Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Evolved1]

Agree 100%, the belief in an institutionalised religious judgemental, participatory, omnipresent, omniscient creator is based on superstition and ignorance from a less educated time in our history, hopefully it one day goes the way of the dinosaur.

The gods of religion seem so...for want of a better word, human. The worst parts of us, anyway.

 

[Evolved1]

Athiests believe the universe was created by natural forces. That is what we believe. You could argue we dont jave an explanation about what created the natural forces but we could counter that religious people dont have an explanation about what created god. We believe in things just like religious people do. Its just we use empirical evidence to justify those beliefs rather then faith. We dont have absence of belief. Thats agnostics.

The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities".
https://www.defineatheism.com/etymology/

If you have no gods, you're an atheist.

 

[Seeds]

The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities".
https://www.defineatheism.com/etymology/

If you have no gods, you're an atheist.

And a person can only justify a belief in no gods if they are naturalists. If you arent a naturalist then you believe there is a spiritual element to the universe which means you cant reject gods. You can reject specific gods but you cant reject gods in general unless you are a naturalist. Thus athiesm equals naturalism. Other people may call themselves athiests but they are not. They are agnostics.

 

[Evolved1]

And a person can only justify a belief in no gods if they are naturalists. If you arent a naturalist then you believe there is a spiritual element to the universe which means you cant reject gods. You can reject specific gods but you cant reject gods in general unless you are a naturalist. Thus athiesm equals naturalism. Other people may call themselves athiests but they are not. They are agnostics.

Atheism doesn't require justification. Many people don't give a second thought about gods or religion, so they're automatically non-theists or atheists.

Some people prefer the label non-theist, and I'm fine with that too.

Agnostic just means not knowing, and I'm confident nobody knows for sure. They're not a separate group of their own afaic.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics though. It's possible we agree on everything related to this topic other than definitions.

 

[Boston tiger]

Atheism doesn't require justification. Many people don't give a second thought about gods or religion, so they're automatically non-theists or atheists.

Some people prefer the label non-theist, and I'm fine with that too.

Agnostic just means not knowing, and I'm confident nobody knows for sure. They're not a separate group of their own afaic.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics though. It's possible we agree on everything related to this topic other than definitions.

Some people don’t give the origin of existence any thought and call themselves Atheists. An atheist that has given the origin of existence some thought and has a position has to be a naturalist to still call himself an atheist. Can you say the supernatural is still on the cards I just don’t believe the apostles witnessed it and still be an atheist? Isn’t that just saying your a theist in waiting.

 

[Seeds]

Atheism doesn't require justification. Many people don't give a second thought about gods or religion, so they're automatically non-theists or atheists.

Some people prefer the label non-theist, and I'm fine with that too.

Agnostic just means not knowing, and I'm confident nobody knows for sure. They're not a separate group of their own afaic.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics though. It's possible we agree on everything related to this topic other than definitions.

Every position requires justification. Its why many of us reject religion. Because it cant be justified based on the facts of the universe we observe. Athiesm needs to be held to the same standard. We dont just place faith in it. And anyone who does try to justify it does so from a point of naturalism. Gods cant exist because everything we observe in the universe comes from natural forces. Thats how we justify that gods dont exist. If we didnt then our belief of no gods would be based on nothing more then faith.

Sure there are people going around labelling themselves christens without believing in heaven and a god and people labelling themselves athiests without even knowing what naturalism is. Those people arent actually christens or athiests. They are just giving themselves labels so they feel like they belong to a group and have a position on a subject matter. But they dont.

 

[Furn2]

I'll clarify my position then. In regards to 'god', nothing outside time and space can be known to us. Nor can be disproven. As to whether 'god' exists, no one knows or can know. Therefore being agnostic on this matter is the only possible option.

Agnosticism relates to knowledge not belief so if you don't believe in a God you are also an atheist.

 

[chelseacarlton]

atheism is a non belief system!

There fixed that for ya mate!

 

[Pessimistic]

I believe the label people are looking for is ‘Church of England’

 

[chelseacarlton]

Every position requires justification. Its why many of us reject religion. Because it cant be justified based on the facts of the universe we observe. Athiesm needs to be held to the same standard. We dont just place faith in it. And anyone who does try to justify it does so from a point of naturalism. Gods cant exist because everything we observe in the universe comes from natural forces. Thats how we justify that gods dont exist. If we didnt then our belief of no gods would be based on nothing more then faith.

Sure there are people going around labelling themselves christens without believing in heaven and a god and people labelling themselves athiests without even knowing what naturalism is. Those people arent actually christens or athiests. They are just giving themselves labels so they feel like they belong to a group and have a position on a subject matter. But they dont.

WRONG, only the person making the claim is required to justify or demonstrate that claim.
Why the * do I need to justify that I haven’t been shown evidence for the non existence of anything?
FFS

 

[Pessimistic]

Build your own religion

 

[chelseacarlton]

Some people don’t give the origin of existence any thought and call themselves Atheists. An atheist that has given the origin of existence some thought and has a position has to be a naturalist to still call himself an atheist. Can you say the supernatural is still on the cards I just don’t believe the apostles witnessed it and still be an atheist? Isn’t that just saying your a theist in waiting.

WRONG
Atheism is only the non belief in god/s.
That’s it, there is no more, no how, no ands, no ifs nor buts included.
There are beliefs and the understanding of those beliefs, understanding how the universe began is an entirely different premise.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Build your own religion

If this was directed at me, I have no interest in building anything of the sort, my interests lay in destroying beliefs and installing understanding.
When people say they don’t believe in something what they are saying is that they’ve never even contemplated addressing the data and are happy in their ignorance and delusion or their status quo agendas, most likely because it keeps their masters pockets lined.
If this wasn’t addressing me........meh whatevs.

 

[ferball]

The belief that things can only known by experience is not really a tenable position. Under this criteria, a number of things in theory couldn't be known, such as the existence of numbers. How do you prove the existence of the number one? If we can only determine whether things are true by observing them "in the past or present", then mathematics isn't provable. Likewise, given knowledge can only be known by first hand experience, according to this view, then you have to admit the possibility that there could be, in existence, planets in space that don't follow the laws of gravity.

There is only one of you isn't there?

It's a kind of visceral proof.

 

[ferball]

WRONG
Atheism is only the non belief in god/s.
That’s it, there is no more, no how, no ands, no ifs nor buts included.
There are beliefs and the understanding of those beliefs, understanding how the universe began is an entirely different premise.

Did you know there are atheist schools in some religions?

(As in schools of thought, not physical buildings or whatever.)

 

[ferball]

I can't prove that they don't, but there's no evidence that they do. Given that no-one has ever observed those beings to actually exist, either now (in living form) or in the near or distant past (as remains or fossils), it would seem difficult to agree with a claim that they did exist or do exist.

People claim to observe those things all the time.

It's why we know what people are talking about when they use the word fairy.

 

[ferball]

Agree 100%, the belief in an institutionalised religious judgemental, participatory, omnipresent, omniscient creator is based on superstition and ignorance from a less educated time in our history, hopefully it one day goes the way of the dinosaur.

Grow feathers, learn to sing and then fly?

Or were you talking about a specific dinosaur?

 

[Boston tiger]

WRONG
Atheism is only the non belief in god/s.
That’s it, there is no more, no how, no ands, no ifs nor buts included.
There are beliefs and the understanding of those beliefs, understanding how the universe began is an entirely different premise.

Can you not read.

 

[Boston tiger]

WRONG, only the person making the claim is required to justify or demonstrate that claim.
Why the fu** do I need to justify that I haven’t been shown evidence for the non existence of anything?
FFS

Are you calling the apostles liars? What proof do you have that they were lying ?

 

[Boston tiger]

Agree 100%, the belief in an institutionalised religious judgemental, participatory, omnipresent, omniscient creator is based on superstition and ignorance from a less educated time in our history, hopefully it one day goes the way of the dinosaur.

Humans see God because of our intelligence. You are getting intelligence and education mixed up.

 

[Wedge McManus]

Grow feathers, learn to sing and then fly?

Or were you talking about a specific dinosaur?

Splitting hairs really endears you to everyone here. Keep up the great work champ

 

[Wedge McManus]

Humans see God because of our intelligence. You are getting intelligence and education mixed up.

I think if the world's governments grew a pair and researched in-depth the intelligence quotient of all of our religiously inclined, the results would probably point to believers being our dumbest humans

 

[Wedge McManus]

But were they weren’t getting paid to do it.? What was their concept of the universe ? ... filled with sun gods .. crop gods .. sea gods?
Christianity allowed the universe to be investigated on a scientific level. No more sacrifices.. Jesus died on the cross .. done ... God created the universe ..therefore he his outside of it . Done So everyone go about your business.

You haven't presented any compelling evidence (or any evidence at all tbh) of why anyone should take your silly rants seriously. Please provide some facts for your claims.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Did you know there are atheist schools in some religions?

(As in schools of thought, not physical buildings or whatever.)

Lovely stone you’re appealing to there, maybe throw it in a pond for affect.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Are you calling the apostles liars? What proof do you have that they were lying ?

What proof do you have they existed?