superchunk said: Why do you feel threatened by someone's belief in a God? Your reaction to my original statement and your replies to above, exemplify that you have some religious zealot passion towards your belief in atheism. |
What makes you think I feel threatened?
If someone is going to assert something that has no evidence to back it up... Then I am more than allowed to interject and call them out on their baseless assertions.
Atheism isn't a belief either, it's the lack of belief in your position as your position doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
superchunk said: It's rather funny actually as I'm betting the negatives you like to portray about god-based belief systems is exactly the type of interaction you display here. |
Why do you think it's a negative?
I think it is a positive thing to question anything which isn't backed by empirical evidence... Especially as religion tends to try and force it's views upon others, even hateful views. (I.E. The entire Anti-LGBT thing.)
superchunk said: The creation story is vague in Hebrew TaNaKh (actually two distinct versions) and Qur'an and only literal in the variations of modern Bible translations. In the Qur'an specifically, it outlines a scenario that can be interpreted as mirroring the Big Bang Theory. My personal opinion is that I don't look to religious literature for Scientific answers or validation. The point behind these religious texts is to provide parables and guidance to human interaction with life. The zealot need for literal answers to everything from these books is where you have problems because they don't account for the many generations of story re-telling and translation that guarantees loss of context. |
If it can be "interpreted" then it can be "misinterpreted".
These Abrahamic texts are written in such a way as to be as ambiguous as possible in order to avoid scrutiny... And to allow apologetic's to shift the tone in order to fit the current narrative of a debate.
If there is one take away from it all... Is that when an Apologetic sees that a piece of scripture lines up with science... They automatically hail it as truth... But when they see that a part of scripture doesn't align with science... It's shoved away and ignored or claim it's a lie.
They need to stop contradicting themselves, consistency is key.
These books were written by man and can and will be wrong on many things, but each claim needs to be scrutinized on an individual basis.
superchunk said: Flat Earthers ignore blatant proof that celestial objects are in fact spherical naturally when forming from a gaseous or liquid state. Simple zero-G experimentation proves that without a doubt, if you choose to ignore the many centuries of visual data (older written accounts and modern photographic). |
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the amount of Theists who deny Evolutionary Theory and Natural Selection. - There are even some in this thread.
Flat Earthers tend to leverage the Theistic view point to assert their Flat Earth hypothesis.
https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/flat-earth-scriptures/
Religion is part of the problem.
superchunk said: Belief in God does not have blatant proof for or against. It is in fact, not logical or correct to compare the two as you did regardless of what basis some of these people use to define their inaccurate view points. |
So do you believe in Unicorns, Dragons, Elves, Mermaids and the tooth fairy? Because we don't have proof for those either, so they must exist right?
This is why belief in God without evidence is NOT logical... If you are willing to believe in God, but none of the other things I have listed... Then your stance is hypocritical and thus illogical.
superchunk said: I guess you could be right if you are extremely literal, which you are not literal in other replies, such as the flat-earth comparison. However the definitions above (taken from google) should suffice that I am correct in stating Atheism is a belief system on its own. Additionally, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist, means you are choosing to theorize or believe that the lack of evidence equates to non-existence of a god. For instance, there is currently no evidence that life exists outside of Earth, yet, I am certain it does as I'm willing to bet you do too. Interestingly though, there is, arguably, evidence of alien life from older civilizations just as there is for a God. (No, I don't think aliens build the pyramids or any other Earth structures) |
False.
Atheism is a lack of belief because the burden of proof has not been met.
It's not an actual belief.
If you provide evidence for your claims, then I will most certainly no longer be an Atheist.
superchunk said: Is it? Again, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist. Dragons did exist. They were misidentified dinosaur bones where imagination took over as if they were still living (modern example is Loch Ness). |
If you think Dinosaurs that were catastrophically massive and could breathe fire and fly actually existed... Not sure what to tell you.
superchunk said: There are volumes of human history from every civilization to have ever existed wrapped in the divine and spiritual. They have similar guidelines and themes, and even direct stories as well, even if their particular flavor of religious adherence varies. Just because Nordic peoples, Romans, Greeks, Asians, Indians, etc all formed divergent views of spiritual adherence and some were replaced with new interpretations, doesn't mean they were proven false. All it means is that human perception of God has continued to evolve including the belief that there is no god. Its not like Atheism is a solely modern evolution of a belief system as you suggest based on our progress in natural sciences. |
There is a common theme between them all.
All religion came about to try and explain the un-explainable... As science has continued to progress, the un-explainable has become the explained.
We no longer assert that Thor, the God of Thunder exists anymore because we actually have a scientific understanding of thunder and lightning, just like we don't assert that Ra, the sun God exists because we now know that our Sun is a big giant ball of Gas burning in space.
Not to mention some of those religions contradict each other anyway.
There are 4,200 religions in the world... How do you know you picked the right one? Do you have evidence for that choice?
superchunk said: The focus I take is in the commonality of these religious systems throughout history. They all share common bonds as guiding principles for their respective civilizations, even at the expense of other civilizations under the guise of cultural or national protectionism (generally abused doctrine by power-driven individuals). Sure, anyone who's ever stated they interacted with an angel, ghost, spirit, god, etc could be fabrication. But, in every story, there is always some thread of truth. |
That just seems like typical apologetic reasoning.
I don't care if there is truth or not to a story... You need evidence, otherwise there is a chance you can be wrong.
superchunk said: As our technology grows and we are able to learn and study the foundations of existence, we learn many scientific theories are debunked as well. It's all part of growing and evolving our understanding of life. For instance, we know can measure plant reaction and a sense of "knowing" that it is being culled and eaten. How much of life do we still have no understanding due to lack of the right technical solution? |
Of course Scientific Theories are debunked/change/improve, it's a part of the scientific process.
Science isn't rigid like Religion... It can change and adapt as new evidence comes along.
.. And that is the key take away. Evidence.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--