Atheism, Logical?

[8236]

And the Bible was consequently revised during the Middle Ages to exclude a whole bunch of things. Hmmm...

Was it? Or was it just lost in translation?

 

[8236]

Firstly John 1:1 is almost certainly a redacted part of the text in order to give orthadoxy to a Gospel with many Gnostic overtones (first mentioned in St. Ireneus: Against all Heresies - a book about the Gnostics). So claim that "The word became flesh" is not in any sense a direct message from Jesus.



Theism and Atheism both have thier problems. The cosmolgical arguments that you put forward are most eloquently refuted by Kant (himself a devout Christian) in the Cirtique of Pure Reason (book III Chapter III I think), he also refutes any ontological proofs. Even Sceptical arguments (such as Hume or Berekly [given a certain reading] ) can be used to justify an atheisitic position.

To be honest, as you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about, and a pretty shoddy reading of the bible I don't think that your justification of Theism should be taken too seriously:

now go read something other than the bible.

LOL Your words are wasted on this crowd! You sound literate q.e.d you copied it all using Google

 

[8236]

So, if I post my own view I am a plagerist and if I reference my ideas I am called arrogant. Still its nice to see such directionless criticism of the points I have raised. If you want my views here they are:

God is posited as an omnipotent, onniscient and trancendent being. Firstly I want to point out that a God outside time who knows everthing and can do anything is fine except for the problem of free will. While this sort of God could be posited by a determinist (and a rigerous one at that) for anyone who beleives in human free will it is clearly non-sensical as God would know all of our actions BEFORE they were taken. Even more alarmingly God created the universe Knowing our decisions. If I am Damned and there is an omnipotent, omniscient and trancendent God, then I would argue that God knew at the moment of creation that I was Damned, this is not my image of a loving and forgiving God.

To my mind the idea of God reduces our own capacities as individuals. Still if Christians want to enter into this bizzarre slave-mentality that's their own funeral. If there is a God I pray that he is nothing like his current representation(s) in Christian thought.

Furthermore the very claim that atheism is illogical is absurd. It is claiming that by failing to acknowldge a trancendent reality I am defying logic. Logic is merely a system of working to a conclusion from some accepted BUT UNJUSTIFIED premises. To show that athiesim is illogical you first need to come to an agreement about our premises. The problem is that the first premise of the atheist is that there is no God and the Theist that there is. Outisde of this initial observation there can be no serious debate as to the 'logic' of atheism, agnosticism or theism.

The fire and brimstone lot might just have followed that

 

[White knight]

We have plenty of time to find out all about GOD when we are dead.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We have plenty of time to find out all about GOD when we are dead.

Your thirst for knowledge, open mindedness, and zeal for discussion are exemplary.

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

Wow people using the methodology of a historian rather than a preacher to debate faith. Way to go folks!

 

[hylandrdet]

Actually, athesim is welcomed by most religious leaders simply because an athiest, by nature, is skeptical.

Atheism means "Anti theology"; the denial of either GOD's existance or any denial of GOD's will.

It is possible to believe in GOD and still be an athiest. They call such people "Good Nature athiests"; people who belive in GOD, but disagrees with MAN's interpretation of what GOD stands for.

In the eyes of a Muslim, a Christian is considered an athiest and vica versa.

Before you can answer this question, you must ask yourself...Am I an athiest!!! If so, are you logical???

 

[rei_t_ex]

Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence).

I beg to differ. You are making the claims of atheism slightly stronger than they are. Atheism does not affirm the lack of existence of a god or gods, but denies their existence instead. A small difference, at first glance, but crucial. Let me explain. There is literally an infinite number of possibilities. From an invisible and intangible goblin who sits on your shoulder, to a well-hidden McDonald's franchise operated by lava-men at the centre of the Earth. To affirm the lack of existence of both the goblin and the lava-men, one would require omniscience, as you rightly claim. Since humans do not have omniscience, we are faced with two options – either accept all of the silly possibilities that we cannot deny and walk around incessantly trying to swat the pesky goblin from our shoulders, or deny all possibilities until given good, objective and independently verifiable reasons to the contrary. Atheism takes the latter route.

In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.

Here, you are absolutely correct. Though perhaps not in the way in which you want to be. Atheists tend to rely on science for their views of the world, and science, as yet, is utterly unable to provide the answer as to how the world began, and what forced the world to be the way that it is. Just as science was once utterly unable to provide the answer as to what caused lightning. However, not yet knowing the answer to a question, no matter how fundamental that question is, is no justification to make up a plausible but irrational one. Could lightning be caused by a being with the power to create it (Zeus)? Sure, why not! Could the world be created by a a being with the power to create it (Judeo-Christian God)? Again, it is undeniably plausible. Just as plausible, however, as the world being created by the crash of two eternally gyrating supra-universal balls (of matter and anti-matter, say) with the particular laws of our universe being determined by the precise conditions of that crash. One could perhaps argue that a crash has only an infinitesimally small chance of randomly creating something as structured as our universe, but eternity is a very long time – even the infinitely unlikely things are bound to happen at some point during eternity. So once again, by following your logic, we find ourselves having to accept an infinite number of possibilities, as discussed above.

If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This astounding claim was supported, however, by His matchless personal character, His fulfillment of predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history — and most importantly, the historical fact of His resurrection from the dead.

All as described in the Bible. And there is no good reason to believe the Bible unless Jesus was God in human flesh. And there is no reason to believe that Jesus was God in human flesh unless one believes the Bible...

Ultimately, I would argue against the accuracy of any established religion due to another simple but crucial observation – there has never been a convergence of religions between geographically isolated societies, while they remained geographically isolated. Surely, God would not be so callous to deny everyone but the Europeans and the Middle Easterners knowledge oh His own Son dying for their sins? Why would He make 1,500 years pass before the people in Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas even begin to hear of Him? Why would He ban all of those people from Heaven for their lack of acceptance of Jesus Christ, simply because they were never given the chance to hear of Him? There are many religions in the world. I have not seen any convincing argument that would privilege any one of them over any other one of them. Since they are all mutually exclusive, it seems rational that they are all wrong.

 

[Merlin1047]

Hey Rei -

I think we would all appreciate it if you would stop trying to be fancy with the fonts and just use the default setting for everything except emphasis.

Making your posts hard to read does not make you popular.

 

[rei_t_ex]

Merlin,

Duly noted. I do not see how Garamond is any harder to read, but ultimately I have no strong preference, and if others on this board do, then I am only too happy to be accommodating.

 

[sagegirl]

I will not debate the issue of the existence of god......
I do however have great respect for the power of believing.....the mind is a very powerful tool, it can be used to create a belief system that empowers an individual. It is our essence.
I am convinced that many outside influences can determine how and what we think and that certainly there are those who have studied behavior and have used "brainwashing" in all its forms to their advantage.
A little skepticism is a good thing, think for yourself and you can find your own personal truth.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

There sure is alot of talk about "God" today!

 

[5stringJeff]

A little skepticism is a good thing, think for yourself and you can find your own personal truth.

I don't buy it. How can you have your own personal version of the truth? Either something is true or it is not.

 

[sagegirl]

I don't buy it. How can you have your own personal version of the truth? Either something is true or it is not.

That would be applying logic that is yes or no....Aristilean they call it....however there are other forms of logic (study computers and boolean logic for example) Logic gates in computers take a variety of inputs and when a specific condition is met a certain outcome results.....such as this and this and not this (a and b and not c) and you get a positive result, or a negative result. there are and gates, or gates, nand gates, nor gates.....all kinds of ins and all kinds of outs. To limit yourself to just yes and no is a very narrow concept and just the sort of thought process that result in a very narrow way of thinking.

 

[5stringJeff]

That would be applying logic that is yes or no....Aristilean they call it....however there are other forms of logic (study computers and boolean logic for example) Logic gates in computers take a variety of inputs and when a specific condition is met a certain outcome results.....such as this and this and not this (a and b and not c) and you get a positive result, or a negative result. there are and gates, or gates, nand gates, nor gates.....all kinds of ins and all kinds of outs. To limit yourself to just yes and no is a very narrow concept and just the sort of thought process that result in a very narrow way of thinking.

Calling me narrow and trying to hide behind computer programming techniques isn't going to work. Either something is true, or it is not true.

 

[sagegirl]

Calling me narrow and trying to hide behind computer programming techniques isn't going to work. Either something is true, or it is not true.

My intention was not to call you narrow...and Im not trying to hide behind anything.....(computer logic is not a programming technique it is a logic system) I was just explaining that there are different paths that lead to different conclusions.....it is up to the individual to decide what one considers to be true or not......remember it use to be true that the world was flat...some consider whats written in the bible to be true and that belief determines how they live their lives, some believe that it is true that we must respect all life and choose to be vegetarians, some believe that we can achieve peace thru war, others dont.
Mostly I guess all of these truths are really just opinions, ain't life grand.!!!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That would be applying logic that is yes or no....Aristilean they call it....however there are other forms of logic (study computers and boolean logic for example) Logic gates in computers take a variety of inputs and when a specific condition is met a certain outcome results.....such as this and this and not this (a and b and not c) and you get a positive result, or a negative result. there are and gates, or gates, nand gates, nor gates.....all kinds of ins and all kinds of outs. To limit yourself to just yes and no is a very narrow concept and just the sort of thought process that result in a very narrow way of thinking.

but each bit is either on, or it is off.

 

[sagegirl]

but each bit is either on, or it is off.

yep and then it just becomes the input to another gate with another truth table and on and on and on. Yes finally after the whole process is complete an ultimate 1 or 0 results......the operation is completed and then .. another keystroke and it all starts over again.

 

[Joz]

I tried Atheism once. There just weren't enough holidays.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

yep and then it just becomes the input to another gate with another truth table and on and on and on. Yes finally after the whole process is complete an ultimate 1 or 0 results......the operation is completed and then .. another keystroke and it all starts over again.

computers are based fundamentally on binary logic, yes or no. 1 or o. Yes you can create more complex branching structures, but the whole system is based on yes or no. And yes there are different bit combining operations.