Burden of Proof - Does it ever lie with Atheists?

[Charles Kozierok]

Why is it that we're so bad at discussing topics like this?

Because only one side is generally interested in discussing it, sadly.

 

[jackstar7]

Why is it that we're so bad at discussing topics like this?

Because it has a philosophical core. Some people see faith as a virtue and some see it as a vice. Those two are all but impossible to bridge.

 

[Retro Rob]

Is it a fair statement that you have read the bible but not the Koran, in large part being born and raised in a western society where cultural, social leanings are with Christianity and the bible?

Maybe had you been born in the middle east it would have been the reverse, maybe you would have read the Koran and not the bible.

If we accept those basic fundamental differences in geography as being a primary driver of ones belief systems or acceptance of faith.

We have to also examine that religious belief systems are at the core, derived from whatever Cultural and geographic influences one is subjected to.

If that is the case if we predominantly select our faith based upon where we grow up then ones faith is tied more to geography than anything else.

Being raised Baptist my first challenge of religion was based on this premise and the fact Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as god or burn in hell. I couldn't swallow that folks were going to hell based on where and how they grew up.

The fact you haven't read the Koran but are required by faith to reject it is also problematic.

To your point, I reject what I see Muslims do sometimes in the Mid East - heck, even some Chrsitians don't even follow the Bible. Doesn't make the Koran false, or the Bible.

Doesn't mean there is no truth to their text. It's not really about rejecting faiths as is much about choosing what you believe is the right one.

There are so many religions.. one could spend a lifetime studying each one.

 

[randomrogue]

Because it has a philosophical core. Some people see faith as a virtue and some see it as a vice. Those two are all but impossible to bridge.

I don't think it's that. Everyone has faith of some sort. The difference is when people say they have faith in something that is illogical.

If you ran around town today saying you have faith that Smurfs are everywhere in their little villages and we need to collect smurf berries if we have any hope of going to candy land after we die people would think you're bat shit crazy.

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Somehow this is ok though?

 

[jackstar7]

I don't think it's that. Everyone has faith of some sort. The difference is when people say they have faith in something that is illogical.

If you ran around town today saying you have faith that Smurfs are everywhere in their little villages and we need to collect smurf berries if we have any hope of going to candy land after we die people would think you're bat shit crazy.

Somehow this is ok though?

I think if you examined what you really think about things you'd find that you don't actually have faith. You have beliefs formed by experience and reasoned and logical projections.

I could be wrong about you... but that's my take on it being quite easy to live without faith of any kind, and yet be anything but hopeless.

 

[badb0y]

Rob M. would you please watch the video in this link and share your thoughts on it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE

It's just an alternative theory about the origins of Christianity, I am sure some of the people have seen the video since it's really old but I just want to know what you would make of the similarities that Christianity has with other older religions.

 

[fskimospy]

I am about as big an atheist as you are likely to find and I find most religious beliefs to be laughably silly. That being said, I see how religion acts as an enormous positive influence in the lives of a lot of people I care about and respect, and in that way I very much respect its place in our lives.

I just wish people knew better than to try and argue that religions were factually proveable. They aren't, and you will just embarrass yourself trying.

 

[randomrogue]

I think if you examined what you really think about things you'd find that you don't actually have faith. You have beliefs formed by experience and reasoned and logical projections.

I could be wrong about you... but that's my take on it being quite easy to live without faith of any kind, and yet be anything but hopeless.

I believe in the golden rule. That's faith.

 

[randomrogue]

Rob M. would you please watch the video in this link and share your thoughts on it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE

It's just an alternative theory about the origins of Christianity, I am sure some of the people have seen the video since it's really old but I just want to know what you would make of the similarities that Christianity has with other older religions.

Zietgiest has a few errors in it iirc. It's still worth watching but I think they mixed up a few of the Egyptian gods and a few other things.

I outlined a few things in the other thread but people simply ignore it.

I have common sense. I ask the big questions.

Up above I mentioned that one thing you see is the recycling of previous religions upon the implementation of a new one. Here's something interesting:

Egyptian God Osiris:
Virgin Born
3 wise men announced his birth
Died and resurrected
His body represented by wheat cakes eaten by followers

Greek God Dionysus
Virgin Born on Winter Solstice
Star appeared above when he was born
Half Human-Half God
Died and resurrected

Phrygian/Greek God Attis
Virgin Born on Winter Solstice
Died to save humanity
Crucified
His body represented by bread eaten by followers
Resurrected at Vernal Equinox

Iranian/Mesopotamian/Zoroastrian God Mithra
Virgin born on Winter Solstice
3 wise men announced his birth
Performed miracles such as walking on water, curing disease, and exorcising demons
Had 12 apostles
Had a last supper
Died to save humanity
Resurrected
Ascended to heaven
Will return to judge mankind

There are others that fit this as well but I'm just picking a couple of the predominant religions of the time that were suppressed by Christianity.

Regardless of your religious beliefs I would actually recommend reading up on other creation myths since they're very interesting and might actually open your eyes to ask more questions rather than just accepting a book as real and your religion as the one true religion. Native American, Egyptian, Greek, etc. You'll get frustrated at the similarities but it'll be good for your soul.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob M. would you please watch the video in this link and share your thoughts on it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE

It's just an alternative theory about the origins of Christianity, I am sure some of the people have seen the video since it's really old but I just want to know what you would make of the similarities that Christianity has with other older religions.

Sure I will take a look at it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am about as big an atheist as you are likely to find and I find most religious beliefs to be laughably silly. That being said, I see how religion acts as an enormous positive influence in the lives of a lot of people I care about and respect, and in that way I very much respect its place in our lives.

I just wish people knew better than to try and argue that religions were factually proveable. They aren't, and you will just embarrass yourself trying.

I think most problems arise from category mistakes, and consequently trying to apply inapplicable standards results in nonsense. No one can prove to me their faith is valid, but they might convince me of it or the reverse. The nature of the topic isn't amenable to the religious using scientific means as validation, and likewise it's a complete waste of time to insist they do. Neither science nor religion encompass all that is, because we are inherently finite in understanding. Consequently it usually turns into a pissing match as to who is "better", which is utterly unproductive.

 

[jackstar7]

I believe in the golden rule. That's faith.

I disagree, but I can understand how you got there.

 

[lotus503]

To your point, I reject what I see Muslims do sometimes in the Mid East - heck, even some Chrsitians don't even follow the Bible. Doesn't make the Koran false, or the Bible.

Doesn't mean there is no truth to their text. It's not really about rejecting faiths as is much about choosing what you believe is the right one.

There are so many religions.. one could spend a lifetime studying each one.

That works but only if we ignore the fundamental fact that Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as Lord and savior or go to hell.

As such Christians are required to preach the gospel because if you don't and people don't hear the message and accept Jesus they are damned to hell for eternity.

thats a problem with major religions outside of Buddhism, its my way or the highway to hell.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Because only one side is generally interested in discussing it, sadly.

Why I think these things go so badly is that religious folk mostly start a conversation like this with the mistaken belief that the information they have been taught in church is infallible.

They have been taught this information in a very carefully controlled environment that heavily discourages problematic questions, restricts knowledge to approved doctrine, and if all else fails falls back on an 'infallible' authority to end any non-conformist thought.

Then they have a conversation with an atheist who asks hard questions, has unedited knowledge, and refuses to accept their ultimate authority as infallible and they are quickly frustrated on what they feel is unfair arguments.

This whole situation is then complicated by the fact that their church leaders 'arms' them with canned arguments that they are informed with a serious nod that no atheist can refute. Of course we have already heard all those canned arguments, and have air-tight refutations to them already.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That works but only if we ignore the fundamental fact that Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as Lord and savior or go to hell.

As such Christians are required to preach the gospel because if you don't and people don't hear the message and accept Jesus they are damned to hell for eternity.

thats a problem with major religions outside of Buddhism, its my way or the highway to hell.

Christianity is exclusive and it's an imperative to appeal and attempt to get people to accept their doctrine however that cannot be forced. It does not compel another to have to do so.Yes, that was done a few hundred years ago, but then it went against what was mandated to followers. If you don't like it don't be one. There's certainly more freedom of choice there than we are allowed in our political system.

 

[Retro Rob]

That works but only if we ignore the fundamental fact that Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as Lord and savior or go to hell.

As such Christians are required to preach the gospel because if you don't and people don't hear the message and accept Jesus they are damned to hell for eternity.

thats a problem with major religions outside of Buddhism, its my way or the highway to hell.

There is a difference between doing this for a reward, and out of fear of punishment.

If one goes to hell, he technically can't die. In fact, Jesus stated that God wouldn't leave his body in the grave (iirc), some say hell. How can Jesus go to hell, when he wasn't disobedient? Isn't hell for disobedient people? How can a obedient man go there?

Hell is a wrong teaching designed to scare people into submission to the religion.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Why I think these things go so badly is that religious folk mostly start a conversation like this with the mistaken belief that the information they have been taught in church is infallible.

They have been taught this information in a very carefully controlled environment that heavily discourages problematic questions, restricts knowledge to approved doctrine, and if all else fails falls back on an 'infallible' authority to end any non-conformist thought.

Then they have a conversation with an atheist who asks hard questions, has unedited knowledge, and refuses to accept their ultimate authority as infallible and they are quickly frustrated on what they feel is unfair arguments.

This whole situation is then complicated by the fact that their church leaders 'arms' them with canned arguments that they are informed with a serious nod that no atheist can refute. Of course we have already heard all those canned arguments, and have air-tight refutations to them already.

Stereotyping is a tool for the lazy.

 

[lotus503]

There is a difference between doing this for a reward, and out of fear of punishment.

If one goes to hell, he technically can't die. In fact, Jesus stated that God wouldn't leave his body in the grave (iirc), some say hell. How can Jesus go to hell, when he wasn't disobedient? Isn't hell for disobedient people? How can a obedient man go there?

Hell is a wrong teaching designed to scare people into submission to the religion.

Our baptist pastor growing up would disagree with you.
That in fact if you don't believe in Christ you are going to hell, its one of the primary drivers for spreading the word of god.

Christians would want all people saved therfore are compeled to spread the word of God to do so.

Are you telling me people who do not accept Jesus as lord and savior are not going to hell?

Because of that's what your saying its contrary to everything I have been taught about Christianity by Christians, its contrary to recent conversations I have had with Christians.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why I think these things go so badly is that religious folk mostly start a conversation like this with the mistaken belief that the information they have been taught in church is infallible.

They have been taught this information in a very carefully controlled environment that heavily discourages problematic questions, restricts knowledge to approved doctrine, and if all else fails falls back on an 'infallible' authority to end any non-conformist thought.

Then they have a conversation with an atheist who asks hard questions, has unedited knowledge, and refuses to accept their ultimate authority as infallible and they are quickly frustrated on what they feel is unfair arguments.

This whole situation is then complicated by the fact that their church leaders 'arms' them with canned arguments that they are informed with a serious nod that no atheist can refute. Of course we have already heard all those canned arguments, and have air-tight refutations to them already.

Well, I once heard Richard Dawkins say, and I am paraphrasing, that 'if you have a medical doctor who doesn't believe in evolution, get another doctor', and that seems to not matter how good of a doctor he is. How does his belief, or lack thereof, affect his abilites to peform his duties?

So basically, my interpretation is that if a doctor so much as questions evolution, he isn't fit to be your doctor.

How is a message like this any different from the "truths" taught at a Church?

 

[Retro Rob]

Our baptist pastor growing up would disagree with you.
That in fact if you don't believe in Christ you are going to hell, its one of the primary drivers for spreading the word of god.

Christians would want toall people saved therfore are compeled spread the word of God to do so.

Are you telling me people who do not accept Jesus as lord and savior are not going to hell?

Because of that's what your saying its contrary to everything I have been taught about Christianity by Christians, its contrary to recent conversations I have had with Christians.

Because, I just ask myself why would a God whom they teach is a God of love, who loved the world so much that he sent His son down, turn right around and cause people to burn and suffer forever?

This is why I don't go to Church because I can't reconcile this. A God who created us in this world, with the ultimate destiny (before even creating us) that we will endure fire forever.

That would make God's standards even lower that some humans. I know people who wouldn't do such a thing....

 

[jackstar7]

Because, I just ask myself why would a God whom they teach is a God of love, who loved the world so much that he sent His son down, turn right around and cause people to burn and suffer forever?

This is why I don't go to Church because I can't reconcile this. A God who created us in this world, with the ultimate destiny (before even creating us) that we will endure fire forever.

That would make God's standards even lower that some humans. I know people who wouldn't do such a thing....

This prompts me to ask: do you take the Old Testament with the same level of respect as word of God as you do the New?

 

[lotus503]

Because, I just ask myself why would a God whom they teach is a God of love, who loved the world so much that he sent His son down, turn right around and cause people to burn and suffer forever?

This is why I don't go to Church because I can't reconcile this. A God who created us in this world, with the ultimate destiny (before even creating us) that we will endure fire forever.

That would make God's standards even lower that some humans. I know people who wouldn't do such a thing....

Can we agree then that your view of Christianity differs to a degree to other views?

You state you don't go to church, what about all of the Christians that do go and are taught accept Christ or you will NOT be saved?

I find a fundamental issue with it because so much of the world is not Christian because of geography and other religious and cultural influence.

I would say that your view of Christianity and the mainstream view are not the same.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Our baptist pastor growing up would disagree with you.
That in fact if you don't believe in Christ you are going to hell, its one of the primary drivers for spreading the word of god.

Christians would want all people saved therfore are compeled to spread the word of God to do so.

Are you telling me people who do not accept Jesus as lord and savior are not going to hell?

Because of that's what your saying its contrary to everything I have been taught about Christianity by Christians, its contrary to recent conversations I have had with Christians.

You're stereotyping based on your own experience with Christians. Let's see what percentage of them are Baptists... ahh here it is, .075%. Now why didn't you think of that yourself?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I would say that your view of Christianity and the mainstream view are not the same.

That's funny.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can we agree then that your view of Christianity differs to a degree to other views?

You state you don't go to church, what about all of the Christians that do go and are taught accept Christ or you will NOT be saved?

I find a fundamental issue with it because so much of the world is not Christian because of geography and other religious and cultural influence.

I would say that your view of Christianity and the mainstream view are not the same.

I agree with the accepting Jesus part. That's one of main, if the the heaviest, requirement. The exact consequences of not doing so is what I wonder about.