Months ago I was trying to strengthen my faith, as I began to do more research on the matter. After research I found there's little to no chance that a god actually exists. I learned how the universe was born, and that a god was probably unnecessary for its creation.
I have had people try to push Islam on me, and turned them away as I am an atheist. I also wont believe in anything which promotes hate toward Christians. Not that I am a Christian anymore, but I do not support religious beliefs which teaches hate for anyone. People need to get along not because some mythical god told them to, but because we are all human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Wikipedia does not place God as necessarily meaning the Christian God. I learned that just by looking it up and reading some that God is believed in many different ways. Many different religions believe in their version of god.
Listed on the side.
(Representation (for art or for worship) of God in Christianity, Balinese Hinduism, Atenism, and Zoroastrianism)
If Wikipedia pointed to just the Christian god as fact, I might believe in it, but Wikipedia doesn't even state that any god is real. Yeah Wikipedia isn't always the best source, but it is better then going to any Christian website, as they will always claim on the Christian god.
As for most of us, we believe in science, and no god. There's just not any sufficient evidence that any god or deity exists anywhere. Now if one were to exist, I doubt anyone is going to hell for just not believing in a god which there's no proof of.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Yup...agreed...no god
It's perfectly okay to confront Christians. BUT, always remember, their freedom of speech is your freedom of speech too. No one has the right not to be offended by free speech.
If their freedom is your freedom, then they share the right to be and not be offended by your free speech.
@ Lion
"If their freedom is your freedom, then they share the right to be and not be offended by your free speech."
When anyone engages in free speech, there is the possibility to be offended. But without that risk, then everyone will be treading on eggshells and no one will utter a word. Jesus made his sermon on the mount, that definitely offended the ruling class and Romans. You make a statement in this forum, I may be offended. I make a statement and you may be offended.
We deal constantly with being offended, it is a daily part of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEOHQoh82bs
@Lion IRC
That's so similar to what Cognostic said, do you take pleasure in stealing other people comments? Come up with your own stuff.
Yes I studied Christianity further and found 100% of those biblical stories can be explained. Some can be explained by just natural weather phenomenon
For instance the plagues were caused by the weather. The weather caused water in the area to turn red like blood, but it was do to weather events, not actual plagues. Same with both the locusts and frogs. The weather is responsible not a God. A god is not responsible for the supposed flood either, which was probably just confined to a small area. Every few million years something happens to this planet, and life starts over again.
In fact other early generations had their separate ideas of what a god is suppose to be. Christianity emerged from a mixture of other religious beliefs, and the Bible? Was written on what people saw and heard, but is not accurate to what really happened in those days.
People see water turning red back then and assumed a god caused it. The weather caused it not some god.
"If their freedom is your freedom, then they share the right to be and not be offended by your free speech."
And I use that freedom to speak my mind.
@Lie on: WTF did you not understand. .... Oh yea. The entire section about "NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED."
Seriously MODS, how much more???
You're asking me what I didn't understand but I don't recall expressing confusion or disbelief.
You said their freedom of speech is your freedom of speech too.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Reciprocity. The Golden Rule. etc.
I agree.
By your rule, if they expect YOU not to be offended by their free speech, then they should equally allow you the same freedom to say things regardless of whether THEY might be offended.
But the corollary of this is that if you want the sort of freedom of speech that allows you to say what it is you find abhorrent, disgusting, outrageous, offensive about their views, then they also have the right to be offended if your views.
So far from me being confused, it's actually YOUR reasoning which is self-contradictory and self-refuting.
...and I don't think the Mods banning me is going to help you with that. If anything, banning me will just reinforce your echo-chamber confirmation bias.
@Lion
You still didn’t answer my question. Again I waited, but I see you have time/energy to throw your thought anywhere BUT my question...
I don’t care whether you do or don’t but you're coming across like an ass.
Whitefire13
WTF?
This is your FIRST POST in this thread.
What earlier question did you ask and where did you ask it?
FFS learn how to post a link to whatever it is you are on about.
Here's an example of a link.
In this case it's a link to one of the many posts I have made responding to YOU!!!
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/beliefs-without-found...
Great. You know the link and the question. But did you read my comment under your response? The question was “side stepped”, Imo because I was more interested in a method for determining...
OK
Whitefire13 asks "how can a person determine a claim of “inerrancy”?"
The same as for any other controversial/contested truth claim.
Evidence. Logic. Principle of Sufficient Reason. Shared epistemology. Whether the claim is more plausible than its negation. Corroboration. Peer review.
This applies in the case of establishing Canon as well. Believe it or not, biblical theists are concerned with the question of whether fact claims about God are TRUE or FALSE. And there are millions/billions of instances of claims about something done by God which aren't in the bible, and yet are accepted as true by bible-believing theists. The bible itself affirms that the bible simply isn't big enough to include every single, (factual) human interaction with God - let alone all the semi-factual or downright false claims about God's actions.
In a simple terms, the test applied to errancy/inerrancy Canonical/Non-Canonical is;
- Does the claim cohere with or contradict that which is already known. The New Testament can't contradict the Old Testament or else it wouldn't be Canonical. The Book of Mormon or the Quran might have certain claims that accord with the Old Testament but if they contradict the Old Testament why would we include them in Canon?
They can stand or fall on their own. Mormon and Muslim apologists can defend their own 'book'.
- Does the claim ADD anything new? I could write the gospel according to Lion IRC but it wouldn't add anything new. It wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know about God from existing Canon.
@Lion...
I copied your answer back to the other thread just for some consistency. I have a question or two and I agree with some of your points.
I’ll answer you there.
Whitefire13
**Thumbs Up**
The best way to keep a discussion on track is to avoid cross-posting in multiple threads insinuating that I'm somehow trying to avoid answering a question you (maybe) asked in another thread.
I often get accused of not replying to posts which, when I go back and read (for the first or second time) I discover that the post includes no question mark punctuation. Or fails to tag my user name. So I'm left wondering why I should feel obligated to respond at all?
...same goes for posts marked to the attention of someone called Lying IRK or Loon IRC or [insert deliberate flaming] Same goes for posts that gush with expletive-laden, abusive/slanderous ad hominens about the very same person you're now expecting to engage in a "rational" discussion.
If you think I'm a troll - don't talk to me.
If you think I support the sexual abuse of children - don't talk to me.
If you think I'm a liar - why on earth would you ask what I think?
@ Lion
If you think I support the sexual abuse of children - don't talk to me.
You support and defend your church which has, over the years and provably supported, nurtured, promoted and defended the horrendous sexual and physical abuse of children in a systematic and organised way.
By failing to condemn the church hierarchy that concealed, promoted, passed offenders around different parishes, refused to believe the victims you are de facto condoning such behaviour.
By continuing to support the church verbally and no doubt with your money you are passively allowing such behaviour to be ignored even in the highest places as it was for the last 100 years.
You may not "support" child abuse in the church but you sure are facilitating its continuance.
If you think I'm a liar - why on earth would you ask what I think?
Nobody "thinks" you are a liar we have ample evidence in your posts. Suck it up princess.
@ Fievel Mousekewitz
As an atheist I consider it critical to constantly exercise skepticism. That is the tool that separates the truth from the lies and bullshit, and the honest man from the liar.
I do not "believe" in science, but I have high confidence in it because it has a very good track record on being accurate and producing valid results.
Whenever I refer to my personal position(s), I never use the word "faith" because it can be misinterpreted in many ways.
@David
"As an atheist I consider it critical to constantly exercise skepticism. That is the tool that separates the truth from the lies and bullshit, and the honest man from the liar."
I kind of agree, but not quite; 'as an atheist 'the only thing which flows naturally from my atheism is I do not believe in gods .The term atheist neither infers nor implies anything else what so ever.
Having said that, there are several self describers I use besides atheist. None are predicated on nor depend on my atheism , although it's not much of a leap with some. .
They include; Humanist, skeptic, cynic, pragmatist, and misanthrope.
My take on skepticism: The skeptic may scoff, but that is not his/her primary function. That is to question, everything. The hardest thing for me is to question my strongest beliefs . I have found over a lifetime, that the more certain I am of being right about a thing, the greater the likelihood I am to be in error to some degree, or simply wrong.
I read some time ago that 70% of what we know becomes redundant or superseded each decade. Seems about right to this old fart. Seems to me that the holder I become, the more redundant and irrelevant I become. Of course eventually I shall disappear entirely. The trick is not to do so before one dies.
@ cranky47
"I kind of agree, but not quite; 'as an atheist 'the only thing which flows naturally from my atheism is I do not believe in gods .The term atheist neither infers nor implies anything else what so ever."
I phrased it in the first person to express only my sole opinions. We all know atheism has no dogma, no leadership, no manual.
@David Killens
"As an atheist I consider it critical to constantly exercise skepticism. That is the tool that separates the truth from the lies and bullshit, and the honest man from the liar."
I always use honesty as that's always best. We need to get along for no other reason then because we are human. I don't lie or cheat, only for the better of us humans.
"I do not "believe" in science, but I have high confidence in it because it has a very good track record on being accurate and producing valid results."
Right. Well no proof of a god has surfaced. And that's by science, the only thing I even have any faith in, and no god is what I always come to. If you can call it faith... LOL.
"Whenever I refer to my personal position(s), I never use the word "faith" because it can be misinterpreted in many ways."
I don't and can not say I have any Faith in anything.
I just hope this universe takes care of us. But sooner or later, something will happen and we'll have to start all over again. And other religious beliefs might occur. I just hope nothing happens while I am alive yet.
I can handle the possible chance that death is nothing. You're here, then you are not here.
No afterlife, like a permanent shut down computer. It's over and everyone wins in the end.
No afterlife. I can live with that.