My pleasure:)
|
My pleasure:)
Ok; I don't understand... how can you say this:
And then mountainman (who agrees with you it seems) says this:Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
And then BMI says this:Quote:
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
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...Quote:
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.....
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.
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.
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.
So what you say and what you mean are two totally different things. Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
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.
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!
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)
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.
You don't follow the bible literally, but you interpret it and follow that interpretation to a T, right?
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.
Right as rain!
Thank-you
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:)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
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.
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! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
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.
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
Need Karma? TKRussell? Speedball? Anybody?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.
Hey! There you are, monkey man (is that a proper translation of you nomme-de-net?). Anyway, thanks for replying, because I find this fascinating. Let me say upfront that I think we will agree that the ultimate frontiers of what can be done with the scientific method are very far beyond the state of today's knowledge, so we're in no danger of running out of interesting things to do with it.
Yes, it seems to me that some fairly fundamental limits arise due to what might be called the "scale" of human life and consciousness, in both time and space. With respect to time, taking a purely information theoretical approach, if our "sampling interval" is short (the time we are able to spend observing a "signal"--any time-varying process--compared to the period of the signal, we will be inherently ignorant of any information content the signal may contain. The most we can say is that if the signal contains information, we have no way to know it. At the other extreme of frequency, if our sampling interval is long compared to the period of the signal, all we can ever know is a statistical average of the signal's valueQuote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
With respect to space, we are similarly stuck at our subjective middle of the spectrum of size. Both the exceedingly small (sub-atomic) and the exceedingly large (extra-cosmic) present huge barriers to access by the human mind.
"unless they do infact behave on this smaller scale"Quote:
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.
Maybe I misunderstand your comment, but since the atoms and molecules involved in brain chemistry and physics are presumably constructed of elementary sub-atomic particles, how could they NOT "behave on this smaller scale"? What do you mean by "behave"?
What do you mean by "inherently unphysical"? You don't believe in non-baryonic matter?Quote:
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.
The Case For Non-Baryonic Matter
The University of Chicago Magazine: April 2002, Features
Dark Matter – One Mystery Solved (Update)
The two questions you bring up, I can see why you are confused.
By "on this smaller scale" I mean that an inherent property is due to the physics at this unobtainable scale. For example the brain is generally assumed to work on the macromolecular scale, that is that all functions can be explained by "crude" macromolecular physics. I believe Penrose (it might not be Penrose) holds a belief that the brain may well work at the quantummechanical scale, that is it has inherent qualities due to effects described by quantum mechanical theory and not described by macromolecular physics. Of course, the macromolecular model is just cruder than the quantummechanical, but quantum mechanics provides the first layer of "ungraspability". By "unless they do infact behave on this smaller scale", I mean if the crudeness of quantum mechanics is insufficient to describe it, and the smaller, ungraspable scale is the only way of understanding some of the functions of the brain.
Does that make sense? I realise that it's still a rather cloudy statement.
As for inherently unphysical I was referring to the idea of soul that a few people put forward in this thread. Undeniably we each have the impression of a soul, something not tied to electric pulses and rushing chemicals. However the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that that's exactly what it is. It's a delightful illusion that evolution has built for us. I believe that other creatures may have the same core of feelings and thoughts, but maybe we are the only ones intelligent enough to ponder upon it.
I fear that what I say next may not make sense (it's coming into my mind right now as I type), so let me know what you think:
I suppose, in my mind, the physical is the only thing able to act on the physical, and the physical is all that there is. Therefore the physical is the only thing which is measurable. Something which we claim is unphysical (the soul, god), must either be measurable and therefore actually physical (the soul, through chemicals and electrical pulses, through the raise in heartrate when you think of someone you love), or unmeasurable and therefore unphysical, and non-existant (God).
I know that anyone who is theistic will tell me that God doesn't need to apply to my rules of physicality, and that he can act on whatever the hell he wants. This is just how my monkey-brain interprets the world.
You raise a very good point as far as the physical, we can perceive and the non-physical, that we cannot. I think ancient mans need to fill in the blanks of his knowledge, has led many to take one side or another in the interest of satisfying his ignorance of facts, because of the very human need to be comfortable with his surroundings, but as we humans do there will always be those whose perspectives leaves them outside the box, or not in step with mainstream thinking. I think as modern man learns more of himself and the way he feels and sees, this physical world our attitudes and behavior will change to reflect that new knowledge. Having said that, I can certainly see why, an atheist can not be convinced in the idea of God, and all the traditions and trapments of those that do, put on the concept of an unseen superior being.
I took a course in Modern Physics about 40 years ago in which the rudiments of relativity and quantum mechanics were introduced. About the only thing I remember clearly from it was the professor's comments to the effect that scientific models are not, and should not be thought of as descriptions of the way things actually are. Instead they are "thought experiments" that ask the question "What should we expect to observe and measure if the phenomenon we wish to study behaved as if our (intentionally over-simplified) model was approximately correct?" This leads to experimental results that are either consistent with our expectations, in which case we gain confidence that the simplified model is "good enough", or not, in which case, we go back and tinker with it (reduce its approximations and add to its complexities) to make it more consistent with what we observe. In other words, the scientific quest is not really designed or expected to lead to complete and perfect knowledge, but only to push back the boundaries of our ignorance a little bit further. This is a considerably more modest undertaking, and even the most robust model will be found to fall short when pushed far enough beyond it's founding assumptions and approximations. If both scientists and lay people understood and remembered this in their conversations, we'd have a lot fewer arguments, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
From what I can tell, current models of how electro-chemical brain function is related to self-conscious awareness, thought and feeling are crude indeed. Whether the macro-molecular scale approximation is "good enough" or whether quantum mechanical processes have to be introduced, is still an open question as far as I know.
If this "impression of a soul" is something "evolution has built for us", might we need to be a little bit careful about trashing it intellectually before we really understand its purpose and function? Or do you think it's clearly outlived its usefulness and can be safely dispensed with?Quote:
As for inherently unphysical I was referring to the idea of soul that a few people put forward in this thread. Undeniably we each have the impression of a soul, something not tied to electric pulses and rushing chemicals. However the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that that's exactly what it is. It's a delightful illusion that evolution has built for us. I believe that other creatures may have the same core of feelings and thoughts, but maybe we are the only ones intelligent enough to ponder upon it.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "physical". Is energy stored and transmitted in an electromagnetic field "physical"? Are massless subatomic particles "physical"? Are thoughts "physical"? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then isn't it kind of a tautology to say that "the physical is the only thing able to act on the physical"?Quote:
I fear that what I say next may not make sense (it's coming into my mind right now as I type), so let me know what you think:
I suppose, in my mind, the physical is the only thing able to act on the physical, and the physical is all that there is. Therefore the physical is the only thing which is measurable. Something which we claim is unphysical (the soul, god), must either be measurable and therefore actually physical (the soul, through chemicals and electrical pulses, through the raise in heartrate when you think of someone you love), or unmeasurable and therefore unphysical, and non-existant (God).
To me, it's always seemed just silly to think that God breaks his own rules just to test our faith, as for example, the argument that he actually made the earth six thousand years ago, but intentionally made it appear to be 3.5 billion years old just to see how we'd react. I just can't feel the necessary awe and reverence for a God who would engage in such trickery.Quote:
I know that anyone who is theistic will tell me that God doesn't need to apply to my rules of physicality, and that he can act on whatever the hell he wants. This is just how my monkey-brain interprets the world.
Islam Tomorrow .com
Where in this whole lengthy arguement(all the above very interesting posts) does this article fit.
Please comment?Thanks
From the link you cite,Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
Well, no, it doesn't actually say that. Estimates of the earth's age based (in some sense) on the Bible depend on at least two key assumptions--that the "generations of Adam" listed in the Bible are complete and unabridged, and that the length of each generation is known "close enough"--plus some calculations (count, multiply, sum). Based on such assumptions and calculations, some Christians are willing to infer that the earth (and every bit of the material, and all the life forms in and on it) is less than 10,000 years old, but the Bible doesn't actually say it in so many words.Quote:
"The Christian Bible says that Adam & Eve were both created here on Earth, less than 10,000 years ago."
But the point of the article seems to be that the Quran gives a little more wiggle room in that it allows for interpretations that can accommodate a much longer history of the planet and the life forms that have arisen on it. If that's so, then I say "Great!". I can only hope that the fundamentalist Bible beaters will eventually see the wisdom in that approach and follow suit. But I'm not holding my breath.
Just for information sake,Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
The Quran has not been changed to suit human needs, it has been the same from the time it was revealed till now.
So the passages quoted when read in Arabic has been the same since 1400 or so years ago.
I had someone say to me one time that "There is no such thing as a true Atheist. They are Agnostic". In other words, they just have not giving it enough thought to provoke an interest in religion. Think of it this way, if you were in the plane on 9/11, I would believe you would be praying to someone before you hit the tower. Its easy to say until you are hit with a tramatic experience.
a) Some of us never experiencwe traumatic experiences.
b) How can you predict what a person will do?
Also:
"hey just have not giving it enough thought to provoke an interest in religion"
When actually they give no thought and are quite happy.
First of all... time is the only thing you need on this earth to acquire a traumatic experience whether it be in yours or someone else's close to you. Second, how can you possibly predict. The only comment I have is that we (People) are all made from the same mold, and when people are faced with hard times, they will pray whether they believe or not. Human Being = Hypocrites. I am no exception to this rule. Also, how do you know they are truly happy? Everyone hides their true feelings. Everyone puts on a face...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Disagree. Perhaps what you call a trauma I call something one has to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
Nah, not true. Prayer does not lead to any solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
I guess you plain have a problem with people, I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
Put it this way: if there were no religion then there would be no suicide bombers and 9/11 never would have happened since there is no 'better' afterlife or '72 virgins' waiting for you. This is your life, make the best of it, I am.
You have a right to your opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If this is offered as a statement of religious faith, I accept it as such. If you also intend it as a statement of fact, there is no way tell whether it's true. Considering the bitter conflicts that broke out among his followers after the Prophet's death that continue to this day, it seems highly unlikely to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
The Writing of the Qur'an
As for the Qur'an. There has never been any doubt about its authenticity. So many people memorised it by heart and there was from the time of Muhammad a great deal of written material which contained the text of the Qur'an. In all the history of the Qur'an, since Uthman commissioned written copies in the form of Books, there has been one, and only one Qur'an and there have been no changes in it. It is accepted by all Muslims as the exact word of God.
One of the effects of the Qur'an is that huge efforts were also made to preserve the meanings of the Arabic language so that the sources of Islamic law would not get lost through the evolution of the language. This has meant that the classical Arabic can be studied today and modern Arabic is very close indeed to its classical ancestor. The extent to which the Arabic language has remained unchanged for 1400 years show just how significant the source texts of Islam were to the early Muslim generations. These all contribute to proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Qur'an is the same Qur'an that was revealed to Muhammad and that the accounts of his life and his saying are generally very well authenticated and reliable - to an extent probably unlike the accounts of any other character in history.
People bent on denying Islam sometimes try to make challenges to this account of events. However, to do so basically means believing that most if not all the Muslims around throughout the history of Islam were liars - is this reasonable?
----------------------------------
Please click link to read the rest of the article.
This is for information sake... but I am open to any questions you may have.
Mistakes in retelling a story over time is not considered lying by the people doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
True believers of course will insist that Allah would not allow mistakes to be made in the copying and retelling. This is why assertions of textual purity are statements of a person's religious faith, rather than historical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Such a belief by religious folks serves to channel and direct their spiritual quest in much the same way that a theoretical model serves to inform scientific inquiry. In either case, it is a willing choice to proceed as if the model were correct, or as if the Scripture were inspired verbatim. The difference arises when the "experimental (or experiential) evidence" is at odds with the model's prediction. The scientist tinkers with the model to make it consistent with the evidence, but the believer tends to reject the evidence rather than change his interpretation of Scripture. It took hundreds of years to adjust Biblical interpretations to accommodate the discoveries of Galileo (helio-centric vs. geo-centric solar system), and it will probably take hundreds more to integrate the discoveries of Darwin, Einstein and Bohr. No need to hurry, I guess.
Atheists I believe tend to follow occam's razor when explaining books like the Qur'an. We know that the book was actually put to paper by a person, it didn't come from the sky fully written on paper that didn't come from earth. Is it more likely that the book was written by a man on his own like the millions of other books on earth or that the book was dictated by god and man only put down god's words. An atheists says the simplest answer is that the Qur'an like every other book was the work of man.
The Quran is not inconsistent with science, the scientists are already seeing this(I did not use the word "believe") as they move further along in their scientific quests.
Some examples are in embryology, Big Bang theory etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I haven't read the entire thread.
If everything is a "work of man," whether the Bible , Torah, Koran etc..
Do atheists not believe anything they can't prove themselves?
For example, if you have never left Kansas [ not to pick on those fine folks ], do you believe that there is no ocean because you yourself have never seen or touched the ocean?
This despite books and other people telling you there are oceans.
Isn't the written word more reliable than oral tradition?
It is amazing to me that people discount "religious" texts yet believe every word that Limbaugh utters or the New York Times prints or what they read on some blog.
Grace and Peace
There is such a thing as being selective in what you believe.
Believing the New York Times is a little different than believing The National Enquirer.
Put religious texts in there any place you like.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:33 AM. |