Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[ProHypster]

Religion usually does, you just don't accept their evidence.

 

Dude, if there was one scrap of evidence for religion that was unfalsifiable and demonsterable then I would accept religion. There is not, stop making up bullshit answers.

Actually the difference is not evidence, it's that religion is studied in history/archaelogy while evolution lies in biology right now.

 

It was thought of before the discovery of DNA, and once that was discovered scientists knew that if different organisms didn't share common DNA the Darwinian theory would be falsified, since it postulates that all species are related and share common ancestry

 

Really? Again with that? I already said multiple times that if "2" looks like "3" and is made of carbon doesn't mean the two were once "1" and should not be even the most logical thing either, it should be nothing further then what it is.

[danielsangeo]

Religion usually does, you just don't accept their evidence.

 

Dude, if there was one scrap of evidence for religion that was unfalsifiable and demonsterable then I would accept religion. There is not, stop making up bullshit answers.

Actually the difference is not evidence, it's that religion is studied in history/archaelogy while evolution lies in biology right now.

 

Nah, history/archaeology have evidence. We can find the clay pots and the statues or drawings of deities such as Zeus or Ra. We can learn about the religions of yore through evidence. Just because we're talking about religion doesn't mean that there's no evidence. However, what we're saying is that there is no evidence that these deities actually EXIST and that there's not a shred of evidence that the religion, itself, is correct. History/archaeology sure. Those have evidence. Religion, however, does not.

 

If someone can come up with a shred of evidence for the concepts in religion (such as deities or spirits or the afterlife), then I'm more than willing to listen and investigate said evidence. To date, none has ever been provided and I get nothing but dancing around the issue and dodging the question.

 

Some are more truthful that they don't have the evidence and that they have "faith". I'm fine with faith. I just don't, and can't, believe without evidence.

 

It was thought of before the discovery of DNA, and once that was discovered scientists knew that if different organisms didn't share common DNA the Darwinian theory would be falsified, since it postulates that all species are related and share common ancestry

 

Really? Again with that? I already said multiple times that if "2" looks like "3" and is made of carbon doesn't mean the two were once "1" and should not be even the most logical thing either, it should be nothing further then what it is.

 

It goes a bit beyond that but this should be put into the evolution/creation thread, I think.

[ProHypster]

What if history and archaelogy can prove events that happened in the bible? You wouldn't believe in monotheism ?

 

I think you don't need to prove the magic if you can prove the events in the bible.

 

Can I generally ask you, who you think wrote the bible? What year? How many people?

[danielsangeo]

What if history and archaelogy can prove events that happened in the bible? You wouldn't believe in monotheism ?

 

Just as the Harry Potter books had the United Kingdom and Kings Cross Station in it, and I know that these places exist, doesn't mean I believe in magic. Half-Life was based in New Mexico. I know New Mexico exists but that doesn't mean that the Black Mesa Research Facility does. Just because certain events or places appear in a book doesn't mean that the book is nonfiction. And evidence of the BMRF (should any arise) doesn't necessarily mean that it was working on quantum teleportation or that creatures from the border world of Xen have invaded and it's only a matter of time before the Seven Hour War begins.

 

If history and archaeology, however, can "prove" that specific SUPERNATURAL events happened (such as Jesus' resurrection), then I'll take a look at it.

 

I think you don't need to prove the magic if you can prove the events in the bible.

 

If I write a story about space aliens coming to Earth after to the 2008 US Presidential Election of Barack Obama and then further state that the space aliens proceeded to kill Osama bin Laden (trying to keep it current), would the evidence that Osama bin Laden was killed be evidence that my story about space aliens was factual?

 

Can I generally ask you, who you think wrote the bible? What year? How many people?

 

The Bible was written (and rewritten) by many people over many years.

[Dan-95]

Few points, still haven't really researched into it, so still not going to edit original post, don't think i will... Anyways, looking back, i forgot about agnostic atheism. I see some people treating atheism as a kind of 'default' in the lack of belief in religion. I, myself, would consider saying 'i don't know' (some form of agnotisicm [This stems from a couple metaphors heard]) as a kind of default, if you guys want to debate this, feel free. When i said atheism, i meant an actual belief there is no god, this can be a form of skeptecism, but i think skeptics would question the belief in no belief (debatable).

 

Now that i think about it, i really don't remember what i was thinking at the time, but it sparked debate, so whatever.

 

@kookaburra

I wanted to give you guys something to think about

 

EDIT: Don't mind the typos :S

Edited May 4, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

If I write a story about space aliens coming to Earth after to the 2008 US Presidential Election of Barack Obama and then further state that the space aliens proceeded to kill Osama bin Laden (trying to keep it current), would the evidence that Osama bin Laden was killed be evidence that my story about space aliens was factual?

Oh common, archaelogy and history can easily destroy that myth.

 

The Bible was written (and rewritten) by many people over many years.

That's a bit vague, I asked specifically, the first people who wrote it, why and who was it?

 

Anyways whatever the response is,

What if history can prove this wrong and say that it was actually the apostoles of christ who wrote it and that each one of them existed.

 

Then that the Christ himself existed.

 

Or would you rather still believe in evolution if those can be proven?

[danielsangeo]

Few points, still haven't really researched into it, so still not going to edit original post, don't think i will... Anyways, looking back, i forgot about agnostic atheism. I see some people treating atheism as a kind of 'default' in the lack of belief in religion. I, myself, would consider saying 'i don't know' (some form of agnotisicm [This stems from a couple metaphors heard]) as a kind of default, if you guys want to debate this, feel free. When i said atheism, i meant an actual belief there is no god, this can be a form of skeptecism, but i think skeptics would question the belief in no belief (debatable).

 

Now that i think about it, i really don't remember what i was thinking at the time, but it sparked debate, so whatever.

 

@kookaburra

I wanted to give you guys something to think about

 

Just curiosity. If the subject is driving (a car, a motorbike, an RV, whatever)...and I say that I'm not doing that, am I still driving?

 

The Bible was written (and rewritten) by many people over many years.

That's a bit vague, I asked specifically, the first people who wrote it, why and who was it?

 

Anyways whatever the response is,

What if history can prove this wrong and say that it was actually the apostoles of christ who wrote it and that each one of them existed.

 

Then that the Christ himself existed.

 

Or would you rather still believe in evolution if those can be proven?

 

Like I said, the existence of certain people or events does not necessarily mean that they have a supernatural element to them. I can believe that people built a tower to try to get closer to what they thought was God and that said tower collapsed. If evidence comes out that this actually happened, then I'm more than willing to believe it happened. If you can prove that a person with the title of "Christ" existed and that he died on a cross, then I'm willing to believe that it happened. If you can prove, however, that the crucified person came back to life (evidence that Jesus purportedly provided to Thomas), then I'm willing to believe THAT. It is things like this that have no evidence for them.

 

As for "rather believe in evolution"...I don't see a disconnect between "believing in God/Jesus/whatever" and "believing in evolution". I know many devout Christians that "believe in evolution".

[ProHypster]

As for "rather believe in evolution"...I don't see a disconnect between "believing in God/Jesus/whatever" and "believing in evolution". I know many devout Christians that "believe in evolution".

 

How can you believe that a man came from a monkey and believe that god made the man

 

So you are saying the whole bible is true but Jesus crucification was made up for no reason.

[danielsangeo]

As for "rather believe in evolution"...I don't see a disconnect between "believing in God/Jesus/whatever" and "believing in evolution". I know many devout Christians that "believe in evolution".

 

How can you believe that a man came from a monkey and believe that god made the man

 

(Pedant mode on)Man didn't come from monkeys! Monkeys and men came from the same common ancestral organism!(Pedant mode off)

 

As for believing in God and "believing in evolution", some Christians say that God used evolution to make man from the dirt. In other words, they state that Genesis 2:7 ("the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground") encompasses the entire evolution of man from the time of the first life until the first man; several billion years.

 

So you are saying the whole bible is true but Jesus crucification was made up for no reason.

 

I never claimed that the whole Bible is true. I stated that the Bible is fiction with some factual things in it, just as Harry Potter has Kings Cross Station, just as Half-Life has New Mexico and MIT, and just as Star Wars has brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, fathers and sons. Nor am I claiming that the things in the Bible are "made up for no reason".

[ProHypster]

As for "rather believe in evolution"...I don't see a disconnect between "believing in God/Jesus/whatever" and "believing in evolution". I know many devout Christians that "believe in evolution".

 

How can you believe that a man came from a monkey and believe that god made the man

 

(Pedant mode on)Man didn't come from monkeys! Monkeys and men came from the same common ancestral organism!(Pedant mode off)

 

As for believing in God and "believing in evolution", some Christians say that God used evolution to make man from the dirt. In other words, they state that Genesis 2:7 ("the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground") encompasses the entire evolution of man from the time of the first life until the first man; several billion years.

 

So you are saying the whole bible is true but Jesus crucification was made up for no reason.

 

I never claimed that the whole Bible is true. I stated that the Bible is fiction with some factual things in it, just as Harry Potter has Kings Cross Station, just as Half-Life has New Mexico and MIT, and just as Star Wars has brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, fathers and sons. Nor am I claiming that the things in the Bible are "made up for no reason".

 

Hmmm... I'm surprised you don't have a higher reputation, you really know what you are talking about.

 

But the Genesis 2:7 made me really badly, no offence to the Christian Evolutionists because that short sentene is several billion years long and explains everything

 

EDIT: Homo Erectus to me, was a monkey.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

Enh, I'm a relatively new poster.

 

Need to post moar!

[Koockaburra101]

Few points, still haven't really researched into it, so still not going to edit original post, don't think i will... Anyways, looking back, i forgot about agnostic atheism. I see some people treating atheism as a kind of 'default' in the lack of belief in religion. I, myself, would consider saying 'i don't know' (some form of agnotisicm [This stems from a couple metaphors heard]) as a kind of default, if you guys want to debate this, feel free. When i said atheism, i meant an actual belief there is no god, this can be a form of skeptecism, but i think skeptics would question the belief in no belief (debatable).

 

Well agnosticism simply is the idea that the existence/non-existence of god cannot be known which isn't the same thing as saying you personally don't know. I'm agnostic in the sense that I don't think we can ever have certainty about god, but I do say that there is currently no reason to believe in a god or to live as if there was one. In exactly the same way we can never be really certain that there is no tooth-fairy but we can all probably agree that there isn't much reason to assume there is such a thing. In my experience a lot of people who identify as atheists agree with this, which technically makes them agnostic.

I think the main difference between those who say they are agnostics and those who say they are atheists isn't so much in what they believe but rather in how they express those beliefs in their daily lives. An self-identified agnostic beyond saying "I don't know" may also ad "I don't car much either", while a self-identified atheist will say "I don't know" but then say "but I have no reason whatsoever to live with the assumption that there is a god".

I would hope that any serious religious person would also agree that they cannot with certainty know that there is a god but that they find it beneficial to live with the assumption of his/her/its existence.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I would hope that any serious religious person would also agree that they cannot with certainty know that there is a god but that they find it beneficial to live with the assumption of his/her/its existence.

I am certain God exists, because that's what faith is, believing something is there that I cannot really prove is.

 

Humans are irrational, and a lot of what we do, such as believing in God, makes no sense. But that's the beauty of the human mind in my opinion.

[ProHypster]

I would hope that any serious religious person would also agree that they cannot with certainty know that there is a god but that they find it beneficial to live with the assumption of his/her/its existence.

I am certain God exists, because that's what faith is, believing something is there that I cannot really prove is.

 

Humans are irrational, and a lot of what we do, such as believing in God, makes no sense. But that's the beauty of the human mind in my opinion.

 

The best quote of the day for me.

[BTGBullseye]

Just a thought... If God exists, and you don't believe, something bad WILL happen after you die. If God doesn't exist, and you do believe, nothing will happen after you die.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I don't think what happens after death matters as much as how you spend your life.

[Koockaburra101]

Just a thought... If God exists, and you don't believe, something bad WILL happen after you die. If God doesn't exist, and you do believe, nothing will happen after you die.

 

Yes, Pascal's wager, it has been discussed in this topic already and it's not at all a helpful way to think about things.

[BTGBullseye]

Yes, Pascal's wager, it has been discussed in this topic already and it's not at all a helpful way to think about things.

How so? I know of many who have used it as a method to stay in a religion long enough to prove to themselves that God exists.

[Koockaburra101]

See my reply on the first page of this topic.

[BTGBullseye]

See my reply on the first page of this topic.

Still doesn't say why it doesn't help... Or are you saying it doesn't help your side?