Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[Smelly Fred]

"The answer 'I don't know' isn't exactly satisfying - but it's an honest answer. For some, belief is enough. Others want facts and proof... "

Well there is certainly no facts or proof with the statement I don't know now is there? Believe the fallacy if you wish. Some day you will have to answer for it.

[kyuusei]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

"The answer 'I don't know' isn't exactly satisfying - but it's an honest answer. For some, belief is enough. Others want facts and proof... "

Well there is certainly no facts or proof with the statement I don't know now is there? Believe the fallacy if you wish. Some day you will have to answer for it.

I never said there was. That's why research is still ongoing, after all.

PS. What is this 'fallacy' that you speak of? That I don't have an answer to the big bang?

Not everyone is into blind faith.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

You can thank me now for adding to your ongoing education.

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

Some day you will have to answer for it.

This about sums it all up.

You smugly believe you are "educating" people and condemning them to eternal damnation at the same time.

Way to promote the cause.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

That is a pretty big step of faith that they make. They base their "faith" on an answer of "I don't know".

No, it's an application of Ockham's Razor. Assuming there is a God of inexplicable origin that then brought the universe into being is more complicated than just assuming the universe's origin is inexplicable.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by T@T

Did you just described a fiction novel......blasphemy!!

In a word for word literal sense, yes, logically, the bible is fiction, but with a probable basis in fact.

[SeeBass]

There once was a man who thought he was the son of God
He was born of a virgin mother birth
He healed the sick
He cured the blind
He raised a man from the dead
He was eventually killed for his belief
He rose from the dead

The story sounds familiar except is was Krishna's story written years before the story of Jesus.

Plagerism or coincedence?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

Well there is certainly no facts or proof with the statement I don't know now is there?

That's not true at all. There can be plenty of facts and observations and such with the statement "I don't know". What "I don't know" means is that there is insufficient data, inadequate theories, or unverified predictions to arrive at a conclusion.

It's entirely possible to on one hand say "I don't know what it is" and on the other hand be able to say "I know some things it can't be".

There's as much proof for god creating this universe as there is for a race of powerful aliens engineering this universe, or a multiverse of infinite universes of which this is just one, or the universe creating itself via an endless loop of closed timelike curves (a universe gives rise to child universes, one of which happens to be itself), or the origin of the singularity not actually being a singularity (Hartle & Hawking), or yes even it appearing out of nothing via a quantum fluctuation (which actually has evidence to support it since we observe this "something from nothing" happening all the time). In fact there's more evidence for all of those above the god hypothesis because there's evidence of natural processes, but no evidence of god.

To me it seems a weak view of god to just put him where the alternative answer is "I don't know". How did the universe start? I don't know, must be god. How did the earth get here? I don't know must be god. How does lightning happen? I don't know must be god. Why did my grandma die? I don't know, must be god. Where are my keys? I don't know, must be god.

The god of the gaps line of arguments isn't very compelling.

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

Believe the fallacy if you wish. Some day you will have to answer for it.

Lol, salvation comes by belief in a specific cosmology now?

[speede5]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

There once was a man who thought he was the son of God
He was born of a virgin mother birth
He healed the sick
He cured the blind
He raised a man from the dead
He was eventually killed for his belief
He rose from the dead

The story sounds familiar except is was Krishna's story written years before the story of Jesus.

Plagerism or coincedence?

You should do some research, and eating popcorn while watching Zeitgeist doesn't count.

[troutman]

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Campbell.htm

Tom Collins: I gather you're not terribly fond of the Bible.

Joseph Campbell: Not at all! It's the most over-advertised book in the world. It's very pretentious to claim it to be the word of God, or accept it as such and perpetuate this tribal mythology, justifying all kinds of violence to people who are not members of the tribe.

The thing I see about the Bible that's unfortunate is that it's a tribally circumscribed mythology. It deals with a certain people at a certain time. The Christians magnified it to include them. It then turns this society against all others, whereas the condition of the world today is that this particular society that's presented in the Bible isn't even the most important. This thing is like a dead weight. It's pulling us back because it belongs to an earlier period. We can't break loose and move into a modern theology.

One of the great promises of mythology is, with what social group do you identify? How about the planet? To say that the members of this particular social group are the elite of God's world is a good way to keep that group together, but look at the consequences! I think that what might be called the sanctified chauvinism of the Bible is one of the curses of the planet today.

Joseph: the imagery that has to be used in order to tell what can't be told, symbolic imagery, is then understood or interpreted not symbolically but factually, empirically. It's a natural thing, but that's the whole problem with Western religion. All of the symbols are interpreted as if they were historical references. They're not. And if they are, then so what?

I'm intererested in the concept of a modern theology. What would it look like?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Did you just described a fiction novel......blasphemy!!

Seems to me he pointed out that the Bible may not be the unadulterated word of God.

Without fault, without mistake and all that good stuff so many religious folks think it is.

I happen to believe the same thing, but I don't think that holds it back from portraying the message it was supposed too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kyuusei

Then it was worded or quoted really oddly or something. This thread is getting pretty long winded after all and it seemed like you were calling it a fairy tale at first (in response to atheists calling the Bible fairy tales, that is).

God is an answer based on belief. The big bang is a scientific theory. Belief ain't enough in science. Theories are not based on myths, or legends, or a bible or anything like that. The big bang theory is based on research, but not all of the Universe is understood, so we can't entirely explain it - yet.

The answer 'I don't know' isn't exactly satisfying - but it's an honest answer. For some, belief is enough. Others want facts and proof...

And yet you'll never find any facts or 'proof' that God doesn't exit....

Just like you can't find any that he does exist.

[Frank MetaMusil]

This is an awesome thread. Definitely a heavy read, but a good one. Something that hasn't yet been mentioned though is Pascal's Wager - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%E2%80%99s_Wager

Smelly Fred, this might help you in your quest to have people accept your beliefs, or at least come to a mutual agreement with some of the posters on here.

[photon]

I don't get what you mean. Surely not that Pascal's Wager is something compelling?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't get what you mean. Surely not that Pascal's Wager is something compelling?

It would only be compelling to someone who believes in God (the Christian one) I shouldn't claim to know what I'm talking about, but I thought it was interesting. I give you kudos for creating this thread, I haven't actively thought about something so strange in a long time.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

Seems to me he pointed out that the Bible may not be the unadulterated word of God.

Without fault, without mistake and all that good stuff so many religious folks think it is.

I happen to believe the same thing, but I don't think that holds it back from portraying the message it was supposed too.

Effectively, yes, that's my point.

I think that some of the messages delivered in the bible are important for society, but I think some of them are also wrong.

But, just to be clear, I'm not a believer in the one true almighty.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

And yet you'll never find any facts or 'proof' that God doesn't exit....

Just like you can't find any that he does exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

It would only be compelling to someone who believes in God (the Christian one) I shouldn't claim to know what I'm talking about, but I thought it was interesting.

Ah ok I see, yeah it would be compelling to a believer I guess, but you could ask a Christian then why they don't believe in Shiva, Odin and Wotan, since by the wager believing just in case is the better choice.

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I give you kudos for creating this thread, I haven't actively thought about something so strange in a long time.

Heh I didn't create it, someone else did and we've derailed it completely from the topic.

[Pastiche]

I'm intererested in the concept of a modern theology. What would it look like?

Most likely a form of humanism.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by photon

Ah ok I see, yeah it would be compelling to a believer I guess, but you could ask a Christian then why they don't believe in Shiva, Odin and Wotan, since by the wager believing just in case is the better choice.

In regards to Odin/Wotan - living your life to receive your ultimate reward from him is not necessary mutually exclusive to meeting the requirements of attaining the ultimate reward in (some people's version of) Christianity.... I think.

Isn't the only requirement to get into Valhalla that you died courageously in battle? A good devout Christian boy from the midwestern states that gets shipped off to Iraq and gets killed in battle would meet the requirements for Valhalla and... assuming going to fight this war doesn't preclude him... would also meet the requirements to get into heaven.

[photon]

Heh, I'm sure one could find a set of gods that had mutually exclusive requirements to gain entry to their good place.

Or one could just trust that whatever god there is would be ok with a skeptic that tried their best to live a good life and came by their skepticism honestly as opposed to someone who believed in order to hedge their bets.