Shiit happens" Buddhism: It is only an illusion that shiit happens Zen: What is the sound of shiit happening? Islam: If shiit happens, it is the will of Allah Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock, Knock, "Shiit happens" Atheism: There is no such thing as shiit Agnosticism: Maybe shiit happens, and maybe not Calvinism: Shiit won't happen if I work harder Episcopalianism: Shiit happens to other people. Catholicism: If shiit happens, I deserve it Judaism: Why does this shiit always happen to me? Televangelism: Send money or shiit will happen Rastafarian: Smoke that shiit
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
You seem to think atheism is a belief system. That would be incorrect.If you ask my why I am an atheist, I tell you it is because I do not believe their is a God. What more is necessary to describe an atheist? You say atheists must give "verifiable reasons as to why they believe in what they believe." Okay, I won't argue that point. But I will point out that atheists are not believers. They are NON-believers. Non-belief is the default condition. You don't need any reason at all to exist in the default condition. All people are atheists by default. In order NOT to be an atheist they need to have reasons. Those reasons need be only that they believe in a God. They do not need to be verifiable reasons. Obviously, they cannot be verifiable, or we wouldn't require "faith" as a condition for belief. Torque, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this, but I'm not getting the connection between atheism and belief. Can you draw us a map? Just for those of us who have only two functioning brain cells.
You're getting close to my view. To be one thing or another, you need to have a cause to why you believe in what you do. You "believe" there is no God. You "believe" there is a God. Your beliefs come from somewhere...they are not natural selection. Therefore, there must be some basis as to "why" you do not believe in God. There is a faith in your belief.
IP: Logged |
korts
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Cindyleigh's contradicts herself in her post. She stated that she is an atheist. The bases of atheism are founded by not believing in what theists believe in. To not know the fundamentals of the theist religions and state you're an atheist is a kin to stating you're a Republican but don't know why.
I disagree. The fundamental concept in all theist religions is belief in a higher power. Lack of belief in a higher power is atheism. Agnosticism is different because the agnostic specifically neither denies nor affirms the existence of a higher power. Denying the existence of a god doesn't require any religious knowledge whatsoever. Religion is based on faith rather than proof. Once there is proof, you no longer have religion. Atheism is not religion. Lack of faith is not a version of faith. Why am I not an atheist? Because I want G-d to exist. The only spark of faith that I have is that desire. Without it, I could be safely called an atheist. The study of various religions has not changed my beliefs. The core issue is my (lack of) faith, and no religion that I've yet encountered has addressed it. In fact, most of the religion that I've encountered has diminished my faith. Torque, I think that it is great that you've found a faith home. I don't think I'll ever stop looking, much to Tawan's dismay! ------------------
korts
Me There's a sandwich in every beer. "I bet your sink puts your vaginal hygiene in the shade." - muscatel1988
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
Because I do not believe in a God. Since I do not believe that a God exists, I believe I am a non-believer.Do you think belief in God is the default condition? In other words, people must believe in God unless they have a good reason not to?
But you see? This is no better an answer then a bible thumping, brimstone and hell, evangelist telling you you are going to hell and not being able to tell you why other than qouting blindly from the bible.
IP: Logged |
korts
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:18 PM
I think that it is pretty easy to not believe in G-d.I see no evidence whatsoever that G-d exists. My desire to believe in G-d comes from some internal yearning for religion. I don't really know why I have such a desire. Part of me is apalled and part of me is fascinated by it. Honestly, though, I see no concrete evidence that G-d exists. It's all anecdotal stuff. ------------------
korts
Me There's a sandwich in every beer. "I bet your sink puts your vaginal hygiene in the shade." - muscatel1988
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by korts:
I think that it is pretty easy to not believe in G-d.I see no evidence whatsoever that G-d exists. My desire to believe in G-d comes from some internal yearning for religion. I don't really know why I have such a desire. Part of me is apalled and part of me is fascinated by it. Honestly, though, I see no concrete evidence that G-d exists. It's all anecdotal stuff.
But there is so much evidence that God does exist. Can atheists say the same?
IP: Logged |
bhearn
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
But there is so much evidence that God does exist. Can atheists say the same?
Atheists generally are of the opinion that the simplest explanations for the reality we observe are not supernatural. In that sense, yes, they can.
IP: Logged |
TropicalEsq
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
But you see? This is no better an answer then a bible thumping, brimstone and hell, evangelist telling you you are going to hell and not being able to tell you why other than qouting blindly from the bible.
I think I get what you're saying. Let's just agree to disagree. You seem to think atheists "believe there is no god." As an atheist, myself, I'm trying to tell you that this atheist, at least, "does not believe there is a god." I see a world of difference between 1. believes there is no god and 2. does not believe there is a god. Do you see the difference? Your view of atheists is the former statement, it would seem. My atheism (a label I do not give myself, but is one that Christians give me) stems from the latter. Now, if you believe that I am wrong about what makes me an atheist, I'm sure you can offer up some verifiable reasons I am wrong.  Or we can just leave well enough alone. But I'd ask you to try to understand where all us folks who are disagreeing with you are coming from, rather than just dismissing our statements without verifiable reasons. 
IP: Logged |
korts
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
But there is so much evidence that God does exist. Can atheists say the same?
What evidence? Torque, I truly don't see any evidence. Atheists would say that they need proof that G-d exists, rather than proof that G-d doesn't exist. The default position is that the burden of proof lies on those that maintain that G-d exists. Atheists will counter any proof that a theist brings up because it is all non-scientific and anecdotal. Faith negates the need for proof. ------------------
korts
Me There's a sandwich in every beer. "I bet your sink puts your vaginal hygiene in the shade." - muscatel1988
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
I think I get what you're saying. Let's just agree to disagree. You seem to think atheists "believe there is no god." As an atheist, myself, I'm trying to tell you that this atheist, at least, "does not believe there is a god."I see a world of difference between 1. believes there is no god and 2. does not believe there is a god. Do you see the difference? Your view of atheists is the former statement, it would seem. My atheism (a label I do not give myself, but is one that Christians give me) stems from the latter. Now, if you believe that I am wrong about what makes me an atheist, I'm sure you can offer up some verifiable reasons I am wrong. Or we can just leave well enough alone. But I'd ask you to try to understand where all us folks who are disagreeing with you are coming from, rather than just dismissing our statements without verifiable reasons.
Trop, I don't think I've been dissmissing your statements at all, in fact, I think I've been engaging them. I don't quite see what the differences are between "Believes there is no God", to "Does not believe there is a god". The way I read this is that you atre still denying the exisitance of God. But, as a lawyer, you of all people must know that to believe in something, you must have a season to do so. What you're saying to me is that you do not believe in God "because I don't" Would you settle for that kind of an answer from a witness on the stand?
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by korts:
Atheists will counter any proof that a theist brings up because it is all non-scientific and anecdotal.Faith negates the need for proof.
But that's where you are wrong Korts. Do we believe that the Spartans arrived to help the Greeks rebel the invasion? Do we belive that Philopiedes ran the first marathon? Why do we believe these things? What proof was required that they exisited? Believe me Korts, I am going somewhere with this
IP: Logged |
korts
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:48 PM
Torque, I know where you are going with this. There is absolutely historical evidence that the things you mentioned happened, whether it is written history or archeological history. The Bible is good source of history, especially Judeo-Christian history. And there is some corroborating evidence for many biblical stories. But even brilliant biblical scholars can't agree on what in the Bible is true and what is myth. The supernatural stuff certainly requires a leap of faith.However, I still see no evidence that G-d actually exists. To use the Bible as evidence for G-d's existence is rather circular. And to accept the Bible in that role takes a huge leap of faith. When I read Homer, I don't start believing in the existence of the Cyclops or Sirens or the Greek pantheon, despite the possible historical veracity of the story. ------------------
korts
Me There's a sandwich in every beer. "I bet your sink puts your vaginal hygiene in the shade." - muscatel1988
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:52 PM
I need to go to work but am realy enjoying this debate. I''l try to find some time when I'm at work to answer your last post Korts.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 03:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
The word atheism -- with its "ism" character -- is misleading, because it suggests a belief system instead of the lack of a belief system. The word was made up by Christians to describe those outside of their belief system, so naturally the word itself has a "spin" to it.
Such an interesting thread. I read earlier ...but I can't find the site now..that the term "atheism" was coined to describe Christians and other monotheists ...whereas the majority of people at the time practised polytheism. As for my interpretation of atheism, I need not be schooled in the A-Zs of all religions that believe in a single or many gods (there are still many religions of the world that do not practice monotheism) to disclude myself....just as I do not consider myself vegan, even though I have never tried a vegan diet...or a boxer, even though I have never tried my hand in the ring. Torque, that logic elludes me...if you are going somewhere with it..get to the point...I have a hair appt. in an hour.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 04:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Do we belive that Philopiedes ran the first marathon?
Apparently not,
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/olympicmarathons/prologue.cfm http://www.coolrunning.co.nz/articles/2002a007.html
Myth or legend, but fact? Unlikely. I guess I'm a aphilippidiest as well.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 06:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by korts:
Torque, I know where you are going with this. There is absolutely historical evidence that the things you mentioned happened, whether it is written history or archeological history. The Bible is good source of history, especially Judeo-Christian history. And there is some corroborating evidence for many biblical stories. But even brilliant biblical scholars can't agree on what in the Bible is true and what is myth. The supernatural stuff certainly requires a leap of faith.However, I still see no evidence that G-d actually exists. To use the Bible as evidence for G-d's existence is rather circular. And to accept the Bible in that role takes a huge leap of faith. When I read Homer, I don't start believing in the existence of the Cyclops or Sirens or the Greek pantheon, despite the possible historical veracity of the story.
Good points Korts. Particularly the example of Homer's works. Homer's works were the works of one man. His works were also accepted in the Greek culture as poems that had been deeply corrupted. Did you know that there are over twenty thousand documents about Jesus Christ? These documents range from his Apostles, muslim accounts, jewish accounts.....eyewitnesses of his ministry. The gosples were put together at a time when they could still be have been discredited but there was more eveidence that what happened happened. We know there are certain ways to get to the truth of a matter logically. If we can't get the truth from standard science (deduction) then we can get them from forensics. If forensics is also not available then we have to rely on eye witness accounts. This is done daily in our court systems. 20.000 documents are pretty convincing. More than anyone else that has graced this earth. Keeping with science, what would you consider is the biggest discovery in the science arena?
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 06:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
just as I do not consider myself vegan, even though I have never tried a vegan diet...or a boxer, even though I have never tried my hand in the ring. Torque, that logic elludes me...if you are going somewhere with it..get to the point...I have a hair appt. in an hour.
But you do have an idea as to what both of these examples entail, and therefore, you have come to the belief that you are not a either. There are outside sources that develop your belief systems or to put it another way, cause and effect. To readily get to the point of an issue is not the way to discuss something rationally. All points need to be considered.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 07:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Apparently not,
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/olympicmarathons/prologue.cfmhttp://www.coolrunning.co.nz/articles/2002a007.html
Myth or legend, but fact? Unlikely. I guess I'm a aphilippidiest as well.
Good example Cindy, when using the same scientific deduction, I type in "Pheidippides" into Google and it gives me 91.000 hits. I then type "myth Pheidippides" in and come back with 517 hits. That's just .5% of the 91.000 topics that discuss the myth aspect. Which would you be more inclined to believe?
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 07:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Good example Cindy, when using the same scientific deduction, I type in "Pheidippides" into Google and it gives me 91.000 hits. I then type "myth Pheidippides" in and come back with 517 hits. That's just .5% of the 91.000 topics that discuss the myth aspect. Which would you be more inclined to believe?
I am most likely to be persuaded by sites that cite primary sources, or sites pertaining to archeology, the study of ancient civilizations, or sites pertaining to marathon running. There are 21,700,000 hits for Santa Claus, he even has his own website where you can email him! Shall we plan a visit?
If you are affirming that the story of Pheidippides is fact, then this discussion will go nowhere. PS - I hate my haircut
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 08:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Did you know that there are over twenty thousand documents about Jesus Christ? These documents range from his Apostles, muslim accounts, jewish accounts.....eyewitnesses of his ministry.
I am not surprised at all that there are over 20,000 documents about Jesus Christ. In fact, I think it likely that Jesus Christ existed, just as likely that Mohammad existed. Whether one or the other, or both, are historical persons or mythical characters does not alter my atheism.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Whether one or the other, or both, are historical persons or mythical characters does not alter my atheism.
But, what are your basis of your atheism? P.S. I'm sorry you hate your haircut.  [This message has been edited by torque (edited Apr-16-2006).]
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 09:06 PM
Yeah, its just too layered and too short. I had the same stylist for 2 years ..LOVED HER..she up and quit on me last Nov. to go into real estate...still looking for a replacement. Oh well, it'll grow.Okay, the basis of my atheism...first let me offer my definition of atheism..which is an absence of belief in the existence of gods...plural, not singular, as I am equally absent in my belief in the gods of the many varied religions of the world. I quite simply disbelieve their existence, or am highly skeptical. In all matters, except seemingly belief in god, isn't it generally accepted that we doubt the existence of something unless we have evidence that it exists? If one were to describe dinosaurs, for example, and claim that they roamed the planet millions of years before man...wouldn't you doubt their existence...until you saw a fossil? There are many who claim the existence of Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster, why do we doubt them? For me, I doubt them because they have no proof. For me, its all about evidence. It is difficult to prove the non-existence of something, but as someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the non-proven...or who is highly skeptical so as not to profess belief based on faith alone..I will avoid this endless loop. I sympathize with the paradox of the believer, how do you prove the existence of something that is essentially non-detectable?
IP: Logged |
makeda
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 09:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sue in NYC:
[b]The Religions Taoism: Shiit Happens Hinduism: This shiit has happened before Confucianism: Confucius say, "Shiit happens" Buddhism: It is only an illusion that shiit happens Zen: What is the sound of shiit happening? Islam: If shiit happens, it is the will of Allah Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock, Knock, "Shiit happens" Atheism: There is no such thing as shiit Agnosticism: Maybe shiit happens, and maybe not Calvinism: Shiit won't happen if I work harder Episcopalianism: Shiit happens to other people. Catholicism: If shiit happens, I deserve it Judaism: Why does this shiit always happen to me? Televangelism: Send money or shiit will happen Rastafarian: Smoke that shiit [/B]
This is what I expected cindyleigh's post to be!
IP: Logged |
 |
