How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Divine Wind]

More Than 50% of Americans Would Vote for an Atheist Presidential Candidate — But Would You?

in 1958, only 18 percent of Americans said they’d vote for a secularist. Over the past five decades, we’ve seen steady growth, though, with more than half of Americans now reporting the same.

And no coincidence that the Presidents of the past few decades have been among the worst ever.

You make the case for Christian Presidents.

Sorry, but disagree on the "causal" factor. Human society has been evolving and changing for all of recorded history. The only thing that is certain is that those who constantly view life through a rear view mirror are wrong.

George Santayana's famous quote applies, but we, as a species, must continue to move forward. No, I don't agree with every idea the "liberals" offer, but I also don't agree with every idea offered by the "conservatives"/Tories.

It's natural for our species to advance by taking two steps forward and one step back. That concept was clearly understood by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his view "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia

There is no question civilization is imploding. None. Within 50 years the world will be a Mad Max movie in real life unless something drastic occurs to alter the direction.

Nice prediction, but disagreed. Since the odds are you and I will be dead, there's no use betting on it.

 

[Mudda]

Which is why agnostic is the only thinking person's position, because absence of evidence isn't evidence. It's faith.

No, incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if there's enough of it.

If A sometimes implies B, and B _never_ happens after zillions of observations, then logic says we should conclude A is wrong.

Everyone acts that way for most things in their life. Some people just make a special exception to that common sense rule for the matter of religion, which isn't logical.

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

If I copy a Tarzan comic 25,000 times, is it more true than the bible?

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

 

[Mudda]

The bible's earliest fragments date to several generations after the facts, making it all hearsay at best. It's a well-know fact that nothing was written down when (and if) Jesus spoke. Got anything for real or is that it?

No several "generations", but decades. This also explains why the Romans didn't document the execution of a simple rabbi.

There's zero proof that those who are claimed to have written parts of the bible (like Luke) actually wrote them. None.

Correct, there were no scribes writing down the words of Jesus as he spoke them. Biblical scholars often agree as to when the books were written. However, the source material is still up for evidence. I fail to see why you think this is a revelation. After Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers" came out a lot of young people were running around yapping about how the famous flag raising at Iwo Jima was actually the second flag raising. No shit. Every Marine knows that as a matter of history. Not a revelation except to the ignorant non-Marines.

Still, how does that prove your statement that it was "several generations later". Care to put an actual year figure on that? Even +10?

Time Line of Early Christianity--The Lost Gospel of Judas--National Geographic

When Were the Four Gospels Written?

The Dating of the Gospels

Carbon dating. Look on google.

 

[dblack]

I voted strongly theist. I lied.

You're totally going to Hell!

Are you a theist who truly believes this, a sarcastic atheist or something else? Sarcasm doesn't translate well on text forums.

You are so right. My apologies. I was merely riffing on what was, I assumed, deliberate irony. Strictly for humor.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if there's enough of it.

If A sometimes implies B, and B _never_ happens after zillions of observations, then logic says we should conclude A is wrong.

Everyone acts that way for most things in their life. Some people just make a special exception to that common sense rule for the matter of religion, which isn't logical.

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

Well we have to be intellectually honest though and admit that those manuscripts were written by human beings as testimony to the living God. We have nothing that was literally penned by a deity.

But I have to smile at those posting writings by famous Atheists as being somehow authoritative on the subject when those 24,000 or however many there are manuscripts written by famous Christians are summarily dismissed as delusional fiction.

So if people copy a Justin Bieber song 4,000,000 times, is he bigger than god?

Are there really that many people who like a Justin Bieber song?

The last time I looked it up, at least 6 billion and counting Bibles have been printed. Bieber isn't anywhere close to being in the same league.,

Factoid: the longest word in the Bible is Mahershalalhashbaz. You'll find it in the Book of Isaiah.

The English word for that is Motherfuckingdouchebag. I think.

But the point is, you can copy something 80 billion times, it still doesn't make it true on that fact alone.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

 

[Divine Wind]

The bible's earliest fragments date to several generations after the facts, making it all hearsay at best. It's a well-know fact that nothing was written down when (and if) Jesus spoke. Got anything for real or is that it?

No several "generations", but decades. This also explains why the Romans didn't document the execution of a simple rabbi.

There's zero proof that those who are claimed to have written parts of the bible (like Luke) actually wrote them. None.

Correct, there were no scribes writing down the words of Jesus as he spoke them. Biblical scholars often agree as to when the books were written. However, the source material is still up for evidence. I fail to see why you think this is a revelation. After Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers" came out a lot of young people were running around yapping about how the famous flag raising at Iwo Jima was actually the second flag raising. No shit. Every Marine knows that as a matter of history. Not a revelation except to the ignorant non-Marines.

Still, how does that prove your statement that it was "several generations later". Care to put an actual year figure on that? Even +10?

Time Line of Early Christianity--The Lost Gospel of Judas--National Geographic

When Were the Four Gospels Written?

The Dating of the Gospels

Carbon dating. Look on google.

I'm a big fan of science. Why do you assume carbon dating is unknown to me? Is it wishful thinking on your part? Hate? A pathetic attempt at feeling superior over another? What? Please explain why you'd jump to a factless conclusion?

 

[Divine Wind]

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Millions? It appears only four did so. There were more, but the Council of Nicaea in 325AD nullified their views. Many were declared heretics. Gnosticism was declared heresy.

 

[Foxfyre]

...I know no Christians who are anti-science in any form or fashion..

Sorry, Foxfyre, but there are plenty who deny science. Evolution for example or that a zygote is equal to a human being.

...Tell me one way that my being a Christian harms you in any way.

Agreed 100%

That doesn't make them anti science though. It is a difference of opinion about the science we have. Those Christians who insist that it is an absolute fact that humankind is altering the climate in dangerous ways I believe are just as wrong about the science they believe in. And I know for darn sure I'm not anti science.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Millions? It appears only four did so. There were more, but the Council of Nicaea in 325AD nullified their views. Many were declared heretics. Gnosticism was declared heresy.

I believe I have had the experience and I'm not quite old enough to predate the Council of Nicea.

 

[Divine Wind]

I believe I have had the experience and I'm not quite old enough to predate the Council of Nicea.

LOL. Agreed, my sweet Foxfyre. Still, there are many theists who disagree with science. Such as those who take the Bible literally.

Do you take Genesis literally? Figuratively? Something in between? For me, all figuratively. Up to Moses, after that, I there is the "Legend" factor. That's the OT. The NT is something different, but obviously influenced by human beings such as in 325 A.D.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Which is why agnostic is the only thinking person's position, because absence of evidence isn't evidence. It's faith.

No, incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if there's enough of it.

If A sometimes implies B, and B _never_ happens after zillions of observations, then logic says we should conclude A is wrong.

Everyone acts that way for most things in their life. Some people just make a special exception to that common sense rule for the matter of religion, which isn't logical.

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

If I copy a Tarzan comic 25,000 times, is it more true than the bible?

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

The earliest writing we have about Alex the Great is 400 years after his death. So what's your point?

 

[Divine Wind]

I voted strongly theist. I lied.

You're totally going to Hell!

Are you a theist who truly believes this, a sarcastic atheist or something else? Sarcasm doesn't translate well on text forums.

You are so right. My apologies. I was merely riffing on what was, I assumed, deliberate irony. Strictly for humor.

Thanks! Like you, I love humor. It's just difficult to tell via a text medium. Thank you very much for honestly clarifying your position.

 

[Foxfyre]

More Than 50% of Americans Would Vote for an Atheist Presidential Candidate — But Would You?

in 1958, only 18 percent of Americans said they’d vote for a secularist. Over the past five decades, we’ve seen steady growth, though, with more than half of Americans now reporting the same.

And no coincidence that the Presidents of the past few decades have been among the worst ever.

You make the case for Christian Presidents.

Sorry, but disagree on the "causal" factor. Human society has been evolving and changing for all of recorded history. The only thing that is certain is that those who constantly view life through a rear view mirror are wrong.

George Santayana's famous quote applies, but we, as a species, must continue to move forward. No, I don't agree with every idea the "liberals" offer, but I also don't agree with every idea offered by the "conservatives"/Tories.

It's natural for our species to advance by taking two steps forward and one step back. That concept was clearly understood by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his view "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia

There is no question civilization is imploding. None. Within 50 years the world will be a Mad Max movie in real life unless something drastic occurs to alter the direction.

Our history though is checkered with ebb and flow of falling away from and then an appreciation and embracing a resurgence of spirituality or faith. Some historians identify three and some four periods they call the 'great revivals' or 'great awakenings' dating back to the 18th Century.

There is always a complacency that sets in, a falling away from the Church or synagogue, a falling away from religious faith evidenced by increased lawlessness, coarseness and incivility in the culture, and a decline in those things that contribute to peace and happiness in society.

Eventually people become fed up with the deteriorating condition of society and all they once knew to be good and they return to the Church and religious faith for a few generations.

I think we're about ripe for that again.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I believe I have had the experience and I'm not quite old enough to predate the Council of Nicea.

LOL. Agreed, my sweet Foxfyre. Still, there are many theists who disagree with science. Such as those who take the Bible literally.

Do you take Genesis literally? Figuratively? Something in between? For me, all figuratively. Up to Moses, after that, I there is the "Legend" factor. That's the OT. The NT is something different, but obviously influenced by human beings such as in 325 A.D.

Science is all about disagreement. Yeah people who believe in the Bible may say the science is being interpreted wrong. Does not make them anti-science. Science used to say the universe always existed, now it says it has a beginning. Science says time was a constant, now it says it can be altered. Science said we have 4 dimensions, now it says we have over 3 dozen. Science is about learning and seeking truth, that is why science is moving towards the Biblical accounts.

 

[Weatherman2020]

More Than 50% of Americans Would Vote for an Atheist Presidential Candidate — But Would You?

in 1958, only 18 percent of Americans said they’d vote for a secularist. Over the past five decades, we’ve seen steady growth, though, with more than half of Americans now reporting the same.

And no coincidence that the Presidents of the past few decades have been among the worst ever.

You make the case for Christian Presidents.

Sorry, but disagree on the "causal" factor. Human society has been evolving and changing for all of recorded history. The only thing that is certain is that those who constantly view life through a rear view mirror are wrong.

George Santayana's famous quote applies, but we, as a species, must continue to move forward. No, I don't agree with every idea the "liberals" offer, but I also don't agree with every idea offered by the "conservatives"/Tories.

It's natural for our species to advance by taking two steps forward and one step back. That concept was clearly understood by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his view "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia

There is no question civilization is imploding. None. Within 50 years the world will be a Mad Max movie in real life unless something drastic occurs to alter the direction.

Our history though is checkered with ebb and flow of falling away from and then an appreciation and embracing a resurgence of spirituality or faith. Some historians identify three and some four periods they call the 'great revivals' or 'great awakenings' dating back to the 18th Century.

There is always a complacency that sets in, a falling away from the Church or synagogue, a falling away from religious faith evidenced by increased lawlessness, coarseness and incivility in the culture, and a decline in those things that contribute to peace and happiness in society.

Eventually people become fed up with the deteriorating condition of society and all they once knew to be good and they return to the Church and religious faith for a few generations.

I think we're about ripe for that again.

You look at post Roman Empire, now hand those left in charge in Mad Max's world with nuclear weapons and Saran gas instead of swords and pikes like they had 1500 years ago and you get my drift.

 

[MaryL]

Our society Is deteriorating, truer words were never spoken . I lay that at laxity and ambiguity that liberals are forcing on us, and the hubris and the irony of that blows me away.

 

[Muhammed]

I believe I have had the experience and I'm not quite old enough to predate the Council of Nicea.

LOL. Agreed, my sweet Foxfyre. Still, there are many theists who disagree with science. Such as those who take the Bible literally.

Do you take Genesis literally? Figuratively? Something in between? For me, all figuratively. Up to Moses, after that, I there is the "Legend" factor. That's the OT. The NT is something different, but obviously influenced by human beings such as in 325 A.D.

Science is all about disagreement.

Who told you that?

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe I have had the experience and I'm not quite old enough to predate the Council of Nicea.

LOL. Agreed, my sweet Foxfyre. Still, there are many theists who disagree with science. Such as those who take the Bible literally.

Do you take Genesis literally? Figuratively? Something in between? For me, all figuratively. Up to Moses, after that, I there is the "Legend" factor. That's the OT. The NT is something different, but obviously influenced by human beings such as in 325 A.D.

I have taught theology within the framework of the history of Christianity for a few decades now. And my approach to the stories of Genesis, at least up to Abraham, I teach the stories from a metaphorical point of view--old fashioned Jewish exaggeration to illustrate a point. The point of course is to identify all that exists and all that happens as the will of God, to explain why things are the way they are, to illustrate how sin began with the individual, spread into the family, then the community, and then the world. And because sin harms us and/or others, the consequences extend into all subsequent generations. God created a perfect creation and by our sin we have spoiled it.

Eventually we arrive at the First Century and Christianity that was heavily influenced by its ancient Jewish heritage.

Now while I am describing this to my wide eyed students, almost all college educated adults with advanced degrees, I assure them that my theory is only one of many. And those who want to believe the Bible literally are encouraged to do so, and those who prefer another theory to mine are also encouraged to go that route.

For to me, God only wants us to love and seek him, and he really doesn't care what we think about all that other stuff. (And he doesn't mind that I find religious history fascinating and have spent a good deal of my adult life studying it as an avocation.)

Abraham is a bit more iffy--I am more reluctant to take him metaphorically though I can see a possibility that he represents several people, but I'm happy to take him at face value too. And Moses I am more reluctant to mess with.

 

[Votto]

What's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

An agnostic is an atheist without any gonads.

 

[Divine Wind]

Our society Is deteriorating, truer words were never spoken . I lay that at laxity and ambiguity that liberals are forcing on us, and the hubris and the irony of that blows me away.

Our society has been deteriorating for 2000 years according to some.

 

[Divine Wind]

What's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

An agnostic is an atheist without any gonads.

Says the ALT-THEIST ASSHOLES.

I have no respect for people who desire to impose their beliefs upon others. It doesn't matter if they are atheist or theist, they are all equally fucking assholes to me.