A question for the atheists
 

This is a question for the atheists mainly. Even though the thrust of the issue is similar for theists.

When you tell someone that you're an atheist, I'd imagine that you often get asked how you can be sure that there's no god. It's the same question that people ask theists.... How can you prove it. Why not just accept agnosticism.

This is usually where theists invoke faith, but that doesn't seem to be an obvious move for atheists. As I think about it, maybe it's not so odd to say that one, "just has faith in the fact that there's no god." But I'd think that it's exactly theism's reliance on faith that pushes a lot of atheists toward their belief.

Once again, this is not a challenge of atheism. I just wanted to get a survey of ideas from active atheists. How do you answer this very common objection.

yours in science.

Tbor, like you say, I take it as a matter of faith that there is no God (or whatever else). I find it easier to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is.
A lot of atheists (not including myself) say that they are simply applying Ocham's Razor to the issue; to them, a physics-driven creation of the universe is a simpler answer to the question than a supreme being.

Faith is not my objection to Christianity, though. I have many other reasons, some objections to specific faiths and denominations, and some objections to 'religion' in general.

Okay, let's put it in a completely different setting, to illustrate my problem with this question...

Suppose I, along with a lot of other humans, were to believe in the Easter Bunny. We have holy books, churches, door-to-door-salespeople; the works...

Now, how would you justify your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny? Can you explain *why* you do not belief, and can you prove there isn't an Easter Bunny at all?

To me, the idea that there is some God out there is just so alien, that it's not even worth considering; just like my example of the Easter Bunny.

(No offence to EasterBunnians, by the way.)

I don't bring it up much, so I haven't had to defend it. But if I had to, I would argue that until someone shows me some hard proof, I'm not going to waste my time with it. It just seems so unlikely that something like God could exist that I'm boggled by the willingness of people to believe in it. Now, the Easter Bunny, on the other hand -- it may be our one true lord and chocolate-dispenser, but that doesn't mean I have to believe in it. It is, to borrow an idea from Terry Pratchett, like believing in the milkman.

Well, yeah, agreed, I don't have any way to prove that God doesn't exist. I also don't have any proof that the invisible purple llama living under my bed doesn't exist, but that doesn't make me believe in it.

Religion is simply a comfort blanket. Some people accept that, and decide to live a life without it. To others, it is too important, and they live with "faith". Faith is just an excuse to justify believing in the completely irational.

Agnostisism is just taking the lazy way out, having your cake and eating it. Like being bisexual :D

in my opinion i don't have to prove god doesn't exist, you have to prove he does.

ditto :)

I think explaining everything as 'god's work' or 'god's will' is just a copout for ppl afraid of seeking the real answers, which are a lot less comforting.

It's not about occam's razor or anything like that. TRUE athism means that there is no Right and no Wrong, simply human opinion. That's fine...until you see evil in all it's complexity and pervasiveness. How do you confront the aftermath of people who kill, violate, and abuse? The true athiest's answer is that he or she does not care for such things, but that it is not wrong in an absolute sense beyond offending the sensibilities of others.

sounds more like nihilism than atheism.

In that case I am a "true" atheist. Right and wrong are just social constructions. That said, they are very IMPORTANT social constructions. Without our inherrent sense of right and wrong (or aquired sense, whichever you prefer) our society would be absolute pandemonium.

However, I don't believe in a universal right and wrong. Such things are always subjective. Something may seem wrong to you, or it may seem wrong to the vast majority of people, but a large number of subjective opinions does not equal fact.

To illustrate with an analogy:
I also don't believe in beauty. That doesn't stop me from appreciating art and music, which I find beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is quite a cliche phrase, but many people don't seem to really undersatnd what it means.
No object has an inherrent property of beauty. The "beauty" of an object is projected on to it by its observers. So nothing is beuautiful, yet I see beauty in many things!

Similarly, nothing is right or wrong, but I consider many things right or wrong. Most importantly, what I consider to be right or wrong is ONLY an opinion, nothing more.

i think that believing in a god is for the people who cannot think for themselves and do not want to think hard about life. I find it easier to beleive in no god, than believe in one. Though i do why people beleive in a god.... i just need proof

We will all DIE! Afrer that big occasion we'll know for sure. But, this could be too late for most people.

I believe humans ARE special. I believe we have a soul (spirit) which is eternal.

I DO believe we were created, not accidental.

I do not believe that all living beings are equal, I believe humans are superior and unique (unlike many Hollywood/animal-rights activists).

Unfortunately, many of us think we are smart, and know it all, when we are actually clueless. The truth is usually simple and straightforward, but we often don't recognize it. We want to make things complicated and "logical."

I DO believe there is an all-powerful God who created everything, and watches, and judges us 24-7.

It doesn't matter how important we are in our own eyes. It doesn't matter how highly we regard our own opinion.

As humans, uniquely created in God's "image," we are but tiny, tiny specks of dust in a huge, vast universe. We physically exist for a brief instant: then we're gone. How long is your life compared to eternity?

It would be good for all of us to use this brief life to search for God, the Creator, and follow His instructions for the long, long, infinite future. Can the future ever end?

Do you think your brief (actually, totally insignificant) experience qualifies YOU to judge the eternal, infinite universe??

The Judeo-Christian philosophy is my choice for sorting out these questions.

Marse Bob: interesting, but pretty weird. You belief in something that cannot ever be proven, and then try to persuade others to join you. How can you *know* there is a God, or an afterlife? Answer: you cannot, but you belief in it. Well, I do not. To me, that makes your post seem rather silly.

As I said: if everyone were to belief in the Easter Bunny, and would have a whole religion based on that creature, wouldn't you feel equally weird when some guy with bunny ears tries to persuade you to worship eggs, because "they're the one true manifestation of the holy Bunny"? After all, if you do not worship eggs, you won't go to meet the Easter Bunny after you die - you'll spend the rest of eternity on a raft in the ocean. Hey... the books say so, so it must be true!

(sorry if I offended you, by the way)

Yes I agree. I'm a bit annoyed about the fact that I won't be able to gloat.

Am I to take it that you are referring to our esteemed theory of evolution by natural selection? hmmmm? I suppose I would be wasting, my breath to mention that natural selection is not accidental and that saying such just proves that you don't have a fundamental grasp of the concepts involved and that...never mind... there really is no point is there? Such has been demonstrated many times in the past.



**Snip, lots of unfounded statements of "fact" **


What it all comes down to, is that you are prepared to accept all these without any proof. Without any shred of evidence. Not only do you not have any emprical evidence, you cannot even form a coherent argument to prove the existence of your god. It always comes down to crap like "I just know", "I can feel him with me", "Its called faith, and I have faith, thats all I need". That's rubbish, unfalsifible subjective statements are not evidence. They don't even add to an argument.


It seems to me that it is you who claim to know it all. Science doesn't claim to know it all, which I assume is what you are attacking. Science doesn't even claim that everything is even knowable. It is simply there to figure out what we can know. So far it has proven indeed very effective.




What about you? I am not "judging" the "eternal" and "infinite" universe. I am simply refusing to accept the existence of something based on hearsay. Have you ever heard of gossip? It has often been shown that gossip can have some pretty awful consequences. Organised religion is probably the worst manifestation of this.

Well, science, logic, rational thinking and common sense are MY way of answering these questions.

Oh and before anyone tries to point out how my reply could be deemed insensitive to a persons beliefs, or condescending, I would like to say this:

On these boards, and everywhere else for that matter, atheists are often accused of "attacking" religions, simply by stating their reasons for realising that religion is nonsense, thus making out atheists to be inconsiderate arogant and egotistical. It always appears that atheists have to JUSTIFY their "beliefs" to everyone else, yet people who believe in God, simply believe, end of story. Because of this an atheist defending his/her "belief" is not trying to put forward an opinion/theory, but is rather dismissing someone elses opinion/theory, a.k.a. "being insensitive to to other people's beliefs".

So, I would just ask of people, to make a point of not getting offended by my, or anyone else's posts on the subject of religion vs atheism. After all, If your views are that strong, why even take into consideration what a worthless heretic like me has to say?

I should note that i never meant to state that one can't hold that position, but that it has its challenges, just as there are challenges to the posititon of a theist.

I think that in my years of athiesm, i never really hit that one flat out...and i like to point it out, just so that people can see some of the implications of their thinking. I don't regard it as unprincipled in the least, just a belief that i cannot share.

No. Do you?

To add to chavos post...

Suppose one were to divide the humans into two groups:
1) religious folk that go through life honoring the age-old laws of their culture because if they don't, they'll go to hell.
2) non-religious folk that go through life honoring the age-old laws of their culture, because if they don't, they'll go to jail.

Can one honestly say that one of these groups is somehow less moral than the other? Can one even suggest that one of these groups (usually the non-religious one) does not understand the difference between good and evil?

I'd like you to ponder the following: <i>religious people that are living a good life because they fear punishment are *less moral* than non-religious people living a good life because they choose to do so.</i>

Just FYI: I'm an atheist, and am well aware of the cultural, ethical and moral reasons for living a "good" life. I do not need a holy bible or religious leader to tell me how to live - I can make up my own mind. So far, I haven't killed (or even attacked) anyone, stolen anything, or done anything that might be considered even remotely evil, nor do I plan to do anything evil in the future. How can this be if morality comes from religion?

i use science, there is more evidence that there isn't any god, then that there is.

I lost my faith fairly recently actually, and I suppose in my opinion there is evidence that there is not a god. I had some pretty bad experiences recently, and these kind of triggered something. At first, I basically said, "With all the horrible things that have happened to me in my life, how could there ever be a god that would allow these things to happen to me?" But then, I started thinking more about the rest of the world, and realized that there is suffering much worse than mine going on all over the world. I guess I just find it difficult to believe that any divine being would allow such terrible things as the holocaust, ethnic clensings, rapes, murders, etc., to happen every day, all the time, all over the planet.

In the words of John Coffey from "The Green Mile," "Mostly I'm tired of people being ugly to each other. I'm tired of all the pain I feel and hear in the world everyday. There's too much of it. It's like pieces of glass in my head all the time."

i am no philospher but my undertsnding is that an agnostic is 'unsure', whereas an atheist (as I am) refuses to believe in the ridiculous notion that there is a god. This is different to me 'believing' there is no god . . . I simply refuse to beleive that there might be . . which is a different thing entirely and does not require me to prove it any more than I would be required to prove there was no such thing as ghosts.

You cannot prove that something doesnt exist. You can only prove that things DO exist. Its a childish argument.

Consider the following 2 statements : -

1 - I do not believe there are aliens living amongst us here on earth.
2 - I beleive there are no aliens living amongst us here on earth.

These are very different statements! Number 1 is me not believing YOUR theory . . and that would be the view of 'Atheists'.

Number 2 on the other hand would be MY proposition, and you could then legitimately say "but how can you be so certain?".

I respectfully conclude that you cannot legitimately ask an Atheist "but how can you be so certain?".

Very interesting responses, thank you all.

There were only a few deviant ones, so thanks for that.

Two things. Just thought's I have in summary I guess. If you want to respond feel free otherwise thanks for the above.

1. I'm very impressed by the Ockham's Razor response. I think it was restated a number of ways. Essentially, the best evidence points to the non-existence of god. Although I tend to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence - I have to admit that this brings me no closer to proof. This is why I'm impressed by this first response. It says, "here's the evidence, scientific and biblical (as it would be rather un-empirical to leave out such even biblical evidence) and I just feel more comfortable with the no-god theory." That's a smart move and, at least in a folk psychological way, people generally believe that, that for which there is the easiest explanation is the most "justifiable" (not necessarily true, just most justifiable."

2. My second thought is inspired by Ducknutz very clever approach and a few other posts. I'm not as impressed by the response that atheism is just a denial of theism and nothing else. It is something more - not just a negative belief, but the affirmative assertion that there *is no god.* and Affirmative assertions need support, especially if they fault theism for lacking such support. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's enough to say that atheism just denies belief in theism (certainly agnosticism does that too.) what defines atheism is that it makes such an affirmative claim, and I believe that needs support of some kind. (Consequently, this is why I like the Ockham's point - because that is a form of support).

To sum that very long winded thought up:
Denial of theism is necessary but not sufficient for atheism.

Okay. There we go - just trying to be provocative.

In my experience, theists use the excuse, "Well, you just haven't felt what I've felt, that's why you don't believe."

Hmm... this is very, very strange to me. First off, let us begin with the basics:

1.) Every religion claims to be right
2.) Every religion claims that the other religions are wrong

Astounding. Say I ask a Muslim why he believes in Allah. It is likely that he'll give me the mumbo-jumbo about simply having faith, or if he's more aggressive, he'll say that it isn't a matter of question, but simply a matter of knowing. Let's step back, and instead assume that this devout Muslim isn't an aggressive bastard, but instead tells me something along the lines of, "I have felt Allah inside of me, that is how I know he exists." What it boils down to is that all of these religious zealots all think that their religion is right because they have "felt" their holy god's presence in some form. Ok, if Islam is the right religion, then why in bloody hell do I have Christian friends telling me that they've felt God's presence, and not Allah? Or is Christianity the right religion, and are the Islamic the heathens? If you're Christian, then you'd probably be nodding your head up and down right now. If I was to tell you that Islamic people find other religions blasphemous, then a person of another religion would say that the person of formerly-mentioned religion has been trapped by the devil and fooled into thinking that the person not of their religion has found the right faith, but is infact blind and that the peron of the "right" religion has found the light. When asked "how do you know?", you can always argue for hours on end, but when you do reach the end, they always use the same trumpcard: "I've felt [insert holy figure] inside of me/felt their presence. You haven't felt it, this is why you do not believe." Could it simply be that all these religious people are all wrong, and none of them are right? I didn't lose you, did I? Every religion smugly feels that they are in the light and the rest of the religions are in the dark, and if all else fails, they always resort to the same trumpcard. Honestly, it's kind of sick. What bothers me even more is that it's always the Christians who go partying and committing sin more than my non-religious friends, and I know this doesn't just happen where I live; I've heard horror stories of the same thing happening all over the place

I have pasted this before:

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

I think that athiests simply believe that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Now that we can explain most of the 'mysterious' phenomena and 'miracles' that we see from day to day, there simply isn't a need to invoke god as an explanation. It makes more sense to decide that there is no god, rather than to try to explain the existence of a god that somehow hides his existence.

well, i'm really convinced. i see no proof of it at all. if i see a remote chance, then i'll be an agnostic.

Quick sidenote: the Islam religion worships the same god as Christianity, they just gave him a different name and have different practices. Islam also believes that Jesus existed and was a prophet like Mohammed.

I'm an atheist as well... will get back to you on the response a bit later.

Ah yes, and they both also belief in the Jewish God. Problem is that they cannot all be right: either Jesus was a heretic (and the Christians and Muslims are wrong), or he was the son of God/messiah (and the Jews and Muslims are wrong), or Mohammed was yet another prophet (and the Jews and Christians are wrong).

If the religious guys are right, and the holy books are the words of their respective Gods, then... well, they do not believe in the same God, simply because he said different, mutually exclusive things in his manual. :)

(Oh, and I do know that Christians fucked up with Jesus being the son of God; he never said that - he was declared son of God hundreds of years after his death.)

Hehe, non-issue.

CSFilm: it's the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but damn did you unload a barrel of pwnage on this thread

I don't have much of a problem with religious people, as long as they do not attack me with their religion. That is to say, if they require religion to be decent humans, then I am all for it.

This board sure is crawling with you heathens though.

Greg700: That reminds me of one of my highschool classes where my teacher mentioned the "God O' the Gaps" which if I remember was the idea that the belief in a god serves mainly to fill the gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps dissappear, so does the god.

Invisible Pink Unicorn? Did someone use "my" argument before? I was under the impression that I made up the invisible purple llama! Damn subconscious! Always screwing with me!

BTW what's pwnage? I'm glad that I dumped a lot of it into this thread (I think?) but I'm interested in knowing what it is!

"Like all religions, the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both Logic and Faith. We have Faith that She is Pink; and we Logically know that She is Invisible, because we can't see Her. For many, faith is a suitable substitute for knowledge, as death is for a difficult life"

I knew a guy that had an IPU page, but I don't know where it is.

I wouldn't worry about the pwnage thing, all will become clear in time.

Atheism isn't a question of faith. Atheism is a question of knowledge. I know that God doesn't exist, I am perfectly sure of it. Even if my personal knowledge can never transcend into the realms of general knowledge, I am firm in my knowledge that God does not exist, not just my belief.

Since you've made a concrete declaration, I ask what your proof is.

Since science is silent on the matter, the best you can claim is that you do not know if God exists or not, but that you have no reason to believe She does.

In other words, you don't know one way or another, but you believe God doesn't exist.

In defence of Argonaut, I respectfully suggest that the burden of proof falls on those who are asserting that god does exist. Argonaut may be wrong to say he 'knows' God doesnt exist . . . . . . but its a bit to easy to swoop on that and demand proof. I remain of the opinion that you CANNOT prove something doesnt exist . . . it doesnt exist and so neither does the 'proof' of its non existance!

I can prove that the bottle of beer in my hand exists . . but I cannot prove that the invisible purple llama sitting beside me does NOT exist.

One always has to remember that the statement "I dont believe God exists" . . is always a response to someone saying that God DOES exist". The cavemen all sat around the camp fire and someone said "that thunder and lightning as actually an omnipotent being on high, who is unhappy with us!", to which the natural response was "I dont beleve that!".

Now the caveman making the original assertion simply cannot say "well you prove I am wrong!". it is up to the person making the assertion to validate their claim, following which, those who disagree can respond and make their case. It is laughable in the extreme to make a wild claim, refuse to offer any evidence, and then challenge those who dont believe you to do all the hard work and try to prove you wrong.

I don't think we disagree, as you've stated my main concern,

My real point is that it is intellectually dishonest for atheists to say the "know" God doesn't exist because the put their faith in science, knowledge, yada yada, when in fact, nothing can be proven one way or the other. (Science is not only silent, but simply doesn't care why things are, only how they came to be.)

I concede that burden of proof for the existance of God is on believers, which I've addressed in many other posts.

That's easy. Pour some beer out, and watch the puddle carefully. Invisible purple llamas love beer.

weather or not god exist can neither be proven or disproven that said

i will belive god exist when i see him

I cannot get my head around this word 'why'.

A man drives a car of mass x a distance of y in t seconds. The how is because the combustion engine of z horse-power burns petrol/gas at rate r and generates t torque and through the transmission rotates the tyres against the tarmac of the road. The friction propels the vehicle forwards along a vector. In order to travel at a constant speed in a straight line then the engine must continually supply energy to the tyres to overcome gravitational friction.

But WHY was the man driving the car? Answer = to go meet his girlfriend.

The car doesnt care why. 'Why' is simply a subjective, personal, individual human reason of no relevance to anyone. If a child is knocked down and killed by a motorist, it matters not that the motorist was driving to go buy a pizza or to meet his girlfriend.

I guess my conclusion would be that 'why' is of no relevance.


. . . . in fact, now that I think of it . . . . . . . perhaps people have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they are wholly responsible for their own personal 'whys' . . . . . . . perhaps this is a responsibilty they can shirk and pass to a third party?

shrug.

Perhaps you are constraining the "why" too much.

For example,

-Why is he going to see his girl friend?
-Why does he love her?
-Why does she love him?
-Why is the child in the road?
-Why didn't the child's parents care he/she were out?
-Why is "Why" of no relevance?
-Why do you think that belief in God is "shirking"?

You see, I could go on all night ;)

I enjoy your posts Lebell.
Maybe I dont mean 'why' is of no relevance. Maybe I should say that discussion of 'why' is pointless . . . on the basis that it varies wildly from person to person. It is so subjective and hence meaningless to discuss 'why' . . because it wont sit still and be pinned down. I overheard two guys in the pub having a drunken debate as to who was the better actor . . Pinnochio or Mickey Mouse! Discussing 'why' is a bit like that.

'How' behaves itself, and we can make good progress discussing 'how'. 'Why' is a retrospective word in some ways. You ask me why the childs parents didnt care, why the child was in the road etc etc. almost like you are reviewing the events and then asking questions. No use crying over spilt milk . . its always too late to ask why . . it doesnt matter why . . the child is dead . . and no amount of asking why will change that. Forget the why and ask 'how' it can be prevented again.

Shirking implies laziness . . I apologise. I am trying to suggest

Do you believe in the invisible purple llama?
I assume not.
Do you know that it doesn't exist?
I'm sure you do?
But can you prove it?
No.
So, you must therefore accept that you don't know if the invisible purple llama exists or not.

In a similar way, I don't "know" that God exists or not, but I would rank the possibility of Him/Her existing along side the possibility that there actually IS an invisible purple llama living under my bed.

So now you know what I, and all other atheists, mean when we say that we know God doesn't exist, so please lets not make an issue out of this absolute non-point.

. . . but Lebell has a point here. You cant actually say you 'know'. We atheists cant have it both ways . . . Lebell has conceded that the burden of proof remains with believers . . . . . . . even as I type this, I am sure that Lebell is away to compile that proof for us and we can look forward to reading it any day now!

(PS : Lebell . . I think I saw that proof the other day . . I am sure its in the cupboard . . no not that one . . the other one . . beside the gardening stuff . . on the shelf next to the Holy Grail!)

here's my proof that, if there is a god, it is not a benevolent god: (warning, contains a fairly explicit picture)

i am agnostic; i think there is no conclusive evidence for either side, though atheism seems more likely and organized religions seems too detailed to be completely true

Science is only an answer to the easy questions......
It is my opinion that atheism is the easy answer to the question of why we are here.....
I have no goal of converting anyone to believe that God exists, but I do believe that science is absolutely lacking in answering so many questions that I do believe in all things spiritual.
I don't have to prove that God exists any more than you have to prove that he doesn't......for that matter prove that you exist or that I exist or anything exists......... nothing is real, except what you believe.

"What does WWJD stand for?" asked the dude about the other dudes hat......."What would Jesus do?" replied the other dude......to which the dude said "Well he wouldn't pay $20 for that fucking hat"

first, atheism isn't an answer to why we are here, but, if it were, why would it be any easier an answer than yours?
it is not a question of having to prove it; it's a question of being able to prove it. it is almost always impossible to prove that something does not exist, whereas god is the only thing i can think of that people commonly accept as existing without being able to prove it
ever heard of "cogito ergo sum"?

ok, try this.
you have the choice to decide between two books to read.
the first book is an amazing fantasy...it has gods and monsters and magic and miracles and hot princesses.
the other book has the laws of thermodynamics.
which book would you rather read?
(you atheists just want to be right. try to relax a little and have fun.)

Atheism is the accepted definition of one who believes that God does not exist, or for you purists, has no belief in anything spiritual. When you call yourself an athiest you define yourself. A definition could/would be considered an answer to a question..."what is an athiest?"......the answer is the definition of an atheist.........So, once again, proclaiming that you are an athiest would be defining yourself as one who has no beliefs in any God or that damn purple llama or whatever. And in my most absoulutely meaningless opinion, atheism is the easiest answer to the most difficult questions.

I have found that most of the atheists that I have met (a roommate in college proclaimed to be one) generally consider themselves to be intellectuals (elitists) and consider any arguments other than what they think as absurd (see previous posts) and discount any opinions other than their own as "not very well thought out" or "the blind leading the blind" or "cliche after cliche"

Once again, what I believe is really important......to me. What you believe is not really important.....to me.

As for "cogito ergo sum".....just because you do and are, don't mean that you am to me....or something like that.

Believing in God is not wrong....but telling someone that they shouldn't is. As for atheism....."caveat emptor"......

or, try this... you have a choice between believing in a god who will send you to hell if you do fun stuff like masturbate, or believe that you are free to do whatever you want

bill: I think the thing is that the Atheists for the most part don't really believe in anything spiritual so unless you can prove conclusively that spirituality exists, then I don't think they should have to defend their argument. Not believing in something intangible and invisible may be the simplest answer, but I do not think that it is the easiest answer. Atheists must deal with a world that doesn't particularly care what happens to them, their life has no spiritual or instrinsic value, they are just another organism, living or doing whatever. They don't usually see a life after death or some other such continuation. Once it's over, it's over. They are faced with the idea that once they are no longer alive, there IS nothing else. They must, therefore, live as best they can right now, because they won't get another chance or even a reward for their actions. In that same line, I think it interesting that they still have a sense of "morality" or at least subjective right and wrong, because they behave just like everyone else, if not better in most cases (from a subjective viewpoint) even though they will recieve no reward or punishment when they cease to exist. Perhaps they just value them as important social constructs, as CSFilm mentioned, they benefit human society.

I suggest closely reading CSFilm's posts as they seem to be very informative about atheists.

I personally don't see any reason for atheists to force their lack of belief on other people in the same way that I don't see any reason for religious people to force their beliefs on other people. I mean, they may have a good reason, but it's still not very nice. And if there is one correct belief or lack of belief, time will probably resolve what arguments cannot.

Everybody remember: militant athiests are just as annoying as militant theists.

Nulltype......in re-reading my posts I just can't seem to see where I ask anyone to prove or defend anything. I actually seem to defend what I believe.....but, I think that is what is offensive to atheists- me defending what I believe. Atheists feel that it is important to point out how ignorant I must be for believing something that I can't see or touch or smell, but I can't seem to recall a time that I asked an atheist to defend or rationalize or prove his/her beliefs to me.

You seem to indicate that I should in some way feel pity for atheists because they live in a world that thinks differently than they do and that they live with the onus that they have nothing to really live for and that once they die, it is over-done-finished and everything that they lived for, thought, created, remembered....etc. is gone.....OK maybe I do feel some pity...but not in a charitable way so there's no need to take offense to my pity.

Also, morality is as easily undefineable for an atheist as it is for a theist. Atheists seem to argue that morality cannot be defined, but will still comment on how they are denizens of morality, albeit undefined?!?......

My only goal in what I am saying is that I am clear in what I say. I am not issueing a challenge for rebuttal.

I'm not really sure what your point is. My guess is that you're saying that a fantasy book is more entertaining than a science book. Well, even if I were to accept that, it still doesn't make tantasy book, REAL!
Just because religion appeals to you as what you WANT to believe in, does NOT make it the truth.

More importantly, I would admit that a book on fantasy is a lot esier to read than a book on science. But reality is far more amazing and beautiful than ANY fiction ever written. Sticking with learning about reality is far more rewarding than reading any fiction.

I will admit to enjoying fiction, especially movies. But ultimately thay are only entertainment: a bit of escapism.

As firefly already pointed out: atheism is not an answer. It is a REJECTION of answers.

I believe that people who are atheist do tend to be on average more intelligent. But there is a difference between cause and correlation.
Intelligence is required in order to think for yourself. The majority of people will simply accept religion at face value without asking any questions, or without really thinking about it.
People who do have the ability to think for themselves can then come to their own conclusions about religion. Some will turn atheist, others will think long and hard about their faith, but decide to keep it.
Almost all of the religious people we have here are definately intelligent enough to think for themselves. I'm not trying to insult anyone.

[b]

What you believe may be important to you. But it doesn't make it any more like the truth.

Yeah...and? That is the whole point of I think therefore I am?

1) You shouldn't feel pity for atheists, because they do not *want* your pity. Your pity for them would be misplaced and rather arrogant: "you know all the answers and those poor deluded fools do not... poor them." So, don't pity us - we'll enjoy our lives regardless. I understand that you may find it hard to accept such joy without an afterlife or reward, but I can guarantee you that I do enjoy my life. I'd also enjoy leaving some permanent positive mark on human history, no matter if I get a reward for it or not.

2) It doesn't really matter what the world *thinks* - they can still be wrong. :)

3) Atheists do not argue anything. Atheists aren't a homogeneous group, so they do not have one voice. Some of them may argue what you say they do, but others disagree, while yet others don't give a rat's arse. I think morality can easily be defined, as Kant has shown centuries ago. I live my life according to the laws of my country, a lot of common decency and common sense. I don't need a 2000+ year old book to tell me what's right and wrong, because I can think for myself.

The fact that religion was invented by human beings in the first place is usually my number one reason.

The following text is basically a giant crapload of thoughts I have on religion. Enjoy.

I am 100% completely, pure atheist. I believe in no supernatural occurences: no ghosts, no spirits. There is no "soul" or "spirit", these are just fictionalized representations of your current personality. Personality does only exist in a living human brain, be it your brain (i.e. your own personality) or the brain of another human being (i.e. remembering how you used to be, or something). I am a scientist at heart and need proof for everything.

Funny, because my parents raised me Presbyterian. What's also humorous is that I got kicked out of Sunday School at their church (for telling the teacher she was lying!)

I guess what actually determines what religion you are is what other people label you as, and since all religions started out as one religion - basically traced back to Sumer and their king/gods - it doesn't really matter anyway.

Want to know what happens when you die? You rot. There you go. That's the answer. Your body rots, your brain rots, your eyes rot, your "soul" rots - since your brain is rotting, there is no soul. Soul is just another word for personality.

I believe the only reason religions still exist and thrive thoroughly is because people still need an excuse to get up off of their butts and do things. While I do agree that religion is a good way of motivating someone to do whatever (quit drugs, get good grades, stay chaste, etc), the motivation should come from within in the first place. There should be no reason to be unmotivated unless you are lazy and are frightened by the fact that when you die you will have things that you have not held responsibility for. Thus the reason for "forgiving" sins would be to remove personal liability for things you have done wrong.

I really really hate how everyone is so very polite to each other at Church, even though they may hate each other's guts. There is absolutely no reason to put on a show - if "God" could really judge you I bet he would be more pissed at you if you lied to yourself and others rather than just being honest.

Religion is all about motivation. I feel the reason I am atheist is because I have absolutely no reason to feel ashamed for anything I have ever done, nor do I lack any self respect or motivation. I get things done; I have never drank alcohol (to get drunk, I mean. I have consumed one (1) beer on three seperate occasions (eating steak.)); I waited quite some time to do any sexual activity.

All these morals, all this responsibility, all without the help of "spiritual guidance". I think religion is just an excuse to take the burden off of getting things done on your own.

Did you know that in the Stephen King book "It", there is a crazy spider monster that transforms itself into a clown and lures children into the sewers and then kills them?

How about if I told you that story was true, would you believe me? Probably not. For the same reasoning, I do not believe that the Bible is a work of complete non-fiction and should be taken literally; It is simply just a book that someone wrote. Well, more like a couple people. Okay, probably a hundred or so different people. But it’s just a book.

Do not feel obligated to believe in any one of the many different religions just because "it makes the most sense" when you have not yet explored the idea that there is no God, no plan, no apocolypse. Wouldn't the thing that would "make the most sense" be something that has actually been scientifically proven to be exact and right many times over? If you answered yes to this question, then Creationism would be completely out of the picture. There is so much backing to evolution it is not even slightly amusing.

I feel no need to believe in anything, no order, no set path. The idea that I have no control over my life's outcome is pure bull to begin with. If fate is what you are to end up being, then I guess whatever the hell I do, that would be my fate, right? So if I work at a soup kitchen, give to the needy, and home the homeless, would my fate be "giving back to the community and being a kind, caring, gentle person"?

How about if one day I just decided to end all that and kill a few people? I guess that would be my new Fate then, huh? I can say loophole, can you? No matter what happens to me, that is always my Fate. That's not all that thought out if you ask me. So many ways to get around it.

The thought that religion is a security blanket is accepted over here on my end. I am independent enough to enjoy my life without my security blanket, as I am mature enough to say "I do not need help, I am fine by myself." And you know what? I am. I enjoy my life to the fullest, and I seriously enjoy my photography/computer hobbies. I always try to live my life every second as if I were to die the next. I am optimistic, because I have no other chance at living. Once I am dead, I am dead. To me, that is maturity - knowing that even though it will all end without reward or fame, doing your best anyway. Kind of like being a "good sport", don't you think? Instead of playing life to win, I play life to enjoy.

As an atheist, but one who practises _some_ form of religion (namely schooling myself in and practising Zen X(not necessarily buddhism but borrowing heavily from it)), and back to the original question.

I use no razor to decide for me, I look around.

A miracle without any _solid_ evidence for it's creation.

Miracle: 1 - A wonder or wonderful thing. 2 - An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature.

Theists take this miracle and wrap one or more miracles around it. The miraculous God or Gods (how many invisible men in the clouds to you like pulling levers in the heavens?) of creation and potentially control, who, or whom, sit up on their interstellar clouds perfoming this miracle and that, keeping their creation in check.

For me, the best option when faced with a lack of evidence is not to answer.

The original moment of creation for _this_ universe is held to be the big bang, what created the mass that bigly banged in the first place?

I cannot say, but it is my firmly held belief that everything since can be explained by cause and effect.

£19.99 - The Universe. (No Gods included)

Amen. :D

And what if none of them are wrong, and all of them are right? I know to some people this may seem a cop-out, an easy answer, but as someone who's spent a lot of time wrestling with the question of the existence of god, I ask you to think about it for a little bit. One of the things that turned me (and I suspect many others) off from the faith I was raised in (Baptist Christianity) was the sheer exclusivity of it. Why is it so hard for people to people to accept the idea of inclusionary religions? The sheer variety of people living varied lives, happily living in the face of astounding contradictions guarantees we can never all believe the same thing. Assuming that there is a god, and we are created in his image, isn't it possible that this is no accident?

There is empirical evidence that there is no god. I've read very logical arguments against his existence. However, I've seen god, and I'd be betraying myself not to trust my own observations over the arguments of the smartest people on earth any day of the week. If you choose not to agree with me, it makes no difference to me at all. What I saw argues for inclusiveness in belief beyond any doubt I may have. I have no interest in the idea of organized religion; it seems silly to me, but if it does it for you, who am I to argue. I'm just one thread in a tapestry, reflected and reflecting; I have little interest in judgment.

And before someone points it out, I will admit that I do find it hard to incorporate the idea of atheism into this notion of inclusiveness. But to be frank, it's not something I've spent a lot of time trying to incorporate.

As an aside, I noticed someone brought up the "Creation vs. Evolution" in this post. I've always been amused that of all the people I've talked about these things with, and some of them were very smart, not a one of them could even conceive of a third alternative, or a fourth, etc.

I saw God once. He was in my Icee, saying "Don't drink me, you piece of shit! I'm sorry I ever even had you, worthless pile of crap!"

The next day, my dad kicked me out of my house. I don't know why.

first off i don't think anyone denies the existence of faith. atheist or otherwise. it isn't something that you can throw out. alongside thought, as one of our defining characteristics as a seperate and identifiably greater species, sits the capability for faith. to believe without logic, the ability to know the infinite exists is the purpose of faith. because thought, by itself can't grasp that sort of thing. atheists don't deny that the concept of infiniti exists, that there are things that are infinite and greater than we are. the question is where that knowledge comes from. ask anyone to picture infiniti and, if they're being honest, they'll tell you they can't do that. the fact that they know it exists though, to me, stems from their possession of some sort of faith, in spite of logistical and real constraints of their mind, they continue to believe it exists.

that being said, during my atheist phases, and the current stance of all my atheist friends, I can't say that the reason i didn't believe in god was because i just had faith in his nonexistence. the reason i didn't believe was because it was a direct contradiction to all sorts of logical sense. it just doesn't make sense. it can't be proved. for an atheist, that's enough to stop believing. or not believe in the first place. and who can blame them?

Simply historically speaking, organized religion has so manipulated and abused society's faith in the ever-growing numbers of theories of divinity that, personally, I'm surprised that 'God' still plays as dominating a roll in everyday life (regardless of whether you believe in Him or not) as He does. I'm an athiest because I understand the utter power theism has over many people and, frankly, how evil irresponsible people act under the influence of it. When religion stops hurting and controlling, I might regain faith in it.

Just curious. Could you give us a bit of insider info on your encounter with God?

Infinity exists. Just because we cannot picture it doesn't make it unreal. Square root of minus one also exists (i), but again we cannot picture it. It exists in the mathematical world because we have defined it so. The real question is whether infinity exists in the empirical world, and well thats a harder question. In fact it is a whole other thread. But essentialy, if you make the assumuption that there is in existence at least one continuous system (as opposed to a discreete system) you can very easily empirically prove the existence of infinity. See my post in the inifinity thread for more on this. But "believing" in infinity is not really the same thing as believeing religious hokey poke.

Curious, what made you revert back to religion?

Well no...Fact is Fact. Truth is Truth. Real is Real. Two contradictory things cannot be true.

A: x = 3
B: 2x = 5

Either A or B is WRONG. They cannot BOTH be correct. Similarly Jesus cannot be BOTH the son of God and simultaneously not the son of god. Jesus cannot have resurected himself on the third day, while also on the same day staying stone cold dead locked safely away in the crypt.


The answer to that question is very simple, but it wouldn't be very PC of me to elaborate. But thats never stopped me before.

To all extents and purposes Evolution is a Fact. To all scientific people there is no question about it. The only reason there theory comes under any fire AT ALL, is nothing to do with bad science, it is to do with the fact that it infringes on their personal beliefs. The God story: hence creationism.

There is the Truth, and the Myth, hence Evolution vs. Creationism. Perhaps you, in your infinite wisdom would care to offer us a third and a forth proposal?

Agreed heavily. The only reason we have not put forth a third and fourth theory is simply because there is already one that is right, so there is no need to procure another.

I tend to take the quantum physicist's point of view on this one. Since we can neither prove the existance of a god, nor disprove its existance.... it must both exist and not exist at the same time. The only way to find out for sure is to open the box and see if the cat is dead. ;)

So kill yourself already!

Oooh, Oooh, Oooh...

Does God have a big white beard? Is he white? Does he sit on a cloud and count teardrops in the rain?

Tell all.

Am I the only one this upsets? I agree that being an agnostic is a comfort blanket. I am accepting that I'm a scared little human being when I say that I'm agnostic. It is just to vast of a thing for me to realize what I am saying when I say that there is no unifying power connecting everything that has happened to the Earth and the rest of the universe and other galaxies (which we don't even know about).

Anyway, what upset me is why even bring bisexuality into it and then put a big smiley face after it? Bisexual people are not lazy and have to make the exact same effort and decisions that straight people do (if not more because they have a lot more of the population at their fingertips). I just thought that this was a totally unnecessary remark and couldn't not make a comment about it. Sorry to have deviated from the main subject of this thread.

Hey, sorry about that. I really didn't mean to offend. I wasn't at all being serious, just joking.
The big smiley face was there to show that it was a joke, and not meant to be taken seriously in any way. Such was the original purpose of smiley faces.
The joke was just comparing agnostics, who refuse to decide to be religious or atheist, and bisexuals who refuse to choose between hetrosexuality and homosexuality. Of course it is a ridiculous comparision, which is what makes it a joke!
Just a misunderstanding.

Cheers,
CSflim.

Well i see it like this.. The medical Science have proven once and for all that our thoughts feelings and instincts all have a physichal origin in the brain in the form of neurons communicating with eachother. That means quiet simply that the idea of a soul is impossible. There is no such thing.

If we extend this reasoning, The verry reason for beliving in god is the belif in an afterlife. But since it is proven that there is no such thing as a soul there can be no afterlife.

Since the idea of an afterlife is impossible as well, the idea of a god is not really interesting, nor belivable.

Therefore i don't belive. Therefore i say this is the only life we got.. let's make as much as possible with it cause we don't get any second chance.

But as always, i want to belive.. I don't want it to end with death. i don't want the universe to be pointless.. but my reason and logic tells me once and for all that there is no such thing as a god therefore there is no point in beliving..

If there is an afterlife i will most surley be happily suprised. But untill then i stick with the idea of not wasting my life on unimportant things but instead make every breath of air count. :D

I think God serves two basic purposes. First, it helps to answer the question 'Why?', which many of you have pointed out is beginning to become a moot point thanks to scientific knowledge.

The second purpose is to provide hope. People without hope don't survive/thrive/strive for anything better. They either get by while waiting for something to happen, or they cease to live(generally through their own hands)

I think children learn to trust a benevolent being (typically parent)early on to help them do things they cannot do themselves, to watch over them and keep them safe, and this can translate to trusting in a similar entity (God,etc.) as they grow physically independent.

When I as an atheist look for help, I look to people I trust and care for, ancillary to looking to myself. I think theists tend to do the exact same thing, but may have a far better attitude about it because they can go to their god first, and as we all know, God works through others:rolleyes:

'How do you know god doesn't exist' is the same as saying 'how do you know Santa Claus doesn't exist'
It had a purpose, at one point, but that need is gone, at least for me, but I'm glad anyone that needs God, has it. Just respect that it ain't my bitch.

someone said something like, i believe in God and practice my religion because the extra effort it takes is going to be worth it if there is a God.

Religion, like Science, answers the unanswerable.

Re: A question for the atheists
 

I generally ask them 'why should I believe it'.

Because believing in God is akin to believing in a invisible intangiable masturbating pink elephant that floats over your shoulder. There's no reason to believe so why should I?

I can respect other's for having faith. Personally though, I don't have faith in things that I have no reason to have faith in.

Why?

Science is the search for the answers and Religion claims to already have it.

*Looks through the posts, preparing to comment but sees CSflim has already taken care of business* :)

It's like saying the existance of pentiums proves that operating systems are a myth.

Easy to believe that you're right and everyone else is wrong, eh?

occams razor. no need for a soul, no evidence.


Blatant appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
Demonstrate why I should believe.

I just say, "I take the benefit of the doubt."

To be quet frank with you, i do not quiet follow where youre leading with this. The logic in your reasoning is to say the least nonexistent.

Simply look at the defenition of a soul. ("The thing that makes us individuals instead of simple organisms, the thoughts and feelings of our psychological processes, the thing that separates humans from animals as it is a part of the divine being").

Religion makes the assumption that there is a soul. Science however proves that everything the theists claim to be soul is in fact jumping neurons in our physichal brain (That means no Religious Hokus Pokus, just simple FACT).

For there to be a point with god, afterlife and even faith the soul must exist. without the soul i have no reason to worry about what will happen in the afterlife since you need a soul to get there in the first place.

Since the soul doesn't exist, (at least any defenition the theists claim to exist) there is no point and no purpose for an imaginary friend, judge and creator living on some cloud..

The reason i took my time to explain this to you is not because i'm trying to make you stop bleiving, i was merely after showing how i reason. Since your reasoning included two things that had no affiliation what so ever and my reasoning includes two things (the soul and god) whose existence or nonexistence includes or excludes the other (no soul no god. no god no soul.) it is quiet obvious that you missunderstood me completly.

I hope this will shed some light on the matter for you. Since you are (I assume) a theist, i sincerly hope that you can hold on to your naive faith when reality comes knocking on your door. Since in my opinion, the curse of humankind lies not in what we are able to do to eachother it is simply in the fact that we are concious about our own existence. Religion serves the purose of making that conciousness tollerable to some pelope since they can't stand living in a world where there is no purpose.
If that works for you, good for you! But for me that is simply selfdelusion in its gravest form.

If you should feel compelled to answer this message i ask of you to stick to logic and reason as these are the only things i will bother caring about.
If you choose to keep the same nonexistent level of logic on your reasoning i will simply ignore you since the last thing i want to do is start a flame war on our boards.

So to conclude this answer, I'm sorry if you were offended by anything i have written in this or my previous message, but in my opinion i have the right to state what i belive and why. I still don't quiet understand why you had to post your message in the flame-atory manner it was written. It is quiet obvious that you have no reason to be in this post since the question (in the original post) was directed to Atheists.
As I see it you are only here for one thing and that is to pick a fight with atheists since they don't belive in the same things you do.

I ask you this since not everyone belive in religious hokus pokus.
:crazy:

So if there was a person who never heard of god before, would that person be an atheist? I'm thinking the idea of god came after no ideas of god--which is not the same as ideas of no god.

Why is there a name for people who don't believe in god, as if they came after the people who do? A person could live his life ignorant of all the debates just fine, but he has to be asked first if there is a god or not before he can be given the lable of atheist?

I am not going to say i am an atheist because i don't believe in god. I'd rather say that i don't understand why others do believe in god.

Atheists aren't the attackers here, they are the defenders where people of all religions attack the atheist's set of beliefs--beliefs that happen to not include a god. In fact, it would seem that atheists are the only ones not attacking or engaging any other beliefs. Even so, they like all others, have to defend against all other belief systems.

So i guess all this concludes in what has already been said. It is up to the people who believe in god to prove god exists and not the other way around, because i live content with no thought of god either way.

Also as a last note, i belive that people of all religions should sort out which belief of god/the gods is true before they start disputing with the atheists. Since we are the ones without as the name implies, it would be hard for us to argue with the theists if they can't even get their story right.

Why has there to be a reson for things to be? Are "believers" just afraid of the idea that the universe may be pointless?

When I think of myself as an Atheist, I define it as not accepting any religion's concept of God.

As someone else pointed out, they all believe that their god exists, and that their religion is the only one that should be followed (speaking in very general terms). Most believe for the very simple reason that they were born and raised into the faith, and I think that's the reason why many faiths require that the children be taught at a very young age.

They can't all be right, and I consider them all equally wrong, in fact IMHO the very nature of the religion being organized invalidates it.

Now on the other hand, while evolution is simply the best theory we have right now, to a layman such as myself it just doesn't hold water. Random mutations caused life to evolve to the level of complexity we have, but with so many similarities at the same time?

Seems hard to believe that there wasn't some sort of intervention somewhere, but then you have the chicken and the egg quandry right? If we were created by aliens, who created them? Somewhere that evolution idea had to actually work, or there was a "God" somewhere sometime to start it all, even if what we're seeing now is the Nth domino falling from one long ago push that might have happened somewhere else in the universe.

So I'm saying that I don't have the answer. Furthermore NOONE has the answer.

mtsgsd, it is obvious you have no idea how evolution works... It's basically survival of the fittest. Not the strongest, mind you, but of the one best suited to a certain environment.

Suppose we have a rat. This simple rat gets kids (with mrs. rat, of course), and after some breeding and a few generations, we have a few hundred thousand rats, all living in the same environment. Amongst these hundreds of thousands of rats, a few have mutations - small differences in gene structure. This can be as simple as a slightly lighter fur.

Now, if the environment happens to be rather light in color (for example: lots of snow), the rat with lighter fur color will have a slightly higher chance of survival. If the rat then breeds, he will produce kids with a lighter fur too. These will continue to breed, and expand. With their slightly higher chance of survival, the lighter-colored rats will slowly replace the darker-colored rats in the area...

Perhaps the darker ones will be able to find another area where they have a slight advantage: they might "learn" to stay in their hideouts during the day, and only come out at night. Some of these dark-furred rats will develop better night vision, and replace the other rats.

*That* is evolution at work. Small changes leading to a statistically higher chance of survival, eventually replacing the other creatures. And it immediately illustrates why many creatures have similarities: both the light and the darker rats are still basically rats, sharing a lot of similarities. Over the millennia, they'll grow more and more apart, but the basic body functions (and perhaps their overall shape) will remain.

I can only answer for myself, but no, I'm not afraid of the idea.

I just don't believe that's the reality of the situation.

Dragonlich, I understand the concept quite well thank you.

The "problem" is how life got started in the first place. Even a single cell organism is a very complex thing. Scientists do not consider evolution as anything but the best theory so far, it's not completely understood.

Survival of the fitest works in an observable fashion. Life evolving from nothing is harder to understand. Didn't say I don't believe it, it just has a lot of gaps still. That's why it's a theory.

This was thrown out by way of example, that's all and is not truly relevant to this thread.

That's the problem. "to a layman such as myself". You are admitting that you don't know anyhting about evolution, yet you are quite prepared to dismiss it as being wrong.

You never hear of "laymen" claiming that the theory of relativity is incorrect. Or claiming that there are fundamental flaws with our theories of quantum mechanics. But when it comes to evolution, sure what the hell, EVERYONE'S an expert, and is qualified to debate its correctness.

Now, I'm not claiming that Evolution by means of Natural Selection is a complex theory. It most certainly is not. The sheer beauty of it is in its simplicty. But at the same time, it is required that it is thought about in the correct mind frame, and that you have a fundamental grasping of the facts behind it.

I'm not trying to say that understanding evolution is beyond "laymen", but rather if you wish to comemnt on it, you at least have the responsibility of knowing what you're talking about.

Step 1: Read Origin Of The Species by Charles Darwin. The book that started it all. If possible get the First Edition. The latter editions don't read too well, as it gets quite cluttered, and bogged down in technicalities and appendicies.

Step 2: Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Its a modern book (1984) from a superbly passionate writer. This is possibly the greatest book on evolution ever written. It is very clearly written, and very easy to understand.

Step 3: Read any kind of "Creation Science" propaganda. Compare the anti-logic, pseudoscience, sematics and straw-grabbing to the clarity and logic of the above two books. Do try to keep your laughter and mocking to a minimum. You're not here to enjoy yourself.

Step 4: Return to this board, and add an informed opinion of the correctness of the Theory of Evolution by Natural selction.

Thank you,
CSflim.

Ah! I should have read on, before posting the above comment.
Where our great great great great ancesstor came from is a completly different thing to evolution. Evolution happened. we are all decendants from a "proto-cell". A cell capable of replication using the standard DNA-RNA mechanism.
Where this cell came from we do NOT know. We do not have a theory about it. We have a few hypothesis though.
I posted one of them here

Are you saying that you have aproblem with evolution, or you have a problem with how the proto-cell arose in the first place? The two are very different things.


These are two incompatible statements.

Why not?

Ok. i think the point that Regziever was trying to make is different to how you interpreted it. The non-existence of a soul does not prove the non-existence of God. However, what difference does it make if God is real or not, if you do not posses a soul.
Surely the whole point of (most) religions is the existence of an afterlife. If you please God, he will grant your soul everlasting happiness.
If you have no soul, then there is no afterlife, and with no afterlife, does it even matter if God exists one way or the other? Why bother to worship him? I proposed this question, and others in the thread, "Rationalistic Theism". I recieved no satisfactory answers.
If we are to conceede that God started the Big Bang, it still doesn't mean that he loves you.

Thank you CSfilm!

I tend to explain too much when I get into this subject.. You caught the essence of what I wrote and summed it up verry nicely.

I'll take a look at the other thread, but i'd say for openers that when the God of Abraham was first worshiped, there was no conception of a conscious afterlife, mearly descent in to the depths of Sheol.

Moreover, there is no proof that since we can understand the organic nature of the brain, that there is no soul. That was my analogy. There seemed be the instant jump between saying that since there is a physical brain, there can be no metaphysical soul. I don't see the logic there.

Man, since the time of cavemen, has always attributed the unknown to the supernatural. Athiesm is simply the absence of religion.


Athiesm's basic definition is the absence of beliefs. I, as an atheist, do not have any beliefs that matches the criteria to be considered religion.

:confused:

I get pretty tired of people saying that atheists can't have "true" ethics or morality. Why would those things be dependent on a diety? Love, morality, understanding, truth, and ethics are all concepts independent of deism. I'm an atheist and I teach my children about right and wrong. I think they have a better grasp than many of their peers, actually.

Podmore-I don't say you can't have right and wrong. But you can't have absolutes. Something can't be Wrong, in an absolute sense save by some authority greater than mankind were to say so. No God means no absolutes...

That's another thread, plus which I've answered it several times on TFP, but the short answer is:

That's not the reality I've experienced.

Yet you're able to pick out what's wrong and right in the Bible. I thought the bad stuff that was being espoused as good in the Bible were to be used only as examples of the negative? How do you determine what's bad and what's good?

I quote Mike Wong:

Paper-Way, way off topic. Forget Christianity for a moment...i know this is hard, but try. How can anything be ABSOLUTELY wrong, with out something ABSOLUTE to say that it is wrong? Moral certainties require a God, not to make a claim here about the Christian God.

To your citation of Genesis-Human sin is contained in the idols and images of God that we construct. I believe that by grace, we have come to understand some of those mistakes... But that is quite independant of the abstract claim that absolutes require an absolute source. The writer who i am cribbing-i have forgotten his name at the moment-was not a Christian...and writes sympathetically of athiesm, but that is has the challenges, just as theism does.

Curiously, it seems to be assumed that the Bible is divinely inspired, and cannot contain falsehood. Hogwash. It says that pi is equal to three. Right then and there, it becomes crystal clear that this is a human document. I believe that by further examination, the divine begins to shine through the pages. But please...enough of the literalism. I get it enough from the Jerry Falwell types....

Why? The Christian God is incapable of determining moral certainties, as demonstrated by the Bible. So whose the determining authority in your religion?

If your God is incapable of determing absolute morality(otherwise Moses would not be able to talk him out of committing attrocities), how is he supposed to be the authority on it.

Irrelevant.


I agree; the Bible is a flawed document that is incapable of establishing absolutes on morality.

So where does your absolute source of morality come from?

chavos: Did you ever read about Kant's solution to such moral questions? He manages to find a logical and non-religious way of determining what is good and bad, and is able to show that these values are indeed absolute.

Or what about the humanist idea: do to others what you would want them to do to you (sort of)... this leads to a rather clear and absolute morality: I do not want to be murdered, so murder is wrong; I do not want to be lied to, so lying is wrong; etc.

It is clear that there are indeed absolute moral systems without a God. Hell, even the Buddhists have a moral system, and they do not worship any God. Morality is what you and your culture make of it. I suppose one might say that a well-written system of laws is in fact a way of describing what is good and what is bad; i.e. it's a moral system, and it can be interpreted as an absolute system if you follow the letter of the law.

As demonstrated by the bible...so it's totally out of this world to proclaim that there is a truth in God that is coming in to the world, but that has not fully been seen?

I just think it's really irresponsible to claim that the "Divine Pen" model of the bible is the only way to read it. There can be truth about God in a book that God didn't write...and that's the way i see scripture. There is human error, but there is also divine truth. To say that this proves God wrong is just illogical. The fundamentalism assumptions required are profound-and i'm not about to try my hand at apologetics for that branch of theology. Call up Pat Robertson if you care, but to a mainline or liberal Christian, the assumptions you make simply are not present.

With out divine authorship, it would be expected that human error is in the Bible...to not find it would indicate that humans could acheive perfection on their own, hardly the message that the bible was written to send!

God is the absolute that i profess my faith in, and i join a tradition that i believe is a part of the continuing revelation of God to the world.

I really question your reading skills. I don't mean to be snide, but that's not what i said at all. Lets just say this as plain as i can: The Bible is not God.

I have come to know God, in part, through that text. But that is just one part of an evolving tradition. It is a part i hold in great esteem, but i will not make an idol of it, or claim that it is authoritative in explaining God.

Alright by me, but i was just letting you know that this is not an attack on athiesm, just an exploration of what it might mean. In a world of no absolutes, the responsibility of the individual can be boundless, and i admire those who use that opportunity to explore their notions of morality and to try to live them out as best they can, regardless of what creed or lack thereof they profess...