Ask a real live atheist your questions!

[madmax_br5]

Hey everyone,
I am a strong non-believer (atheist) and have been for several years now. I am offering to answer any thoughtful questions you might have for me over the next few days. A few ground rules for asking questions:

1. Please choose questions that will enable civilized discussion. If you don't intend to be civil then please do not get involved in this thread.

2. Don't be afraid to ask difficult questions. I will answer any question as long as it proposed in a thoughtful manner.

3. Please keep politics out of this thread. This is about my nonbelief in a god and your questions about that, nothing more.

4. Posts that are not questions or that are deliberately inflammatory or rude will be ignored.

5. I don't need to be saved. Thanks though, I appreciate the effort :)

Let the games begin!

[Tim]

Okay, I'll ask a couple of related questions:

Have you carefully read the entire Bible?

If so, do you think there is any value to be found in it and, if so, what value?

[Meriweather]

Welcome, madmax, to the Religion Forum. We are always happy to have another atheist join in our already civilized discussions. In fact, people who are not civil, or who wish to discuss politics are shown the door to the entire Religion Forum. (This is all noted in the Religion Forum sticky at the top of the page. If you haven't read it, we all encourage you to do so.)

We have asked the difficult questions before, but it is your answers we have not yet heard. Why don't we begin with you telling us your story? Were you a strong believer at one point? If so, why? When and how did you come to realize you do not believe there is a God? Has this affected your relationship with friends, relatives, and co-workers?

The games began a long time ago, but we are so happy you have now joined in. We have a lot of fun here.

[riverrider]

Hey everyone,
I am a strong non-believer (atheist) and have been for several years now. I am offering to answer any thoughtful questions you might have for me over the next few days. A few ground rules for asking questions:

1. Please choose questions that will enable civilized discussion. If you don't intend to be civil then please do not get involved in this thread.

2. Don't be afraid to ask difficult questions. I will answer any question as long as it proposed in a thoughtful manner.

3. Please keep politics out of this thread. This is about my nonbelief in a god and your questions about that, nothing more.

4. Posts that are not questions or that are deliberately inflammatory or rude will be ignored.

5. I don't need to be saved. Thanks though, I appreciate the effort :)

Let the games begin!

God help us.
(sorry, I get unruly sometimes.) :)
RR

[starclassics]

Hey max, welcome to the boards.

I only have one question: When it comes time for you and me to pass away, what do you believe happens to us? Is that it or is there something else?

[madmax_br5]

Have you carefully read the entire Bible?

If so, do you think there is any value to be found in it and, if so, what value?

Hi, Tim!
No, I have not read the entire bible. The reason I have not is the same reason I have not read the complete texts of many other religions - you need not read the complete text of an idea in order to disagree with it. If I give you a sandwich with 500 ingredients in it and it tastes bad, you don't need to know every single ingredient in order to know that you don't like the sandwich. I take issue with the fundamental concept of a supernatural god or other such all-powerful being, the further particulars are not of much importance to me for there are thousands of different variations on this one idea. The Christian bible details one such variation, but there are many others.

That said, I have read some parts of the bible and have come to the conclusion that there are many things that I don't find objectionable, and many things I do find objectionable. The ten commandments are examples of good stuff, but the fact that we know it's good stuff suggests to me that morality is innate to us as humans regardless of the moral values religion, as it is innate to almost all other animals on earth. Piranhas for example, even when in a feeding frenzy, do not bite each other. One species will often take in the baby of a completely different species it might normally have eaten, and raise it as if it were its own child, why? This is nearly universal animal behavior. Furthermore, there is a lot of outdated and just plain cruel stuff in the bible. So much so that if you took it literally you'd collapse exhausted every day from all the stoning and putting to death you've had to do. Women, for example, are to be avoided for seven days when menstruating, and anything they touch is thought to become unclean. Shellfish is a big no-no. If you work on the sabbath you're supposed to be put to death. The point is there is both good and bad stuff in the bible, just like there is in every other religious text. But regardless of the particular good and bad ideals of the various religions, I can evaluate such ideals on a case-by-case basis, but my main issue is with the overall existence of god in the first place, rather than whether or not shrimp cocktails should be allowed on the menu.
Thank you for your questions.

[RickRhetoric]

Background and scenario:

Although I'm a Christian (Protestant), I believe in evolution. It's undeniably obvious and logical that the Creator ... created the universe via the process of evolution. I believe in the Bible but I also think it serves mostly as a guide to do the right and humane things. It is severely open to interpretation and translation.

I have respect for true atheists. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they like.

For many years I worked with and was associated with numerous atheists in socialist countries. They are just like everyone else -- some good and some bad. I have also served with atheists on battlefields. The old axiom which states that there are no atheists in foxholes, is pure nonsense. Some atheists are actually braver than some Christians.

True atheists in socialist and Communist nations are indifferent about religion. They don't try to convert anyone and don't want anyone to try to convert them -- live and let live. I admire them for that. True atheists also perform tons of humanitarian work in conjunction with local Catholic churches in those socialist nations. (Catholics are more tolerant of atheists). True atheists do good deeds, not because they're afraid "God will get them," but because they have good, natural, humanitarian and compassionate hearts for the downtrodden.

Now for the zinger! Most American atheists (who have been raised with exposure to religion) are not true atheists. They are pseudo- atheists and agnostics. Most American atheists are conflicted and troubled in their beliefs -- they are unsure and express doubt. Consequently they yearn for someone to prove or disprove the Creator (which is impossible). Most American atheists are frustrated and therefore have a natural tendency to mock religion and make trouble for those who do believe in a Creator.

Thank you for your time and may God bless you anyway whether you need or want it.

That is all.

[madmax_br5]

Hey max, welcome to the boards.

I only have one question: When it comes time for you and me to pass away, what do you believe happens to us? Is that it or is there something else?

Hi Starclassics, I'd be happy to answer your question.
When we pass away, I believe that's it. The mind, in my perspective, is dependent on the brain and is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain. When the brain shuts down, the mind shuts down as well. So there is simply nothing. There is no realization that you are dead, there is no heaven, there is no hell - the world as you know it simply ends. Now, this is a pretty scary thought, and coming to terms with that fear of nothingness took me a while to come to terms with. I see the comfort religion offers, but since I believe that comfort to be based on false promises, I can't buy into it, and this forced me to confront the concept of nonexistence. But when you think about it, billions of people have already died, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop death. It is a natural part of the cycle of life, and I am happy to have what time I was lucky enough, by chance, to get. I actually take comfort in the fact that I won't know when I'm dead, because then I guess I can't be sad about it can I? :)

[signcut]

How did you come to your belief?

I spent years as an agnostic, and a comparatively short time as an atheist, and have come to the place I am now in my life, which is a Christian. I know that people have different ideas and beliefs at different times in their lives, and it can be interesting to hear how they have come to where they are now.

[madmax_br5]

We have asked the difficult questions before, but it is your answers we have not yet heard. Why don't we begin with you telling us your story? Were you a strong believer at one point? If so, why? When and how did you come to realize you do not believe there is a God? Has this affected your relationship with friends, relatives, and co-workers?


Thank you for the welcome!
Well as for me, I grew up in a Jewish household and went to Sunday school for a few years as well as services at our reform temple. My mother is ethnically Jewish and my father converted to Judaism before he married my mother. I had a neutral reception to the Sunday school experience - I was neither drawn toward nor repulsed from the biblical Jewish stories, and learning about a lot of it was at times quite fun and I had made some friends at the temple. I was a bright and inquisitive kid and I liked to ask questions. One of my earliest questions about religion was when I asked my mother how Santa Claus knew not to stop at our house because we were Jewish. I ended up finding out earlier than most of my non-jewish friends that santa claus wasn't really real, and I was told to keep this a secret! My next crisis of faith was the tooth-fairy incident. Because Santa had long been debunked for me, the tooth fairy sort of filled the void for me in terms of belief in supernatural characters. I took it VERY seriously. When I would lose a tooth my mom would tell me to shout out what I wanted the tooth fairy to bring me in exchange, and I would do so with glee. And the fairy ALWAYS delivered! I always hoped one day I'd see her and talk with her but that day never came. One of my friends at school told me that his mom was the tooth fairy. Wow! My friends' mom was the tooth fairy! After several fits in which I begged my mom to let me meet the real tooth fairy, she decided to let me in on the real secret, that every mom in their own kid's tooth fairy. This was quite shocking to me at the time because it really was my main at the time.
When I got older I developed what I felt to be a personal but casual relationship with god. When something good would happen, I would thank god. When something bad would happen, I would look to the sky and ask "why?". My parents went through an amicable divorce when I was in junior high school, and to cope with the separation, I adopted a fatlistic system of belief - that I had no control over what happened in my life because it was all predetermined, so there was no use crying about it. Whether it was predetermined by god or by something else I didn't really care too much about. Throughout high school I became increasingly annoyed with my religious friends, since they seemed so disconnected with daily life and worrying about all this stuff that didn't seem to be important. Every social event had a jewish tinge to it, and I felt like I didn't always want to be relating with my friends through the medium of religion. I stopped attending religious functions for the most part at that point, but I still attended and enjoyed the high holiday services, mainly because I liked the music and the way everyone sang together. My jewish friends would ask me at school why I had stopped going to the evening and weekend services, and I told them I was an atheist, mostly to get attention as at that point I didn't really mean it. They would ask me why I was an atheist with a curious look on their face, and I didn't have an answer for them so I said "just because."
Anyways, I went of to college far away from home for four years, and in the first year I pretty much forgot about judaism completely as I had many other new social and intellectual experiences to deal with. I hadn't actually "spoken" to god many years.
I can't recall what the actual moment was, but one day I just had this realization that religion wasn't important to me, that I didn't need it to be a good person or to do anything else. At that point I was still very weary of the title "atheist" because for some reason it contains a very negative social stigma, and I didn't give it much thought, just went on with my studies and learning to live independently. There was one moment I do remember toward the end of college that really crystalized everything together. My roommate's mother at the time was an islamic dervish, and she invited me to attend a concert with a world renown islamic vocal performer. I was in a bit of a daze through the performance as I was a bit ill at the time, but it was alright. But afterwards, we were introduced to the singer. This was a man who had completely converted to islam and it had become his whole life. It was all he talked about; devotion and the history of islam - on and on until I felt nauses and nearly had to excuse myself from the room. And something changed in me, and I just new it was all a big farce. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, it was all just a big lie. So I slowly did more reading and heard some discussions on it, and I have never felt so clear at any point in my life before now. I was on the agnostic fence for a while, but now I have no problem saying I am a complete atheist. My mom doesn't care about my lack of belief in god, because she confided she hasn't ever actually believed in a god either, but she was a bit bummed by my reluctance to participate in the traditions of judaism. We've gotten through that though, and she is fine with it now as I don't act any different than I did before. My friends are mostly atheist/agnostic anyways, althought they feel less trongly about it than I do, and would be reluctant to label themselves as anything. It doesn't really come up in daily conversation - life goes on as usual. I did have one direct conversation about it once with one of my friends. She asked me if I was an agnostic or a complete atheist. I put myself out there and told her I was a strong atheist. She said she was glad I wasn't sitting on the fence, because so many people do these days. We are now dating :)
It has never come up in my work.
Well that's a good start, thanks for asking!

[cb79]

My question in your explanation of the mind ceasing to exist, what actually is the mind? What is its function? What can it do? Why does it think? Can a person who is in a coma have the mind anymore?

Just wanted to know your explanation?

Also how do we come to an understanding of existence? If our conscious self depends upon the brain? Does a dead brain exist? Is it possible that their is an existence of a immsterial being or a subjective I?

Just some questions on how you came to your conclusions.

Peace

[madmax_br5]

How did you come to your belief?
There is a summary of my religious history in my reply to Meriweather above, so I will answer your question more on the topic of why I am a strong atheist.

Firstly, I have seen no evidence of miracles or anything else. Every magic trick is just that in the end - a trick. If god wanted to convince me, all he would have to do would be to perform some real miracle, somewhere in the world. What I have seen tons of evidence for, however, is the sheer amount of misdeeds committed in the name of religions or in the name of god(s) throughout history. I have seen people use religions to fatten their wallet, to con people into fighting a war for them, to convince citizens to turn a blind eye to mass slaughter, and in general to endanger the future of humanity. And I want no part of this.

Secondly, I find no need to turn to religion for moral guidance. I do my best to live my life honestly and with consideration for others, and I do so not because a book tells me to, but because my conscience is clear and my mind is free. I would consider myself a much more "moral" person than many of the Christians my age I have met. I give what I can and I help where I can, if I am in a position to do so.

Thirdly, I have deeply rooted respect for the process of science and for rational, logical thought. The word "faith" has no meaning for me. It reminds me of Las Vegas. That look people get when the dice are coming out and their fists are clenched and their eyes gazing up toward the sky. That's the look of faith. Even though it has no effect on how those dice come up. We'd all like to think that somehow we can beat the system through faith, because we've been told we can by multi million dollar advertising campaigns and bad movies onvolving the likes of Chevy Chase. But the house wins in the end. Any other outcome is just bad business. If you've gambled in vegas for an appreciable stretch you probably know that. I will always choose a principle backed by observable evidence than one backed by faith, because faith as
far as I have seen is just a lot of clenched fists and eye rolling - whereas if you actually want to get something done you've got to roll up your sleeves and put in some hours.

Basically, I was tired of getting lied to and using my time to advance someone else's particularly crafted delusion.

[TaylorW65]

There is a summary of my religious history in my reply to Meriweather above, so I will answer your question more on the topic of why I am a strong atheist.

Firstly, I have seen no evidence of miracles or anything else. Every magic trick is just that in the end - a trick. If god wanted to convince me, all he would have to do would be to perform some real miracle, somewhere in the world. What I have seen tons of evidence for, however, is the sheer amount of misdeeds committed in the name of religions or in the name of god(s) throughout history. I have seen people use religions to fatten their wallet, to con people into fighting a war for them, to convince citizens to turn a blind eye to mass slaughter, and in general to endanger the future of humanity. And I want no part of this.

Secondly, I find no need to turn to religion for moral guidance. I do my best to live my life honestly and with consideration for others, and I do so not because a book tells me to, but because my conscience is clear and my mind is free. I would consider myself a much more "moral" person than many of the Christians my age I have met. I give what I can and I help where I can, if I am in a position to do so.

Thirdly, I have deeply rooted respect for the process of science and for rational, logical thought. The word "faith" has no meaning for me. It reminds me of Las Vegas. That look people get when the dice are coming out and their fists are clenched and their eyes gazing up toward the sky. That's the look of faith. Even though it has no effect on how those dice come up. We'd all like to think that somehow we can beat the system through faith, because we've been told we can by multi million dollar advertising campaigns and bad movies onvolving the likes of Chevy Chase. But the house wins in the end. Any other outcome is just bad business. If you've gambled in vegas for an appreciable stretch you probably know that. I will always choose a principle backed by observable evidence than one backed by faith, because faith as
far as I have seen is just a lot of clenched fists and eye rolling - whereas if you actually want to get something done you've got to roll up your sleeves and put in some hours.

Basically, I was tired of getting lied to and using my time to advance someone else's particularly crafted delusion.


I hear what you're saying. There is so much pain and suffering carried out in the world in the name of God. I grew up Catholic, I attended some very Christian Fundamentalist Churches in my life. I have also explored other religions specifically Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism.

I also a member of a 12 step group. So I now call myself a believer in exile. I have rejected organized religion but not God. I have many spiritual beliefs that would fill pages but I will just state that faith and trust in a power greater than I has brought much comfort and peace in my life.

I really have no questions to ask. But I often find atheists easier to talk to than some devout fundamentalist Christians.

[captusa]

God help us.
(sorry, I get unruly sometimes.) :)
RR

One Atheistic bit of advice.
Don't hold your breath while you wait for HIS help.

[madmax_br5]

what actually is the mind? What is its function? What can it do? Why does it think? Can a person who is in a coma have the mind anymore?

The mind is an emergent property of the brain. The same as running is an emergent property of legs and muscles, and driving an emergent property of the parts that make up a car. The mind is created in a very very complex electrical network in the brain. If a brain is a computer, which it is, the mind is the software. A computer without software doesn't do much beyond basic functions, so the function of the mind is to allow us to make more complicated decisions. The reason for this has its roots in evolution. A while back, it was an advantage to be able to think more critically, because this led to proto-humans learning how to make tools, and then to use those tools to create new objects and to communicate very specifically with other humans. Much of the mind's development is based around the evolution of language. In order for there to be knowledge, there must be a language for this knowledge to exist in. Language is why our brains need to be so big compared to other animals, and is the sole reason we are so intelligent. Likewise, the software (the mind) can't be run without the computer. Turn the computer off and the software doesn't go anywhere - else - it just stays in memory. If that memory crashes or if there is some other form of hardware failure, the software will not function correctly. When people are in a coma, sometimes there is a lack of communication between parts of the brain and the software can't run. If the brain repairs itself over time, the software than work properly again. But if the software (mind) itself has been corrupted somehow, there will be varying degrees of damage and sometimes the person does not recover.


Also how do we come to an understanding of existence? If our conscious self depends upon the brain? Does a dead brain exist? Is it possible that their is an existence of a immsterial being or a subjective I?


An understanding of existence is something most animals posess, and it is purely a survival device. If an individual is aware of themselves, they are less likely to endanger themselves, thereby having a higher rate of survival. The entire concept of knowing you exist has one simple goal - to make you terrified of dying. And it is exactly this fear of death that most religions exploit.

A "dead brain" does not have a mind anymore. The software is corrupted, it will not function. There is not a soul or separate person that exists outside of the brain. If the brain is dead, the consciousnedd of the person is gone.

[madmax_br5]

I have many spiritual beliefs that would fill pages but I will just state that faith and trust in a power greater than I has brought much comfort and peace in my life.

I really have no questions to ask. But I often find atheists easier to talk to than some devout fundamentalist Christians.

I am glad you have found peace in your own path, and I hope that you continue to be inquisitive and amazed with the world we live in. No matter how it got here, we can all agree it is amazing! :)

[captusa]

Hey max, welcome to the boards.

I only have one question: When it comes time for you and me to pass away, what do you believe happens to us? Is that it or is there something else?

Can another Atheist respond ?
You, I, and Max are dead.


Period.

A question I have for many Theists.
Why do you require the belief that one life (or for that matter one birth) is not sufficient.

I have no difficult accepting my mortality.

[TaylorW65]

I am glad you have found peace in your own path, and I hope that you continue to be inquisitive and amazed with the world we live in. No matter how it got here, we can all agree it is amazing! :)

One of the things about me is that I am a seeker. This world is quite amazing.

[Mikko]

It will be interesting to see the contributions to this board of some our more adamant ideologues.:)

[Tim]

It will be interesting to see the contributions to this board of some our more adamant ideologues.:)

Perhaps but they may not be interested enough. The 'ask an atheist' thing has been done before and atheists participate in most of the threads already which provides much of the same info over and over again. Max will, of course, provide his own perspective.

[Semi-Sweet]

Hey everyone,
I am a strong non-believer (atheist) and have been for several years now. I am offering to answer any thoughtful questions you might have for me over the next few days. A few ground rules for asking questions:

1. Please choose questions that will enable civilized discussion. If you don't intend to be civil then please do not get involved in this thread.

2. Don't be afraid to ask difficult questions. I will answer any question as long as it proposed in a thoughtful manner.

3. Please keep politics out of this thread. This is about my nonbelief in a god and your questions about that, nothing more.

4. Posts that are not questions or that are deliberately inflammatory or rude will be ignored.

5. I don't need to be saved. Thanks though, I appreciate the effort :)

Let the games begin!

Is Atheism a religion?

[captusa]

Is Atheism a religion?

Atheism is a religious point of view and not a specific religion.
Theism is a religious point of view and not a specific religion.
Monotheism is a religious point of view and not a specific religion.
You knew that.

[Lie Sniper]

Hey everyone,
I am a strong non-believer (atheist) and have been for several years now. I am offering to answer any thoughtful questions you might have for me over the next few days. A few ground rules for asking questions:

1. Please choose questions that will enable civilized discussion. If you don't intend to be civil then please do not get involved in this thread.

2. Don't be afraid to ask difficult questions. I will answer any question as long as it proposed in a thoughtful manner.

3. Please keep politics out of this thread. This is about my nonbelief in a god and your questions about that, nothing more.

4. Posts that are not questions or that are deliberately inflammatory or rude will be ignored.

5. I don't need to be saved. Thanks though, I appreciate the effort :)

Let the games begin!

Welcome aboard madmax!
I have only a couple questions, as I for the most part, "get" Atheism. I'm not personally offended by your lack of belief as some Christians, and rather enjoy the Atheist perspective on matters of Religion.

Question one: I've read your background, and don't recall you addressing how long you have been an Atheist?

Question two: I'm rather intrigued by an Atheists participation on a religion forum. What would be your reason?

[madmax_br5]

Is Atheism a religion?

No. Atheism, using the strict definition, is the lack of belief in a god. Using a looser definition, it is the lack of trust of or belief in most established religions as well. Atheists do no congregate, there are no churches, there is no holy book. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.

[Mikko]

No. Atheism, using the strict definition, is the lack of belief in a god. Using a looser definition, it is the lack of trust of or belief in most established religions as well. Atheists do no congregate, there are no churches, there is no holy book. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.
Then I would repeat Lie Sniper's question, and I don't mean this in a challenging way because I like having atheists in this forum, but if atheism is not a religion, what motivates you to post in a religion forum?

[pictor]

Then I would repeat Lie Sniper's question, and I don't mean this in a challenging way because I like having atheists in this forum, but if atheism is not a religion, what motivates you to post in a religion forum?
Because many atheists enjoy debating religion and it's effect on the human condition.

Or at least the atheists that come to this forum do.

[Mikko]

Because many atheists enjoy debating religion and it's effect on the human condition.

Or at least the atheists that come to this forum do.
Thank you, and given the impulse of many religionists to suppress atheistic thought, I makes sense. I was just wondering what our OP's reason is.:)

[madmax_br5]

Question one: I've read your background, and don't recall you addressing how long you have been an Atheist?

Question two: I'm rather intrigued by an Atheists participation on a religion forum. What would be your reason?

Thanks for the welcome Sniper!
I have been an atheist for about five or six years now. My reason for participating is that I feel the atheist position is usually misunderstood by many people who consider themselves religious, and this leads to a negative stereotype of atheists who are said to be immoral people. I don't find this to be the case, so I suppose I am hoping to foster some healthy discussing about nonbelief so that those of us who choose to follow a religion might also respect that atheists can be good people too, even if they don't believe in the same things you do. It is easy to draw incorrect assumptions about someone without intimate knowledge of why they behave the way they do, so to prevent that type of pre-judgment from taking place, I am offering to answer such questions so that people will have directly from the source what I believe and why I believe it. Mutual understanding and mutual respect are the first bridges that need to be built between atheists and theists, and someone has to start somewhere :)

[captusa]

Then I would repeat Lie Sniper's question, and I don't mean this in a challenging way because I like having atheists in this forum, but if atheism is not a religion, what motivates you to post in a religion forum?

Atheism is a religious point of view.
Where else would an Atheist, a Theist, a Monotheist, a Polytheist or a member of a Mystic religion that does not involve a Deity discuss their philosophies ?

[terri910]

...I makes sense..Sometimes you makes sense, Mikko, but sometimes youse makes mistakens! :razz:

[captusa]

Thank you, and given the impulse of many religionists to suppress atheistic thought, I makes sense. I was just wondering what our OP's reason is.:)

Bush I said we shouldn't be citizens or vote while (some) Christians whine about being persecuted in OUR country.

[Lie Sniper]

Thanks for the welcome Sniper!
I have been an atheist for about five or six years now. My reason for participating is that I feel the atheist position is usually misunderstood by many people who consider themselves religious, and this leads to a negative stereotype of atheists who are said to be immoral people. I don't find this to be the case, so I suppose I am hoping to foster some healthy discussing about nonbelief so that those of us who choose to follow a religion might also respect that atheists can be good people too, even if they don't believe in the same things you do. It is easy to draw incorrect assumptions about someone without intimate knowledge of why they behave the way they do, so to prevent that type of pre-judgment from taking place, I am offering to answer such questions so that people will have directly from the source what I believe and why I believe it. Mutual understanding and mutual respect are the first bridges that need to be built between atheists and theists, and someone has to start somewhere :)

Follow up question:

My understanding of Atheism is that there are different categories.
(Feel free to correct my understanding). Would you consider yourself to be hostile to religion and interested in convincing other people to not believe, (strong Atheism) or, content in your lack of belief, but open to new information that could change your opinion,(weak Atheism)?
I only ask, because your OP states that you are a strong Atheist, but your response to my questions, is one similar to a weak atheist according to my current understanding.

In my experience, strong atheists seem to be more hostile toward religion, yet you don't seem to fit that mold.

IMO, hostile non-believers are just as closed-minded and ignorant as extreme religious proselytes.

[captusa]

Follow up question:

My understanding of Atheism is that there are different categories.
(Feel free to correct my understanding). Would you consider yourself to be hostile to religion and interested in convincing other people to not believe, (strong Atheism) or, content in your lack of belief, but open to new information that could change your opinion,(weak Atheism)?
I only ask, because your OP states that you are a strong Atheist, but your response to my questions, is one similar to a weak atheist according to my current understanding.

In my experience, strong atheists seem to be more hostile toward religion, yet you don't seem to fit that mold.

IMO, hostile non-believers are just as closed-minded and ignorant as extreme religious proselytes.

There are Christians with very strong beliefs that do respect other religions and don't "over proselytize".
The same is true for Atheists.
Strong beliefs do not necessitate intolerance.

In my college years (sophmoric period if you like) I aggressively argued for Atheism iff and when religion was brought up but fortunately I outgrew proselytizing.
I do not think favorably of most religions but I do not expect believers to be influenced by me and I feel that if someone is satisfied with their faith so be it.

[rmpw8]

No. Atheism, using the strict definition, is the lack of belief in a god. Using a looser definition, it is the lack of trust of or belief in most established religions as well. Atheists do no congregate, there are no churches, there is no holy book. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.

Tell that to Michel Onfray!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/182927/may-03-2007/the-word---the-unquisition

[signcut]

I'm going to snip for brevity. Hope you don't mind...There is a summary of my religious history in my reply to Meriweather above, so I will answer your question more on the topic of why I am a strong atheist.

Firstly, I have seen no evidence of miracles or anything else... snip

I can't specifically say that do either, but I also can't say that it is necessary for my belief. Nor is an unsullied ideal, as none exist. If atheists have commited the same crimes as believers, is that enough to make you squeamish about your position?

Secondly, I find no need to turn to religion for moral guidance. I do my best to live my life honestly and with consideration for others, and I do so not because a book tells me to, but because my conscience is clear and my mind is free.

I agree, I don't believe that an atheist, or believer in any other religion, cannot be moral. While their morals may be based on something other than the Bible, Jesus, or God, they can be almost the same. Same destination, different road, I suppose you could say...

Thirdly, I have deeply rooted respect for the process of science and for rational, logical thought.

Interesting, as I too have respect for such. In my view, which is admittedly not the view of all Christians, but not unheard of either, science and belief are not diametrically opposed. I suppose that one could put it that science is for the what, and religious is for the why.

Basically, I was tired of getting lied to and using my time to advance someone else's particularly crafted delusion.

I asked becasue it took me a lot of pondering to get to where I was at any given time; questioning what was said, what it meant, did it correspond to what I felt was true, etc.

Perhaps an interesting question for you: some people say that faith is often the result of how we were raised, what we believed (or were told to believe) in our youth, and that we come back to it for reassurance, rather than for truth. As you didn't seem to ever be 'religious', do you think that this possibly has played a part in your coming to where you are now?

[Fig Tree]

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survice, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Is it posible that similarities in design between different animals prove that they had a common designer instead of a common ancestor?

If Theory of Evolution where true..why does it violate the second Law of Thermodynamics?

Theories must be proved to become law...Name one clear prediction of macroevolution that was proved true?

Evolution like Christianity are both faith based...How many have died for the faith in evolution? Are you willing to take it to the grave? What will you tell God if you are wrong? Please note that faith in anything above God is Blasphemy...

[gpd®]

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.

Interesting, with that same train of thought, would you agree that evil is the absence of good?

[captusa]

Originally Posted by madmax_br5
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.

There are several religions that do not acknowledge a Deity.
Zen Buddhism has no God ergo Atheistic but still a religion.

[Fig Tree]

Fellow believers, let us not bash him for his belief and squabble over what Atheism is. It is a belief. He has faith in it. He is here and asking for questions not statements. Let him answer the questions.

[drbob]

Hi Starclassics, I'd be happy to answer your question.
When we pass away, I believe that's it. The mind, in my perspective, is dependent on the brain and is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain. When the brain shuts down, the mind shuts down as well. So there is simply nothing. There is no realization that you are dead, there is no heaven, there is no hell - the world as you know it simply ends. Now, this is a pretty scary thought, and coming to terms with that fear of nothingness took me a while to come to terms with. I see the comfort religion offers, but since I believe that comfort to be based on false promises, I can't buy into it, and this forced me to confront the concept of nonexistence. But when you think about it, billions of people have already died, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop death. It is a natural part of the cycle of life, and I am happy to have what time I was lucky enough, by chance, to get. I actually take comfort in the fact that I won't know when I'm dead, because then I guess I can't be sad about it can I? :)



Welcome to the RF Mr. Max,

C.S. Lewis once said, "You don't have a soul... You are a soul. You have a body." (emphasis added).

How do you reconcile your observation versus that of Lewis? If he is right; a body is a temporary dwelling for an eternal soul.

Does the essence of a man exist in his soul, or is man just a mechanized, mobile heap of interactive biohazard?

Furthermore, can you share with me your evidence that there is no heaven nor no hell?

[Meriweather]

madmax, thank you for sharing a little about yourself, as I found it interesting. One question we have kicked around the forum quite a lot is, What would it take to make an atheist become a believer. Have you ever thought of what might convince you of God's existence?

[adclark]

Follow up question:

My understanding of Atheism is that there are different categories.
(Feel free to correct my understanding). Would you consider yourself to be hostile to religion and interested in convincing other people to not believe, (strong Atheism) or, content in your lack of belief, but open to new information that could change your opinion,(weak Atheism)?
.

There are also "Moderate Atheists" who are content with others believing in their respective deities but are firm in the belief that there is no God.

[captusa]

Welcome to the RF Mr. Max,

C.S. Lewis once said, "You don't have a soul... You are a soul. You have a body." (emphasis added).

How do you reconcile your observation versus that of Lewis? If he is right; a body is a temporary dwelling for an eternal soul.

madmax_br5 and C.S. Lewis have a difference of opinion.
madmax_br5 might think C.S. Lewis is making an unverifiable assumption.
That's what I think.

Does the essence of a man exist in his soul, or is man just a mechanized, mobile heap of interactive biohazard?

If those are the only 2 choices, man is just a mechanized, mobile heap of interactive biohazard.
Perhaps you have omitted other possibilities.


Furthermore, can you share with me your evidence that there is no heaven nor no hell?

There is no possible evidence to prove non existance.
I doubt very much that my yard is over-run with a wild herd of invisible unicorns but I am unable to present any evidence.

[adclark]

Tell that to Michel Onfray!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/182927/may-03-2007/the-word---the-unquisition

There is no organization that represents Atheism, only some individuals that are misguided in their belief that Atheists need someone to represent them (non-Priests of a non-Religion?).

[captusa]

madmax, thank you for sharing a little about yourself, as I found it interesting. One question we have kicked around the forum quite a lot is, What would it take to make an atheist become a believer. Have you ever thought of what might convince you of God's existence?

I'm sure if an omnipotent Deity wished to convince me of HIS existance HE would figure a way to do it.
If HE does, I'll let you know how HE did it.

[drbob]

I'm sure if an omnipotent Deity wished to convince me of HIS existance HE would figure a way to do it.
If HE does, I'll let you know how HE did it.


Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Capt...
There are just somethings that you have to do for yourself... It is not up to God to prove anything to you or to convince you of anything.-

[captusa]

There are also "Moderate Atheists" who are content with others believing in their respective deities but are firm in the belief that there is no God.
I fit your description of a "Moderate Atheist" but I do not consider myself to be Moderate nor do I recall ever being described as such.
Many Chistians feel their Deity requires them to convince others of the truth of their religion.
i.e. Share the Word of God.

The most devout Jew is not compeled to share his religion and
is content with others believing in their respective deity, deities or lack thereof but is firm in his belief.

[Semi-Sweet]

Hi Starclassics, I'd be happy to answer your question.
When we pass away, I believe that's it. The mind, in my perspective, is dependent on the brain and is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain. When the brain shuts down, the mind shuts down as well. So there is simply nothing. There is no realization that you are dead, there is no heaven, there is no hell - the world as you know it simply ends. Now, this is a pretty scary thought, and coming to terms with that fear of nothingness took me a while to come to terms with. I see the comfort religion offers, but since I believe that comfort to be based on false promises, I can't buy into it, and this forced me to confront the concept of nonexistence. But when you think about it, billions of people have already died, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop death. It is a natural part of the cycle of life, and I am happy to have what time I was lucky enough, by chance, to get. I actually take comfort in the fact that I won't know when I'm dead, because then I guess I can't be sad about it can I? :)

The part I bolded. . . .

John 11:25. . ."Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" She said to him, "Yes Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world."

Man faced two appointments, death and judgment. For us who believe, Jesus met both appointments!!! We will not die or come into judgment. As an advocate-counselor-attorney stands in court for the defendant, Jesus took our place in judgment. He paid the penalty for us. We are no longer accounted guilty.

We cannot stop the death of our physical body, but we can save our soul from death and separation from God who is our life.

[captusa]

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Capt...
There are just somethings that you have to do for yourself... It is not up to God to prove anything to you or to convince you of anything.-
The question was," Have you ever thought of what might convince you of God's existence?"

I was raised to be a believing Jew.
I have studied several other religions and philosophies.
I have been an Atheist (actually a Non-Theist) for over half a century and have as much faith in the impossibility of the existance of a trancendental Deity as any person of faith has to the contrary.

Barring some divine evidence there is no reason for me to question my faith.

[biggles53]

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

This makes no sense. Organisms reproduce, not individual cells...

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survice, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Because we (living things) are basically DNA replicators, housed in sophisticated survival machines.......

Is it posible that similarities in design between different animals prove that they had a common designer instead of a common ancestor?

No. Not without any evidence to this effect.....

If Theory of Evolution where true..why does it violate the second Law of Thermodynamics?

It doesn't. learn some basic physics and stop relying on the lies printed in AIG....

Theories must be proved to become law...Name one clear prediction of macroevolution that was proved true?

Scientific theories are incapable of being "proven".... please learn some science..

Evolution like Christianity are both faith based...How many have died for the faith in evolution? Are you willing to take it to the grave? What will you tell God if you are wrong? Please note that faith in anything above God is Blasphemy...

No "faith" is required to accept the ToE....merely an examination of the EVIDENCE!

[Semi-Sweet]

If animal life comes from vegetable life, explain why hair grows on the cow and the horse, wool on the sheep, and feathers on the goose. . . .they all eat the same food. And what became of the law of development?

If animal life came from vegetable life explain why and tell us when the development became static. What power started the incline and prevented the decline?

[captusa]

There is no organization that represents Atheism, only some individuals that are misguided in their belief that Atheists need someone to represent them (non-Priests of a non-Religion?).

I have already expressed a dislike for most religious Fundamentalisms.
It looks like I will soon be adding Atheist Fundementalism to that list.

[biggles53]

If animal life comes from vegetable life, explain why hair grows on the cow and the horse, wool on the sheep, and feathers on the goose. . . .they all eat the same food. And what became of the law of development?

If animal life came from vegetable life explain why and tell us when the development became static. What power started the incline and prevented the decline?

Your questions begin with a faulty premise. Who says animal life comes from vegetable life....?

[RayMan]

I have already expressed a dislike for most religious Fundamentalisms.
It looks like I will soon be adding Atheist Fundementalism to that list.

You do have your moments cap. :)):))

[Meriweather]

I'm sure if an omnipotent Deity wished to convince me of HIS existance HE would figure a way to do it.
If HE does, I'll let you know how HE did it.

Very well. You know where to find me. ;)

[madmax_br5]

We cannot stop the death of our physical body, but we can save our soul from death, and separation from God who is our life.
According to the bible, sure. But as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing about the bible that tells me it's any more true than any of the other religious books out there. If the bible is true then why isn't the Koran equally true?

[rmpw8]

There is no organization that represents Atheism, only some individuals that are misguided in their belief that Atheists need someone to represent them (non-Priests of a non-Religion?).


Hahaha - I am well-aware of that. I apologize if you're not familiar with Stephen Colbert's show and satire because I think you may be missing the punch line here.

[Deak2112]

Am I really supposed to believe that the right combination of chemicals ,that obviously have no consciousness, and a catalyst(which is often said to be electricity/lightning) will suddenly make consciousness?

[madmax_br5]

How do you reconcile your observation versus that of Lewis? If he is right; a body is a temporary dwelling for an eternal soul.

Does the essence of a man exist in his soul, or is man just a mechanized, mobile heap of interactive biohazard?

Furthermore, can you share with me your evidence that there is no heaven nor no hell?

Thanks again for the kind welcomes! Lewis is entitled to his opinion, but does he have any evidence for it? If he does not, then it is worth no more than your opinion or my opinion. By that measure, how do I reconcile my opinion compared to that of a scientologist, or a hindu? My opinion is based on the fact that there is nothing we can measure beyond what exists in the brain itself. If we cannot detect it, than from our perspective it does not exist. Without some sort of supporting evidence, the existence of a soul beyond the brain is no more plausible than any other idea you could make up off the top of your head.

As for what man is, he is neither of the two option you suggested. He is mostly a hunk of meat, but consciousness is a beautifully evolved thing. It is magical insofar as to comprehend the vast network of electrical connections sparking to and fro, at a density so great that they can create an awareness of self. Truly remarkable and beautiful, but not beyond the realm of measurement and understanding.

As for evidence why there is not a heaven or a hell, I think you're approaching it a bit backwards. See the responsibility for proving something is always on the person who claims the postive rather than the negative. I works this way in court cases as well - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. I could claim that there are hundreds of magical, infisible frogs operating me like a marionette puppet, and you can't disprove that any more than I can disprove heaven or hell. Let's use an example closer to heaven and hell. Let's say I heard (because somebody important wrote it down in a book) that when you die, if you were good you go to marshmallow land and if you were bad you go to the pretzel prison. Can you disprove this theory?

[Semi-Sweet]

According to the bible, sure. But as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing about the bible that tells me it's any more true than any of the other religious books out there. If the bible is true then why isn't the Koran equally true?

It was the King James Version that was brought on board the Mayflower. The Koran is out of my orbit.

[RayMan]

<snip>

As for what man is, he is neither of the two option you suggested. He is mostly a hunk of meat, but consciousness is a beautifully evolved thing. It is magical insofar as to comprehend the vast network of electrical connections sparking to and fro, at a density so great that they can create an awareness of self. Truly remarkable and beautiful, but not beyond the realm of measurement and understanding. <snip>


I realize you were probably hyperbolizing about the beauty and wonder of consciousness but to have an atheist describe it as magical is just darn funny. Thanks, and again welcome to the RF.

[Semi-Sweet]

Your questions begin with a faulty premise. Who says animal life comes from vegetable life....?

Oops! That's right, the nourishment is different. Couldn't happen in a zillion years. The tiny blade of grass and the giant oak tree are nourished in exactly the same way; but it is not so of the ant and the elephant, or of the doodle-bug and the man.

The tree and the plant drink the rain and the sunshine and grow; the rain on the earth refreshes it; but let it rain on a horse, a dog or a man and . . . .no like results!

[captusa]

Am I really supposed to believe that the right combination of chemicals ,that obviously have no consciousness, and a catalyst(which is often said to be electricity/lightning) will suddenly make consciousness?

Not if you don't want to.

[madmax_br5]

Am I really supposed to believe that the right combination of chemicals ,that obviously have no consciousness, and a catalyst(which is often said to be electricity/lightning) will suddenly make consciousness?

No, Deak, that would be ridiculous! Consciousness took billions of years to come about. The chemicals and energy catalysts produce simple molecules called amino acids - the building blocks of more complex molecules called proteins. Amino acids are no more complex than you typical gaslone molecule, so it's not hard to imagine them forming randomly under the right conditions, and indeed they have been able to create them from "scratch" many times in the laboratory. Amino acids in a certain form strung together in long chains is the same thing as DNA. DNA is molecularly very simple, it is not hard to imagine it coming from a chemical modification of a normal amino acid chain. Anyways, so eventually a few useful proteins come about by chance, and by further chance, a tiny few of these proteins are able to work with other proteins and form basic molecular machines. String enough of these together and you get organelles, the little "organs" inside of cells. Group enough organelles together inside a membrane and you've got a basic cell. Now this process from amino acids to a basic bacterial cell that can reprocue likely took millions upon millions of years. Life is always a slow process.

But be careful not to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not explain the origins of life, it explains how life develops into new types of life. The concept it very simple: those that are better suited for their environment will do better and on average, have more kids than those who are less well adapted. Helpful variations or mutations quickly dominate, harmful variations are quickly destroyed. Over time, these gradual forces lead to big changes a new species. Consciousness itself took billions of years to come about, long after there were cells and plants and small creatures. But consciousness is too a result of evolution. When you are conscious, you care more about yourself and are less likely to run into the lions den, thereby increasing your rate of survival. Language is a survival tool, toolmaking is a survival tool, everything we are is a result of billions of years of trial and error. Really quite beautiful if you ask me.

[madmax_br5]

madmax, thank you for sharing a little about yourself, as I found it interesting. One question we have kicked around the forum quite a lot is, What would it take to make an atheist become a believer. Have you ever thought of what might convince you of God's existence?

To convince me of god's existence would be very simple. Do it the same way you convince anyone of anything else. You tell me you own a red cup, you show me a red cup, I believe you. You tell me there's a god, you show me there's a god, I would believe you the same as I did before. But unfortunately, most evidence points in the opposite direction. How come we don't see biblical-scale miracles happening today? Why don't we ever see evil people being turned into pillars of salt anymore?

[madmax_br5]

My understanding of Atheism is that there are different categories.
(Feel free to correct my understanding). Would you consider yourself to be hostile to religion and interested in convincing other people to not believe, (strong Atheism) or, content in your lack of belief, but open to new information that could change your opinion,(weak Atheism)?
...
In my experience, strong atheists seem to be more hostile toward religion, yet you don't seem to fit that mold.


Good question.
I am hostile to religion only to the degree it encroaches upon my life or the lives of others. Usually it is very easy to live and let live, I really don't have a vested interest in what other people choose to accept as the truth of the world. I become angered at religion when people want to deny me rights because I do not share their beliefs, and I am further angered when this is done to other people (religious wars being the primary example). I appreciate the existence of religions because they bring a great deal of culture to our world, by I choose to enjoy the better aspects of them at a distance. So in terms of my attitude toward religion, I am moderate. In terms of my conviction on the subject of the nonexistence of god, I am strong.

I am always open to new information, that is the entire point of science. If compelling evidence were to come to light for the existence of god or xenu or shiva the destroyer, I would accept it. But so far, there is none, so I stick with where the evidence points.

[madmax_br5]

I realize you were probably hyperbolizing about the beauty and wonder of consciousness but to have an atheist describe it as magical is just darn funny. Thanks, and again welcome to the RF.

No problem ;)

But aren't you forgetting that all magic tricks have an explanation? :P

[RayMan]

No problem ;)

But aren't you forgetting that all magic tricks have an explanation? :P

Aren't you in turn forgetting that they also all have a magician making the tricks happen? :whistle:

[Semi-Sweet]

I appreciate the existence of religions because they bring a great deal of culture to our world, by I choose to enjoy the better aspects of them at a distance.


:eek: In case you didn't realize it, you are right in here amongst us on this religion forum. . . .:eek:

[madmax_br5]

would you agree that evil is the absence of good?
Yes, I would agree with that general sentiment.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[madmax_br5]

It was the King James Version that was brought on board the Mayflower. The Koran is out of my orbit.

I'm not sure what you mean about the bible being brought over on the mayflower. Does this make it better than the books of other religions? My family came over on the mayflower...

[madmax_br5]

Aren't you in turn forgetting that they also all have a magician making the tricks happen? :whistle:

That's true, but I can usually see the magician up there on stage. Show me a magic trick performing itself and then you've got me ;)

[Semi-Sweet]

I'm not sure what you mean about the bible being brought over on the mayflower. Does this make it better than the books of other religions? My family came over on the mayflower...

From what I have read, most religions teach the same two great commandments that Christ taught. Love/respect God. . . .Love/respect our neighbor.

Wherever there is truth it is God's truth. If there is truth in the Koran, it is as much God's truth as truth that is found in the Bible. This is because all truth is of God. And God's truth is God's truth wherever it is found . . . . even when quoted by Satan himself!

[madmax_br5]

From what I have read, most religions teach the same two great commandments that Christ taught. Love/respect God. . . .Love/respect our neighbor.


I would agree that most all religions teach this and that "do unto others" is a core principal of morality, but unfortunately it's the results that disturb me. Many religions preach love the neighbor out of one side of the mouth and condemn him to death from the other side.

I am in agreement with the principle of treating one's neighbor with love and kindness, but religion doesn't seem to be an effective tool to teach or enforce it if all of recorded history serves as evidence.

You know about a year ago I was visiting with my grandmother and grandfather who are both practicing 85 year-old jews. My grandmother is blind and has skin cancer, and my grandfather has prostate cancer, made it through a tour of duty in WWII and raised a wonderful family. They are both two of the most honorable compassionate people I have ever met, and I always felt that in some way I would be offending them if they ever found out I was somewhat critical of religion since it played such a large role in their lives. Well we were talking and i casually mentioned something about religion leading people to do terrible things. My grandfather looked me straight in the eye and said, "You know, religion is responsible for most of the great tragedies in the history of mankind." We talked more about the topic, and it turns out my grandfather, though he takes great comfort in the traditions of judaism, does not believe in god. SO there are several parts that go into a religion. One is a belief in god, another is the rich history and culture associated with it, and the final is the moral teachings. Not believing in one does not automatically disqualify the others.

[signcut]

I'm sure if an omnipotent Deity wished to convince me of HIS existance HE would figure a way to do it.
If HE does, I'll let you know how HE did it.

What if it's a SHE...? :)

[RayMan]

That's true, but I can usually see the magician up there on stage. Show me a magic trick performing itself and then you've got me ;)

I'm not talking about a magic trick performing itself. You are moving the goalposts. :mrgreen:

I am assuming a magic trick has someone behind the scenes pulling it off. If I can't see him he is even better at his trade.

Now that I think of it, your original remark about consciousness presupposes magic without a magician. That calls for a greater stretch of the imagination than I am comfortable with.

[Semi-Sweet]

No, Deak, that would be ridiculous! Consciousness took billions of years to come about. The chemicals and energy catalysts produce simple molecules called amino acids - the building blocks of more complex molecules called proteins. Amino acids are no more complex than you typical gaslone molecule, so it's not hard to imagine them forming randomly under the right conditions, and indeed they have been able to create them from "scratch" many times in the laboratory. Amino acids in a certain form strung together in long chains is the same thing as DNA. DNA is molecularly very simple, it is not hard to imagine it coming from a chemical modification of a normal amino acid chain. Anyways, so eventually a few useful proteins come about by chance, and by further chance, a tiny few of these proteins are able to work with other proteins and form basic molecular machines. String enough of these together and you get organelles, the little "organs" inside of cells. Group enough organelles together inside a membrane and you've got a basic cell. Now this process from amino acids to a basic bacterial cell that can reprocue likely took millions upon millions of years. Life is always a slow process.

But be careful not to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not explain the origins of life, it explains how life develops into new types of life. The concept it very simple: those that are better suited for their environment will do better and on average, have more kids than those who are less well adapted. Helpful variations or mutations quickly dominate, harmful variations are quickly destroyed. Over time, these gradual forces lead to big changes a new species. Consciousness itself took billions of years to come about, long after there were cells and plants and small creatures. But consciousness is too a result of evolution. When you are conscious, you care more about yourself and are less likely to run into the lions den, thereby increasing your rate of survival. Language is a survival tool, toolmaking is a survival tool, everything we are is a result of billions of years of trial and error. Really quite beautiful if you ask me.

I believe that the real consciousness is in the Spiritual realm where God dwells. I don't believe life on this earth is it.

[madmax_br5]

Oops! That's right, the nourishment is different. Couldn't happen in a zillion years. The tiny blade of grass and the giant oak tree are nourished in exactly the same way; but it is not so of the ant and the elephant, or of the doodle-bug and the man.

Actually that variation happened very early on in the tree of life, hence why plants and animals are in different kingdoms in biological classification, which is primarily organized based on how organisms utilize energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

The chloroplast of the plant cell and the mitochondria of the animal cell are very very structurally similar. A leading theory postulates that they are both the result of completely separate bacteria becoming part of the cell, a theory which is supported by the fact that mitocondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA separate from the rest of the cell. Mitochondria and chroloplasts pretty much do exactly the same thing but in reverse. In a chloroplast, sunlight provides energy and you end up rearranging carbon dioxide molecules and water into glucose and oxygen, the simplest of sugars. In a mitrochondria, you input glucose and oxygen, and it splits it into water and carbon dioxide, releasing energy. The inputs and outputs of the two are the exact same but just happen in reverse. So not as far fetched of a jump as you may have thought. This is why plants are called "producers" and animals are called "consumers."

http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/biocoach/cellresp/overview.html

Plant reaction:
Energy + Water + CO2 --> Glucose + Oxygen

Animal Reaction:
Glucose + Oxygen --> Energy + Water + CO2

[madmax_br5]

I am assuming a magic trick has someone behind the scenes pulling it off. If I can't see him he is even better at his trade.


This is essentially a crane vs. skyhook argument. How are things built? Do we build them slowly from the bottom up making steady progress using cranes or do they magically just get dropped off by some divine helicopter? I find the leap of faith required to imagine a puppetmaster so complex he is able to master the universe itself (thereby being more complex than the entire universe by necessity) to be a far greater leap of faith than to think that with incredible patience amazing things can be built on the scaffolding of the past. If there is master magician of the universe, who made him?

[Semi-Sweet]

Actually that variation happened very early on in the tree of life, hence why plants and animals are in different kingdoms in biological classification, which is primarily organized based on how organisms utilize energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

The chloroplast of the plant cell and the mitochondria of the animal cell are very very structurally similar. A leading theory postulates that they are both the result of completely separate bacteria becoming part of the cell, a theory which is supported by the fact that mitocondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA separate from the rest of the cell. Mitochondria and chroloplasts pretty much do exactly the same thing but in reverse. In a chloroplast, sunlight provides energy and you end up rearranging carbon dioxide molecules and water into glucose and oxygen, the simplest of sugars. In a mitrochondria, you input glucose and oxygen, and it splits it into water and carbon dioxide, releasing energy. The inputs and outputs of the two are the exact same but just happen in reverse. So not as far fetched of a jump as you may have thought. This is why plants are called "producers" and animals are called "consumers."

http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/biocoach/cellresp/overview.html

Plant reaction:
Energy + Water + CO2 --> Glucose + Oxygen

Animal Reaction:
Glucose + Oxygen --> Energy + Water + CO2

Interesting theory, but my story is more simple. . .God did it. . .:D

I notice that the geological order of the scientist is the exact creative order of Moses.

Geology teaches that a vast watery waste existed
Moses said the earth was void and without form, and that darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Geology claims that watery vapors were lifted and formed into an expanse
Moses ascribes the same procedure to the creative act of God

Geology asserts that the earth pushed itself up from below or beneath the waters, and vegetation followed
Moses wrote that the dry land appeared and yielded grass, herb and tree

Geology says that the heavens then were cleared of the dense atmospheric expanse hanging over it and that the luminaries of the heavens began to shine on the earth
Moses records that on the fourth day of creation God made these luminary bodies of the heaven to give light upon the earth, to divide the day from the night, for seasons, for days and for years.

In the order of animal creation geology gives the order from the lower to the higher. . .fish, reptiles, birds and mammals, which the geologist list according to the "proportion of brain to spinal cord."

But, Moses records this exact order of animal creation.

What did Moses know about comparative anatomy, that fish are lower than reptiles, and reptiles lower than birds, and birds lower than mammals of the geological discoveries? The record of creation in Genesis, centuries before science was born and ages before geology was known, tabulates the order without a geological error or a scientific blunder.

Oh, I almost forgot my question. The mule is a hybrid and cannot produce its kind, but he is a stronger animal than either ancestor. If all animals are from the same parent stock, what is your explanation for these and many other examples in the laws of nature?

[megs280]

Hi. I have enjoyed reading your posts. The posters have already asked a lot of good questions.

My question is what are your thoughts on the concept of purpose in life? Why do you think humans and other organisms evolved and is their search for meaning in life conducted in vain? Do atheists feel that humans have erroneously placed importance on the ‘why’ questions when they try to apply them to the cosmos?

[madmax_br5]

The mule is a hybrid and cannot produce its kind, but he is a stronger animal than either ancestor. If all animals are from the same parent stock, what is your explanation for these and many other examples in the laws of nature?

Mules and other hybrids that have traits that are greater than their parents is called hybrid vigor. It does not always happen though, in fact in many cases hybrids are weaker than either parent. The reason is that genes come in pairs called alleles, and these alleles are designed to work with each other like puzzle pieces. There are dominant and recessive alleles, meaning an offspring can have one of four possibilities if the parents have one of each (Aa X Aa = AA, Aa, aA, aa). Now, if the individual is AA, Aa, aA, then the dominant allele "turns off" the recessive one via very specific coding. When you start mating species that are more distant from each other, the genes have changed slightly so this behavior does not happen. If the recessive gene has changed enough in one parent, it will no longer be inhibited by the dominant gene of another parent. This means that both traits will attempt to be expressed by the creature, and they will either cancel each other out, resulting in the creature not surviving, or they will compliment each other and produce traits not seen in either parent. The same holds true for two dominant alleles (AA). If they no longer match, then the genes are doing separate things and both of them are having separate effects that either interfere or compliment. This is called codominance (http://www.hobart.k12.in.us/jkousen/Biology/inccodom.htm)

The reason they are often sterile is the same reason stated above - the genes do not match. When the sex cells are formed, the chromosomes line up side-by-side and exchange genetic code between themselves to increase variation among the children. Well the problem is that genes have specific markers of where they begin and end, if they don't match up perfectly then they will attempt to swap and they will fail. This leaves the chromosomes missing large pieces and obviously these sex cells are not capable of functioning.

All of this was discovered by Gregor Mendel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel) 150 years ago, the priest who discovered genetics by experimenting on bean plants in the garden of his monastery.

more about mendel and his discoveries here in video for should you choose to watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8954554811366768018

[madmax_br5]

My question is what are your thoughts on the concept of purpose in life? Why do you think humans and other organisms evolved and is their search for meaning in life conducted in vain? Do atheists feel that humans have erroneously placed importance on the ‘why’ questions when they try to apply them to the cosmos?

A great group of questions, thank you.
I don't see how either the atheist nor the theist position can ever answer the question of "why" we are here. Compared to the age of the universe, humanity has been around for a fraction of a second. Humanity will not survive to see the end of the universe, so the best we can do while we are here is to learn as much about this wonderful place as we can. There's no overall point to it, every generation after the previous just wants to make it to a point where they can take it easy and then fade away. There's a prescient joke that seems relevant to tell here (blatantly ripped off from ahajokes.com):

"One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family.

"You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman, "you should be working rather than lying on the beach!"

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?"

"Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer.

"And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling.

The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!" "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again.

The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said.

"And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman.

The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!"

Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?"

The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!"

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?"

I think the more we find out about the world we live in, the more we realize there is to find out. SO my own personal motivation is the pursuit of beauty found in the process of untangling the mysteries of the natural world. It won't soon run out of mysteries, you could say they are a completely renewable resource :)

I don't really feel the question of "why" has any answer no matter which side you approach from. We are insignificant compared to the universe and as such we are at its mercy. At best we can hope to someday reach a star that is not our own, but I think that anything beyond that is beyond our grasp. I think it is more likely that if we manage not to kill each other for another 1000 years or so, technology will be the the point that a vast network of intelligence will be created and we will cease to be physical beings and become part of a combined consciousness. It is likely that a simulated brain is just as conscious as a biological brain, but that has yet to be proven. Hopefully within my life time :)

[megs280]

A great group of questions, thank you.
I don't see how either the atheist nor the theist position can ever answer the question of "why" we are here. Compared to the age of the universe, humanity has been around for a fraction of a second. Humanity will not survive to see the end of the universe, so the best we can do while we are here is to learn as much about this wonderful place as we can. There's no overall point to it, every generation after the previous just wants to make it to a point where they can take it easy and then fade away. There's a prescient joke that seems relevant to tell here (blatantly ripped off from ahajokes.com):

"One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family.

"You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman, "you should be working rather than lying on the beach!"

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?"

"Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer.

"And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling.

The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!" "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again.

The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said.

"And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman.

The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!"

Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?"

The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!"

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?"

I think the more we find out about the world we live in, the more we realize there is to find out. SO my own personal motivation is the pursuit of beauty found in the process of untangling the mysteries of the natural world. It won't soon run out of mysteries, you could say they are a completely renewable resource :)

I don't really feel the question of "why" has any answer no matter which side you approach from. We are insignificant compared to the universe and as such we are at its mercy. At best we can hope to someday reach a star that is not our own, but I think that anything beyond that is beyond our grasp. I think it is more likely that if we manage not to kill each other for another 1000 years or so, technology will be the the point that a vast network of intelligence will be created and we will cease to be physical beings and become part of a combined consciousness. It is likely that a simulated brain is just as conscious as a biological brain, but that has yet to be proven. Hopefully within my life time :)



Thank-you for sharing your insight and for posting the joke. It was very thought provoking and one I will definitely save for future reference. Your post also reflects a very refreshing outlook on the universe's mysteries and how much more there is to be discovered about the natural world in my opinion. The quest for truth and new discoveries is one that should never be abandoned by atheists or theists. :)

I agree that the theist also does not necessarily have clear or satisfactory answers for those ‘why’ questions I asked. One difference is that many theists believe that the questions asked since the beginning of humanity’s existence pertaining to why we are here are important and do have answers (even if those answers cannot ever be actually known in our life time). Basically as you probably know already, they believe that there is a grand plan and purpose behind the universe. As insignicant as we may seem we are actually all quite important as we are a component and result of this plan. In other words things happen for some ultimate reason.

Assuming a universe that operates without an ultimate cause or purpose which I personally do not believe, I would actually disagree that we are insignificant comparatively. That universe is vast and humanity hasn’t been around long but we are self-aware, we have the ability to complete tasks for logical reasons, we can observe and study our surroundings with awe and wonder, and we have the ability to try and find some meaning to our own short existence. It is quite amazing to contemplate that all of that was produced by mechanistic processes operating in a rather pointless universe. We can be wiped out any second by some meteor…but a lot of time and an amazing string of events and circumstances went in to the evolution of thinking, feeling beings.

Belief is based on faith, but I have always found the individual’s personal quest for reason, truth, and purpose in life an interesting argument for the notion that there is a grander ultimate purpose behind the cosmos…that maybe the concept of purpose/reason did not originate and will not cease with us.

[Tim]

I have already expressed a dislike for most religious Fundamentalisms.
It looks like I will soon be adding Atheist Fundementalism to that list.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Tim]

MadMax,

Some atheists and theists label atheists as "strong atheists" or "weak atheists". To me, this is like saying a woman is "a little bit pregnant". In my opinion, "atheism" only addresses a lack of belief in god(s), whereas "theism" addresses a belief in god(s). I refer to myself as an atheist because I do not believe in god(s). I also refer to myself as an agnostic because I do not have absolute knowledge as to whether or not god(s) exist somewhere in time and space.

What are your thoughts/opinions about this topic, if any? (This has been discussed a number of times in this forum and, no doubt, will come up again so I am curious as to your personal take on it.)

[signcut]

...I don't really feel the question of "why" has any answer no matter which side you approach from. We are insignificant compared to the universe and as such we are at its mercy. At best we can hope to someday reach a star that is not our own, but I think that anything beyond that is beyond our grasp. I think it is more likely that if we manage not to kill each other for another 1000 years or so, technology will be the the point that a vast network of intelligence will be created and we will cease to be physical beings and become part of a combined consciousness. It is likely that a simulated brain is just as conscious as a biological brain, but that has yet to be proven. Hopefully within my life time :)


'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for"... :D

[Lie Sniper]

MadMax,

Some atheists and theists label atheists as "strong atheists" or "weak atheists". To me, this is like saying a woman is "a little bit pregnant". In my opinion, "atheism" only addresses a lack of belief in god(s), whereas "theism" addresses a belief in god(s). I refer to myself as an atheist because I do not believe in god(s). I also refer to myself as an agnostic because I do not have absolute knowledge as to whether or not god(s) exist somewhere in time and space.

What are your thoughts/opinions about this topic, if any? (This has been discussed a number of times in this forum and, no doubt, will come up again so I am curious as to your personal take on it.)


Mornin' Tim. I already asked this question. http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=49195591#post49195591
madmax answered,

Good question.
I am hostile to religion only to the degree it encroaches upon my life or the lives of others. Usually it is very easy to live and let live, I really don't have a vested interest in what other people choose to accept as the truth of the world. I become angered at religion when people want to deny me rights because I do not share their beliefs, and I am further angered when this is done to other people (religious wars being the primary example). I appreciate the existence of religions because they bring a great deal of culture to our world, by I choose to enjoy the better aspects of them at a distance. So in terms of my attitude toward religion, I am moderate. In terms of my conviction on the subject of the nonexistence of god, I am strong.

I am always open to new information, that is the entire point of science. If compelling evidence were to come to light for the existence of god or xenu or shiva the destroyer, I would accept it. But so far, there is none, so I stick with where the evidence points.

Hope this helps!:)

[Tim]

Mornin' Tim. I already asked this question. http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=49195591#post49195591
madmax answered,



Hope this helps!:)

Thanks... yeah, I saw that but was wanting him to address it a bit more specifically perhaps.

Also, one of the theists on this forum brings up his perceived difference in American atheists and European atheists. He seems to have the idea that American atheists are in turmoil regarding their lack of belief. I don't agree with his assessment. As I said before, an atheist is an atheist (nobody is a little bit pregnant). The reason for more discussion in America has more to do with the fact that our society as a whole is more "religious" than Europe. This is especially true here in the deep south Bible Belt areas.

When I'm hanging out with other atheists, religion isn't a topic that comes up often at all. The European culture surrounding religion is much different, more laid back and more accepting of atheism. As one friend of mine who is from England (and a "christian") told me... "We (Europeans) believe in god with a little "g"... we're really more agnostic than christian."

Just as the atheists in Europe have more of a ho-hum attitude toward christianity, here in America both Christians and atheists have sort a a ho-hum attitude about Hinduism... it just isn't a part of our culture so it doesn't merit a lot of discussion.

[DRS]

Where do babies come from? :D

[Lie Sniper]

Thanks... yeah, I saw that but was wanting him to address it a bit more specifically perhaps...... Snip........


No problem. I just thought I would be helpful in case you hadn't seen what he had already posted. :)

[markd]

Where do babies come from? :DI have a video that will show the process in great detail.:razz:

[Lie Sniper]

Also, one of the theists on this forum brings up his perceived difference in American atheists and European atheists. He seems to have the idea that American atheists are in turmoil regarding their lack of belief. I don't agree with his assessment. As I said before, an atheist is an atheist (nobody is a little bit pregnant). The reason for more discussion in America has more to do with the fact that our society as a whole is more "religious" than Europe. This is especially true here in the deep south Bible Belt areas.

When I'm hanging out with other atheists, religion isn't a topic that comes up often at all. The European culture surrounding religion is much different, more laid back and more accepting of atheism. As one friend of mine who is from England (and a "christian") told me... "We (Europeans) believe in god with a little "g"... we're really more agnostic than christian."

Just as the atheists in Europe have more of a ho-hum attitude toward christianity, here in America both Christians and atheists have sort a a ho-hum attitude about Hinduism... it just isn't a part of our culture so it doesn't merit a lot of discussion.

I wonder if American Atheists are taking a more hostile roll precisely because religion has had such an active role in our societies past.

Does it bother an atheist if our money says in "God we trust"?
It's purpose and value remains the same.

Does it bother an atheist if we have the pledge saying under God?
The pledge is to this nation and it remains the same with or with God mentioned, doesn't it?

If Atheism is the absence of belief in any deity, wouldn't an atheist see themselves as not accountable to a higher power? So I wonder whats the big deal? Say the words, don't say the words....
......Have "In God we trust" on the money, Don't have it there,...... Whats the difference?

I will admit, that when religious beliefs are used to support laws that effect freedoms, non-believers have a right to protest, when they do not prescribe to similar reasoning.
Other then that, I have difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about. Atheists typically base their beliefs on logic and cold hard facts. An emotional atheist seems odd to me and when these things invoke such emotion from people lacking belief, it almost becomes a religion, IMO.

[James Juno]

I have a video that will show the process in great detail.:razz:

It's probably the most videographically studied phenomenon ever.

[Tim]

I wonder if American Atheists are taking a more hostile roll precisely because religion has had such an active role in our societies past.

Does it bother an atheist if our money says in "God we trust"?
It's purpose and value remains the same.

Does it bother an atheist if we have the pledge saying under God?
The pledge is to this nation and it remains the same with or with God mentioned, doesn't it?

If Atheism is the absence of belief in any deity, wouldn't an atheist see themselves as not accountable to a higher power? So I wonder whats the big deal? Say the words, don't say the words....
......Have "In God we trust" on the money, Don't have it there,...... Whats the difference?

I will admit, that when religious beliefs are used to support laws that effect freedoms, non-believers have a right to protest, when they do not prescrible to simular resoning.
Other then that, I have difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about. Athiests typically base thier beliefs on logic and cold hard facts. An emotional athiest seems odd to me and when these things invoke such emotion from people lacking belief, it almost becomes a religion, IMO.

As with anything, there are a FEW that are making noise about that which the majority couldn't care less. I (and the atheists I know) don't care one wit about the things you've mentioned. I have no problem saying the pledge of allegiance with the mention of god in it. I don't care what motto is on my money. I don't have any stats to back me up but I really don't think that most atheists care about most of those issues either. We simply want to enjoy the same LIBERTIES as every other citizen without government interference.

[Lie Sniper]

As with anything, there are a FEW that are making noise about that which the majority couldn't care less. I (and the atheists I know) don't care one wit about the things you've mentioned. I have no problem saying the pledge of allegiance with the mention of god in it. I don't care what motto is on my money. I don't have any stats to back me up but I really don't think that most atheists care about most of those issues either. We simply want to enjoy the same LIBERTIES as every other citizen without government interference.

As a believer, I too, could care one wit about the things I've mentioned. :cool:
I can have faith with or without these things, or things like these.
I often feel that, when people are overcome by their emotion on any issue, they are showing more doubt in what they believe to be true,
then proving their opinion correct.
I don't get all worked up over perceived attacks on religion, because if God is the God I understand Him to be, then He should be able to handle it. It's more the extremism, from either side that bothers me.

Interestingly, I seem to have more in common with strong/sure atheists, then I have with strong /sure believers.(some of the believers on this forum excluded of course;))
It would seem there is a higher number of extremist believers then their are extremist atheists.

[Semi-Sweet]

Mules and other hybrids that have traits that are greater than their parents is called hybrid vigor. It does not always happen though, in fact in many cases hybrids are weaker than either parent. The reason is that genes come in pairs called alleles, and these alleles are designed to work with each other like puzzle pieces. There are dominant and recessive alleles, meaning an offspring can have one of four possibilities if the parents have one of each (Aa X Aa = AA, Aa, aA, aa). Now, if the individual is AA, Aa, aA, then the dominant allele "turns off" the recessive one via very specific coding. When you start mating species that are more distant from each other, the genes have changed slightly so this behavior does not happen. If the recessive gene has changed enough in one parent, it will no longer be inhibited by the dominant gene of another parent. This means that both traits will attempt to be expressed by the creature, and they will either cancel each other out, resulting in the creature not surviving, or they will compliment each other and produce traits not seen in either parent. The same holds true for two dominant alleles (AA). If they no longer match, then the genes are doing separate things and both of them are having separate effects that either interfere or compliment. This is called codominance (http://www.hobart.k12.in.us/jkousen/Biology/inccodom.htm)

The reason they are often sterile is the same reason stated above - the genes do not match. When the sex cells are formed, the chromosomes line up side-by-side and exchange genetic code between themselves to increase variation among the children. Well the problem is that genes have specific markers of where they begin and end, if they don't match up perfectly then they will attempt to swap and they will fail. This leaves the chromosomes missing large pieces and obviously these sex cells are not capable of functioning.

All of this was discovered by Gregor Mendel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel) 150 years ago, the priest who discovered genetics by experimenting on bean plants in the garden of his monastery.

more about mendel and his discoveries here in video for should you choose to watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8954554811366768018

Thanks. This is the first explanation I have gotten from an evolutionist.

[pictor]

Does it bother an atheist if our money says in "God we trust"?
It does bother me a little, because as a statement, it doesn't apply to me, but as a statement, I am also not making it, so *shrug*
Does it bother an atheist if we have the pledge saying under God?
The pledge is to this nation and it remains the same with or with God mentioned, doesn't it?
This only bothers me if someone who objects to the wording is forced to say it. Now since no one can force you to say anything you don't want to....I don't especially care. Anyone that objects to the "under God" can simply leave it out when they recite the pledge (or pause long enough if reciting as part of a group)
If Atheism is the absence of belief in any deity, wouldn't an atheist see themselves as not accountable to a higher power? So I wonder whats the big deal?

The big deal is my own sense of honesty. If I were to ever say the pledge including "under God", I'd feel like I'd be telling a lie. Anyone reciting a pledge should mean every word they say. If a part of it is emotionally dishonest, they should exclude that part (so long as they don't pretend later they said it, which would also be dishonest)

[Lie Sniper]

It does bother me a little, because as a statement, it doesn't apply to me, but as a statement, I am also not making it, so *shrug*

I understand. You're about as bothered with this statement as I would be If it said "in Allah we trust", or "in Zeus we trust". It may cause a slight annoyance, as I don't believe in either in that context. So I would simply choose to ignore it.

This only bothers me if someone who objects to the wording is forced to say it. Now since no one can force you to say anything you don't want to....I don't especially care. Anyone that objects to the "under God" can simply leave it out when they recite the pledge (or pause long enough if reciting as part of a group)

Agree.

The big deal is my own sense of honesty. If I were to ever say the pledge including "under God", I'd feel like I'd be telling a lie. Anyone reciting a pledge should mean every word they say. If a part of it is emotionally dishonest, they should exclude that part (so long as they don't pretend later they said it, which would also be dishonest)

Excuse me for saying, but this I find interesting. I understand you have morals and a sense of right and wrong. What's interesting is the high degree in which you seem to value you're personal honesty, as viewed by others. You could simply say I believe, even if you didn't, because inside you would still know the truth.
I wonder if I would hold honesty in such high regard, if it where not for the influence of religion. Do you think religion has influenced your moral standards?
I'm impressed, but not surprised, you have placed high value on honesty.
Ironically, some Christains, who claim to carry a high value on honesty, will claim sin as a fault of all mankind, so because of this, they are somehow less accountable for their personal behavior.

[captusa]

I'm not sure what you mean about the bible being brought over on the mayflower. Does this make it better than the books of other religions? My family came over on the mayflower...

Good for them.
There were no immigration laws then.

[captusa]

I realize you were probably hyperbolizing about the beauty and wonder of consciousness but to have an atheist describe it as magical is just darn funny. Thanks, and again welcome to the RF.

Miraculous would sound as incongruous but accurate.

[captusa]

I believe that the real consciousness is in the Spiritual realm where God dwells. I don't believe life on this earth is it.

So you are saying neither you nor I is really conscious ???????

[pictor]

I understand. You're about as bothered with this statement as I would be If it said "in Allah we trust", or "in Zeus we trust". It may cause a slight annoyance, as I don't believe in either in that context. So I would simply choose to ignore it.

Very good example. Picture your reaction if the money said "Allāhu Akbar". I just think to myself why bother having it there, it doesn't seem relevant to foundation of an economic system. However, it doesn't really stress me out either.

Excuse me for saying, but this I find interesting. I understand you have morals and a sense of right and wrong. What's interesting is the high degree in which you seem to value you're personal honesty, as viewed by others. You could simply say I believe, even if you didn't, because inside you would still know the truth.
I wonder if I would hold honesty in such high regard, if it where not for the influence of religion. Do you think religion has influenced your moral standards?
I don't think religion had any direct impact on my sense of honesty. My parents (who were spiritual people) definitely had an effect, they were always very honest and straightforward with me, so if their own sense of honesty was influenced by their faith (which seems logical), then yes, I guess it may have had an indirect effect on me.

Honesty is very important to me. I bristle when people imply that atheists have no moral compass, as I have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and being honest with others is in the "right" column.

[captusa]

Interesting theory, but my story is more simple. . .God did it. . .:D

I notice that the geological order of the scientist is the exact creative order of Moses.

Geology teaches that a vast watery waste existed
Moses said the earth was void and without form, and that darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Geology claims that watery vapors were lifted and formed into an expanse
Moses ascribes the same procedure to the creative act of God

Geology asserts that the earth pushed itself up from below or beneath the waters, and vegetation followed
Moses wrote that the dry land appeared and yielded grass, herb and tree

Geology says that the heavens then were cleared of the dense atmospheric expanse hanging over it and that the luminaries of the heavens began to shine on the earth
Moses records that on the fourth day of creation God made these luminary bodies of the heaven to give light upon the earth, to divide the day from the night, for seasons, for days and for years.

In the order of animal creation geology gives the order from the lower to the higher. . .fish, reptiles, birds and mammals, which the geologist list according to the "proportion of brain to spinal cord."

But, Moses records this exact order of animal creation.

What did Moses know about comparative anatomy, that fish are lower than reptiles, and reptiles lower than birds, and birds lower than mammals of the geological discoveries? The record of creation in Genesis, centuries before science was born and ages before geology was known, tabulates the order without a geological error or a scientific blunder.

Oh, I almost forgot my question. The mule is a hybrid and cannot produce its kind, but he is a stronger animal than either ancestor. If all animals are from the same parent stock, what is your explanation for these and many other examples in the laws of nature?

Inheritable differences come from mutations in the germ plasma.

Most likely the characteristics of the modern horse and the donkey arose from different mutations at different times from descendants of eohippus.
Taller, swifter animals that resulted by random breeding of individuals that may have had recessive mutated genes for those characteristics.
They would have separated from their ancestors occupying a niche where their speed was an advantage.
Conversely those that inherited sure-footed ness and intelligence occupied another niche.
Eohippus could not compete for resources with either descendants and became extinct.
By the time the modern horse and donkey evolved the differences in their germ plasma had diverged to far to produce fertile offspring's.
If they had not had some common ancestor they would no even be able to produce hybrids.
You don't have to accept the explanation but most educated people do.
Goddidit explains anything you want it to explain.
There are may Theistic scientists that would explain to you is evolution is HOW Goddidit.
To an Atheist or a Deist or even an Agnostic the why and cause of evolution is irrelevant but the overwhelming evidence is that it occurred.

[PercyVere]

Okay, I'll ask a couple of related questions:

Have you carefully read the entire Bible?

If so, do you think there is any value to be found in it and, if so, what value?I studied it quite a bit in school, before I came to see if for what it was. As for its good points, well, it is aesthetically pleasing, has some nice useful stories (although interspersed with much nonsense). Overall I see it as having little intrinsic or unique value.

[madmax_br5]

I wonder if American Atheists are taking a more hostile roll precisely because religion has had such an active role in our societies past.

This is most likely true. Religion in America has much greater power and influence here than it does in Europe, so it appears to be a much greater threat. Much of it has to do with politics, which I won't elaborate on here, but suffice it to say that there is a constant stream of religion-based policy being attempted to be enacted into law. Intelligent design education laws being a notable example. I have no problem with the teaching of religious theories, as long as the teaching occurs in religious places. If the student is in a public school that everyone pays for, it should not in any way endorse the views of a particular religion over a secular or scientific view.


Does it bother an atheist if our money says in "God we trust"?
It's purpose and value remains the same.

Paper money actually didn't say "in god we trust" until 1957. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm). In fact, Teddy Roosevelt had objected to it being used on the 2 cent coin during his presidential term, saying: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege..."

The issue is not whether the slogan is harmless - the issue is whether or not the federal government is endorsing a religious belief, which directly goes against our constitution. Many of the founding fathers were deists, which is basically agnostic, and they would likely be upset by including god on our currency or in the pledge of allegiance. This is why god appears nowhere in our founding documents, and we have a specific amendment (the first amendment) that says there is no state-sponsored religious view. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States)

Speaking on the value of paper money, it intrinsically is zero :)


Does it bother an atheist if we have the pledge saying under God?
The pledge is to this nation and it remains the same with or with God mentioned, doesn't it?

I don't particularly like the pledge in general, for the specific reason the pledge is "to the flag." I would like the pledge a lot more if that line instead was "to the people." A flag is just a piece of cloth in the end, I think our real wealth as a nation is in our people and their perseverance. The flag issue bothers me a lot more than the "under god" issue. However, the "under god" in the pledge bothers me more than on the money because the pledge is usually a required thing to recite in our schools. Children are not brave enough to deny the command of their teachers, so they will say it and get used to it long before they are old enough to make up their own mind about it. It further bothers me that the "under god" phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm) during the red scare, likely passed because those opposed would have been smeared as communist had they objected. In 2002, the "under god" part was declared unconstitutional in AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA.
We are not trying to force our non-belief on anyone else (then we'd be complicit for the same wrongs as which we are claiming to be against), we simply want churches to teach god and schools to teach knowledge.

If Atheism is the absence of belief in any deity, wouldn't an atheist see themselves as not accountable to a higher power? So I wonder whats the big deal? Say the words, don't say the words....
......Have "In God we trust" on the money, Don't have it there,...... Whats the difference?

The difference is that we look like jerks if we don't say it. We are not trying to be jerks, we don't want to be in the position of having to look like jerks. What if money instead said "there is no god." By your argument, that should be fine because you know it's not true so you shouldn't care at all if it said that yes? But that's not what we want. We don't want the money to say anything about god at all. We just want it to be money so that nobody is bothered by it.


I will admit, that when religious beliefs are used to support laws that effect freedoms, non-believers have a right to protest, when they do not prescribe to similar reasoning.
Other then that, I have difficulty understanding what all the fuss is about. Atheists typically base their beliefs on logic and cold hard facts. An emotional atheist seems odd to me and when these things invoke such emotion from people lacking belief, it almost becomes a religion, IMO.

The fuss, quite simply, is that religious beliefs are constantly attempting to influence policy in this country. The recent battle over intelligent design is a good example. There is nothing about evolution that says if you hold it to be true then you have to stop believing in god. Evolution says nothing about god at all. It is a scientific fact and is the basis of biology. So why all this stuff about "it's just a theory" and about teaching ID in schools? This is religion encroaching into the public space, not the other way around. If for some reason evolution is incompatible with your own particular view of god or religion, then that is something for you to work out, not cause for completely changing the entire science curriculum so that your biblical views can remain in tact. If non-religious people in the US were trying to mandate that a portion of a science curriculum should be devoted to talking about evidence for the nonexistant of god, you'd be up in arms about it, and rightly so. That what it feels like for us when you try to teach ID in schools. Non-believers have been on the defensive for a long time. Every battle we win results in a wash as things stay the way they were, every battle we lose results in more ground lost to religious advances. It's a losing strategy. If we don't act offensively from time to time, then we fail. We'd love not to have to fight any of these battle at all, and to live and let live, but unfortunately those who hold influence over policy have decided that is not what they want.

[RayMan]

Miraculous would sound as incongruous but accurate.

Which, after a fashion, makes my point beautifully. Thanks cap.

[Tim]

This is most likely true. Religion in America has much greater power and influence here than it does in Europe, so it appears to be a much greater threat. Much of it has to do with politics, which I won't elaborate on here, but suffice it to say that there is a constant stream of religion-based policy being attempted to be enacted into law. Intelligent design education laws being a notable example. I have no problem with the teaching of religious theories, as long as the teaching occurs in religious places. If the student is in a public school that everyone pays for, it should not in any way endorse the views of a particular religion over a secular or scientific view.



Paper money actually didn't say "in god we trust" until 1957. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm). In fact, Teddy Roosevelt had objected to it being used on the 2 cent coin during his presidential term, saying: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege..."

The issue is not whether the slogan is harmless - the issue is whether or not the federal government is endorsing a religious belief, which directly goes against our constitution. Many of the founding fathers were deists, which is basically agnostic, and they would likely be upset by including god on our currency or in the pledge of allegiance. This is why god appears nowhere in our founding documents, and we have a specific amendment (the first amendment) that says there is no state-sponsored religious view. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States)

Speaking on the value of paper money, it intrinsically is zero :)



I don't particularly like the pledge in general, for the specific reason the pledge is "to the flag." I would like the pledge a lot more if that line instead was "to the people." A flag is just a piece of cloth in the end, I think our real wealth as a nation is in our people and their perseverance. The flag issue bothers me a lot more than the "under god" issue. However, the "under god" in the pledge bothers me more than on the money because the pledge is usually a required thing to recite in our schools. Children are not brave enough to deny the command of their teachers, so they will say it and get used to it long before they are old enough to make up their own mind about it. It further bothers me that the "under god" phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm) during the red scare, likely passed because those opposed would have been smeared as communist had they objected. In 2002, the "under god" part was declared unconstitutional in AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA.
We are not trying to force our non-belief on anyone else (then we'd be complicit for the same wrongs as which we are claiming to be against), we simply want churches to teach god and schools to teach knowledge.



The difference is that we look like jerks if we don't say it. We are not trying to be jerks, we don't want to be in the position of having to look like jerks. What if money instead said "there is no god." By your argument, that should be fine because you know it's not true so you shouldn't care at all if it said that yes? But that's not what we want. We don't want the money to say anything about god at all. We just want it to be money so that nobody is bothered by it.



The fuss, quite simply, is that religious beliefs are constantly attempting to influence policy in this country. The recent battle over intelligent design is a good example. There is nothing about evolution that says if you hold it to be true then you have to stop believing in god. Evolution says nothing about god at all. It is a scientific fact and is the basis of biology. So why all this stuff about "it's just a theory" and about teaching ID in schools? This is religion encroaching into the public space, not the other way around. If for some reason evolution is incompatible with your own particular view of god or religion, then that is something for you to work out, not cause for completely changing the entire science curriculum so that your biblical views can remain in tact. If non-religious people in the US were trying to mandate that a portion of a science curriculum should be devoted to talking about evidence for the nonexistant of god, you'd be up in arms about it, and rightly so. That what it feels like for us when you try to teach ID in schools. Non-believers have been on the defensive for a long time. Every battle we win results in a wash as things stay the way they were, every battle we lose results in more ground lost to religious advances. It's a losing strategy. If we don't act offensively from time to time, then we fail. We'd love not to have to fight any of these battle at all, and to live and let live, but unfortunately those who hold influence over policy have decided that is not what they want.

Your approach seems very reasonable to me. I like it... a lot! :clap:

[Thank you Troops]

I have a question for atheists, what do you think about Jesus?

[captusa]

I have a question for atheists, what do you think about Jesus?

An admirable hero of the Bible.

[Thank you Troops]

An admirable hero of the Bible.

What do you admire Jesus for?

[pinqy]

I have a question for atheists, what do you think about Jesus?
An admirable hero of the Bible.
You do realize he's probably going to use the classic "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument which was popularized by C.S. Lewis and more recently Josh McDowell?

[Tim]

I have a question for atheists, what do you think about Jesus?

Which one? The one I read about in the Bible or one of the many described by various different Christians today?

[captusa]

What do you admire Jesus for?

The courage to teach a view unpopular with the ruling ckasses.
Putting a positive spin on the previous directive "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you." (not that I necessarily agree).
Teaching charity and love.
Turning H2O into C2H5OH

[Thank you Troops]

Which one? The one I read about in the Bible or one of the many described by various different Christians today?

The Bible.

[Thank you Troops]

The courage to teach a view unpopular with the ruling ckasses.
Putting a positive spin on the previous directive "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you." (not that I necessarily agree).
Teaching charity and love.
Turning H2O into C2H5OH

What about for healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the seas with his voice, casting out demons, and saving people from hell?

Those aren't admirable traits?

[Lie Sniper]

Your approach seems very reasonable to me. I like it... a lot! :clap:

I agree with some points, understand this point of view and welcome this reasonable approach as well. :D

Originally Posted by madmax_br5
This is most likely true. Religion in America has much greater power and influence here than it does in Europe, so it appears to be a much greater threat. Much of it has to do with politics, which I won't elaborate on here, but suffice it to say that there is a constant stream of religion-based policy being attempted to be enacted into law. Intelligent design education laws being a notable example. I have no problem with the teaching of religious theories, as long as the teaching occurs in religious places. If the student is in a public school that everyone pays for, it should not in any way endorse the views of a particular religion over a secular or scientific view.



Paper money actually didn't say "in god we trust" until 1957.. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt had objected to it being used on the 2 cent coin during his presidential term, saying: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege..."

The issue is not whether the slogan is harmless - the issue is whether or not the federal government is endorsing a religious belief, which directly goes against our constitution. Many of the founding fathers were deists, which is basically agnostic, and they would likely be upset by including god on our currency or in the pledge of allegiance. This is why god appears nowhere in our founding documents, and we have a specific amendment (the first amendment) that says there is no state-sponsored religious view.

Speaking on the value of paper money, it intrinsically is zero



I don't particularly like the pledge in general, for the specific reason the pledge is "to the flag." I would like the pledge a lot more if that line instead was "to the people." A flag is just a piece of cloth in the end, I think our real wealth as a nation is in our people and their perseverance. The flag issue bothers me a lot more than the "under god" issue. However, the "under god" in the pledge bothers me more than on the money because the pledge is usually a required thing to recite in our schools. Children are not brave enough to deny the command of their teachers, so they will say it and get used to it long before they are old enough to make up their own mind about it. It further bothers me that the "under god" phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 during the red scare, likely passed because those opposed would have been smeared as communist had they objected. In 2002, the "under god" part was declared unconstitutional in AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA.
We are not trying to force our non-belief on anyone else (then we'd be complicit for the same wrongs as which we are claiming to be against), we simply want churches to teach god and schools to teach knowledge.



The difference is that we look like jerks if we don't say it. We are not trying to be jerks, we don't want to be in the position of having to look like jerks. What if money instead said "there is no god." By your argument, that should be fine because you know it's not true so you shouldn't care at all if it said that yes? But that's not what we want. We don't want the money to say anything about god at all. We just want it to be money so that nobody is bothered by it.



The fuss, quite simply, is that religious beliefs are constantly attempting to influence policy in this country. The recent battle over intelligent design is a good example. There is nothing about evolution that says if you hold it to be true then you have to stop believing in god. Evolution says nothing about god at all. It is a scientific fact and is the basis of biology. So why all this stuff about "it's just a theory" and about teaching ID in schools? This is religion encroaching into the public space, not the other way around. If for some reason evolution is incompatible with your own particular view of god or religion, then that is something for you to work out, not cause for completely changing the entire science curriculum so that your biblical views can remain in tact. If non-religious people in the US were trying to mandate that a portion of a science curriculum should be devoted to talking about evidence for the nonexistant of god, you'd be up in arms about it, and rightly so. That what it feels like for us when you try to teach ID in schools. Non-believers have been on the defensive for a long time. Every battle we win results in a wash as things stay the way they were, every battle we lose results in more ground lost to religious advances. It's a losing strategy. If we don't act offensively from time to time, then we fail. We'd love not to have to fight any of these battle at all, and to live and let live, but unfortunately those who hold influence over policy have decided that is not what they want.

[Tim]

The Bible.

That Jesus is just alright with me. (with apologies to the Doobie Brothers :whistle:)

[captusa]

What about for healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the seas with his voice, casting out demons, and saving people from hell?

Those aren't admirable traits?

OK I'll add those and say Paul Bunyon was a kind to his ox.

[Thank you Troops]

That Jesus is just alright with me. (with apologies to the Doobie Brothers :whistle:)

Just alright? Raised from the dead, claimed to be God and just alright? He's more than alright with me, he is my savior.

[Thank you Troops]

OK I'll add those and say Paul Bunyon was a kind to his ox.

So what you are saying is Jesus is folklore. Then you know more than historians do because I don't know of any historian that makes that claim.

[Alamoman]

Background and scenario:

Although I'm a Christian (Protestant), I believe in evolution. It's undeniably obvious and logical that the Creator ... created the universe via the process of evolution. I believe in the Bible but I also think it serves mostly as a guide to do the right and humane things. It is severely open to interpretation and translation.

I have respect for true atheists. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they like.

For many years I worked with and was associated with numerous atheists in socialist countries. They are just like everyone else -- some good and some bad. I have also served with atheists on battlefields. The old axiom which states that there are no atheists in foxholes, is pure nonsense. Some atheists are actually braver than some Christians.

True atheists in socialist and Communist nations are indifferent about religion. They don't try to convert anyone and don't want anyone to try to convert them -- live and let live. I admire them for that. True atheists also perform tons of humanitarian work in conjunction with local Catholic churches in those socialist nations. (Catholics are more tolerant of atheists). True atheists do good deeds, not because they're afraid "God will get them," but because they have good, natural, humanitarian and compassionate hearts for the downtrodden.

Now for the zinger! Most American atheists (who have been raised with exposure to religion) are not true atheists. They are pseudo- atheists and agnostics. Most American atheists are conflicted and troubled in their beliefs -- they are unsure and express doubt. Consequently they yearn for someone to prove or disprove the Creator (which is impossible). Most American atheists are frustrated and therefore have a natural tendency to mock religion and make trouble for those who do believe in a Creator.

Thank you for your time and may God bless you anyway whether you need or want it.

That is all.

I've read hundreds of posts on this site, but this is in the top 10 for sure. Well thought out and well presented.

[Jeemie]

Background and scenario:

Although I'm a Christian (Protestant), I believe in evolution. It's undeniably obvious and logical that the Creator ... created the universe via the process of evolution. I believe in the Bible but I also think it serves mostly as a guide to do the right and humane things. It is severely open to interpretation and translation.

I have respect for true atheists. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they like.

For many years I worked with and was associated with numerous atheists in socialist countries. They are just like everyone else -- some good and some bad. I have also served with atheists on battlefields. The old axiom which states that there are no atheists in foxholes, is pure nonsense. Some atheists are actually braver than some Christians.

True atheists in socialist and Communist nations are indifferent about religion. They don't try to convert anyone and don't want anyone to try to convert them -- live and let live. I admire them for that. True atheists also perform tons of humanitarian work in conjunction with local Catholic churches in those socialist nations. (Catholics are more tolerant of atheists). True atheists do good deeds, not because they're afraid "God will get them," but because they have good, natural, humanitarian and compassionate hearts for the downtrodden.

Now for the zinger! Most American atheists (who have been raised with exposure to religion) are not true atheists. They are pseudo- atheists and agnostics. Most American atheists are conflicted and troubled in their beliefs -- they are unsure and express doubt. Consequently they yearn for someone to prove or disprove the Creator (which is impossible). Most American atheists are frustrated and therefore have a natural tendency to mock religion and make trouble for those who do believe in a Creator.

Thank you for your time and may God bless you anyway whether you need or want it.

That is all.

The logic by which you arrived at this conclusion re: American atheists is flawed.

People do not act in a vacuum.

It's quite possible there are differences in the attitudes between Christians in America and other Western countries, and Christians in the countries you mentioned...which would greatly change the dynamic between athtiets and theists.

[Koushi Shinigami]

That Jesus is just alright with me. (with apologies to the Doobie Brothers :whistle:)

Dodooo do do do doooooo dodooooo....

[pictor]

I have a question for atheists, what do you think about Jesus?
If he existed (though his name was likely not quite that), then I think he was likely a charismatic man who advocated compassion for the downtrodden, working with others to promote a peaceful existence, and humility.

These are laudable traits.

I think it's also quite likely he had many other human failings, which the records do not address as directly. I infer them only because no human is perfect.

I find the idea that he did have children an intriguing one, and one that has a distinct likelihood, but again, the records do not speak to it, so it's certainly conjecture.

Naturally, as an atheist, I believe he was 100% flesh and blood, human, born of a mother that was in no way a virgin, and who only died once. He did however leave a mark on the world which can not be discounted.

[Thor]

I have a question for atheists, what do you think about Jesus?

I think there probably was a guy named Jesus. As for being born of a virgin, walking on water, healing the sick with a touch of his hand, feeding a thousand people with a basket of fish, and rising from the dead.... these are all undoubtedly myths that are on the same level as myths you'll find in other religions (Muhammad riding a winged horse up to heaven, Joseph Smith's golden plates being taken up to heaven, etc..)

[Thor]

What about for healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the seas with his voice, casting out demons, and saving people from hell?

Those aren't admirable traits?

No, those are all myths.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Turning H2O into C2H5OH

That's nothing. I can turn C2H5OH into H2O

[Koushi Shinigami]

What about for healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the seas with his voice, casting out demons, and saving people from hell?

Those aren't admirable traits?

:think: I call them more of talents than traits.

[Thank you Troops]

No, those are all myths.


Why did his disciples go to their deaths preaching Jesus saves if he did not do those things?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why did his disciples go to their deaths preaching Jesus saves if he did not do those things?

1. They really saw it.
2. They were convinced that they saw it.
3. They had other motivations.

[Jeemie]

Why did his disciples go to their deaths preaching Jesus saves if he did not do those things?

Why did Jim Jones' followers go to their deaths?

Why did David Koresh's followers go to their deaths?

Why did Marhsall Applewhite's followers go to their deaths?

[pictor]

That's nothing. I can turn C2H5OH into H2O
and NH3 :))

[Koushi Shinigami]

and NH3 :))

:think: What happens to the C2?

[Thank you Troops]

Why did Jim Jones' followers go to their deaths?

Why did David Koresh's followers go to their deaths?

Why did Marhsall Applewhite's followers go to their deaths?


Because they belived it to be the truth. However there is a difference, Jesus' disciples were killed for their beliefs, they didn't commit suicide. They didn't want to die but knew the truth so they spoke it obediently. When Jesus died they ran for their lives. They thought it was over and they were going to save themselves. However something happend to make them believers again, and it is recorded that Jesus reappeared to them after he was reserructed.

[Thor]

Why did his disciples go to their deaths preaching Jesus saves if he did not do those things?

What does this prove? People have often gone to their deaths believing something. Look at Waco, Jonestown, etc. It is not uncommon throughout history for people to have died while preaching that (fill in the blank) is the messiah.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Because they belived it to be the truth. However there is a difference, Jesus' disciples were killed for their beliefs, they didn't commit suicide. They didn't want to die but knew the truth so they spoke it obediently. When Jesus died they ran for their lives. They thought it was over and they were going to save themselves. However something happend to make them believers again, and it is recorded that Jesus reappeared to them after he was reserructed.

Still. The fact that one or many people are willing to die for what they believe does not make something more true. Nor does it make it true at all if it is a falsehood.

[pictor]

and it is recorded that Jesus reappeared to them after he was reserructed.
True....but they were the ones recording it.

[Lie Sniper]

Still. The fact that one or many people are willing to die for what they believe does not make something more true. Nor does it make it true at all if it is a falsehood.

I usually agree with your posts, but in this case, I respectfully disagree. :mrgreen:
I think TYT is pointing out the argument that originally, the Disciples, ran and hide before the crucifixion, because they feared for thier lives. They did not understand the crucifixion. What made them change? Jesus' resurrection convinced them to continue the spread of the Gospel even in the face of possible persecution and death. What would make them continue after His death if they had not seen Jesus with their own eyes? What made them lose their fear of persecution? Who would risk their life for a lie. Especially for a lie that would bring glory to someone else(Jesus).
What support and momentum could a lie really have in the face of persecution?
This is an unnatural response under those circumstances.
This to me is a convincing argument, considering human nature's tendency to look out for yourself.

[Jeemie]

I usually agree with your posts, but in this case, I respectfully disagree. :mrgreen:
I think TYT is pointing out the argument that originally, the Disciples, ran and hide before the crucifixion, because they feared for thier lives. They did not understand the crucifixion. What made them change? Jesus' resurrection convinced them to continue the spread of the Gospel even in the face of possible persecution and death. What would make them continue after His death if they had not seen Jesus with their own eyes? What made them lose their fear of persecution? Who would risk their life for a lie. Especially for a lie that would bring glory to someone else(Jesus).
What support and momentum could a lie really have in the face of persecution?
This is an unnatural response under those circumstances.
This to me is a convincing argument, considering human nature's tendency to look out for yourself.

The problem with this story is- we don't know that the details are true.

We don't KNOW the disciples ran and hid...we don't really know what happened, since THEY wrote the accounts...and for a very specific purpose (to edify/comfort a sect that was...wait for it...BEING PERSECUTED at the time).

So the story of the founders of Christianity being persecuted and yet perservering would be a VERY sensible story to tell a sect that was being persecuted.

Additionally...the stories show that the disciples were VERY much honored amongst the early Christians...they got MUCH glory from being the "keepers of the tale" of Jesus.

Just like many pastors and church leaders today "get glory" and respect.

So neither of your conclusions is warranted.

[Lie Sniper]

The problem with this story is- we don't know that the details are true.

We don't KNOW the disciples ran and hid...we don't really know what happened, since THEY wrote the accounts...and for a very specific purpose (to edify/comfort a sect that was...wait for it...BEING PERSECUTED at the time).

So the story of the founders of Christianity being persecuted and yet perservering would be a VERY sensible story to tell a sect that was being persecuted.

Additionally...the stories show that the disciples were VERY much honored amongst the early Christians...they got MUCH glory from being the "keepers of the tale" of Jesus.

Just like many pastors and church leaders today "get glory" and respect.

So neither of your conclusions is warranted.

I see your point, except this leads me to wonder, who would expect to receive glory for acting like a coward? Who would admit to being afraid as the Disciples did? Seems to me, that if the story is a lie, being a coward would have been something that could have been conveniently left out. Unless that society was different from every society since. Hasn't bravery always been lifted up as an honorable trait? Hasn't cowardice always been shameful?

[Thank you Troops]

True....but they were the ones recording it.

That's true but there is no evidence that it isn't true. Just because you write your own diary doesn't mean it's false. For the most part people are not pathalogical liars. We couldn't wait to get to the Nixon diaries and no one ever questioned whether they were true or not. Everyone of them stuck to their story to their death. All they had to do was stop teaching that Jesus is the son of God and live.

[Tim]

That's true but there is no evidence that it isn't true. Just because you write your own diary doesn't mean it's false. For the most part people are not pathalogical liars. We couldn't wait to get to the Nixon diaries and no one ever questioned whether they were true or not. Everyone of them stuck to their story to their death. All they had to do was stop teaching that Jesus is the son of God and live.

I'm curious... do you give the same carte blanche credibility to the founding zealots of all religions or only to the founders of Christianity?

[Thank you Troops]

I'm curious... do you give the same carte blanche credibility to the founding zealots of all religions or only to the founders of Christianity?

I'm not an atheist so this is the wrong thread for that question. ;) But all I can say is I live my faith (willingly) so I can vouch for it.

[Tim]

I'm not an atheist so this is the wrong thread for that question. ;) But all I can say is I live my faith so I can vouch for it.

What does not being an atheist have to do with the question I asked you? What does living your faith have to do with the question?

You asserted belief that the founding zealots of Christianity would have no reason to lie. Do you give the same credence to the founding zealots of other religions? Did they have reason to lie? If so, what makes them different from the Christian zealots in that regard?

[Alamoman]

I have a question for the atheist... Do you hope we're right...(i.e. that there is a God...)..?

[Jeemie]

I have a question for the atheist... Do you hope we're right...(i.e. that there is a God...)..?

Sure- in many ways it would be nice if you were right.

It would also raise as many questions as it answered, though.

[Tim]

I have a question for the atheist... Do you hope we're right...(i.e. that there is a God...)..?

Meh... depends on which of you is right about what things. Do I hope those who believe that unbelievers will be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity are right? Uh... no. :doh:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have a question for the atheist... Do you hope we're right...(i.e. that there is a God...)..?

Another form of Pascal's wager?

[captusa]

So what you are saying is Jesus is folklore. Then you know more than historians do because I don't know of any historian that makes that claim.

All anyone knows of Jesus is from stories by people who considered Jesus larger than life.
The question was what was my opinion of Jesus.

I mentioned a few things from the Bible about Jesus that were believable that made Jesus a brave admiable character.
(turning water into alcohol was an attept at humor)

When you expect my opinion to include things that I do not believe possible then those stories in the Bible are folklore.
There probably was a teacher/rabbi named Jesus of whose life has been recorded.
I believe much of what was said is exaggerated.
There might have been a tall lumberjack named Paul whom people talked about.
Some of the stories may have become highly exaggerated.
The exaggeration of anything about a mythical Paul Bunyon were pretty extreme but did not the level of saying he was divine.

[Alamoman]

Another form of Pascal's wager?
No, not really... I would suggest that if an atheist takes Pascal's Wager, he/she probably isn't an atheist, but rather more agnostic.

[Alamoman]

Meh... depends on which of you is right about what things. Do I hope those who believe that unbelievers will be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity are right? Uh... no. :doh:
Let's take all the religious bias out of it and just ask this...... Do you hope there is a God..?

[Koushi Shinigami]

No, not really... I would suggest that if an atheist takes Pascal's Wager, he/she probably isn't an atheist, but rather more agnostic.

I would suggest that anyone who takes Pascal's Wager be cautions about being spit out because they are luke warm.

[captusa]

What about for healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the seas with his voice, casting out demons, and saving people from hell?

Those aren't admirable traits?

The thread was "Ask an Atheist.
Your question was what I thought admirable about Jesus.
I thought you would realize that an Atheist would not accept the stories of miracles as fact.

[Alamoman]

I would suggest that anyone who takes Pascal's Wager be cautions about being spit out because they are luke warm.
This is by no means a strawman, but rather my opinion. The atheists I know do not believe in the existance of a God at all - in any form, period. They won't even consider the possibility, so Pascal's Wager is never in play for these folks.

I know several people who are agnostic as well. Most of them might be Theists, actually, but they don't believe in any organized religion. They see all of it as stories made up by story tellers...

[captusa]

If he existed (though his name was likely not quite that), then I think he was likely a charismatic man who advocated compassion for the downtrodden, working with others to promote a peaceful existence, and humility.

These are laudable traits.

I think it's also quite likely he had many other human failings, which the records do not address as directly. I infer them only because no human is perfect.

I find the idea that he did have children an intriguing one, and one that has a distinct likelihood, but again, the records do not speak to it, so it's certainly conjecture.

Naturally, as an atheist, I believe he was 100% flesh and blood, human, born of a mother that was in no way a virgin, and who only died once. He did however leave a mark on the world which can not be discounted.

I agree.
You are far more eloquent and more lucid than this math major.

[captusa]

Why did his disciples go to their deaths preaching Jesus saves if he did not do those things?

Reasons analogous to those of Japanese airmen that died for their emperor whom they believed was divine.
Or the number of German soldiers that died at Stalingrad because they had faith in the Furher's belief that Germany had the God given duty to rule lower races like the Slavs.
(I didn't mention the Russian soldiers that died for Communism because in WWII their reasons were self defense.)

[Tim]

Let's take all the religious bias out of it and just ask this...... Do you hope there is a God..?

No, I wouldn't say that since I can't imagine a scenario in which it would matter one way or the other without all the religious bias being factored into the equation.

[Alamoman]

Reasons analogous to those of Japanese airmen that died for their emperor whom they believed was divine.
Or the number of German soldiers that died at Stalingrad because they had faith in the Furher's belief that Germany had the God given duty to rule lower races like the Slavs.
(I didn't mention the Russian soldiers that died for Communism because in WWII their reasons were self defense.)
Not to butt in here, but I'll just add something from personal experience. I've met a Nazi soldier.. Back in the 90's when I was stationed in Germany. In fact, he and his wife became good friends of ours... He tells a little different story.. It wasn't loyalty to Hitler that motivated him and his fellow soldiers, it was fear of what the Nazi's would do to his family if he didn't tow the line..

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Alamoman
I have a question for the atheist... Do you hope we're right...(i.e. that there is a God...)..?Another form of Pascal's wager?

Allow me to present the corollary to Alamomam.

Alamomam,
And you had better hope that if there is a God it is the ONE that you are worshipping because if HE is as jealous as YHVH is depicted in the Bible you would be in a lot more trouble than we Atheists.

[captusa]

Not to butt in here, but I'll just add something from personal experience. I've met a Nazi soldier.. Back in the 90's when I was stationed in Germany. In fact, he and his wife became good friends of ours... He tells a little different story.. It wasn't loyalty to Hitler that motivated him and his fellow soldiers, it was fear of what the Nazi's would do to his family if he didn't tow the line..
That may have been true for some Wermacht soldiers but
it is amazing that after the war all the NAZIs in Germany had disappearred.

[Tim]

Allow me to present the corollary to Alamomam.

Alamomam,
And you had better hope that if there is a God it is the ONE that you are worshipping because if HE is as jealous as YHVH is depicted in the Bible you would be in a lot more trouble than we Atheists.

I'm not so sure he is going for a variation on Pascal. This question is "do we hope there is a god" rather than the "fear" aspect in Pascals wager.

That said, I haven't a clue as to the motivation of the question he asks.

[Alamoman]

Allow me to present the corollary to Alamomam.

Alamomam,
And you had better hope that if there is a God it is the ONE that you are worshipping because if HE is as jealous as YHVH is depicted in the Bible you would be in a lot more trouble than we Atheists.
Fair enough, but you didn't answer the question.

[Alamoman]

I'm not so sure he is going for a variation on Pascal. This question is "do we hope there is a god" rather than the "fear" aspect in Pascals wager.

That said, I haven't a clue as to the motivation of the question he asks.
Actually, I'm simply asking the question.. No agenda. Just curious.

[captusa]

Fair enough, but you didn't answer the question.

The possibility that a trancendental Deity exists is of such an infintesimile nature that the possiblity does not enter my mind.

[Tim]

Actually, I'm simply asking the question.. No agenda. Just curious.

My curiosity is raised by yours... for what reason might anyone hope there is a god? If there isn't one, why hope for one?

[captusa]

Let's take all the religious bias out of it and just ask this...... Do you hope there is a God..?
No I do not hope there is a God.
I hope to wake up tomorrow morning in bed with Claudia Schiffer.
I will continue to keep that hope because it is far more probable that this will occur than there to be a God.
I hope for one miracle to occcur at a time and if the 1st occurs the day after tomorrow I may be more open to the concept of God than I am today.

If HE exists I hope HE is listening now.

[Lie Sniper]

All anyone knows of Jesus is from stories by people who considered Jesus larger than life.
The question was what was my opinion of Jesus.

I mentioned a few things from the Bible about Jesus that were believable that made Jesus a brave admiable character.
(turning water into alcohol was an attept at humor)

When you expect my opinion to include things that I do not believe possible then those stories in the Bible are folklore.
There probably was a teacher/rabbi named Jesus of whose life has been recorded.
I believe much of what was said is exaggerated.
There might have been a tall lumberjack named Paul whom people talked about.
Some of the stories may have become highly exaggerated.
The exaggeration of anything about a mythical Paul Bunyon were pretty extreme but did not the level of saying he was divine.

Quit picking on poor Paul Bunyan! :razz:

[captusa]

Quit picking on poor Paul Bunyan! :razz:

I can't do a dialect in script but I wish I could tell you the story of Abie the Lumberjack.

[Lie Sniper]

My curiosity is raised by yours... for what reason might anyone hope there is a god? If there isn't one, why hope for one?

If you had hope there is a God, wouldn't that make you religious?

What is Faith, but a stronger version of hope?

[Lie Sniper]

I can't do a dialect in script but I wish I could tell you the story of Abie the Lumberjack.

I would love to hear it. :D

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have a question for the atheist... Do you hope we're right...(i.e. that there is a God...)..?

As presented by some on this board? No. I do not hope that god exists.

[Tim]

If you had hope there is a God, wouldn't that make you religious?

What is Faith, but a stronger version of hope?

Hmmm... not sure about that. I kind of read "hope" as "wish"; like "do you wish there were a god?"

Either way it seems that it would be kind of childish to hope/wish for something that you believe does not exist. If I were into hoping or wishing for things, I'd go for something with a higher level of probability such as winning the Lotto by someone giving me the winning ticket since I'd never waste my own money purchasing one.

Being a bit of a realist and skeptic I don't spend much time or energy on the improbable, much less the impossible. I'd place 'gods' closer to the later category.

[Alamoman]

My curiosity is raised by yours... for what reason might anyone hope there is a god? If there isn't one, why hope for one?

Your curiosity is raised, yet you didn't answer the question. :rolleyes: I'll play..

Let's forget religion for a moment. I think the fact that this earth is so finely tuned to support life suggests to me that there's a force in play much bigger than simply cosmic cooincidence. There are other reasons that are a bit more personal - i.e. my experiences in life, but those would definitly bore you. ;)

I believe we're all agnostic to a degree, in that none of us know for sure if there is a God. Some take the leap of faith for their own reasons, others choose not to for the same... Simplistic? Probably, but I'm a simple guy.

[Tim]

Your curiosity is raised, yet you didn't answer the question. :rolleyes: I'll play..

Let's forget religion for a moment. I think the fact that this earth is so finely tuned to support life suggests to me that there's a force in play much bigger than simply cosmic cooincidence. There are other reasons that are a bit more personal - i.e. my experiences in life, but those would definitly bore you. ;)

I believe we're all agnostic to a degree, in that none of us know for sure if there is a God. Some take the leap of faith for their own reasons, others choose not to for the same... Simplistic? Probably, but I'm a simple guy.

I answered the question in post #158. :wall:

[Alamoman]

No I do not hope there is a God.
I hope to wake up tomorrow morning in bed with Claudia Schiffer.
I will continue to keep that hope because it is far more probable that this will occur than there to be a God.
I hope for one miracle to occcur at a time and if the 1st occurs the day after tomorrow I may be more open to the concept of God than I am today.

If HE exists I hope HE is listening now.

Claudia's married to some rich director/producer guy. Unless you've got a ton of cash, which I'm guessing you don't because you're hanging out on this board, I'm putting your chances down as a million to one.. But as Jim Carrey said in Dumb & Dumber (given similar odds)...."So, you're saying I've got a chance..."

That said, I'll say a prayer for you anyway.. ;)

[Tim]

Your curiosity is raised, yet you didn't answer the question. :rolleyes: I'll play..

Let's forget religion for a moment. I think the fact that this earth is so finely tuned to support life suggests to me that there's a force in play much bigger than simply cosmic cooincidence. There are other reasons that are a bit more personal - i.e. my experiences in life, but those would definitly bore you. ;)

I believe we're all agnostic to a degree, in that none of us know for sure if there is a God. Some take the leap of faith for their own reasons, others choose not to for the same... Simplistic? Probably, but I'm a simple guy.

And how does this answer my question as to why one who doesn't believe would hope for a god?

You give some reasons that you/someone might make that leap of faith but didn't answer the WHY. Why hope for a god? To what end?

[Alamoman]

I answered the question in post #158. :wall:
Yeah, I guess you did. My bad.

[Lie Sniper]

Hmmm... not sure about that. I kind of read "hope" as "wish"; like "do you wish there were a god?"

Either way it seems that it would be kind of childish to hope/wish for something that you believe does not exist. If I were into hoping or wishing for things, I'd go for something with a higher level of probability such as winning the Lotto by someone giving me the winning ticket since I'd never waste my own money purchasing one.

Being a bit of a realist and skeptic I don't spend much time or energy on the improbable, much less the impossible. I'd place 'gods' closer to the later category.

Got it. I could Hope/Wish that someday I can fly by flapping my arms, but the probability this will happen is zero, so why spend much time thinking about it. :D

[captusa]

I would love to hear it. :D

I'll try trivia web.

[Alamoman]

And how does this answer my question as to why one who doesn't believe would hope for a god?

I thought this was ask an atheist thread.. :dance: I'm not sure I know how to anwer the question why you should hope or believe. I'm not going to quote scripture, as you'll find that meaningless. I see things everyday that strengthen my faith, but you may not see those experiences the same way.

You give some reasons that you/someone might make that leap of faith but didn't answer the WHY. Why hope for a god? To what end?

I think the "why?" question varies with every person of faith. My "why" will most likely be different than another persons "why," etc. The "why" could be simply that there's enough information available to make the leap, or that my son was saved miraculously from the jaws of a lion. Maybe it's as simple as "Why not..?"

[Alamoman]

Got it. I could Hope/Wish that someday I can fly by flapping my arms, but the probability this will happen is zero, so why spend much time thinking about it. :D
Maybe if evolution starts to go the other direction, you'll get some feathers to help you with that... :)

[Alamoman]

Since we're on the subject of "why.." Why do atheists hang out in a Religion forum..?

Don't take this as a shot across the bow. It's not meant to be. I'm just curious as to why y'all (that's Texan for you guys/gals) would spend so much time discussing something you don't believe in.. Seems like a waste of time to me... Again, no insult intended.

[Lie Sniper]

Maybe if evolution starts to go the other direction, you'll get some feathers to help you with that... :)

Evolution takes way too looooooooonnnnnnnggggg...!

Maybe one of my descendants will be blessed with feathers, sure would make travel easier!


Hey! If we run out of viable forms of energy, that just might happen.:clap:

I guess there is a plus side to everything. :think:

[captusa]

Claudia's married to some rich director/producer guy. Unless you've got a ton of cash, which I'm guessing you don't because you're hanging out on this board, I'm putting your chances down as a million to one.. But as Jim Carrey said in Dumb & Dumber (given similar odds)...."So, you're saying I've got a chance..."

That said, I'll say a prayer for you anyway.. ;)

I didn't say my chances were good.
Just better than that of your Deity existing.
Of course as I said before,
If HE is listening.
If HE want's to convert an Atheist I gave HIM a good suggestion as to how.

BTW She already has a ton of cash so that need is already satisfied.

[Alamoman]

I didn't say my chances were good.
Just better than that of your Deity existing.
Of course as I said before,
If HE is listening.
If HE want's to convert an Atheist I gave HIM a good suggestion as to how.

BTW She already has a ton of cash so that need is already satisfied.

Of course there's no way (really) to prove either, so the point is pretty much meaningless. Funny, but meaningless. On the cash, I find that there's never really enough, is there..? Maybe she was attracted to his.........looks? Maybe he was just a better alternative to Copperfield....

Anyway, I'm praying for you..! :))

[Alamoman]

Of course there's no way (really) to prove either, so the point is pretty much meaningless. Funny, but meaningless. On the cash, I find that there's never really enough, is there..? Maybe she was attracted to his.........looks? Maybe he was just a better alternative to Copperfield....

Anyway, I'm praying for you..! :))
Actually, there's a way to prove both now that I think about it more.. Both works for me.. ;)

[Tim]

Since we're on the subject of "why.." Why do atheists hang out in a Religion forum..?

Don't take this as a shot across the bow. It's not meant to be. I'm just curious as to why y'all (that's Texan for you guys/gals) would spend so much time discussing something you don't believe in.. Seems like a waste of time to me... Again, no insult intended.

Pretty much for the same reason I hang out talking about football... although I don't play any more, I thoroughly enjoy the conversation about it.

Also, I spent 7 years and thousands of dollars studying in Bible College and Seminary and another couple of decades studying and preaching the gospel... it's very much a part of who I am whether I believe in a deity any longer or not.

[Alamoman]

Pretty much for the same reason I hang out talking about football... although I don't play any more, I thoroughly enjoy the conversation about it.

Also, I spent 7 years and thousands of dollars studying in Bible College and Seminary and another couple of decades studying and preaching the gospel... it's very much a part of who I am whether I believe in a deity any longer or not.
Very interesting. Thank you for the candid response.

Your story sounds similar to Michael Shermer's..

[Tim]

Very interesting. Thank you for the candid response.

Your story sounds similar to Michael Shermer's..

Don't know him... guess I'll go googling. :arrow:

[Alamoman]

Don't know him... guess I'll go googling. :arrow:
He's the founder of skeptic magazine, and quite prominent in the atheist literary and debate circles with the likes of Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, et al.

[Lie Sniper]

Pretty much for the same reason I hang out talking about football... although I don't play any more, I thoroughly enjoy the conversation about it.

Also, I spent 7 years and thousands of dollars studying in Bible College and Seminary and another couple of decades studying and preaching the gospel... it's very much a part of who I am whether I believe in a deity any longer or not.

Since this is an Ask an Atheist thread, mind if I ask why you no longer believe? If its not too personal.

Kinda like your testimony of disbelief. I promise I will try not to refute what you say or convince you of anything. :silenced:
But I'm curious. :)

[Tim]

He's the founder of skeptic magazine, and quite prominent in the atheist literary and debate circles with the likes of Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, et al.

Okay... I know the magazine but the name didn't ring a bell.

[Tim]

Since this is an Ask an Atheist thread, mind if I ask why you no longer believe? If its not too personal.

Kinda like your testimony of disbelief. I promise I will try not to refute what you say or convince you of anything. :silenced:
But I'm curious. :)

Not too personal at all. I've shared several times on this forum. I'll see if I can find one of them and link to it.

In a nutshell - Background: Very conservative, evangelical southern baptist. Education: Independent Baptist Bible College and Southern Baptist Seminary

Beliefs: Pretty much in line with Baptist doctrine but leaned heavily toward Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) in later years of ministry.

Favorite Author: Francis Schaeffer - his writings challenged me like no other!

The more I studied, the more I questioned to the point of non-belief. Obviously, it wasn't an easy 'break' for me but one that I had to make for reasons of integrity. I didn't experience anything "bad" in the church. My deconversion was based entirely on my study.

Oh, I 'flirted' with the charismatic movement during my teens (early 1970's). I was a very devout believer, even as a young preteen and teen - carried my Bible everywhere I went (including public school) and witnessed to any/all who would listen. Still have people contact me on facebook who tell me that I led them to the Lord in high school or that they turned to Christ because of my testimony. I don't bother telling them about my deconversion... no reason to worry them.

I thought I had unimaginable joy as a believer but the joy I have now FAR surpasses any I experienced then.

I have 2 grown kids - both are magnificent. One is a a believer and the other is not.

[Alamoman]

Tim - do you and your kids talk openly about your beliefs or is it avoided to avoid confrontation...? No worries if that's too personal.

[Tim]

Tim - do you and your kids talk openly about your beliefs or is it avoided to avoid confrontation...? No worries if that's too personal.

We have always talked openly about everything. I've always encouraged them to "think" for themselves. I deliberately refused to spoonfeed them ideas but made them research for answers on their own. This drove my daughter crazy when she was young. Today we laugh about it. She is a believer and quite devout although she doesn't subscribe to any particular denominational doctrine. She studies on her own and makes up her own mind as to what she believes. She attends a PCA church.

My son was always a skeptic... he was an atheist even as a kid. He never even believed in Santa Clause. My wife and I were amazed at his level of skepticism at such a young age and thought he would 'grow out of it'. He didn't. :))

[Lie Sniper]

Not too personal at all. I've shared several times on this forum. I'll see if I can find one of them and link to it.

In a nutshell - Background: Very conservative, evangelical southern baptist. Education: Independent Baptist Bible College and Southern Baptist Seminary

Beliefs: Pretty much in line with Baptist doctrine but leaned heavily toward Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) in later years of ministry.

Favorite Author: Francis Schaeffer - his writings challenged me like no other!

The more I studied, the more I questioned to the point of non-belief. Obviously, it wasn't an easy 'break' for me but one that I had to make for reasons of integrity. I didn't experience anything "bad" in the church. My deconversion was based entirely on my study.

Oh, I 'flirted' with the charismatic movement during my teens (early 1970's). I was a very devout believer, even as a young preteen and teen - carried my Bible everywhere I went (including public school) and witnessed to any/all who would listen. Still have people contact me on facebook who tell me that I led them to the Lord in high school or that they turned to Christ because of my testimony. I don't bother telling them about my deconversion... no reason to worry them.

I thought I had unimaginable joy as a believer but the joy I have now FAR surpasses any I experienced then.

I have 2 grown kids - both are magnificent. One is a a believer and the other is not.

Thanks Tim!

Was there one specific thing that the light bulb went on and you thought, "this is all bull"?

Or was it more gradual?

[Alamoman]

We have always talked openly about everything. I've always encouraged them to "think" for themselves. I deliberately refused to spoonfeed them ideas but made them research for answers on their own. This drove my daughter crazy when she was young. Today we laugh about it. She is a believer and quite devout although she doesn't subscribe to any particular denominational doctrine. She studies on her own and makes up her own mind as to what she believes. She attends a PCA church.

My son was always a skeptic... he was an atheist even as a kid. He never even believed in Santa Clause. My wife and I were amazed at his level of skepticism at such a young age and thought he would 'grow out of it'. He didn't. :))
Very good. Kudos to you for allowing your kids to think on their own. We don't do enough of that these days.

[Tim]

Thanks Tim!

Was there one specific thing that the light bulb went on and you thought, "this is all bull"?

Or was it more gradual?

Gradual... although there came a day when I kind of just realized that I no longer believed in the God of the Bible but left open the possibility of an impersonal god (deistic approach). It wasn't long before I simply saw no reason to even hold to that belief. I find no reasons to think there is a god therefore....:whistle:

Since the time I admitted, out loud, that I am atheist I find more and more incredibility in what I once believed and wonder how I ever believed it to begin with. Intellectually I realize that I believed because of what I'd been taught and then because of numerous experiences that I attributed to the Holy Spirit working in my life.

Now I see those experiences as nothing more than emotions, mental training and a strong desire to see that which wasn't really there. Lest anyone misunderstand and think that I am disparaging their experiences, I'm not! I can only speak to that which I personally experienced.

Just as there was a time when I was 100% certain of God and my faith, I am now that certain that there is no god. BUT if there is, I am open to receive him at any time of his choosing.

[captusa]

Actually, there's a way to prove both now that I think about it more.. Both works for me.. ;)

When someone says they will pray for me I make it a point of donating money in their name at my local coven.
So far nobody have thanked me.
I do not believe in Satan or God but I think a believer should be thankful that somebody hedged their bet if God loses at Armaggedon.

[Lie Sniper]

Gradual... although there came a day when I kind of just realized that I no longer believed in the God of the Bible but left open the possibility of an impersonal god (deistic approach). It wasn't long before I simply saw no reason to even hold to that belief. I find no reasons to think there is a god therefore....:whistle:

Since the time I admitted, out loud, that I am atheist I find more and more incredibility in what I once believed and wonder how I ever believed it to begin with. Intellectually I realize that I believed because of what I'd been taught and then because of numerous experiences that I attributed to the Holy Spirit working in my life.

Now I see those experiences as nothing more than emotions, mental training and a strong desire to see that which wasn't really there. Lest anyone misunderstand and think that I am disparaging their experiences, I'm not! I can only speak to that which I personally experienced.

Just as there was a time when I was 100% certain of God and my faith, I am now that certain that there is no god. BUT if there is, I am open to receive him at any time of his choosing.

Again, Thanks for sharing your personal experience.
It's very interesting.

[Lie Sniper]

When someone says they will pray for me I make it a point of donating money in their name at my local coven.
So far nobody have thanked me.
I do not believe in Satan or God but I think a believer should be thankful that somebody hedged their bet if God loses at Armaggedon.

:))

You antagonizer!:naughty:

[captusa]

Since this is an Ask an Atheist thread, mind if I ask why you no longer believe? If its not too personal.

Kinda like your testimony of disbelief. I promise I will try not to refute what you say or convince you of anything. :silenced:
But I'm curious. :)

The idea of a Guy in the Sky watching sparrows fall seemed ludicrous to me by about the age of 12.

I made a statement to a girl friend in 1958 and the statement was repeated to me almost word for word by someone I was talking to in a bar.


If there is a single omnipotent Deity controlling the entire universe it would be blasphemous to assume that I could personally offend HIM by getting laid.
IMHO
This is one of the rare cases where my opinion is humble.

[captusa]

:))

You antagonizer!:naughty:

To quote Tony Shaluba (Monk),
"You'll thank me later."

[Lie Sniper]

The idea of a Guy in the Sky watching sparrows fall seemed ludicrous to me by about the age of 12.

I made a statement to a girl friend in 1958 and the statement was repeated to me almost word for word by someone I was talking to in a bar.


If there is a single omnipotent Deity controlling the entire universe it would be blasphemous to assume that I could personally offend HIM by getting laid.
IMHO
This is one of the rare cases where my opinion is humble.


Your logic reeks of Einstein,
but more crude.;)

[captusa]

Your logic reeks of Einstein,
but more crude.;)

Einstein was extremely articulate for a Physics major and his statements were made for the public.
When we spoke, he was not particularly genteel.

[Alamoman]

When someone says they will pray for me I make it a point of donating money in their name at my local coven.
So far nobody have thanked me.
I do not believe in Satan or God but I think a believer should be thankful that somebody hedged their bet if God loses at Armaggedon.
Okey dokey... (sorry, that's as intellectual as I get)

So why is it that you hang out in a religion forum..?

PS. Tell them McLovin sent you.. ;)

[captusa]

Okey dokey... (sorry, that's as intellectual as I get)

So why is it that you hang out in a religion forum..?

PS. Tell them McLovin sent you.. ;)

I find the subject interesting and many of the posters intriguing.
To repeat myself,
I assumed the RF was to discuss religion and religious points of view.
If it was just for preaching to each other almost post would be.
"Amen"

[Lie Sniper]

I find the subject interesting and many of the posters intriguing.
To repeat myself,
I assumed the RF was to discuss religion and religious points of view.
If it was just for preaching to each other almost post would be.
"Amen"

Amen!



(sorry, couldn't resist...:)))

[Alamoman]

I find the subject interesting and many of the posters intriguing.
To repeat myself,
I assumed the RF was to discuss religion and religious points of view.
If it was just for preaching to each other almost post would be.
"Amen"
Amen.

Sorry, never saw your answer to the question, but it's pretty clear where you stand.

So is atheism a religious point of view?

[Alamoman]

Amen!



(sorry, couldn't resist...:)))

Man, I thought I got mine in before you... I want to see the instant replay.. :))

[captusa]

Amen.

Sorry, never saw your answer to the question, but it's pretty clear where you stand.

So is atheism a religious point of view?

It was a while ago.
AND is Theism a religious point of view ?
What would you call the opposite point of view ?

Actually I am a non-Theist.
I can go along with Einstein on the logical creator but completely reject the concept of a transcendental Deity.

[Alamoman]

It was a while ago.
AND is Theism a religious point of view ?
What would you call the opposite point of view ?

Actually I am a non-Theist.
I can go along with Einstein on the logical creator but completely reject the concept of a transcendental Deity.

If one defines Theism (broadly) as the belief in God or Gods, then yes. Is the opposite a religious point of view..? By that definition, maybe not..

If you consider yourself a non-Theist, there is certainly an argument that it's a religious position and/or belief.. Some call Buddhism a non-Theistic religion, so I suppose it's debatable.

My question was/is born of simple curiosity. I don't believe in a lot of things, but I also don't spend my time on message boards debating/discussing things I don't believe in.. That said, I do think the atheist point of view challenges people of faith to dig a little deeper, and for that, I appreciate the dialog.

[military mom]

Why are atheists so threatened by the idea of religion? Is it the idea of a moral code? A set of rules to live by? Or that the universe isn't random? They cling so tightly to the Theory of Evolution that they have accepted it as a fact with no actual proof yet believe us delusional for believing in GOD.

[Alamoman]

Hello military mom. Welcome to the forum.

FYI, there's a thread below this titled something like "Ask a real live Atheist a question..." where there's some good dialog about why they believe what they believe. Might be a better investment of your time to read some of that dialog and jump into the fray.. Just a suggestion.. ;)

[Wake-Up]

It's not that the universe isn't random. It's the opposite.

Atheists seem to think that the universe is fixed, and given enough time, with only experience and reason, man can understand it.

The introduction of God threatens that idea of a fixed, known reality. The idea of something that they cannot see, know, or predict throws an element of unpredictability into their worldview, threatens their structure, and inspires fear.

You could not be more wrong. I feel no threat from religion in the slightest. What I object to is the fundamentalist attempts to legislate morality based on their interpretation of book that I believe to be fables created during a time when there was little understanding of the natural world.

I do not need a religious organization or bible direct me towards right or wrong, its based on common sense and a civil society. I do not need a fear of some lost afterlife to motivate me to do what is right.

Since I reject formal religion and the idea of an omnipotent being creating a universe and mankind as company there is nothing for me to fear.

[Lie Sniper]

It's not that the universe isn't random. It's the opposite.

Atheists seem to think that the universe is fixed, and given enough time, with only experience and reason, man can understand it.

The introduction of God threatens that idea of a fixed, known reality. The idea of something that they cannot see, know, or predict throws an element of unpredictability into their worldview, threatens their structure, and inspires fear.

You act as though you can speak for all atheists. Why don't you take a crack at the Atheists in the Ask an Atheist thread. Your more then welcome to join in there. Might be an interesting discussion.

[BillyBobUSA]

Hey everyone,
I am a strong non-believer (atheist) and have been for several years now. I am offering to answer any thoughtful questions you might have for me over the next few days. A few ground rules for asking questions:

1. Please choose questions that will enable civilized discussion. If you don't intend to be civil then please do not get involved in this thread.

2. Don't be afraid to ask difficult questions. I will answer any question as long as it proposed in a thoughtful manner.

3. Please keep politics out of this thread. This is about my nonbelief in a god and your questions about that, nothing more.

4. Posts that are not questions or that are deliberately inflammatory or rude will be ignored.

5. I don't need to be saved. Thanks though, I appreciate the effort :)

Let the games begin!


OK.

We all know, I hope, that one cannot progress through an infinite sequence of finite time intervals to arrive at the infinite in real time as we know it.

So how does one progress through time as we know it from an infinitely distant past to the present?

The latter is as impossible as the former.

[BillyBobUSA]

Sure we can.

Think about how many "moments of time" are in 1 minute?

It can be divided up infinitely, once you start the minute, you are never any more or less moments away from the start or away from the finish, but you inevitably make it there.

Actually, that's not an explanation as to how it's done, just an example that it is.


Actually its not the same, because those little moments are of zero length once reduced to an infinite quantity. This is a sequence infinite in divisibility while I am speaking of an infinite sequence infinite in extension.

But thanks for the input.

Its nice to see someone else who has read a little about Zenos Paradoxes.

[Wake-Up]

What do you find to be the source of morality? what is "common sense"? That sounds a bit vague, common sense for you may be different than common sense for me, which may both be quite different than common sense to someone of another culture?

If morality is completely relative, and there is no absolute foundation from which morality is derived, where do you find yours?

As thinking beings do you need someone or a book to tell you not to murder, steal, honor your spouse? I agree these were based on some Judeo-Christian morales and most of our existing basic laws that govern a civil society but they were also created when reason and logic could not justify those tenants based on anything.

We have grown and learned a great deal over the past 2000+ years and while those morales have proven to work it does not mean they are God given but simply created by some very wise men using stories to control behavior. Not a bad thing for a civilized society to adhere to but certainly no absolute proof there is a higher being responsible for it.

God did not write the bible with his hand, men did. You can not prove the existence of a God anymore than I can disprove it. You have faith and choose to believe, I do not. Does not make me less morale than a believer, simply means I elect to believe that man, over the course of history, created a path for behavior, supported by laws that demonstrate right from wrong for those that don't have the same level of common sense that you or I have.

[Semi-Sweet]

You could not be more wrong. I feel no threat from religion in the slightest. What I object to is the fundamentalist attempts to legislate morality based on their interpretation of book that I believe to be fables created during a time when there was little understanding of the natural world.

I do not need a religious organization or bible direct me towards right or wrong, its based on common sense and a civil society. I do not need a fear of some lost afterlife to motivate me to do what is right.

Since I reject formal religion and the idea of an omnipotent being creating a universe and mankind as company there is nothing for me to fear.

The part I bolded. . . .Do you even understand what you are saying?

We have always had laws governing morals. We have laws against assault, murder, theft, robbery, embezzlement, impure foods, dope, public drunkenness, driving while intoxicated, rape, slander, perjury, child abuse, child labor, and many other such immoral actions. These are all dealing with morals. In fact, I would judge, a greater part of our laws regulate the relationships of persons. That is what morality is all about. . . . .a person's relationship with fellow human beings.

It is true that one cannot be forced to become moral by legislation, but our laws are meant to protect society from immoral persons. To give the individual license under the guise of personal rights is to violate the rights of others. . . . . .that is immoral. Our obsession with individual rights which violate the rights of the general public is undermining the basic structure of our society. It is incumbent upon the individual to defer to society rather than the society having to try to conform to each erratic individual.

[BillyBobUSA]

i have not but it sounds interesting


Wiki isnt authoritiative, but its a good place to start if your unfamiliar with this stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_paradoxes

[Alamoman]

Another question for our atheist friends... What prominent atheists do you listen to, read, follow, etc...?

[Tim]

Why are atheists so threatened by the idea of religion? Is it the idea of a moral code? A set of rules to live by? Or that the universe isn't random? They cling so tightly to the Theory of Evolution that they have accepted it as a fact with no actual proof yet believe us delusional for believing in GOD.

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to but your comments aren't reflective of my views or any atheists that I know.

I'm not threatened by the idea of religion at all.

The basic moral code of most religions is in line with my own and those of most civilized communities throughout history.

"Rules to live by"? Not sure what you mean by that.

Theory of evolution? I don't give it any more thought than the countless other scientific theories... If/how man evolved is of little interest to me.

While some atheists may think you "delusional", I certainly do not and don't know any atheist, personally, who thinks that way.

Stick around... you may find that we're really not all that different from you apart from our disbelief in any deities.

[Tim]

Another question for our atheist friends... What prominent atheists do you listen to, read, follow, etc...?

None... I run across articles by various different atheists from time to time but that's about it for me.

[Alamoman]

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to but your comments aren't reflective of my views or any atheists that I know.

I'm not threatened by the idea of religion at all.

The basic moral code of most religions is in line with my own and those of most civilized communities throughout history.

"Rules to live by"? Not sure what you mean by that.

Theory of evolution? I don't give it any more thought than the countless other scientific theories... If/how man evolved is of little interest to me.

While some atheists may think you "delusional", I certainly do not and don't know any atheist, personally, who thinks that way.

Stick around... you may find that we're really not all that different from you apart from our disbelief in any deities.

I find your beliefs are in line with most of the mainstream atheists with whom I socialize...

On the flipside, I also find the majority of atheists on message boards to be a bit more militant in their approach. I can say the same for many of the religious folks as well. I think this approach, on both sides of the issue, puts up barriers to fruitful discussion/debate.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Another question for our atheist friends... What prominent atheists do you listen to, read, follow, etc...?

That's one of athiesm's most attractive characteristics. No meetings. No leaders. Frees up a lot of time. 6 hours a week for some people.

[Tim]

I find your beliefs are in line with most of the mainstream atheists with whom I socialize...

On the flipside, I also find the majority of atheists on message boards to be a bit more militant in their approach. I can say the same for many of the religious folks as well. I think this approach, on both sides of the issue, puts up barriers to fruitful discussion/debate.

Ain't that the truth!!!:clap:

[Alamoman]

That's one of athiesm's most attractive characteristics. No meetings. No leaders. Frees up a lot of time. 6 hours a week for some people.
For you? Yes. However, there are many atheist organizations and they meet regularly. There are also countless authors out promoting books, debating, etc. (Dawkins, Hitchens, Singer, Shermer to name a few).

I would agree that the majority of atheists probably don't know about these organizations, nor do they follow the prominent spokespeople.

[Koushi Shinigami]

For you? Yes.



What makes you think I'm athiest?


However, there are many atheist organizations and they meet regularly.

Name a few.

[Alamoman]

What makes you think I'm athiest?




Name a few.

Am I wrong..? If so, my bad.

You have Google, do the work yourself. I can post many links to atheist organizations, but that proves nothing other than 1. They exist and 2. I know how to Google.

[Tim]

For you? Yes. However, there are many atheist organizations and they meet regularly. There are also countless authors out promoting books, debating, etc. (Dawkins, Hitchens, Singer, Shermer to name a few).

I would agree that the majority of atheists probably don't know about these organizations, nor do they follow the prominent spokespeople.

"Promoting books" is probably the key. I've seen some of the youtube debate videos and, frankly, found them pretty boring.

As for the organizations, I'm sure I'd recognize some if I saw them but couldn't name any off the top of my head.

It seems that their main purpose is in trying to make atheism more acceptable to society in general and prevent any restriction of liberties based on beliefs (or lack thereof). I question their effectiveness in that endeavor!

As an atheist living in the Bible Belt, I am very careful to NOT broadcast my lack of belief in deities as it would be absolutely detrimental to my financial well-being. My clients just assume I am a Christian and talk to me as if I am. I am careful to simply smile and lead any religious conversation back toward the 'business' at hand.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Am I wrong..? If so, my bad.

You have Google, do the work yourself. I can post many links to atheist organizations, but that proves nothing other than 1. They exist and 2. I know how to Google.

Yes. I'm not athiest. I just don't honor the creations of man either. IE religion.


And I'd prefer you post a link to what you consider an 'athiest organization'. I'm interested if it's an organization that promotes athiesm, or if it's just one that does not include God or prayers in their operations ala Microsoft or AT&T, because it's not the focus of that organization.

[Alamoman]

"Promoting books" is probably the key. I've seen some of the youtube debate videos and, frankly, found them pretty boring.

As for the organizations, I'm sure I'd recognize some if I saw them but couldn't name any off the top of my head.

It seems that their main purpose is in trying to make atheism more acceptable to society in general and prevent any restriction of liberties based on beliefs (or lack thereof). I question their effectiveness in that endeavor!

As an atheist living in the Bible Belt, I am very careful to NOT broadcast my lack of belief in deities as it would be absolutely detrimental to my financial well-being. My clients just assume I am a Christian and talk to me as if I am. I am careful to simply smile and lead any religious conversation back toward the 'business' at hand.
You're right, many of them are sleepers. I like the D'Souza/Hitchens debates primarily because D'Souza doesn't use scripture to make his points. It's an apples v. apples discussion. The problem with most of those debates on YouTube though is the audio quality is terrible and I'm hard of hearing..!

[pictor]

We have always had laws governing morals. We have laws against assault, murder, theft, robbery, embezzlement, impure foods, dope, public drunkenness, driving while intoxicated, rape, slander, perjury, child abuse, child labor, and many other such immoral actions.
These actions are immoral, but that's not why they are illegal. These actions cause harm, or create the circumstances to make such harm imminent. That is why there is a law. The morality is not the basis of that law, it's an law to mitigate or eliminate a clear and evident harm against someone's person/property.

A moral view, without a provable harm, does not tend to get laws passed. You may believe it is moral to pray, but there is no law requiring it (part of the basis of the upcoming movie Franklyn http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0893402/). There is no law requiring charitable donations, or pre-marital sex (except where it branches into other areas that are possibly illegal).

Morality is not the basis of law. The creation of the expectation of safety and security is the basis of law. Those expectations will generally coincide with a moral stance, because among other things, we find things like killing, stealing, and slander immoral.

[Alamoman]

Yes. I'm not athiest. I just don't honor the creations of man either. IE religion.


And I'd prefer you post a link to what you consider an 'athiest organization'. I'm interested if it's an organization that promotes athiesm, or if it's just one that does not include God or prayers in their operations ala Microsoft or AT&T, because it's not the focus of that organization.
Fair enough. Not sure what your point is though.

By the way, there were 982,000 hits on "atheist organization" when I Googled it... The link below is #2 on the list. I think it's pretty fair to say they're not "vanilla" in their approach.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

[pictor]

A few questions for the atheists:

1. What is the Self? I assume you believe you are purely your body, if so, what is the thing which is "you", if throughout your lifetime, every cell in your body is replaced multiple times over?

2. What is the subject of phenomenal experience? Why do we have it? Our brains are perfectly able of taking in, working with, and producing an appropriate response to external stimuli, so why do we have the subjective experience? For example, a robot can be programmed to move when it detects a certain wavelength of light, but does it have the sensation of "seeing red" like we do? Why do we have that? What is the source of that?

3. If the entire universe as we know it is a result of laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, ect. starting from the initial conditions at the Big Bang, then it is possible that (assuming a powerful enough computer) we could trace the initial conditions, and see how they inevitably resulted in what we see now. Given all of this, the entire universe can be seen as a large deterministic system. If so, do we have free will? If we do, how can something purely physical be non-determined within a purely deterministic system?
I'd like to say, that these are 3 of the best, and most challenging questions I have ever been posed. I do not have the time right now to answer them as they deserve, and I would like to come back at a later time to do so, however they will take some very careful thought on my part.

I'd just like to commend you on phrasing questions in such a way as they are not easily dismissable. The questions about atheist morality or random chance in the universe come up so often, and are so easy to refute, that I thought I would never see a good stimulating question that I didn't know how to answer right away.

To the other atheists on the forum, please don't shy away from tackling these. We expect the faithful here to answer our probing questions so often, we should be ready to do the same.

[Tim]

(snip)

To the other atheists on the forum, please don't shy away from tackling these. We expect the faithful here to answer our probing questions so often, we should be ready to do the same.

I considered answering but after reading them several times I'm not sure I understand what is being asked. Perhaps I'm just a bit slow this morning (or all the time for that matter) but I don't understand what the questions have to do with my lack of belief in a deity.

As with any question regarding the workings of the universe down to the workings of a single cell organism, I simply don't make a leap to "God did it" when I encounter something I don't understand. Also, since I am not a "scientist" by profession or nature I'm not really interested in looking for the answers to these types of questions.

That I don't have all the answers is a given. :wall: My lack of answers just doesn't lead me to believe an invisible being does have them.

[jski90]

Atheism is nothing more than an excuse to do what you want and never to be held accountable to anyone. Do you really think life is nothing more than this, that there is no higher authority? Please explain the unmistakable prophesies in the Old Testament? Those are pretty simple questions, lets see how you do.

[Tim]

Atheism is nothing more than an excuse to do what you want and never to be held accountable to anyone. Do you really think life is nothing more than this, that there is no higher authority? Please explain the unmistakable prophesies in the Old Testament? Those are pretty simple questions, lets see how you do.

The first sentence is a statement, not a question, and it is simply not true.

The second is a two-part question... the first part doesn't really make sense to me in that you don't define what you mean by "this". If by "this" you mean that there is no afterlife then my answer is that I do not have any reason to believe in an afterlife. The second part asks about a "higher authority"... I would need to know what you mean by "higher authority" too. I happen to be a married man so I can unequivocally state that I KNOW there is a higher authority than I. :doh:

The third sentence is another statement although you put a question mark at the end. You want us to explain what "unmistakable prophesies in the Old Testament"? Surely you are aware that there is much disagreement and debate regarding the veracity of the various prophetic claims of the OT... perhaps if you pick one that you think is "unmistakable" we could tackle it first and move on from there.

[Koushi Shinigami]

The second part asks about a "higher authority"... I would need to know what you mean by "higher authority" too. I happen to be a married man so I can unequivocally state that I KNOW there is a higher authority than I. :doh:



All hail SWMBO!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!

[Tim]

All hail SWMBO!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!
ALL HAIL SWMBO!!!

You know what I'm talking about! :)):)):))

Pssssst... she's not looking over my shoulder, is she?:doh:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Not at the moment.

[graatz]

1. What is the Self? I assume you believe you are purely your body, if so, what is the thing which is "you", if throughout your lifetime, every cell in your body is replaced multiple times over?

Self is a concept, a convenient way to categorize and understand the experience of being cognizant. A very related question might be to ask what does it mean for there to be two of something? Or that adding that two to another two will produce four. Addition fails sometimes, say for instance a liquid substance may have a volume of 2oz, and a different liquid may also have a volume of 2oz, but adding them together causes a chemical reaction resulting in a net volume of 3oz. In other words, when trying to formulate a strict definition of Self, you are bound to run into problems. But that doesn't mean we can't understand Self as the concept.

Also, realize that on a micro-level our subatomic particles mesh with the objects around us and essentially constantly recycle themselves at a regular interval. But we are still we. Or to put it another way, the behavior of our subatomic components doesn't detract from the actuality of the macro-structure ;)

2. What is the subject of phenomenal experience? Why do we have it? Our brains are perfectly able of taking in, working with, and producing an appropriate response to external stimuli, so why do we have the subjective experience? For example, a robot can be programmed to move when it detects a certain wavelength of light, but does it have the sensation of "seeing red" like we do? Why do we have that? What is the source of that?

How do I know that my sensation of "seeing red" matches yours? :eh: It's hard to define why we have something when we can't even be sure that others have the same experience... To answer the question another way, if we programmed an AI to mimic all of our brain functions, how would I really know if the robot is "seeing red." If it wrote poetry about colors or painted an evocative work of art demonstrating advanced color theory, would that suffice as proof? What makes you think that AI won't obtain that level of sophistication?

3. If the entire universe as we know it is a result of laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, ect. starting from the initial conditions at the Big Bang, then it is possible that (assuming a powerful enough computer) we could trace the initial conditions, and see how they inevitably resulted in what we see now. Given all of this, the entire universe can be seen as a large deterministic system. If so, do we have free will? If we do, how can something purely physical be non-determined within a purely deterministic system?

I am a determinist. Yes, I do believe that if it were theoretically possible to know the state of all things, and know the mechanics behind all things, you would know what will happen next. Also, I believe in the un-computability of such a task, as it would require a "machine" with more bits than there are of anything actual in the Universe (by quite a large magnitude). The human brain wouldn't have the capacity... All human brains past, present, or future wouldn't have the capacity. A quantum machine utilizing every particle in the Universe wouldn't have the capacity.

[Thor]

Atheism is nothing more than an excuse to do what you want and never to be held accountable to anyone.

Insulting drivel.

Do you really think life is nothing more than this, that there is no higher authority?

I see no evidence of a "higher authority". What evidence do you have that indicates the existence of a deity?

Please explain the unmistakable prophesies in the Old Testament?

What "unmistakable prophecies"? Please show me a prophecy that is clear and direct. (For example, "In the year 2009, a man named Barack Obama will become president of a nation known as the United States"). Most so-called "prophecies" I've seen are vague and confusing. Later historical events are then shoehorned into these "prophecies".

[Alamoman]

Atheism is nothing more than an excuse to do what you want and never to be held accountable to anyone. Do you really think life is nothing more than this, that there is no higher authority? Please explain the unmistakable prophesies in the Old Testament? Those are pretty simple questions, lets see how you do.
I would suggest to you that your opening salvo prevents open minded, respectful conversation/debate. This thread should be treated with the same dignity as any other in this forum. My 2 cents.

[graatz]

To the other atheists on the forum, please don't shy away from tackling these. We expect the faithful here to answer our probing questions so often, we should be ready to do the same.

Never fear. I'm no stranger to these topics. However, a lot of other atheists might not like my answer to #3, so you'll have to formulate your own responses ;)

[pictor]

Atheism is nothing more than an excuse to do what you want and never to be held accountable to anyone.

I am held accountable by the entire community with which I interact. How I treat my family, my girlfriend, her dog, my neighbours, my co-workers, my expectation for how I wish to be treated in kind holds me accountable.
Do you really think life is nothing more than this, that there is no higher authority?

Yes...I really think that. There is no higher authority, there is only here, today, now, in this incredibly complex world filled with people with whom I share my life. Yes, there is nothing more than this, but the "this" mentioned here is a huge and wonderful thing.

Please explain the unmistakable prophesies in the Old Testament?
Did you really want to ask that question to an atheist?

They are prophecies, written in a book, penned by some man's hand, translated and edited by other men's hands, with no more innate truth than anything else written in a book, penned by some man's hand, translated and edited by other men's hands.

[biggles53]

Why are atheists so threatened by the idea of religion? Is it the idea of a moral code? A set of rules to live by? Or that the universe isn't random? They cling so tightly to the Theory of Evolution that they have accepted it as a fact with no actual proof yet believe us delusional for believing in GOD.

I can't believe someone could pack so many false assertions in one short post....!

Religion does not "threaten" any particular atheist I know. Religions (some of them) do threaten the peace and security of our world, but then we're all in that boat, aren't we?

Most atheists I know probaly share a moral code that is very similar to your own.

What does being an atheist have to do with the structure of the universe please?

Being an atheist and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution are mutually exclusive I would suggest. There are probably atheists who don't accept it, and there are certainly many believers who do!

Scientific theories never involve "proof" - they require evidence for their support, that's all. By the way, what was the last piece of evidence that you observed that supported your belief in your god....?

[BillyBobUSA]

Hmm, the genuine live atheist didnt answer my question, so I'll post it again:

We all know, I hope, that one cannot progress through an infinite sequence of finite time intervals to arrive at the infinite in real time as we know it.

So how does one progress through time as we know it from an infinitely distant past to the present?

The latter is as impossible as the former.