Early Atheism

Willing: Nope

If it were willing, Evil would not occur. Even if Evil came from man, an able and willing god would not allow it, thus, Evil would not occur.

I urge you to read some of the comments below. I explained it multiple times. And if you don't want to, that's fine, as long as you admit you just don't care about the discussion and want to say you're right no matter what.

I've read many of the comments below, and a point that keeps popping up in my head in response to you is this:
"If god created all things, then he created Evil. As the sole progenitor in the cosmology of the Islamic religions, God creates all things, including Lucifer. He also knows that Lucifer will become the Devil, but creates him anyway. He creates man, and knows he will do evil, but lets him have free will regardless. Thus, Evil cometh from God."
You can't have one being create everything and not be the source of all evil. I'm sorry, it's just how logic works.

Hold the fuck up. There's logic in the bible?

God lets innocents suffer because one man abuses his free will, he lets kids in Africa starve even though they have no say in what goes on, that does not sound like a nice guy to me.


Sorry if i make no sense, it's late and I've been getting little sleep lately,

God has given us the power to save those suffering from hunger and poverty. We have yet to use that power. There is plenty of food produced worldwide that excess of it can be sent to Africa. But it takes a global effort. And the world is at war with itself, which is holding us back from make the difference needed.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

9/11. Thousands of people died, no one besides the terroists knew it happening before it was to late. Moithers, fsthers, sons, daughters, siblings, friends, dead. How would I or anyone else I know be able to stop that from happening? To put it simply, when some men abuse their free will, no matter what I or almost anyone else does, they will hurt someone, same with murders and rapes.


Again, it's early in the morning. I'm really having a hard time getting my thoughts down in words

I said it takes a global effort. That means everyone in the world has to be on the same page. The terrorists had the power to decide not to do the attacks, but they carried them out anyway. That's their fault, not God's.

Back to my original point. Humans will never be at peace like that, there will always be some that are rotten to the core, so innocents will always suffer in ways most cannot imagine, but why? Why doesn't God save those women who get raped, those children who get abused, and those families that died in 9/11? If I had that power, I would hope I would protect the innocent, even if I do let humans have their freewill to a certain extent.

Because God doesn't play favorites. The world is under our control. Even if you don't believe it will ever change, it's still under our control.

Trust me, I sympathize with you. I too know it's not gonna change. But God has decided that we have the power to change it, even if we refuse to do so.

God doesn't play favorites, besides for Christians. Anywho, I just think God should stop evil at a certain point

The word "Christian" isn't a word God uses to designate people he intends to let into heaven. Christian is a label that humans created to designate the people that worship Jesus Christ, who said that only through Him could we enter the kingdom of heaven. He wasn't just talking to the Christians, he was talking to everyone in the world. God loves everyone equally, and wants all of us to join Him in heaven. It's our choice whether to accept the invitation.

Wait, God will accept me, an atheist, into heaven, right? Because I do not steal, murder, beat, and I try to be nice to everyone I can (I'm by no means perfect)

Again, Jesus said only through Him can we enter heaven. Your resume sounds superb, but you still need to accept Him as your savior in order to get in.

Ok, I spend my life as an Atheist, but let's say when I die, I see God. Of course, if he stares me in the face, I could not deny his existense, so would I then, after figuring out he's real, be allowed into heaveon?

Depends if you confess your sins and ask for forgiveness.

Fair enough, I just think God could do a little more to help the innocent.

Man came from God, evil came from God...

As I said in response to the commenter before you, please read the discussions below. I'm tired of explaining it.

Yea sorry, I did read it and you lead yourself back in favour to my argument. 'God knew evil would occur but he allowed it to happen,' -jokeface

Okay, fair enough. But then it all comes down to a simple matter of verbiage. Let's bring it back to the beginning of the discussion.

If I change my original statement to say that God is able, but not willing, then that doesn't defy anything in the Bible. All it means is that atheists perceive God to be, as Epicurus states, "malevolent". But Christians - even those who believe He is able but not willing - still consider Him benevolent. And as long as we believe that (hell, as long as we believe in God period), then the atheists are not winning.

Its not a matter of winning... what religious path you decide to take with your life isnt some form competition when it comes to death and beyond...

I know, that's my point. I'm not saying the religious people are winning, I'm saying no one is winning.

Evil came from man, yes, but man came from God. That's like saying I get my ketchup from a bottle and the ketchup factory and the tomatoes that are grown and harvested have nothing to do with it.

The ketchup doesn't just magically appear in the bottle.

God gave man free will. Man chose to become evil. That's like if my dad gave me the keys to his car and I drove it into a tree. Keep in mind, I've been driving for years, I'm decent at it, and I can usually be trusted behind the wheel. That accident is my fault, not my dad's.

If god gave man free will then how can he be all knowing? If your dad KNEW you were going to crash his car then it is his fault for giving you the keys, but your dad didn't so that's why it isn't his fault.

God knew evil would occur but He allowed it to happen anyway because He knew evil was necessary.

Oh ok, that makes sense then. But doesn't that still mean that god is somewhat responsible for the evil in the world?

I guess, from a certain standpoint, you could say that. But man is the one who chooses whether or not to unleash the evil. In fact, what I should have said was that God knows that the allowance of evil is necessary, not the evil itself. Man has to be free to choose whether or not to be evil.

Well the evil part makes sense now. But if god is all knowing then he must know who will choose to be evil in the future. But if that's the case did they really have a choice at all?

That's one of the biggest controversies in our faith. It's really impossible to understand, even from a hardcore Christian's perspective. The best I can tell you (and what I told someone else in another thread) is that God operates outside the parameters of human logic. We can't conceive of free will and God's omniscience coexisting, but somehow they do, in a divine way that we'll never comprehend. I know that doesn't answer your question at all, but it's all I have. Sorry.

Thank you so much for explaining that. Usually people have a hard time understanding what I ask but you know so much. You have literally put to rest my concerns with the logic of religion, thank you

I'm glad I could be of assistance.

If God decided not to allow bad people to live, the good in good people would be meaningless. It all goes along the lines of free will. If humans had no choice but to love God then that love would be a meaningless, fruitless creation.

Good answer.

not trying to bash but i thought that the free will thing came from eve eating the apple

According to what I've been taught, man always had free will just never knew anything different than good so Adam and Eve always did good until Eve disobeyed. As for why God gave us free will was explained as he wants us to freely love him as he freely loves us.

It's like if you had the power to force the love of your life to love you back, it wouldn't be true love because he/she isn't doing it out of his/her own free will. But if he/she loved you freely without being forced, then it makes the love he/she feels for you that much more real and meaningful.

Had to come back down here because the comment max was reached, like i said yesterday religion is nothing like it used to be, its become a tame version of what it once was but still even today there is so much corruption in religions like the extremist Muslims, like the pedophile priests and even like the pastors who will take money from their church group to buy personal items and not put all of the money back into the church, if the world was all held under 1 belief obviously it would run smoother but that would never happen with any 1 religion because there are too many fanatics. If the whole world was atheist then yes there would still be crime and evil but there would be a lot less wars, all the wars in the middle easy focus on religion, a lot of the "wars" in Africa also focus on religion. Atheism isn't LETS DENOUNCE EVERYTHING RELIGION SAYS IS GOOD we look at all sides of religion which would benefit us and use that. There has been cases of religious people when they have broke apart from religion or denounced it that they go on a crazy crime/killing spree because they were only doing good because they were scared of Gods wrath, yet a lot of Atheists (i know a lot of religious people do this also) who aren't scared of any sort of wrath to them will go and help from the goodness of their heart and not commit crimes because they care more about their fellow man than the do a deity in the sky.

Well, in an effort to conclude this, I'll say both sides yield good and bad. I choose to believe there is a God for reasons I've already explained. It has been a pleasure discussing religion with you without using the words "faggot" or "retard" which is a sadly rare occurrence.

I wish you success and prosperity on your future endeavors.

Na its more like you have the power to make the love of your life love you back so you don't use your power.....but if she doesn't on her own love you back you punish her by burning her alive for all of eternity. Don't get all annoyed and upset at my comment because im not making it to get anyone angry, its just you put only the nice side of things which happen, i needed to put the not so nice things which happen.

Sounds like a pretty easy decision to me.

You shouldn't believe in something purely because you fear the consequences of not believing in it. That right there is the definition of a sheep, if you believe in something because you truly believe in something then thats fine but really, if a being has the ability to create the universe and intelligent life, im pretty sure it will know you only followed its religion because you were scared and not a true believer.

Although I get your point, I have heard this before and I think the reasoning a bit skewed. Basically, how I interpret that point is if I were to hold a gun to your face and say that if you don't give me all your money then I will kill you. If your response is, "I refuse because that is a decision based on fear and I don't believe in letting fear dictate my actions," it can be widely accepted as a foolish response. So to say, "I won't let the fear of eternal hellfire and torment dictate my actions in this life," is, to me, just as foolish.

inb4 but guns exist hell doesnt etc etc

I see where you are coming from with the comparison but its nothing like that, it would be more like a guy running up to you with his hand in his jacket pocket with no gun visible and telling you to give him all your money, there is no evidence there to show he has got a gun and no reason for him to not show you the gun (if he had one) also religion was nothing like it is now 2000 years ago, with religion came masses of power, so its like the guy with his hand in his pocket is not only asking for your money but asking for you to follow his every command till death.

I see. That actually makes perfect sense. I guess, then, it is to you whether or not you want to risk it. But I wouldn't say that most religious "leaders" (a term used loosely here because some actually do not consider themselves in control of those they "lead") are in it purely for the sake of telling people what to do and enslaving them in a sense. I, personally, have seen many people who preach and spread the word of God out of legitimate belief and concern. I also know through personal experience that this fear isn't the only incentive offered when one is being preached to. Often I will see people say things like, "God can give you joy and peace of mind and can help out of every problem and trouble you've ever had in life." To me such things are not said to scare one into conversion. I think there are actually some good religious people out that do focus on the good that can come of it and most of them aren't demanding complete control over your life either. As tired as this phrase may be I think it serves to embolden my point: "My church has fed the hungry and sheltered the homeless, what has your church done?"

Like i said, religion has changed ever so much from 2000 years ago till now, if it hadn't changed any then it would either A. No longer exist or B. Be the ruling force in the world. The old ways of religion were power, whether it be for the individual or for the religion as a whole. Don't get me wrong though, i don't look at religion as this huge evil thing (not current religion that is) i look it as something which makes people happy, i too would like to be a part of something like that but i am unable to have belief, i am unable to overlook past discrepancies. Due to religious fear of science we are around 1000 years behind in scientific advances. For all the good religion does there are like 10 dark things hiding in the corner which are evil. Not to mention the magnitude of different religions out there all claiming to be the one true religion. They all can't be right but the only reason you think yours is the correct one is because of your surroundings (religious parents/religious country)

I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is too many atheists generalize based on a few actions or even actions that thousands of years old at this point (and that really doesn't seem fair) and their line of thinking is far too narrow-minded for me to consider their argument valid.

Anyway im off to sleep now (its almost 7am) reply to me and i will be sure to reply back when i wake sometime in the afternoon, its been nice discussing with you. Good night.

thousands of years ago is not long at all, it is but a blink of an eye on the grand scale of things.

Also, sorry for the TL;DR.

I see your reasoning. But to me, what I believe goes beyond physical and scientific evidence or the actions of those who to believe what I believe, which is why I never bother to look into any of it for either side (and supposedly there is evidence to suggest creation). I think the biggest problem is atheists demand evidence and proof and scream "bullshit" when no one has anything to give. Now I can't blame them for one second because it makes perfect sense to think that way but I think it does more to hinder spiritual health and growth. We think too much and feel too little (I know I stole that quote). But anyway, I choose to believe what I believe because I think it's spiritually healthy and it brings me comfort and joy in a world that is fucked any way you slice it. And I personally choose to approach any religious discussion philosophically because at that point it's not a matter of whoever happens to have more evidence on hand can claim victory but rather it becomes more of a thinking game. The reason why I believe there must be a God is because no atheist can explain in any terms how matter came to be prior to the big bang. Also, I choose believe that the human consciousness is far to complex to have evolved from a single cell purely by accident regardless of many millions of year you throw into the mix.

"Purely by accident" is a term thrown around by people who do not support evolution, no scientist says purely by accident, also there is no evidence to support creationism, there is one so called scientist claiming evidence but all his stuff is actually made up. There is literally no evidence to support creationism. Also we cannot say how matter came to be (yet) but saying God did it is no better than us saying we don't know. I will always be scientifically minded, give me proof and i will believe, believing without proof is one of the reasons we as a species are getting less intelligent.

And if evolution wasn't a happenstance then are you suggesting that it was controlled or planned? I see no other alternative.

If not "purely by accident" (which is exactly the case) then how would you define it? Just because no scientist ever says it true doesn't make it false which what you're implying which, to me, sounds ignorant and makes you no better than any religious fanatic you've condemned. And if all you ever believe is based on what a man in a white coat has to say, then how does that make you any better than me who will believe a man holding a bible? Neither of us have ever stumbled upon evidence ourselves so everything we've ever heard is pure hearsay. Though I will say it makes more sense to believe a scientist more than a pastor, but do not for one second assume that you are a greater being for believing the scientist because there could be something to this whole religion thing that you simply don't see or understand because perhaps you're too close minded to grasp. I'm not saying that's the case, but you cannot, with any certainty, say otherwise. Nor can I.

As for your other point, how can you say that the evidence supporting evolution isn't fabricated? How can you say that the evidence supporting creation was? It sounds to me like that particular argument can summed up as, "Well that proves me wrong so it's obviously fake!" Which is no different than an immature flame war on the internet. One of the reasons why I choose to disregard physical evidence because I can never really be sure. Neither can you. To say otherwise would arrogant and ignorant.

I can easily say that the proof for evolution is not fabricated because its there, there IS proof, the "proof" for creationism is purely fabricated because there was literally no proof.....thats how science works. Science shows proof (easily accessible proof) which is then tested by a lot of other people to show that it is proof. And evolution is not purely by accident because nothing happens by accident, its called adaptation. There was one thing which was more beneficial.....so our ancestors jumped on it. What those uneducated see is "by accident" but no man who knows the facts of evolution will say its by accident. Also i had a discussion with a creationist a couple of weeks ago, he was so uneducated on the subject that he said "I believe in adaptation...but not evolution" he would not accept that they were the same thing because in his church the pastors had bashed evolution so much and told him lies about it that he thought as evolution as this hugely wrong thing while adaptation (because a bad word wasn't said about that) was plausible.

I would have to agree with him. Adaptation is necessary for evolution, but the two are not synonymous. Evolution is the complete changing of one species through many adaptations to the environment which are be necessary for survival. However, just because one adapts to one's environment doesn't mean one has evolved completely nor does it mean one even will in the future. When I say "by accident," I mean that for one to survive in an environment for which they are not genetically fit, a genetic mutation must occur for that one to continue to survive. This is where "survival of fittest" comes from. That mutation is a complete random outcome. The species that survived didn't suddenly decide to sprout fins and gills so it could swim in the water to survive. It was the species that was born "deformed" with fins and gills that survived where all the others died off and so this genetic deformity was multiplied and voila, you have a completely new species fit for the environment and the original species never once made a conscious decision for any of it. Now obviously the more recent homo sapiens possessed a degree of intelligence where genetic mutations need not facilitate survival. But for the bulk of millions of years Earth has been around, intelligent homo sapiens have not. So somewhere along the line, humans were once unintelligent beasts with nothing more than survival instinct (which is eat, drink, and sleep etc) and any adaptations to the environment were never a conscious, intelligent decision. That is what I mean when I say "by accident."

As for your first point, you implement only the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. What I'm interpreting here is you saying, "Proof for evolution is not fabricated because it's there and it's there because it's not fabricated. Proof for creation is not there because it's all fabricated and it's all fabricated because it's not there." Which is a deeply flawed argument and brings me to my original point, How can you be sure?

I can be sure because i have seen fossils, i have seen proof of evolution with my one two eyes, evolution is widely accepted because the proof of it is overwhelming, anyone to say "well its all fabricated" is a drag on the human intellect because they cant accept fact. Creationism is something specific to religions, something which is known to have more holes than Swiss cheese, no non religious person believes in creationism but a lot of religious people believe in evolution. Also evolution and adaptation are the same thing, different words for the same thing. People think of evolution as this huge change but its not. Evolution is a simple as a fish being born with bigger teeth than the rest. Evolution is not the jump from ape to man but everything in between.

a·dapt/əˈdapt/
Verb:
Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.
e·volve/iˈvälv/
Verb:
Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

While I was wrong previously when I defined evolution the fact, nonetheless, remains that the two are not synonymous. And going off of your point, you have seen fossils as have I. Fossils alone do not, cannot, prove evolution. And I know for a fact that you have not seen proof for evolution simply because there is nothing infallible that makes it fact outright. Which is why it is still a theory and not a scientific law. I will say that a lot of evidence could suggest it, but nothing proves it. Same goes for creation as well.

At any rate I'm getting away from my original point. I do not look at physical evidence because neither side can claim infallibility. Simply approaching the topics with my own logical reasoning and viewing both sides carefully, I can say that I have come to the conclusion that creationism offers more answers that evolution doesn't just yet. On top of all that, it just makes me a happier and more comfortable person. Do as you will but if you wish to compel anyone with your argument, try being less self-righteous and admit that maybe you could be wrong. Because you simply don't know for certain. Neither do I.

Suitable for a new purpose/develop gradually....they mean the same. Also yes creationism gives answers, but not answers that can be supported in anyway, like if i was asked whats 13x632 and i said the answer was 7896, it seems about right...it looks like it fits but its wrong, its a number i purely plucked out of my head to fit the answer. People will come by and disprove my answer but that will not stop it being an answer nonetheless.

And I think the internet can serve to embolden my point considering anger, hate, and cynicism are rampant and yet most that frequent the internet are non-religious or outright atheistic.

This explanation makes sense, but I would have to say that the example given doesn't suit the complexity of the topic at hand. The origin of the human race cannot be summed as "what is 2+2; science says it's 4 and religion says it's 5 so obviously religion is bullshit." See if no one knew how math functioned and the problem of 2+2 were presented, both sides could give an answer yet neither side would know if it were the right answer until one side were to fully understand basic addition. Seeing as how no one can fully understand where from humans came, neither side can be certain in their answer.

But all this aside, it's an irrelevant question to begin with, in my opinion. The origin of human beings doesn't necessarily apply to the advancement of society at large. If evolution were to be proven as fact... ok... great... now what? If you ask me I think religion has more good to offer than bad unless you define good in terms of proving evolution which, to me, is a skewed view. Now obviously you have all these religious wars in the past and even the current terrorist threat posed by radical Islam. But there are several hundred wars fought where religion had nothing to do with either side's motive. In my opinion, wars would wage and men would die senselessly with or without religion. Now I do think that religion does have some good to offer the world. There are some biblical principles that if they were integrated with human society, would make the world a much place. Same goes for some Buddhist, Judaic, and Islamic principles.

Bottom line: If you prove evolution to be infallible fact and rid the world of religion, not much in society would change. People would still be greedy, corrupt, angry and hateful. But if people were to practice some religious principles, I honestly think we would see some improvement as a human race.
Then again this is all just my opinion.

Funny your choice of comparison was a sheep, because that's exactly what God calls us. We are sheep and Jesus is the shepherd, leading us home to heaven. And I know, I agree with you, but I believe in it anyway.

Aren't sheep refereed to as "Unclean animals" in the bible?...I don't know how i feel about this.

So? Humans are unclean too. That's what set Jesus apart. He was the only "pure, spotless lamb".

That's right. Jesus was a lamb AND a shepherd. That's just how awesome he is.

There are too many metaphors and parables in the bible for me to keep up with.

That's okay. You're faults are forgiven. That's the important thing.

Im flawless.

Well okay if you say so. Lol.

It depends on how you interpret the Bible. Literal interpretations would say yes but allegorical interpretations would say that it is a story representing man's choice to sin and how that separates us from a perfect relationship with God (meaning paradise).

I don't think so, because if she didn't have free will before eating the apple, then she wouldn't have eaten the apple.

Indeed.

That doesn't negate the fact that God still does nothing to quell the evil in this world.

See if your dad were omniscient as God is, he would have seen the accident and, for your own good, never would have given you the keys in the first place.

It's like if you knew for 100% sure that a man were coming to your house to burglarize it, you wouldn't sit and wait for it to happen before you reacted. Instead, you'd probably try to implement preventative measures.

So why doesn't God do anything? Isn't he omnipotent?

Let's go back to the very beginning of Genesis.

The Garden of Eden was perfect. Utopia, in fact. The world as it was then was equal to heaven. Man could do no wrong because there was no wrong. Then when Adam and eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, their eyes were opened to good and evil, and suddenly lines were drawn separating the two. The world became a place of conflict, hardship, and all around imperfection. Earth could ever be utopia again.

Fast-forward a few thousand years. Enter Jesus Christ. Jesus dies for man's sins and opens a gateway to heaven. Now man can enter heaven after leaving this planet. Heaven is utopia. No tears, no sorrow, no pain. The perfect world. Heaven is not Earth. That's what you need to take away from this. God allows evil to exist on earth because He deems evil necessary to separate it from heaven. But He does not create evil. He simply allows man to ruin the gift He gave us. Or, alternatively, man can rejoice in the gift and thank God for the promise of life in heaven.

Earth sucks because we're paying our admission into heaven.

I see your reasoning, but this still begs the question I had before. God knew what Adam and Eve were going to do so why was such a tree even placed there?

It's like if you were tell your child, "Here are some cookies to look at, but you may not eat them," and then immediately turn your back. It would be foolish for any parent to expect their child to obey. So instead, any sensible parent would place the cookies out of reach of the child who doesn't know any better.

And your last quote there, "Earth sucks because we're paying our admission into heaven." I have a problem with. The bible states quite clearly that Heaven is too great a reward for any man to earn which is why blood sacrifice was necessary for admission. So to say we are "paying our admission" would be wrong by the bible. Not to mention the fact that the bible also states that "We have been bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus," meaning there is no longer any need to "earn" our way into heaven because Jesus already took care of it.

With that said I ask again, why is there evil? If every good and perfect gift comes from above, why is Earth such a shitty place?

You're right about that paying admission part. In my head I had a more complicated explanation, since I know very well that Jesus paid our admission already. But clearly it didn't translate to words very well. I'm not sure why I phrased it that way. But I stand by that part about evil being necessary to separate heaven from earth. Only those who accept Jesus as their God can go to heaven, according to the Bible. If God made earth like heaven, then there would be no need for humans to go to heaven because they're already they're, basically. And since God doesn't want the nonbelievers in heaven, he had to make earth worse than heaven. But for reasons I can't ascertain, He gave man the ability to make earth only as bad as we wanted it to be. And just as we can make the earth shitty, we can also make it good. That's the beauty of free will. We have the power to control this planet. But some people are really shitty. And that's why there is evil.

I suppose that makes sense, but do you have a scriptural reference? I don't remember seeing anywhere in the bible the statement, "Earth sucks because if it didn't then heaven wouldn't be all that great," obviously not in so many words but you get the idea. And your point also begs the question as to why, knowing full well what Adam and Eve were going to do, God even bothered putting the tree there in the first place. Why didn't he just cut out the middleman and just make man sinful to begin with yet still giving us the choice? It seems like he did it that way so that we couldn't directly blame him for evil.

I don't have a reference, as it is simply my interpretation. However, it being a mere interpretation doesn't take away from my conviction in believing in it. That being said, I can't tell you why He put the Tree there, as I have not yet developed an interpretation of that.

Then how am I to trust your opinion? How can you expect your interpretation of the bible, which may very well be wrong, to be reliable in any way?

Until someone offers me a more reliable answer, it's the best I have. But so far no one has said anything about why, so I have nothing else to go off of.

So then is that to say that your beliefs are based on nothing? That you have no foundation for them and you only believe these things simply because this is the only thing you have been told all your life?

Are you talking specifically about the Tree interpretation, or my entire system of faith? I assume you mean my faith. And I believe in it because I can sense it. I'd go into detail but it would sound very cliche and cheesy.

I was raised christian so I'm sure I've heard it a million times already. But I disagree. I do not believe that God allows evil just so Heaven can be better by comparison. Indeed, Heaven would be better regardless of how good life on Earth might be.

Well something I remember learning as a child was that before they ate from the Tree, man was supposed to live eternally on earth, and earth was supposed to be paradise.

But God knew better... so what is the reasoning behind all of it?

Okay right now it's the next morning for me (actually afternoon, but I sleep very late) so I forget who said what last night. But someone pointed out that God wants us to love Him by our own choice, not because we have no other option. So He allowed conflict into the world so that we could decide whether to go with Him or go elsewhere, because choosing to love Him that way would make our devotion to Him meaningful and not empty or forced.

at first: im religious and i believe in god

but you christians are really goddamn annoying bigmouthed religious folk
what you have is not an opinion but a reason to argue with people so you dont get bored.

and I personally like people who know what they believe and shut the hell up about it way more the those who believe they are goddamn gods themselves

so please , all you super wise christians, show us how you make everything better or at least come over and suck a fart out of my anus.

I hope that you are aware of the fact that this is on a post of atheists bashing religion completely disproves your point that atheists are the victims

I know where the image is from, it's from a park that has a nativity scene legally every year. When an atheist display was put up, christians complained and the city shut them both down because they didn't want to deal with it. I'm not saying atheists are victims, but if there was an atheist display and a group put up a christian display there wouldn't have been any flak from it. My point wasn't that we are victims, it was that christians are free to put up idols of their worship without any flak to be given to them, but if an atheist puts one up, people complain, and it leads to more problems for both. In regards to the site, I'm fine if someone wants to post a jesus picture, I don't care, I just won't thumb it. If I see a atheist post I'll thumb it if it's funny. I'm just saying, were on equal ground here, no one is keeping you from putting up your own picture, on the other hand, people on this site obviously enjoy atheism over christianity because the former is usually thumbed up more. That's just public opinion.

Out of curiosity what was the atheist display? (correct me if i'm wrong) it seems like with other belief systems there display is to worship their god whereas with atheists it would be more confrontational since the only way to express ones atheism is to put down others beliefs

It was a display promoting a local atheist group. Admittedly, not the best local, but, atheists are of the most hated groups in America (Although that has begun to change in recent years) and as such many feel the need to for atheism to enter the public domain as an equal rather than as an enemy (Much of the progress that has been made stems from these displays). These ads are typically aimed at closet atheists who are just to afraid to announce their non-belief because of this inherent hostility (Which, I note again, has begun to decline in recent years, mostly because of the ads and more people coming out as atheists).

Also, most atheists around the world are also humanists as well, thus, many displays that promote humanism are typically erected by someone with the beliefs of an atheist, however, they receive little if any complaints about it because it doesn't talk about atheism despite their close relationship. This is where I see the hostility forming, no one makes a fuss until atheism or lack of belief is mentioned because people don't hold their religions apart from themselves, an attack on christian teachings and morals throughout the ages is seen as a specific attack against themselves. Sorry for the long response, lots to go over.

I don't believe I've ever seen a Christian post on this site.

See my comment above.

first: You just made a fool of yourself calling yourself an atheist then saying all atheists are annoying bigmouth nerds

second: only some atheists are annoying and try to make people believe that there is no god

third: there are a few people in every single religion or non-religion known to man so don't single atheists out like they're something special

He didn't say all atheists, he said you atheists.

not believing in any god does

because reliegion is believing in a god and/or gods, atheism is not believing in a god and/or gods. You don't believe in a god, therefore you are atheist and don't wan't to admit it

do you consider yourself an atheist?
if yes, what do you believe in then?

Yes, I do and I don't believe that a higher power created us,watched over us, or influences our lives in any way, because such a thing could never exist the way I look at it. However, I don't judge people if they believe different.

im totally ok with this but as i see it you just wrote what you dont believe in

because I don't really believe in anything, the way I look at it, and I know others look at it differently, believing in something is a religion and i don't think atheism is a religion so I just say I don't believe in a god, and I do know that people say believing in something higher than yourself is the definition of a religion but I guess I just define it defferently

i think we could carry on with this far to long so if thats what makes you happy its totally fine

This was the best comment chain I've read all week on FJ, you two should be proud.

You are entertained by someone trying to explain the definition of Atheism to a brick wall?

That's like fapping to furry porn, owning a fursuit, and having a fursona but saying you're not a furry because they've got a bad name.

You'd still be a furry, and you're still an atheist...

I meant that I have religious friends, and in that circle 'atheist' has anti religious connotations. Wheras when I say non-religious, it's just not a part of my life.
I don't appreciate being labelled anything, and I especially don't like being defined by something I'm not.
I'm not an a-unicornist.
Off isn't a tv channel.
If you like it, fine.
I don't like declaring myself on a topic I have no stake or interest in.

Calling yourself non religious is another fucking label you moron. Calling yourself ANYTHING is a label. You sack of flesh.

I meant that I have religious friends, and in that circle 'atheist' has anti religious connotations. Wheras when I say non-religious, it's just not a part of my life.
I don't appreciate being labelled anything, and I especially don't like being defined by something I'm not.
I'm not an a-unicornist.
Off isn't a tv channel.
If you like it, fine.
I don't like declaring myself on a topic I have no stake or interest in.

Whatever you call yourself, you still fit under the definition of Atheism if you are not religious.

I meant that I have religious friends, and in that circle 'atheist' has anti religious connotations. Wheras when I say non-religious, it's just not a part of my life.
I don't appreciate being labelled anything, and I especially don't like being defined by something I'm not.
I'm not an a-unicornist.
Off isn't a tv channel.
If you like it, fine.
I don't like declaring myself on a topic I have no stake or interest in.

But Atheist doesn't mean you're anti-religious or anything, it just means you aren't religious. It's like saying "my tv isn't off, it's just not on" or "he's not dead, he just isn't alive."

Again, just in my circle of friends. Totally pragmatic, yes. But I don't like pissing off my religious friend, whom I quite like, and people in general who (a) don't like people who rigidly define themselves and (b) hear 'atheist' and thinks the stereotypical angry argumentative type. I honestly don't care enough about religion to categorise myself by it, or lack of it.

Yes, I suppose that makes sense.

I'm sorry if I angered you, that wasn't my intention. These are all my opinions, you can say what you want about your own religion status, I guess I have been wording these comments strangely but these things that i'm saying are all opinions on my part

Thanks. I got a lot of hate (well, three comments) for that.
I just dislike defining myself by something that has nothing to do with my life at all.

Well that escalated quickly

I just like watching the arguments break out over them, fuckin hilarious

Both sides have outspoken people. It goes back to the saying "there is good and bad on each side"

I'm not trying to sound like an asshole here, but they have done various surveys that show that Atheists seem to have a higher a IQ than that of the religious. It's empirical evidence...

He's not flaunting Atheism to look cool. He is simply demonstrating a quote from an old time showing possibly one of the starts of Atheism.

Are you theist or atheist?

Agnostic answers the question "does god exist?" but you have yet to answer the question: "Do you believe in god?"

If a religion bases itself off of faith, it is ignorant. This isn't being arrogant, this is just a fact, and you don't have to be intelligent to be an atheist, just have to say "I don't know" when it comes to things we don't know the answers to yet and use skeptical reasoning when people claim to know the answer.

Agnostic theist? Probably, I definitely believe in some kind of higher power.

My main point of my argument was directed at individuals who think any kind of dismissal of divine power automatically elevates them to higher thinking.

Not sure if I even answered your question or not. I'm not good at these kinds of things.

and what evidence leads to show you that this higher power exists?

and yes you answered it.

Well, that's the whole purpose of being an agnostic, isn't it? You can't really prove either way.

I guess I don't really know why. Some people demand substantial evidence for their basis, but I think if it's on the subject of higher power, it's not always necessary. You either have a feeling that it exists or you don't. You might call me ignorant for saying this, but really, what do atheists have to go off of that Christians and other religious foundations don't that's more conclusive? Can the discovery of the absence of a certain element prove or disprove something like that even more than what's already been established?

It's not that I worry about having my faith tested, it's just that I find these discussions rather futile, and because of that I often get passed off as ignorant to most atheists, when really I just don't like debating in general.

Let the people have their faith.
I am an Intelligent Catholic.
It is not a rare thing.

1 in 7 people on this planet are Catholic, let alone a believer in a organized faith.

Are all who believe in a higher power ignorant of "the truth"? No.
To be honest, there is NO empirical evidence demonstrating with absolute certainty the existence of The Big Bang Theory, or God (higher power).

Let the people have their faith if they wish it.

Intelligent and catholic aren't interchangeable. It doesn't matter if you are intelligent, being a catholic or religious in most senses is ignorant.

No they are ignorant of logic and skepticism.

There is empirical evidence for the big bang, there is none for god.

Please provide me with empirical evidence.

I guess you can say, you are taking it on faith?

I know the facts, and I am educated.
I choose to believe in a God, this does not make me ignorant. For example, Conservatives call Liberals ignorant because they do not think the same way as them.
This is a classic case fo that.
You are calling my, and every other religious person for that matter, ignorant because they don't share your belief.

The hubble diagram, background microwave radiation, amount of light elements in relation to the universe age, the way atoms and particles act and react with one another, universal red shift, dark matter and dark energy, etc etc etc. Take your pick.

I am taking nothing on faith, I am using evidence and research to back up a claim I support.

Belief in god is ignorant, you are simply delusional. It's not because you don't believe the same thing as me, I could care less what you believe. It's that you are claiming determinations of reality when all you have is faith. This is a bad skeptical process, and when I tell you that you are being ignorant and that you are wrong, it is no different then me correcting you on a math problem that you did incorrectly.

Science can NOT explain why the soul of a human.
Science can NOT explain how the Big Bang occurred.
Science can NOT explain miracles.

By saying I am delusional, you are claiming over 6 billion humans are delusional. Considering that less than 3% of humans are registered Atheists.

There is no need to insult anyone because they believe in something different than you.

There is no soul, all the "soul" is referred to commonly is just a corporeal manifestation of someones conscious. It isn't a real thing.

There is a difference between "can NOT explain" and "Is still researching the answer"

Miracles don't exist, they are just things we have yet to know the answer to. Lightning used to be a miracle.

So because a lot of people believe something it's right?

I am not insulting anyone, I am saying they are wrong. That is all I'm doing so please stop saying I am insulting others.

And I am saying you are wrong.

The soul does exist, miracles do exist, God does exist.

Deal with it bro.

You are claiming these things exist, but to do so you need EVIDENCE.

Faith isn't evidence and it isn't real because you think it's real. So please tell me what empirical evidence proves the soul and god and what separates a miracle from just something we don't know yet, what is the distinction?

Well, in a Church in Linciano, Italy, the Catholic preist did not believe in Transubstantiation. At the alter, the priest went to drink the wine, and it turned into blood. THe bread turned into skin.

THe police thought the alter servers changed the wine bottle with a bottle of blood, but the wine bottle used still had wine in it. The wine bottle was never removed from sight.

THe case is still an open investigation.

There are many, MANY other stories of confirmed miracles.

Also, this is not just a materialistic world. Everyone's mind is different.
My father, whom has a Ph.D in the matter, knows much more about it then I do, but rest assured, everyone has a soul which is not explainable through science.

I know about the case you are talking about, and the fact that 1300 years have passed and the case is still open doesn't help it much.

The case also does not prove transubstantiation because he was the only person witnissing the event, noone else was close enough or paying enough attention to confirm the event. So first we have a simple explanation of it being switched out, we also have possible tampering well before the event in question. Not even to mention it could have simply been just this monks portions that were tampered with, it wouldn't be surprising since this was a monk who was very respected and was having doubts in his faith and was expressing those doubts. So to make him see a miracle would do wonders for his superiors.

Also we have to take into account that there are all but infinite explanations besides it being a "miracle". Just because we haven't discovered those explanations yet do not mean we simply call it a miracle.

There are NO stories confirming miracles, only stories of people seeing something they don't understand and saying god did it. So I'm assuming you believe every person who says aliens abducted them and anally probed them correct?

This is just a materialistic world lol, we all reside in the same reality and also no everyones mind isn't different. We have roughly the same brain construction and presence of consciousness, it's just our experiences and choices that develop who we are as a person.

Really your father can explain the soul exists? Ask him and respond that answer to me because I'm very curious what concrete evidence has been given for a human soul. I was also unaware there was a field in which you study the soul outside of theological matters.

So please, explain further.

"We are talking here about an extraordinary miracle that has lasted for over twelve centuries now (1,200 years), and is still taking place today, before our eyes: the Flesh and Blood of Christ is still miraculously preserved today in a monstrance that all can see and venerate, at Lanciano, Italy. This is a miracle before which even today's science has to bow, after a minute investigation made by scientists in 1970-71." - http://www.michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

Not really considering it has been preserved.

"In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium."
Many of these are the agents used for preserving mummies, so the fact that they are present in the blood and flesh only takes away from the "miracle" it has lasted so long.

There are alot of other things to do before you call this a miracle you realize that right? First you have to prove it transmuted from wine/bread to blood/flesh, then because you are claiming it is an act of the supernatural you must cancel out every possible natural cause, known and unknown. (unknown because you are still saying it's a miracle without knowing the list of natural causes.)

Let us also not forget that you have to prove this is the blood of christ, oh what? It has the same blood type found on the shroud Jesus was covered in? Well good thing that shroud has supporting evidence to show probably wasn't around the time Jesus may have existed, and AB is the blood type that most blood degenerates to over time. Which is why if we tested most preserved blood that was thousands of years old, it would most likely be AB.

This is not a miracle, it's a joke.

I would rather not list the millions of miracles that occur.
No, if that where the case all miracles would be classified as an unsolved scientific explanation.

Look up confirmed miracles on google if you want more information.

Well, you believe what you want.
I'll believe what I want.

You think I am ignorant.
I think you are ignorant.

This is going no where.
Lets agree to disagree.

"I would rather not list the millions of miracles that occur.
No, if that where the case all miracles would be classified as an unsolved scientific explanation. "
There aren't millions, and give me one, just one that is a confirmed miracle. Not speculated miracle, confirmed.
and that is what all "miracles" are classified as, except by the religious community who is fine with attributing something unknown to the supernatural without searching for evidence. As long as it supports their beliefs.

"Look up confirmed miracles on google if you want more information."
I have, none that were actually confirmed. Just religious folk saying "scientists can't explain how this happened, so god did it." Flawed reasoning is flawed.

"Well, you believe what you want.
I'll believe what I want. "
You don't believe in reality.

"You think I am ignorant.
I think you are ignorant. "
You base your reality off of faith, I base mine on evidence. There is no ignorance in making determinations off of evidence, only being humble in saying "I don't know" until we find some.

"This is going no where.
Lets agree to disagree."
Didn't expect it to go anywhere anyways.

Yes, you put a stereotype on me, AND have the last word.

Good qualities.
Shows your character.

I hardly care about the last word.

Please explain how I stereotyped you, and if you do respond, explain your answer in relation to how I supposedly stereotyped you.

That fact you don't care about character is quite fascinating.
That will get you VERY far in life.

I don't believe in reality because I have faith.
That is a pedantic, ignorant stereotype of religious people.

I have had enough of this conversation.

Faith in itself allows someone to make unsupported claims about reality, this is a flawed process and in essence produces a flawed result.

Gloves have obviously evolved to fit our hands.

Potato anal beads, you say?

Which video is that from?

It's from when Yahtzee announced that The Escapist would be picking him up

youtu.be/ZOBTN67K0Zw

Thanks

Thank you. I've been saying this for ages. Finally someone understands.

I sort of agree with you, yes. In the beginning, God was alone. There was no one and nothing else in existence, so anything God did was neither good nor evil, it just was, because as God, there was no one passing judgment on Him.

Atheists :

Think religious people are stupid for believing something unprovable;

Can't even get provable facts right.

yeah, I was gonna say.

I have, I just didnt notice.

you'll notice a shouting monkey far sooner than you realize 100 quiet rabbits

True, true. Someday, I will finally make myself stay away from these pointless religious posts. Someday

>Implying that GGG is an athiest.

No, not really.

Not necessarily you, but whoever made that picture. Probably was made as a joke though.

by you*

"If God doesn't exist, what are all these churches for?" - Michael Scott