timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Nov 25, 2011 5:53:01 GMT
@c The question wasn't really whether or not Jesus existed as portrayed in the Bible, but rather whether or not there was a historical Jesus upon whom the gospel narratives and the Christian tradition were based. So nah, it's not really incumbent upon the theist to prove that there was indeed an actual Jesus. It's a historical question. And really, the view that there was not an actual Jesus is the minority view among scholars if I remember correctly. cuckingfunt"Bollocks" is not an argument. If you think that something he said is obviously wrong or whatever, please be so kind as to tell him why he's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Hartman on Nov 27, 2011 16:46:32 GMT
Hey, I've been reading your posts and all you ever do is try to get up people's noses. You've succeeded, because you're getting up my nose. Unless you want to take a long vacation, you better get your act together.
This is your only warning. If you want to test me, go ahead and make another post like that and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 27, 2011 22:08:12 GMT
I know quite a few atheists. They all seem pretty reasonable but when I ask them what's the reasoning behind their belief (or whatever you like to call it, I know some atheists don't like to call it a belief) they can't really explain it. I hope someone here can give a summary. Thanks. The concept of god has never been properly defined nor has it been proved. I shy away from believing something exists unless it is proved. There!
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 28, 2011 7:15:47 GMT
I know quite a few atheists. They all seem pretty reasonable but when I ask them what's the reasoning behind their belief (or whatever you like to call it, I know some atheists don't like to call it a belief) they can't really explain it. I hope someone here can give a summary. Thanks. The concept of god has never been properly defined nor has it been proved. I shy away from believing something exists unless it is proved. There! I do not believe that you exist.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 28, 2011 11:52:44 GMT
The concept of god has never been properly defined nor has it been proved. I shy away from believing something exists unless it is proved. There! I do not believe that you exist. Don't be intentionally dense. You can interact with him, much unlike a god.
|
|
|
Post by ksen on Nov 28, 2011 15:15:18 GMT
Hey, I've been reading your posts and all you ever do is try to get up people's noses. You've succeeded, because you're getting up my nose. Unless you want to take a long vacation, you better get your act together.
This is your only warning. If you want to test me, go ahead and make another post like that and see what happens. bollocks
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Hartman on Nov 28, 2011 15:23:11 GMT
Hey, I've been reading your posts and all you ever do is try to get up people's noses. You've succeeded, because you're getting up my nose. Unless you want to take a long vacation, you better get your act together.
This is your only warning. If you want to test me, go ahead and make another post like that and see what happens. bollocks Bye bye. See you after your 1 week vacation.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 28, 2011 15:45:55 GMT
Bye bye. See you after your 1 week vacation. Hartman, did you just rashly suspended a different member for what could have been a joke? cuckingfunt gets a warning, yet ksen doesn't? Was one a sock puppet? Can I get some clarification here.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Hartman on Nov 28, 2011 16:28:03 GMT
Bye bye. See you after your 1 week vacation. Hartman, did you just rashly suspended a different member for what could have been a joke? cuckingfunt gets a warning, yet ksen doesn't? Was one a sock puppet? Can I get some clarification here. "Questions, Issues & Suggestions" is the place for those kinds of questions. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 29, 2011 16:51:48 GMT
The concept of god has never been properly defined nor has it been proved. I shy away from believing something exists unless it is proved. There! I do not believe that you exist. You do not need to believe that I exist. Unless you think that words are randomly appearing on your screen, you have concrete proof that a person who names himself flyingteapot exists. we can go one step further and meet face to face. That is concrete proof that I exist. Unless you believe that reality cannot be proved. Then we have a whole different conversation. Also, what does your answer have to do with what I posted?
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Dec 2, 2011 1:04:04 GMT
Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. I am an atheist, and my atheism is a belief. I'm not quite sure whether other atheists would agree. I believe that I should not accept a belief in something without good evidence, which is inexplicable in any other way than the god-one. So it's a belief about belief. If you like, it's a position about what qualifies as something worthy of acceptance. If that is not a good attitude, then I'd like to know what would be better. I think that one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe. One believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. I have heard it said that to become a Christian, one just has to believe in Christ as one's lord and saviour. Sorry, I can't do it - I don't believe. It is exactly equivalent to proposing that a religious believer should pull up by their boot straps, and stop having their religious beliefs, and take on the so-called atheist way of believing. If you are religious, could you do that? If not, then you know what I mean by one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe; one believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. What I DO NOT agree with is that atheism is a religion. It doesn't qualify for that.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 2, 2011 3:20:25 GMT
Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. I am an atheist, and my atheism is a belief. I'm not quite sure whether other atheists would agree. I believe that I should not accept a belief in something without good evidence, which is inexplicable in any other way than the god-one. So it's a belief about belief. If you like, it's a position about what qualifies as something worthy of acceptance. If that is not a good attitude, then I'd like to know what would be better. I think that one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe. One believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. I have heard it said that to become a Christian, one just has to believe in Christ as one's lord and saviour. Sorry, I can't do it - I don't believe. It is exactly equivalent to proposing that a religious believer should pull up by their boot straps, and stop having their religious beliefs, and take on the so-called atheist way of believing. If you are religious, could you do that? If not, then you know what I mean by one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe; one believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. What I DO NOT agree with is that atheism is a religion. It doesn't qualify for that. May I ask what the good evidence is for your belief? Or is it simply the lack of evidence for any other belief and you see Atheism as the most reasonable fall back position with no compelling evidence one way or the other?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Dec 2, 2011 8:40:42 GMT
Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. I am an atheist, and my atheism is a belief. I'm not quite sure whether other atheists would agree. I believe that I should not accept a belief in something without good evidence, which is inexplicable in any other way than the god-one. So it's a belief about belief. If you like, it's a position about what qualifies as something worthy of acceptance. If that is not a good attitude, then I'd like to know what would be better. I think that one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe. One believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. I have heard it said that to become a Christian, one just has to believe in Christ as one's lord and saviour. Sorry, I can't do it - I don't believe. It is exactly equivalent to proposing that a religious believer should pull up by their boot straps, and stop having their religious beliefs, and take on the so-called atheist way of believing. If you are religious, could you do that? If not, then you know what I mean by one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe; one believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. What I DO NOT agree with is that atheism is a religion. It doesn't qualify for that. I think you may be confused. not believing and believing are two completely different things. Not believing is a passive process and cannot be in itself qualified as a belief. Belief is an active process in that you choose to believe something.
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Dec 4, 2011 2:30:36 GMT
I am an atheist, and my atheism is a belief. I'm not quite sure whether other atheists would agree. I believe that I should not accept a belief in something without good evidence, which is inexplicable in any other way than the god-one. So it's a belief about belief. If you like, it's a position about what qualifies as something worthy of acceptance. If that is not a good attitude, then I'd like to know what would be better. I think that one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe. One believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. I have heard it said that to become a Christian, one just has to believe in Christ as one's lord and saviour. Sorry, I can't do it - I don't believe. It is exactly equivalent to proposing that a religious believer should pull up by their boot straps, and stop having their religious beliefs, and take on the so-called atheist way of believing. If you are religious, could you do that? If not, then you know what I mean by one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe; one believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. What I DO NOT agree with is that atheism is a religion. It doesn't qualify for that. May I ask what the good evidence is for your belief? Or is it simply the lack of evidence for any other belief and you see Atheism as the most reasonable fall back position with no compelling evidence one way or the other? I think you may be confused. not believing and believing are two completely different things. Not believing is a passive process and cannot be in itself qualified as a belief. Belief is an active process in that you choose to believe something. It seems that neither of you have read my post properly. I explained that my belief is about belief. As I put it: "it's a position about what qualifies as something worthy of acceptance". As for Bayes query, I can't fathom how I need evidence to believe that something should have a quality of believability to be believed. If you want some positive beliefs which I have as a consequence of my atheism, I believe that it is possible for all of that which exists, to exist, and to have come about without a god being involved at any stage. Of course, all of this is tautology - if you don't believe god did it, then something not god did it. I think I was essentially replying to:- Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. I am agreeing with you, flyingteapot, and disagreeing with Darius. I am saying that a thinking atheist must believe in something, in contradiction to an oft said theistic misapprehension that atheist do not believe in anything. Thus . . . I have a belief about belief, in that there should be good evidence for something, before it is acceptable to believe it. Bayes, it seems, wants evidence for that. Since it is an opinion, then the evidence is that I'm saying it. Of course, the level of evidence required depends on the gravity of the thing one has / has not got a belief in. As the cliché goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". As for this part:- May I ask what the good evidence is for your belief? Or is it simply the lack of evidence for any other belief and you see Atheism as the most reasonable fall back position with no compelling evidence one way or the other? It very much depends upon what claims are being made about the god in question. There are good positive reasons not to believe in the gods that have been hypothesised to me - things like unworthiness, or incoherence, or illogicality, or inconsistency etc. Balance that with the earlier belief I gave you: "It is possible for all of which exists, to exist, and to have come about without a god being involved at any stage".
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Dec 4, 2011 2:41:36 GMT
. . . I think you may be confused. not believing and believing are two completely different things. Not believing is a passive process and cannot be in itself qualified as a belief. Belief is an active process in that you choose to believe something. I just thought I'd add to this. A lack of belief may be a belief too. If one believes that a belief is wrong, then that is a positive, diametrically opposed belief. On the other hand, if one simply does not have a belief, then I agree that it is a passive thing, and that is why I would say that atheism is a default position for humanity - one can't believe in a specific god, until one recognises and accepts that such a god exists. Before that, with regard to that specific god, one is atheist. Babies have no concept of gods, so they are not theists, and by default are atheist, (in the passive sense to which you allude).
|
|