I should say at the start that I am a christian, but don't hold it against me! I am always interested in what other people think, and enjoing reading the posts on this website. So i'd like to throw some questions out to get more insight into atheism. Your help is appreciated.
Qn: If there were two universes, one with a God, and the other without, which one would you want to live in and why?
Qn: If scientific theory began to support theism (more than atheism) would you change your position
(like Antony Flew)?
Try really hard to avoid answers like: 'that would never happen.. etc.'
Qn: Would you describe your position as "There definitely is no God" or "Naturalism does not need a divine being and so God is improbable" or something else?
All respectful discussion welcome!
Sorry you feel that way. It was never my intention to force my views on anyone I mainly wanted to learn more about why athiests think the way they do, and engage in discussion. But I guess the posts are getting more and more along the lines of yours, Ninja chickens and all. So I will comply with your request.
Thanks to everyone who did engage with me, it was helpful.
The only way there can be change for the better in a society is if people are encouraged to try to understand each other, and the most socially reprehensible and irresponsible thing you can ever do is discourage that in the few people who are cognitively developed enough to do it.
That might well be the most sane thing I have read on this website so far. Thanks!
Qn: If there were two universes, one with an invisible ninja chicken fluent in French, and the other without, which one would you want to live in and why?
Qn: If scientific theory began to support the existence of an invisible ninja chicken fluent in French (more than atheism) would you change your position (like Antony Flew)?
Try really hard to avoid answers like: 'mmmm .... barbecued chicken would hit the spot right now.'
Qn: Would you describe your position as "There definitely is no invisible ninja chicken fluent in French" or "Naturalism does not need a French-speaking being and so an invisible ninja chicken fluent in French is improbable" or something else?
hahaha dude, you are seriously hilarious
you just made my minute :D
Clever counter-argument. Only the creationists will never understand why!!
1.Interesting that you are assuring me that there is nothing in my post that necessitates a dying God for me. On what basis do you give such assurance?
2. Thanks for letting me know your standard. So your standard is treat others as you would want to be treated. So lets check out the your good guy question if we look at your own standard. I presume you would not want others to:
a. Lie to you.
b. Steel from you.
c. Cheat you in any way.
d. hate you
e. Act unkindly towards you
lets stop at 5. So using your own standard, have you ever:
2. stolen anything, including time at work etc.?
3. Cheated anyone in any way?
4. hated any one?
5. Acted unkindly to anyone?
Thats just the negitives, then you could ask if you ever failed to do the positive side of your rules. If your honest, I guess you have atleast broke 4 out of 5 of your own standards. So are you a good guy by your own standards? May be you need a dying God too :-)
So I gotta ask this pleeeeze.....
As fallible beings all of us have committed the social crimes of lying or acting unkindly. In your "mind's eye" these infractions warrant eternal damnation and subsequent salvation to rectify the situation?
If this is your and/or your god's criteria then I certainly want no participation in that game. I might suggest the services of a professional. It's not a god(s) you need. :^ )
Yeah I didn't think this would go well. I was really interested in reading people's responses to this too, but then I saw that they were all like "blah blah blabbity-blah, hrrrrrm?" and I was like "Jesus fuck." So dead horse, but:
Qn 1: Obviously without. Gods are fickle tyrants, flood the planet whenever they have a mood swing. Nobody wants to live in a world run by a being like that.
Qn 2: Can't really answer this question, phrasing's a bit inadequate (as well as use of Antony Flew as an example. Come on buddy)
Qn 3: Have to lean towards the latter, but with the requirement that the parameters of "God" be better defined.
Trevor: ""I would venture to say that more good has been done in the name of God than in the name of athiesm by several million percent.""
Another mantra spoken by many theists. I will be glad if I can clarify Atheism for atleast one Theist. Most creationists think that Atheism is a religion, some even say that Evolution is one. But before one does that one should take care to read what Atheism means,
Atheism = rejection of particular beliefs.
Lets take a hypothetical example: If you reject the general Muslim beliefs (like you should circumcise your toddlers and control your women etc. etc.), you are an Atheist with respect to Islam. Now lets assume that even Bush is an Atheist with respect to Islam (lets call it M_atheist). If tomorrow Bush gets access to America's Nuke switch and launches a missile killing all Muslims, would we then say that Bush killed the Muslims in the name of M_atheism? Should we then assume that all M_atheists think in the same manner?
Sure, some M_atheists might have a strong hatred for Islam, but there is certainly no M_atheism agenda asking its followers to hate Islam. There is no central theme or ideology of M_atheism. Its plainly rejection of Muslim beliefs.
On the other hand, Christianity has a book which defines how its followers should behave. The book is contradictory in nature and one can interpret it in different ways.
Now, lets look at what Bible has to say about Women:
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live... (Exodus 22:18-20)
Now there is one verse in Bible that asks men to treat their wives with respect. But with the amount of verses against women, it is easy to use the Bible to justify oppression against them. I like when you say that Bible is not like a Scientific book and not be taken literally, but unfortunately most Christians do not share the same sentiment. Due to this we have horrific events like the Witch hunts which resulted in an estimated 40,000 to 100,000 executions.
There are even attempts at spreading Christianity flavoured version of Science with entire museums dedicated to it made with the help of your donated money.
Bible is just another book written by men for dominance over other men and their women. It shows in the literally discriminative verses of the Bible. Ofcourse, you can say that Jesus said to love your neighbour. But lets not forget that Jesus also said "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
If all Christians decide not to teach their children that Bible is the word of God and treat Bible just as any other book on philosophy having as much importance in one's life as "The Alchemist" has, no one would blame Christianity for crazy fanaticism of handful of its members. Its the humble and wishful thinking Christians like you, who shield the women torturing fanatics. Their belief in the Bible is strengthened by the fact that most of the World thinks that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Very informative Alex.
Ofcourse, you can say that Jesus said to love your neighbour. But lets not forget that Jesus also said "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Pretty much sums up my views on christian morals. Cherry pick the bits that make them sound good and ignore the bits that dont....sooooo moral, lol.
But you have to read that in context! There has to be a context in which slaughtering people for not believing in Jesus is the right and moral thing