Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 1:19 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How to Authentically Experience God
#31
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
(March 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(March 17, 2009 at 8:42 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: No one is experiencing god or anything supernatural after all.

Oh really? I thought as much LOL.

So did I, but I wanted an explanation Big Grin

(March 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nice 'spin' there thoughtful. Adding in all that you missed makes perfect sense too.

Thanks. But I don't understand what you mean when you say that "Adding in all that you missed makes perfect sense too". Can you clarify?
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#32
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
(March 17, 2009 at 10:11 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(March 17, 2009 at 8:42 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: No one is experiencing god or anything supernatural after all.

Oh really? I thought as much LOL.

So did I, but I wanted an explanation Big Grin

Well if I've already come to the conclusion that there almost certainly is no God then I don't need an extra explanation for reasoning that he is not being experienced by some people! If he doesn't exist then he can't possibly be experienced! It MUST just be a delusion! Pretty hard to experience 'the real thing' when 'the real thing' doesn't exist! Big Grin

EvF
Reply
#33
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
Sure, if he doesn't exist he can't be experienced. But that doesn't deny the fact that people are experiencing something. I'm not looking for an explanation because I think it would be evidence of god, I'm not. Personal experience cannot be evidence anyway. I am looking for an explanation because I want to know why it's happening. Curiosity you might call it.

I don't believe in religion, but I do find it extremely interesting.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#34
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
Yeah. Of course its interesting to know how it is happening...I just meant that when you said God doesn't fit into the equation after all...I thought something like: "Well I - along with other atheists I would have thought - have already established that. If something is experienced its something other than God that is believed to be God. You'd need a reason to believe God exists first before thinking that any experiences are people genuinely experiencing God".

Yes of course they are experiencing something...they feel or see something or whatever....but its delusions I believe, because as I said - we need evidence of God first before we are to believe that they are experiencing God. If God is considered not to exist then they can't be considered to be experiencing God can they?

'To them' they might be experiencing God....but until there is any evidence it can be safely assumed that whatever they are experiencing, its not really God I think. Almost certainly of course Tongue

EvF
Reply
#35
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
(March 17, 2009 at 10:11 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nice 'spin' there thoughtful. Adding in all that you missed makes perfect sense too.

Thanks. But I don't understand what you mean when you say that "Adding in all that you missed makes perfect sense too". Can you clarify?

I meant it was a very one sided take, not at all balanced. You couldn't say absolutely that no one experiences God, and so the opposite could also be concluded. To be fair, you should include all possibilities. You also put a very negative spin on your conclusions, which doesn't necessarily follow. For those Christians who are actually sane, this is the opposite of what they experience.

Religious experience could be misinterpreted information, or it could be correctly interpreted information. The mimicking of base human instinct could be entirely positive and not negative. In my experience it's entirely positive. You may have experienced it differently.
Reply
#36
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
(March 18, 2009 at 4:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I meant it was a very one sided take, not at all balanced. You couldn't say absolutely that no one experiences God, and so the opposite could also be concluded. To be fair, you should include all possibilities. You also put a very negative spin on your conclusions, which doesn't necessarily follow. For those Christians who are actually sane, this is the opposite of what they experience.

I just had a discussion with someone about this. They kept talking about these different experiences and so on. I'm not talking about my personal experience, for it is not valid evidence to base an argument on. One of the reasons why there is so many different religions in this world is because people base their ideas on personal experience, but if we always do that, when can we ever be certain of anything? We can't take everyone's experience as valid for their ideas contradict.

Or are you saying that a muslim's experience of the 'almighty allah' is just as valid experience as yours is of god? I doubt it. But that is where your argument takes you. For those muslims who are actually sane, your idea about god is the opposite of what they've experienced. This is why we can't use personal experience as evidence, for it's self defeating.

Until any empirical evidence is found to support the existence of god, spiritual experiences cannot be proven in any way possible, that they are real. It is for that reason that I, and evidence, do not believe they (Or you I suppose) are actually experiencing is god. What your actually experiencing is a process in the brain causing you to feel and think in a certain way.

And part of me wants god to be real, hopes he is real. I'm not sure exactly why, but I know it's something to do with the idea that the world seems more mystical when shrouded by religion. Heaven would be cool if it were real right? I don't think so anymore.

But the case is still against religion and god. Leaving my personal feelings aside, I am looking at the observable evidence around me. If evidence comes of gods existence, then I will probably try to find him. But until that day comes, god is less than dead; he is an idea; a philosophy; a dream.

(March 18, 2009 at 4:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Religious experience could be misinterpreted information, or it could be correctly interpreted information. The mimicking of base human instinct could be entirely positive and not negative. In my experience it's entirely positive. You may have experienced it differently.

Why would mimicking base human instinct be at all positive? Where as evolution is trying to evolve us further, leaving behind the past, you're proposing that we assume the way we felt as a child was reasonable, or positive? And even if it were positive and not negative, it still does not prove god. It just proves that mimicking base human instinct was positive.

Is there anything atheism can't do that religion can? And if there is, please enlighten me. If not, why are we keeping religion?
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#37
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
I wouldn't say that a Muslim experiences the opposite of what I do. It's a fine line (and they're all NUTTERS! </joke>) but the delusion/ ahem! reality is the same.

Go see my undefeated <oops, joke#2> thread on evidence where I explain the futility of that search.

Heaven is right here, right now (Fat Boy Slim break....)

Acting on base human instinct isn't anti evolution. Denying our human nature is surely?

Atheism is destructive (which can also be good to eek out truth). Religion is constructive. Would you say it was right or wrong to wan't to follow the example of Christ as opposed to not? Our society mirrors Christian values so you'd think most westerners would welcome the ideology. In my mind (no comments please Smile) our present zeitgeist seems to suggest that those values suggest an evolutionary goal.
Reply
#38
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I wouldn't say that a Muslim experiences the opposite of what I do. It's a fine line (and they're all NUTTERS! </joke>) but the delusion/ ahem! reality is the same.

What is it with christians? Do they always start joking when they can't properly answer a question? So what does the muslim experience? Is it your god, another form of your god, or another god? Christianity and islam are by definition, mutually exclusive. Christians follow the way of jesus, but muslims see jesus only as a prophet. They follow mohammed and allah. Both can't be true. It is either none or one. So why is yours right? What makes your 'personal experience' of god any more certain than a muslims?

Or maybe you think that they're both at the same level; that you're both as right as each other. That doesn't make sense for reasons stated in above paragraph. If you are both as right as each other, why are you still a christian? Why not just convert to islam if its the same?

Or is christianity simply 'more real' to you? In that case, you're delusional. You've stepped away from reason and fact. You say you have faith, yet faith is just an admission that there is no evidence. If there is evidence of something, faith is impossible; its nonsensical. There is empirical evidence of the sun, hence we know the sun's there. No one says that they have faith the sun is there, or that we revolve around it, or that it wont rise in the morning.

The last stupid argument the religious have is 'faith'. If we were to argue with faith as satisfactory evidence, absolutely anything could be proven real.

(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Go see my undefeated <oops, joke#2> thread on evidence where I explain the futility of that search.

Again another joke, highlighting that you aren't answering my questions.

The futility of the search for evidence of god? Sure. It means his not real. There is a futility in the search for the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns, and so on. Why is the search for your god any less futile?

(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Heaven is right here, right now (Fat Boy Slim break....)

Uh, What?

(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Acting on base human instinct isn't anti evolution. Denying our human nature is surely?

I'm not talking about human nature, I'm talking about maturity. People seek religion because it brings up feelings of protection and loss of ego that they felt as a young child. How is this productive? It's more like a bad habit. Just because we feel more comfortable doing something (IE religion), does not mean it's good for us.

Human nature? If you're a christian, you must believe in some sort of original sin, you know, the reason jesus came to save you. If we're sinners, then why would our human nature be a good thing to follow? Our nature is sinful, and destructive, according to the bible. Denying the human nature is what many christians advocate, thinking that this makes them more holy.

So if original sin exists in adam, why is human nature a good thing to follow. Answer me that.


(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Atheism is destructive (which can also be good to eek out truth). Religion is constructive.

This is where most people misunderstand atheism, as you have just done.

You've got it mixed up - atheism is not destructive; religion is. Take a look at the last 2000 years and all the evil things that have been done in the name of religion. Many times when science made a discovery, the church would hush it up, discredit, burn the person or the papers, and ultimately try to get ride of it. Why? Because the person's discovery had negative implications in the authenticity of their religion. Religion has tried to deny any science that discredits their religion. Religion has been at the forefront of keep humanity in the dark ages (ironically, it was the church who ruled during that time).

Atheism is constructive because it is evidence based. It is not a belief in anything, it is simply non-belief. An atheist can do many evil things, but he doesn't do any of them in the name of atheism. Atheism has no dogma; no set of beliefs. It is simply belief in observable, tangible reality.

(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Would you say it was right or wrong to wan't to follow the example of Christ as opposed to not? Our society mirrors Christian values so you'd think most westerners would welcome the ideology. In my mind (no comments please Smile) our present zeitgeist seems to suggest that those values suggest an evolutionary goal.

Again, I repeat my question from my last post: Is there anything atheism can't do that religion can?

Why keep religion if atheism can do it just as well, if not better? The example of christ is a good ideal to aspire to, but do you know that buddhism and jainism had well developed systems of morality similar to jesus' message, except that they thought of it hundreds of years before jesus! Jesus isn't the only one with a nice, pretty message.

Our society mirrors christian values? As well as vilifying homosexuals, slowing science, discouraging birth control, etc. You might want to know too, that the christian states in the US have a higher crime rate than the other states. So what is christianity actually meant to do again? Oh that's right - make people better people.

Seems like it's doing more harm than good.

Sure, you can list all the good things done in the name of religion. Take charities for example, they help, feed, protect people all around the world. But why does a charity need religion? Many charities are refused access to certain countries because of their religious worldview. Charities could be more effective if they were atheistic, hence save more people.

Then there's all the bad that's been done in the name of religion which would probably send this site offline if I posted it.

Oh and, I'd avoid the jokes. They're not making you look any more intelligent.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#39
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
Blimey! What a lot of words from a simple reply!

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I wouldn't say that a Muslim experiences the opposite of what I do. It's a fine line (and they're all NUTTERS! </joke>) but the delusion/ ahem! reality is the same.

What is it with christians? Do they always start joking when they can't properly answer a question?
Hmm, handbags out already!

I did actually answer you.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: So what does the muslim experience? Is it your god, another form of your god, or another god?
Muslims experience a minor god.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Christianity and islam are by definition, mutually exclusive.
Even though they are both Abrahamic.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Christians follow the way of jesus, but muslims see jesus only as a prophet. They follow mohammed and allah. Both can't be true. It is either none or one. So why is yours right? What makes your 'personal experience' of god any more certain than a muslims?
Both are opposite, but the basic idea is the same. It's all just religion after all. & this is monotheistic religion, is what I meant.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Or is christianity simply 'more real' to you? In that case, you're delusional.
throwaway comment > dustbin

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: You've stepped away from reason and fact. You say you have faith, yet faith is just an admission that there is no evidence. If there is evidence of something, faith is impossible; its nonsensical.
Show me your logic, because to me it appears that you are bypassing your brain to come up with that.

So: faith, something we have to have if we have no proof, is something we have to have proof of? Are you really tagging your name to that?

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: There is empirical evidence of the sun, hence we know the sun's there. No one says that they have faith the sun is there, or that we revolve around it, or that it wont rise in the morning.
So you don't NEED faith in the Sun, it's empirically provable.

You DO NEED faith in God, because he ISN'T EMPIRICALLY PROVABLE.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: The last stupid argument the religious have is 'faith'. If we were to argue with faith as satisfactory evidence, absolutely anything could be proven real.
You're the one that wants to argue with faith = fact. IT ISN'T.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Go see my undefeated <oops, joke#2> thread on evidence where I explain the futility of that search.

Again another joke, highlighting that you aren't answering my questions.
Thanks for the insight, although I don't see your logic. I didn't mean that one actually, as far as I'm concerned, the IDEA (because that's all it is) is still undefeated.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: The futility of the search for evidence of god? Sure. It means his not real. There is a futility in the search for the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns, and so on. Why is the search for your god any less futile?
I don't know, you're the one doing the searching, you tell me!?!

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Acting on base human instinct isn't anti evolution. Denying our human nature is surely?

I'm not talking about human nature, I'm talking about maturity. People seek religion because it brings up feelings of protection and loss of ego that they felt as a young child. How is this productive? It's more like a bad habit. Just because we feel more comfortable doing something (IE religion), does not mean it's good for us.
I know what you said, no need to repeat yourself. See my answer.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Human nature? If you're a christian, you must believe in some sort of original sin, you know, the reason jesus came to save you. If we're sinners, then why would our human nature be a good thing to follow? Our nature is sinful, and destructive, according to the bible. Denying the human nature is what many christians advocate, thinking that this makes them more holy.

So if original sin exists in adam, why is human nature a good thing to follow. Answer me that.
Nice play on words. Back to the subject..

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Atheism is destructive (which can also be good to eek out truth). Religion is constructive.
This is where most people misunderstand atheism, as you have just done.

You've got it mixed up - atheism is not destructive; religion is. Take a look at the last 2000 years and all the evil things that have been done in the name of religion. Many times when science made a discovery, the church would hush it up, discredit, burn the person or the papers, and ultimately try to get ride of it. Why? Because the person's discovery had negative implications in the authenticity of their religion. Religion has tried to deny any science that discredits their religion. Religion has been at the forefront of keep humanity in the dark ages (ironically, it was the church who ruled during that time).
You were a Christian yet you don't understand what Christianity is. Christianity is an aim, and not a destination. Whatever people do, they do as people. To aim to be like Jesus is not to do bad stuff, but the opposite. People are scared, hungry for power, greedy, Christ-likeness is the opposite of this.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Atheism is constructive because it is evidence based. It is not a belief in anything, it is simply non-belief. An atheist can do many evil things, but he doesn't do any of them in the name of atheism. Atheism has no dogma; no set of beliefs. It is simply belief in observable, tangible reality.
Atheism's only goal is the destruction of religion. SCIENCE is constructive, but that has nothing really to do with atheism. You apply one rule to Atheism it appears but change the rules to apply to Christianity/ religion. Can you see that?

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Would you say it was right or wrong to wan't to follow the example of Christ as opposed to not? Our society mirrors Christian values so you'd think most westerners would welcome the ideology. In my mind (no comments please Smile) our present zeitgeist seems to suggest that those values suggest an evolutionary goal.

Again, I repeat my question from my last post: Is there anything atheism can't do that religion can?
Christianity has love which is all powerful and trumps atheisms hate every time. See Aesops Fable of the man with the sun and the wind.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Why keep religion if atheism can do it just as well, if not better? The example of christ is a good ideal to aspire to, but do you know that buddhism and jainism had well developed systems of morality similar to jesus' message, except that they thought of it hundreds of years before jesus! Jesus isn't the only one with a nice, pretty message.
Like I said, and you trashed, I see similarities between faiths. Atheism is a pathetic sham in comparison, yet it has merit in stripping away the crap, which is why I appreciate talking with atheists/ agnostics.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Our society mirrors christian values? As well as vilifying homosexuals, slowing science, discouraging birth control, etc. You might want to know too, that the christian states in the US have a higher crime rate than the other states. So what is christianity actually meant to do again? Oh that's right - make people better people.
See above.

(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Seems like it's doing more harm than good.

Sure, you can list all the good things done in the name of religion. Take charities for example, they help, feed, protect people all around the world. But why does a charity need religion? Many charities are refused access to certain countries because of their religious worldview. Charities could be more effective if they were atheistic, hence save more people.

Then there's all the bad that's been done in the name of religion which would probably send this site offline if I posted it.

Oh and, I'd avoid the jokes. They're not making you look any more intelligent.
In some countries atheism would land you in the same hot water. The statement doesn't hold water.

See above again.

Apologies for trying to make light of this conversation. You are obviously a very serious young man. Sometimes it's nice to keep some sensible hold on your feelings.
Reply
#40
RE: How to Authentically Experience God
(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: So what does the muslim experience? Is it your god, another form of your god, or another god?
Muslims experience a minor god.

You seem to have a belief in god that isn't mainstream christianity. Muslims experience a minor god? But it's actually god? Whatever happened to jesus being the one true god; all others being idols?

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Christianity and islam are by definition, mutually exclusive.
Even though they are both Abrahamic.

What are you saying? That because they're both abrahamic, they are not mutually exclusive? There mutually exclusive in that they worship different gods. To a muslim, a christian is an infidel; to a christian, a muslim is going to hell.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Christians follow the way of jesus, but muslims see jesus only as a prophet. They follow mohammed and allah. Both can't be true. It is either none or one. So why is yours right? What makes your 'personal experience' of god any more certain than a muslims?
Both are opposite, but the basic idea is the same. It's all just religion after all. & this is monotheistic religion, is what I meant.

You're not answering the question. The basic idea may be the same but again, they are mutually exclusive. What evidence there is to support a god applies to both religions. Now, don't avoid the question - what makes your personal experience of god any more certain than a muslims?

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Or is christianity simply 'more real' to you? In that case, you're delusional.
throwaway comment > dustbin

Again, you are avoiding my questions. The least you could do is answer them with something. It was a valid comment for I have spoken and heard hundreds of christians say something along the lines of "it just seems more real to me".

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: You've stepped away from reason and fact. You say you have faith, yet faith is just an admission that there is no evidence. If there is evidence of something, faith is impossible; its nonsensical.
Show me your logic, because to me it appears that you are bypassing your brain to come up with that.

So: faith, something we have to have if we have no proof, is something we have to have proof of? Are you really tagging your name to that?

Oh, c'mon. Faith is an admission that there is no evidence. Think about it. When there is evidence of something, we believe in it, simple. When there is no evidence of something, we use faith to believe in it. Currently christians all around the world including you keep making the claim that we don't need evidence to believe in god, yet if ever a shred of evidence of god is found, every single one of them would jump on it.

You're complicating it. Faith is present when there is a lack of evidence. Simple as that.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: There is empirical evidence of the sun, hence we know the sun's there. No one says that they have faith the sun is there, or that we revolve around it, or that it wont rise in the morning.
So you don't NEED faith in the Sun, it's empirically provable.

You DO NEED faith in God, because he ISN'T EMPIRICALLY PROVABLE.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: The last stupid argument the religious have is 'faith'. If we were to argue with faith as satisfactory evidence, absolutely anything could be proven real.
You're the one that wants to argue with faith = fact. IT ISN'T.

What isn't? Faith doesn't = fact? Obviously. Which is my whole point about faith. Since it is not based on fact, why utilise it at all?

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Go see my undefeated <oops, joke#2> thread on evidence where I explain the futility of that search.

Again another joke, highlighting that you aren't answering my questions.
Thanks for the insight, although I don't see your logic. I didn't mean that one actually, as far as I'm concerned, the IDEA (because that's all it is) is still undefeated.

Undefeated? Says whom? I suppose you do. But I hardly think anyone else would agree with you. And when I was reading it, you are doing the same thing you are doing here, avoiding questions with light jokes and misdirection.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: The futility of the search for evidence of god? Sure. It means his not real. There is a futility in the search for the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns, and so on. Why is the search for your god any less futile?
I don't know, you're the one doing the searching, you tell me!?!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know what I'm asking, but you're unable to provide a satisfactory answer so you misconstrue the question.

I'll rephrase myself: Since you think you've found god, can you please explain why your revelation of him is more valid than a child's belief in the easter bunny?

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Acting on base human instinct isn't anti evolution. Denying our human nature is surely?

I'm not talking about human nature, I'm talking about maturity. People seek religion because it brings up feelings of protection and loss of ego that they felt as a young child. How is this productive? It's more like a bad habit. Just because we feel more comfortable doing something (IE religion), does not mean it's good for us.
I know what you said, no need to repeat yourself. See my answer.

Once again, your answer does not answer my question. Human nature is a very vague word. So unless you can define it, denying our 'human nature' could mean anything. What exactly is our human nature? And what exactly are our bad habits, our addictions, our temptations, etc? Are they simply part of our human nature too?

As I said, I'm talking about maturity. Why is it productive to return to the processes we used as small children? Isn't this just taking a step backwards, when we should be going forwards?

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Human nature? If you're a christian, you must believe in some sort of original sin, you know, the reason jesus came to save you. If we're sinners, then why would our human nature be a good thing to follow? Our nature is sinful, and destructive, according to the bible. Denying the human nature is what many christians advocate, thinking that this makes them more holy.

So if original sin exists in adam, why is human nature a good thing to follow. Answer me that.
Nice play on words. Back to the subject..

Once again, avoiding the question. It is the subject. You believe the bible, so you believe in some concept of sin and that we need jesus to save us. If sin is present, why is it a good idea to use our 'human nature' to justify anything? Wouldn't that just be more sin?

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Atheism is destructive (which can also be good to eek out truth). Religion is constructive.
This is where most people misunderstand atheism, as you have just done.

You've got it mixed up - atheism is not destructive; religion is. Take a look at the last 2000 years and all the evil things that have been done in the name of religion. Many times when science made a discovery, the church would hush it up, discredit, burn the person or the papers, and ultimately try to get ride of it. Why? Because the person's discovery had negative implications in the authenticity of their religion. Religion has tried to deny any science that discredits their religion. Religion has been at the forefront of keep humanity in the dark ages (ironically, it was the church who ruled during that time).
You were a Christian yet you don't understand what Christianity is. Christianity is an aim, and not a destination. Whatever people do, they do as people. To aim to be like Jesus is not to do bad stuff, but the opposite. People are scared, hungry for power, greedy, Christ-likeness is the opposite of this.

Of course I understand what christianity is. But that is irrelevant. Religion maybe be constructive when idealised, but the vast majority of our history shows otherwise. For all practical purposes, christianity is destructive. It might have done a good thing here and there, but compared with the rest of its history, the idealised version falls down.

To aim to be like jesus is to want to be good. Christlikeness is becoming like christ, in love, peace, and spirit. I understand that. But the example religion provides us is far removed from that definition.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Atheism is constructive because it is evidence based. It is not a belief in anything, it is simply non-belief. An atheist can do many evil things, but he doesn't do any of them in the name of atheism. Atheism has no dogma; no set of beliefs. It is simply belief in observable, tangible reality.
Atheism's only goal is the destruction of religion. SCIENCE is constructive, but that has nothing really to do with atheism. You apply one rule to Atheism it appears but change the rules to apply to Christianity/ religion. Can you see that?

Atheism has no goals. It is the absence of belief. If atheism destroys religion, it will do it by science, not by belief. It has no agenda, it is simply the desire to follow the evidence where it leads. If the evidence leads us to believe that god cannot and is not real, then that is where we must go.

It seems you, like many christians don't understand atheism.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(March 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Would you say it was right or wrong to wan't to follow the example of Christ as opposed to not? Our society mirrors Christian values so you'd think most westerners would welcome the ideology. In my mind (no comments please Smile) our present zeitgeist seems to suggest that those values suggest an evolutionary goal.

Again, I repeat my question from my last post: Is there anything atheism can't do that religion can?
Christianity has love which is all powerful and trumps atheisms hate every time. See Aesops Fable of the man with the sun and the wind.

Now that is a big claim. A love that trumps atheists every time you say?

One example is during the Renaissance the Inquisition burned free thinkers alive. Can you mention ONE MOMENT when atheists have burned anyone alive for their beliefs? Just one tiny moment? And christianity did a lot of it. It was not a one off.

Or would you like to avoid the evil and look at the good? As stated earlier, atheists run charities just the same as christians.

Or a modern example. Homosexuals are, for the most part, rejected by the church, however they are free to do as they wish among atheists since we have no code about proper sexual conduct. I am aware that there are churches for homosexuals, but these are scattered far and wide.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Why keep religion if atheism can do it just as well, if not better? The example of christ is a good ideal to aspire to, but do you know that buddhism and jainism had well developed systems of morality similar to jesus' message, except that they thought of it hundreds of years before jesus! Jesus isn't the only one with a nice, pretty message.
Like I said, and you trashed, I see similarities between faiths. Atheism is a pathetic sham in comparison, yet it has merit in stripping away the crap, which is why I appreciate talking with atheists/ agnostics.

Similarities between faiths? So what? That just means they're similar. It has absolutely no bearing on whether they are real or not. A pathetic sham? You're not talking about the suppose lack of moral in atheists are you?

Again, let's avoid being idealistic about this. For all practical purposes, atheism is far more capable of being moral than christians or religious people are. There is no agenda, no people who are downright evil, no special rule that we cannot break, hence we are better equipped to help society. However the example that religion provides for us over the last 2000 years has demonstrated that it is clearly incapable of taking society forward.

Skip the idealistic idea that christianity is about love and becoming like jesus. It might be, but it's expression in society is far from desired.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Our society mirrors christian values? As well as vilifying homosexuals, slowing science, discouraging birth control, etc. You might want to know too, that the christian states in the US have a higher crime rate than the other states. So what is christianity actually meant to do again? Oh that's right - make people better people.
See above.

Again avoiding the question. Think about it. If the christian states have a higher crime rate than the other states, does that mean they are not really christians after all? To you who is very idealistic about his religion, open your eyes and take a look around. Christianity is not doing what you claim.

(March 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Seems like it's doing more harm than good.

Sure, you can list all the good things done in the name of religion. Take charities for example, they help, feed, protect people all around the world. But why does a charity need religion? Many charities are refused access to certain countries because of their religious worldview. Charities could be more effective if they were atheistic, hence save more people.

Then there's all the bad that's been done in the name of religion which would probably send this site offline if I posted it.

Oh and, I'd avoid the jokes. They're not making you look any more intelligent.
In some countries atheism would land you in the same hot water. The statement doesn't hold water.

See above again.

Apologies for trying to make light of this conversation. You are obviously a very serious young man. Sometimes it's nice to keep some sensible hold on your feelings.

Whether that statement holds water is irrelevant. You've just shown that atheism is just as well equipped to deal with the problems in our world.

You avoided my questions at least 5 times, answering with misdirection and misconstruing what the point was. You have shown yourself incapable of providing satisfactory answers to almost any of my questions; you seem to skip through and choose the ones you want to answer. Anything that has an easy answer, you'll provide your opinion, but anything that poses difficulties for you and your belief, you skip.

Please don't try to belittle me because I'm young. I'm always up for a good argument, but you seem to avoid one. I would expect you to know more about these things than me, but all the evidence here is to the contrary.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Temporal lobe epilepsy & religious experience. Jehanne 80 4800 March 20, 2022 at 5:38 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Theists, please describe how you experience your god I_am_not_mafia 161 15967 June 15, 2018 at 9:37 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  I had a religious experience the other night I_am_not_mafia 34 5381 November 22, 2017 at 9:44 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Personal experience says religious folks are more prone to mental diseases ErGingerbreadMandude 20 7731 August 9, 2017 at 11:11 am
Last Post: Astonished
  My experience in a Moon church/organization (korean religion) Macoleco 20 6963 May 20, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Near death experience of Howard Storm scoobysnack 548 81578 October 28, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Last Post: TheoneandonlytrueGod
  God is love. God is just. God is merciful. Chad32 62 19143 October 21, 2014 at 9:55 am
Last Post: Cheerful Charlie
  Doing a big poo is a Religious experience FreeTony 8 3897 February 15, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Last Post: StuW
  Apologist Matt Slick's atheist daughter tells of her experience growing up Fidel_Castronaut 20 8851 July 22, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Last Post: Tonus
  Disturbed Theist Calls The Atheist Experience Cosmic Ape 117 48223 April 10, 2013 at 2:43 am
Last Post: Ryantology



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)