Does Atheism Inherently Endorse Nihilism?

[Apostle13]

Chose to believe that god "breathed" every word in the bible. yet seemingly catholics, mormans, evangelicals, southern baptists all have varied interpretations of the "holy word" which then greatly vary "the word" - sounds like blasphemy.

Also citing another poster is hardly a validation. Your belief is your belief, but it is not fact.
The fact is that the bible was written by man, not god. It was also later edited by man again, not god; and today it is interpreted by man and again, not god - everything else is moot.
You choose to be atheist towards the Pagan gods, the Olympic gods, the Egyptian gods yet be superstitious about the christian god - those are the simple facts.

Your presumptions as to what and how I believe are of the mark in many aspects, exaggerated in others. You cannot accurately portrait that which I believe, or anyone else under any which doctrine save that of your own. I purpose here understanding over validation by providing accurate Christian perspectives, as well as reasoning as to why we believe/what we believe. Even so... I could not muster enough arrogance to even begin to claim I speak for all of Christendom.
The bible was written by men for men. These said authors/editors/translators would have been chosen by God, ordained of God, inspired by God. If the bible is God's word and one part a lie... God would then be a liar... But I tell you He is not! If I post a scripture or two to promote said understanding hostility rises within you... Deny it though you must... I know differently.
The truth of God's word while it may rejected it can never be discounted. Often there is found truth in a lie. Never there is found a lie in the truth. Ponder that!

 

[1069]

If the bible is God's word and one part a lie... God would then be a liar... But I tell you He is not!

Well, it's undeniable that the Bible contains a number of contradictions.
How do you reconcile this fact with the belief that the Bible is the word of God?
Is it possible that the men who wrote it made errors while transcribing God's word?
Or did the errors come about later, in one of the various translations?
And if so, why doesn't God take some action to fix them?
Surely he doesn't want his word misrepresented, especially when the Bible is the only objective and concrete guide his followers have when it comes to determining his Will.
And when two scriptures are in conflict, how do you determine which is the "true" word of God?

PS this is not mean in a hostile way. I'm just curious. I appreciate the respectful way you debate.

 

[Apostle13]

Well, it's undeniable that the Bible contains a number of contradictions.
How do you reconcile this fact with the belief that the Bible is the word of God?
Is it possible that the men who wrote it made errors while transcribing God's word?
Or did the errors come about later, in one of the various translations?
And when two scriptures are in conflict, how do you determine which is the "true" word of God?

PS this is not mean in a hostile way. I'm just curious. I appreciate the respectful way you debate.

This undeniability is found not in context of a true believer... So first consider the many who only claim to be Christian as part the equation... These are they that compromise or else deny portions and part of the written word usually for the sake of self serving conveniences in order to fashion a way to excuse their own sin(s)... (You have proved to me intellect so I'll trust you follow) These are them that are not.
Now we've narrowed the gap immensely... Some scholars would define it to a tenth part. This is the biblical equivalent to a remnant spoken of throughout the bible. A confirmation lies within me.
The born again experience is discredited by the non believing as just some emotional phenomenon... To us that have experienced this it goes far and beyond. In essence it is a transforming of who you are. Some part immediate... Some gradual. The later is often referred to as a renewing of the mind... Outsiders will discredit it again as a brainwashing. In either case, accurate.
Many times before my own experience I tried to read the bible but was often stumped by a lack of understaning... Like you I found what I perceived as contradictions, or else just assumed they were there because someone told me they were. At this time I never fully understood the nature of God.
Being born again aka saved changed all of that... This word came alive and the truth therein profound. I can find no contradictions as others (believers)will attest to this.
This argument is generated/perpetuated among the nons.

 

[Felicity]

As for myself, it's complicated. I was raised Christian, and generally attended Catholic Church, although I've never considered myself Catholic for doctrinal reasons. To this day if asked I tell most people I'm an Anglican, but the reality is that I'm much more of an agnostic, one who frequently flirts with atheism. Those flirts, of course, lead to bouts of nihilism, from which I am recovering.

Interesting. Off topic though it is...What Catholic doctrines give you pause?

Also--I think it was Aquinas (or maybe Augustine--I'm forever mixing up the two) who said something like "a thousand difficulties does not a single doubt make." It's only natural for people to go through such struggles.

 

[Felicity]

One interesting tidbit to tack onto the God gene bit:

There is an inverse relationship between religious belief and IQ.

I don't have the link for this off hand, but I'll look it up tomorrow or something.

I believe a scripture that is appropriate would be: "To whom much is given, much will be expected."

 

[Felicity]

The truth of god is that god was created in man's image to suffice an emptiness left from the ignorance of the unknown.
There's nothing virtuous about blind faith, it's dangerous ignorance.

You have a problem with the idea of predestination -v- free will as evidenced in a few of your posts. What is it exactly that is the issue?--I gather it's something Biblical from the venom you have toward that book.

BTW--that emptiness left by the unknown is relevant in and of itself. Why is there "emptiness"--why do humans experience it as a feeling of the "loss" of something?

 

[tecoyah]

BTW--that emptiness left by the unknown is relevant in and of itself. Why is there "emptiness"--why do humans experience it as a feeling of the "loss" of something?

Likely because Humans have an inate curiousity to known more....thus we have the sciences. As these pools of knowledge have increased, the Areas previously given to God have decreased, Much the way a Human centered universe has been destroyed by Data. There was a time when the Gods controlled everything, we had a god for the weather, the sun, the harvest.....etc.As Humankind began to understand the dynamics of Natural forces, these Gods were no longer needed to explain the way things work, and were abandoned.
Also, there was a time when we thought we were the reason for all of creation. Then we came to realize the Earth is not the center of the universe, and the sun is not the center of creation, and there are multitude other suns/Galaxys/ Galaxy clusters....etc. Mankind was again....relegated to the Mundane. It is likely we will soon recognize extra-terrestrial life, and be further diminished in the Human centered universal mindset.
The point is simply, The actual reasons we made Gods is fading away, with the accumulation of massive scientific knowledge. This seems to me, the main reason the devout avoid an understanding of select Data in the first place (evolution being a fine example), as it does indeed, threaten the final hold the Gods hold on the Human mind....and that might be a bit scary.

 

[Andy]

Interesting. Off topic though it is...What Catholic doctrines give you pause?

Also--I think it was Aquinas (or maybe Augustine--I'm forever mixing up the two) who said something like "a thousand difficulties does not a single doubt make." It's only natural for people to go through such struggles.

My two main problems with the Catholic Church
1. Infallibilty of the Pope as God's sole representative on Earth.

2. Council of Nicea

 

[Felicity]

My two main problems with the Catholic Church
1. Infallibilty of the Pope as God's sole representative on Earth.

Well...from the way you have worded that, it appears you may have a misunderstanding of that doctrine--i.e. What the charism of infallibility actually applies to, and then, the notion of "sole" representative isn't an accurate characterization of the role of the Pope.

2. Council of Nicea

What about it?

 

[Felicity]

(evolution being a fine example), as it does indeed, threaten the final hold the Gods hold on the Human mind....and that might be a bit scary.

How does evolution deny God?


BTW--the way you worship science and the human ability to comprehend the vastness of space and time is quite touching.

 

[ngdawg]

How does evolution deny God?

Firstly, by proving the earth was not formed in a week...

BTW--the way you worship science and the human ability to comprehend the vastness of space and time is quite touching.

Actually, if you understood what was said, it was clearly stated that human ability can NOT totally comprehend the vastness of space and time but seeks out the possibility of some day doing so due to our innate curiosity about the universe we're a part of. Do try to keep up, Dear:mrgreen:

 

[tecoyah]

How does evolution deny God?


BTW--the way you worship science and the human ability to comprehend the vastness of space and time is quite touching.

Actually Felicity, I merely strive to understand science, which is far from worship. For a couple decades I tried to understand God, in his many faces...which inevitably leads to studying science when understood. You might try it sometime, I would recommend Eastern Philosphy in a comparative study of Quantum Mechanics.....truly mind altering.

 

[Felicity]

Actually Felicity, I merely strive to understand science, which is far from worship. For a couple decades I tried to understand God, in his many faces...which inevitably leads to studying science when understood. You might try it sometime, I would recommend Eastern Philosphy in a comparative study of Quantum Mechanics.....truly mind altering.

You blow a lot of hot air tecoyah...but from which orifice, it has yet to be determined.

What makes you assume I haven't a passing knowledge of Eastern Philosophy and/or Quantum Mechanics? Is it because I have drawn different conclusions about the world and reality than you have? What a petty measuring stick you wield. But..you know--in reference to your comparative studies suggestion--since the more you know--the less you really know...I can only conclude your Quantum Mechanics must make you an imbecile.

 

[tecoyah]

You blow a lot of hot air tecoyah...but from which orifice, it has yet to be determined.

What makes you assume I haven't a passing knowledge of Eastern Philosophy and/or Quantum Mechanics? Is it because I have drawn different conclusions about the world and reality than you have? What a petty measuring stick you wield. But..you know--in reference to your comparative studies suggestion--since the more you know--the less you really know...I can only conclude your Quantum Mechanics must make you an imbecile.

Ouch....harsh measure from such an informed study on Humanity.

My intent was definately derogatory in nature....but after reading the excessive attempts to explain the obvious to you, I felt it appropriate. As far as the assumption of your lack of scientific understanding, I would think the implications obvious as well, and you have indeed made this clear in your many posts.
The statement "since the more you know--the less you really know"....quite honestly explains so much as to be a self description of your persona here. It really points out the unfortunate tendency to ignore common knowledge in favor of unfounded opinion. To claim that by attempting to understand quantum physics, one becomes less knowledgable borders on deranged, and degrades any perception of integrity you may have held. It also reaffirms my assumption that you might gain from this comparison.....while also affirming this will never become a reality....you obviously cannot handle the change in reality.

God has a smaller place in science, than you are willing to accept....no loss to me.

 

[Felicity]

Ouch....harsh measure from such an informed study on Humanity.

My intent was definately derogatory in nature....but after reading the excessive attempts to explain the obvious to you, I felt it appropriate. As far as the assumption of your lack of scientific understanding, I would think the implications obvious as well, and you have indeed made this clear in your many posts.
The statement "since the more you know--the less you really know"....quite honestly explains so much as to be a self description of your persona here.

Excellent re-wording of the old "I know you are, but what am I?!" school yard taunt. :sarcasticclap

To claim that by attempting to understand quantum physics, one becomes less knowledgable borders on deranged, and degrades any perception of integrity you may have held.

Must I explain EVERYTHING? Eastern Philosophy often refers back to the great "paradox" of such things as "to be full you must empty" --"the more you strive to learn, the further you are from knowing" ...so I "contrasted" that with the searching the miniscule/ complexity that is Quantum Mechanics and--since you endorsed a comparative study of the two so highly as to call it "truly mind altering" (and in a positive tone)--I must assume you have strived to learn so much that you know nothing.

It's your own assertion, dear tecoyah! I don't know what you should be offended about.

It also reaffirms my assumption that you might gain from this comparison.....while also affirming this will never become a reality....you obviously cannot handle the change in reality.

If it means having my "mind altered" after the fashion of yours....no thank-you--I'll stick with simple "passing knowledge."

 

[jfuh]

Your presumptions as to what and how I believe are of the mark in many aspects, exaggerated in others. You cannot accurately portrait that which I believe, or anyone else under any which doctrine save that of your own. I purpose here understanding over validation by providing accurate Christian perspectives, as well as reasoning as to why we believe/what we believe. Even so... I could not muster enough arrogance to even begin to claim I speak for all of Christendom.

You propose understanding, however arguments are not meant for understanding but for validation. Hence providing the bible as proof or the opinion of another poster does not serve purposeful on this or any other debate site.
If my post contains inaccuracies then feel free and by all means to correct those inaccuracies - that is as long as they are the premise of what I'm arguing on. Everything else is quite moot.

The bible was written by men for men. These said authors/editors/translators would have been chosen by God, ordained of God, inspired by God.

No issue with the first part, but as for the second part, according to whom? If I told you today that god chose me to post what I post on this site and your arguments against it are blasphamous what would be your response? Most likely you'd call me bullshit and disrespectful of your beliefs. So then what if I wrote what I write 2000 years ago would you have a varied concept of it then and take it as literal truth of god?

If the bible is God's word and one part a lie... God would then be a liar... But I tell you He is not!

You would tell me he is not because why? And also why would it be that one part lie would make god a liar? I believe the more rational approach would be that the men who wrote it are liars. Which is why the bible contains soo many contradictions. If an omnipotent and perfect god were to have "written" the bible, should not the bible then be a flawless piece of literature? To which either god is imperfect or men lied.

If I post a scripture or two to promote said understanding hostility rises within you... Deny it though you must... I know differently.

Hostility does not rise within me - I lived through 8 years of catholic school and never took any offense to catholicism.
What I protest against is your argument for the christian faith through the use of christian text as if it were supposed to validate your argument.

The truth of God's word while it may rejected it can never be discounted. Often there is found truth in a lie. Never there is found a lie in the truth. Ponder that!

Of course not, you've accepted it as the truth, never to ponder that the truth which you blindly accept in itself is the lie.
example: Each morning when I wake up an evil scientists puts a mirror in my room so that I always see the sun rising from the west. I don't know any better and can only believe of what I've always known to be true - that being that the sun rises from the west. I'd never think to question it because I only know this to be true. However that doesn't mean that it's absolutely the truth by any means.
Ponder that.

 

[jfuh]

You have a problem with the idea of predestination -v- free will as evidenced in a few of your posts. What is it exactly that is the issue?--I gather it's something Biblical from the venom you have toward that book.

To you it seems I have a "problem" to anyone with an open mind it's clear that I'm putting bringing into question free will.
If you are "predestined" by the almighty that I'm going to type these words today at this exact moment pondering exactly what I'm pondering than regardless of what I do I would not be able to avoid from proceeding in these exact sequence of events. If there is even the least bit of question that I might do either or - then that would be indicative that there's a probability - to which the response is "god does not play with dice" because that would bring into question of god's omnipotence.
So, either god is omnipotent, or there is no free will.

BTW--that emptiness left by the unknown is relevant in and of itself. Why is there "emptiness"--why do humans experience it as a feeling of the "loss" of something?

It's simply called curiosity. some ppl choose as you do to pull a veil over their eyes and follow your religion blindly
Humans do not experience the unknown as a "loss"; simply unknown. Ppl whom look at these unknown with a rational mind than discover that there are perfectly natural explanations - ie ppl used to believe that earthquakes were caused by evil spirits or god very angry. Now we know of plate tectonics.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

You did not answer the question: which conclusion requires more faith?

Since you asked me a direct question: the god one. It requires more faith because, as I said, it doesn't solve the question of complexity, but merely adds another layer -- one that adds the additional complexity of awareness to the already complex universe, and yet has no objective evidence to support it. More complicated, less evidence -- more faith.

 

[jfuh]

Since you asked me a direct question: the god one. It requires more faith because, as I said, it doesn't solve the question of complexity, but merely adds another layer -- one that adds the additional complexity of awareness to the already complex universe, and yet has no objective evidence to support it. More complicated, less evidence -- more faith.

not to mention the fact that it's circular reasoning.

 

[Felicity]

To you it seems I have a "problem" to anyone with an open mind it's clear that I'm putting bringing into question free will.
If you are "predestined" by the almighty that I'm going to type these words today at this exact moment pondering exactly what I'm pondering than regardless of what I do I would not be able to avoid from proceeding in these exact sequence of events. If there is even the least bit of question that I might do either or - then that would be indicative that there's a probability - to which the response is "god does not play with dice" because that would bring into question of god's omnipotence.
So, either god is omnipotent, or there is no free will.

"knowing" something will happen does not "cause" it to happen.

 

[nkgupta80]

"knowing" something will happen does not "cause" it to happen.

actually, the opposite is the problem. If the world runs according to cause and effect relationships, then at an ontological level there really is no such thing as free will. All decision making, desires, and rational thought are just immense chains of cause and effects working in your brain.

Research shows infact, that this is how our brain works.

 

[Felicity]

actually, the opposite is the problem. If the world runs according to cause and effect relationships, then at an ontological level there really is no such thing as free will. All decision making, desires, and rational thought are just immense chains of cause and effects working in your brain.

Research shows infact, that this is how our brain works.

Jfuh's issue is with an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent God and His relationship to the "predestination" of the human "soul."

The problem with "cause and effect" chains is that although we humans are bound by a temporal existence--that is not so for such a God. Hence, God could "know" without "causing" or "effecting" since in the Eternal Now of God's being--cause and effect would exist simultaneously.

 

[Felicity]

Since you asked me a direct question: the god one. It requires more faith because, as I said, it doesn't solve the question of complexity, but merely adds another layer -- one that adds the additional complexity of awareness to the already complex universe, and yet has no objective evidence to support it. More complicated, less evidence -- more faith.

It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
--Douglas Adams

There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.
--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


By the way...It's not complex. The answer is "42." :mrgreen:

 

[tecoyah]

Love this topic:

The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. The Drake Equation is:
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

The real value of the Drake Equation is not in the answer itself, but the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer. Obviously there is a tremendous amount of guess work involved when filling in the variables. As we learn more from astronomy, biology, and other sciences, we'll be able to better estimate the answers to the above questions.

The Link carries an equasion maker....so you can figure it all out for yourself....heh

SETI: The Drake Equation

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Jfuh's issue is with an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent God

Funny, thats my issue too. If the universe is controlled by the laws of physics, I can learn them and act accordingly. But if such a god exists, he could crush me at any moment for my blaspheming. I go on the former assumption, but should the latter be true, he knows where to find me.

(Note: Felicity gets cool points for referencing the Hitchhikers guide.)