Religion - The Bible. Real Or Not Real?

[Vulgarian]

I think you a mixing up belief in God in religions such as Islam and the possbility of the existence of some intelligent supernatural being. It would make it far simpler to just define what we are talking about.

 

I'm not mixing them up, we are just arguing with different definitions of what god might be which is one of the main difficulties in any argument over the existence of god.

 

Most of the theistic conceptions of god are easily disproved by science, but the definition i have been using, a much more vague and indefinite one, cannot be proven either way because of a lack of observable evidence. It is that definition that confounds atheists because it cannot be easily brushed away like the more incredible religious ideas about god having created the world in 7 days or whatever.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

the definition i have been using, a much more vague and indefinite one, cannot be proven either way because of a lack of observable evidence. It is that definition that confounds atheists because it cannot be easily brushed away like the more incredible religious ideas about god having created the world in 7 days or whatever.

Brushed away? In what sense? We can't prove that there is some vague intelligence out there that we know nothing about, but if we can't determine if it exists because it doesn't appear to exist in our reality in the sense of manifesting itself and if we know nothing about, then the question is why anyone would bring it up. Who thought of 'being' or vague thing? Why it is important? For atheists the questioning moves to issues of why such a belief exists and why it accorded significance in pondering matters of creation and the existence of the universe.

[Night Sky]

Maybe there are some atheists who actually believe there can be absolutely no chance that a God exists.

That's my point, ALL Atheists believe that, because by dictionary definition, they can't be atheists otherwise - if they have any doubts they are simply agnostic.

 

People like the words 'atheist' and 'partial atheist' IMO because it seems to be some anti-religious badge they can wear. This is Dawkins crusade. Whilst I support Dawkins in his quest to educate people and get them to think more, especially about religious memes and the stupidity of religion on their lives etc. the word atheist is being abused here. Degrees of uncertainty lay only in agnosticism - and not atheism which is clearly defined in the English language.

I think you ought to look into the terms more closely and the context in which they are used.

 

I am atheist because I do not believe. But I am also an agnostic because I don't know for certain. That's all there is to it. You can be an agnostic atheist. Or an agnostic theist (even if that isn't that logical). And you can be gnostic theist (as almost all religious believers are).

 

But if we are talking about whether religion is bullshit (i.e. the scriptures, the stories in Christianity, the truth of what happened all those years ago) then I say I am an atheist. I don't believe it...and then I explain why. The agnostic just seems to be cluelessly shrugging his shoulders and muttering "I don't know, who can know for certain?" My atheism is more pertinent to the matter of debate than my agnosticism. But in criticising religious belief I do have unpick the religious gnosticism that religious person have. They claim to KNOW for certain. However, where things are so unlikely and so clearly the product of human design, where people have made-up such beliefs - then we can use the term 'know' in the same manner as we use it in everyday language. The absolute Knowing is a different matter.

 

I wonder whether you are getting confused with the word 'know' and how it is used. The way Dawkins would say he knows or claims that something doesn't exist, is not the same as the absolute knowledge that agnosticism rests on.

 

Did you make 'partial atheist' up? It might be the case that you have spoken to people who really don't know much about what these terms mean. But partial atheist just sounds so wishy-washy and probably an attempt by a stupid person to sound cleverl.

 

What if someone claims "divine intervention" or they had seen a "miracle" or had a "prayer answered" would this constitute as evidence that they "know" God exists. Is the omus then not on you to prove otherwise?

[MilitantDogOwner]

Many of the major issues in the bible were ripped off from older religions in the first place. Call it a rebranding if you will.

[Evil Goblin]

MDO - I think a more accurate description would be that the early Jewish religion emerged from even older religions (such as the Canaanite God "El" and Babylonian beliefs) and rather than "ripping off" the old religions the Israelites merely retained some of the ideas and tales that were there to start with. e.g. "the Flood".

[Night Sky]

News breaking on "BBC News" ......they have just discovered the opening page of the bible.....it reads "all events in this book are purely fictional"

[Vulgarian]

Brushed away? In what sense? We can't prove that there is some vague intelligence out there that we know nothing about, but if we can't determine if it exists because it doesn't appear to exist in our reality in the sense of manifesting itself and if we know nothing about, then the question is why anyone would bring it up. Who thought of 'being' or vague thing? Why it is important? For atheists the questioning moves to issues of why such a belief exists and why it accorded significance in pondering matters of creation and the existence of the universe.

 

Although the popularity of Christianity has waned in Britain in recent years, a lot of people today will still tell you that they believe in 'a god' of some description. The nature of the being they conceive of varies, but it is usually more deistic in character than the Christian god, less interventional and personal, and not necessarily a creator, but more of an indefinite notion of some higher being.

 

The idea is largely a relict from when Christianity was much more popular than it is today, so you could say that its existence owes to Christianity and is not an idea in its own right, but it is interesting that this idea still stands when scientific knowledge and popular attitudes have blown away the other tenets of Christianity. The other belief that is still widely held is that of an afterlife. These two are the core beliefs of most religions, and also the ones that science has not been able to disprove - both those facts are interesting and are part of the reason why those two particular ideas are still popular.

[Night Sky]

Brushed away? In what sense? We can't prove that there is some vague intelligence out there that we know nothing about, but if we can't determine if it exists because it doesn't appear to exist in our reality in the sense of manifesting itself and if we know nothing about, then the question is why anyone would bring it up. Who thought of 'being' or vague thing? Why it is important? For atheists the questioning moves to issues of why such a belief exists and why it accorded significance in pondering matters of creation and the existence of the universe.

 

Although the popularity of Christianity has waned in Britain in recent years, a lot of people today will still tell you that they believe in 'a god' of some description. The nature of the being they conceive of varies, but it is usually more deistic in character than the Christian god, less interventional and personal, and not necessarily a creator, but more of an indefinite notion of some higher being.

 

The idea is largely a relict from when Christianity was much more popular than it is today, so you could say that its existence owes to Christianity and is not an idea in its own right, but it is interesting that this idea still stands when scientific knowledge and popular attitudes have blown away the other tenets of Christianity. The other belief that is still widely held is that of an afterlife. These two are the core beliefs of most religions, and also the ones that science has not been able to disprove - both those facts are interesting and are part of the reason why those two particular ideas are still popular.

 

I would rather think there is something after this world than not. Scary thought not being alive really. Prefer to think there is something after this life or is that just human nature? That ant I stepped on walking to my car this morning..... does he have an after life? A spider I killed in the bath tub? Makes you think.........

[Chinahand]

Scary thought not being alive really. Prefer to think there is something after this life or is that just human nature? That ant I stepped on walking to my car this morning..... does he have an after life? A spider I killed in the bath tub? Makes you think.........

Is it really any different than the ions you weren't alive before you were born?

Me, I'm not scared of "not being alive" - once I'm dead I won't have anything to worry about! The process of dying on the other hand - that does weigh on the mind a bit - dignity in dying and all that.

 

I find all the stuff about heavens, hells and the after-life really primative - if you can find an immortal soul in the brain at the top I'll be impressed. I find it plain odd to hear people going on about man being created in God's image, and souls and all that. Poor old Chimps - so similar to us, but they don't get a little simulacram to live in their brains which gets to go to heaven.

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Brushed away? In what sense? We can't prove that there is some vague intelligence out there that we know nothing about, but if we can't determine if it exists because it doesn't appear to exist in our reality in the sense of manifesting itself and if we know nothing about, then the question is why anyone would bring it up. Who thought of 'being' or vague thing? Why it is important? For atheists the questioning moves to issues of why such a belief exists and why it accorded significance in pondering matters of creation and the existence of the universe.

 

Although the popularity of Christianity has waned in Britain in recent years, a lot of people today will still tell you that they believe in 'a god' of some description. The nature of the being they conceive of varies, but it is usually more deistic in character than the Christian god, less interventional and personal, and not necessarily a creator, but more of an indefinite notion of some higher being.

 

The idea is largely a relict from when Christianity was much more popular than it is today, so you could say that its existence owes to Christianity and is not an idea in its own right, but it is interesting that this idea still stands when scientific knowledge and popular attitudes have blown away the other tenets of Christianity. The other belief that is still widely held is that of an afterlife. These two are the core beliefs of most religions, and also the ones that science has not been able to disprove - both those facts are interesting and are part of the reason why those two particular ideas are still popular.

 

Well belief in an afterlife is usually quite structured - there is an idea as to what that afterlife will be like, for starts is considered to be good or better than what we have now, unless you've been naughty. It is never simply some unexplained existence - it wouldn't be very appealing to believe in if people had no idea what that afterlife would be like.

 

And with belief in a God, I think that the people you refer to believe in just some intelligent being with characteristics. It is something they probably haven't given much to, but their belief in such a being or God is founded on some quality of that God. Maybe they feel that it makes sense to them because they believe a creator is very likely, or maybe it is simply because belief in God is so popular that it must have good reason, or because they want to believe that something has control over the universe. But such beliefs are not the product of rational, logical thought that leads people to believe in some intelligent being without any qualities or attributes. Setting aside the legacy of religious belief and a religious mentality, there is no reason to come to such a belief, if people were thinking rationally.

[Chinahand]

I think this article does have some relevence in this thread.

 

Arthur David Horn taught the Human Evolution course at CSU for more than a decade.

 

In all those years, he never once told his students that they were products of alien genetic extraterrestrials or that their world was controlled by an alien race of shape-shifting reptilian beings.

 

Since his resignation from the university in 1990, however, Horn has changed his tune. Once a staunch Darwinist and tenured CSU anthropology professor, Horn has devoted the last 19 years of his life to the study of alternative theories of human origin.

 

After receiving a doctorate in anthropology from Yale University and while teaching at CSU, Horn focused his energies on the study of the evolution of non-human primates, his wife Lynette Horn said.

 

He now advocates the theory that modern man is not the result of a natural process of evolution, but that evolution was artificially aided by reptilian extraterrestrials. The reptilians bred mankind as servants and continue to rule the planet today, Horn said.

 

Reptilians have manipulated perceptions of world history and hold power over humankind through their influence over an elite and powerful group of humans, known as the Illuminati, Arthur said. Throughout human history, the reptilian beings have been recorded as dragons or gods.

 

Oh my - that adds a whole level of wow to some of the things LDV has been saying about the capitalist elite subjugating society elsewhere on the Forums!

 

Terry Pratchett wrote:

Night poured over the desert. It came suddenly, in purple. In the clear air, the stars drilled down out of the sky, reminding any thoughtful watcher that it is in deserts and high places that religions are born. When men see nothing but bottomless infinity over their heads they have always had a driving and desperate urge to find something to put in its way.

 

Nowadays with physics and mathematics theorizing about multiple dimensions humanity has simply been given another area to fill up with cosmic conciousnesses, alien intelligences and spirits to channel into people living in LA.

 

My goodness humanity does make up some amazing stories - but is it just me, I feel so let down by them. If there's no evidence then its guessing, and what I feel sad about is that all this guessing is revelling a world you see on satillite TV when it is doing Star Trek reruns or showing old episodes of the X-Files.

 

Methinks all this tells me far more about humanity and our hang ups than revelling anything about the reality of the universe.

 

This gentleman is either delusional and spinning stories and more stories from tenuous hear-say with no care for evidence, or a charlatan taking $2,000 per confrence attendee.

 

He may be right of course, but we may be decended from Japanese speaking supercats who like jasmine tea - there's just as much evidence for that claim as to his.

 

And people take it all so seriously - $2,000 to attend a conference on alien spirits, my goodness what a world.

[Vulgarian]

Well belief in an afterlife is usually quite structured - there is an idea as to what that afterlife will be like, for starts is considered to be good or better than what we have now, unless you've been naughty. It is never simply some unexplained existence - it wouldn't be very appealing to believe in if people had no idea what that afterlife would be like.

 

The afterlife is usually a structured and sometimes quite detailed belief, yes, but more recently in Britain, with the decline of Christianity, many people no longer accept the Christian view of heaven and hell, but still believe in some sort of afterlife, or in the soul and its survival after death. Often they haven't given much thought to what it would be like, but they only need the assurance that it is there to give them some comfort.

 

And with belief in a God ... Setting aside the legacy of religious belief and a religious mentality, there is no reason to come to such a belief, if people were thinking rationally.

 

I think it was rational thinking that led people to the idea of an intelligent creator in the first place. That nature and all its wonders must have been designed by some higher intelligence. But of course that was before Darwin. Now the idea of intelligent design of living things has been debunked, but there is no reason not to consider the possibility that the basic order and laws of the universe were not intelligently designed. We're still working debunking that one.

 

He may be right of course, but we may be decended from Japanese speaking supercats who like jasmine tea - there's just as much evidence for that claim as to his.

 

The Agnostic view is a very open-minded one: all ideas that cannot be disproven must be considered possible. There's no reason to take any of them seriously though unless there is some evidence. I would be interested to see what evidence can be gathered to suggest that we are all slaved to reptilian alien overlords.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The afterlife is usually a structured and sometimes quite detailed belief, yes, but more recently in Britain, with the decline of Christianity, many people no longer accept the Christian view of heaven and hell, but still believe in some sort of afterlife, or in the soul and its survival after death. Often they haven't given much thought to what it would be like, but they only need the assurance that it is there to give them some comfort.

A strictly Christian understanding may have gone, but such an afterlife as you refer still has structure. The idea is that there is some sort of heaven or some sort of good place to go. Otherwise such an afterlife and belief in one would be considered far more and I believe criticised for the lack of evidence.

 

I think it was rational thinking that led people to the idea of an intelligent creator in the first place. That nature and all its wonders must have been designed by some higher intelligence. But of course that was before Darwin. Now the idea of intelligent design of living things has been debunked, but there is no reason not to consider the possibility that the basic order and laws of the universe were not intelligently designed. We're still working debunking that one.

I think you may have a point in commenting that in very early days it was rational to see the world and be awed by it and then consider that it must be impossible, so therefore an intelligence must be behind it or there must be some magic involved.

There is no reason to believe that it is impossible that there is a creator god or some intelligent reason. But there are no good reason to believe it. Which is quite a different thing. And that is why atheists debunk it.

 

The Agnostic view is a very open-minded one: all ideas that cannot be disproven must be considered possible. There's no reason to take any of them seriously though unless there is some evidence. I would be interested to see what evidence can be gathered to suggest that we are all slaved to reptilian alien overlords.

The agnostic view just simply asserts what is known and what is not know. Though the issue of 'knowing' is a bit complicated, but I am not too 'up' on philosophy. It is entirely possible because it cannot be disproved that I am surrounded by invisible creatures who have crept through some inter-dimensional rift to play, but I can't see them. I can't disprove. But I have no evidence or indication of it even being probable. I therefore don't give it credibility when trying to understand my fault. Religion and belief in intelligent beings is a little more 'involved', but same thing in my mind. No reason to give it credit in terms of probability or likelihood.