All aboard the atheist bus ....

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you are not sure that either result is correct, on what grounds do you choose which one to believe? especially if choosing either one doesn't have repercussions on your reality. don't you choose the one you find more pleasant?

…if you are not sure that either result is correct, on what grounds do you choose which one to believe?
....…

On grounds based on reasoning what the probabilities of each are -but who said I was “not sure“ ? -I mean, I can be pretty sure by using reason and concluding that one is vastly less or more probable than the other.

…especially if choosing either one doesn't have repercussions on your reality. don't you choose the one you find more pleasant?.….

No, of course not. I don’t understand -do you “choose” the one you find the most pleasant!?

It wouldn’t make any logical sense to conclude that, out of all the uncertain hypothesises, whatever uncertain hypothesis just happens to be the most “pleasant” to you/me personally is the most probable - would it! In that sense I do not “choose” my beliefs but simply let my reason take me wherever it takes me. But I suppose you could say that I “choose” my beliefs in the very narrow sense that I “choose” to believe whatever my reason on the probabilities determines is most probable because I want to know the truth even if I discover that truth is unpleasant but I think that is stretching what is normally meant by the word “choose” a bit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, you don't even know what they are, yet you claim that the bible is not divinely inspired, one must assume, that was of course, after you never read it! and no you are wrong, anyone who sheds the blood of another is not a Christian, simply because he is not following the teachings of Christ, but you wouldn't know that, because, by your own admiss ...[text shortened]... ce and does not merit commenting upon, you really should think before opening your mouth!

No true Scotsman...

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't know either. That is precisely why I am an atheist. I have seen no reason to believe any gods exist.

Thank you for underscoring my original post; it is much appreciated. 😵

Originally posted by Badwater
Thank you for underscoring my original post; it is much appreciated. 😵

"Actually, there are two kinds of agnostics: on the one hand those which note that there is no valid reason to believe in an unspecified divinity and who use this word to indicate their position, which is not really different from atheism. No atheist thinks of having arguments proving the non-existence of the divinities. They note simply, faced with the multiplicity of beliefs and opinions, that they should well have to sort out (unless accepting the ontological pluralism of subjectivists) and that to say there is no reason to believe in the existence of a being is the same that to deny its existence. But other people who declare themselves agnostic think that the arguments in favor of deism are not completely convincing but are perhaps valid, or make a distinction between the ancient religions and a contemporary religion, and this attitude is indeed very different from atheism." Jean Bricmont

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Actually, there are two kinds of agnostics: on the one hand those which note that there is no valid reason to believe in an unspecified divinity and who use this word to indicate their position, which is not really different from atheism. No atheist thinks of having arguments proving the non-existence of the divinities. They note simply, faced with th ...[text shortened]... contemporary religion, and this attitude is indeed very different from atheism." Jean Bricmont

ok, now let me see if i can wade through the verbosity of language here and try to ascertain what the ideas are, without the cloak of language which sometimes veils rather simple ideas in terminology and jargon, correct me if i am wrong, there are those who profess that there is no reason to believe in God because of 1. lack of evidence, 2. so much evidence with respect to volume that it is futile to try to find out, also much of the evidence is conflicting, which causes further confusion, therefore even if one could assimilate all the evidence its interpretation is purely of a subjective nature, therefore we are not going to bother! and thirdly the true agnostics who say yes there is evidence, but we are not convinced by it. please, i state this in an attempt to clarify in my own mind what it is you were saying, not as a refutation, because generally when one peels away the rather flowery language in so many instances the core ideas are somewhat easier to understand!

Originally posted by rwingett
No true Scotsman...

Hi, Ive decided that i was rather mean to you and apologize for some rather demeaning and derogatory remarks, hopefully you will accept my apology, however if i may provide some quotations, the words of a non Christian, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, which i think is an excellent summation of what i was trying to say, in essence,

he stated in 1936, "Today, I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced it has distorted the message of Jesus. He was an Asiatic whose message was delivered through many media, and when it had the backing of a Roman emperor, it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day."

“I know of no one who has done more for humanity than Jesus. In fact, there is nothing wrong with Christianity.” However, he added: “The trouble is with you Christians. You do not begin to live up to your own teachings.”

In a reported conversation between the Hindu leader Mohandas K. Gandhi and the former British Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, a very different sentiment was expressed. It is said that Lord Irwin asked Gandhi what he thought would solve the problems between Great Britain and India. Gandhi picked up a Bible and opened it to the fifth chapter of Matthew and said: “When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world.”

In essence Gandhi despised Christians because they did not live as Christ did, and who can blame him?

i provide a few further quotes with regard to the authenticity of Christ and the gospel records, hopefully it will provide some basis for reflection

“That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”—Will Durant, Caesar and Christ.

“It may seem incomprehensible that a globe-spanning religious movement could have been triggered by a nonexistent person dreamed up as the ancient equivalent of a marketing device, given the ranks of incontestably real people who have tried and failed to found faiths.”—Gregg Easterbrook, Beside Still Waters.

‘As a literary historian I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends. They are not artistic enough to be legends. Most of the life of Jesus is unknown to us, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so.’—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock.

regards to you rwingett

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi, Ive decided that i was rather mean to you and apologize for some rather demeaning and derogatory remarks, hopefully you will accept my apology, however if i may provide some quotations, the words of a non Christian, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, which i think is an excellent summation of what i was trying to say, in essence,

he stated in 1936, ...[text shortened]... a legend would allow that to be so.’—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock.

regards to you rwingett

First of all, I never claimed that Jesus never existed. There are some who make plausible arguments in that direction, but for my money I think he probably did exist. Just not as described in the bible. I do not think he was 'divine' at all, but was a flesh and blood human. I think that some of what Jesus is quoted in the bible as having said, he probably did say. But not all of it. Or even most of it.

As I'm sure you know, all of the books of the New Testament were written decades after Jesus' death by people who never met Jesus. Most Christian theology was invented decades, or even centuries, after Jesus' death. I think modern Christianity has virtually no resemblance to what Jesus may have actually said at all.

There were many competing christian sects in the first century after Jesus' death, like the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, and the proto-orthodox christians. They all had very different interpretations of what Jesus supposedly said, and they all had their own gospels, epistles and other writings to back up their claims. How do we know that what we ended up with is the right version? I seriously doubt that it is.

Originally posted by rwingett
First of all, I never claimed that Jesus never existed. There are some who make plausible arguments in that direction, but for my money I think he probably did exist. Just not as described in the bible. I do not think he was 'divine' at all, but was a flesh and blood human. I think that some of what Jesus is quoted in the bible as having said, he probably d do we know that what we ended up with is the right version? I seriously doubt that it is.

'I think modern Christianity has virtually no resemblance to what Jesus may have actually said at all,', i would even go a stage further and declare that modern 'Christianity', bears practically no resemble whatsoever to Christianity as Christ intended it to be going on the basis of what we have today in biblical form, quite regardless of their authenticity or otherwise. its nothing more than a bastardization of Christs teaching mixed with a whole conglomeration of Greek philosophical ideas and even pagan, pre Christian elements and now, modern liberal secularism, It would be unrecognizable to Christ. why do i have a 'yankee', spell checker, is there no 'English spell checker with Firefox, maybe i will use opera instead.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'I think modern Christianity has virtually no resemblance to what Jesus may have actually said at all,', i would even go a stage further and declare that modern 'Christianity', bears practically no resemble whatsoever to Christianity as Christ intended it to be going on the basis of what we have today in biblical form, quite regardless of their authe ...[text shortened]... checker, is there no 'English spell checker with Firefox, maybe i will use opera instead.

Well, there you have it. We agree on something.

Originally posted by rwingett
Well, there you have it. We agree on something.

lol, hopefully you are not too offended, i do feel quite remorseful, regards Robbie.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what benefits do you have for being an atheist in terms of afterlife?

Well that depends on:
a) whether there is an afterlife.
b) what exact afterlife.
If there is no afterlife, then atheism has no benefits for it, but neither does any religion / theistic belief.
If there is an afterlife, then atheism has as much chance of benefiting me than any religion / theistic belief does. In fact, if reports of gods are anything to go by, I am more likely to be treated kindly than someone who believed in the wrong god.

how does being an atheist improve your chances in anything?
I think it is far better to live life knowing that there probably is no God, than living in a delusion. I also think that there are many bad side effects of religion which should be avoided.

i see religion like a blanket for the soul. it can keep you warm if you wear it responsibly. it can comfort you even if you have it in your bag, knowing itis there if you needed. sure, it can choke you if you wrap it too tightly. it can obscure your vision if you put it over your eyes. and if you believe it is better than a bullet proof vest and stand in front of a gun you will most likely be disappointed.

if you find a way to keep warm without (let's not say religion) a spirituality of sorts, i guess it is ok. easier with it though.
Would you say the same applies to someone who goes through adult hood believing that Santa Claus is real?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, such a crashing bore and tiresome fellow, actually i got better things to do than try to ascertain what it is you actually believe, because as i have shown, you don't actually know, because if you did, you would post it, but as far as i can remember you haven't, its empty, void, center of a doughnut, zilch , zero etc therefore perhaps if you p ...[text shortened]... t something with content we could discuss that, until then, what is there to discuss with you?

I don't remember you ever asking what my beliefs are. More often than not, you proclaim what they are and claim that I do not know it. I have said I am atheist and explained what that means (as have others), which should tell you roughly what my belief are regarding theism.
My only hope is that you now have a better understanding of what an atheist is as it has been quite clear in the past that you had a seriously distorted view.

Originally posted by bbarr
I don't understand this distinction between mere animals and ensouled animals. What does a soul add to an animal, in your view? What capacities or faculties does an ensouled animal possess that a mere animal necessarily lacks?

The distinction is made in Communist party literature involving mind-control techniques, wherein the "soul" is generally regarded as an antiquated concept lacking a referent. To dispense with the idea that man possesses a "soul" is synonymous with saying that man is a stimulus-response animal whose "higher" reasoning capabilities, morals and ethics, are entirely dependent upon stimulus response machinery. Basically, brain-washing 101 starts with the premise that a man possesses absolutely no will of his own, and therefore can be programed in the same way a dog can. In these terms, a man without a "soul" is a man without a "will", i.e., a man without a will is merely an animal.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The distinction is made in Communist party literature involving mind-control techniques, wherein the "soul" is generally regarded as an antiquated concept lacking a referent. To dispense with the idea that man possesses a "soul" is synonymous with saying that man is a stimulus-response animal whose "higher" reasoning capabilities, morals and ethics, are ...[text shortened]... ut a "soul" is a man without a "will", i.e., a man without a will is merely an animal.

It is your claim that there is a scientifically identifiable difference between a dog and a human in the behavior you refer to? I think you would find that extremely hard to back up with evidence. Humans can be programmed to a fairly large degree as is well known by anyone running an army training camp. On the other hand, dogs cannot be totally programmed and possess free will of their own.
Is it possible that your view of animals is in error?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is your claim that there is a scientifically identifiable difference between a dog and a human in the behavior you refer to? I think you would find that extremely hard to back up with evidence. Humans can be programmed to a fairly large degree as is well known by anyone running an army training camp. On the other hand, dogs cannot be totally programmed and possess free will of their own.
Is it possible that your view of animals is in error?

Would you agree that humans beings are primarily stimulus-response organisms, and that there are no behaviors or thought-patterns insusceptible to conditioning? If not, what mysterious agency exists in the human organism, in your opinion, which cannot be affected by conditioning? Can it be scientifically verified, as you say? You said that dogs possess free will; where exactly does this free will reside in the dog, and can it be scientifically verified?