Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » So are we gonna talk about London? :(

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
So are we gonna talk about London? :(
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Who has gone to heaven?

John 3:13 (NIV)
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Where are the dead when Jesus returns?

John 5:28-29 (NIV)
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”

Sorry Edgar, I'll believe what my Bible actually says, not the ideas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism. As for the Lazarus story, learn what a parable is.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Back to the OP topic:

http://deadline.com/2017/06/real-time-bill-maher-maajid-nawaz-contribution-anti-muslim-extremist-1202119139/

BOO YAH. This is exactly what I'm talking about. One of the most prominent anti-jihadist leaders WAS A JIHADIST who went to jail for it. And now as he tries to help the world solve the jihadist problem, "well meaning liberals" and the "southern law poverty center" have now labeled him an "anti-Muslim extremist." And not only that, they're basically trying to have him killed by announcing to all Muslims that he's "anti-Muslim".

Quote:

Saying he was “sick and tired” of “well-meaning liberals,”

Quote:

“It’s funny,” Maher said, “you’re fighting extremists but they call you an extremist.”

Quote:

That’s not all they call him.

Nawaz is a self-described former Islamist who condemns what he calls the “Regressive Left” for ignoring the threat of global jihadism (he warns of right-wing populism too). On Real Time, he cited figures indicating that 23,000 jihadists live in Britain, as do, he estimated, three times as many Islamists, who Nawaz describes as ideologically committed to theocracy but who would not participate in violence.

Nawaz told Maher that being included on the SPLC’s list of anti-Muslim extremists endangers his life. “We know what happens when you list heretics,” Nawaz said. “They end up dead.”

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

We ALL came from heaven, and that's where we go back when we die. If you'd read your bible (with understanding) you'd know about the three earth ages.

Neil Roy said:

Sorry Edgar, I'll believe what my Bible actually says, not the ideas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism. As for the Lazarus story, learn what a parable is.

Sometimes parables have more to do with reality than fiction. ;) And this is not Roman Catholic doctrine. It's straight out of the NRSV, KJV, you name it.

John 5:25-29 NRSV said:

25 “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Learn the difference between history and prophecy. This ALREADY happened, during the three days when Jesus was 'in the grave'. Guess what, he wasn't there, he was in heaven preaching to those who didn't have a chance to hear the gospel and accept the grace and teaching of Jesus Christ. He went to the prisoners on the bad side of the gulf and gave them the opportunity to repent. Those who believed went with Jesus to the good side of Heaven. Those who refused stayed where they were, in 'Sheol'. No one who has died is ever going to use their flesh body ever again. They're corrupt, rotten, and useless. Who would want to live in a decaying body century after century? Do you see that your belief is just bizarre? God is not some kind of zombie king who's gonna raise all the creatures who've ever been buried out of the ground and reassemble them. Their bodies have served their purpose, and are no more. Haven't you ever read about the corruptible flesh putting on the incorruptible spirit?

According to you, God is God of the dead. God is God of the Living. No one is permanently dead yet, and everyone who isn't living in the flesh is living in heaven (in various places...).

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I love how you quoted the verse I posted and made it look like I said that and left out the verse number. Very deceptive.

I have already proven my point. I won't play verse wars in here. I know what my Bible teaches. And I know about the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, and the heaven and hell doctrine is a lie. The hell doctrine is blasphemous and evil in the extreme. And the heaven doctrine, well, you cannot find a single verse that backs up going to heaven, all you have are vague, ambiguous parables.

You're not interested in the truth, and I am not interested in debating it. I already proved my point by quoting clear scripture. When you look into John 3, and the context in which Jesus meant, it becomes even more clear that no man has even seen heaven, let alone been there. Everyone you ever known, that has ever been, except Jesus, is dead. And is still dead. That is what your Bible says. Reject it if you will, I won't debate it with you. These are the facts. I have read the entire Bible, cover to cover, the KJV and the NIV as well as the NKJV and I guarantee I have studied it far more in depth than you have, you have proven that you haven't.

Bye!

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Neil Roy said:

But there is sound logic I could go into

At the end of the day, if your proof is not demonstrable to others, your logic is irrelevant. From our perspective, there is no way to differentiate between you and a crazy person that sees things that don't exist.

No matter how much scripture you quote at us, that will never change.

Neil Roy said:

Who has gone to heaven?

I've died. Does that count?

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

I'll never forget that other thread (maybe it was even the one I linked above) where I asked both Neil and Edgar to share what drew them to Christianity, and Neil wrote some very compelling, heartwarming stories from his life, while Edgar ignored me for fear of ulterior motives.

Therefore, I declare Neil undisputed winner of the current fight. No other reason. ;)

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

Dizzy Egg
Member #10,824
March 2009
avatar

Neil Roy said:

You're not interested in the truth, and I am not interested in debating it

Genius x

----------------------------------------------------
Please check out my songs:
https://soundcloud.com/dont-rob-the-machina

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I love how you quoted the verse I posted and made it look like I said that and left out the verse number. Very deceptive.

There was no deception intended nor asserted. All I did was quote the full part of the chapter that you did, albeit from NRSV, which is much more readable if you ask me.

Quote:

I have already proven my point. I won't play verse wars in here. I know what my Bible teaches. And I know about the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, and the heaven and hell doctrine is a lie. The hell doctrine is blasphemous and evil in the extreme. And the heaven doctrine, well, you cannot find a single verse that backs up going to heaven, all you have are vague, ambiguous parables

I've used specific clear verses to support myself. Nothing that you aren't saying you're doing. I don't know how you are turning this into some kind of Roman Catholic conspiracy, but you're way off base.

Neil Roy said:

You're not interested in the truth, and I am not interested in debating it.

You know that's not true, otherwise I wouldn't have spent all the time I have studying the Bible. And what it tells me is completely contrary to your crazy ass zombie creeper resurrection story. I studied for many years with a very educated, intelligent pastor who UNDERSTOOD his Bible, back and forth, Hebrew and Greek. RIP Pastor Arnold Murray.

The only one here who isn't interested in the truth is you Neil. I present evidence and you flat out ignore everything I say. Learn about the three earth ages, they're real, and they prove there are people in heaven right now, both those who have died, and those who are waiting to be born.

Neil Roy said:

I have read the entire Bible, cover to cover, the KJV and the NIV as well as the NKJV and I guarantee I have studied it far more in depth than you have, you have proven that you haven't.

You are rather quick to assume something you have no knowledge of. You're so sure in your beliefs that no one could ever dare challenge them, even if they (I) present clear biblical evidence to the contrary.

John 5:24 said:

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.

If those who believe are not dead, then why should they live in the ground with everyone who is (according to you)?

24 - It is a kind of hearing which awakens to life
...
25 - This verse continues to refer to spiritual awakening from the dead.

- His call to awake, in its widest and deepest sense;—by His own preaching, by His Apostles, His ministers, &c. &c. In all these He speaks to the spiritually dead.

- This determines the verse to be spoken of spiritual, not bodily awakening.

You should find yourself a Bible teacher who actually understands Hebrew and Greek, and who isn't transfixed on literal translations. You might actually learn something. ;)

I'll never forget that other thread (maybe it was even the one I linked above) where I asked both Neil and Edgar to share what drew them to Christianity, and Neil wrote some very compelling, heartwarming stories from his life, while Edgar ignored me for fear of ulterior motives.

Therefore, I declare Neil undisputed winner of the current fight. No other reason. ;)

You were baiting me, and you were just looking for a reason to pick apart my beliefs. Your interest in Christianity was dubious. You were insincere. I've already stated my reasons for believing what I do multiple times. Ask me a sincere question and you'll get a sincere answer. ;)

This is why Christianity gets such a bad reputation. Very few people today have actually studied their Bible enough or with an intelligent enough teacher so that they actually understand what it says. There's so much ignorance it's unbelievable.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

LennyLen said:

At the end of the day, if your proof is not demonstrable to others, your logic is irrelevant. From our perspective, there is no way to differentiate between you and a crazy person that sees things that don't exist.

I could say the same thing about things like evolutionism. There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab. But I won't call people crazy for believing in it.

I have an intelligently designed and intricately complex human body as proof. I do not believe that tornados in junkyards produce perfectly working computers. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. That's sound logic, not craziness.

Quote:

No matter how much scripture you quote at us, that will never change.

I never quote scripture to an unbeliever unless they comment about my beliefs first. Otherwise it is pointless isn't it?

As for your response "Edgar"... forget it. I won't play verse wars. Explain to me why John 3:13 says what it does. Show me clear Scripture to back up your assumptions about going to heaven or don't bother talking to me.

You attacked me, remember? I merely stated my beliefs which are based on what your Bible says.

When God wants you know something, He puts clear Scripture to explain it. He wanted us to know when His son died, so we are told the exact hour Jesus died at, 3pm. He did not want us knowing His birthday, so it doesn't say that (you won't find Christmas in your bible... or "Sunday" for that matter). He wants us to know murder is wrong, so it clearly states that. He wants us to know that hating people, Muslims, Atheists etc... is wrong, so He says that, with clear text that cannot be misunderstood. Yet there are absolutely no clear verses which say we go to heaven when we die, but there are clear verses which say we die and stay dead until Christ's return.

I usually ask this question, and never get a clear answer from Sunday "Christians" (I put that in quotes because they don't actually follow Christ at all).

Q) If we all are judged at the moment of death and are sent straight to heaven or hell, who is still in their graves that needs to be resurrected by Jesus when He returns? And who is judged on judgment day if we are all judged at the moment of death?

I await your answer to this, and your explanation of John 3:13. I have studied John 3 in context. The conversation started with a temple priest who believed in Jesus asking Jesus about being "born again". Jesus was surprised that he didn't understand this (showing this isn't a new doctrine from Jesus). Jesus told Nicodemus that if he cannot understand things in this life, which he has seen, than how could he ever understand things about heaven if Jesus were to tell him when no man has ever seen heaven. The context is even more damning to Roman Catholicism (and that is ALL Sunday keeping churches) as Jesus states that no man has even SEEN heaven, which means you don't go there in any form, be it spirit or physically or otherwise.

Now, can you answer the questions without playing verse wars... "Edgar"?

This is why Christianity gets such a bad reputation. Very few people today have actually studied their Bible enough or with an intelligent enough teacher so that they actually understand what it says. There's so much ignorance it's unbelievable.

Oh, and when you need someone else to tell you what clear Scripture says, than you're already off to a bad start. I don't need some man to tell me that John 3:13 doesn't mean what it says. JESUS Himself states that no man has gone to heaven, if you say they do, than guess who I will believe?! Hint: not you.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I await your answer to this, and your explanation of John 3:13. I have studied John 3 in context. The conversation started with a temple priest who believed in Jesus asking Jesus about being "born again". Jesus was surprised that he didn't understand this (showing this isn't a new doctrine from Jesus). Jesus told Nicodemus that if he cannot understand things in this life, which he has seen, than how could he ever understand things about heaven if Jesus were to tell him when no man has ever seen heaven. The context is even more damning to Roman Catholicism (and that is ALL Sunday keeping churches) as Jesus states that no man has even SEEN heaven, which means you don't go there in any form, be it spirit or physically or otherwise.

The ever so mis-translated verse "born again" is not what it says. It should say "born from above", as in you have to come from heaven to go there. Very simple stuff. The following verses make that very clear :

John 3:3-8 NRSV said:

3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

This is clear biblical proof that everyone came from heaven. And that no one can enter heaven without being from there.

Your favorite quote :

John 3:13 NRSV said:

13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

This following link explains it more clearly than I could.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/JOHN313.htm

There are many examples of people going to heaven when they die, such as Elijah, Paul, Lazarus, etc... Ignore the rest of the Bible if you like. And parables always had a parallel in real life. They are stories used to teach about actual things.

As for needing a teacher, I don't apologize for that. There are many mysteries in God's word, and they aren't all revealed upon simply reading your bible. You have to actually study the Hebrew and Greek and the context in which things occur. In fact it would be quite foolish to ignore the teaching of someone who knows more than me, such as my Pastor Murray. Jesus is a teacher, are you going to ignore Him too?

As for the rest of your 'points', please stop calling me a "Sunday Christian" and stop accusing me of spreading Roman Catholic doctrine. I don't appreciate it.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I have an intelligently designed and intricately complex human body as proof.

If our bodies were designed, then they were designed by a bloody idiot.

edit: Your reply here is also the type of bad logic that theists constantly seem to exhibit. Your premise - that your body is intelligently designed, relies on the conclusion of your argument - that there is a god, being true. You're begging the question.

Quote:

There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab.

Human evolution can not, but evolution in bacteria has been demonstrated.

Niunio
Member #1,975
March 2002
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I could say the same thing about things like evolutionism. There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab.

Two words:

  1. Mendel

  2. Dogs

You're welcome. ::)

-----------------
Current projects: Allegro.pas | MinGRo

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Niunio said:

Mendel Dogs

To be honest, those are not examples of evolution. Both were deliberate tinkering of genetics.

Edit:

Thinking about it further, those are both examples of the opposite of evolution. Especially with dogs. Many of the traits deliberately bred into dog species by humans would have died out had they been born in the wild.

Niunio
Member #1,975
March 2002
avatar

LennyLen said:

To be honest, those are not examples of evolution. Both were deliberate tinkering of genetics.

He said it wasn't possible to demonstrate in a laboratory.

Mendel designed several experiments to study how living beings inheritance works, and it was essential to confirm evolution.

Dog breeding demonstrate how species evolve as they adapt to the environment. The fact those "environment" are imposed by human being is irrelevant as we're talking about "lab experiments". So dog breeding can be used as a long term (+10.000 years) experiment.

[edit]

Quote:

Many of the traits deliberately bred into dog species by humans would have died out had they been born in the wild.

But they haven't born in the wild but in human society. They're adapted to such environment. So it actually confirms it.

Also, the (discutible) fact they would have died out if they born in the willd also confirms evolution: they're not adapted to the environment so the species disapears, unless a change [mutation or hybridization] alowed they to be adapted to the new environment.

-----------------
Current projects: Allegro.pas | MinGRo

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

LennyLen said:

Human evolution can not, but evolution in bacteria has been demonstrated.

No, that is only evidence of variation within a kind, and I don't argue against that. Without variation we would all look like clones and could not adapt to our climates etc. But variation within a kind is not evidence of one kind changing completely to another like the religion of evolutionism states.

What was the bacteria before it changed? Bacteria. What was it afterwards? Bacteria. What evolved? Nothing. Also, there is new evidence that bacteria does not mutate as has been stated. There is new evidence that it is just a change in numbers. The bacteria that was resistant to antibiotics already exists, only it's numbers were smaller. The healthier bacteria that were not resistant were more numerous and kept the damaged bacteria that were resistant in check... that is... until you take the anti-biotics and kill them all off.

This evidence comes from frozen bodies found in the north that were there for centuries. Bacteria was found on them that were resistant to modern medicine that didn't exist back when they died. But no matter what you believe, they have always been bacteria.

The same goes with Darwin's finches. They had a minute difference in beak size, which is evidence in variation within a kind. But they were still finches.
I could use the same argument for dogs. They started out dogs, they end up dogs. Excellent evidence of variation within a kind. But show me a dog that became a cat, or a bird? Species like dogs and cats cannot mate. Their DNA doesn't match at all.

No evidence what so ever that anything evolved.

By definition, evolutionism is a religion. You have no evidence you can test, you cannot repeat it so it is not scientific and it is not historical. The only thing one is left with is that it is religious, you have to believe in it without any proof what so ever. It also goes against known scientific principals of thermodynamics like entropy and energy conservation.

Believe me, I have studied this a lot. I used to believe in Evolution and the billion year old universe like the rest of you, until I started to look into the evidence and found none at all, in fact, you will find evidence to the contrary. Like the common idea that things evolved in water, even though water is known to break down proteins, not help them form. There's far too much to go into in one post. But I have clear evidence of design. My body.

Nobody would believe you if you told them that your computer came together as a result of a tornado in a junk yard right? Show me one single solid example of any complex design that came together randomly? It simply doesn't happen.

Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer that is more intelligent than the design and more powerful. This is a fact. I call this intelligence "God" though admittedly I do not know His name. It's just a label I apply in my limited intellect to identify this powerful intelligence.

Niunio
Member #1,975
March 2002
avatar

Neil Roy said:

(...) Darwin (...)

When will you evolution negationist understand that Darwin was wrong? It is known for more than 80 years ago. So please stop citing his hypothesis as if it was the current valid theory: it is not.

Quote:

They started out dogs, they end up dogs.

No, they didn't: They were wolfs forty thousand years ago and we don't know what they will be forty thousand years in the future.

Quote:

But show me a dog that became a cat, or a bird?

You're kidding, aren't you? Please, say you're kidding.

Ok, it is obvious you don't understand how evolution works, so I'll put a cite here:

Quote:

Modern species share a common ancestor, but are neither descended from each other nor from some crude composite chimera, and ducks are not descended from crocodiles.

Change "ducks" and "crocodiles" by "dogs" and "birds" or "cats" and profit.

Quote:

No evidence what so ever that anything evolved.

Fossils.

Quote:

You have no evidence you can test, you cannot repeat it so it is not scientific and it is not historical.

Mendel. Again. And he's just one of them.

-----------------
Current projects: Allegro.pas | MinGRo

Dizzy Egg
Member #10,824
March 2009
avatar

So now he has proof that God exists and denies evolution as fact.....it's 2017 man.....I feel bad for you.

----------------------------------------------------
Please check out my songs:
https://soundcloud.com/dont-rob-the-machina

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Niunio said:

No, they didn't: They were wolfs forty thousand years ago

Wolves are a member of the dog family. Nothing has changed. Also, were you around 40,000 years ago? Did you see them change? How do you know? Show me your scientific evidence, that is evidence I can examine, test and replicate. You don't have any. You have the religion of evolutionism.

Quote:

Fossils.

A fossil is evidence that something died. That's all you have. There is no date on a fossil. Do you know how they date fossils? By the layer they are found in. Do you know how they date the layers? By the fossils they find in them. Circular reasoning. The dates for those layers were all pulled out of thin air.

Did you know back in 2004 it was revealed that a T-Rex fossil was discovered with actual blood and tissue (that was still stretchy) inside of it? Do you think that could survive 1000 years, let alone millions?!

Fossils are only evidence something died. You see evolution, I see evidence of a global flood that wiped them out.

Dizzy Egg said:

So now he has proof that God exists and denies evolution as fact.....it's 2017 man.....I feel bad for you.

You behave like evolutionism is a new religion that somehow magically became fact, even though there is no evidence for it at all. It is a very old one. You expect me to believe the foolish ideas of men from the 1700s and act like it is now a fact when there is no more evidence to support it, and in fact, more evidence against it now than ever before.

Sorry, I know how to think for myself. I won't be brainwashed by stupid, unscientific nonsense of some religion of evolutionism. If you want to believe in that, hey, go for it, that is your right, but don't knock me because I believe in a different religion! Tolerance, remember?!

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

So much for the original topic...

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

I think you're being a bit willfully ignorant here, Neil. Geological layers are only one of many means of dating a fossil (radioactive dating being the first thing that jumps to mind), and the age of the layers themselves is based on other data such as deposition rates and continent speeds. There is an entire web of evidence for these things, and they all support each other with internal consistency. To claim the evidence doesn't exist is to willfully shut your eyes.

Of course, internal consistency isn't proof. Evidence can never provide proof of anything. Science doesn't provide answers, only the most likely explanation given everything we know. As our knowledge changes, those explanations can (and do regularly) shift.

Anyway, while I do agree that it is impossible for science to disprove the existence of a god, I disagree strongly with the premise scientific evidence threatens the existence of a god. To do so is to imply gods domain is inexorably shrinking as our knowledge of the world grows. Perhaps evolution is just the answer to the "how", not the "who"/"what"? That said, atheism is a religion, plain as yours. I don't follow any religion.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I cannot imagine the hoops you have to jump through to conclude that atheism is a religion. It quite clearly is not. It is disbelief in a supreme being or god. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else that individuals or groups choose to believe falls under a separate umbrella. By accepted standards for the definition of a religion, atheism does not come anywhere close to being a religion.

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

A religion is just a system of faith. Faith is just a belief held without evidence. To claim there cannot be a higher power without evidence is no different than to claim there must be with similar backing. They are both unscientific stances built on faith, as is any other assertion made in absolutes.

Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001

bamccaig said:

I cannot imagine the hoops you have to jump through to conclude that atheism is a religion. It quite clearly is not. It is disbelief in a supreme being or god. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some find their view of life in atheism, some in theism. To actually believe that the choice leads to a happy life or a sense of meaning in life is kind of a religion. There's nothing in science itself that claims that believing in it will lead to a meaningfull life, in the same sense that science tells you what happens if you combine water with potassium.

My impression is that theists tend to see all atheists as the kind that believes in science, the kind that put their faith in science. My impression is that some atheists are of this kind. But then there are simply those that leave all this faith thing totally out of it, they just see themselves and everything as a part of the universe, which has absolutely no purpose at all. The simple word "why" is a good divider. For some, "why" is about purpose, for some it's about cause and effect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

A religion is just a system of faith. Faith is just a belief held without evidence. To claim there cannot be a higher power without evidence is no different than to claim there must be with similar backing. They are both unscientific stances built on faith, as is any other assertion made in absolutes.

You don't have to claim that there cannot be a higher power to be an atheist. You simply don't believe one exists for whatever reason. There's nothing "unscientific" about disbelieving in something for which there is no evidence. It also have nothing to do with faith. If evidence were found for such a being I would change my mind.

I also don't believe in Santa Claus, trolls that live under bridges, fire breathing dragons, or other fictional beings. That doesn't mean I have thousands of religions (or that you do, since I trust most of you don't believe in these things either). Likewise, if sufficient evidence for any of these things were found I would change my beliefs to include them.

Some find their view of life in atheism, some in theism. To actually believe that the choice leads to a happy life or a sense of meaning in life is kind of a religion.

I don't think I've ever encountered an atheist that believed that their lack of belief in a being gave their life meaning or made them happy. Atheism is a lack of something. It's nothing. You can count 1, 2, or 3 apples. You cannot count zero apples. There's nothing to count. You just know there is not an apple.

It would be like asserting that people that don't believe in homeopathic treatments believe that not taking them is curative (that is, above and beyond not doing harm, it actually has a benefit over the natural state, as if to say that isn't the natural state already). Doing nothing doesn't magically do something. Atheism is our natural state. All babies are born with no belief in deities. It wouldn't even require a word or definition if theism didn't exist.

My impression is that theists tend to see all atheists as the kind that believes in science, the kind that put their faith in science. My impression is that some atheists are of this kind.

Anybody that regards science as a faith-based belief system needs a different word to describe their belief than atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in god. It cannot represent a belief in something. It doesn't even specifically reference science. One could disbelieve gods on entirely arbitrary grounds and still be an atheist. For example, newborn babies are atheists not because they trust science, but because they are incapable of even comprehending the notion.



Go to: