I think they're stupid. But I also think Buddhists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Wiccans, and any other religious adherents you can think of are.

8/2/2010 11:19:45 AM

^ You had better be careful when you throw the word "stupid" out.....History is filled with very smart people of many different religions.

Calling these people "stupid" is in fact stupid.

8/2/2010 11:32:00 AM

I think Gandhi said it best.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Mahatma Gandhi

8/2/2010 11:42:28 AM

^^ You can be stupid about a great many things and be considered smart about a great many other things.

8/2/2010 11:44:51 AM

Are you saying that the basis for the stupidity is belief in something spiritual? Or more clearly, put that believing in something spiritual is "stupid."

8/2/2010 12:07:58 PM

belief in the existance or non-existance of something without proof is stupid.

8/2/2010 12:17:37 PM

I mean if you want to use parts of the bible as a figurative reference to teach people how to treat each other than fine, i guess. But if you think jesus litterally walked on water and made shit out of thin air or that a very specific god is going to smite you if you dont do x thing in exactly y way on z day, you're an idiot.

8/2/2010 12:23:08 PM

Quote :

"belief in the existance or non-existance of something without proof is stupid."

The difference is we believe that we have proof. Or at least I do.

8/2/2010 12:48:17 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying that the basis for the stupidity is belief in something spiritual? Or more clearly, put that believing in something spiritual is "stupid.""

Maybe not stupid but immensely delusional. Faith in a particular god is the belief in something without any evidence and additionally in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence.

To be subject to such abject delusion that has such a profound impact on the way you live your life and affect other people...I don't think it's that big of a stretch to call it stupidity. It's not particularly tactful however.

As we have argued, people gain their beliefs by the system in which they are raised, through years and years of indoctrination, group thinking, positive reinforcement, and fear. I don't blame them for being afraid to admit that they're almost certainly wrong and no religion is the right one, let alone their religion.

m52....it's a generalization. *MOST* people gain their religion from their parents or other adults in their cultural circles, just like every other cultural phenomena. Yes, some people may diverge from that (see most atheists). But this is why there are a lot of Christians here, a lot of Hindus in India, a lot of Muslims in the Middle East. Get over the semantics of the claim and join us in the real world.

8/2/2010 12:49:18 PM

Quote :

"The difference is we believe that we have proof. Or at least I do."

Well, isn't it time you submit your double-blind study to the Nobel Foundation?

Seriously, is any of your proof in the nature that you could share with anyone else?

[note to mods: sorry, thought I was editing my above post. ]

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

8/2/2010 12:50:38 PM

Many people have proof, others just don't want to listen. What may seem proof to us as logical proof may seem like nothing but speculation to you. But I'm not here to prove my religion is right argument. I just wanted to collect opinions.

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 1:23 PM. Reason : derp]

8/2/2010 12:56:40 PM

Quote :

"Many people have proof, others just don't want to listen."

I'm listening.

8/2/2010 1:06:22 PM

Well, that's entirely consistent with how I expected you to respond.

In reality, your "proof" is entirely subjective and personal. Do you understand why people have a hard time accepting what you call "truth" when it's based on this type of proof?

By the same token, Muslims have exactly the same amount and quality of proof. Why do you reject their proof? Or the Hindus, or Shintos, or Buddhists, etc.?

In the future, I wouldn't expect to be able to get away with saying things like "I have proof" without explaining yourself. Such a thing (definitive proof of a God) would be the biggest news in the history of mankind. The fact that you flippantly post and dismiss it is quite revealing on the nature of the existence of a god.

8/2/2010 1:08:23 PM

Go ahead and give your proof. We'll apply the Scientific Method to it and then hopefully get it published in some journals for peer review. You'll be in line for a Nobel in about 8-10 years!

8/2/2010 1:14:43 PM

Quote :

"In reality, your "proof" is entirely subjective and personal. Do you understand why people have a hard time accepting what you call "truth" when it's based on this type of proof?"

The proof has been long debated and in the end belief becomes dependent on a lot of things. You cannot understand how I feel about my beliefs because you have not experienced what I have, which has nothing to do with how logical or smart you are.

8/2/2010 1:16:55 PM

That's not a refutation; that's a concession.

8/2/2010 1:19:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm not here to prove my religion is right argument. I just wanted to collect opinions."

Well you know what I was trying to say.

8/2/2010 1:24:14 PM

i don't know why a christian would ever try to "prove" god exists, by the christian definition of god you can't prove that he exists or even understand him. by definition he transcends human understanding. hell the bible even says to not try to test god to prove he exists.

8/2/2010 1:39:32 PM

I'm not testing God to prove He exists. Nor I am saying I have proof for God, but I have a logical train of thought for my beliefs.

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : derp]

8/2/2010 1:44:35 PM

Quote :

"i don't know why a christian would ever try to "prove" god exists, by the christian definition of god you can't prove that he exists or even understand him. by definition he transcends human understanding. hell the bible even says to not try to test god to prove he exists."

OF COURSE it says this. Rational people however decided that they need something better than "no proof" to justify belief in something. Which is why we feel that faith is a delusion.

Here is an example:

I believe that super advanced space aliens created our universe and exist outside of our universe. They can however, affect our universe without any detection from within our universe in a way that would appear to be entirely natural phenomena. If you don't worship these aliens, then when you die, your consciousness will continue in a realm of continuous energy flux rather than dissipating along with your body. Since I care about my fellow man, it's important that I let them know about these aliens so that they may find rest when they die instead of eternal energy flux.

This is exactly as plausible as Yahweh. Hell, it's more plausible, because it doesn't make any claims about miracles. But both are almost certainly wrong. And people who proclaim either look crazy.

You look like a crazy person when you say stuff like "I have proof, but you wouldn't understand".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"I'm not testing God to prove He exists. Nor I am saying I have proof for God, but I have a logical train of thought for my beliefs."

Quote :

"The difference is we believe that we have proof. Or at least I do."

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : just sayin'.]

8/2/2010 1:50:58 PM

Where did I say I have proof that my God, the God of Abraham exists? I said I have proof in my beliefs, please forgive my slip in semantics I got 2.5 hours of sleep.

8/2/2010 1:54:59 PM

^^I can't tell if you were making up something ridiculous or describing Scientology (that's the faith w/ the aliens right?).

8/2/2010 1:58:48 PM

Shaggy: "belief in the existance or non-existance of something without proof is stupid."

LeonIsPro: "The difference is we believe that we have proof. Or at least I do."

The "something" that Shaggy, and presumably you were referring to was whatever god you believe in, which is presumably Yahweh.

What "something" are you referring to that you have proof of?

--------------------------------------------------
^making up something ridiculous. Hubbards aliens actually exist in our universe and are potentially observable. Crazy, but slightly less crazy than miracles and zombies imo.

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ^]

8/2/2010 2:00:28 PM

The Bible is our "proof." Like I said though, I should've used words other than proof, such as reason or cause. Now I'm drawn into a tiring semantics argument that won't end.

8/2/2010 2:06:33 PM

You can't use the bible as proof of anything. You might as well use the Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants.

8/2/2010 2:10:31 PM

What is reality but a construct of different ideas that influence perception. In reality we can perceive the definition of truth and other abstracts in ideas based upon our perceptions but can never truly understand the nature of those terms because it is impossible to create an absolute.
Those anyone's beliefs could easily be called true but no truth could be found in them. If we perception and reality is constantly changed due to the gradual increase in the flooding in of ideas then how can we establish one thing on any common ground. The basic example is that the definition of a chair may mean different things to different people. What is to say that in reality the computer screen your looking at now is not really in truth a chair. What I mean to say is stop arguing semantics or I'll write another wall o' text.

8/2/2010 2:16:16 PM

So you're going to get all Matrix'y here in order to be obtuse... Got it.

8/2/2010 2:18:42 PM

I was just hoping I could get people to follow the directive of the thread. Not argue about different faiths and what not.

8/2/2010 2:21:20 PM

In the context of how we interact with each other we have reality.

You and I both know a computer is not a chair. We describe them as such. A computer has properties that we can communicate with each other, hardness, clicky noises, lights from the screen, etc.

That's why we don't get confused when you say you have proof of a computer. You can show it to us, we can say "Hey you're right! You have a computer!". We have a detailed history of interacting with millions of computers. Whether they should be called "computer" on some level of objective reality that we have absolutely no way of disproving is entirely irrelevant. In this reality, which is real, in which we exist, we call them computers.

Claiming that everything is an abstraction of perception is non sequitur and seems like an attempt to skirt the issue that you said that the Bible was proof.

8/2/2010 2:22:34 PM

Quote :

"is non sequitur"

Did you miss

Quote :

"wall o' text"

Is a joke. Get it? Is just a joke.

8/2/2010 2:24:19 PM

It's not semantics, and it's not perception.

If you really just cared to catalog our opinions about Christianity then you wouldn't have responded to Shaggy that you believe you have proof.

Here's what you're trying to do.

LeonIsPro: I'm just doing this simply survey, tell us how you feel about Christians.
Various atheists: It's stupid, delusional, and lacks any evidence.
LeonIsPro: Nuh-uh. I have proof.
Various atheists: Oh yeah, prove it.
LeonIsPro: Guise, shut up, I'm just trying to do a survey here.

You don't get to interject your faith into the discussion and then back out when we respond. Well, I mean you can, but it makes your position look extremely weak and reinforces my non-belief.

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM. Reason : cleanup]

8/2/2010 2:30:05 PM

Ok. I apologize for "injecting my faith." Which I curbed in this thread, because it's something I feel very strong about, and sometimes I slip up.

Now carry on and I'll try not to interrupt with something like that again.

8/2/2010 2:34:49 PM

god, by definition, is unknowable by man. it is not possible for us to know if a god exists or does not exist.

8/2/2010 3:07:20 PM

Quote :

"The Bible is our "proof." Like I said though, I should've used words other than proof, such as reason or cause. Now I'm drawn into a tiring semantics argument that won't end. "

this is not true for all christians. most presbyterians, for example, don't look at the bible like this.

8/2/2010 3:12:53 PM

Quote :

"god, by definition, is unknowable by man. it is not possible for us to know if a god exists or does not exist."

This is only the definition that people that want to be purposefully obtuse use. There's no reason that a god which as a claimed direct effect on existence ("creation", "miracles", etc) should not be directly or at least indirectly observable.

An omnipotent god has the power to manifest himself in a way that is observable. He also could choose not to, of course. But if it has no discernible effect on reality, then why would we care whether it existed? There are infinite metaphysical things I could make up that have no discernible effect on reality and we rightly don't believe in them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"this is not true for all christians. most presbyterians, for example, don't look at the bible like this."

I obviously don't understand presbyterians that much then. They don't believe that Jesus is their savior? Or are they just saying that they didn't learn that from the Bible?

8/2/2010 3:47:37 PM

i'm really not trying to deflect you with a google answer, but i remembered reading this at some point and i thought it stated it well:

http://tinyurl.com/gotopage9
(scroll down to page 9, don't worry its quick)

basically presbyterians don't rest their faith on the bible

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM. Reason : also keep in mind that book is aimed at kids, so don't try to dissect it too much]

8/2/2010 3:55:49 PM

Well shit, I can't read the rest of that preview, but I've heard this before.

They're still getting it from the Bible. They're just attempting to magically waiving away the inconsistency of the Bible with "we believe in God of the Bible directly, but not because the Bible tells us so. Let's read from the Bible some. And take communion. We didn't get that from the Bible either. Or baptisms. Not from the Bible."

I'm not certain how anyone could explain the concept of Grace with a straight face. "I believe Jesus was sacrificed and resurrected for my sins, but not because I read it in a Bible." Oh yeah? Where'd you get it from then?

8/2/2010 4:08:08 PM

the bible is just a record of a living history, presbyterians don't worship the bible or read it blindly. thats what that preview said.

8/2/2010 4:22:21 PM

I'm not sure any Christians worship the Bible (false idols, etc.) they just vary on their interpretation of Biblical literalness.

"The bible is just a record of living history" that just happens to contain very impossible and unprovable miracles that the entire concept of their faith is based on.

8/2/2010 4:30:18 PM

Quote :

"m52....it's a generalization. *MOST* people gain their religion from their parents or other adults in their cultural circles, just like every other cultural phenomena. Yes, some people may diverge from that (see most atheists). But this is why there are a lot of Christians here, a lot of Hindus in India, a lot of Muslims in the Middle East. Get over the semantics of the claim and join us in the real world."

it's also why there are a lot of secularists and atheists in America. b/c where they are born. there's not this many in Pakistan.

8/2/2010 4:41:43 PM

^^ well the bible was written by man based on an oral history and Jesus wasn't around to edit it, its an imperfect record

8/2/2010 4:48:35 PM

Are you a Presbyterian? I'm not trying to undermine what you're saying, just trying to establish if you're speaking for other people here or if this is what you're believe.
------------------------------------------
If it's an imperfect record, which parts are accurate and which parts are inaccurate? What if the Gospels are the inaccurate part? I'm gonna go out on a limb here that most Presbyterians have no problem with "love thy neighbor" but pull the grace card out on "enjoy your slaves, subjugate your wives, kill homosexuals, don't eat shellfish" etc.

8/2/2010 5:06:40 PM

Quote :

"If it's an imperfect record, which parts are accurate and which parts are inaccurate?"

That's a good question.

8/3/2010 4:49:41 PM

I wouldn't reasonably base my entire belief system around a book without being able to answer that question.

Anyone is welcome to, but if there was no way to be certain whether a particular passage is accurate and non-corrupted then the entire book is suspect.

If the book is suspect, then what else is there that would convince you to be a Christian? Without the Bible, there is no Christianity.

(playing Devil's advocate here obviously. I don't think any of it is "accurate" as in literally true, especially genesis and the resurrection story and the miracles and whatnot)

8/4/2010 8:41:26 AM

^

Quote :

"If the book is suspect"

The Bible is not a book.....

Quote :

"Without the Bible, there is no Christianity."

Christianity was around before the Bible.....

Quote :

"Anyone is welcome to, but if there was no way to be certain whether a particular passage is accurate and non-corrupted then the entire book is suspect. "

If your looking for proof...you're not going to find it. Thats the definition of "faith". Science doesnt work on the ability to "prove"; it works on the ability to "disprove". For instance, why is the big bang theory accepted? Answer: Because it cant be disproven. Do you really think someone duplicated the creation of the universe in a laboratory experiment?!

This is a key point to the scientific method that most people dont understand....

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 9:39:14 AM

Quote :

"If your looking for proof...you're not going to find it. Thats the definition of "faith". Science doesnt work on the ability to "prove"; it works on the ability to "disprove". For instance, why is the big bang theory accepted? Answer: Because it cant be disproven."

The Big Bang theory is accepted because there is a mountain of observable evidence in its favor. Compare this to the complete lack of evidence for any of the extraordinary claims made in the compilation of Jewish folklore commonly known as "the Bible," and you will begin to see the difference between religious faith and science.

That there is no mechanism offered by, or even accepted by, religious apologists for the falsification of their claims does not make their position any stronger. It rather makes their position a totally fatuous one.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ]

8/4/2010 9:55:32 AM

^^Big bang theory makes testable falsifiable predictions that have been tested and verified.



And genius, it can be disproven. The theory of Evolution can be disproven. Evolutionary biologists know exactly what type of evidence would disprove it and as of yet there has been none.

Had COBE not returned the results above, Big Bang Theory would have at least been revised in a manner that would be consistent with observation. If key precepts of the theory were not compatible with observation then it's likely that Big Bang would be tossed out.

The beauty of scientific claims is that they can be disproven. They can change. They can be refined given new data. You appear to be confused about the scientific method.

Quote :

"The Bible is not a book....."

lolwut? If it's not a book, what is it? It may not be a novel, but it sure as shit is a book that the entire faith of Christianity is based on. Is it your claim that if a person never heard of the Bible or any of it's teachings they could become a Christian independent of it?

Quote :

"Christianity was around before the Bible....."

Flying Spaghetti Monster, could you be any more obtuse?

I'll revise my statement. The modern incarnation of Christianity would not exist without the Bible. The Bible is both the foundation of all Christian belief but was integral in the millennium long formation of the Christian establishment and continuation of the organized religion that is Christianity.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 9:59:37 AM

a basis on the bible is not central to all Christianity, please stop trying to define something you don't understand. sure some people need the bible, but it is not central to all Christianity. stop being obtuse, i've explained this pretty plainly for you already.

and also the big bang and Christianity are not at conflict

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 11:07:58 AM

Quote :

"sure some people need the bible, but it is not central to all Christianity."

The bible is the basis for Christianity.

8/4/2010 11:16:45 AM

I feel like I'm in bizarro world here.

The resurrection story of Jesus, the thing that makes Christians not-Jews (an over-simplification sure) is found in the Bible. That's where the story comes from.

Believing that Jesus is the messiah predicted by the Jews is what makes a Christian a Christian. I mean, there might be some hemming and hawing about the literalness of certain passages, but c'mon! The Gospels are what Christianity is based on.

Quote :

"and also the big bang and Christianity are not at conflict"

No one said they were. Bigun was attempting to undermine science by saying "See, you believe the theory of the Big Bang without any falsifiable evidence." and I was presenting evidence to the contrary.

I can understand how this might seem like an attack on Christianity because I can present things like evidence to support my world view, and Christians can present, ummmm.....the Bible?

8/4/2010 11:21:39 AM