participate at Atheist Forums

[jlay]

Ah yes a typical 'god of the gaps' statement, and who do you propose made god, did that ever enter your head?

Of course. I think anyone who has ever thought, has thought that. Surely you've thought of how improbable it is that we are even conversing, and not merely atom dust floating through space.

No one made God. Is it even logical to conclude that the GOD is made? If God made everything, let me repeat, EVERYTHING, then what kind of God would that be? Is it possible that we would be unable to conceive of His power? Everything that has a beginning has a cause. God has no beginning, and therefore has no cause. The bible says that God trancends our understanding. It is interesting that the bible is consistent in this theme from beginning to end. it is also interesting in how it describes God as eternal, and beyond our understanding.

We live in the contruct of time. We have even developed methods for measuring time. One thing we have learned in measuring time and through other science is that this brings us to an alpha point. No matter how far in the past we push it, it is still there gnawing at us. Now there are those who in response to this problem have proposed that the universe is eternal. That thinking has not gone over too well because it violates several solid scientific laws. Yet, they still defend it. Science defends an eternal unmade universe with no cause. Yet a Christian is coming out of left field to state that God is eternal. No matter how far we go back, there is still a point where we cross the line from nothing to everything.

Regardless of whether one is a diest or atheist we must admit that we are bound by time. Now, if God is who the bible says, then He in fact is the author of time. He created it. Time can not exist unless there is something there to measure. Without a universe there is no time. If God is the creator then he did in fact create time. So God is more than just eternal. He is beyond time.

can you honestly be sure '100%' (sorry couldn't resist) that there isno other earth like planets out there?

Yes I'm sure.

I mean can it be that simple to prove the bible is wrong or right?

Actually it can be. the bible can be tested in a number of areas. Historicity is an easy one. Naturally if the bible fails to be trustworthy in those areas, then we can discard any claims beyond that. In the areas of history and archaeology, the accuracy of the Bible is flawless—so flawless, in fact, that for years researchers of the ancient middle east used it as a standard. Its record of cities, mountains, rivers, seas, and other locations is completely accurate. Likewise, its references to various nations are precise.
Many biblical places and people, which for centuries were unknown to secular history (such as the great Hittite nation), now have been discovered. Archaeology consistently has verified the Bible record. A poor example is the book of Mormon. the book of Mormon makes claims that are historically innacurate. It has many references to people and places that have never been verified.

Someone today can write an accurate history of the Roman empire, or of Abe Lincoln. it is hardly worth mention, that someone could accurately record the life of Christ a few decades after he lived.

[munster]

jlay said:

God has no beginning, and therefore has no cause. The bible says that God trancends our understanding. It is interesting that the bible is consistent in this theme from beginning to end. it is also interesting in how it describes God as eternal, and beyond our understanding.

Lets just leave the Bible out of ot for a second but how do you know this? that god has no beginning etc.

Science defends an eternal unmade universe with no cause. Yet a Christian is coming out of left field to state that God is eternal. No matter how far we go back, there is still a point where we cross the line from nothing to everything.

Science does NOT defend an eternal unmade universe, have you heard of the Big Bang Theory? and Once again who created the creator, science would also go against saying that something has always been there.

if God is who the bible says, then He in fact is the author of time. He created it. Time can not exist unless there is something there to measure. Without a universe there is no time. If God is the creator then he did in fact create time. So God is more than just eternal. He is beyond time.

Well isn't that just so convenient that everything in the universe falls under the laws of science, except 'god', why? because a piece of paper says it.

Actually it can be. the bible can be tested in a number of areas. Historicity is an easy one. Naturally if the bible fails to be trustworthy in those areas, then we can discard any claims beyond that. In the areas of history and archaeology, the accuracy of the Bible is flawless—so flawless, in fact, that for years researchers of the ancient middle east used it as a standard. Its record of cities, mountains, rivers, seas, and other locations is completely accurate. Likewise, its references to various nations are precise.
Many biblical places and people, which for centuries were unknown to secular history (such as the great Hittite nation), now have been discovered. Archaeology consistently has verified the Bible record. A poor example is the book of Mormon. the book of Mormon makes claims that are historically innacurate. It has many references to people and places that have never been verified.

Yes you're right the Bible can be trusted in a number of ways, such as rivers, mountains, seas but that is the easy part.

Someone today can write an accurate history of the Roman empire, or of Abe Lincoln. it is hardly worth mention, that someone could accurately record the life of Christ a few decades after he lived

When somebody is writing of the Roman empire or Abraham Lincoln they are not writing history of miracles, divine intervention etc. and that is the key difference.

I could write a book about my neighbour and get every street ,town.city, river right, but then make up a false story that he is a shoplifter and mass murderer, but would that make him a murderer? No it wouldn't...

And as I stated to cslewislover, the Gospels were written 50-60 years after Jesus time on earth, and whilst i do accept that it was oral tradition that was around at the time and explains the delay, the question has to be asked why didn't god send to his son where a written tradition was established for centuries, like China.

Oh and i agree on the Book of Mormon, its just like a practical joke gone wrong at this stage.

Post Edit

You cannot possibly believe 100% there is not an earth like planet out there, I'm not claiming to beleve in UFOs but come on.

[Gman]

If your parents had taught you hinduism, and you did not follow it at a young age, but were then free to choose a religion in your 20s then I am 99.9% sure you would pick Hinduism. The same could go for any other religion. The Fact is you were exposed to it at a young age which left an impression on you. If you were born in India, as stated, you would more than likely be a Hindu. I you were born in ancient Rome you would be praying to numerous Gods, like Mars etc.

I disagree... Why can't you answer my question? Of my family only I believed, so that is a 1/3%. There maybe a tradition in a family, but that does not automatically mean that their choices are nullified. You seem to think that just because one says that they believe in Christianity, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are Christian either although they say they live under the umbrella of Christianity... That's a world of difference..

There are many people that are raised in Christian homes that doesn't necessarily mean they remain Christian. Even if you were raised in the religion of atheism, it doesn't necessarily mean they will remain an atheist.

[munster]

If your parents had taught you hinduism, and you did not follow it at a young age, but were then free to choose a religion in your 20s then I am 99.9% sure you would pick Hinduism. The same could go for any other religion. The Fact is you were exposed to it at a young age which left an impression on you. If you were born in India, as stated, you would more than likely be a Hindu. I you were born in ancient Rome you would be praying to numerous Gods, like Mars etc.

I disagree... Why can't you answer my question? Of my family only I believed, so that is a 1/3%. There maybe a tradition in a family, but that does not automatically mean that their choices are nullified. You seem to think that just because one says that they believe in Christianity, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are Christian either although they say they live under the umbrella of Christianity... That's a world of difference..

There are many people that are raised in Christian homes that doesn't necessarily mean they remain Christian. Even if you were raised in the religion of atheism, it doesn't necessarily mean they will remain an atheist.

I did answer your question by giving the Hindu example, you followed the religion of your family so it proves my point, that the majority of people who have a religion will follow the religion of their parents, therefore you are a Christian by chance.

Oh and Athesim is not a religion, look it up in the dictionary if you want

[Gman]

I did answer your question by giving the Hindu example, you followed the religion of your family so it proves my point, that the majority of people who have a religion will follow the religion of their parents, therefore you are a Christian by chance.

Again, that is not true.. My brother and sister did not follow Christianity, they followed atheism. It's a 1/3 split. I chose the the religion of Christianity, they chose the religion of atheism. It's not a 99% chance. You are simply incorrect in your assumption.

Oh and Athesim is not a religion, look it up in the dictionary if you want

Atheism is a religion pure and simple... Websters dictionary gives the definition of a religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That is all it is... A belief system.

Also according to law, atheism is a protected “religion” under the First Amendment.. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case Kaufman v McCaughtry. “A Wisconsin prison inmate tried to form an atheist discussion group. Prison authorities refused and Kaufman sued. The court ruled that Atheism is a religion for “legal purposes”.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/LR1DZSAL.pdf

[godslanguage]

If your parents had taught you hinduism, and you did not follow it at a young age, but were then free to choose a religion in your 20s then I am 99.9% sure you would pick Hinduism. The same could go for any other religion. The Fact is you were exposed to it at a young age which left an impression on you. If you were born in India, as stated, you would more than likely be a Hindu. I you were born in ancient Rome you would be praying to numerous Gods, like Mars etc.

I disagree... Why can't you answer my question? Of my family only I believed, so that is a 1/3%. There maybe a tradition in a family, but that does not automatically mean that their choices are nullified. You seem to think that just because one says that they believe in Christianity, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are Christian either although they say they live under the umbrella of Christianity... That's a world of difference..

There are many people that are raised in Christian homes that doesn't necessarily mean they remain Christian. Even if you were raised in the religion of atheism, it doesn't necessarily mean they will remain an atheist.

I did answer your question by giving the Hindu example, you followed the religion of your family so it proves my point, that the majority of people who have a religion will follow the religion of their parents, therefore you are a Christian by chance.

Oh and Athesim is not a religion, look it up in the dictionary if you want

Anything with an "ism" attached to the end of a word is usually meant as a religion. For atheism the god of chance is at work, they are by definition chance worshipers even though Wikipedia wouldn't mention that because its a silly belief most atheists themselves are hesitant to admit. They believe life can self-organize/self-assemble into a living breathing, thinking and spiritual human overtime. Atheists have two gods in fact, one is the god of time and the other the god of chance, no different then the ancient Greeks who believed in different gods for different occasions. The difference is that atheism is the religion that explicitly says there is no purpose to life essentially while all the other religions (even though some may not attribute their beliefs to an ultimate God) say otherwise, in other words they hold that there is some goal-directed telic aspects of the universe that cannot be explained by mere chance overtime.

[munster]

Gman said:

Again, that is not true.. My brother and sister did not follow Christianity, they followed atheism. It's a 1/3 split. I chose the the religion of Christianity, they chose the religion of atheism. It's not a 99% chance. You are simply incorrect in your assumption.

You're completely missing my point, I wasn't on about your brother and sister, but YOU followed the religion of your parents, why aren't you Hindu or Muslim?
Because your parents weren't

Atheism is a religion pure and simple... Websters dictionary gives the definition of a religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That is all it is... A belief system.

Also according to law, atheism is a protected “religion” under the First Amendment.. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case Kaufman v McCaughtry. “A Wisconsin prison inmate tried to form an atheist discussion group. Prison authorities refused and Kaufman sued. The court ruled that Atheism is a religion for “legal purposes”.

I don't have a cause, and being an atheist doesn't require faith just reason

And as for the First amendment I'm Irish and its definitely not considered by our constitution to be a religion, so I guess we're both right being from opposite sides of the pond, on that count.

[godslanguage]

I don't have a cause, and being an atheist doesn't require faith just reason

And as for the First amendment I'm Irish and its definitely not considered by our constitution to be a religion, so I guess we're both right being from opposite sides of the pond, on that count.

It seems to require much more then that. I guess if I can't imagine chance processes working overtime to produce all the diversity and complexity of life starting from a primordial soup then I must be unreasonable then. You seem to think that is the reasonable approach, but I don't. In fact, its nothing more then your own reason, your own view or perspective, not reason and logic in itself. You derive this reason from your religion as an atheist (since you have made it just that), pure and simple.
If you were a true open minded atheist as the dictionary defines you'd be an agnostic as far as I can tell. Atheists who push their beliefs as the truth and nothing but the truth are religious by definition,

[munster]

Godslanguage wrote

Anything with an "ism" attached to the end of a word is usually meant as a religion. For atheism the god of chance is at work, they are by definition chance worshipers even though Wikipedia wouldn't mention that because its a silly belief most atheists themselves are hesitant to admit. They believe life can self-organize/self-assemble into a living breathing, thinking and spiritual human overtime. Atheists have two gods in fact, one is the god of time and the other the god of chance, no different then the ancient Greeks who believed in different gods for different occasions.

Yes indeed I also hear that the religions of altruism, voyeurism, Heroism are on the rise, they might even get their own sites now.
Yes I admit it I believe in the God of chance, in fact I pray to a roulette wheel every night.
And also the god of time I find nothing better than to make a pilgramige to Switzerland every year and withness the divinity of all their cuckoo clocks.

Sound far fetched? well its supposed to as I said it was my turn to post something ridicolous.

The difference is that atheism is the religion that explicitly says there is no purpose to life essentially while all the other religions (even though some may not attribute their beliefs to an ultimate God) say otherwise, in other words they hold that there is some goal-directed telic aspects of the universe that cannot be explained by mere chance overtime

No atheism is about living your life to the full, we all only get one shot, and thats what makes it all the more precious

[munster]

Godslanguage said

It seems to require much more then that. I guess if I can't imagine chance processes working overtime to produce all the diversity and complexity of life starting from a primordial soup then I must be unreasonable then. You seem to think that is the reasonable approach, but I don't. In fact, its nothing more then your own reason, your own view or perspective, not reason and logic in itself. You derive this reason from your religion as an atheist (since you have made it just that), pure and simple.
If you were a true open minded atheist as the dictionary defines you'd be an agnostic as far as I can tell. Atheists who push their beliefs as the truth and nothing but the truth are religious by definition,

another god of the gaps statement with 'primordial soup' if we can't explain it present day science, then yes God done it.

Oh and Oxford English dictionary

Religion: A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order

[godslanguage]

Sound far fetched? well its supposed to as I said it was my turn to post something ridicolous.

Yes it does!

No atheism is about living your life to the full, we all only get one shot, and thats what makes it all the more precious.

So what exactly does it mean from an atheistic POV to life your life to the full. I have many atheist friends and their life is little different from mine apart from the fact I believe in God while they believe in the god of chance.

[Gman]

You're completely missing my point, I wasn't on about your brother and sister, but YOU followed the religion of your parents, why aren't you Hindu or Muslim?
Because your parents weren't

Well, actually you are wrong again. Because my sister actually turned Muslim first (just look up my previous posts on it) and then turned to atheism. You cannot accept that you are wrong in your assumptions? You think that just because someone was raised in a Christian home there will be a 99% chance that they will turn Christian? Where are you getting this incorrect information?

I don't have a cause, and being an atheist doesn't require faith just reason

I disagree... Atheism needs miracles for it's claim too. As an example, because of the obvious problems with abiogenesis is, at best, a myth of modern science. At worst, abiogenesis is the lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend to know more about the origin of life than we actually do; we are fooling ourselves. Macroevolution falls into this category too. It has never been proven either.. It needs miracles too.

According to biochemist George Wald all we need is time. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probably virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

You will also have to accept atheism, the belief that there is no God, on faith... Pure and simple.

And as for the First amendment I'm Irish and its definitely not considered by our constitution to be a religion, so I guess we're both right being from opposite sides of the pond, on that count.

America has protected atheism as a true religion.. That is all it is, a belief system. They recognized it as such. Who is to say that Ireland wouldn't either?

[munster]

Godslanguage wrote

So what exactly does it mean from an atheistic POV to life your life to the full. I have many atheist friends and their life is little different from mine apart from the fact I believe in God while they believe in the god of chance.

I don't consider it a god of chance, I'm pretty sure when we die thats it, and what does living life to the full mean, well its the obvious, I love to play sport especially hurling (native Irish game) and rugby, socialise, read etc. and I can say I have a pretty happy life nothing is missing or anything like that, I can safely say I am the same now as I was in my teens when I was a believer, and the best bit I get to sleep in on a Sunday!

Not trying to be smart by that statement its how my life is... a happy one overall, has its ups and downs but so does everyone from any walk of life.

[Gman]

Munster,

Either God created us or we created God. If there is no transcended being, with which to have a relationship, then we have relationships with worldly things that we manufacture. It's a path that leads to “self” fulfillment. You simply make your own religion, the one that best fits your needs. Your religion simply becomes your own philosophy.

If truth is clearly Darwinistic, if there are no absolutes, if consciousness evolved, our ideas evolved, our definition of what's real, your truth is different from mine, there is no good, there is no real right, it's just whatever idea has survived to most and out reproduced the other ideas. So then the definition of survivability becomes the definition of what's true.

[godslanguage]

another god of the gaps statement with 'primordial soup' if we can't explain it present day science, then yes God done it.

But thats exactly what most atheists cling too. So atheists don't cling to the primordial soup hypothesis but cling to something else unknown. You don't know then how life started but believe you are correct then that it must have happened that way, your religious perspective yet again.

Anything else about atheism we should know that we don't already know?