[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
Kazan you're correct. Atheists can't lapse back into religion. If you do so you weren't an atheist in the first place.
There are lots of people who classify themselves as atheists who in fact are in fact religious in one way or another so you're not the first  to mislabel yourself Aldo.

It's not so much that... I'd interpret an aetheist as someone who actively disbelieves in God, sort of an anti-Christian or whatnot.

Now, whilst I hate organised religion (or rather, the preachy nature of it and the demands it makes), the truth is that i've made my mind up not to make my mind up.  If that makes sense.  

So I'm not actually religious, i'm just not closed to the possibility.  But i'll never be a practicising Christian or whanot, it's just not in my nature i guess.

[Kazan]

aldo_14: "active" disblief is not the definition so your interpretation is false


most [real] atheists are not closed to the possibility - they just won't accept it until there is evidence

[Nico]

well, I'm an atheist, but if tommorrow there was some huge hand coming from the clouds and taping on my head, and a loud voice claiming: "hey, Nico, don't you think you're missing something?", I guess even I would turn into a christian, all atheist that I am

[karajorma]

The problem is definitions. It's hard to quantify belief down to a simple label because different people use different terms to describe the same thing.

For instance this  site has a definition that makes it possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.  (I.e we cannot know if god exists or not so I choose not to believe in the existance of god).

It's also possible to be spirtual and agnostic (we cannot know if god exists or not so I believe that a higher power is looking over me).

Basically it's usually at this point that I start complaining my head hurst and go to have a lie down

Originally posted by Nico
well, I'm an atheist, but if tommorrow there was some huge hand coming from the clouds and taping on my head, and a loud voice claiming: "hey, Nico, don't you think you're missing something?", I guess even I would turn into a christian, all atheist that I am

I'd believe I was hallucinating first but eventually I'd be convinced too.

Denying something in the face of evidence that it's true is a rejection of the rules of science that I built my atheism on in the first place.

[diamondgeezer]

Kaz, I'm deeply sorry for any offence caused by the poll. The last thing I intended to do was insult anyone else's beliefs

I was just a little short on space, see, or I would have seperated them. But there was no way I was going to leave out the Almighty Dollar and Billy (people complain if you don't include comdey options on your polls ). I stuck science in there in the sense that you put might more trust and, dare I say it, faith in quantifiable hard facts than invisible chaps who claim to rule the universe...

Anyway, there's a large number of posts I'd like to reply to but in order to avoid having to make a fifty individual quotes I'll try to keep it more up to date:

Given the evidence I've seen and heard and read over the last 20-odd years, I don't see the need to bow down to a higher power of any sort. To be honest, the more I learn about the Universe, the more I feel inclined to believe that there might be a single creative force behind it all than just random physics, since it makes a lot more sense that way (and can be explained in much shorter sentances which don't induce headaches). But there is absolutely no hard evidence for the existence of a Creator - or at least no more evidence than there is for the existence of alien life or the Loch Ness Monster. So does that make me agnostic or atheist, cos you lot are all working together to confuse my definition...

Now, this Jesus fellow died for our sins I'm told. Don't take this too seriously, but I must ask you - what's he done since then? I mean, we've not seen or heard from either Jesus or his pappy for some 2000 years now aside from unsubstantiated 'miracles' here and there and the odd vision. I'm not at all convinced they're still paying attention based on that evidence. Again, no offense, but I must use the phrase 'one-trick pony'. Granted, dying for our sins is a jolly decent thing to do, except that I didn't ask him to do that for me, and I would not have done. I prefer to face up for my own actions and would not ask someone to take the rap for me. Jesus provided this service 2000 years ago, without asking me if I wanted it, and is now demanding payment for it in worship if I want in to Paradise? No chance, matey.

[Kazan]

faith in the logically and evidentially supportable is not faith at all since faith is defined as belief in that which cannot be supported or proven



"shorter" != "simplier" != "more correct"

[diamondgeezer]

Dude, you need to give just a little. Makes it much easier to intereact with you

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: "active" disblief is not the definition so your interpretation is false


most [real] atheists are not closed to the possibility - they just won't accept it until there is evidence

Well, what would be considered 'evidence' is subjective in matters of faith after all....

Regardless, going simply via
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/atheism.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/agnostic.asp

i think agnosticism is probably a better team for what I believe.  Based on that, aethism is more based around attempting to disprove the existence of God, whereas agnosticism is closer to my 'don't really care either way' type attitude.

Originally posted by Kazan
faith in the logically and evidentially supportable is not faith at all since faith is defined as belief in that which cannot be supported or proven

"shorter" != "simplier" != "more correct"

Remember that any belief is subjective to the person.... what is correct by modern science may turn out to be bollocks in 50,20 or even 5 years time - so 'faith' in science is the belief that the evidence used is correct.  

A few hundred years or so ago, science though that world was flat......and at the end of the day, both science and religion are - in often opposed ways - attempts to understand the nature of human existence and the world.

[Nuke]

i find the whole thing about jesus disturbing. he suposidly died for our sins which to us seems like a big sacrifice. from a godly persective, our world is mearly a sub-universe and death is merely a transition from one universe to another (in jesus's case it was from our world to heaven). with that in mind i dont consider that a true sacrifice (other than the fact that it probibly hurt like hell). essintially jesus went home to his daddy. i would hace been much more convinced if, say,  jesus went to hell for our sins.

[karajorma]

It's not like he knew Daddy wouldn't bring him back to life either.


DG. Existance of god is not simpler. A lot of people assume it is but it isn't. If you're comparing complexity any explaination for intelligent design needs to also explain who did it, how they did it and why. Start trying to explain that one away and the big bang actually becomes the less complicated of the two.
 After all if you locked yourself away for 20 years you could probably learn enough to understand everything we know about the big bang. As for why god created the universe, theologans have been working on that one for over 2000 years and they're not much closer to an answer

[Kazan]

aldo: stop trying to subjectivty that which is not

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: stop trying to subjectivty that which is not

All of human existence is subjective to the way we percieve our surroundings.  human science is simply a structured way by which we try to understand out existence, in much the same way as religion was created.  

The way in which we percieve this world - and thus how we measure it - is shaped by our biological makeup.  If we saw in infra red, or used echolocation, it's likely science would be completely different.

And besides which, the value of science is that it is questionable, in that we can learn more by challenging preconceptions.  

Thats why I prefer scientific reasoning to religion, because it recognises not every question can be answered, and that not every answer is unquestionable.  

If you view science as being 'static', as being composed of universal truths, it's no different to religion.  Hell, that's why they call it 'taking as gospel'.

[Kazan]

i never said STATIC - i said not SUBJECTIVE


if we saw in infra red or used echolocation it is _not_ likely our modern science would be different.  Our sceince inheriently doubts our perception and verifies it with as many people as possible.  Which part of the spectrum or how we maop the world around us wouldn't change it

[Nuke]

science is no longer constrained to what can be humanly percieved. one has to only study quantum mechanics to understand this.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
i never said STATIC - i said not SUBJECTIVE


if we saw in infra red or used echolocation it is _not_ likely our modern science would be different.  Our sceince inheriently doubts our perception and verifies it with as many people as possible.  Which part of the spectrum or how we maop the world around us wouldn't change it

What we can measure with science is determined by our perception. After all, how could we know to measure what we can't percieve?

Hell,we can't even imagine or express it....

EDIT; Just an example - have you ever held an atom, or a quark, or DNA?  Like, in your hand?  Can you feel it, can you see it or hear it?  The only way we can percieve these things is by measuring them - but we can only measure what we percieve.

It doesn;t falsify science, it's just a point that there is a degree of faith - or belief if you will - that science is the best way to represent our life.  There's many ways to use that belief - some decide science is everything and discounts a higher power, some decide it's all down to God and decide it's meaningless.

Point is, you can't just piss on other peoples beliefs because of science - because science is itself a pseudo-belief structure, and also because it's not mutally exclusive to the existence of a higher power anyways.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
Well yeah, if you buy into Christian dogma, sure. But if you don't, well, that's a whole other oyster. What about the other 2/3rds of the world who don't fall under judeochristian/muslim dogma?

There is only one truth.

Originally posted by mikhael
You say that like being secular is a bad thing.

Sorry, I was grouping secularisim with the decline of morals in the world. In my eyes, and in the "eyes" of the Bible, things such as sex with anyone other than your wife (whether you have a wife or not) are simply wrong, a sin. Yet secularisim repeats the mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine."

Hence the disapproval secularisim finds in my eyes, and I would hope, in the eyes of anyone who believes in the Bible as the Word of God.

Originally posted by mikhael
Does that mean most of the world is going to be stuck without salvation? Nice guy, that Jesus.

Go see The Passion, and then tell me that sarcastically.

Instead of God imposing His all-powerful will on you and I, forcing us to be "good", He provided a way out of the punishments He set down for those who sin - namely, death. His laws require a blood atonement for sin. He provided Jesus as that atonement for you and me. Yeah, I'd say that's "nice". Quite a bit more, too.

Of course, you can raise the question of why He set all those rules down in the first place, and why He set such a punishment for breaking those rules.

It's because He loves us. Just like a loving father will discipline his children when they do something wrong.

Originally posted by mikhael
That sounds an awful lot like playing mind games. I don't have to test my wife's faith in me--I have faith its there.

Ok, that's fine - great, actually. But what good is that faith in her, or her faith in you, if you never do anything that shows your faith?

It reminds of that "game" we all played one time or another as kids.

"I know such-and-such!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it - tell me!"
"Uhmmm... No! I don't want to!"

Without substance, your faith is meaningless.

Originally posted by mikhael
I'd like to offer an opposing, perhaps more cynical, viewpoint. Perhaps, these people are living lives that are so hard and so difficult that they have to find comfort somewhere, and that comfort for them is in believing in the nice thing that will happen later if they just endure long enough. Perhaps, just perhaps, if these people didn't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or how they're going to afford the mortgage payment, they could take comfort in their own works.
I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that there's more than one interpretation.

YEs, of course... there's immense comfort to be had in knowing that you have enough money to carry you through the month, to provide your children with a lunch for school, or to pay your bills. But humanity seems to have a veery very hard time both in finding actual joy in the possesion of money, and in knowing where to draw the line in the pursuit of money. When does it turn from need to greed?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Now, this Jesus fellow died for our sins I'm told.... what's he done since then?

Probably looking out over the world and crying. I know I would in His place.

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I mean, we've not seen or heard from either Jesus or his pappy for some 2000 years now aside from unsubstantiated 'miracles' here and there and the odd vision. I'm not at all convinced they're still paying attention based on that evidence.

Now, let's see here. Quoting from Amos 9 verses 13-15 (bold mine)

[q] 13 "The days are coming," declares the LORD ,

"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
and the planter by the one treading grapes.
New wine will drip from the mountains
and flow from all the hills.
14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel;
they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,"

says the LORD your God. [/q]

Now where am I again? Oh yes, that's right... the Land of Israel, in the rebuilt city of Jerusalem, where we have excellent wine (pretty inexpensive, too) and delightfully fresh fruit (read Mark Twain's account of the barrenness of this area when he was here), and 3+ literally miraculous victories in wars our neighbors waged against us in the past 50 years since we've returned, opposing our being here, against multiple foes much more numerous than us.... see what I'm getting at?

150 years ago no one would have imagined in their wildest dreams that that section of Amos would - or even could - be fulfilled so literally. And yet it has. And I'm living right in the middle of fulfilled prophecy.... sooo cool.

So I'd say that God's been quite busy, if you're willing to see it.

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I prefer to face up for my own actions and would not ask someone to take the rap for me. Jesus provided this service 2000 years ago, without asking me if I wanted it, and is now demanding payment for it in worship if I want in to Paradise? No chance, matey.

And yet, if you "took the rap" for your own actions - if any of us did - then it would be impossible for us to attain entry into heaven. So you complain that His actions provide you with a way to make it there?

It's almost like feeling really sorry for yourself, and wanting to be cheerful. But when someone comes along and says, "I love you, brother - accept that and I'll cheer you up", you resent him for trying to cheer you up? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Flipside]

It's a difficult one to respond to here, as I do not believe in the Bible. Whether you believe Jesus to be the 'Son of God' or whether he was trying to tell us we are ALL the Children of God is a choice you all alone can make. Personally, I think the latter.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
150 years ago no one would have imagined in their wildest dreams that that section of Amos would - or even could - be fulfilled so literally. And yet it has. And I'm living right in the middle of fulfilled prophecy.... sooo cool.  

 Suppose something happens to the nation of Israel 50 years from now. Would you conceed that the prophecy must be false? Of course not.

This is the way that mediums who claim to speak to the dead work. Fling out a whole bunch of claims knowing that only the ones that come true will be noticed.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.

So basically, all the Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and the rest are doomed to go to Hell because they never got a visit from the Christ Faerie? Its rather interesting how your minority faith gets a claim over the majority of the world.

Sorry, I was grouping secularisim with the decline of morals in the world.

I could group judeo-christian morality with the rise of slavery or the hate crimes that continue here in the American South, but that doesn't make it a true link.

Go see The Passion, and then tell me that sarcastically.

I wasn't being sarcastic. Besides, why would a movie change my mind when the Book and its followers have never been able to offer anything to sway me? I'm far less likely to have my mind changed by a MOVIE than by rational debate with my colleagues.

Ok, that's fine - great, actually. But what good is that faith in her, or her faith in you, if you never do anything that shows your faith?

It reminds of that "game" we all played one time or another as kids.

"I know such-and-such!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it - tell me!"
"Uhmmm... No! I don't want to!"

Without substance, your faith is meaningless.

If I require proof, then my faith is false. Faith is, after all, a belief that does not require proof.

YEs, of course... there's immense comfort to be had in knowing that you have enough money to carry you through the month, to provide your children with a lunch for school, or to pay your bills. But humanity seems to have a veery very hard time both in finding actual joy in the possesion of money, and in knowing where to draw the line in the pursuit of money. When does it turn from need to greed?

That's a dodge because it doesn't address the question at hand.
In science, there is a school of thought called 'positivism'. Loosely, positivism is the idea that if two explanations of a phenomena both exactly desribe and predict that phenomena, then both are interchangeable for each other and equally valid. An example of this is the wave/particle duality of light. Wave theory and particle theory are both valid, if applied correctly. Usually such dualities are signs that the theories involved are actually subsets of a larger, more complete theory.
Both your explanation of the situation and mine fit the facts. I suggest that they are interchangeable.