Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[Maggusoil]

and in English of course it is dog spelled backwards, would I not be a believer

[notmyself]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

The same would be true of alien abduction.

Yes, of course that would be true however, it has an opposite connotation of doubtful desirability

I haven't heard it is quite so pleasant

Truth is not based on desirability. To wish theism to be true is to wish to be a slave but it is not that which makes it untrue. Edited January 7, 2014 by notmyself

[Maggusoil]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

The same would be true of alien abduction.

Yes, of course that would be true however, it has an opposite connotation of doubtful desirability

I haven't heard it is quite so pleasant

Truth is not based on desirability. To wish theism to be true is to wish to be a slave but it is not that which makes it untrue.

It is interesting to observe that those who dispute the existence of God, love to sound God like

[notmyself]

It is interesting to observe that those who dispute the existence of God, love to sound God like

That's right, change the subject.

Take any god outside of your own that you do not believe in and use the same argument why you do not believe in that one with your own.

[Rimmer]

Off topic posts and quoted replies removed please do not hijack the topic which is:

Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[Neeranam]

Have any of you atheists ever spent time in India? Everyone I have met who has been there agrees that it is a very spiritual place

The title is very confusing - it should be Atheist or Theist, Believer or non-believer.

[sirineou]

It is interesting to observe that those who dispute the existence of God, love to sound God like

Since you dont say which God atheists sound like

I would assume you must be referring to Athena the goddess of wisdom and reason

[qdinthailand]

And if god exists, why would he waste time on one life form (humans) or one individual, on just one of the many planets in his universe, or care whether they believe in him or not?

Oh, because we are so silly to think that we are unique, and special. And because somebody high on some good sh*t wrote some stories about his drug-induced hallucinations and they found their way into what we call 'the bible'?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[nong38]

I am Arsenal supporter, does that help? I hope it gets me preferential treatment on Emirates.

[Neeranam]

I think most so called atheists don't know the real meaning of the word. They are just anti-religion, in particular Christianity.

I recently read a classic book - A variety of spiritual Experience by William James, where James says that Atheism is caused by a dysfunction of the liver!

The fervor with which some atheists attack Christianity, he noted, is religious in nature.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Neeranam

[notmyself]

In the end (of discussion), the heart is where we ultimately decide whether or not to believe in God.

The heart is an organ which pumps blood, it does not have any decision making ability that I am aware of.

Miracles can and do happen.

Name one independently verified miracle.

See, this is the problem. Countless things happen which are unusual and they are often called miraculous, no they are not miraculous, they are at best unusual and that is all. Even if something very unusual did happen there is no reason to suddenly jump to the conclusion that God or a god did it but that is what people do. A fellow member mentioned earlier about what is known as the god of the gaps, this is a perfect example of it. Volcano starts to rumble... god must be angry so let us appease him by killing children and removing their hearts. Over time we found that volcanism is a natural phenomena and 'god did it' was not true.

A prototypical theist...

Miracles...

Nothing shows as anything other than it is all in the mind.

[sustento]

I think most so called atheists don't know the real meaning of the word. They are just anti-religion, in particular Christianity.

Lots of us aren't anti-anything. We just don't care. We're apatheists

" In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life."

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

[Neeranam]

I think most so called atheists don't know the real meaning of the word. They are just anti-religion, in particular Christianity.

Lots of us aren't anti-anything. We just don't care. We're apatheists

" In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life."[/size]

Wiki [/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Interesting - I guess I'm an Apathetic theist.

[greytown]

What is Christ trying to teach us? That we should love one another and should not sin. What is so objectionable about that? Let's even suppose that Christ was only a mythical figure that never existed. Wouldn't living by those rules make our world a better place? Of course this would mean sacrificing all the selfish indulgences that are so hard to resist. Much easier to reject the whole idea and carry on with our own selfish little lives where we make our own rules to suit ourselves.

Greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony are the roots of all evil.

[sustento]

What is Christ trying to teach us? That we should love one another and should not sin. What is so objectionable about that? Let's even suppose that Christ was only a mythical figure that never existed. Wouldn't living by those rules make our world a better place? Of course this would mean sacrificing all the selfish indulgences that are so hard to resist. Much easier to reject the whole idea and carry on with our own selfish little lives where we make our own rules to suit ourselves.

Greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony are the roots of all evil.

The Buddha was trying to teach us that 500 years before Christ was born. Leading an ethical life isn't confined to Christians. It isn't even confined to those who are religious.

[greytown]

What is Christ trying to teach us? That we should love one another and should not sin. What is so objectionable about that? Let's even suppose that Christ was only a mythical figure that never existed. Wouldn't living by those rules make our world a better place? Of course this would mean sacrificing all the selfish indulgences that are so hard to resist. Much easier to reject the whole idea and carry on with our own selfish little lives where we make our own rules to suit ourselves.

Greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony are the roots of all evil.

The Buddha was trying to teach us that 500 years before Christ was born. Leading an ethical life isn't confined to Christians. It isn't even confined to those who are religious.

Doesn't make Christ's teachings any less valid. If others are teaching the same thing that would mean they are on the same righteous path.

[notmyself]

What is Christ trying to teach us? That we should love one another and should not sin. What is so objectionable about that? Let's even suppose that Christ was only a mythical figure that never existed. Wouldn't living by those rules make our world a better place? Of course this would mean sacrificing all the selfish indulgences that are so hard to resist. Much easier to reject the whole idea and carry on with our own selfish little lives where we make our own rules to suit ourselves.

Greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony are the roots of all evil.

Have you ever read the sermon on the mount? Don't look at that for reasonable behaviour....

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount

[notmyself]

What is Christ trying to teach us? That we should love one another and should not sin. What is so objectionable about that? Let's even suppose that Christ was only a mythical figure that never existed. Wouldn't living by those rules make our world a better place? Of course this would mean sacrificing all the selfish indulgences that are so hard to resist. Much easier to reject the whole idea and carry on with our own selfish little lives where we make our own rules to suit ourselves.

Greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony are the roots of all evil.

The Buddha was trying to teach us that 500 years before Christ was born. Leading an ethical life isn't confined to Christians. It isn't even confined to those who are religious.

Doesn't make Christ's teachings any less valid. If others are teaching the same thing that would mean they are on the same righteous path.

To be a believer (?) because of moral teachings of the Christ figure is nothing short of laughable. Other than what people were already doing the teachings of Christ's are anything but moral. Dump you family, don't save for the future, just follow me. That is not moral in any way unless he was to return within the lifetime of the people hearing it. He didn't return though did he? Some Christian's have got around this by saying that one of his disciples is still alive among us (lol). It was this lack of returning which prompted the waning church to introduce the resurrection into the story, all the other beliefs at the time had a resurrection and were popular. If the church was to stop bleeding members it had to have one too.

[greytown]

Don't look at that for reasonable behaviour....

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount

Not sure what you mean?

[sirineou]

I am Arsenal supporter, does that help? I hope it gets me preferential treatment on Emirates.

an Arsenal supporter?

definitely a Christian, only the promise of a reward in an other life will induce some one to become an Arsenal supporter.

And given the reputation that Arsenal fans have I guaranty you that Emirates would prefer you sit on the wing, during the flight , if that's what you mean by "preferential" treatment

[greytown]

Dump you family, don't save for the future, just follow me.

"dump your family" means you must be willing to give up all selfish interests, and naturally doesn't mean "dump your family".

[notmyself]

Don't look at that for reasonable behaviour....

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount

Not sure what you mean?

Much of what the Jesus figure supposedly said was already known and had been known for centuries. Great you may say except that which was not known turns out to be a bad idea, not moral or ethical in the slightest.

Believing (?) because of 'his' moral code is nonsense.

[notmyself]

Dump you family, don't save for the future, just follow me.

"dump your family" means you must be willing to give up all selfish interests, and naturally doesn't mean "dump your family".

Have you even read the sermon on the mount?

Take therefore no thought for the morrow

That in isolation should be enough reason not to believe.

[MacWalen]

I am number 1 on that scale.

Sent from my GT-I9190 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 7, 2014 by MacWalen

[Loptr]

Many people I know seem to be proud that they are an atheist and that God is for the weak. IN my experience it is the other way around.

Simply, I think that religion is for those who don't want to go to Hell but spirituality is for those who have already been there.

There are many that would argue that our time spent here on earth is actually hell. The argument is that if the Christian God loved his children so much, why require them to go through an existence of pain and suffering on earth. You have to admit, civilization as we know it today is a pretty f'ed up proposition.

[greytown]

Take therefore no thought for the morrow

This passage refers to God providing for those who have (true) faith, therefore they need not worry.

[greytown]

Many people I know seem to be proud that they are an atheist and that God is for the weak. IN my experience it is the other way around.

Simply, I think that religion is for those who don't want to go to Hell but spirituality is for those who have already been there.

There are many that would argue that our time spent here on earth is actually hell. The argument is that if the Christian God loved his children so much, why require them to go through an existence of pain and suffering on earth. You have to admit, civilization as we know it today is a pretty f'ed up proposition.

Accepting to consider the possibility that whatever is on the other side of death to be eternal (Heaven and Hell), that would beg the question, what is the purpose of our (very short in comparison) passage on earth? It would seem like this material life may be nothing other than a spiritual trial to determine the destiny of our immortal soul.

[notmyself]

Take therefore no thought for the morrow

This passage refers to God providing for those who have (true) faith, therefore they need not worry.

Ahh. The no true Scotsman argument.

Are the millions of faithful who starve to death in Africa not 'true' Christians? Are they not true believers?

[JetsetBkk]

I say 'SHOW ME' and I might believe [anything].

But, but... that's why they call it "faith".

They can't see it, have never seen it, but simply believe something is there.

What a strange concept.

[notmyself]

I say 'SHOW ME' and I might believe [anything].

But, but... that's why they call it "faith".

They can't see it, have never seen it, but simply believe something is there.

What a strange concept.

To be fair, the same thing could be said about the air that we breath and gravity but the difference is, we have other ways to test it is true other than by visual means. Any man on the street can put a bag over his/her head to test air or throw themselves out of a window to test gravity. Gravity often comes up because it too, like evolution, is only a theory.