While I entirely agree with you on the point that abiogenesis is as unproven as the existence of a god, and hold that assertion of either is as equally flawed as assertion of the opposite (that abiogenesis cannot happen, or that a god does not exist) with the knowledge we possess today... it basically really entertains me to ponder the day that proof of a god turns up. What happens then? If we're following the Christian mythos, then I can't help but think the only time we're going to get incontrovertible truth is approximately the end of the world. If a lack of hard evidence is necessary for meaningful faith, seems like God would need to revoke the Jesus-salvation-offer before stepping out from behind the curtain.Baby Tea said:
Atheist Bible
- Thread starter space_oddity
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They're the ones that don't believe in modern medicine.Bright_Raven said:
Oh, wait. You meant Christians who are also Scientists. Well, I can't speak for them, but I think they think that Science reveals the How of the Universe, and Religion reveals the Why.
Sigh. There was once a puddle in a hole in the ground. And the puddle said, "look how perfectly this puddle fits me. It must have been made for me." And then the sun came out and the puddle started to dry up, and the puddle thought, "everything will be fine, someone made this hole for me and they love me and they have a plan that doesn't involve me drying up." And then the puddle dried up. The end.
What if the Norse are right? Then all the Christians will be denied entrance to Valhalla and will suffer eternally in the dark of Helheim.
There are an infinite number of possible religions and most are exclusionary. If you are wrong about Christianity, you are just as screwed as the atheists are if you are right.
I like to think that if I am wrong, God with his perfect understanding will forgive me for making a mistake with the fallible brain he gave me. At least I used it.
I'm in between religions right now.
To me, the Bible, Koran and all those other holy books are just walkthroughs for "LIFE".
They tell you how to lead a good life and throw in some crazy plot about God, Jesus, miracles/
I'm pretty sure that you aren't meant to take it seriously, just look at the lessons and learn from them.
Just like Aesops fables
To me, the Bible, Koran and all those other holy books are just walkthroughs for "LIFE".
They tell you how to lead a good life and throw in some crazy plot about God, Jesus, miracles/
I'm pretty sure that you aren't meant to take it seriously, just look at the lessons and learn from them.
Just like Aesops fables
*sighs*Bright_Raven said:
Logic, reason, and the scientific method. If a hypothesis can be disproved, it is no longer a reasonable hypothesis.
Hypothesis, that "athiests" (spelled wrongly) use "lodgic", reason and real research to achive answers, while (through implication) Christians don't.
Look at some evidence..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Alexandrovich_Florensky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bradwardine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz
...with this evidence, we must conclude that Christians are equally able to rely on logic, reason, and real research. Theory scientifically disproved.
@cuddly tomato
I was going to reply to your initial posts regarding the origin of morals, but this thread has become a tangential bus crash so there seems little point. Instead of starting it all up again, perhaps I'll just note 3 things:
1) The work of Price http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation#Evolution_of_altruism in respect to the origins of natural law as I originally mentioned.
2)When you mentioned science and logic, in reflection I'm not sure whether you meant formal logic or not, and what you mean by science. Are you suggesting morals are not empirically observable? If so I definitely disagree.
3) Whilst a lot of this thread has begun to boil into the demarcation criteria of religious views vs organised religion, and which of those things we are either discussing or attacking in the relevant posts, it is important to note that if religion remains subjective and personal there should be nothing wrong with it and as an atheist I am more than happy for people to believe whatever they like. However, when it becomes objectivised and used for non-religious purposes (state legislation, an excuse for war, education etc.) it becomes something (whether personal or organised) which I will disagree with and even attack. I would equally condemn any atheist who uses his personal beliefs (I should be clear that I think atheism is a belief structure, not a lack of belief) to excuse amoral behaviour or attempts to go into a religious organisation and affect change within. To each his own and as long as state and church remain separate, all well and good.
A little long winded, apologies, I've been drinking.
I was going to reply to your initial posts regarding the origin of morals, but this thread has become a tangential bus crash so there seems little point. Instead of starting it all up again, perhaps I'll just note 3 things:
1) The work of Price http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation#Evolution_of_altruism in respect to the origins of natural law as I originally mentioned.
2)When you mentioned science and logic, in reflection I'm not sure whether you meant formal logic or not, and what you mean by science. Are you suggesting morals are not empirically observable? If so I definitely disagree.
3) Whilst a lot of this thread has begun to boil into the demarcation criteria of religious views vs organised religion, and which of those things we are either discussing or attacking in the relevant posts, it is important to note that if religion remains subjective and personal there should be nothing wrong with it and as an atheist I am more than happy for people to believe whatever they like. However, when it becomes objectivised and used for non-religious purposes (state legislation, an excuse for war, education etc.) it becomes something (whether personal or organised) which I will disagree with and even attack. I would equally condemn any atheist who uses his personal beliefs (I should be clear that I think atheism is a belief structure, not a lack of belief) to excuse amoral behaviour or attempts to go into a religious organisation and affect change within. To each his own and as long as state and church remain separate, all well and good.
A little long winded, apologies, I've been drinking.
Yeah I know more about evolution than most, being a nut for entomology. Where it come from wasn't anything I have an issue with, merely that we persist with altruism even when it costs us from a logical perspective.starrman said:
Well they aren't are they? Science only deals with measurably observable fact and events right? How do you test for justice in a laboratory? Where is the ethics on the periodic table.starrman said:
There is a place in this universe. Unimaginably bright and hot. A huge black star hangs at the centre of our galaxy, pulling all matter into it, destroying them it of existence. Every day it soaks up more material than you can everything in this system combined, stars orbit it in mere days. Chemical reactions vastly more complex than those here on earth take place on a scale that a human brain just can't conceive. Because of the radiation, nothing can live there.
Is there any morality there? Is there any justice? Does ethics count? What about love? Beauty? Joy?
But it is the same is it not? There is no scientifically "special" thing about life, or this place. Life is just an unresolved chemical reaction that started a little while ago. Terry Pratchett said it best:-
Terry Pratchet, The Hogfather
I'd like to answer your questionsStrong Intelligent said:
1. Killing is wrong no matter which way you look at it. And killing more people doesn't automatically get them into Heaven. All killing will do will just get you in more and more hot water with society and will eventually get back to you in some way.
2.The Garden of Eden was paradise on Earth. When Adam and Eve were cast out, why would God want humanity to find paradise and immortality if he already gave them the chance to live there and they blew it. If you were God, Heaven forbid, would you want someone who could not follow a simple rule to be immortal and enjoy living forever without at least some punishment?
3.money has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. I agree that maybe the world would be better without it.
4. not all religions proclaim a prophet will appear every hundred years. Besides, humanity doesn't need prophets, we already have enough so-called prophets who claim things will happen and how many of them have already been proven wrong? Just about every one of them. For example, just about every year, several people go around claiming we're in the end times and the world will end next week or so, yet we continue to live.
I'm a Christian and I believe in God, but I do not believe in humanity or how short-minded your questions are. The atheist bible does not make much sense either. If it all began with the Big Bang, then what are the chances that intelligent beings as complicated on a submolecular level as humans are come into existence. Besides, no one knows how or when humanity began. I might have all started last week and all of our memories are false, ever think of that?
And one final question for all atheists, if the apocolypse does occur and Jesus did come back for his people, how would you feel about your life choices?