born again christians

[rob]

I just see a lot of irony in atheists saying they know for certain of something that cannot be ascertained, yet mock and dis anyone that has a different personal experience. Show me one data point PROOVING there is no God and that God can't/won't interact with us humans and I will consider the data.

 

Please show me one data point PROOVING there is no tooth fairy. I guess that means we should all be tooth fairy agnostic?

 

By the way, agnostic does not mean 50/50 chance either way, or that you "don't know." You could be 99.5% sure there is no god and still call yourself agnostic, because hey -- .5% is still greater than 0.

 

You should read The God Delusion by Dawkins. If anything, it's an excellent treatise on things like agnosticism, pantheism, Spinoza's "god," and what it means to be an atheist. You dont seem to understand what being an atheist is.

[ivan]

. My Bible is THIS

my bible's better 'cuz it's cheekier!

[ivan]

jeebus, dave, for a guy who don't dig on trashie, you sure took to his multi-post style w/ a passion!

 

having to argue why you don't believe in an all-powerful n' invisible man in the sky who loves you when daily a million n' one frights afflict you is the very height of absurdity

[rob]

I guess you should put Einstein in that category too, after all, he believed in God and thought he proved it with E=MCsquared. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

 

You're wrong on that. He probably did believe in "god" (really more of a Spinoza's sort of god by most accounts of his private letters, rather than a traditional deist-type personal god) but he certainly never said that E=MC2 was proof of it. And even if he HAD said it, so what? What if he said chocolate was better than vanilla, is it?

 

Citing Einstein seems to be a popular way to avoid independent though. "Well, even Einstein agreed with me...." -- really just another form of religion.

[tvashtarkatena]

Since Rob had the gall to inject some actual decent information into this soul-sucker, I'll add some more recommended theological reading:

 

The Evolution of God (Robert Wright):

 

An excellent treatise on the historical evolution of religion and morality, whereby the author concludes that both have been trending, in the aggregate, towards a better future for human understanding and tolerance.

 

Wright describes himself as an agnostic, but the richness of his beliefs defy such simplistic categorization. He is an incredible scholar - the real deal.

 

 

Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (Susan Jacoby)

 

A less sanguine treatise on the role of religion in America, and how it has roadblocked the creation of a truly egalitarian liberal (in the broader historical sense) society.

 

Jacoby is a raging atheist and a lot of fun to read, but reportedly not as fun as Patrick O'brien.

 

These two books will both enlighten you and help with your insomnia, depending on where you are in the read.

 

It would be great if Kristians, on occasion, put their Bibles down and read something with some actual research and original thought being it, but the movement doesn't exactly encourage such behavior when denial of the soul, which many followers understandably interpret as even questioning the nature of the soul, is a mortal sin that can never be forgiven. They might, then, realize how parroted, canned and cliche their 'scientific' arguments really are.

 

And BTW, I wish 17th century philosophers would quit plagiarizing my thought experiments.

Edited October 21, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I guess you should put Einstein in that category too, after all, he believed in God and thought he proved it with E=MCsquared. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

 

You're wrong on that. He probably did believe in "god" (really more of a Spinoza's sort of god by most accounts of his private letters, rather than a traditional deist-type personal god) but he certainly never said that E=MC2 was proof of it. And even if he HAD said it, so what? What if he said chocolate was better than vanilla, is it?

 

Citing Einstein seems to be a popular way to avoid independent though. "Well, even Einstein agreed with me...." -- really just another form of religion.

 

The most common argument in favor of denying same sex couples marriage equality is that "30 something states also have such laws" and that "marriage equality has never won when subjected to a popular vote".

 

In other words, get with the herd and stop thinking for yourself. A classic Kristian mentality, and a tactic when you really don't have anything else.

 

The same argument, back in the day, was made for maintaining slavery and denying women the right to vote...by guess who? Kristian groups.

 

Inconveniently, we have this set of principles called the Bill of Rights which was designed to prevent exactly this kind of unjust tyranny of the majority. That's why the Defense of Marriage Act has had its ass handed to it 7 out of 7 times in federal court so far. It'll most likely go to SCOTUS next, which will be hard pressed to overturn seven previous rulings. Ie, as with Intelligent Design, the Kristians most likely have fucked themselves by overreaching, yet again.

 

Seriously, Kristians, who invited you to the civil ceremony? Fuck off.

 

PS Einstein was doggedly wrong regarding quantum physics throughout most of his life. Even smart guys win some and lose some.

Edited October 21, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[Choada_Boy]

Here's some valuable Einstein quotes on the subject:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

[tvashtarkatena]

It's easier to resurrect a dead man's thoughts in your image than breath life into your own.

[rob]

I can dig why some people are into god. I'm OK with it. Probably, it's human nature. I just can't understand why they're SO SURE. I mean, no room for doubt? At all? Really? Weird. Especially given the subject matter, and how "unprovable" it is, how could you still not harbor any single rational doubt? I don't get it. Seems dangerous.

[rob]

I'm a total atheist, but I still pray sometimes. It's funny. Almost always during some sort of traumatic event. The last time was during a really technical descent in a bicycle race. I laugh about it afterwards.

 

A friend of mine in that race was catholic, wears a cross and everything. During the descent, I asked him if his god would look out for me even though I don't believe, and he thought about it for a moment and said, "probably not." I loled!

 

Anyway, there was a moment in that race I found myself praying to whoever. It certainly gives you an existential crisis afterwards when you end up surviving

 

Anyway, my point is I think our brains are wired to head that direction.

[tvashtarkatena]

I used to run every day at lunch with a devout Christian. We debated religion, of course.

 

One day he said "You know, a lot of people get caught up in the literal truth of the Bible and whatnot, and miss the higher truth contained in it."

 

Another time he said "You know, I pray for you." Knowing him pretty well at that point, I knew his was a message of unselfish, unprejudiced love, of wishing the best for me within the template of his beliefs, not an admonishment for my lack of faith.

 

His god would have watched out for me during such a downhill ride without prejudice. His god wasn't a fucking asshole, because he wasn't a fucking asshole. His god was all inclusive. He was killed with his son when his light plane ran into a mountain in the Sierras several years back.

 

Since god is essentially a blank slate, we make him out to be who we want. Born Agains, Catholics, atheists, whatev - in the end we all choose to buy into a set of beliefs, values, and actions or not. We're not 'bound' by anything in this regard. It's always a choice. Some of us take responsibility for making that choice, others don't.

 

I don't pray during or after near misses, and I've had a few. Oh, being the old Catholic, I 'joke pray' sometimes. Last time I was running for a plane I joke prayed like a motherfucker (it was still on the tarmac, thanks to United's reliably horrible on time performance). I do recognize that I owe a karmic debt, however, and try to pay up when I can.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm going to pray to one of my personal gods, now: water. Is there a more beautiful and frightening substance in the universe?

 

Time for a little lap swim meditation.

[ivan]

It would be great if Kristians, on occasion, put their Bibles down and read something with some actual research and original thought

a great read for such folks (you'd dig it too pat, despite the author's credentials) is "misquoting jesus" by bart ehrman - he's a radical born-again christian turned biblical scholar who, through the process of actually learning all those dead-languages and grappling w/ the oldest surviving texts (he's a phd from a dog-fearing theological school), became far more liberal in his philosophy - the book is an extremely detailed and interesting history of the evolution of the new testament as an historic document, including many examples of instances where profound theological debates amongst early christians resulted in topically slight, but philosophically significant, alterations in the accepted text.

[ivan]

PS Einstein was doggedly wrong regarding quantum physics throughout most of his life. Even smart guys win some and lose some.

"god does not throw dice!"

awww, albert, don't worry! i'dve nailed my cousin too if i coulda

[Choada_Boy]

It's easier to resurrect a dead man's thoughts in your image than breath life into your own.

 

I was merely demonstrating to the thread some of Einstein's thoughts on the matter, which are in opposition to the "facts" brought up by one of the participants. Breathe.

[denalidave]

You demonstrate what seems to be total ignorance of how Science works. It must be easy to not have to think...

As stated earlier by another poster, even science requires a degree of faith and can be manipulated to achieve the desired results. Many of our current scientific theories will tumble once we learn more, just as they have in the past. We think we have scientific proof of whatever (and often we do), yet the more we learn the more we realize how little we really know. I'm all for science but that cannot take away from what I have already personally experienced in my journey through life.

 

I guess you should put Einstein in that category too, after all, he believed in God and thought he proved it with E=MCsquared. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

 

I can't believe this, but I gotta agree with trashie as it's time for ya'll to keep on with your faith in nothingness and I in my faith in a all powerful force in our universe. Peace out.

 

Ding, ding, I think I finally get it. Let me make sure I understand what everyone is telling me here. Now that we have science to prove all that exists in the world, there can be absolutely ZERO POSSIBILITY of a supreme being, whether it be a personal god or not? However infinitesimally small the chance there could be some sort of god, it could never co-exist with science. And, that there is in no way said god could exist because we now have science. Of course, now it all makes perfect sense.

 

There are plenty other examples of un-explained phenomena, but that does not, in any way, shape or form, mean/prove that they can't or don't exist.

 

Atheism appears to me to be just like all the other "religions". If your not with our un-religion, your against us. We are the only ones that are correct and the rest be damned. At least the agnostic is open, however small that chance may be, to learning something new. At least as I understand it.

 

I believe we all create our own destinies, to a large degree, anyway. We have to deal with the hand that was dealt to us and someone/some act of nature can short change our destiny, but for the most part, it's all up to us.

 

I'm not sure what to say about this "dead end" Rob refers to... What is the worst thing that can happen if one has a believe in a higher power and turns out wrong in the end? One dies anyway and won't know the difference. Not saying I'm hedging my bets, but if I am wrong, I won't know the difference when I'm dead anyway.

 

However, look on the positive side of faith and what it can do. Take AA, for example. I'm not a fan of it myself, but the idea has helped many, with the power of belief in something greater than themselves. Sure, it cuts both ways with the zealots but if everyone adhered to the atheistic view, seems that would be much more of a dead end, with more apathetic people with no reason to carry on.

 

Flame on, angry zealots.

[denalidave]

I just see a lot of irony in atheists saying they know for certain of something that cannot be ascertained, yet mock and dis anyone that has a different personal experience. Show me one data point PROOVING there is no God and that God can't/won't interact with us humans and I will consider the data.

 

Please show me one data point PROOVING there is no tooth fairy. I guess that means we should all be tooth fairy agnostic?

 

By the way, agnostic does not mean 50/50 chance either way, or that you "don't know." You could be 99.5% sure there is no god and still call yourself agnostic, because hey -- .5% is still greater than 0.

 

You should read The God Delusion by Dawkins. If anything, it's an excellent treatise on things like agnosticism, pantheism, Spinoza's "god," and what it means to be an atheist. You dont seem to understand what being an atheist is.

Technically, I suppose the tooth fairy example could be correct. However, I have had a personal experience with "God" so I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. You may disagree on what I experienced, but that just boils down to your opinion vs. what I have experienced personally. How can you take that away from someone? You can't. You can never be assured 100% I did not experience God, now can you?

 

I think you are correct. I was under the assumption that Atheism is a believe that there is absolutely no god and no possibility of a god in all of the vastness of our universe.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's easier to resurrect a dead man's thoughts in your image than breath life into your own.

 

I was merely demonstrating to the thread some of Einstein's thoughts on the matter, which are in opposition to the "facts" brought up by one of the participants. Breathe.

 

Breathe yourself. The comment clearly wasn't directed at you, but at the poster who altered Einstein's beliefs to bolster his own opinion.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[denalidave]

I can dig why some people are into god. I'm OK with it. Probably, it's human nature. I just can't understand why they're SO SURE. I mean, no room for doubt? At all? Really? Weird. Especially given the subject matter, and how "unprovable" it is, how could you still not harbor any single rational doubt? I don't get it. Seems dangerous.

I never said I don't have doubts and I definitely have wrestled with the issue my entire adult life. I just think the atheist view is the same same... You can't have any doubt that there is no god whatsoever. There is no god and that is final. Is that not what atheist preach?

[denalidave]

Here's some valuable Einstein quotes on the subject:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

Well, I learn something new everyday. I still don't see how that shows god cannot exist, whether here or in some far reaches of our unknown universe.

[tvashtarkatena]

I have exactly as much doubt that god is not a human invention as I have that the tooth fairy is not a human invention. Atheism is a belief that god is a human invention, not the other way around. I have an enormous body of historical evidence to indicate that this is, in fact, the case. and no credible evidence to the contrary. So yes, I can 'prove' that god is a human invention...to myself. I cannot, of course, convince one who relies on faith to make that call, any more than I milk a male tiger. This isn't preaching, it's simply stating a point of view.

 

Feeling something is proof of nothing. I've felt that someone loved me who actually didn't, and I've felt that someone didn't love me who actually did. I felt both quite profoundly, but no amount of intensity made either reality. Feeling is internal brain chemistry, nothing more.

Edited October 22, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[AlpineK]

Praise to the Righteous

 

[video:youtube]

[denalidave]

Feeling something is proof of nothing. I've felt that someone loved me who actually didn't, and I've felt that someone didn't love me who actually did. I felt both quite profoundly, but no amount of intensity made either reality. Feeling is internal brain chemistry, nothing more.

God must be working another Festivus miracle cause I can actually agree with that.

[denalidave]

Praise to the Righteous

 

[video:youtube]

I was wondering when this one would pop up.

[genepires]

Ding, ding, I think I finally get it. Let me make sure I understand what everyone is telling me here. Now that we have science to prove all that exists in the world, there can be absolutely ZERO POSSIBILITY of a supreme being, whether it be a personal god or not? However infinitesimally small the chance there could be some sort of god, it could never co-exist with science. And, that there is in no way said god could exist because we now have science. Of course, now it all makes perfect sense.

 

There are plenty other examples of un-explained phenomena, but that does not, in any way, shape or form, mean/prove that they can't or don't exist.

 

Atheism appears to me to be just like all the other "religions". If your not with our un-religion, your against us. We are the only ones that are correct and the rest be damned. At least the agnostic is open, however small that chance may be, to learning something new. At least as I understand it.

 

I believe we all create our own destinies, to a large degree, anyway. We have to deal with the hand that was dealt to us and someone/some act of nature can short change our destiny, but for the most part, it's all up to us.

 

 

Flame on, angry zealots.

 

science is agnostic in nature. When showed evidence contrary to common belief, it changes to fit with the new knowledge. (though sometimes it may take a while) Science does not deny the existence of dinosaurs cause it goes against the time line given by other evidence. It goes back and tries to understand where mistakes cold be made or how it can all still fit together. Religion just dismisses dinosaurs cause it does not fit with a bible timeline.

 

On a positive note, religion puts the fear into people to make them act nicely together. Obey my commandments, act nice or I will give you a serious spanking!