God of War
And see how many emotions my posts caused to you? You pretty much proved my point.
Also, from scientific point of view, to reject a claim you need an evidence is it false.
I don't see how any of my responses could be dismissed as "emotional." You clearly equated atheism to a religion, and misrepresented it as an irrational quest to disprove God. These claims were clearly wrong, and so I called you out as being misinformed about what atheism actually is. If you take every disagreement as an "emotional" tirade, and every time your views are challenged as a personal attack, no wonder you don't think anyone should discuss these matters.
As I stated earlier, atheism is not making any actual claims of its own. It does not have a belief system, it has no list of rules for how to act, and it has no morality. Atheism is only
the rejection of the claim "There is a God." Atheism is not trying to prove that there is no God, because the concept is so nebulous, ill-defined, and unfalsifiable that it's practically impossible to present any evidence a theist will accept.
I don't need one scrap of evidence to reject a God claim. All I need to do is to judge that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. Note, again, that this is not saying that there is no God. It's just saying that a belief in God is unfounded, based on faulty evidence, or otherwise held for bad reasons, and therefore I do not share your belief.
Theists often cling to this idea that God exists in a different plane somehow, and that science can't even touch the subject because God is intangible, invisible, non-physical, infinite, or any number of other ridiculous qualities that makes him completely undetectable by anyone, ever. Well, congratulations, you've just defined God as completely indistinguishable from nothing -- how is it any different from saying God doesn't exist? Unless you can indicate some way that God can
be detected, then how the heck do you
know about him?
God of War
I follow Catholicism, but I disagree with most of things written in book of Genesis which I see as an metaphor. I'm catholic only because I like Christ's philosophy.
As Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience
one pointed out: Take a green highlighter, and highlight in green all the passages in the Bible that are factually true. Highlight in red the passages which are just a metaphor, and in yellow the ones you aren't sure about. Now explain the method you used to arrive at that distinction
I don't recall any point in the Bible where God said "Hey, everybody! Half of my sacred word in this book didn't really happen, it was just a metaphor."
You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you like, which parts are moral, and which parts are so unbelievable or morally repugnant that you'd rather not pay any attention to them. If it's all the word of God, what right do you have to reject any of it?
Okay, so the book of Genesis is a metaphor? So God did not really create the universe, or the planet Earth? God didn't create all animals and plants, or breathe life into the first human beings? God didn't create Adam and Eve, and the whole incident in the Garden of Eden didn't actually happen? So that would mean that the concept of original sin is just a metaphor, right? That would also suggest that Jesus was eventually sacrificed for no reason whatsoever, and saved us all from nothing, right? You take out one link in the chain, and the whole thing falls apart. Theres no way to rationalize your way out of it without coming up with your own excuses or resorting to pure imagination and speculation.
God of War
You know what? I'm not skilled enough to discuss such things. I'm gonna back out from the discussion, if you don't mind.
That's totally fine, I appreciate your humility in that sense. But please know that we're not personally attacking you. I hope you don't take this experience as affirmation that these issues should be talked about openly.
Also, you can't just dismiss my points as "emotional," declare that I've somehow proven your point for you, and expect that to be the last word. I've responded accordingly, but if you want that to be that, it's your prerogative.
There's nothing wrong with talking about how to behave. However, I think that if you talk more on "WHAT IS" (nature of reality, take into account UFOs, demons, etc.), that provides a deeper understanding as to why you must behave the right way.
I agree completely. A lot of Catholics, for example, haven't even read the Bible. When they're told about these passages where it is commanded that gays and unruly children be stoned, or that the Bible endorses human slavery, or about stories of drunken incest and mass murders, they dismiss it as atheist propaganda and don't even bother to look into it for themselves.
Most people take their morality from only a very small fragment of their religious texts, and that fragment is just repeated over and over until it's assumed that it represents the whole. But if a God is the only one who can judge what is moral and immoral, then by what method could a human start to pick out what parts of the Bible are good, and which aren't? Wow, almost as if human beings can think for themselves, and have some understanding of morality, even when it is in direct conflict with the word of their God.