The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Dean wrote: I have a fleeting interest in nominative determinism (and reverse nominative determinism for people whose family names are slightly inappropriate to their chosen profession) and think that it could shed light on a whole raft of differing philosophical determinisms. Other than that it's a bit like seeing shapes in the clouds that look like animals.

It's the giant floaty candyfloss Lemming deity....I repent...I repent...spare me

jampa17 wrote: I wonder if any is really reading the complete pyramids of post as myself... I have a lot of work to do but this topic remains interesting... especially the way progfreak doesn't get any of the ideas and start fighting the make up but not the essential... tell us please... what is to you to be a "good person"... we can start over that...

I admit that Epignosis' 20 gazillion concepts and opinions confuse me, and I'm not really getting his ideas. He's kind of a Non-Christian Christ freak, whatever that means.

What is, to me, a "good person"? I think that there is no absolute, dogmatic way to define "good" and "bad". I rather tend to believe that every human being has an intuitive morality. Or at least they should have - of course things can go wrong ... for example genetic dispositions for psychopathy have been shown. But I'm no neuroscientist, have a look at the video I linked to a couple of pages ago, if you're interested in the details.

Suffice it to say that I think that morality is an entirely natural phenomenon, created - just like our bodies - by evolution through natural selection.

So you instead want to debate the scientific merits of your perception of lay Christianity?

^^ I want someone to explain to me why it makes sense to believe in the Christian God without referring to opinions written down by religious fanatics millennia ago.

BTW: It doesn't matter how well I know the bible or Christianity. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when evidence should be present. The bible contains no such evidence, which means that even if I spend several years reading the bible or other peoples opinions about how to interpret it ... that wouldn't change my decision one bit. Only evidence could do that. 

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 03 2009 at 15:28

^ I see that you're finally beginning to understand. Well, what can I say ... I'm a skeptic, I'm an Atheist. 

If you choose to say "That stuff is not for me," that's your choice. To then go on and say that religion is valueless or destructive for everyone is beyond your perogative.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Forget the bible. Please explain to me why whatever it is that you believe is true without referring to scripture. Pass. This whole time you've been trying to define God with some nebulous concepts and what you conceive is popular thought. Read the Bible.  That's what I believe about God. "Nebulous" ... that's exactly what I think of the Bible. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

The Bible isn't nebulous- it says very specific things.  If it were nebulous, you really couldn't argue against what it says, now could you?

By the way, Mike...if one didn't know better, one might think that you were a theist.

Your god's name is Dawkins. 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^^ I want someone to explain to me why it makes sense to believe in the Christian God without referring to opinions written down by religious fanatics millennia ago. BTW: It doesn't matter how well I know the bible or Christianity. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when evidence should be present. The bible contains no such evidence, which means that even if I spend several years reading the bible or other peoples opinions about how to interpret it ... that wouldn't change my decision one bit. Only evidence could do that.

It appears the mystics have you surrounded Mike. Although I ain't exactly the Cavalry (scuse the pun) I do endorse your misgivings about scripture impersonating evidence. It should be self-evident that the Bible cannot verify observable fact (that's not its purpose) and that its contents coherence is at the mercy of the scribes who recorded the so-called 'word of god' (Hence the myriad of writing styles contained therein)

Why the mystics should invest enduring faith in a book arrived at in such a piecemeal fashion, truly beggars belief (pun intended)

As anyone who has ever received a written note from a staff member at work about a message left by a caller will testify, it's sensible to divorce the message from the messenger.


Edited by ExittheLemming - December 03 2009 at 15:51

Epignosis wrote: Your god's name is Dawkins.

So you're either not taking this whole thing seriously, or even after all these pages of discussion you still don't have the slightest clue about what Atheism is about.

ExittheLemming wrote: Why the mystics should invest enduring faith in a book arrived at in such a piecemeal fashion, truly beggars belief (pun intended) As anyone who has ever received a written note from a staff member at work about a message left by a caller will testify, it's sensible to divorce the message from the messenger.

That's exactly my point. The most astonishing thing for me about the bible is that there are so many people who are well aware of its obvious mistakes and inconsistencies, but at the same time they continue believing in a religion which is based on that very book.