[BMI]

My pleasure:)

[jillianleab]

Ok; I don't understand... how can you say this:

I mean if someone followed the Bible to an exact T or even close you all would think he/she was a wonderful person no?

And then mountainman (who agrees with you it seems) says this:

To understand the Bible you have to 1) take the verses and stories in context of the times and traditions 2) realize that all of your references are from the Old Testament and are very legalistic and are correct that don't apply 3) when Jesus came and died for our sins; His death literally ripped the curtain of the Old Covenant and created a New Covenant that is the New Testament 4) by understanding the Bible thoroughly one would understand that we are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament because of Christ's death as the ultimate sacrifice for all people

And then BMI says this:

You see you can quote the Bilble and look at these words and say the Bible is telling you that you are forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them. I think many read the words as they appear without giving them proper consideration or meditating upon the actual meaning of them.

So which is it? Do you take the literal translation of the bible ("follow it to a T"), or do you apply "stories in context of the times and traditions", or do you see that the bible tells you you are "forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them"? And if you "follow it to a T" how is is that there is room for interpretation? Hmmm... seems someone isn't making sense...

[mountain_man]

So which is it? Do you take the literal translation of the bible ("follow it to a T"), or do you apply "stories in context of the times and traditions", or do you see that the bible tells you you are "forbidden to do this and forbidden to do that, when in reality you are not forbidden to do them"? And if you "follow it to a T" how is is that there is room for interpretation? Hmmm.... seems someone isn't making sense.....

I see how the Bible can be very confusing and certain verses are indeed very confusing but I believe you have to read things within the context and then apply while also taking into account that the Old Testament (laws) and New Testament (grace) are completely different.

You can't take everything in the Bible and directly apply it to now or we would all be sacrificing goats! Not fun.

[BMI]

The confusion lies in the phrase "follow it to a T", not necessarily meaning a literal interpretation you see. It's in relation to my deeper meaning post, follow what it tells you to a T, NO SHORTCUTS. Example, adultery is a sin, as is pride, so no matter what you try as best you can to not fall victim to sin, that's what I mean by following it to a T. Never compromise with sin is what I am trying to say.

[talaniman]

My relationship with the Creator is personal and nothing comes between me and HIM, that is my choice. The good part of having a choice is its yours and it doesn't matter who likes it or who doesn't. I am neither christian, jew, or muslim, or fall into any category, but love and tolerate all those who make their own choice, for whatever their reasons. Cool with me. That's the beauty of choice, its yours to make.

[jillianleab]

The confusion lies in the phrase "follow it to a T", not necessarily meaning a literal interpretation you see. It's in relation to my deeper meaning post, follow what it tells you to a T, NO SHORTCUTS. Example, adultery is a sin, as is pride, so no matter what you try as best you can to not fall victim to sin, thats what i mean by following it to a T. Never comprimise with sin is what i am trying to say.

So what you say and what you mean are two totally different things. Got it.

And you of course realize an atheist is capable of living a life without engaging in adultery, pride, sloth, gluttony, envy, pride, homosexual acts, murder, theft etc etc. Just about the only "sin" we can't avoid is that pesky one about "I am your only god" or whatever.

[BMI]

To Jillian,

It's almost as if you purposly try to not understand what I'm saying and then post something to start a debate over it. What I mean and what I say are the same thing, you not understanding it is something totally different, GOT IT!

[Capuchin]

Jill, I believe he's saying that he follows what he thinks it means exactly (to a T), but he's happy to interpret what it says in any way he wants to find out what he thinks it means. (assuming you are a he, sorry)

[BMI]

Alrighty, I get your first part about what I believe to a T and you are bang on, the second point I have no clue what your talking about or whatyou mean by that.

See, even I am capable of misunderstanding, although I'm not rude about it.

[Capuchin]

You don't follow the bible literally, but you interpret it and follow that interpretation to a T, right?

[shatteredsoul]

To me, all religions have the same basic universal truths. In my understanding they are all like different languages that each person understands and interprets differently. I agree that all of the texts, bibles and other religious writings are based on man's interpretation of what they thought God wanted us to believe or live by. I don't see it as my truth or my way to understand God. The original question was ,How do atheists not believe in God. I think all of the people on here have answered that question. We may not agree or understand their answers, but they have. The topic of religion doesn't need to be brought up to understand God for me, but for others it does. My point before that no one really was interested in was, why not live life in a way that is loving and kind to all humans, and to not find judgment in anyone, wouldn't that be a good place to start? The universe has energy that we are connected to. WE will never agree on everything, but we can agree that we share the same planet and we all have a personal responsibility in making the world a better place for all. WE can argue semantics all day but really, being loving and kind doesn't need a religion or a label of God, and we would all be doing something positive that affects everyone. We don't need a scientific explanation for that or the bible. YEs science was created by man and so was religion, I think we can all understand that. Science cannot explain where Karma, De Ja Vu, intuition, or God, come from, or if any of them do not exist. Thus, it is our own beliefs and our own perspectives that determine of they do. NOt science.

[BMI]

Right as rain!

Thank-you

[firmbeliever]

I have one more question for those who see themselves as atheists..

How do you deal with death of loved one, I mean there are some who believe the dead live on, or that we will meet them when we die etc.
I mean as science provides medical solutions to diseases etc but as it does not prevent death, how does this effect your lives in general and also does it make it harder to deal with death than those of us who believe in an afterlife.

Don't mind my questioning but I have never had the opportunity to ask an atheist such questions as I have never met any,until I joined AMHD...

Thanks:)

[ordinaryguy]

Capuchin--My earlier question to you seems to have kind of got lost in the Bible babble, but I really would like to know whether you think there are any inherent limits to the application of the scientific method.

Do you believe (hold dear and love) that the scientific method is adequate to provide a satisfactory (to you, at least) explanation for every phenomenon whatsoever? Do you see any inherent limitation on the kind of phenomena that can be examined and explained by its use? It does seem to require a human being to conceptualize the problem as a theoretical model, operationalize the model to formulate a testable hypothesis, design an experiment to test it, and interpret the resulting observations and measurements to construct a coherent explanation story. Is this (the human mind) a significant limitation? What it really comes down to, I suppose, is whether there is anything whatsoever beyond the reach of the rigorous application of logic, experiment and observation by the rational human intellect. The only limitation you have alluded to so far is the precision of measurement technology. Is that the only one there is, in your view?

[NeedKarma]

Good question. I'm more agnostic than atheist. I don't believe you'll see the person after you die. Death is simply inevitable. It makes it no harder than people who believe that they will live forever after they die. It does mean that we are to enjoy this life. I sometimes think that there would be less suicides if more people thought this way.

I have one more question for those who see themselves as atheists..

How do you deal with death of loved one, I mean there are some who believe the dead live on, or that we will meet them when we die etc.
I mean as science provides medical solutions to diseases etc but as it does not prevent death, how does this effect your lives in general and also does it make it harder to deal with death than those of us who believe in an afterlife.

Dont mind my questioning but I have never had the opportunity to ask an atheist such questions as I have never met any,until I joined AMHD...

Thanks:)

[ordinaryguy]

My experience with being bereaved of those I love has taught me that even if it does turn out that I get to see them after my own death, I still have to live the rest of my life without them. Belief in a future reunion wouldn't change that at all, and that's the hardest part by far. "What happens after death?" is one of those questions for which I have decided that "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer.

[jillianleab]

I have one more question for those who see themselves as atheists..

How do you deal with death of loved one, I mean there are some who believe the dead live on, or that we will meet them when we die etc.
I mean as science provides medical solutions to diseases etc but as it does not prevent death, how does this effect your lives in general and also does it make it harder to deal with death than those of us who believe in an afterlife.

Dont mind my questioning but I have never had the opportunity to ask an atheist such questions as I have never met any,until I joined AMHD...

Thanks:)

To me, one of the hardest parts about becoming an atheist (as opposed to agnostic) was coming to the realization that once you die, that's it. It's over. And it's eternal. You absolutely cease to be - you don't have a spirit or soul that lives on, you don't go to heaven and get reunited, you don't go to hell to get punished. You just, stop. You lay in a box and rot, to take off the sugar-coating. It's a tough thing to wrap your head around, that one day there is NO MORE. But for me, I'm OK with that. I take that as a cue I need to make the most of the life I have and if I want to live on "in spirit" I need to do things that are going to make people remember me. I don't want to die and have no one ever think about me again, so I hope I've made enough of an impact on people's lives that in 50 years my great great great grand nephew (or whoever) will have a reason to tell a story to his nephew about something I did. Maybe I'll come up with the best cookie recipe my family has ever tasted, maybe my engagement ring will be passed down for generations, I don't know. I just hope that something happens so I'm not forgotten. But, on the flip side, if I don't and I am forgotten, it's not like I'll ever know - I'll be dead! :)

As far as coping with other people's death, I have no problems. My dad died last January and sure I grieved, but I think I "got over it" more quick than other members of my family who are more spiritual because I realized it doesn't matter. I can stomp my feet all I want, stay in bed with the covers over my head, pray to god, it doesn't matter. He's not coming back. More than anything I was MAD - he died while waiting for a liver transplant and if the transplant team had approved him, or more people checked "donor" on their driver's license (don't get me started on that), he'd still be here. I'm not left wondering if I will see him again, I don't have a sense that he's watching over me, I know he's gone, and one day I will be too. To me, I'm totally fine with this. I know it probably seems bizarre to someone who believes in an afterlife, but for me it's almost refreshing to not worry about what happens when I die. I don't worry about heaven or hell, or if I pi$$ed god off, or if one day I will give in to the devil's temptations; I do what I think is best for me and what I think will make me happy. When that stops working for me, maybe I'll look toward religion, but don't hold your breath...

Don't apologize about asking questions about atheism and our opinions; many people are misinformed about atheists and hopefully anyone reading this thread will learn we are not evil, we are not devil worshippers (I never got that one), we are not horrible people out to corrupt society and bring down religion. We're just people. Most people would probably never be able to pick out an atheist, in fact. If you heard a breakdown of my day to day life, you'd never be able to tell me apart from your average Christian.

[startover22]

I just want to say that before I got on this site, I THOUGHT all people who didn't believe in GOD are just scared of following rules. I know this NOT TO BE TRUE! It has been a great honor knowing and listening to ALL of you. Thanks, Start

[ordinaryguy]

Capuchin--My earlier question to you seems to have kind of got lost in the Bible babble, but I really would like to know whether you think there are any inherent limits to the application of the scientific method.

Need Karma? TKRussell? Speedball? Anybody?

[Capuchin]

Eeee, I must have missed that.

I don't see any limit to the application of the scientific method, except maybe to societal things such as politics and morals.

I think that our brains and how they have evolved have perhaps made some aspects of the physical world, like quantum mechanics or relativity, difficult to grasp - maybe some aspects may be ungraspable until we find a way to supercede that. (Technologically? Evolutionarily?)
There also may be a physical limit to what we can do, like faster than light travel, which may prevent us from ever seeing or exploring the whole of the universe. Perhaps some limit on information stability will prevent us from gathering evidence from anything smaller than a certain scale. I don't know.

But certainly things like the brain, feelings and so on, unless they do in fact behave on this smaller scale, I see no problems to understanding. In other words I don't think that there's any limit imposed due to something being "inherently unphysical". I don't believe there can be such a thing.