s23021536: (JUMPS UP AND DOWN) Oi I have a question:

It seems to me that there are a fair number of atheists, or at least irreligious, people on the forum. Now, of course it depends on where you are in the world, but I think it is perhaps rather likely (or not very unlikely) that you might form part of a minority in your extended circle of friends and family. So my question is this: How do you your religious family members and friends feel about your absence of faith and having you around? Do they know? Are you a closeted atheist as it were? I wouldn't blame anyone if they were. I once read a study (forgot the name: something along the line of "Do you trust in atheists?") in which the study presented evidence towards the statement that atheists are the least trusted group in America, and I don't think it is restricted to America. Its not an absolutely damning study though : the sample sizes were quite small - most studies were with groups of 150ish people.

TrollumThinks: It's funny - I have the same problem with (vocally opposing) atheists taking the books at face value. Worse, it's an English translation of the books with no regard for the original languages and cultures in which they were written. Thus they wrongly imply nuances of language and when that doesn't work, they just take it all literally.

Telika: Haven't answered that. But no, no problem with believers friends, family, or others. Actually I have more often tension with atheists on crusade than with believers. And when I argued aggressively with believers it was about political stances (backed by their beliefs, but this is arbitrary, as other believers back the opposite stance with their beliefs).

So. I've had cool discussion with priests (one who 'gets' atheism and its implication better than most atheists I know), with Christian friends (a long discussion on god that ended with me giving him arguments for god existence and him arguing against the existence of god - such swap in conversation demands a bit of mutual trust and ease, I suppose), and with most people it's not even a subject of discussion, past a couple of sentences we've said it all and ceased to care about it.

I know believers, I know no religious nuts, or litteral bible readers, and have no ultraconservatives amongst my friends. Most people around me, or in my circles, are atheists, some of them very self-satisfied, intolerant and hateful. If I was religious, I suppose i'd have access to their religious counterparts.

All in all, this is Switzerland. A secular society. No religion war here. But, again, not much creationism either.

TrollumThinks: It's funny - I have the same problem with (vocally opposing) atheists taking the books at face value. Worse, it's an English translation of the books with no regard for the original languages and cultures in which they were written. Thus they wrongly imply nuances of language and when that doesn't work, they just take it all literally.

TrollumThinks: condemning the sin is encouraged, condemning the sinner is not.
Christians are supposed to be kind to sinners and show them a better way...not make them feel like crap.

Soyeong: It's perfectly rational to be skeptical of whether Jesus performed miracles, but you don't have to take your skepticism to the level where you refuse to try objectively examine any historical evidence even related to Jesus. A common line among people who think Jesus was a myth is to compare him to other gods, such as Horus, and say that Horus was born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, and had all of these other traits in common, so Jesus was copied. The problem is that if you actually look at what an ancient historian, such as Plutarch, has to say about Horus, it nothing in common with these lists of so-called similarities. The problem is they just unquestioningly accept anything that supports their views and don't bother to take history seriously.

Don't just claim Tacitus could be faked, therefore he's faked. The general consensus among both Christian and non-Christian historians is that Tacitus is authentic, so don't just dismiss him to blindly hold on to your beliefs. If you think Tacitus was altered, then show evidence for that. It's not enough to think Jesus was a myth, you need to show how it's even plausible for Christianity to have taken off within its historical environment if that were the case. Going by the historical evidence, I think it would been next to impossible for Christianity to have survived its inception if Jesus had not risen from the dead, so the idea that Christianity survived its inception while being based on someone who didn't exist is just really absurd.

There is a mountain of historical evidence for the events in the Bible, and no historical evidence around the tooth fairy, so anyone who has studied the history shouldn't find it difficult to figure out why Christians believe in God, but don't believe in the the tooth fairy. Soyeong: Nothing is wrong with that, but you should also believe what is supported by history. Soyeong: Your welcome to do that, but I'd advise looking at what expert histories have to say before drawing any conclusions. Soyeong: Of course, but that does not mean we should assume a priori that they are. Soyeong: The genre of the Gospels is historiography. Lots of people today enjoy writing fiction, but that doesn't tell us about whether 1st century Palestinian Jews enjoyed writing fiction. For that, you'd have to look at other works that were written at the time. Furthermore, if they were writing a work of fiction, then there would have been a lot of things they could have easily done differently that would have made it a lot easier to find converts, starting with not have the central figure die a humiliating death generally reserved for criminals.
Soyeong: It true for any beliefs in general. You don't randomly have beliefs pop into your head uncaused, and neither does anyone else.

jamotide: snip...

tinyE: All of a sudden I'm not a big Thundercats fan. :P

DrYaboll: ... snip

jamotide: So what is your point, knowledge is irrelevant? Are we going epistomological now?

FAButzke: Hey, you are the one ignoring parts and responding only what suits you.

FAButzke: And also, you are the one mocking people so your own question apply to yourself: did some believer touch you in a funny place?

FAButzke: And yep, you are in denial, I already told you of what, so your question is redundant and stupid.

FAButzke: And the funny thing is that you talk about the real world as if you were living in it, the truth that you don't want to face is that you are living a lie. Fanatism is always funny, man.

FAButzke: You are a jewel. =D

monkeydelarge: You do know that history is always rewritten by people in power? Do I seriously need to show you proof of this?

jamotide: Snip...

Soyeong: Your historical illiteracy is really quite sad. We might as well just throw out all of history because we can't know anything about it. Do you want to be the fist to break the news to professional historians or should I?

monkeydelarge: Yes, we should throw all history out of the window unless it is backed up by real evidence. The kind of real evidence archaeologists deal with all the time. Not just, some guy said this, possibly.

FAButzke: I didn't even bother to read your entire post because you clearly didn't read mine so your entire post was constructed based on misinformation. Neither did I say I don't believe in science nor I said I was a religious person. Try again. This time, read my very first post. Here I'll link it to you:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/a_message_to_atheists_and_agnostics_i_get_you/post1249

DrYaboll: You're right, however, that it cant be treated as the absolute truth, after all the big bang theory is nothing but...a theory. It cant really be verified directly, same as a lot of other stuff.

Their arguments however are definitely more compelling than what the theists state, and discarding it doesnt make sense, unless, of course, you're a scientist yourself and you have a better theory.