atheism and theism are both sane

Originally posted by amannion
No probs.
That's the nature of science - it changes. No one disputes that. Which is what makes it pretty significantly different from religion, don't you think?

I don't know if that is true...religion changes as well, albeit more slowly.

Both are based on "beliefs" that are in vogue at the time and are often later proven incorrect.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mean to attack science, merely to point out that atheism is based on a fallible belief system. (Much like Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, Islam, and Satanism.)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Christ never said that we were to "know that God exists" just that we would know Him and know Him intimately. I can see the sanity of trying to philosophise about God to "figure it out" but I also see the sanity in trying to seek and get to know God as an alternative way.

For me the key was the realisation that even if I got to the point where I knew ...[text shortened]... I didn't actually get to know him personally. My "knowledge " would still be incomplete.[/b]

That almost makes it sound as if it's possible to know Christ without having any awareness of him as God - that is, your relationship with him can be personal and intimate regardless of whether you believe he is God or that he's almighty. That's what it would mean to know Him without necessarily knowing that "God" exists.

That would mean it's possible to be a Christian atheist - that is, that you can have a personal realationship with Jesus, recognize his values and his teachings, but still not believe in God. Right?

Originally posted by darthmix

That would mean it's possible to be a Christian atheist - that is, that you can have a personal realationship with Jesus, recognize his values and his teachings, but still not believe in God. Right?

Seems self-evident to me that you could admire the teachings of Jesus without believing in God.

Sure, but until now I never imagined that simply admiring the teachings of Jesus would classify me as a Christian. I always assumed that in order to be a Christian you had to accept certain dogmatic claims - specifically that he is/was God, the supreme being given flesh.

But the OP makes it sound like being a Christian is not a matter of belief at all, but merely a question of who you know. You may not know that there's a god, but you can "know Jesus" on a personal level, as a friend and companion. As if it's possible to have that relationship without it answering the questions you or anyone else might have about God; you can know Jesus and be saved while remaining an agnostic or even an atheist..

Just seems like an odd way of looking at it.

Originally posted by darthmix
Sure, but until now I never imagined that simply admiring the teachings of Jesus would classify me as a Christian. I always assumed that in order to be a Christian you had to accept certain dogmatic claims - specifically that he is/was God, the supreme being given flesh.

But the OP makes it sound like being a Christian is not a matter of belief at all, b ...[text shortened]... e remaining an agnostic or even an atheist..

Just seems like an odd way of looking at it.

What is OP?

Original Post. The first post in the thread. Sorry.

EDIT: Can sometimes also mean Original Poster, or the person who started the thread.

Originally posted by darthmix
Original Post. The first post in the thread. Sorry.

EDIT: Can sometimes also mean Original Poster, or the person who started the thread.

Thank you.

Regarding the original poster, I like what he has to say on the grounds that it appears to allow for differences in opinion regarding the nature and substance of God.

I don't entirely know what he is trying to say, but if it is that God may exist in ways that are beyond our comprehension and that works are more important than dogma, I would have to agree with that. (Although, I am certain many mainstream religions would see that as heresy.)

It just seems to me like an acknowledgment that deists and religious folks know they don't have a position that can withstand rigorous critical examination, and since they don't have that, they must claim to have something else as a substitute - in this case, a personal relationship with Jesus which supposedly renders all critical questions irrelevant.

Originally posted by darthmix
It just seems to me like an acknowledgment that deists and religious folks know they don't have a position that can withstand rigorous critical examination, and since they don't have that, they must claim to have something else as a substitute - in this case, a personal relationship with Jesus which supposedly renders all critical questions irrelevant.

Maybe, but is the position of atheists on any firmer ground?

Not really. But atheism doesn't include a mandate to go out and make converts, so atheists don't often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to convince others of a claim they can't even prove to themselves.

EDIT: Speaking purely in terms of deism and atheism, in the abstract, neither is more provable than the other given the evidence. But as soon as you start talking about a specific religion - as soon as you start relying on specific claims, like, say, biblical innerancy - your ground becomes progressively shakier, because you're depending on claims that could be shown to be wrong.

Originally posted by darthmix
Not really. But atheism doesn't include a mandate to go out and make converts, so atheists don't often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to convince others of a claim they can't even prove to themselves.

But all around me I see atheists preaching their dogma and seeking to proselytize. they are as bad as the jehovah's witnesses.

The thing I find most offensive in many organized religions is the sanctimonious certainty that their beliefs are correct and all others incorrect....same with many of the atheists on this forum.

Originally posted by Red Night
But all around me I see atheists preaching their dogma and seeking to proselytize. they are as bad as the jehovah's witnesses.

Hey, I know some jehovah's witnesses who are perfectly nice people.

Speaking as an atheist, I think what you mostly see from us is a reaction to an uppity religious movement that's actively trying to assert its own beliefs into our personal lives. When religious organizations try to force their dogma into public-school science classes where it clearly doesn't belong, or when they campaign to deny gay couples equal rights under the law, or when they try to enforce their beliefs on the bodies of women who don't belong to their religion we get really, really annoyed. Here in the US the Christian Right is involved in a decades-long campaign to control our national politics and force its way into our private lives, and they're meeting with strong reaction because people fundamentally hate it when religious groups do that.

As an atheist I feel I'm in a pretty comfortable position to live and let live, since it's clear to me from experience that people who disagree with me - who believe in God and follow a religion - can lead fulfilling and rewarding lives. I'm not burdened with the responsibility of saving their souls, and so I'm able to respect their position even if it happens to differ from mine. What I do not respect is their attempt to inflict their religious faith on me or on others.

I don't make excuses for atheists who behave like pricks on message boards, and they're out there, but I do think atheist proselytizing is mostly a reaction to religious proselytizing.

Originally posted by darthmix
Hey, I know some jehovah's witnesses who are perfectly nice people.

Speaking as an atheist, I think what you mostly see from us is a reaction to an uppity religious movement that's actively trying to assert its own beliefs into our personal lives. When religious organizations try to force their dogma into public-school science classes where it clearly do ...[text shortened]... but I do think atheist proselytizing is mostly a reaction to religious proselytizing.

Well, I certainly respect your logical and courteous debate. I agree with you on the attempt by the fundamental right to force some of it's beliefs into american politics.

I was probably reacting to the proselytizing that I see on THIS message board.

I find the righteous certainty on both sides offensive.

Originally posted by Red Night
Maybe, but is the position of atheists on any firmer ground?

On matters of conduct; maybe not. On matters of belief; yes. Good (to use the term loosely) atheism is built on evidence (or the lack thereof) and a desire to eradicate inconsistency and hypocrisy of reason in regards to god(s). However even atheists are human, we all get angry, boastful and pretentious from time to time. Whilst it might seem like some atheists act as bad as some theists you should really try to separate that from the implications of their respective belief structures.

Originally posted by Starrman
On matters of conduct; maybe not. On matters of belief; yes. Good (to use the term loosely) atheism is built on evidence (or the lack thereof) and a desire to eradicate inconsistency and hypocrisy of reason in regards to god(s). However even atheists are human, we all get angry, boastful and pretentious from time to time. Whilst it might seem like some ...[text shortened]... should really try to separate that from the implications of their respective belief structures.

"the lack thereof" wouldn't that position make someone an agnostic?

To be an atheist is to "believe" god doesn't exist. It is not the lack of a belief, but a strong belief.

For me it seems more logical to accept the notion that all of these believers (Christians, Mormons, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Scientologists, Satanists, etc.) have incorrectly identified the nature of god. They can't all be right so we are left with a choice either one is right or all or wrong.