2

10/1/2009 1:53:35 AM

Dude, get the fuck out of here with your bible verses. This is a thread about "coming out" as an athiest.

10/1/2009 1:56:44 AM

Quote :

"i don't know what that means."

It means that I believe that you will permanently lose consciousness at death, fully expecting to wake up in heaven. And so, you will never know that you were wrong.

Quote :

"my main point here was to defend the authority of the Bible"

It doesn't need a defense. It is what it is.... That's the very nature of faith.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM. Reason : s]

10/1/2009 1:59:34 AM

oops... mt

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM. Reason : s]

10/1/2009 2:02:51 AM

You can spot a born again fundie a mile away when they like to use caplocks to make their POINT throughout their SENTENCES particularly whenever they hit words like SIN and TRUTH.

10/1/2009 2:04:15 AM

Particularly when they start throwing out chapter/verse numbers, like someone's going to cite him for plagiarism. I guess he thinks it lends an air of gravitas since his pastor does it. Guess what, your pastor does it because you're all sitting there holding bibles in your laps

no one's impressed that you know chapters and verses. that's the kind of crap that you need to do around your christian buddies. it just gets in the way when you talk to secular people.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM. Reason : s]

10/1/2009 2:06:38 AM

I will never understand the need to "defend" the Bible from the "infidels."

10/1/2009 2:08:15 AM

You don't believe in the bible. I will argue that you should believe in the bible by citing quotes from the bible!!!! I'm a functional retard.

10/1/2009 2:09:38 AM

well i'm not gonna "thump" it much more in here, i just wanted to legitimately play the other side of the argument. i get particularly burned up when i see weak, shallow defenses of Christianity in the face of any kind of opposition

Quote :

" no one's impressed that you know chapters and verses."

and that is fine since i'm not trying to be impressive. i'm getting called out for backing up a belief through direct Scripture references. maybe it's better to not have any basis for those beliefs? sounds like a lose-lose argument for me

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 2:18 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 2:09:45 AM

All of this crappy apologetics stuff... trying to come up with rational explanations for faith... There is none! That's the whole beauty of it - you're twisting and killing the very essence of what you purport to defend when you defend it.

The whole "blind faith" vs. "justified faith" thing where they say that blind faith is bad, like having faith that you can safely jump off a building vs. having faith that a chair will hold you up.... NO! Don't try to explain it... it is what it is. It's just simply faith, in the end. And that's what makes it so intensely personal.

Quote :

"i just wanted to legitimately play the other side of the argument."

you failed miserably.

Quote :

"i get particularly burned up when i see weak, shallow defenses of Christianity in the face of any kind of opposition"

why do you think it needs defending?

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 2:15 AM. Reason : s]

10/1/2009 2:12:31 AM

Quote :

"i get particularly burned up when i see weak, shallow defenses of Christianity in the face of any kind of opposition "

Perhaps you shouldn't be providing them then.

Quote :

"he whole "blind faith" vs. "justified faith" thing where they say that blind faith is bad, like having faith that you can safely jump off a building vs. having faith that a chair will hold you up.... NO! Don't try to explain it... it is what it is. It's just simply faith, in the end. And that's what makes it so intensely personal."

This is how I feel as well. Explaining why one has faith is what seems to get people muddled up. I know I can't properly articulate the faith I have and that I have no need to because it is my experience and mine alone

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 2:27 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 2:22:22 AM

well i would answer why it needs defending with more Scripture refs but that doesn't seem to be a valid response in here. however do you really need to ask as to why an all out assault on the Gospel doesn't need to be defended by Christians? it wouldn't make me much of one if I didn't defend it

10/1/2009 2:28:14 AM

Quote :

"an all out assault on the Gospel"

I didn't notice where people were "assaulting" the Bible. I just saw people saying they didn't agree with it for the most part.

10/1/2009 2:36:14 AM

Quote :

" what I do have a problem with are atheists who make it their mission to put down someone because of their religion."

Have you ever had an atheist knock on your door trying to "convert" you?

10/1/2009 2:52:54 AM

Quote :

"i'm getting called out for backing up a belief through direct Scripture references."

You're not going to convince an atheist through references to a book which presupposes the existence of the very being which is in question.

10/1/2009 6:14:42 AM

I love the first response to the thread. I love rubbing my family's face in it... my family treats me like crap for some reason.

Kinda makes it more difficult to get along when one person in a relationship is trying to be argumentative whenever the opportunity arises. Doesn't matter what the subject is, if someone is intent on being argumentative I'd probably be argumentative in return or just try to avoid that person. I'm sure the other party isn't going out of their way to be friendly, but if you don't want to be treated like crap treating other people like crap isn't a good place to start.

The "What, you mean there are hornets in that nest I kicked? Why are they stinging me?" effect.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:58 AM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 7:36:17 AM

I don't like fundamentalist atheists nor do I like fundamentalist christians.

Both groups simply adhere to their own perception of what it means to belong to either of these labels, and ultimately it becomes more about waving your atheist or christian flag than your actual core beliefs. This is extremely gay.

10/1/2009 7:45:31 AM

gotta love a bunch of college brats that have it all figured out

and think anyone else gives two shits about what they think*

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:58 AM. Reason : *]

10/1/2009 7:57:59 AM

You are an insignificant speck in this vast and ever-expanding universe. Your human brain fails to grasp the exponential unknowns that exist throughout existence itself... and yet, you know that God does not exist. Makes perfect sense...

10/1/2009 8:41:52 AM

Quote :

"I don't like fundamentalist atheists "

lol... what?

This kind of phrase is no different than when people say "militant evolutionists." It's not a fucking stance, it's just reality. How does just believing in the natural world make someone a "fundamentalist atheist?"

Quote :

"You are an insignificant speck in this vast and ever-expanding universe. Your human brain fails to grasp the exponential unknowns that exist throughout existence itself... and yet, you know that God does not exist. Makes perfect sense."

I think we've had this conversation before, but there's a difference between knowing and being reasonably sure. Only a fool would claim he "knows" there is no god. A man of science is simply reasonably sure based on the available evidence.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 9:28 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 9:27:23 AM

A man of science would have only one stance on the God issue, and that is to suspend judgment until sufficient evidence is provided, hence why most scientists are agnostics. Anything beyond that, is a faith-based assertion, and on paper is essentially no different than any mainstream religion.

God, we have had this exact same conversation before. While I respect your stance, I do not agree that you are being as rational as you claim.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 9:38:14 AM

Quote :

"this is not true at all, even that video even has specific examples of times when jesus said the laws were stupid. jesus was asked what the most important thing was and he replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" and said that everything was built on those two things."

It is true. Jesus may have said the laws are stupid, I don't know, but he also (supposedly) said this: Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). By endorsing the old testament, with its old laws, Jesus also endorsed slavery, killing gays, and genocide. I realize that many Christians now don't believe in any of that, but it's in there, and it's part of the religion. It's easy to find some places where Jesus encouraged love, and it's a lot easier to find some places where God acts like a malevolent tyrant. This is all beyond the point though. Even if God and Jesus in the bible were the most moral beings imaginable, the book still wouldn't be anything special.

Quote :

"the word of god is not the text on the page but the holy spirit speaking through you as you read and rely on your reason and experience to understand his calling. "

Yes, I wanted this for many years. Unfortunately, any kind of "calling" is just you, really wanting to believe that you're receiving a divine message. God supposedly talks to terrorists too, and tells them to fly planes into buildings. Personal experiences are not, and will never be, credible evidence for the existence of God.

Quote :

"fervent atheism is just as misguided as those people who catch you between classes and pretend like they want to get to know you but really they just want you to come hear someone speak at paul derr track. "

No, it really isn't. I've been over this so many times, yet it never sinks in. Atheism is not encouraging any kind of unreasonable belief. It's not asking you to take a step of faith and just believe. It's not asking you to abandon logic and embrace dogma. It's the rejection of a commonly made (and entirely unfounded) claim about the existence of God, and his character.

Quote :

"Why do you have to be an atheist just becuase you don't believe in the bible? Think about it. You being an atheist is a slap in the face to your parents."

I don't have to be an atheist just because I don't believe in the bible. I'm an atheist, but I also don't believe in the bible. Why me not believing in something stupid is a slap in the face to my parents is beyond me. If anything, it goes to show that they raised someone that is capable of using reason and thinking for himself.

Quote :

"Here, I'll let you rebut yourself:"

Uhh, that isn't a rebuttal. The first statement was exactly that...a statement, that I made. Not every atheist will agree with that statement, and atheism does not put forth that statement. I think that any god that would create a universe in which there is a hell is an immoral god. If you think that there should be a hell and that anyone deserves to go there, you are an immoral person, by my standards.

Quote :

"Like I said, I understand where you're coming from... A lot of it has to do with youthful enthusiasm - all that energy has to go somewhere, and religious fervor (even atheistic fervor) is a very common outlet. Hopefully you will mature and grow out of this somewhat - there's nothing more unattractive than an old atheist who runs around criticizing people and dumping on their beliefs."

Great, more of this. When you fail to dismantle my argument, you attempt to discredit me by insinuating that my position on this is driven by my age or youthful exuberance. I hope that, with age, my ideas become even more refined, and I am able to speak them more freely. I don't want to live in a world where people just believe what they believe and are never asked to be held accountable. I think we should constantly be challenging each other's ideas. If you choose to shut up and be a subject to religious tradition, then that's fine. That isn't me, though. Invalid beliefs deserve to be criticized and called into question.

Quote :

"You're doing it wrong. You're just an agnostic with an axe to grind."

You're right. I think, given my position on religion in general and my knowledge of Christianity, I'm right to dispute its accuracy.

Quote :

"Where is Froshkiller's epic post on this topic?? Found it..."

I was hoping someone would post this. I think the funniest thing about it is that it makes an appeal to tradition, as if that's a reason to believe anything. Though, I am confused about Froshkiller's actual beliefs. Many of his recent posts didn't come across, to me, as a sterling endorsement of Christianity.

Quote :

"But the first step was believing in the authority and infallibility of the Bible as the true Word of God, which by our nature is not easy to do because frankly, it's offensive and we don't want to."

I agree that the only logical position, if you are to believe in the bible, is to believe that it is the perfect word of God. If it's not, then why would you believe any of it at all? Unfortunately, the bible has too many problems and contradictions to be the perfect word of God. Men wrote it, and men make mistakes. If God really wants me to believe in him, maybe he should have left more proof than one badly written book.

Quote :

"I will never understand the need to "defend" the Bible from the "infidels.""

Well, there are plenty of criticisms to defend against. If no one defended it, it would just go away...then "God" would die. That would be awful, wouldn't it? No more God's plan to keep things together...no more ancient dogma to guide us through life. I can't think of anything worse.

Quote :

"I don't like fundamentalist atheists nor do I like fundamentalist christians. Both groups simply adhere to their own perception of what it means to belong to either of these labels, and ultimately it becomes more about waving your atheist or christian flag than your actual core beliefs. This is extremely gay."

No. I already covered this earlier in the thread. If it were not for religion and belief in god, there wouldn't have to be atheists. And, again, this isn't just me mindlessly picking a side and fighting for it.

Quote :

"gotta love a bunch of college brats that have it all figured out and think anyone else gives two shits about what they think*"

I don't claim to have it all figured out. I'll freely admit that I don't know everything, and I refuse to make any claims about things which cannot be verified in any way. I'm not saying there can't be a God, or that I refuse to believe in one, only that if such a God exists, it by definition cannot be detected, and I can make no concrete claims about it.

Quote :

"You are an insignificant speck in this vast and ever-expanding universe. Your human brain fails to grasp the exponential unknowns that exist throughout existence itself... and yet, you know that God does not exist. Makes perfect sense..."

Like I just said...I don't know that. I don't know that invisible unicorns exist in some faraway galaxy. They could exist...I'm not willing to eliminate that possibility. I have no way of verifying their existence, though, and I see no reason to believe that they do exist.

10/1/2009 9:38:38 AM

Quote :

"No. I already covered this earlier in the thread. If it were not for religion and belief in god, there wouldn't have to be atheists. And, again, this isn't just me mindlessly picking a side and fighting for it."

I probably wasn't clear, but i was not talking about you. You sound like a fairly reasonable guy.

I have no problem with atheists or christians. People who are truly comfortable with their beliefs have no need to constantly assert which side they stand on. Your post is just a personal account of your experiences in dealing with your beliefs and your parents who hold opposing beliefs. I don't think anyone can take that as proselytizing. There are other posts in your thread with proselytizing on both sides, and those are who my post was directed at.

10/1/2009 9:48:41 AM

I find it a lot easier to be a Christian if I don't take the Bible literally.

10/1/2009 9:49:29 AM

ok... its cool man, you're nothing at all like the dogmatic christians... you're a dogmatic atheist which is TOTALLY different

10/1/2009 9:49:32 AM

Do you want to know why I take a stance against religion?

10/1/2009 9:53:46 AM

Quote :

"A man of science would have only one stance on the God issue, and that is to suspend judgment until sufficient evidence is provided, hence why most scientists are agnostics. Anything beyond that, is a faith-based assertion, and on paper is essentially no different than any mainstream religion. God, we have had this exact same conversation before. While I respect your stance, I do not agree that you are being as rational as you claim."

But, you can make that claim with literally anything. Are you agnostic with respect to the existence of Thor? Psychics? Fairies? Santa Clause?

Should we suspend judgment on all of these topics until "sufficient evidence is provided?" What qualifies as sufficient evidence? I could say that there is literally no shred of proof in the natural observable Universe that God exists, and you could just say "Well we haven't seen everything, so we should suspend judgment."

Would you say the same thing about Fairies? Should scientists be "agnostics" with respect to fairies since we are "but a speck in the Universe" and that fairies could be out there somewhere?

10/1/2009 9:58:33 AM

Quote :

"Atheists don't believe in a system of morals that would allow them to throw out that type of accusation... just a friendly FYI from one atheist to another"

Didn't read the rest of the thread after this, but looks like you need to hit a fucking library once or twice

10/1/2009 10:01:43 AM

^^

I'm fairly sure there are several fairies on TWW.

10/1/2009 10:03:40 AM

I literally have no moral compass since I abandoned religion. When I'm not attempting to destroy Christianity, I regularly rape children and set puppies on fire. Without religion, I have no idea what is right and wrong.

This is why I'm glad the Bible teaches that we should stone whores and witches. This way Christians know what is right.

10/1/2009 10:03:54 AM

Quote :

" It is true. Jesus may have said the laws are stupid, I don't know, but he also (supposedly) said this: Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). By endorsing the old testament, with its old laws, Jesus also endorsed slavery, killing gays, and genocide."

uh, thats actually the exact opposite of what that section of Mathew 5 means. Mathew 5 is about how the Pharisees and Scribes wrongly interpreted the law.

10/1/2009 10:07:29 AM

Quote :

"Mathew 5 is about how the Pharisees and Scribes wrongly interpreted the law."

no u

10/1/2009 10:08:18 AM

6x^ The difference IMO is that there is absolutely zero evidence for fairies.

Evidence of a supernatural power of some sort? It's in statistics. As far as real science is concerned, the universe we know is far too complicated to happen by chance, given the amount of time it appears to have existed.

There's no proof positive evidence, so you're free to logically conclude that there is no god. However, there is *some* evidence to the notion that there is or was at some point something that we refer to as "god", so agnosticism is a perfectly rational belief.

10/1/2009 10:12:41 AM

Quote :

"ok... its cool man, you're nothing at all like the dogmatic christians... you're a dogmatic atheist which is TOTALLY different "

Do you actually know what dogma is? What dogma do you think I believe in?

Quote :

"Should we suspend judgment on all of these topics until "sufficient evidence is provided?" "

Yes, but there's a difference between suspending judgment and acting as if the unverifiable claim is true. Suspending judgment is the same as saying "I don't know."

Quote :

"uh, thats actually the exact opposite of what that section of Mathew 5 means. Mathew 5 is about how the Pharisees and Scribes wrongly interpreted the law."

Okay, but he still was saying that the old law was valid. I'm sure you're familiar with the law that says if a man lies with a man, he should be put to death. How would Jesus "interpret" that?

10/1/2009 10:13:04 AM

Quote :

"It's not asking you to take a step of faith and just believe."

it is actually, unless you meant to say agnostic

10/1/2009 10:13:55 AM

double tap

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 10:15:31 AM

Quote :

"Evidence of a supernatural power of some sort? It's in statistics. As far as real science is concerned, the universe we know is far too complicated to happen by chance, given the amount of time it appears to have existed."

lol just stop

10/1/2009 10:16:07 AM

Quote :

"6x^ The difference IMO is that there is absolutely zero evidence for fairies. Evidence of a supernatural power of some sort? It's in statistics. As far as real science is concerned, the universe we know is far too complicated to happen by chance, given the amount of time it appears to have existed. There's no proof positive evidence, so you're free to logically conclude that there is no god. However, there is *some* evidence to the notion that there is or was at some point something that we refer to as "god", so agnosticism is a perfectly rational belief."

Not being able to explain something doesn't mean that there is an equal likelihood that a deity was involved.

This is what people said about lightning during Roman times. Would you have agreed with them that there was a likelihood that a deity created lightning?

This is what people said about fire during early human times. Would you have agreed with them that there was a likelihood that a deity created fire?

All placing a god into a scientific equation does is abandon any hope of finding the true, natural answer. Once you say "God created the universe," why even research any further? You've already given yourself an answer.

And even if we do find out exactly how the universe was created, say it was from an explosion due to a big crunch of a previous universe, religious people could still add a god into the equation. "Oh, that's how it happened? Well, God did that, so that means God created the universe!"

There is no "proof positive" evidence that you don't live inside a computer-generated reality like in The Matrix. Should we be agnostic about that as well?

10/1/2009 10:17:21 AM

^^You want to refute that? I'm simply stating that suspension of judgment is valid since there is inconclusive evidence both ways.

^ And sure, I'm willing to remain open to the possibility that that's true if anyone can offer any evidence for it at all.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 10:17:40 AM

Uh oh, mathematical axioms and McDanger are best friends. Don't open that can of numbers.

He gets it ^

Again, I'd just like to re-iterate that I understand and sympathize with God, but I simply don't agree from a scientific standpoint.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 10:17:46 AM

Quote :

"Uh oh, mathematical axioms and McDanger are best friends. Don't open that can of numbers."

Mathematics ain't just about numbers no mo

10/1/2009 10:18:41 AM

Quote :

"Evidence of a supernatural power of some sort? It's in statistics."

They are?

Quote :

"As far as real science is concerned, the universe we know is far too complicated to happen by chance, given the amount of time it appears to have existed."

It is?


As an agnostic, and someone who subscribes to the concept of the scientific process (in the very rough way in which I understand it) I don't claim science has all the right answers. What I do believe is that science is willing to ask the questions and I have faith in the ability of humanity to discern, over time, that which is supported by evidence from that which is not.

10/1/2009 10:19:15 AM

Quote :

"You want to refute that? I'm simply stating that suspension of judgment is valid since there is inconclusive evidence both ways."

Show me the inconclusive evidence of God's existence. Caveat: You can not use lack of proof of him not existing as evidence in your case.

10/1/2009 10:19:49 AM

Quote :

"^^You want to refute that? I'm simply stating that suspension of judgment is valid since there is inconclusive evidence both ways."

I accept whatever simplest explanation fits the data and remain agnostic about shit that can't be pried apart by evidence.

There's literally no reason to believe in God. I'll switch that when that switches.

10/1/2009 10:20:23 AM

Quote :

"I'm willing to remain open to the possibility that that's true if anyone can offer any evidence for it at all."

That is pretty what much agnostics and atheists say. If you offer proof, we'll believe. The problem is, the most "proof" I've ever gotten is, "well how can you explain it without God?" To tweak a phrase, absence of evidence of absence is not evidence of existence.

10/1/2009 10:21:46 AM

This thread is awesome.

10/1/2009 10:22:38 AM

Quote :

"Mathematics ain't just about numbers no mo"

I was just trying to be witty, but you're right, I was not being precise.

10/1/2009 10:24:20 AM

Quote :

"^^You want to refute that? I'm simply stating that suspension of judgment is valid since there is inconclusive evidence both ways."

look, you can't conclude that God exists because the universe is huge and complex.

10/1/2009 10:26:04 AM

Being agnostic is just being stupid anyway. Whenever I challenge anyone about this, they always seem to make the half-assed argument that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle."

No, it doesn't.

Can you prove, with 100% certainty, that you are really awake right now? No, you can't. There is no way you can. You can be 99.999% sure, but you can't ever definitively prove such a case. You could present evidence like "I remember waking up. I don't ever have dreams this long. This is too real to be a dream," but you could never prove without a shadow of a doubt that you are awake.

Does this mean you should reserve judgment in that question? Does this mean that you are "agnostic" about that issue? Does this mean that the truth is "somewhere in the middle?"

Of course not. Like most intelligent human beings, you can make reasonable conclusions based on available evidence. That's what you do every day. You don't believe "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" regarding your car suddenly exploding. You don't believe "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" with your food being poisoned. You make rational judgments based on evidence.

Why, then, with God, does this rationality seem to fly out the window with half of you?

Just because you say that you're an Atheist doesn't mean you're saying "Look I am 100% sure that God doesn't exist."

What you're saying is, "Look, I've examined the available evidence, and I'm reasonably sure that God doesn't exist. Because I am a man of science, if evidence arrives to the contrary I will examine it for it's legitimacy. Until then, I am making the hypothesis that God doesn't exist."


The jury is not out. There is no god.

10/1/2009 10:27:02 AM

Quote :

"What you're saying is, "Look, I've examined the available evidence, and I'm reasonably sure that God doesn't exist. Because I am a man of science, if evidence arrives to the contrary I will examine it for it's legitimacy. Until then, I am making the hypothesis that God doesn't exist, but since I cannot prove it, I will suspend judgment until I can.""

You are only one sentence fragment away from being just like me.

10/1/2009 10:34:15 AM