Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread

[mattj]

mattj i keep checking this thread to see if you ever answered this:

'however, i would like to ask you something, because i am interested in the answer. if you do not believe in evolution, why is the obvious answer the christian faith? why have you put your money on this god? surely you must accept it is because of the environment you grew up in? if you were born in pakistan, would you not be a follower of the quran?'

i was, and still am, very interested to hear your (or any other religious person's) response to this.

My apologies. I was away visiting family during the week of Christmas and assumed the thread had moved on.

I don't dispute that location plays a significant role in a person's exposure to religion. There's an obvious reason that there are more Christians in the US and more Muslims in Pakistan. I tried Christianity, and specifically Apostolic Pentecostalism, because of where I was raised and the people around me. But I think you and I could both agree that in a free nation like ours (as opposed to say Pakistan) there's a difference between being exposed to a religion and choosing to remain a part of that religion.

I am a Christian today, that is, I believe what the Bible says, because I have read the Bible, it makes countless claims, I have tested many of those claims, and time and time again I have found them to be true.

For a few examples, and although I could simply c/p a sermon I preached on this a while back, I know you guys don't care to hear it so I'll keep them as brief as possible.

Speaking With Other Tongues

These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Jesus made the claim that his followers would speak with new tongues. Not only does the Bible record his followers later speaking with tongues, but countless people throughout history and around the world have recorded the same, as have I and many people that I know.

Now, feel free to link me to all the disputable articles that you want that claim that glossolalia is an explainable phenomena. Regardless of whether or not the reaction is neuro-chemical, psychological, or spiritual, the Bible makes the claim that his followers will speak with new tongues, and his followers speak with new tongues. I've experienced it. I know countless people who have experienced it. Its true.

Protection From Harm

they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them...

But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, “Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea,justice has not allowed him to live.” However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm.

Jesus made the claim that his followers would experience immunity from harm in certain cases. Paul's case with the viper is a pretty good example. I've experienced the exact same thing. Years ago, while weedeating some grass that was far too thick I had a long, fat copperhead latched onto my hand. Not only was I not poisoned, I didn't even have a scratch on my hand.

Feel free to chalk it up to dumb luck if you like, but the Bible makes that claim and I can verify that its true from firsthand experience. And its not only me. I could point you to countless people that I know and have spoken to who could attest to the same.

The New Creature

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

None of you know me personally, but those who do can attest that I am not the same person I was before I dedicated my life to Christ. I don't do the things I did before. I don't say the things I said. I don't believe the things I believed. I don't treat people the way I used to treat them. Christ, the Bible, and the church have had a stark, noticeable impact on my life. The Bible says that people's lives will be changed and I, and countless others can attest to exactly that.



Now, feel free to dispute any of those reasons I gave for why I believe the Word of God. I was intentionally concise, but I'd be happy to explain any questions or objections you have about them. And if you really want me to I could list example after example after example of where the Bible makes a claim and where I have personally tried it and found it to be true. But I don't think you want such a list here and now. But I do hope those three examples got the point across. I believe what I believe today because I have read the Bible, I have tried its claims, and I personally have found them to be true.

 

[Jorgen]

Those points are entirely anecdotal and heavily tinted by confirmation bias. Congrats on finding personal inspiration from your faith, but in general it's irresponsible to accept a claim based on that kind of reasoning.

 

[mattj]

Haha yes. In general its irresponsible to test claims yourself firsthand to see whether or not their true. Rather, I should have read them and just believed they were true. How reasonable.

 

[billymills]

In none of those cases did you actually test the claims. You simply observed evidence and claimed that the evidence supported the claims. You can not test 'speaking in tongues,' nor can you test being a changed person. You could test the protection from vipers if you were so inclined, but I advise against it.

 

[shade]

as jorgen said, all of those claims are anecdotal and i don't think you can claim you have 'tested' them. im sure many of the truths you listed above are also applicable to the qu'ran or any other holy book. however, i have no intention of trying to argue with your life experiences or any intention of trying to sway you from your faith.

however, i would like to sway you from using that copperhead anecdote in your sermons. from just a quick google i found that it may not have been jesus which saved you, so it could be very misleading to use:

Although venomous, these snakes are generally not aggressive and bites are rarely fatal.[citation needed] Copperhead venom has an estimated lethal dose of around 100 mg, and tests on mice show its potency is among the lowest of all pit vipers, and slightly weaker than that of its close relative, the cottonmouth.[citation needed] Copperheads often employ a "warning bite" when stepped on or agitated and inject a relatively small amount of venom, if any at all. "Dry bites" involving no venom are particularly common with the copperhead, though all pit vipers are capable of a dry bite.

yeah i know wikipedia etc

edit: also, does this mean you interpret the bible as literally true?

 

[HBK]

Made a real breakthrough tonight. After hours of heated arguments and debates, my parents finally conceded to my spiritual independence on the condition that I would attend the sunday mass every week. A small price to pay for a peaceful yet liberal coexistence.

 

[mattj]

In none of those cases did you actually test the claims.

i don't think you can claim you have 'tested' them.

I'm not sure why you think this. The Bible says that his followers will speak with other tongues and gives many examples of what speaking with other tongues is. I look around and see, and experience, that his followers do speak with other tongues. I don't know if its a problem with some definition of "test" that you're using, but I confirmed it with observation. Same goes for countless other claims made by the Bible. Claim that it's not enough to convince you, disagree with the how or why, call me mistaken or a liar if you like, but my religious beliefs are based on reading the claims of the Bible and confirming through direct experience and observation that said claims are true.

Now your turn. What do you base your religious beliefs on?

 

[Blue_Tornado]

You realize that, in all likelihood, the bible was written by people who have observed these things in their time just like you have in your own time?

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Claim that it's not enough to convince you, disagree with the how or why, call me mistaken or a liar if you like, but my religious beliefs are based on reading the claims of the Bible and confirming through direct experience and observation that said claims are true.

No one is calling you a liar or accusing you insincerity, but one does have good reason to doubt the significant of subjective religious experiences.

I don't know if its a problem with some definition of "test" that you're using, but I confirmed it with observation. Same goes for countless other claims made by the Bible.

I suppose this is one reason why Karl Popper's falsification principle has plenty of intellectual merit.

Made a real breakthrough tonight. After hours of heated arguments and debates, my parents finally conceded to my spiritual independence on the condition that I would attend the sunday mass every week. A small price to pay for a peaceful yet liberal coexistence.

Well, I would not recommend you to go to Mass, since even now as a Catholic, my mind is quite aimless, and I would suppose that a person who has little appreciation of the rites of the Mass and the doctrines would not find it beneficial in any way. You might find it more profitable, not just in a spiritual sense, to read some of St. Augustine's works, particularly The City of God; it had some influence on me and predisposed me to be a Catholic. I suggest that because his work is really quite eloquent and I was actually impressed by it as an agnostic, and his work has plenty of historical significance so it would be intellectual enriching in a secular sense.

 

[HBK]

They have accepted that I don't believe in god; they want me to treat the mass as some sort of weekly familial get together.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

mattj I don't think you understand the underlying problem of confirmation bias. Honestly, this simple cartoon did the best job at explaining the problem.

As for speaking in tongues, I think if you did the actual research you will find that most of the time people are just speaking gibberish.

But let me note a serious issue with this belief: there are Atheists which can speak in tongues. They spoke in tongues as Christians and were deconverted, and they have denied the holy spirit and can still speak in tongues just the same as they did it before.

According to your explanation as to why people can do this: they would have to be followers of Jesus and be with the holy spirit, this makes no sense at all.

 

[mien]

Claim that it's not enough to convince you, disagree with the how or why, call me mistaken or a liar if you like, but my religious beliefs are based on reading the claims of the Bible and confirming through direct experience and observation that said claims are true.

Many claims in the bible such as the flood of Noah's Ark, talking snakes(or bushes) or hence the existence of Nazareth during the Roman Empire have no evidence whatsoever linked to them. It's your right to believe that they are true based on faith alone but it's not possible for you to do so based on expierence and observation.


Regardless of this i'm curious to hear what your thoughts on Hell are. I'm wondering how you can feel content with a worldview where eternal torture awaits in the afterlife for any of those who do not follow your religion. Can you truly feel happy in heaven knowing that many of us non-believers (including many smogoners) are experiencing eternal torment?

 

[mattj]

and can still speak in tongues just the same as they did it before.

I personally know people who have spoken in tongues, have left the faith, and can mock speaking in tongues, but it is in no wise the same.

Many claims in the bible such as the flood of Noah's Ark, talking snakes(or bushes) or hence the existence of Nazareth during the Roman Empire have no evidence whatsoever linked to them. It's your right to believe that they are true based on faith alone but it's not possible for you to do so based on expierence and observation.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If I read claims in the Bible and then see the expected outcome right in front of me it's not faith. Now you however, what reason do you have for believing Nazareth didn't exist during Roman times? You are the one who believes things based on faith alone.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I personally know people who have spoken in tongues, have left the faith, and can mock speaking in tongues, but it is in no wise the same

Can you expand upon this? Because to me, I see 2 people speaking in tongues, and I fail to see any difference.

Now you however, what reason do you have for believing Nazareth didn't exist during Roman times?

Mien is under no obligation to provide any reason outside of their already mentioned "we don't have any evidence of its existence." They are not making any positive claims of its non-existence. Until evidence is provided, there is no reason to believe in its existence.

This is how logic works yo.

You are the one who believes things based on faith alone.

wat

 

[mattj]

Mien is under no obligation to provide any reason outside of their already mentioned "we don't have any evidence of its existence." They are not making any positive claims of its non-existence. Until evidence is provided, there is no reason to believe in its existence.

This is how logic works yo.

Pretty sure "the existence of Nazareth during the Roman Empire ha[S ] no evidence whatsoever" is a claim, and an entirely baseless one. I don't want to go on a tangent here, but there are all kinds of textual sources and archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed during that time. Asking him why he believes such nonsense is perfectly reasonable, especially when he claims I'm the one believing things without evidence. You guys have projection issues.

 

[HBK]

My brother showed me a youtube documentary about the wheels from pharoah's chariot being discovered at the bottom of the red sea where they have been lying for years since god empowered moses to drown the egyptian army in a desperate attempt to change my mind. The so called "chariot wheels" are coral covered wheel and axle like structures. He also showed me a video depicting what some people think is noah's ark at mount ararat in turkey. Apparently, the turkish government hasn't permitted any research teams to explore the area and so the video features a 3D model of the top of the mountain where one can see an ark shaped structure buried under the mountain........

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

My brother showed me a youtube documentary about the wheels from pharoah's chariot being discovered at the bottom of the red sea where they have been lying for years since god empowered moses to drown the egyptian army in a desperate attempt to change my mind. The so called "chariot wheels" are coral covered wheel and axle like structures. He also showed me a video depicting what some people think is noah's ark at mount ararat in turkey. Apparently, the turkish government hasn't permitted any research teams to explore the area and so the video features a 3D model of the top of the mountain where one can see an ark shaped structure buried under the mountain........

I heard of Ron Wyatt.

 

[shade]

Now your turn. What do you base your religious beliefs on?

i have no religious belief, i do not identify myself with any religion nor do i attribute any 'truths' in the world to the words of any religion.

i went to a church of england primary school, but from when i was very young i thought it was dog shit. before i even began studying biological sciences to the degree i do now, i always thought attributing any lack of information to 'it must be god' was a weak argument. i feel like thats what people did when they did not have the research ability we do now and it still happens in modern society. for example, aztecs used to believe that the sun was a god. now we now it is a burning mass converting hydrogen into helium. i feel like religion is always taking these backward steps, whereas scientific advancement is only taking forward ones. organised religion's reluctance to accept scientific fact like the theory of evolution, or the knowledge that the earth is older than 6,000 years. (just on a side note, i find religious arguers always misinterpret the term scientific theory. a scientific theory is tested and supported by research and evidence, it is not just some random thought that has no backing - that would be a hypothesis). this is met with a 'YEAH BUT THATS MY BELIEF SO WHAT', which is simply the ultimate in ignorance. people are welcome to their ignorance, as long as they do not teach it to their children as fact - that is indoctrination. i sincerely hope that you do not raise your children teaching them the bible is fact mattj, that is tantamount to abuse.

but the main reason i first started doubting any religion or belief in god is simple, it is just blind faith. there is not a single scrap of evidence that proves there is a god. obviously one cannot outright prove that there is no god, but we have discovered the truth behind processes that were once attributed to deities over the years and the reverse is never true. another thing that drove me is a bit of a cliche but is true nonetheless: the amount of a horrible and shitty things that happen in the world. motor neurone disease, stillborns, cancer, mass murder, and natural disaster just to name a few. i then consider the countless prayers that countless deities received regarding them and the sheer volume that were simply ignored. from this we must conclude that if there is a god, this god is either impotent, apathetic or evil - the latter two being linked. why do i want to pray to that guy? why do i want to devote my life to that guy? i don't need religion to tell me how to be a good person. i find it depressing that anyone thinks they do. for this reason phrases like 'hes a good christian' really piss me off, you don't need any religious values to be a good person. if anything, a lot of things in the bible are pretty fucking evil (opposition to gays etc) so i'd rather not get my sense of right and wrong from an outdated book.

tl;dr we don't need it, god is a dick really, god is a logical cop out used to explain things we don't know and if we don't know them people say 'god made it that way'

sorry if this post is scrappy i didnt really plan it that well. if you're gonna post a counter to this mattj, please counter all the points i make. ive seen you cherry picking a lot and thinking that refutes entire arguments; it does not. also this post is not meant to be an attack but you know that anyway

 

[mien]

Pretty sure "the existence of Nazareth during the Roman Empire ha[S ] no evidence whatsoever" is a claim, and an entirely baseless one. I don't want to go on a tangent here, but there are all kinds of textual sources and archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed during that time. Asking him why he believes such nonsense is perfectly reasonable, especially when he claims I'm the one believing things without evidence. You guys have projection issues.

Saying it has no evidence whatsoever is no claim, the only thing it says that from an historians perspective there is no way to proof that Nazareth existed at the time of the Jesus birth. (All currenct existing "evidence" were written at least 200 years later, no physical evidence has been found either like roman coins by unbiased sources)

This is a claim without evidence(if i said this you would be completely right that i have projection issues): Nazareth didn't exist at the time of the Roman Empire


I'm guessing you misunderstood the point of my post, it's not about whether Nazareth actually existed at the time or didn't. It's about the fact that many claims of the bible have no evidence to support them. Having some anecdotal evidence about some claims of the bible doesn't make the entire true

I guess in a way you could compare it to Plato's Timaeus. Even though he was one of ancient Greece greatest philosophers, there is no reason to believe his claims of Atlantis existance are actually true. Considering no physical or primary evidence of the legendary city has ever been found.

 

[Jorgen]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, the 100% biggest beef I have with religion. Faith, considered one of the highest virtues, is willingness to accept the tenets of your religion based on the desire for them to be true. This is super irresponsible for anything that isn't based on acceptance of your religion. After all, merely wishing for the lights to be on in a dark room will not somehow make it light, even if you can make out dim outlines of objects to rationalize your belief that the room is lit. So why should it be virtuous, rather than irresponsible, when it does concern religious tenets?

And on that note, I'm not liking shade's notion of not wanting to worship God because he's a dick, nor do I like PB's refusal to accept the existence of God (mentioned earlier in this thread) because of already being condemned to hell. While not the only reasons they have for their stances, they suggest the influence of confirmation bias, the willingness to accept the lack of God based on the desire for there to be no God, which really shouldn't factor into the decision at all. Shit, if there's somehow compelling evidence for God's power and existence that I had missed all these years, I don't care how big a dickcheese he is or how unfair his laws might be, I'm getting on my knees and atoning to try to receive mercy.

 

[HBK]

I'm not sure about who created us or how we were created. But what I am sure of is that God, as portrayed by the major religions of the world, does not exist. I am of the opinion that if there is a creator, not some scientific process by which we were created, that he isn't loving or benevolent as all religions portray him. Nor do I believe that he is some kind of warlord who people must pray to in order to remain safe.

 

[Asek]

I personally believe in a higher power, not due to the fact that I've gone to a catholic school for the last 12 years but because I find it nice to believe that there is something bigger than us out there, something that we cannot comprehend yet it is there to help us in times of need. Praying to god is something i have infrequently practiced in my personal life and I would say simply saying what I had on my mind helped me out a lot, but the belief that somebody was there listening to me made it all the more beneficial.

Unrelated but the problem with this thread is that internet atheists and religious believers will never get along because 99 times out of 100 they refuse to believe each other and just shove each others bullshit down each others throats tbh

 

[Blue_Tornado]

I don't think anyone has a problem with people believing there's a guy in the sky listening to their stuff. What's stopping me from talking to my rubber duck every now and then? If I started giving it offerings it would be a different story though.

 

[blarajan]

i don't personally believe in god but i want there to be heaven / reincarnation because it comforts me thinking my loved ones are chilling or are another person they can bless with their life

i know that cannot exist without god so i would like for there to be one but i don't personally believe in one nor do i base my life / actions on faith, hindu, christian, or whatever

 

[Cshadow]

Shit, if there's somehow compelling evidence for God's power and existence that I had missed all these years, I don't care how big a dickcheese he is or how unfair his laws might be, I'm getting on my knees and atoning to try to receive mercy.

This is a silly thing to say. I mean, your reaction isn't silly; if there was compelling evidence for the existence of God (or a god) I imagine that many people would follow in your footsteps. Rather, I find it silly that you're assuming that compelling evidence for the existence of (a) G/god would mean that the laws (and by extension, punishments and rewards) we have attributed to said deity are automatically true. Evidence for the existence of God and His power does not necessarily equate to evidence for the validity of laws people have said that God created. The only way to know that for sure would be if we had proof that the God in question recognizes only one faith as the "true" faith. However, for that to happen, he would literally have to come down from Heaven up above and say "The Christians/Jews/Muslims/Egyptians/Greeks have/had it right." Even then, he would have to be more specific, because the laws of God differ from denomination to denomination.

Realistically speaking, from the hypothetical you have presented, you'd still have no reason to believe that the God in question isn't a nice God who doesn't give a fuck about who does and does not worship him, and that people have just used religion and His name to do some really, really shitty things.

I have more to say, but I gotta beat feet.

EDIT: I realize the use of the word silly may sound a little belittling. That definitely wasn't my intention and I apologize if it comes off that way.