Atheist Teen Gets 49 Year Old Prayer Banner Removed From School: Receives Threats

[Ally]

First of all, the Jewish God and the Christian God are two entirely different beasts. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just different. For the record.

Sorry, disagree. Christianity is judaism with an addendum. They sprang from same root. Just like Islam did. The religions are different branches of the same trunk, but it's all part of the same tree. The god of judaism is the same god that christians worship, christians just view and interpret him differently than judaism does. Christ is not the christian god. Christ is the prophet, and the god he worshiped was the jewish god, the god who enrobed in a meatsuit sent to preach the message of God, but the primary god is still the same. the first five books of the bible are the same as the Torah. They sprang from the same root. Judaism stopped with moses, other jews kept going and spawned islam and christianity. But the god is the same. Christianity and Islam are just late-in-life babies for Yahweh.

And by the by, while I'm perfectly happy to answer as best as I am able about what and why I believe, it seems a bit one sided. I mean, theoretically we are adults who respect each others beliefs (or at least respect that the other believes) even if we don't share them. Why do you believe what you believe? Why not a God? Any God? What do you believe instead? I mean, clearly there are as many holes in scientific theory as there are in theology, how do you reconcile that?

It's only one-sided because up til now, the other sides haven't actually asked us any questions. I am perfectly happy to answer. Simply put, I don't believe in anything that is irrational or cannot be proved. I have studied pretty much every religion (not all in great depth but more than surface) and they all seem to be constructs of man, rather than proof of any "great and powerful" being. I don't really credit believing in an "imaginary" rule deliverer, any more than santa claus or the tooth fairy, I consider them all inventions of paternalistic thought. As for the holes in scientific theory, there are only holes where we haven't found proof and we say "theory" which pretty much indicates "not proven". We don't attempt to equate scientific theory, with universal fact. When something is proved, then it becomes fact. However, you can look at "most" scientific theory that has scads of evidence behind it and realize that it is our current level of technology or removal from the event that is all that is standing in the way of it being fact, therefore, though unproven it is a rational assumption. Which is why I say for me to believe in something, it must be either proven or rational, one of the two.

There is no evidence for a god, any god. The judeo-christian creation myth, with two people frolicking around a garden and a talking snake is ludicrous and the idea that this creation occured 6000 years ago is preposterous, DNA proves it. It is not rational. Then to consider the entire world was wiped out and all living creatures started over (on a boat, all 10 million of them, without being eaten and without sinking under the weight of their own poop), the ridiculous keeps on coming. These are obvious fairy tales. So then to justify it, the more rational of the religious say "well we can't interpret the bible/torah literally which basically means...then what the heck is it good for? You are throwing out disproved chunks, but still clinging to the parts that aren't disproven. When major portions of a work are proven inaccurate, it invalidates the work. Even if they got bits and pieces right, it cannot be considered a valid document when it contains serious flaws.

All religions contain serious rational flaws. And while any god that I would believe existed doesn't have to be kind, at the very least it must be more intelligent and rational than I, or what precisely makes it a god?

What is a god anyway? There isn't even an answer to that. Gods of thunder, gods of earth, gods who created the earth, gods that just live in it. It seems like "gods" are just humans attempts to explain what they couldn't explain when they didn't have science or technology and were still frolicking naked through the woods. The fact that it is a pervasive irrationality that has continued through to the present is just an unfortunate vestigial emotional hiccup that we haven't yet evolved through.

[Errata]

What is a god anyway? There isn't even an answer to that. Gods of thunder, gods of earth, gods who created the earth, gods that just live in it. It seems like "gods" are just humans attempts to explain what they couldn't explain when they didn't have science or technology and were still frolicking naked through the woods. The fact that it is a pervasive irrationality that has continued through to the present is just an unfortunate vestigial emotional hiccup that we haven't yet evolved through.

And that is the fundamental question. What does a God have to be in order to be a God? And the answer is... I haven't a clue. How do we know it's a God and not some interfering alien race with vastly superior technology a la Stargate? Are we Gods to something? That's an idea I like. I am worshiped and adored by the fruit flies in my kitchen (because SOMEONE keeps insisting on buying bananas he doesn't eat).

And gods completely reflect the personalities of their followers (which is why the Jewish God is different from the Christian God. In reality He would have had to undergo a lobotomy in order to explain such a drastic change in personality). Jews are defined by their persecution and their love of law, so our God is both protective and kind of a dick. Christians are defined by their proselytization, So their God is all knowing all loving all powerful, a welcoming kind of God. Hindus are very appreciative of detail, and their pantheon reflects that. Muslims are defined by order, and the Koran is nothing if not a step by step guide to how to live your life.

So is God a catch all bag for all the things we don't understand or cannot process? Of course. Does that mean he isn't real? I don't think so. I sort of see him as a 20 sided dice (my geek is showing). If I roll it, and the three of us look at the number facing us, mine would 13, Robert's would be 7 and Ally's 19. If someone asks us which number came up, we would all have different answers, but none of us would be wrong. Plug in genesis theories, And the face of die I see is God, Robert gets Darwin, Ally gets Oparin. Who is right? We will never know. One? All? None? Barring defining evidence, we use Scroedinger's Cat. All theories are equally true until proven otherwise.

By the way Robert, the reason God never revealed his true form is because it was highly destructive to the viewer, in that Nazi melting Raiders of the Lost Ark kinda way.

[Robert]

Hi Errata

I thought the absence of a visual appearance on the part of god in the Old Testament, was that, after all, he was only obeying his own commandment and not making an image of himself. I thought that idolatry was a cardinal sin in Judaism.

Or strictly speaking : there is no image of god - but you know what I mean.

[sleekviper]

It is the death reason for no viewing of God the father. Which means that Moses, Jacob, Isaac, Enoch, and possibly Daniel are viewing the pre-birth image of who was to become Jesus when it says they saw God. The Bible has God speak in plural form at times, so a singular visit could be one of the forms rather than the whole, or a different form at different times.

[Errata]

Hi Errata

I thought the absence of a visual appearance on the part of god in the Old Testament, was that, after all, he was only obeying his own commandment and not making an image of himself. I thought that idolatry was a cardinal sin in Judaism.

Or strictly speaking : there is no image of god - but you know what I mean.

Well technically, you're almost there. According to Judaism, God is not material. As in he has no matter. The only material representations of him are what he creates. The Universe, man, angels, etc. Personally, I'm not totally sold on the notion.

But there is no image of God because God has no image. No form, No matter.

The face melt-y bit comes from gazing upon things God specifically told us not to. Like his manifestations.

[Robert]

I guess Judaism like most other religions has to walk a tightrope between becoming blase about god on the one hand, and not having enough bedrock to provide a sense of security and continuity on the other.

[Errata]

I guess Judaism like most other religions has to walk a tightrope between becoming blase about god on the one hand, and not having enough bedrock to provide a sense of security and continuity on the other.

I would say that the Crusades, maybe the Inquisition permanently separated us from any sense security and continuity outside of ourselves. A lot of it at this point to be frank is the need to believe that whole roller coaster hasn't been for nothing. I mean, we could have been saved a lot of grief over the years by simply denying who we think we are. Conversos did all right under the Inquisition. I think mostly we just don't want to have suffered for nothing.

But there is a difference between religion and faith. There are any number of people out there who feel like some greater force is at work out there somewhere. They don't know or choose to guess what form it takes. Culturally I may be Jewish, but as far as religion goes... I try to keep it loose. To be 100% honest, I had a near death experience in my early 20s. I had actually abandoned Judaism at that point, and what I saw was not even remotely reflective of Jewish mythos. But it wasn't reflective of anything else I'd ever heard of either. So ironically I went back to Judaism because it recognizes the existence of other gods and other paths. All of which are fine as long as you either a: aren't Jewish or b: recognize the Jewish God as superior. Now I don't talk to God, but I don't talk anyone else either, so technically that fulfills the second condition. So Judaism seems one of the safer places to park.

Ironically, what I think and what I believe are not even a little the same thing. It's not something one encounters that often, and it's a little hard to explain. But whether or not you believe in gods of any kind, you have to believe in something extraordinary. Something that acts outside of our control and expectation. You gotta have a little faith. You don't not try because a doctor says you only have 10% chance of ever walking again. You have to have a little faith that something out there (be it god, luck, trolls, triumph of the human will, psychic powers whatever) is going to help you beat the science. Just because a person does not believe in a god does not mean that weights and measures are gods. If they were we would have nothing to aspire to.

So I'm not asking anyone to believe in a god. All I'm saying is have a little faith.

[Ally]

So I'm not asking anyone to believe in a god. All I'm saying is have a little faith.

Which is exactly equivalent to me saying "All I am saying is, try to be less irrational".

[Robert]

Hi Errata

I'm not going to contradict you, because you're giving me this stuff straight from the horse's mouth. But all I can say is, if I were a Jew I would not regard Judaism as a safe place to park, on account of :
1. Gentiles
but also
2. Jews

By (2) I mean, I would not feel safe knowing that at any moment I might be called upon to sacrifice my son, or be the subject of a wager, or be flayed alive like Rabbi Akiva. I mean, take a look at Job. he was a good chap, and what we really have is god breaking his own covenant (unless there's something in the small print). Yet god comes out of it smelling of roses and the Jews (and Christians) seem happy with it.

As the Americans say, go figure.

[Normy]

Hi all
Do atheists believe in the spirits soul or ghosts or the supernatural?

[Ally]

I can't speak for all atheists, but I personally don't (which is not to say that I don't find it fun to go to haunted hotels and play make believe). Well let me clarify: I don't believe in ghosts in the sense that most people believe in ghosts, i.e. the disembodied semi-conscious soul hanging on after death. I do believe that it is (remotely but probably not) possible that there could be a physical explanation for "hauntings". For example we currently have the technology that can capture sounds and images and replay them. Who is to say that there is not some similar event occurring with universal science far beyond my ken, capturing sounds or images and replaying or looping them through time? We can measure brainwaves, so thought "puts something out there" that with our minimal technology we can grab on to and "see", who is to say that the universe doesn't "capture" these thoughts or whatever better than we can.

Or perhaps time isn't linear and "ghosts" are merely places where time has looped back on itself or perhaps "ghosts" are explained by the parallel universe theories and ghosts are places where the universes "intersect" or...

There are all sorts of equally implausible and wacky ass theories that can explain the existence of ghosts using "science", without it being the disembodied "soul".

[Errata]

Which is exactly equivalent to me saying "All I am saying is, try to be less irrational".

I like to think I am a mostly rational creature. Oftentimes way too literal. And I am in fact a huge fan of science. I buy it. I really do. I buy evolution, I buy the Big Bang, I buy expansionism, all of it. I just don't think that science is all there is. And I don't think that weights and measures are the sum of the universe.

For example: In every physics class I ever took, I learned that the speed of light was the universal speed limit. That nothing goes faster than that. That Einstein said that, and if anyone would know it would be Einstein. It wasn't until much later when studying all kinds of wacky physics that I found out WHY the speed of light was the universal speed limit. Because it makes the math work. If something was faster than the speed of light, it would break all the laws of physics as we know them and allow all sorts of impossibilities. And it wouldn't break physics because it violates some natural law, it would break physics because the math wouldn't work anymore. One big damn assumption not even based on observable phenomenon is holding physics together. Now, I'm okay with that, but that's because I have a little faith.

Not faith in some celestial creature holding the universe together, but faith in mankind's ability to adapt if needed. I have faith that Einstein did not decide this arbitrarily. I have faith that it is equally as true as not true. I have faith that if it is shown up as false that physicists will rally and come up with new math. For someone who doesn't have faith, that speed of light thing must drive them NUTS. The idea that basic things could be wrong because without weighing or measuring, without observing, the speed of light was deemed to be impassable.

That's what I mean by faith. My faith includes a something other referred to as God, but is in no way limited to it. Faith means trust. I don't just trust that something is out there, I trust in myself, and in mankind (on most days). I trust that weights and measures are not all there is. In six days I'm going to have a surgery that has a 40% failure rate. I trust that I'm going to be in the 60%. If I didn't, no WAY would I put myself under the knife like that.

So when I say people have to have a little faith, I'm saying they should trust in some of the things that cannot be measured. God has nothing to do with it. Ally my dear, you have many sterling qualities, and I think that you will agree that you are in fact quite stubborn. It's an unmeasurable quality, and one that can serve you well. You don't back down. You don't let people override your judgement, and you wouldn't let statistics, math or a good many laws of physics tell you what you can or cannot do. That's faith. You have enough faith in yourself to not allow opinions or even "facts" keep you from your goals.

As for being less irrational, well, I guess that's why it's a belief not a fact. I may believe something outside of the known is lurking out there, and I'm happy to explain that belief, but I don't think I have ever presented it as fact. It's a notion I have, one I don't allow to override my judgement. If you ask how the Universe began, I'll tell you about the Big Bang, not the book of Genesis. If you ask me someone diagnosed with Bipolar at the age of 8 avoided successful suicide attempts, that answer isn't going to be so scientific. But it never would have been anyway, so where's the harm?

[Robert]

Hi Normy

I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist. I suppose I have an open mind about ghosts, and I'm not prejudiced against them just because they're stif - I - I mean, biologically challenged.

[Errata]

Hi Errata

I'm not going to contradict you, because you're giving me this stuff straight from the horse's mouth. But all I can say is, if I were a Jew I would not regard Judaism as a safe place to park, on account of :
1. Gentiles
but also
2. Jews

By (2) I mean, I would not feel safe knowing that at any moment I might be called upon to sacrifice my son, or be the subject of a wager, or be flayed alive like Rabbi Akiva. I mean, take a look at Job. he was a good chap, and what we really have is god breaking his own covenant (unless there's something in the small print). Yet god comes out of it smelling of roses and the Jews (and Christians) seem happy with it.

As the Americans say, go figure.

Well, more "safe" as in "familiar". But on the other hand, I don't think God is going to come out of a 4000 year retirement just to spank me for not taking the Torah literally. I mean, Judaism is the only religion where I can say with some degree of certainty that the resident deity has left the building so to speak.

[Ally]

So when I say people have to have a little faith, I'm saying they should trust in some of the things that cannot be measured. God has nothing to do with it. Ally my dear, you have many sterling qualities, and I think that you will agree that you are in fact quite stubborn. It's an unmeasurable quality, and one that can serve you well. You don't back down. You don't let people override your judgement, and you wouldn't let statistics, math or a good many laws of physics tell you what you can or cannot do. That's faith. You have enough faith in yourself to not allow opinions or even "facts" keep you from your goals.

As for being less irrational, well, I guess that's why it's a belief not a fact. I may believe something outside of the known is lurking out there, and I'm happy to explain that belief, but I don't think I have ever presented it as fact. It's a notion I have, one I don't allow to override my judgement. If you ask how the Universe began, I'll tell you about the Big Bang, not the book of Genesis. If you ask me someone diagnosed with Bipolar at the age of 8 avoided successful suicide attempts, that answer isn't going to be so scientific. But it never would have been anyway, so where's the harm?

And you are of course perfectly justified in defending your beliefs, but when you tell someone who has professed atheism to "have faith" you are in fact telling them that you know better. You are being superior and condescending and telling them that your way of life or belief is the correct one, which they should emulate. Which is why you telling someone else to "have faith" is in fact your invalidation of their beliefs. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but if I went around and said you shouldn't believe that, then I would be rightly called on it, but "believers" have absolutely no problem telling non-believers that they are wrong.

If I am sick, or lost my job, or my dog died and someone of faith said "I'll pray for you", then I would smile and accept it as their attempt to help, though how praying helps someone is beyond my ken. It's basically, in my mind, the lazy man's way, I won't ACTIVELY do anything to help you, but I'll spare a thought that some guy in the universe who has a billion better things to do will come down and help you out, even though I am standing right here and could probably do it faster. But regardless, when the "I'll pray for you" or the "have faith" message is offered in circumstances like these, I don't view it as condescending or "holier-than-thou" because it is at least well-meant.

However, when you tell someone of faith that you are an atheist and they reply, "I'll pray for you" or "have faith" they never quite get the absolute condescension of that statement. Not even when I reply "And I'll continue to hope that you come to your senses one day." They see my response as rude, while not recognizing the inherent slap in their own statements.