# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Why Do You Believe in Atheism?

## toni

- or rather, what made you decide to be an Atheist? Was it a book that changed your belief that there is a God? And last question, what is your personal defenition of Atheism? 

This defenition I found here :




> Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence. There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God. I'm not sure there is even any meaning to the former. Before one can disbelieve in something, that something must be intelligible and it must be understood. Since belief in new gods may appear in the future and it is impossible to know what will be meant by reference to those gods, it makes no sense to say one disbelieves in all gods. Likewise, some conceptions of God are so confusing as to be little more than gibberish. How can one disbelieve in the "ineffable ground of all being"? The expression has no meaning for me and I suspect that those who claim it is meaningful to them don't know what they're talking about. 
> 
> However, since there are many concepts of god(s) and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods or groups of gods.
> 
> Some atheists may know of many gods and reject belief in the existence of all of them. Such a person might be called a polyatheist. All theists are atheists in the sense that they deny the existence of all other gods except theirs, but they don't consider themselves atheists. Most people today who consider themselves atheists probably mean that they do not believe in the existence of the local god. For example, most people who call themselves atheists in a culture where the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God (JCoIG or Jaycolgee) dominates would mean, at the very least, that they do not believe that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient Providential Personal Creator of the universe. And, people who believe in the JCoIG would consider such disbelief tantamount to atheism.



What are your thoughts on the quote above?

----------


## dramasnot6

Hi toni! :Biggrin:   :Wave:  What a wonderful idea for a thread! 
Well, i believe in atheism for several reasons, and ill make em brief and concise this time...I'm trying to get out of my bad "excessive use of laguage"/"rant" habits :Tongue:  

1) There is more evidence for how and why natural phenomenon(sp?) occur in the field of science then religion.
2) Beliefs of "god" differ between religions. But I'll refer this reason specifically to more patriarchal religions. I refuse to worship or follow without question any man or male figure. 
3) I have been raised in an Atheist family. It rubs off.
4)Nowadays most religion is presented as so commercial. Vegas churches, christian rock, where's the soul in it? How do you expect me to take anything seriosuly that is presented in tacky neon lights? Theyre beliefs, not beer ads. 
5) Religion can be very hypocritical. Priests mollesting young boys, corrupt "donation" collectors. The only way to be a hypocrate when youre an atheist is to secretly believe in God. Not only is that not harmful to others, but i have never even heard of a case of hypocritical atheists....
6) Same reason i never fell for Santa. When there is someone who can see your every move, feel your every thought, for gods sakes(no pun here folks) dont trust them!. 

well...all i can think of for now....

----------


## RobinHood3000

Aside from the fact that humans have spent a lot more time wrong about religion than any one group may have been right, the biggest thing (ironically) that solidified my atheism was a Christian attempt at conversion. As I read in a political article once, "You don't sell more Coca-Cola by insulting Pepsi drinkers."

----------


## Pendragon

> Aside from the fact that humans have spent a lot more time wrong about religion than any one group may have been right, the biggest thing (ironically) that solidified my atheism was a Christian attempt at conversion. As I read in a political article once, "You don't sell more Coca-Cola by insulting Pepsi drinkers."


And unfortunately, Robin, who acknowledges this old preacher as his older brother can back me on this, we have had a lot of the same on this very forum. On the Creationism versus Evolution thread many who called themselves "Christian" or otherwise "religious" were trying to promote Creationism by calling Atheists names. And they didn't seem to like it when I quoted the Bible to them to tell them that was wrong. Sometimes Religious people can be their own worst enemies. If I am trying to espouse a religious life, I better demonstrate it, show people that I care for them, or what do I have to offer that they would _want?_ They can be called names by the average man on the street. I'm supposed to be different, let me _act different towards them._  :Nod:

----------


## alhara

I was chatholic, then I turned atheist, then agnostic, and then christain, then atheist again and then christian and then nothing and now its a secret I don&#180;t want to jynx anything, but one of the reasons I became and atheist at first is because god didn&#180;t answer me if god exists and talks to us and is inside all of us why doesn&#180;t he answer my calls. And here is a clue to what I am now. Atheism(not like that default atheism described above but the belif in no realigion) to me is a belif ONLY in the material world, through denying god and life afterdeath or any kind of hoccus pocuss the limit everything to what they themselves physically percieve. It is the realigion of science, laws of gravity v.s. ten comanments. The diffrence is they can prove their law to a certain extent. I supose I do atheists an injustice here, but I respect atheism and science like any other church or belif system, just as captivitaing with just as many holes.

----------


## Arguendo

I don't BELIEVE in atheism... It isn't a religion, at least not to me, which means the element of faith is completely removed.

I was 8 years old when I figured out that god couldn't possibly exist, because if he did, surely he'd DO something about all the awful things in the world. I still don't buy the Christian argument that he's testing us all.

As I grew older, I couldn't see any reason to start believing, and several awful encounters with Christian zealots certainly didn't help. 

I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation, I know of no actual experiences with deities (in older and less educated times they seemed to drop by to chat all the time, but they must have stopped that), and I don't need the comfort of belonging to a religious belief system. Actually, most religions I know of appear to create more problems than they solve.

You may deduce from the above that the closest I come to a belief is that in rational thinking.

----------


## mir

i'm an atheist because, 1, i think there are too many holes in Deism (using that as a term for beleif in any god or higher structure of being). the only thing it's based on is absolute and unflinching beleif without any evidence. also, the most thing is that at least with Judiasm and Christianity and Islam and such, some of the major religions, the basic tenants of the religion and the justification for it is found in books WRITTEN BY HUMANS. the holy books have no proof that everything in them isn't contrived.

also, i have been studying a lot about consciousness and science and such like that, and have found several things relating to mind and body and the idea that God created us as individuals, and there is a God because the world exists and because we have the capacity to beleive in him and to think, that challenge whatever beleif i might have.

the only thing of mine that could be interpreted to some kind of beleif is one major thing which i can't resolve any other way. i.e., i can even accept that everybody in the world is basically the same and even has all the same thoughts and feelings - different only because of Nature and Nurture, the way they were born and broughts up - but i can't explain the feeling i have that i am me. that my feelings make me feel something too strong to be quantified by simple science. what is it that makes us feel, and makes us see out of our own eyes and cogito ergo sum?

anyhoo. yes.  :Smile:  long-winded atheistic ramblings. but it's a very interesting subject.

----------


## alhara

I have a question for atheists, do you believe in soul,....I don&#180;t mean a christain concept of a soul... but like what he said that feeling that you are you, that consciousness not yet explained by science....or explain in a way that doesn&#180;t adress what I&#180;m talking about....like a philoshphical soul... like the familar places in your mind that you go when you day dream.

----------


## Laindessiel

"The opposite of a religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist, but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not." - Eric Hoffer

"Such evil deeds could religion prompt.: - Lucretius


I agree with Uncle Pen. and this proves it furthermore:

"The true meaning of RELIGION IS thus not simply morality, BUT MORALITY TOUCHED BY EMOTION." - Richard Burton

"I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth." - Carl Sandburg


And:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, THAT takes religion." - Stephen Weinberg

----------


## kilted exile

It is not so much a belief in atheism as a disbelief in a deity


**EDIT: With regards to the definition in the first post, it is utter nonsense**

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation,"

What is the scientific explanation for love, or sorrow, or regret, or ...?

----------


## kilted exile

> What is the scientific explanation for love, or sorrow, or regret, or ...?


Hormones/Chemical Release?

----------


## alhara

why do i cry when i&#180;m sad.... if all our body function serve a purpose breathing and so on why do we have emotions at all, realigion hasn&#180;t answered this for me either, so this is for either side. crying is the main question now but i have a billion more. when we breath it serves a defenat purpose but when we cry because we are happy or sad all it does is wast water. people say that all the time what good does crying do. it doesn&#180;t do anything sometimes we look silly sometimes it gives you head ache but thats it

----------


## Pendragon

This is another thing that I tell people, that I have taken a lot of flak over, but I stand by what I say. Your religion is only as good as this: It is what you would do if you knew for certain that you would not ever get caught and that there would be no consequences. Religion is not a fire escape (something you do in fear of hell), nor is it a code of ethics to live by to impress other people. If that is your purpose, then as soon as the fear leaves you, or as soon as you think no one is watching, your religion disappears. God forces no one to do anything, if you cannot do it freely and because you truly believe, the words *mean* something to you, any educated person can read them, but to you they have become *real*, why bother? I would rather face God as an Atheist than a hypocrite. Harsh words, perhaps, but either live it or leave it!  :Smile:

----------


## dramasnot6

> I have a question for atheists, do you believe in soul,....I don´t mean a christain concept of a soul... but like what he said that feeling that you are you, that consciousness not yet explained by science....or explain in a way that doesn´t adress what I´m talking about....like a philoshphical soul... like the familar places in your mind that you go when you day dream.


I believe in a soul as more as a conscience. Not something that can be removed or sold to the "Devil". Sort of like the combination of the Super Ego and imagination. A moral crevice of the mind that influences emotional thinking. I don't think the soul can be corrupted or shrunk, its not a physical organ or body part, more just an aspect of the decision making lobe of our brain. I think people with what seems few morals dont have a "blackned soul" or a soul that needs to be saved, they just relatively ignore it compared to instinctual impulse. For me, to describe someone with a beautiful soul is to describe someone who prioritizes more compassionate, thoughtful considerations over more egocentric concerns. It's sort of a wariness and concern for others based on your personal morals.




> why do i cry when i´m sad.... if all our body function serve a purpose breathing and so on why do we have emotions at all, realigion hasn´t answered this for me either, so this is for either side. crying is the main question now but i have a billion more. when we breath it serves a defenat purpose but when we cry because we are happy or sad all it does is wast water. people say that all the time what good does crying do. it doesn´t do anything sometimes we look silly sometimes it gives you head ache but thats it


I usually feel better after a good cry. I think its a trait used to adapt to our highly developed human minds. With great ability to think, comes great ability to feel. I always thought the complexity of human thought and ability, including a relatively large degree of sensitivity, served as the backbone for human accomplishment.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hi there - mind if a "believer" (in the "God Exists" sense of the word) crashes the party? I see that the thread is mainly composed of those who "believe" atheism so I won't tread where I'm not invited. I just had some questions about the justifications being given for atheism, as well as about the existence of the soul. I promise - if invited - I will behave much better than my bretheren in the Creationism vs. Evolution thread.

Three "yeses" and I'll post; one "nah" and I'll politely leave for threads elsewhere...

----------


## Tiresias

there are a few things that the true atheist needs to deal with - fire away!

----------


## dramasnot6

oh, please do so! i love questions :Biggrin:  Where would be a thread about belief without a little questioning? Just tests how strong one believes i s'pose.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> 1) There is more evidence for how and why natural phenomenon(sp?) occur in the field of science then religion.


Religion and science are not necessarily conflicting fields, nor is religion meant to answer the questions that the method of science has been developed to answer. This is why there are such things as "theistic scientists."




> 2) Beliefs of "god" differ between religions. But I'll refer this reason specifically to more patriarchal religions. I refuse to worship or follow without question any man or male figure.


Which patriarchal religion says that you must worship its male God without question? Are there any that do not?




> 3) I have been raised in an Atheist family. It rubs off.


Clearly this is a lesser reason, but surely youd wouldnt want to follow in your parents mold without question?




> 4)Nowadays most religion is presented as so commercial. Vegas churches, christian rock, where's the soul in it? How do you expect me to take anything seriosuly that is presented in tacky neon lights? Theyre beliefs, not beer ads.


So youve made a value judgment on all of religion due to some personally conflicting ideas of how religion should present itself? For the record, I think that I understand what you are talking about, and I for one find it offensive  but it hasnt led to my discounting religion.




> 5) Religion can be very hypocritical. Priests mollesting young boys, corrupt "donation" collectors. The only way to be a hypocrate when youre an atheist is to secretly believe in God.


Ill assume that you are referring specifically to the Christian faith here, as it is the one which advocates the strictest morals, in my opinion, and it also seems to agree with your first two hypocritical actions.




> Not only is that not harmful to others, but i have never even heard of a case of hypocritical atheists....


That is because atheists have no set morals or behavior guides that they need follow. It wouldnt be necessarily outside of the atheists values to molest  of course it is with the Christian theist. Surely the fact that some Christians are hypocritical serves to contrast against what Christian theism provides?




> 6) Same reason i never fell for Santa. When there is someone who can see your every move, feel your every thought, for gods sakes(no pun here folks) dont trust them!.


I think that this is your strongest argument yet. Does the existence of a God depend to you upon its ability to not take cognizance of your thoughts and moves?

----------


## Redzeppelin

Oh no - ShoutGrace got here first! I have seen SGs posting elsewhere here, and I must say that you, SG, are a formidable "discussionist." When I scrolled through this thread, I was actually surprised to not find a posting by you here. I'm embarrassed to be entering this discussion after you, but I will add what I can.

SG has already brought up some of the questions I had concerning dramasnot6's original post . Here's what I'll add:

1. The "evidence" that science has offered for natural phenomenon is subject to "revision." All science - by it's inductive nature - is subject to be revised by further discoveries. Simply put - inductive arguing says that if a rock strikes a window 1,000,000 times and shatters it every time, then it is a reasonable "truth" that rocks break windows. But, if on the 1,000,001 time the rock doesn't break the window, then we've found an exception and now "truth" is up for revision. Inductive reasoning is a necessary evil, and much of what we call "truth" rests upon it - but it is not necessarily 100% "truth" that will exist forever unchallenged.

2. God's "gender" is a tricky question. Yes - the Bible speaks of Him as male; but, since He created both male and female in the "image" of Himself (and "image" does not mean "physical form") it can be assumed that God incorporates both masculine and feminine characteristics within the totality of Himself. I don't believe that God creates that which is completely alien to Himself - like any "creator" (or artist), his "art" is a reflection of Himself.

3. To knock Christianity for its most commercialized and shallow manifestations is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is the same logic that has ignorant people assaulting good Muslims simply because the news is full of Islamofacists who like blowing themselves up in crowded places. Most people would admit that there are decent, God-fearing Islamic citizens in this world who do much good - why not the same for Christiantiy?

4. Ditto for the "hypocritical" comment regarding the behavior of believers. Following Christ does not mean that an individual is "sinless" or "perfect" and that s/he never sins. That people do bad things should not be surprising - that we are surprised that Christians struggle with the same desires (both normal and abnormal) as non-believers reveals our lack of understanding about the reality of fallen human nature: we are sinful creatures - all of us. That believers succumb to sin does not invalidate Christianity: on the contrary, it validates the severity of the effect of sin on human nature. C.S. Lewis once said that "only great saints are capable of becoming great sinners - the higher you go, the farther you'll fall" (rough paraphrase). Christians are human beings who have chosen to follow God not _because_ we are good/perfect but because we desire that He begin to work in us so that we eventually become better people. There are few "instant conversions" - most Christians walk a long road of character development. Not all of us are successful (or even consistently successful) at that journey - but at least we're trying.

5. mir's point that holy scriptures are inavalid because they were WRITTEN BY HUMANS makes the assumption that "written by" means "thought up" or "inspired by" or "created by." Ever heard of "ghost writing"? I can't speak for anything but the Bible - so: the Bible claims to be the revelation of God's character. In it, it says that is "divinely inspired." We believe that means that - although humans wrote the words - the inspiration came from God. I think it perfectly reasonable that a divine being made the decision to communicate to humans through human effort. The Bible makes it clear that humans have been invited to participate in the work of God - and writing the scriptures fits that bill. 

The complaint that the scriptures lack "proof" doesn't hold water. How many "truths" of your life have you scientifically verified by personal observation? How do you know we actually went to the moon? Do you have proof your mother/father/husband/wife/etc loved you? Have you personally verified that the earth is round? That the temperature of the sun is whatever million degrees? Holy scriptures are not written as scientific essays - they are written to reveal the character of God and his expectations for His followers.

Finally - in response to those who dismissed God because He didn't orchestrate life to their liking - since when is disagreement cause for total invalidation? In other words, because God does not choose to intervene in this life in a way that seems fit and makes sense to you - then He can't possibly exist? The old "How could a loving God allow ____ to happen?" The question assumes that _our_ judgement of something should be _His_. But, if you grant that God exists, then you have to grant what He's told as about Himself - that He is omniscient and omnipotent. Granted these, it is reasonable to assume that His understanding of reality supersedes ours. I don't profess to have the answer for the existence of evil/suffering - but the short answer is that freewill necessitates the potential for both to exist.

OK - enough of responding to postings. Here's my question: atheism - in its denial of God, proposes by default a universe that is void of a spritual entity that discriminates (i.e. calls things "good" and "bad" - discriminations that an impersonal "force" cannot do) between things. What we have left, is called "Naturalism" - the belief that nature is ultimate reality. As such, Naturalism dictates that human behavior is a result of biological, sociological, chemical and psychological functions. That said, the logical conclusion is that there is no reason for anything like "morality" or "truth" to exist because these ideas are simply a result of a random firing of neutrons and chemical secretions in our brains. How can "truth" be a function of chemicals, electric charges, gravity, socioeconomic upbringing, yadda yadda yadda? How can the works of Shakespeare, Mozart, Plato be results of random biological/chemical processes? Naturalism seems to eat its own tail because it denies that anything we say has any meaning. Why call "good" good or "bad" bad? Because chemicals and electric charges "told" us to? That's where I struggle: atheism has to explain the existence of a moral conscience. And, in a material world, there can be no such thing as a human soul.

Brother, I'm wordy. Sorry...

----------


## kilted exile

> 1. The "evidence" that science has offered for natural phenomenon is subject to "revision." All science - by it's inductive nature - is subject to be revised by further discoveries. Simply put - inductive arguing says that if a rock strikes a window 1,000,000 times and shatters it every time, then it is a reasonable "truth" that rocks break windows. But, if on the 1,000,001 time the rock doesn't break the window, then we've found an exception and now "truth" is up for revision. Inductive reasoning is a necessary evil, and much of what we call "truth" rests upon it - but it is not necessarily 100% "truth" that will exist forever unchallenged.


I am far less wordy.....

Surely revision is a good thing however. It is all a part of furthering knowledge, and admitting mistakes. Or do you suggest adopting a theory and not attempting to discover it's weaknesses.

btw, this is relevant to the latest turn of the discussion in the "Free Will" thread.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Not at all. I'm arguing that "evidence" is a slippery thing - especially in the scientific community. Atheists tend to point to scientific "evidence" that conflicts with scripture as some sort of "trump card" that invalidates the claims of scripture. My point is that today's "truth" may become tomorrow's discarded theory. The idea that the Bible must align with science is curious, because the book wasn't written to verify that God exists - it was written to reveal His character and to provide us with instruction for becoming like Him. His existence (like the "truth" of evolution) requires a leap of faith. There is no definitive record of how we got here. Science claims to "know" - but its evidence is no "provable" than is God.

Yes - revision is a good thing - especially in terms of human knowledge. We need to keep discovering and learning - but we need to be careful about standing atop our "evidence" as if it is an unassailable, irrefutable reality. The experts once thought the world was flat - and? The experts once thought that the sun revolved around the earth - and?

----------


## kilted exile

Hmmm, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one: 

The scientific theories of course can not be proved to be 100% (wouldn't be theories otherwise), however they are to me the most probable, based on current evidence and knowledge (I know you probably think that phrase is a cop out, but I am a man of science and only make claims on the information provided). There is no scientific evidence, that I have seen, however for the idea of their being a supreme being of any kind - We are just asked to believe it, well sorry I dont buy it.

Your use of the sun argument is risky ground I think - didnt the church criticise this as heresy?

----------


## Arguendo

> nor is religion meant to answer the questions that the method of science has been developed to answer.


Actually, that's why religion was developed by humans, several thousand years before there was such a thing as scientific method. When you don't know why lightning occurs, you develop an idea about Tor and his chariot, eh.




> "I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation,"
> 
> What is the scientific explanation for love, or sorrow, or regret, or ...?


Neurobiology.

----------


## Pendragon

> Oh no - ShoutGrace got here first!


With all due respect to mon ami Shouty, I got here first. The problem is, people see what they want to see. I have simply asked that Christians and other people who claim to be religious *practice what they preach if they expect to be taken seriously.* Otherwise, there has be no worse harm done in this world than by people *with good intentions, but lousy manners.* And I have said that one should either *live what one professes, or profess nothing.* That was the point behind saying *I would rather face God as an Atheist than a hypocrite.* It wasn't an avocation of Atheistism, but rather a note to Christians that the eyes of more than God watch you. You hear the Atheist say that hypocrisy among the churches isn't helping them believe in God, and that doesn't send up *a red flag?* Think about it, Zeppelin, mon ami.

----------


## Nightshade

Gosh most of this is around christinanity but Im butting in, got to agree with Pen on the hypocricy thing, its worse than anything and its not only in christianity either.

----------


## Tiresias

a question that i feel might go down well in this particular discussion - what are the laws of physics exactly? are they physical in nature or do they transcend the physical as some kind of superstructure? what hard evidence do we have for their origin apart from the observation of their effects? were these laws in place before matter (i.e. were they there to allow matter to exist in the first place) or was matter around before these laws, in which case how did it (matter) hold together without the forces between particles, including gravity? this is something i can't get my head around....does anyone seriously believe that the stuff that holds our reality together has always been here? it just simply IS? some help here ;-)

----------


## Whifflingpin

Gravity is not stuff, it is just the name given to a characteristic of stuff. The characteristic was not before or after matter, it is an attribute of matter
The law of gravity is not some universal pre-requisite, it is just a description of an attribute of matter. So "the observation of their effects" does provide the law.

(next bit crudely plagiarised from Koestler's "The Sleepwalkers.")
I seem to remember that the great astronomer Kepler described the force that swept the planets around as a sort of giant broom. The greater astronomer Newton called the force gravity, but he had (and we have) no better idea than Kepler as to the method by which the force operates - what Newton did have was a workable quantified description of the operation, obtained by observation and demonstrated in practice as being repeatable. 

So we know, in respect of gravity, for all practical purposes, what matter does. We don't know how it does it. And we definitely (if we are atheists) do not ask why.

----------


## Redzeppelin

OK - lots has happened while I disappeared to sleep and teach. Here we go:

(My apologies, Pen - forgive my rash error.)

Jamesian has brought up some good points, some of which I'd like to comment on (but - since I'm kind of new and haven't figured out how to insert excerpts from other postings, I'll be cutting and pasting in the "old-fashioned" way):

1. In reference to my statement that athiests/naturalists needed to explain the existence of a moral conscience, Jamesian countered:

"But is this not the business of religion? Why would an atheist do more than sort of listen to the believer's argument and discard it? Does the atheist need an explanation for such a thing?"

Maybe so - but since atheism/naturalism is not above claiming that religion is superstition/fairytale/neurosis (thanks, Sigmund), how can you pass the question off to us, having thoroughly "discredited" our entire world view? I think that the existence of a moral conscience is an issue that atheism MUST deal with because saying that it "just evolved" or that it is a sort of "social contract" (a sort of Hobbesian view) is insufficient. Without some sort of "higher law" that establishes the nature of "good" and "bad" why should anything "moral" exist at all? Moral judgment requires _discrimination_ - the ability to discern between two options and judge one as "better" or "right". Mere chemical reactions and electric charges firing cannot discriminate between _values_ - cannot "decide" that one behavior is intrinsically "better" or "worse" than another. Without an intelligent being (because "forces" cannot be "beings") to establish the "higher law" why should any standard of behavior exist at all? Christianity posits that an all-knowing, all-powerful being - one who calls Himself "good" - established what we call moral behavior. If atheism is to claim that there is no divine being who establishes moral behavior, then where did it come from and how can it exist? If you cannot explain the existence of the moral conscience, you now have no basis as to why we should do anything "moral."

must I really even make a decision between faith and atheism?  Jamesian


I suppose not, but - since those are really the only two proffered explanations as to how/why we're here - what are the other choices (besides "aliens put us here")? 

In reference to my examples of science proved wrong concerning the structure of the universe, Jamesian said that medieval believers of the sun's orbit around the earth

...were proved wrong by objective, 100% verifiable, irrefutable "evidence". Nothing less.  Jamesian

Yep - that's true. I made no claim that science could not determine the truth. My point was more philosophical in nature. I meant to suggest that science is not capable of proving everything to an infallible 100%. Science "knows" but it doesn't "know" everything - and often, what it "knows" is based on inductive reasoning - reasoning which suggests that _in all probablility_, based upon the number of experiments/observations conducted, "x" is true. But, since "x" contains _the potential to change_ or be _redefined_ because inductive reasoning, by its very nature, must be based upon _reasonable probability_. Which leads to Jamesian's next point - 

Well, I have heard talk about there being no such thing as gravity, though I confess I've not taken sufficiently advanced physics courses to know anything about this, but I must say I rather doubt we will be "discarding" the fact that, under the conditions present on earth, stuff falls when you drop it - and even bounces, depending on certain qualities.  Jamesian

Well, OK - but your choice of gravity does not mean that every other "truth" established by science is similarly irrefutable. Besides, gravity is not a theory - it is the name for something that exists whether we figured out what it was or not. There is a difference between science naming _that which exists_ and science trying to explain _why that thing should exist at all_.

it also reminds me of yet another bit from Dawkins, involving "the worship of gaps", with regard to which he brings up the idea that religion positively requires universal mysteries ("gaps" in knowledge) in order to have a purpose, and so necessarily jumps on them to prove its point, whereas science leaps to them with equal vigor with the interest of discovering an explanation for them - which it was consistently done.  Jamesian

As a scientist, Dawkins presents a view I would expect him to champion. But I would call Dawkins a "hostile witness." His definition of religion is no more valid to me than my definition of science might be to him. He's a clever man, but he's wrong. Religion has "gaps" because it is a _world/philosophic view_, not a scientific treatise. Religion has "gaps" because the center of our world-view is a divine figure - God. God is unknowable in His entirety especially by human beings. To "know" him is an impossibility - just as it is an impossibility for a kindergartener to ponder quantum mechanics and string theory. Humans are pretty smart, but if you accept what God says about Himself, then you must also accept that we can only know so much about Him - and much of who He is goes beyond our understanding. If we could completely comprehend God, well, He wouldn't be a divne being, now would He? If we can accept that a 6-year old cannot understand the complexities of adult relationships, why can we not accept that our knowledge of God is incomplete - just as incomplete as science's knowledge is about our origins. The "gaps" are the reason for faith. God will not "prove" He exists because - as a God of "love" - His goal is to be loved in return - and such a thing cannot exist if God "proves" He exists ("prove" in terms of what science means). Once an all-powerful being "proves" He exists, well who wouldn't believe? We're not hiding in the "gaps" - they exist (just like they exist in evolutionary theory) and we accept that - for now - there are certain things we don't understand. Just as little children are shielded from knowledge that might harm them or they might not understand, God witholds knowledge from us. But He promised that someday, all would be clear - to everyone - not just "believers."

Why, then, when I ask my grandfather, a minister, why I should believe God exists, does he tell me, "Because the Bible says so"? Perhaps he is an uncommon case, but he is certainly not the first from whom I've heard this argument. What is there but the Bible to account for any sort of belief in the God of Western tradition? (sorry for confining the question a bit here, but we are discussing the Bible) - Jamesian

Your grandfather has begged the question because the Bible claims to be the revelation of God's character, but it has no validity unless you first believe in God. I can't come up with why you "should" do anything. I can come up with reasons why I think believing in God is valuable, even essential - but why should you? Any "should" I give you will be based on my belief that He DOES exist - so my "shoulds" will have no effect on you. Besides, you don't chose God because you "should" - you chose Him because you have come to realize that there must be more to this life than the empty pursuit of pleasure and the "rat race" of routine existence.

In terms of the "account" of God - what more need we? The choice to believe is not made on evidence; neither is the choice for atheism. I find it hard to believe that any believer in God or atheist actually did all the research, examined all the arguments and then made his/her decision. More than likely, we all choose - and this choice is based on a "leap of faith" - atheism requires the same "leap" that Christianity does, because, ultimately - neither world view is more "provable" than the other. That science _appears_ to put the biblical record to question does not disprove anything. It simply points out a "gap" that may or may not ultimately be resolved. Aethism requires the same gamble as Christianity - it just seems more reasonable because _we_ came up with the explanation ourselves. But at least Christianity has an explanation for the moral conscience.

Uh oh - the bell just rang and I didn't get any grading done...

----------


## B-Mental

I stopped posting on religous forums a long time ago because of flamers...that said. I have deleted all my thoughts on this topic, to prevent flaming. I wish you all a good day.

----------


## Pendragon

> Why, then, when I ask my grandfather, a minister, why I should believe God exists, does he tell me, "Because the Bible says so"? Perhaps he is an uncommon case, but he is certainly not the first from whom I've heard this argument. What is there but the Bible to account for any sort of belief in the God of Western tradition? (sorry for confining the question a bit here, but we _are_ discussing the Bible)


Hi, Jamesian, long time no see. I wouldn't blame your grandfather so much if that is his reply, it may merely stem from the way he himself has been taught to believe. For many, that will certainly be all they ever need is simply that the Bible says it, and therefore it must be so. At one time, back about 12 years ago, I would have probably agreed. That was before my illness struck and churches threw me out, because in my worse episodes, I would blank out and not be myself for sometimes months. That couldn't be, as far as they were concerned. Well, science has not even begun to completely unlock the mysteries of the brain, and when something is wrong, it's not like they can "pop my hood", so to speak, and find the trouble. A lot has been hit and miss, but I have born up. 

I spent the time in study, and I am convinced that just reading the words is no more than reading anything else. They must come to mean something to you, personally. If you read a scientific journal and cannot understand the terms, it means little. But when there is understanding with the reading, you gain knowledge. So I tell you I know there is a God, not because the Bible says so, but because words like "forgiveness", "mercy", and "love when nobody gave me a prayer." mean something to me. To me God would have me help anyone I could, to be an enemy to none if at all possible, and to live what I believe. God bless.

----------


## subterranean

Big cheers to Uncie Pen's posts  :Smile: .

The hardest thing for believers is to live the values/norms they have given themselves to believe in. Others (people outside their beliefs) would surely measure us according to the values we believe. To be harsh, they judge us using our standards and I think that's excellent. I personally have been 'slapped' many times as a believer by others; either they did that intentionally or un-intentionally (not sure whether this is the correct word). And I only got 2 choices: either I let go all the values or learn to live the values. 

Something I read sometime ago, which also slapped me: Christians are supposed to be the light of the world, but they can't be a light if they're not plugged in.


Ditto!

----------


## Redzeppelin

Uh, B-Mental: would you care to define "flamers" so the uninitiated of us know what your post means?

thanks

----------


## B-Mental

People who deride your opinion, view, lifestyle, nationality, education... (the list goes on) with the intention of inciting the other person. There is an actual definition and I believe the word is baiting.

I also wonder if this post should be in the religious forums as the tone it has taken is less philosophical than religious.

----------


## Tiresias

i guess that i have a philosophical problem with the idea that something that is not physical affects upon the physical world in such a visible, apparently consistent, way. and we not knowing the first "how" about they way that it does it. we know (or at least infer) that they (the laws of the universe) work, but to grasp at the nature of how they do appears beyond us - at least scientifically or rationally. i think that taking them at face value is in some way akin to the religious "leap of faith" - or am i making a cognitive error somewhere?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Atheism is not really something one 'believes' in, but I get your drift. To quote myself from a long since closed thread:



> I was raised catholic, but decided at 10 that there was no such place as hell. I can't imagine a benevolent God punishing any of His creations to eternal torture, no matter what their crimes in life may have been. It simply didn't, and doesn't, make sense to me. Since the church was, in my view, wrong about hell, I began to question what made them so sure they were right about anything. It all seemed to come down to divine revelations, but a lot of different religions have had a lot of contradictory divine revelations, and they are all just as convinced as the Catholics are that they are right. I figured they're all deluding themselves and became a spiritualist. I was about fourteen at this point. After thinking about it for quite a while, I decided that since God created the entire universe, He probably did it just to see how it would work. Given that, He probably isn't at all interested in changing human behavior because He is just curious as to how we react to being flung into a state of crawling around on the surface or a wet rock hurtling around a gigantic nuclear fireball 150 million kilometers away. He has probably never even directly interacted with human beings directly if that is the case. But, if He has never actually talked to us, how do we know anything about him? Unless I'm missing something, any talk of God is pure guesswork. At this point in our little narrative I am sixteen and an atheist.

----------


## Logos

> People who deride your opinion, view, lifestyle, nationality, education... (the list goes on) with the intention of inciting the other person. There is an actual definition and I believe the word is baiting.


Actually 'flaming' and 'baiting' are different terms in teh internets lingoese  :Tongue:  a flame is a direct insult/slur etc. at a specific member ie: "Logos is an idiot/xxxx/@&!!" whereas baiting is a post intended to manipulate/provoke a response from any/all members, usually to try make them mad or make them embarrass themselves by getting into an argument with them, or make _them_ flame ie: "This site and the moderators are so awful because they have rules and I don't have freedom of speech here!!111."

----------


## Redzeppelin

Well, I'm still confused by B-Mental's original post: are you suggesting that I'm "baiting" somebody? (I ask because of the proximity of your post to mine.) As well, is your comment 

I also wonder if this post should be in the religious forums as the tone it has taken is less philosophical than religious.

in reference to my lengthy post? I understood in the beginning that this thread was not a "religious" thread, but I did ask permission to enter the discussion and did identify myself as a Christian before I did so in order that I not "ambush" anybody - I simply had questions and desired a spirited discussion. If you invite a Christian into a discussion on atheism (which in and of itself invites "religious" dialogue because it is a view-point that, by its very existence, questions the value of religion), I would suppose that some of the comments would steer that direction.

My apologies to all if I have "contaminated" the discussion with my "religious" commentary.

----------


## jon1jt

*If atheism is to claim that there is no divine being who establishes moral behavior, then where did it come from and how can it exist? 

people like you created it, all divine beings; it came from the structures of reason, the appurtunence of divine beings, and it exists in you, a divine being.

If you cannot explain the existence of the moral conscience*, you now have no basis as to why we should do anything "moral."

morality is ultimately a collective project. 

*
I suppose not, but - since those are really the only two proffered explanations as to how/why we're here - what are the other choices (besides "aliens put us here")?* 

choice 3: "It doesn't matter how we got here." 

*Science "knows" but it doesn't "know" everything -* 

dah

*and often, what it "knows" is based on inductive reasoning - reasoning which suggests that in all probablility, based upon the number of experiments/observations conducted, "x" is true. But, since "x" contains the potential to change or be redefined because inductive reasoning, by its very nature, must be based upon reasonable probability.* 

it's based on _the spirit of discovery._ 


Humans are pretty smart, but if you accept what God says about Himself, then you must also accept that we can only know so much about Him - and much of who He is goes beyond our understanding. If we could completely comprehend God, well, He wouldn't be a divne being, now would He? 

atheists completely comprehend god. therefore she is not divine.
*
If we can accept that a 6-year old cannot understand the complexities of adult relationships, why can we not accept that our knowledge of God is incomplete - just as incomplete as science's knowledge is about our origins.* 
apples and cherries.
*
The "gaps" are the reason for faith. God will not "prove" He exists because - as a God of "love" - His goal is to be loved in return - and such a thing cannot exist if God "proves" He exists ("prove" in terms of what science means). Once an all-powerful being "proves" He exists, well who wouldn't believe? We're not hiding in the "gaps" - they exist (just like they exist in evolutionary theory) and we accept that - for now - there are certain things we don't understand. Just as little children are shielded from knowledge that might harm them or they might not understand, God witholds knowledge from us. But He promised that someday, all would be clear - to everyone - not just "believers."*

you're shifting into proselytizing gear now. 

*Your grandfather has begged the question because the Bible claims to be the revelation of God's character, but it has no validity unless you first believe in God. I can't come up with why you "should" do anything. I can come up with reasons why I think believing in God is valuable, even essential - but why should you? Any "should" I give you will be based on my belief that He DOES exist - so my "shoulds" will have no effect on you. Besides, you don't chose God because you "should" - you chose Him because you have come to realize that there must be more to this life than the empty pursuit of pleasure and the "rat race" of routine existence.*

oh, i get it now---atheists are empty pursuers---we're members of the rat race culture!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  man, i am having a kick reading this!
*
Aethism requires the same gamble as Christianity - it just seems more reasonable because we came up with the explanation ourselves. But at least Christianity has an explanation for the moral conscience.*

so what? you call it moral conscience, maybe we atheists call it Will. you seem to pay a great deal of heed to this silly notion of explanation, as if life lived involves it. 

*Uh oh - the bell just rang and I didn't get any grading done...[/QUOTE]*

teacher, that you are.

----------


## Logos

Please discuss the topic and not each other. 

If toni wants their topic moved to Religious Texts then fine, but they posted it in Philosophical Lit so here it shall stay unless they ask for it to be moved (it suits either forum)

----------


## aeroport

Now, now. Let us be civil.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The choice to believe is not made on evidence; neither is the choice for atheism. I find it hard to believe that any believer in God or atheist actually did all the research, examined all the arguments and then made his/her decision.


Believe it, baby!

----------


## toni

> Please discuss the topic and not each other. 
> 
> If toni wants their topic moved to Religious Texts then fine, but they posted it in Philosophical Lit so here it shall stay unless they ask for it to be moved (it suits either forum)


I think I like it better here in Philosophical Literature.., but thanks for asking, Logos.. :Biggrin:  

What an overwhelming number of replies! But I haven't been posting my thoughts exactly for I am still doing my _research_ on Atheism and Atheism Christmas and Pascal's Wager. I can't seem to find the book _The God Delusion_ by Richard Dawkins because it is sold out on all bookstores here. I'm just making do with internet, which isn't always reliable.

----------


## Pendragon

> (My apologies, Pen - forgive my rash error.)


No harm none, and forgiveness already given before it was asked. Quite unnecessary, as you mean no harm, and I would be a petty soul to hold your miscue "error" against YOU, when I am myself not perfect.  :Wink:  




> Yep - that's true. I made no claim that science could not determine the truth. My point was more philosophical in nature. I meant to suggest that science is not capable of proving everything to an infallible 100%. Science "knows" but it doesn't "know" everything - and often, what it "knows" is based on inductive reasoning - reasoning which suggests that _in all probability_, based upon the number of experiments/observations conducted, "x" is true. But, since "x" contains _the potential to change_ or be _redefined_ because inductive reasoning, by its very nature, must be based upon _reasonable probability_. Which leads to Jamesian's next point -


I had a tiny question about the area I have highlighted in red. You know Holmes' old theory: "If you eliminate the impossible, then whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth." That is how science _works._ You must find out what is incorrect, to close in on the correct answer. I do not see what part of *inductive reasoning* or *probability* that is giving you a problem with science. And remember, I believe in God. Science was part of what finally convinced me. I was always taught that in order to prove something like, say, ESP, you have to perform enough experiments to discount the chance factor. Yet they wished me to believe that an entire universe was created by chance. The math was staggering to even contemplate. How could I trust to chance, when science tries so hard to eliminate chance in experiments? God won out!  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

I came here looking for answers - not to "convince" anybody I'm right or that I have answers. I simply wanted to hear from others who hold a different world-view than I as to why they hold that view.

"morality is ultimately a collective project." (from jon1jt)

The "morals are mores" argument - that community establishes what is morally right for its members. That answer places the origin of morality in collective agreement - which means that the community establishes the moral law. But that means that there is no such thing as an absolute morality - it's all relative - which means we have no right as a culture to solve moral problems between communities because there is no "higher law" than that which the community establishes. As well, just because a community says one _can_ do something does not mean someone _ought_ to do that thing.

choice 3: "It doesn't matter how we got here." 

That answer to my questions simply serves to dismiss the question. But it didn't address the question. The entire conflict between atheism and Christianity (or Evolution vs Creationism) is based on the idea of how we got here - because ignoring our origin or defining it as unimportant doesn't deal with the issue at hand.

it's based on the spirit of discovery. 

Science is based on the spirit of discovery, but inductive reasoning is based on probability.

atheists completely comprehend god. therefore she is not divine.

Was this meant to be a legitimate counter to my comments? If so, how so?

you're shifting into proselytizing gear now. 

I do not think so. Jamesian quoted Dawkins, who essentially was criticizing the "gaps" in knowledge that exist in religion (the times when Christians answer "That is a mystery God has not felt fit to reveal"). Nowhere in there did I say anything that was even a remote attempt to convert anybody in this forum. The statement "But He promised that someday, all would be clear - to everyone - not just "believers." was made in order to make clear that God will ultimately bring perfect clarity to all - believers and non alike. Where in there am I trying to proselytize?

oh, i get it now---atheists are empty pursuers---we're members of the rat race culture! man, i am having a kick reading this!

I'm glad you're entertained. Nowhere in my comments did I indicate that atheists pursue an "empty" life. I identified one of the many catalysts that prompt people to seek God. Pendragon indicated that he found God through science; that is one way. I simply suggested another way. I implied in no way that the life of an atheist is "empty." But - atheist or no, many people look at the life we lead and decide that for them it _is_ empty and that there must be more to it than material possessions and day-to-day routines.

so what? you call it moral conscience, maybe we atheists call it Will. you seem to pay a great deal of heed to this silly notion of explanation, as if life lived involves it. 

Fine - we can split a hair on the terminology, but the point hasn't disappeared with your blithe "So what?" My question as to why a moral conscience or Will (if you will) _should exist at all_ in a universe orchestrated by impersonal forces and processes still stands. 

"Life lived" does not involve an explanation of these things, but I assumed these forums were about intellectual understanding, and populated by other seekers who - in order to find more meaning to the life they _are_ living - spend time contemplating/discussing what "Life" may be and mean. "Life lived" is what I do when I'm tired of talking (typing) about abstract ideas. 


Now on to Jamesian:

Yes I am comparing the two - and no, it's not a perfect analogy. Perhaps I'm guilty of "false analogy" here, but the point of the comparison was not that it accurately, point-to-point - illustrated our relationship to God - but that it gave a relative comparison. Because we're grown up and pretty smart we think we've got the universe locked up in our back pocket. Kids are very prone to thinking they've got everything figured out (talked to a teenager lately?) -when in reality, they only see part of the bigger picture. I was simply suggesting that our ability to understand God is like a child trying to understand the complexities of things that they cannot possibly - at their age - understand.

The "gaps" do not simply exist in terms of natural phenomenon - they exist in our knowledge of God, His character and His decision-making process (hence the oft quoted "Why would a God of love allow human suffering?"). No matter how much science figures out about the universe, God is a topic it has no access to - only the Bible reveals who He is. Science can answer lots of questions - but sometimes it gets answers that confirm the Someone must be in control because random processes cannot account for everything (anything?) that exists.

As far as the faith required to love God: human nature, what it is, is prone to behaviors not motivated by the purest of intentions. Think about guys like Bill Gates - can he ever really be sure that a woman loves him for who he is, or the fact that he's one of (the?) the richest men in the world? The same for a staggeringly beautiful woman - think of those women who did the "extreme makeover" thing (like "The Swan") - many of them later complained that - having experienced both sides of the coin - they realized that the attention they were getting now had no relation to who they were, but what they now appeared to be. This is another bad/weak analogy, but the point is this: if an all-powerful, all-knowing entity proved it existed to you, would your love be genuine, or (considering humanity's questionable morality) would it be motivated by lesser factors? I leave this to more skilled posters than myself.

To Pendragon: I don't have a problem with science - I'm simply trying to point out that it is not by its very nature or existence infallible. Inductive reasoning is based on probability - which in and of itself is not necessarily conclusive. I make this point because many atheists point to science as if it is unassailable in its strength. I disagree.

----------


## Guzmán

the question: "Why do you believe in atheism?"
well, belief is not part of my vocabulary that's why i am an atheist. Believe is just something i am not capable of doing - i dont believe, i reason. I am an atheist because reason has never led me to god, furthermore, quite on the contrary.

----------


## Redzeppelin

But reason has its limits - much of this world defies reason, especially the matters of the human heart.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I, for one, don't have any trouble beleiving the figures for the creation of the universe. The numbers are only staggering if given one trial. What people fail to realize (because it IS rather difficult to wrap their heads around) is that, before this universe, there could have been any number of universes in which we were not a part. If an event has a 1 in a googolplex chance of happening, it's pretty darn unlikely. HOWEVER, in a googolplex of trials, on average, it will happen at least once. Which, I believe, is where we are in this universe now - in one of the successful trials. If it were one of the failed trials, we wouldn't be here to realize that, now, would we?

----------


## Redzeppelin

Sure - I wouldn't deny such a thing. Probability says all kinds of things are potentially possible given a large enough amount of trials (say infinite - like the old saying that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typwriters would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare - or something like that).

But: doesn't science tell us that there is only so much energy and matter available in the universe, and that our universe will, at some point cease to "expand" and then begin to "collapse" back upon itself? The idea that our universe is one of a googleplex of "trials" is interesting, but does anything in the universe suggest such a process? It seems to me that the odds of what you propose are just as great (if not greater) than the idea that a Supreme Being created it all. Sometimes I wonder why astronomical numbers randomly "creating" intelligent life seems more reasonable than an intelligent Being creating life. Once numbers get as big as you suggest, in a way, they become as mysterious and unfathomable as God Himself.

----------


## fisherofmen

> I, for one, don't have any trouble beleiving the figures for the creation of the universe. The numbers are only staggering if given one trial. What people fail to realize (because it IS rather difficult to wrap their heads around) is that, before this universe, there could have been any number of universes in which we were not a part. If an event as a 1 in a googolplex chance of happening, it's pretty darn unlikely. HOWEVER, in a googolplex of trials, on average, it will happen at least once. Which, I believe, is where we are in this universe now - in one of the successful trials. If it were one of the failed trials, we wouldn't be here to realize that, now, would we?


I believe you are referring to the multiverse theory? In a nutshell, it states that there are/could be an infinite number of universes, thus making the existence of our universe possible(or even probable. Even if there was a 1 in graham's number chance of this universe occurring, with an infinite number of universes to choose from it is bound to occur.)




> Sure - I wouldn't deny such a thing. Probability says all kinds of things are potentially possible given a large enough amount of trials (say infinite - like the old saying that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typwriters would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare - or something like that).


yea, probability goes out the window when you throw out an infinite number of trials... but I still wonder if human beings can truly comprehend infinity, or even if it exists? Which is one of the reasons I have trouble accepting the multiverse theory. What proof do we have that infinite of anything exists? The multiverse theory has to deal with infinites though, because the moment you make it have a finite number of universes, the probability of our specific universe coming into existence drastically decreases to the point where only divine intervention could make it occur. 
And on another note, we don't have any evidence that any other universe besides ours exists (that I know of), so where this whole multiverse idea came from I'm not entirely sure(if someone knows more about it, I'd love to hear it)





> It seems to me that the odds of what you propose are just as great (if not greater) than the idea that a Supreme Being created it all. Sometimes I wonder why astronomical numbers randomly "creating" intelligent life seems more reasonable than an intelligent Being creating life. Once numbers get as big as you suggest, in a way, they become as mysterious and unfathomable as God Himself.


This basically sums up my opinion. 
Following Occam's Razor, I would say that believing in a Supreme Being is much simpler than following enormous probabilities and chances that could stray into the infinite zone... but that is just my opinion. Both an infinite number of universes and a Supreme Being are difficult to comprehend, either one could (I suppose) explain how our universe came into being. Of course, one doesn't address how morality (a common idea of good and bad) came into being, etc, etc...

Blaise Pascal's quote in my sig more or less summarizes it all

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hi there, fisherofmen - thanks for your comments. Sometimes I wonder if my comments only make sense to me. In terms of your last comment about morality, that to me is the key question in terms of explaining our origins. As well, your reference to Occam's Razor nicely puts a philosophic stamp to what I was trying to communicate: sometimes, in an effort to "create" a God-less origin, it seems interesting that we must heft astronomical numbers, times and forces - things that, in their immensity and almost unbelievability, mimic God.

----------


## kilted exile

You know the multiple world theory isnt even necessary from a statistical point of view, if we consider evolution as random mutations during reproduction which become beneficial and are passsed on to future generations, the timespan of Earth is perfectly viable (dont have my Bio notes with me currently , will look them out & explain further later)

----------


## dramasnot6

> Sure - I wouldn't deny such a thing. Probability says all kinds of things are potentially possible given a large enough amount of trials (say infinite - like the old saying that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typwriters would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare - or something like that).
> 
> But: doesn't science tell us that there is only so much energy and matter available in the universe, and that our universe will, at some point cease to "expand" and then begin to "collapse" back upon itself? The idea that our universe is one of a googleplex of "trials" is interesting, but does anything in the universe suggest such a process? It seems to me that the odds of what you propose are just as great (if not greater) than the idea that a Supreme Being created it all. Sometimes I wonder why astronomical numbers randomly "creating" intelligent life seems more reasonable than an intelligent Being creating life. Once numbers get as big as you suggest, in a way, they become as mysterious and unfathomable as God Himself.



You say these facts and numbers are mysterious, yet dont we have proof of their results? Like Robin said , we are an example of a succesful trial. What physical proof can you give for the existence of God? We have observed various and masses of evidence supporting the Big Bang, look it up on the web if you wish. 




> [But reason has its limits - much of this world defies reason, especially the matters of the human heart.


By matters of the human heart do you mean complex emotion? It's easily assumed those are a product of a more complex ability for higher order thinking. 
But nevermind on my part of a debate. ShoutGrace and Redzeppelin, i didnt mean to mislead you in saying i was open for questions. I merely thought you would be asking general, open ended questions like the belief of the existence of a soul, not directly attacking each of my opinions. I really just wanted to discuss reasons for atheism, not engage in a fruitless ,nervending battle of beliefs. I honestly did not want to offend anyone and i apologize if i did.

----------


## fisherofmen

> sometimes, in an effort to "create" a God-less origin, it seems interesting that we must heft astronomical numbers, times and forces - things that, in their immensity and almost unbelievability, mimic God.


exactly. 
I couldn't put that into words, but that is more or less how I feel. 
I am curious to hear counterarguements to this though.




> We have observed various and masses of evidence supporting the Big Bang, look it up on the web if you wish.


Anything can be on the web. I was on a site earlier that was about Alexander the Great being a Greyback alien from some sector out in space... 
However if you know of any reputable sites with decent explanations, I'd like to see them. I'll keep an eye open myself though.




> You know the multiple world theory isnt even necessary from a statistical point of view, if we consider evolution as random mutations during reproduction which become beneficial and are passed on to future generations, the timespan of Earth is perfectly viable (dont have my Bio notes with me currently , will look them out & explain further later)


I'll be waiting  :Smile:  I want to hear these, I haven't had a chance to study biology much yet (unfortunately)
And specifically, I think the multiverse theory relates more to the universe and our planet being able to bear life than the evolution of life on earth. It's more on whether the simplest life form could have came into being as a result of the "perfect" conditions on our planet, than the progression from the simple life form to a complex human being.

----------


## Charles Wong

I think that what is more important than endless debating by acadamia with theists is to find out what causes humans to have supernatural/irrational thinking patterns: most humans ubiquitously believe in some form of supernaturalism, regardless of chronological period. So it appears that irrational thinking is innate, a basic human behavior like anger, sexual arousal, and fear. There must be brain modules that keep humans in an irrational state. Evolutionary psychologists proclaim the idea that religion was and still is reproductively advantageous: religion gives people the drive and willingness to fight and die for resources to sustain continued reproduction. People that are purely rational end up extinct because they often don't even care for reproducing: why bring a child into a violent and primitive world that is also overpopulated? Why even have a child in the first place when our high IQ gives us a busy and lucrative life; kids would be a drain. But, religion rewards jingoism and high fertility and violence with a promise of a great Afterlife: death is now desirable to get into Heaven. So, religion keeps people in a high fertility state. Humans evolved actual brain modules that are programmed to ellicit irrational/emotional/religious thoughts.

----------


## kilted exile

> I'll be waiting  I want to hear these, I haven't had a chance to study biology much yet (unfortunately)


I will attempt to pull them out - they are in one of my boxes of notes, but I still have them somewhere.

----------


## aeroport

> People that are purely rational end up extinct because they often don't even care for reproducing: why bring a child into a violent and primitive world that is also overpopulated? Why even have a child in the first place when our high IQ gives us a busy and lucrative life; kids would be a drain.


Is the man who procreates like a rabbit and starts a huge family, in the end, all sentimentality aside, really any less "extinct" than the fellow who lives a life of rationality and does not reproduce? It sounds like you are trying to be sarcastic with your comments here, but they really are a relatively strong argument. Why should one have kids, especially if one does not need them to have a "busy and lucrative life". I mean, people with lower IQs are going to go on reproducing either way, right? So why should one feel obligated to bother?

----------


## Charles Wong

> Is the man who procreates like a rabbit and starts a huge family, in the end, all sentimentality aside, really any less "extinct" than the fellow who lives a life of rationality and does not reproduce? It sounds like you are trying to be sarcastic with your comments here, but they really are a relatively strong argument. Why should one have kids, especially if one does not need them to have a "busy and lucrative life". I mean, people with lower IQs are going to go on reproducing either way, right? So why should one feel obligated to bother?


It's generally the college educated people (higher intelligent individuals) that decide to get vasectomies or not have kids based on a political desire to help the overpopulation problem, or simply are enjoying their success too much to be burdened with kids: women with masters degrees and higher have on average 1.5 kids (2.1 is needed to just cut even). Highest fertility is among those that score on the lowest IQ levels. Mentally retarded women have more children on average than average women. The average criminal have more children than middle class. 

Religion keeps people from getting abortions, or using contraceptives as in the case of Catholics.

----------


## Pendragon

> To Pendragon: I don't have a problem with science - I'm simply trying to point out that it is not by its very nature or existence infallible. Inductive reasoning is based on probability - which in and of itself is not necessarily conclusive. I make this point because many atheists point to science as if it is unassailable in its strength. I disagree.


 Which was exactly my point.





> We have observed various and masses of evidence supporting the Big Bang, look it up on the web if you wish.


 Not really. What we have is evidence that if the postilation of the Big Bang is correct, _may_ tend to support it, but could be read entirely wrong, as we must read the great part of it from so far a distance, that it is actually veiwing what _has already happened_ ! We cannot space travel. As for ourselves being evidence that this worked, equal argument could be used that we are proof that God is a powerful and diverse creator.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Actually, that's why religion was developed by humans, several thousand years before there was such a thing as scientific method. When you don't know why lightning occurs, you develop an idea about Tor and his chariot, eh.


I'm aware of this idea, I've brought it up elsewhere when discussing the idea of humans creating gods with the intentions of "controlling the masses," and I find it preposterous. To conclude that mankind "created" a god myth with such simple intentions, or reasons, doesn't fly in the face of that very god myth.

Religion is much too complicated to be reducing it to such simple terms - I think that if any and all are false, then they are cultural phenomenas developed for many, many different reasons.





> I, for one, don't have any trouble beleiving the figures for the creation of the universe. The numbers are only staggering if given one trial. What people fail to realize (because it IS rather difficult to wrap their heads around) is that, before this universe, there could have been any number of universes in which we were not a part. If an event has a 1 in a googolplex chance of happening, it's pretty darn unlikely. HOWEVER, in a googolplex of trials, on average, it will happen at least once. Which, I believe, is where we are in this universe now - in one of the successful trials. If it were one of the failed trials, we wouldn't be here to realize that, now, would we?


This is what I call true faith.




> But: doesn't science tell us that there is only so much energy and matter available in the universe, and that our universe will, at some point cease to "expand" and then begin to "collapse" back upon itself?


As far as I know, this used to be a good theory - the latest science I've heard, however, concludes that the Universe is beyond the point of retraction now. It will continue to expand until the distance between an electron and a proton, "is as large as one of our present galaxies."

No more universes.





> We have observed various and masses of evidence supporting the Big Bang, look it up on the web if you wish.


All of such evidence being the greatest and most powerful proof of God's existence, of course.






> But nevermind on my part of a debate. ShoutGrace and Redzeppelin, i didnt mean to mislead you in saying i was open for questions. I merely thought you would be asking general, open ended questions like the belief of the existence of a soul, not directly attacking each of my opinions. I really just wanted to discuss reasons for atheism, not engage in a fruitless ,nervending battle of beliefs. I honestly did not want to offend anyone and i apologize if i did.


Of course you didn't offend and weren't offensive (at least not to me). I do think that when proffering any ideas in the forums, though, the poster is inherently opening their thoughts and opinions for discussion, criticism, praise, what have you.

I now have to wonder if it was I who came across as crude or offensive.

----------


## Guzmán

> But reason has its limits - much of this world defies reason, especially the matters of the human heart.


that's where we disagree.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I owe dramasnot6 and all the other original posters of this thread a huge apology because dramasnot is right - I have paricipated in the hi-jacking of this thread (though that was not my conscious intention); this thread was originally for atheists to discuss the various reasons that led them to their acceptance (or whatever word seems right) of atheism as a viable world-view. I instead have contributed to its morphing into a Christian/atheist debate and I feel badly about that. Because atheism is so foriegn to me, I wanted to understand better how/why a person would choose it as a personal philosophy - but, instead of coming across as a "seeker" I fear I have come across as one of those negative stereotypes of a Christian who is looking for a "fight." That is the last thing that I want; I love talking with thoughtful, intelligent people, but in my zeal, I have probably given a terrible impression of myself - which makes me sad, because I do not want posters to regret seeing my name show up in discussions. What I've done is wrong wrong wrong and out of respect to the atheists in this forum I will quietly absent myself from this thread because I had no right to enter it. Mea culpa. I'll be more careful next time.

----------


## Guzmán

> All of such evidence being the greatest and most powerful proof of God's existence, of course.


You are saying that the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory is actually the greatest proof of the existance of God?

There is proof about the existance of God?How?
In that case, which God? There are several Gods out there and many religions that contradict each other (or you may claim that are mis-interpretated, but if so which interpretation is right?). what if I decided to create my own religion and my own god right now, one which preaches exactly the opposite things that the Christian God does, an "evil" one, if you will. What makes your god the right one and the real creator of our universe? surely i could create my own god in a way that the evidence you're talking about fits to prove his existance just as well as it proves the existance of any other. 
Since we can all create our own gods to the same extent of validity while claiming the exact opposite things, the only argument for one God to be the "true" one relying on morality which is after all subjective and community-based, therefore the most likely thing is, not that we are all right and there are thousands of gods that contradict themselves out there but that we are all wrong, and there is none.
Sorry if this was a bit harsh, i ment no disrispect and i know this issues are touchy, but i cant help myself when people discuss scientific theories (the Biig Bang) from a religious point of view.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> There is proof about the existance of God?How?


Alright, I relent. I admit that the word “proof” was misplaced. I think that it can be agreed that there is no “proof” of God’s existence or non existence. There are many different arguments and evidences for and against God’s existence. I’d have that statement amended, and replace the word “proof” with the word “evidence.”

As for the "how," I'll repost what I've posted elsewhere:




> The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the *origin* of the universe. According to the big bang, the *universe was created* sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.


Which is, again, painfully simplistic, yet fundamentally what I'm getting at.




> The Big Bang model tells us that both physical space and time itself came into existence at a specific point in the finite past (I have come to the conclusion that 'time' is entered in because without material, attributing time to nothingness is illogical).
> 
> Before the Big Bang, we had the singularity.
> 
> [ In the beginning (about 8 to 15 billion years ago) the universe in which we inhabit did not exist. In its place there was an incredibly dense region referred to as a singularity.
> 
> 1. we are not sure where 'singularity' came from
> 2. we are not sure of its properties
> 3. we are not sure how old it was
> ...






> Initially, many scientists rejected the Big Bang theory because they thought it was religious in nature. The prevailing view at the time was that the universe was eternal, having always existed. Some felt the idea that the universe had a beginning would imply a creator (see Kalam cosmological argument), which would be unscientific.[32] These connotations troubled astronomer Fred Hoyle and others, who developed the now discredited steady state theory as an alternative to the Big Bang which would allow for an eternal universe. Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington had no such qualms, arguing that evidence of a Big Bang and start to the universe made "religion possible for a reasonable man of science."






> In that case, which God?


I don’t think that it matters greatly. How about a philosophically correct Supreme Being, possessing all the omni’s?




> There are several Gods out there and many religions that contradict each other


Okay.




> what if I decided to create my own religion and my own god right now, one which preaches exactly the opposite things that the Christian God does, an "evil" one, if you will.


I might be interested, but for the most part I’d think you just had an overactive imagination.




> surely i could create my own god in a way that the evidence you're talking about fits to prove his existance just as well as it proves the existance of any other.


People didn’t know about the Big Bang 6,000 years ago.




> the only argument for one God to be the "true" *one relying on morality which is after all subjective and community-based,*


This is an opinion, and an abhorrent one at that. One of the intellectual reasons that has most influenced my choosing to believe in God’s existence is the validity of objective moral values. I truly believe that torturing and murdering children is objectively wrong, for any person, in any culture or time. I am thus obligated to find an objective source for that fundamental truth, something that transcends the “community-based” opinion, or any human subjectivity. I have.




> Sorry if this was a bit harsh, i ment no disrispect and i know this issues are touchy, but i cant help myself when people discuss scientific theories (the Biig Bang) from a religious point of view.


Sorry if this is harsh, but I never mentioned any religion. This is a philosophical forum, and the facts (as near as we can call them, "facts") speak for themselves.

----------


## Eagleheart

> what if I decided to create my own religion and my own god right now, one which preaches exactly the opposite things that the Christian God does, an "evil" one, if you will. What makes your god the right one and the real creator of our universe? surely i could create my own god in a way that the evidence you're talking about fits to prove his existance just as well as it proves the existance of any other.


Perhaps we could appreciate your creativity...
But it seems to me that creating a God, as you propose it, it is indeed not a labourious task.../people create versions of God every day/ is not to stop there..You entertain, it appears, that only the ability to create imaginary gods proves the nonexistence of the One...How is your God going to answer the state of minds of so many people, so as to suggest that the values you introduce, assumed to be naturally held by humans, will find validity...
You introduce for example a religion of Arrogance and Lies for example...How will they be cherished by those outside of your dogma...How will these people accept these values as natural if we assume they are not...You forget that the strongest claim of the most popular religions in the world consists of general acknowledgement of the fact that the values they introduce are generally held even by those who are not adherents to them. Perhaps these values are then natural and thus correspond to the notion of the particular Gods' existence, which is intertwined with these values...
And what- are you going to hire a Jesus Christ or Mohammed figure...
Guzman, I agree with ShoutGrace that religion is much more complex to be subjected to this kind of dissection...

----------


## RobinHood3000

Erm...what happened to discussing atheism?

Not to be rude, but humans have set a rather lengthy precedent of being wrong about higher powers.

----------


## PistisSophia

Personally, I think that athiesm is a "religion" in and of itself. It's members are most vociverous in trying to make sure that the multitudes, apart from separation of church and state, make their beliefs known loud and clear.....just like organized religion.

----------


## Arguendo

> Personally, I think that athiesm is a "religion" in and of itself. It's members are most vociverous in trying to make sure that the multitudes, apart from separation of church and state, make their beliefs known loud and clear.....just like organized religion.


Atheism is a non-belief system and therefore absolutely not a religion.

Also, not all organised religion is evangelistic, although most count some pushy zealots among their members.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I don’t think that it matters greatly. How about a philosophically correct Supreme Being, possessing all the omni’s?"
The only attribute required of a creator is creativity. Believing that the universe was created does not imply any of any of the omnis.

"humans have set a rather lengthy precedent of being wrong about higher powers."
Humans have an equally long history of being wrong about science, philosophy, politics, parenting - you name it, humans have fairly consistently screwed it up - in spite of which, we persist in changing adapting, trying to improve - sometimes going forwards, and sometimes going backwards, often forgetting what we knew, or missing in one generation what seems obvious to another. That' the game we play.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Atheism is a non-belief system and therefore absolutely not a religion.
> 
> Also, not all organised religion is evangelistic, although most count some pushy zealots among their members.


I beg your pardon? Some forms of atheism are most definitely systems of positive belief. Some sects of Buddhism, for example, view Buddha strictly as a teacher and not a deity, and therefore are atheistic in nature.

As for me, I positively _believe_ in the _lack of a deity_, and therefore am an atheist. One who believes that the presence of a deity cannot be proven or disproven is an agnostic. In both cases, the person in question must take an active belief. One who doesn't believe in anything, unless there are philosophies that I'm missing (nihilism also requries some form of belief, I think), is called "apathetic."

----------


## fisherofmen

> Atheism is a non-belief system and therefore absolutely not a religion.


According to dictionary.com



> re&#183;li&#183;gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
> –noun
> 1.	a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> 2.	a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects


I suppose this could be debated endlessly...
Believing in the lack of a God is still believing in something... albeit, lack of a God.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> "humans have set a rather lengthy precedent of being wrong about higher powers."
> Humans have an equally long history of being wrong about science, philosophy, politics, parenting - you name it, humans have fairly consistently screwed it up - in spite of which, we persist in changing adapting, trying to improve - sometimes going forwards, and sometimes going backwards, often forgetting what we knew, or missing in one generation what seems obvious to another. That' the game we play.


You have a good point, Whiffling, and for pointing out the hole, I commend you. I couldn't agree more.

----------


## Tiresias

one thing i don't believe we have yet to prove ourselves wrong about is our ability to reason, which holds true "a priori". for me this is strange in a universe which appears to current scientific thinking a product of chance...any ideas?

one thing i don't believe we have yet to prove ourselves wrong about is our ability to reason, which holds true "a priori". for me this is strange in a universe which appears to current scientific thinking a product of chance...any thoughts?

----------


## RobinHood3000

Ability to reason, yes. Tendency to, no.

----------


## Tiresias

nicely put - but i guess that what i am saying is that reason seems there for us to access, should we chose to ;-)

----------


## RobinHood3000

Agreed.  :Biggrin:  And thanks.

----------


## dramasnot6

> one thing i don't believe we have yet to prove ourselves wrong about is our ability to reason, which holds true "a priori". for me this is strange in a universe which appears to current scientific thinking a product of chance...any ideas?


The fact is we can reason.But with every answer comes even more questions,the strange properties of quantum physics, the entanglement of systems,everything affects everything else. Dependence on initial conditions of a closed system. Everything can be seen as a product of chance if looked at in a certain way.But reason is what shapes our understanding of chance.

----------


## Misscaroline

Now, see- logic is something I can sink my teeth into. You can prove everything you believe in concrete if only you go back for enough. Once upon a time, the final exam for a university was to be asked a question and be able to rationalize through syllogisms the truth... There again, you had to go all the way back to what does it mean "to be", but I think you know what I mean...

----------


## dramasnot6

Oh, i do Miss C. Good point! Yet logic is often also applicable in "the moment" of times. When faced with a quick decision, logic developed from years of "going back" is what conflicts with impulse to influence that decision. When you say you can prove everything you believe in if you go back far enough, does that include contrasting views? Or do all truths exist on some level just from having been thought of in the first place? Hope im not going to far off the track here...i think the set of beliefs that comes with any type of atheism also applies.

----------


## Miss Darcy

What are we talking of atheism for? ... Is one not simply either an atheist, or not an atheist?

----------


## dramasnot6

Oh but there are so many reasons for atheism and types! It makes for fascinating conversation to see if other people share your beliefs for the same or different reasons. 
By the way, i love your avatar and siggy miss darcy! tres artistic

----------


## Arguendo

For those who disliked my defining atheism as non-belief system: it was a response to a definition of atheism as an organised religion in and of itself, based on evangelism. It is most empathically not, I got my hackles up and responded a bit too hastily.

Some religions, like Buddhism, are essentially non-theistic, yes.

By non-belief I meant the absence of faith in one or more deities.

"Apathy" is a psychological term that has nothing to do with atheism, unless one counts apathetic persons as non-theists because they are indifferent to the concept of gods. Then again, a true case of apathy would also involve being indifferent to the concept of no gods. A discussion of the apathy phenomenon would be rather interesting, I think, but perhaps in another thread.

I'd like to point out that I think the Wiki article on atheism is very well balanced and covers most definitions, and recommend reading it.

----------


## Tiresias

Dependence on initial conditions of a closed system. Everything can be seen as a product of chance if looked at in a certain way.But reason is what shapes our understanding of chance.*

this is why i can never whole heartedly accept the scientific/naturalistic viewpoint. i trust that it is possible for me to reason, because the existence of reason appears self evident. but the system that is in place is in a way beyond science, as the system is the very foundation of science itself - it is what makes science possible. a naturalistic understanding appears always limited to the acknowledgement of laws and conditions and attempts at clarifiying how they work. instead of asking "why?", which is probably out of place in this forum, my concern is: "how is this possible?". don't get me wrong, this is not a religious concern on my part, merely a philosophical one, and one i think it is necessary to deal with if we are to be sincere about our athiestic leanings.

*sorry, caveman hack and paste

sorry: "how is science possible"

----------


## Pendragon

> Originally Posted by dramasnot6 
> But nevermind on my part of a debate. ShoutGrace and Redzeppelin, i didnt mean to mislead you in saying i was open for questions. I merely thought you would be asking general, open ended questions like the belief of the existence of a soul, not directly attacking each of my opinions. I really just wanted to discuss reasons for atheism, not engage in a fruitless ,nervending battle of beliefs. I honestly did not want to offend anyone and i apologize if i did.


I need to ask the question of you, Drama, have I also done anything you consider an attack? If so, it was unintentional, my sincere apologies, and if you and the others wish, I will post no more on this subject. You will find me both a Christian and a gentleman, and a gentleman asks a lady's pardon, and makes a dignified withdrawal if necessary. God bless.  :Smile:

----------


## RobinHood3000

I was being sarcastic with the apathetic, but yes, you're correct.

And although my particular form of atheism is not based on evangelism or conversion, it would be remiss to say that all forms of atheism have the same lack of agenda.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Atheism is a non-belief system and therefore absolutely not a religion.


I have a problem with the use of the word 'system' here. Atheism is a single point of non-belief, not a set of them.

----------


## dramasnot6

> I need to ask the question of you, Drama, have I also done anything you consider an attack? If so, it was unintentional, my sincere apologies, and if you and the others wish, I will post no more on this subject. You will find me both a Christian and a gentleman, and a gentleman asks a lady's pardon, and makes a dignified withdrawal if necessary. God bless.


Of course not Pen! Youre questions were both very interesting and perfectly gentleman-like. I only told that to them because they directly argued every word of my post, and seemed very offended by what i said. I was expecting more general questions directed at the whole of the thread ,not specific criticism. I really meant no harm to them and i wasnt try to start a fight about "who is right" and "who is wrong", i just wanted express my opinions. Perhaps i expressed them in a rather harsh, inconsiderate way and i am very sorry if thats true and assure everyone here i have learned my lesson about that and next time will express myself in a more proffesional manner. My most sincere apologies if i offended you in anyway Pen, there was never a moment since i first entered this site where i didnt believe you were the consummate gentleman.




> I have a problem with the use of the word 'system' here. Atheism is a single point of non-belief, not a set of them.


This is true. Many have assumed that atheism is a one-way set of beliefs that is constant among all that call themselves atheist. But like most religions, there are many different ways of being an atheist. Many combinations of beliefs that can accompany the single belief that atheism is based on. Like Robin mentioned earlier, Buddhism can be seen as an example. I think I'm going to start considering agnosticism.... :Tongue:

----------


## ShoutGrace

dramasnot6, 

Really, I didn't take offense at what you wrote - in fact I can probably say that I haven't ever really _taken offense_, per se, at what has been written on these forums. I disagree wholeheartedly with many ideas and opinions that are expressed here, as I'm quite positive many do with the ideas and opinions that I express - that is what makes it a discussion, in my opinion.  :Biggrin: 

Anyway, I do stand by my earlier comments, about allowing discussion and questioning of what we post here. It would be rather sterile to have everybody just state their opinion and leave, without wanting rejoinders placed - even at specific areas and ideas. Your post was neither "harsh" nor "inconsiderate," but I did feel the need to respond to the points you raised.

I hold you in a high regard, and didn't intend my response to be an "attack," especially not one on your person. I can see how my language could be taken that way, but really, it wouldn't have made any difference if it was you or my best friend or my mother, posting what you did - I would have responded the same way, I think.

I wish you all the best.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Everything ShoutGrace said, I second.

Can I ask a question? Because atheism and Christianity ultimately attempt to establish what Aristotle would call the "First Cause" (the "unmoved mover" in _The Metaphysics_), I think they both require a certain "leap of faith": the Christian chooses to believe that a Supreme Being created all, and an atheist (by default) chooses to believe that science has established that there is no such Being. Both require a choice to "believe" in that which is ultimately unverifiable.

So, here's my question: My belief in God gives me hope in times of suffering, confidence in times of fear, direction in times of confusion. For those who choose atheism, what does it give you? I ask not so that I can fire back an argument, but honestly, simply to understand such a choice - because I do not believe people choose a world-view that gives them despair, fear, and hopelessness. We "get" something from our choice of belief - what are the benefits of being atheist?

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Can I ask a question? Because atheism and Christianity ultimately attempt to establish what Aristotle would call the "First Cause" (the "unmoved mover" in _The Metaphysics_), I think they both require a certain "leap of faith": the Christian chooses to believe that a Supreme Being created all, and an atheist (by default) chooses to believe that science has established that there is no such Being. Both require a choice to "believe" in that which is ultimately unverifiable.


On the contrary - I believe it's impossible for science or anyone to establish that there is no such being, and for science to try is a waste of energy, resources, and time. While I do hold the belief that there is no such being, if there were, there wouldn't be much science could do about it, is there?




> So, here's my question: My belief in God gives me hope in times of suffering, confidence in times of fear, direction in times of confusion. For those who choose atheism, what does it give you? I ask not so that I can fire back an argument, but honestly, simply to understand such a choice - because I do not believe people choose a world-view that gives them despair, fear, and hopelessness. We "get" something from our choice of belief - what are the benefits of being atheist?


...we sleep in Sundays?

In all seriousness, the assumption that to choose atheism is to choose "despair, fear, and hopelessness" is where you go wrong. Atheism isn't the same as nihilism - rather, nihilism is a form of atheism. Atheism is a very wide-scoped term, the same way theism is. My particular "brand" of atheism is a non-deistic set of abstract beliefs that dictate how I treat people and how I act. That in itself gives me hope for a well-lived life, which in turn dispels despair and fear. My only fear, off the top of my head, is that I might be trapped in a situation where I must emotionally hurt someone close to me, and that fear is hardly exclusive to atheists.

Think of it this way: asking atheists why they would choose a world-view that offers despair, fear, and hopelessness is like asking theists why they would choose a religion that prevents them from eating pork products.

----------


## Pendragon

> Of course not Pen! Youre questions were both very interesting and perfectly gentleman-like. I only told that to them because they directly argued every word of my post, and seemed very offended by what i said. I was expecting more general questions directed at the whole of the thread ,not specific criticism. I really meant no harm to them and i wasnt try to start a fight about "who is right" and "who is wrong", i just wanted express my opinions. Perhaps i expressed them in a rather harsh, inconsiderate way and i am very sorry if thats true and assure everyone here i have learned my lesson about that and next time will express myself in a more proffesional manner. My most sincere apologies if i offended you in anyway Pen, there was never a moment since i first entered this site where i didnt believe you were the consummate gentleman.


And I have never been offended by someone simply because they have a different viewpoint than my own. You, and indeed the vast majority of Atheists I have talked to here, have always been respectful, courteous, and easy to get along with, all that you ask is the same in return. You are a true lady, Drama, I take my hat off to you! I enjoy the discussions as well when people come to the table and talk like friends. You know, "Have a spot of Earl Grey?" "Thank you, please pass the biscuits?" "Of course! Scone?" "Delighted!" "What's the topic today, hummm?" You see? Sometimes people act like it's a war room! Let me just *tell you* _why youre wrong!_ Yeah, thats going to help matters a whole lot. Sugar draws more flies than vinegar!  :Smile:  God bless!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In all seriousness, the assumption that to choose atheism is to choose "despair, fear, and hopelessness" is where you go wrong.


Ok - I may have put my foot in my mouth here. I was not implying that atheism per se embodies these particular experiences. If it sounded that way, accept my apology. What I meant was that whatever view we choose to hold, we do so because it gives us something we deem of value - that whatever it is we choose to believe, we do so for benefits we identify as postive, life affirming or necessary. I suppose my phrasing might have been based on what I believe _I_ would feel if I thought atheism true.




> Atheism isn't the same as nihilism - rather, nihilism is a form of atheism. Atheism is a very wide-scoped term, the same way theism is.


Thank you for clarifying - this I did not know, and that helps me understand some of the posts I've read (which may explain my choice of language in my prior post).





> My particular "brand" of atheism is a non-deistic set of abstract beliefs that dictate how I treat people and how I act. That in itself gives me hope for a well-lived life, which in turn dispels despair and fear.


This almost sounds existentialist - would you say that is the type of atheism your describing? You seem to be saying that your "hope" stems from the idea that you have made what you would consider "good" decisions in terms of your relationships? Do I understand you correctly? And I guess my question would be - where do those "abstract beliefs" come from?





> Think of it this way: asking atheists why they would choose a world-view that offers despair, fear, and hopelessness is like asking theists why they would choose a religion that prevents them from eating pork products.


Fair enough.

----------


## Arguendo

> So, here's my question: My belief in God gives me hope in times of suffering, confidence in times of fear, direction in times of confusion. For those who choose atheism, what does it give you?


I can't help but regard religion as a crutch, for exact those reasons you state - hope, confidence, direction. 

I'm not telling you that you should throw away your faith, mind, and sometimes I even wish I had the ability to put faith in a deity, because it seems lovely not to have to rely entirely on yourself.

But I can't. I have actually tried, and I'm unable to do so.

Mankind's acts of kindness, intelligence and even wisdom, and my faith in my own capability, gives me hope in times of suffering, confidence in times of fear and direction in times of confusion.

Atheism gives me the opportunity, indeed the duty, to take credit and blame in my own life. I did not choose it as such, I saw no other way, but I'm quite satisfied.




> I was being sarcastic with the apathetic, but yes, you're correct.
> 
> And although my particular form of atheism is not based on evangelism or conversion, it would be remiss to say that all forms of atheism have the same lack of agenda.


I know. So was I. There should be a dedicated snark icon to signal sarcasm - maybe something with a raised eyebrow and/or a smirk. The wink is a little too friendly, and the huge grin a little too cheerful, I think.

Most Saturdays, a Heathen organisation preach in a square here. I really don't know whether I should laugh or pelt them with rotten tomatoes. I know they mean to poke fun at evangelism-oriented religions, but the joke's getting stale.

----------


## ennison

A crutch? Well that beats hopping. 
Sarcasm is intended to hurt but irony aint.

----------


## Pendragon

> I know. So was I. There should be a dedicated snark icon to signal sarcasm - maybe something with a raised eyebrow and/or a smirk. The wink is a little too friendly, and the huge grin a little too cheerful, I think.
> 
> Most Saturdays, a Heathen organisation preach in a square here. I really don't know whether I should laugh or pelt them with rotten tomatoes. I know they mean to poke fun at evangelism-oriented religions, but the joke's getting stale.


Hi, Arguendo! And the very fact that you yourself can see that as you so very well put it "The joke's getting stale." is proof that what they are doing to tear down the other people is not working. Simply "going for the jugular", as they say, a fast "Let's end this nonsense." seldom works. The careful persuasion based on things one is convinced of oneself, works sometimes when all-out attack does not. Often all-out attack when carefully checked contains no argument in favor of the attacker's point, just an attempt to bluster with a flurry of bombardments against the other's viewpoint. This leads one to think that maybe this person *has no point*.  :Smile:  (You like this smiley? )

----------


## Arguendo

> Hi, Arguendo! And the very fact that you yourself can see that as you so very well put it "The joke's getting stale." is proof that what they are doing to tear down the other people is not working. Simply "going for the jugular", as they say, a fast "Let's end this nonsense." seldom works. The careful persuasion based on things one is convinced of oneself, works sometimes when all-out attack does not. Often all-out attack when carefully checked contains no argument in favor of the attacker's point, just an attempt to bluster with a flurry of bombardments against the other's viewpoint. This leads one to think that maybe this person *has no point*.  (You like this smiley? )


Hi yourself!
I'm not fond of the bombardment approach, full stop. Usually, I pointedly ignore everybody trying to convert me, be it Jehova's Witnesses or Scientologists or Heathens or mobile phone sellers. I may get drawn into discussions of religion, and if so I may have a fit of fury and get lured onto the proverbial soapbox, but I certainly don't stand around in city squares yelling that THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU'RE STUPID AS MUD IF YOU THINK THERE IS!!!111!eleventyone!!

I'm not an atheist because I think everyone else should be, too (but of course that would be most convenient). I'm not fond of most organised religions, but that's a very different subject, and that's why I don't go near any religious threads in this forum. Not in other forums either.

For the record, because it's so easy getting misunderstood in writing, I don't think people who believe in a god are stupid as mud. Admittedly, some effects of organised religion do not strike me as vastly intelligent, but some effects of mankind's actions per se don't either...

Do I like that smiley? Depends. If it's generally employed in relation to posts I dislike, sure! If it's generally employed in relation to my posts, of course not. I'm only human.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I can't help but regard religion as a crutch, for exact those reasons you state - hope, confidence, direction. 
> 
> I'm not telling you that you should throw away your faith, mind, and sometimes I even wish I had the ability to put faith in a deity, because it seems lovely not to have to rely entirely on yourself.
> 
> But I can't. I have actually tried, and I'm unable to do so.
> 
> Mankind's acts of kindness, intelligence and even wisdom, and my faith in my own capability, gives me hope in times of suffering, confidence in times of fear and direction in times of confusion.
> 
> Atheism gives me the opportunity, indeed the duty, to take credit and blame in my own life. I did not choose it as such, I saw no other way, but I'm quite satisfied.



"Crutch"? Because I look to Something outside of myself to cope with the struggles and complexities of life? You listed "mankind's acts of kindness, intelligence and even wisdom" as part of what gives you confidence - how do these things (which occur "outside" of you) not qualify as a "crutch" for you? As well, I'm glad you have faith in your own capability - but can that always be true? You are never victim to self-doubt, failure, fear? And if you do experience these, you simply dismiss them with an act of will: "I'm capable, therefore I have hope"? I could not do the same because the same mankind that can demonstrate the gifts you mentioned is also capable of the most horrific atrocities on earth. As well, drawing direction, hope and solace through spirituality does in NO way indicate a lackof personal responsibility. We are all responsible for our choices. 

If I gain hope from my favorite song, an inspiring act of kindness by an individual, or a promise from God - what's the difference? Why's the spiritual option the "crutch"?

----------


## RobinHood3000

Crutches aren't necessarily bad - can't heal without 'em - but I think that Arguendo is trying to say is that he (she?) prefers to start from scratch on the philosophical level rather than have the answers handed to him in the form of a religious text. At least, that's what I prefer. What about you, Arguendo?

----------


## Pendragon

> Hi yourself!
> Do I like that smiley? Depends. If it's generally employed in relation to posts I dislike, sure! If it's generally employed in relation to my posts, of course not. I'm only human.


Nay, it is not applied to your posts! You asked for a "sarcastic smiliey", I believe! That was one I found. This is a good one too: !

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Crutches aren't necessarily bad - can't heal without 'em - but I think that Arguendo is trying to say is that he (she?) prefers to start from scratch on the philosophical level rather than have the answers handed to him in the form of a religious text. At least, that's what I prefer. What about you, Arguendo?


OK - but I almost detect a bit of condescension in the "rather than have the answers handed to him" - as if I'm taking the "easy" way out, a way that does not involve personal responsibility. I'm simply arguing for the limits that I am aware that I (as a human being) possess. Having the "answers handed" to somebody is not helpful if one is capable of arriving at the correct answers alone - but if a divine being is doing the "handing" (the assumption being that a divine being knows better than I do) why would I want to bother coming up with my own? The divine being's existence provides me a stable platform upon which to approach the inevitable difficulties life pitches my way. _I'm_ responsible for dealing with the problems and making choices, but God provides me with a "support system" that allows me to act in an effective way (hopefully  :Smile:  ) If I was trying to work on my car and the part I was working on was something I had no idea how to fix (in my case, the transmission  :Frown:  ) am I "having the answers handed to me" and taking the "easy" way out by asking a master mechanic for guidance/advice?

----------


## RobinHood3000

Yes, I suspected that didn't quite come out right when I was typing it, but I could find little better way of expressing it. If you felt as if you were being condescended toward, don't - there are just as many atheists who also prefer not to custom-make their own philosophies.

You'll note that nowhere in my e-mail did I say that you were taking the "easy" way out. Just an FYI, it was your word, not mine, and there was no need to quote-ify it.

Sorry, brain's feeling a little drained right now - I promise I'll write more later.

----------


## fisherofmen

> start from scratch on the philosophical level rather than have the answers handed to him in the form of a religious text.


If nothing else, that implies taking the "easy" way out. I don't see how else to interpret that, it looks pretty clear to me. Perhaps it's just the way I read it though. 




> If I was trying to work on my car and the part I was working on was something I had no idea how to fix (in my case, the transmission  ) am I "having the answers handed to me" and taking the "easy" way out by asking a master mechanic for guidance/advice?


I think that analogy sums up my opinion.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> So, here's my question: My belief in God gives me hope in times of suffering, confidence in times of fear, direction in times of confusion. For those who choose atheism, what does it give you? I ask not so that I can fire back an argument, but honestly, simply to understand such a choice - because I do not believe people choose a world-view that gives them despair, fear, and hopelessness. We "get" something from our choice of belief - what are the benefits of being atheist?


I would imagine that the benefit is actually living your life according to what you believe in, and staying true to your convictions  same for the theist. 




> For the record, because it's so easy getting misunderstood in writing, I don't think people who believe in a god are stupid as mud.


Oh, great, thanks for clearing that up. I dont think atheists are as stupid as mud, either.





> OK - but I almost detect a bit of condescension in the "rather than have the answers handed to him" - as if I'm taking the "easy" way out, a way that does not involve personal responsibility.


Of course there was condescension, whether it was intended or not.




> If nothing else, that implies taking the "easy" way out. I don't see how else to interpret that, it looks pretty clear to me. Perhaps it's just the way I read it though.


No, I read it exactly the same way.




> If you felt as if you were being condescended toward, don't - there are just as many atheists who also prefer not to custom-make their own philosophies.


I remember reading elsewhere your statement that you invented atheism. At the time I took it to mean generally what you are submitting here, that you custom-made your own philosophy. This belief is fine (is still disagree with it), but while submitting that claim you also more than imply that the theist cannot custom-make their own philosophies. 

Firstly, I would challenge the assumption that the theist is have(ing) the answers handed to him in the form of a religious text. I had never read any spiritually related material before believing that God existed. 

Secondly, I would challenge your implication that choosing to believe in an already known belief is somehow second rate as compared to inventing your own brand of well known belief (atheism). You state that you only prefer to be so self reliant, and inventive, but the tone is clear  you are starting from philosophical scratch, choosing your beliefs while the poor theist is hobbling towards their crutch of pre-formulated answers. 

Thirdly, I would challenge the implication alluded to above, namely that theists cannot custom-make their beliefs.

Listening to some of the posts on this thread, one gets the image of the atheist bravely throwing off the intellectual fetters of outmoded beliefs, fearlessly blazing a new trail of self reliant, heroic individuality, raising their minds against antiquated notions that the masses have heretofore used by necessity, because they were not as strong.


Before being convicted beyond all resolve that God existed, I fought it as hard as anybody. My breaking down and accepting the utter conviction of what I knew to be true was not done because I ran out of ideas, or because I was too tired to believe in something less bracing than theism. 





> I'm not telling you that you should throw away your faith, mind, and sometimes I even wish I had the ability to put faith in a deity, because it seems lovely not to have to rely entirely on yourself.


Actually, theism is a lot tougher than atheism, as far as I can remember. I never worried about half the things I worry about now when I was an atheist. It seems lovely to me to be able to throw off any responsibility concerning the afterlife, to accept that life will ultimately be meaningless for me and to live my life accordingly. Let it be argued that atheism doesnt necessarily entail these things.

The yoke is not light. I often imagine how much simpler my life would be if I were an atheist. Sadly, I cannot bring myself to disbelieve in Gods existence, no matter how hard I try.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Thank you gentlemen for your postings (Shout and fish).

Robin - no offense taken. I think it very difficult to have a discussion without a tinge of our biases coloring our language - I am guilty of phrasing things in a way (not necessarily intentionally  :Biggrin:  ) that I discover later may have come across harsher than I wish. By pointing out the tone of the words, I was not "calling you out" - rather, I was pointing out a bias: that (as ShoutGrace has shared) many atheists do often seem to view Christianity as an "easy way out" because we don't have to develop a code to live by and we aren't "responsible" for that code. My use of the quotation marks around the word "easy" was not to indicate the word belonged to you, but rather to indicate the ironic usage of the word. In other words, as ShoutGrace indicated, adhering to the Christian standard of morality is not easy; the character shaping that God puts one through is difficult, soul-searching work. My quotation marks were to indicate my disbelief that the road of the believer is "easy" - not to attribute false statements to you. I should have clarified that and I apologize for not being clearer in my post.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Apology accepted, and reciprocated.

I don't think I said (and I know I don't mean) that theism is inferior to atheism. As for my much debated comment, isn't a religious text supposed to contain answers?

Have you ever met someone who seemed like they were just looking for reasons to be offended just so that they could feel oppressed? Not to imply that Shout and Red are actively looking for said reasons (I'm mostly thinking about people I know in person), but I dunno, I thought my comment was kinda innocuous. :shrug:

Shout brings up the good point that theists can also make their own philosophies. This is true, and I admit my mistake.

I'm curious, and more than a little intrigued: what compels people to believe in a higher power? I imagine it's as confusing from this side as atheism is from your side, but I'm honestly confused.

By the way, Redzeppelin - whoo, EAGLES!!!

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Shout brings up the good point that theists can also make their own philosophies. This is true, and I admit my mistake.


Look, I was quibbling. My post was argumentative and placed with the intention of squabbling over a point that I didn't want to let go without being its being scrutinized. I wasn't trying to learn anything with that post, and it certainly doesn't seem to be very inviting as far as discussion goes. 

I have great respect for you, Robin. Your "much debated comment" was read disparagingly, whether it was intended that way or not (and you've maintained that it wasn't). The main concept to be found in my post worth talking about would be this:




> Secondly, I would challenge your implication that choosing to believe in an already known belief is somehow second rate as compared to inventing your own brand of well known belief (atheism).


You say above that a religious text is supposed to contain "answers." Indeed it is, and that is a good point that I will think on well for the time being. 

I apologize for my last post, as it is for the most part worthless as regards discussion of atheism in this thread.

----------


## blp

Um...so what literary _text_ is this thread supposed to be about?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> As for my much debated comment, isn't a religious text supposed to contain answers?


Correct. It's not the "answers" part that we're focusing on - it's the "handed to them" part. 




> Have you ever met someone who seemed like they were just looking for reasons to be offended just so that they could feel oppressed? Not to imply that Shout and Red are actively looking for said reasons (I'm mostly thinking about people I know in person), but I dunno, I thought my comment was kinda innocuous. :shrug:


I won't speak for ShoutGrace or fisherofmen, but I'm willing to admit that I may be quick-on-the-trigger when I detect (or _think_ I detect) a "minimizing" of the significance of my beliefs (but I must also check myself to make sure I'm not reciprocating - I think it takes much practice, restraint and control to not let this stuff leak into a debate that means much to us because I think doing so is pretty human - and as such, forgivable  :Smile:  ) May I offer an explanation (that may sound like a cop-out)? The rise of "diversity," "tolerance" and "multiculturism" over the last couple decades has - in my estimation - brought with it a latent hostility towards Christianity. I don't want to derail this thread into a debate on this view - I have good reasons to feel this, and should this topic appear elsewhere (and I think it ought to) I will elaborate. But, in light of the often hostile and dismissive attitude directed towards Christianity (you can find it here and there amongst these posts), I may be very quick to "pick up the gauntlet" that may or may not have been intentionally "thrown." (In other words, I'm saying I may be guilty of your charge - should've just said that, instead of the dissertation, huh?  :Biggrin:  ). As I said, I believe the comment was said in "good faith": I picked up on the language because it is language used by those whe _are_ dismissive and hostile to Christianity.







> I'm curious, and more than a little intrigued: what compels people to believe in a higher power? I imagine it's as confusing from this side as atheism is from your side, but I'm honestly confused.


Wow - what a question. A hard one to answer without sounding like a personal testimony (aka "proselytizing"). As ShoutGrace and Pendragon have stated elsewhere, there are many "roads" to God. Based on the Christian belief in a "fallen world" and inherently "sinful nature," many Christians came to God or had their faith affirmed by reason of looking at this world and its pain, suffering and sadness and feeling like there must be more to our existence than simply material possessions and the pursuit of pleasure (which does not imply that these things are all non-believers are interested in). We feel that life must have more meaning (a meaning that exists beyond self-created "happiness") because no experience is really, truly, deeply satisfying; gratifying, yes - but satisfying? Not a chance. We look at Shakespeare, at Mozart, at the birth of our child, at the beauty & complexity of nature and think "This just can't be accidental - something intangible is moving in these things." CS Lewis said it better than I'm about to paraphrase - but he spoke of the existence of the divine in the longings of our hearts. He said that this desire for God shows up in the longing we feel when we see beauty, hear magnificent music, experience the glorious closness of intimacy (not necessarily physical, but not dis-including it), read the startling truths in the world's greatest literature, enjoy a wonderful glass of wine, experience the warm closeness of good friends; all these, he said, touch our hearts because they provide us with hints of God - that God exists in the transcendent experiences of our lives. The transcient/temporal nature of all profound experiences in life are "tastes" of the true satisfaction, true intimacy, true love and true pleasure that only God can provide. *look of consternation* I'm really botching this explanation, and I wish I had Lewis handy because his description of this is so much better. But even if I did, I would not be offering a "template" that answers your excellent question - God "speaks" in many ways, and Christians believe that (since God created us all) God speaks to all (believer and non alike) about his existence through our longings for transcendent experiences (which many people believe - falsely - can be obtained through sex, money, power, drugs, etc.) In other words, I believe that God attempts to "speak" to everybody and point them towards Him. Some answer immediately, some after repeated attempts, some never. Our many "addictions" are actually an attempt to fill the "God-shaped vacancy in our heart." Lewis said that since God created us, we were meant to "run on Him," like a car is designed to "run on" gasoline. I can't keep going - I feel like I'm not making sense. I invite someone else to answer Robin's question - I can't.






> By the way, Redzeppelin - whoo, EAGLES!!!


You betcha, buddy. Kudos for catching the allusion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

To blp - no text is being discussed. The original post asked a question about atheism that did not explicity refer to a text. From what I see, many threads in the "philosophical literature" forum are more about philosophical questions than actual texts (though texts are certainly being referenced).

----------


## eye-of-horus

Hello:

Since you are readers -- I offer you an explication which may be of use in navigating the needlessly choppy give-and-take on the god(s)-hypothesis. Why do you believe in atheism? Here's the question recast, as you will see shortly, for clarity:

** What are your reasons for claiming that the minimum standard God (MSG) does not exist? **

OK . . . off we go.

First, a comment on words & presuppositions.
Second, getting down to basics -- the minimum standard God
Third, truth claims about existence (or non-existence) of entities.

The question -- why do you believe in atheism? -- is loaded with presuppositions (and problem causing ambiguities). The word 'why' sits uncomfortably between reason and cause. The verb 'believe in' needs to be distinguished from 'believe that.' 'Atheism' is a term of abuse -- one to poison the well of discourse.

'Atheist' is taken almost directly from ancient Greek to mean 'godless person, a non-conforming individual in matters religious.' It is not value neutral, but a word which condemns. That is, the believer (the theist) grabs the high ground. Communists, you may recall, are all "godless atheists."

The verb 'to believe in' can often be replaced by 'to trust', 'to have faith in' and takes a direct object like 'Jesus', 'Islam', 'the opinions held by the ancestors' . . . . The verb 'to believe that' can often be replaced by 
'to claim that', 'to opine that', 'to hold that', 'to offer evidence that', 'to reason that' and it takes a dependent clause (a sentence, a proposition, an utterance) which is thought to be true or false.

In order to deal with the notorious ambiguity of 'theos', which in Greek often means either 'god', 'God', or 'gods,' depending on context, assume that there is some minimum standard God in the Western tradition of philosophy and theology -- the God in whom we trust, as claimed on U.S. coinage and dollar bills. 

This is essentially the God of Immanuel Kant -- which created and sustains the "starry heavens above me" and "the moral law within me." Cosmic order and moral order, open to anyone to discover through the exercise of reason. U.S. courts have consistently held that reference to such a God is not a violation of the 1st Amendment since this God belongs to no single belief structure, but is common to all of them. Thus appears the minimum standard God (MSG) of the Western tradition. (Such a divinity is deistic, rather than theistic. But, undermining the MSG will undermine the God of judeo-christo-islamo-mono-theism as well.)

Generally, a question like "Why do you believe in atheism?" when not intended as hostile rhetoric is really asking "What are your reasons for claiming that MSG does not exist?"

The glib claim that "you can't prove a negative", while also containing many ambiguities, generally means "no evidence or reasoning can establish that an existence claim is false." Of course you can prove a negative -- 

The round square does not exist -- that statement is logically (semantically) true. There is no round square. Santa Claus does not exist -- that statement is a factual truth. There is plenty of compelling evidence that the Jolly Old Elf and crew are commercialized (degenerate) myth with traditional mythic roots. Applying these methods to God --either the concept of God is logically incoherent or God fails to stand up to compelling negative evidence -- here are plans of attack on MSG.

The question for theists then becomes -- What are your reasons for claiming that the minimum standard God (MSG) does exist? (And 'feelings', 'traditions' can be sources for reasons. But, as always, how good are your reasons -- ?) Now it may be that holding a belief requires no reason, yet by what rational and ethical means then do you alter the thoughts and behavior of others to hold your belief? (Upbringing, social disapproval, threats, beatings, killing are neither rational or moral means, despite their nearly universal application.)

A text to dwell upon: Margaret Atwood "The Handmaiden's Tale"

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hi there eye-of-horus. I appreciate your detailed post, but I can't help but feel like you've engaged in a bit of semantic word-juggling here. You sliced-n-diced up the question at hand, but to what end? My job deals with language, and I'm very aware that words can be notoriously inexact - very few people (myself included) use _every_ word precisely. While there are times that inexact language creates chaos in an argument, there are other times where a tacit understanding is assumed. In this conversation, it is assumed that "atheism" refers to one who does not acknowledge the existence of God - whether that God be the Judeo-Christian God, the God of Islam, etc. Your rephrasing of the question may be more "accurate," but I guess I'm too lacking in linguistic sophistication to really see a major difference between "do you believe in atheism?" and "what are your reasons for claiming a MSG does not exist?" I see that "believe" and "claim" are different verbs - but we generally "claim" what we do/don't "believe" or "know." 

As far as your final paragraph, your question What are your reasons for claiming that the minimum standard God (MSG) does exist? - well, to whom am I addressing my answer? If it is to a believer, that's one thing; if it's to an atheist, what could I possibly say? The reason to believe is not always based on "reason" or "logic." The "reasons" for claiming the existence of God are generally not very satisfying or convincing to an atheist (hence the back-and-forth give-and-take of this discussion - both sides are approaching the question from different frames of reference. There is no "win" - only a clarifying of positions.

----------


## jon1jt

"Philosophy and Christianity can never agree." 
-Kierkegaard

----------


## Redzeppelin

Rather ironic, coming from a Christian philosopher. I wonder what he meant - or what it means in context?

----------


## subterranean

> "Philosophy and Christianity can never agree." 
> -Kierkegaard





> Rather ironic, coming from a Christian philosopher. I wonder what he meant - or what it means in context?



Well, there are some definitions of philosohpy. If I can take one from _The American Heritage dictionaries_ and compared it with a verse in the Bible, then perhaps we can find one difference:




> Love and pursuit of wisdom by *intellectual means and moral self-discipline*






> *The fear of the Lord is the beginning** of knowledge...
> 
> *the beginning: or, the principal part (from www.christnotes.com)







> I'm curious, and more than a little intrigued: what compels people to believe in a higher power? I imagine it's as confusing from this side as atheism is from your side, but I'm honestly confused.


My answer probably far from satisfactory for you.., what makes me believe in higher power. It's a personal attachment that I think one can never explain to others. I personally submitted myself to believe in the existence of higher being few years ago and for me, the process was completely one to one relations. There's no scientific formula to describe the process. It's probably more or less the same with the process you've gone through to finally become best friend with some one. Yet, personal experience shows human might failed you….

----------


## Pendragon

> Rather ironic, coming from a Christian philosopher. I wonder what he meant - or what it means in context?


This: "Philosophy and Christianity can never agree." 
-Kierkegaard
Philosophy is based on *logic*
Christianity, Islam, or any religion is based on *Faith*

Do not try to mix *Faith* and *Logic*. "The Spirit wars against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit."

What *Logic* dictates cannot exist, *Faith* proclaims as truth

Hebrews.11:1 "Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen."

----------


## subterranean

> This: "Philosophy and Christianity can never agree." 
> -Kierkegaard
> Philosophy is based on *logic*
> Christianity, Islam, or any religion is based on *Faith*
> 
> Do not try to mix *Faith* and *Logic*. "The Spirit wars against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit."
> 
> What *Logic* dictates cannot exist, *Faith* proclaims as truth
> 
> Hebrews.11:1 "Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen."


Hi, Pen.  :Wave:  
I was thinking about that too, Pen. But I've been reading some philosophical writings and I think philosophy has developed so widely that it also covered topics, in which (I think) logical analysis doesn't seem to fit (e.g. art, morality/ethics, egoism, sexuality).  :Smile:

----------


## ennison

K perhaps meant a particular philosophical approach (But since philosophy starts from the reasonable position usually that all things are open to question then I am probably wrong there) Most theologians are of a philosophical cast of mind and nearly all of the believers that I know are at least capable of applying some abstract religious ideas to concrete acts. Some atheists are clearly very philosophical and have come to their atheistic positions by a whole variety of roads. Some of these have been very dark and painful and they would wish that they could believe in a God (Almost that they could believe in any God, not grasping that they do). Some atheists are motivated by malice. So definitely are some who claim to be believers.

----------


## Pendragon

> Hi, Pen.  
> I was thinking about that too, Pen. But I've been reading some philosophical writings and I think philosophy has developed so widely that it also covered topics, in which (I think) logical analysis doesn't seem to fit (e.g. art, morality/ethics, egoism, sexuality).


Quite true, Sub.  :Wave:  And again the way that philosophy approaches these subjects sometimes, but not always as Ennison has corrected me, is opposed to the way that religious people approach them. Not all religious people, but many. And Ennison, I was pointing out only one area of conflict myself, and if you read my last posts on the "Creation VS Evolution" thread, you'll find I'm not totally incapable of logic, it just doesn't mix well, as I said.  :Smile:  Thank you both, you are much better philosophers than myself. I should probably leave things to those most capable of doing the best job! Maybe that's why I don't visit the philosopy thread too often! God bless!  :Smile:   :Smile:

----------


## ennison

Pendragon I am not a philosopher, only battered about by life. It is pleasant none-the-less to be credited with a degree of wisdom in a forum which is so full of human intelligence. I read my Bible. I remember what lay preachers taught me. (All of them not English speakers) I remember what ministers of the church taught me.(Only some of them Native English speakers) I am glad, though life is short, that God is good though I may seldom feel he is. If I am bitter it is my own weakness makes me so. There is so much to enjoy ... and here we are ... where we can examine together some of the finest products God has given us... literature.
Ach the poor atheists think we made it by ourselves.

----------


## RobinHood3000

..."poor atheists"?

----------


## ennison

Be sorry for those who have no hope

----------


## RobinHood3000

...one finds it difficult to respond to something like that.

----------


## dramasnot6

*cough* Is that your way of expressing animosity towards people who merely have different beliefs then you? Through pity? In that your few remarks you:
a) Identify an irrelevant concept, hope, and claim atheists have lack of it when all defintions of atheism i see on this thread dont establish that belief in the least
b) You have no supporting evidence of that
c) You assume atheists are unappreciative of "good things" including literature, yet you are posting on an atheism thread with many positive supporters in a literature forum.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Eeeasy, Drame. Ennison's not saying that we can't appreciate literature (I don't think), he's just saying that he gives a different source credit for it, is all. I don't like the "poor atheists" any more than you do, but he's allowed the opinion - it's the expression of it I contend with.

----------


## dramasnot6

I'm not at all offended by his argument Robin, ive heard the same one many a time in various forms and respect that it is his belief. But it is not properly shaped , he directly states his rather bold opinion with no supporting evidence as if it is a fact. Everything is in perspective and i think its appropriate if we acknowledge that when stating a point.

----------


## Pendragon

For the record, I didn't come here on this thread with the idea to convert every so-called "poor atheist". I have good friends, Drama (I can't get used to Drame, sorry!  :Wink:  ) and Robin being two of them, who are atheists. If *I* convinced anyone they were wrong, what good would *that* do? They would then be dependent on "The Gospel According to Pen." Any change in one's convictions must be because *they find a reason to change.* Then they don't have to be continually assured by me, or anyone else that they believe, they are *convinced.*

----------


## RobinHood3000

> I'm not at all offended by his argument Robin, ive heard the same one many a time in various forms and respect that it is his belief. But it is not properly shaped , he directly states his rather bold opinion with no supporting evidence as if it is a fact. Everything is in perspective and i think its appropriate if we acknowledge that when stating a point.


Agreed.  :Nod:

----------


## subterranean

> ...Thank you both, you are much better philosophers than myself. I should probably leave things to those most capable of doing the best job! Maybe that's why I don't visit the philosopy thread too often! God bless!


That's too much, Pen as I think what I wrote is just a common knowledge.  :Smile: 





> Be sorry for those who have no hope


Sometimes atheists have more hope than those who called themselves believers.

----------


## bhekti

> Sometimes atheists have more hope than those who called themselves believers.


And honesty too...

----------


## dramasnot6

Very much agreed sub!  :Biggrin:  One can not contribute a concept common to all of humanity and the only good thing that came out of Pandoras box  :Tongue: , hope, to only people with specific beliefs. Tis a lovely feeling embedded into the minds of everyone with an ability to see the good side of things, it would be cruel to keep it all to yourself or your comrades in thought!

----------


## Pendragon

> That's too much, Pen as I think what I wrote is just a common knowledge.


 Perhaps, Sub. But you have continuously shown yourself very knowledgeable in many things. It is no shame or false modesty to bow to one with a better knowledge of philosophy. No, my dear friend, I would give you your laurels while you may enjoy them. Words of praise given to the philosophers after they pass on may make them famous, but they themselves are unaware of it. You will not pass unnoticed while I have a voice to speak! 






> Sometimes atheists have more hope than those who called themselves believers.


This is true, because many who say they believe cannot be pinned down as *to what they believe.* Nothing is more uncomfortable than trying to walk astride a fence. Get on one side or the other!  :Nod:

----------


## Scheherazade

Since the beginning of this thread, a question has been on my mind.

Can one 'believe in' atheism? One can believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc because they come with ready made philosophies and guidelines; they have specific teachings and requirements. However, what does atheism offer in these aspects?

I am personally inclined to think that it is possible for one to become an atheist and describe oneself so but it is not possible to 'believe in' atheism.

*waits for public stoning and humiliation to begin*

----------


## Whifflingpin

It's that weasely English language.

"I believe in you" does not have the same meaning as "I believe in dragons."

The first phrase implies trust, confidence or expectations. The second simply means "I believe that dragons exist."

So "I believe in atheism" can be said if it simply means "I believe that no god exists."

I agree with you, however, that atheism (without any other qualification*) does not offer anything to "believe in." I don't think that atheists would regard that as something lacking.

* I said "without any other qualification" because atheism is not a barrier to believing in things, in the "trust, confidence & expectations" sense. That sort of belief may be directed at humanity (by humanistic atheists) or society (by melioristic atheists) or whatever else by whoever.

----------


## subterranean

> And honesty too...


Ditto.....

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Can one 'believe in' atheism? One can believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc because they come with ready made philosophies and guidelines; they have specific teachings and requirements. However, what does atheism offer in these aspects?


One can believe _the teachings_ of Christianity, et al. One can believe that they exist. One can believe in the ability of those religions to produce moral adherents. But I don't think "I believe in Christianity" to mean "I am a Christian" is a really a legitimate use of the word 'believe'.

'Believe' can also mean 'have faith', especially religious faith. "I am a believer" would mean, depending on the dominant religion in the country in which it is said, "I am a Christian", "I am a Muslim", "I am a Hindu", etc. However, there is no country, including, I imagine, Iceland*, in which "I am a believer" would mean "I am an atheist".

This is because atheism is a point of non-belief, not a point of belief. "I do not believe in God" is not an expression of religious faith, it is an expression of a lack thereof. The term "atheist" encompasses both postive atheistm (the belief that no gods exist) and negative atheism (the lack of belief in any gods). Douglas Adams, atheist icon, described his poisition thusly: "I do not _believe-that-there-is-not-a-god_...I am _convinced_ that there is no such thing."

One cannot believe in the teachings of atheism because there are none, any more than one can believe in the precepts of theism. One could, believe in the teachings of Tibetan Budhism or Secular Humanism, because Tibetan Budhism and Secular Humanism teach certain specific things, but atheism does not, any more than theism does.

So, in conclusion, no.


* Iceland is the most atheistic country in the world. Source: Bj&#246;rk.

----------


## Sir Dovesinn

> - or rather, what made you decide to be an Atheist? Was it a book that changed your belief that there is a God? And last question, what is your personal defenition of Atheism? 
> 
> This defenition I found here :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on the quote above?


I read for the first time in my life such an analysis to atheism. The concept _polyatheist_ made me laugh, and the calling of all theists atheist in regard to other gods makes for me no sense.
I am no atheist, I am no believer either. But if I do disbelieve in God, than I must believe in something else. I what do you believe?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

It makes perfect sense. Christians are atheists towards Thor and Ra, atheists are atheists towards Thor, Ra and Yahweh.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Never thought about it that way - kinda cool to think about it, actually...

----------


## Misscaroline

Except me. But I'm a bad Christian to begin with. Actually, a bad Catholic...~sheepish~...Hail Ra! (Although Osiris has a better story...)

----------


## Redzeppelin

I think cuppajoe did a nice job ravelling out the word "believe" in terms of atheism. I agree that atheism probably does not resemble the "belief" required of a religion - but I also believe (uh oh - there's that troublesome word again) that we choose what we believe (this is pertinent since toni's original question was "What made you choose to be atheist?"). I think atheism involves the same choice that religious faith does - the choice to choose a world-view based on a certain criteria - a criteria that varies from person-to-person, circumstance-to-circumstance. That the atheist's choice appears to based upon naturalism (I said _appears_, so fill me in if I'm assuming too much here) tells me that the atheist chooses to base his world-view on the _observable_ world, while the Christian chooses to base his on the _unseen_ world. Neither "world" has any authority over the other world in terms of convincing either party as to the validity of his choice in world-view; the atheist sees no evidence for a spritual realm, while the Christian knows that the world offers numerous illusions in terms of life, love and existence (which is why the Gospels are full of admonitions about how the world can fool a believer - the idea of "things are not as they seem" is one of the primary themes of the Bible - and, by the way - the world's greatest literature as well).

I think toni's question stands: why choose atheism? ennison's comment about "hope" is an example of why this conversation will ultimately reach stalemate: because the Christian gains much hope from his belief, he views world-views that don't center on God as "hopeless" - that's not a personal belief: that's a collective Christian belief because the Bible essentially says that Christ is the only way to a fulfilling life - anything else will prove to be meaningless. The atheist, on the other hand, may view the Christian view as "hopeless" for a different reason - "hopeless" because the Christian blindly follows a system that appears to be at odds with "reality" (ie science) and, as well, asks people to believe in things/beings they cannot see, hear or physcially touch - "hopeless" because the Christian follows some idealistic "pie-in-the-sky" belief system that has no basis in the "real world." We can't escape our biases. Both sides of the coin ultimately scratch their heads about the choice of the other. But that's ok - it doesn't hurt of help each other understand our position better. But, ultimately, I think we'll always reach some point where reason will break down on both sides.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I have a problem with the concept of 'chosing' atheism, as well. It seems to imply that, if I wished, I could choose to stop being an atheist, and I couldn't. I cannot undo the thought processes that lead me to atheism and, unless somebody provides me with a new reason to believe in God that I have no answer to, I cannot. What I _did_ choose to do, was to begin to question the teachings of my Church (the Catholic one), with no idea at the begining that those thought processes would end with my turning to atheism, although I suppose there was some point where I realized that my belief in God wasn't really a belief in anything at all anymore, and chose to start calling myself an atheist. As Red correctly points out, one's personal epistimology certainly does play a part, but again, I never made a concious decision to be an empiricist. In fact, I was one long before I ever heard that word.

----------


## Pendragon

Back to what I said, unless the words have *meaning* for you, you cannot believe. It would be like taking a uncomprehensible language and going "Duh? Wonder what this means?" Recall the discovery of The Rosetta Stone in 1799, with a text written in hieroglyphs, Demotic and Greek, enabling the translation of hieroglyphs for the first time. You have to have a breakthrough of that sort for yourself in order to believe in God, another will have difficulty in convincing you. The best advice I can give any religious person is live a better sermon than you preach.  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I have a problem with the concept of 'chosing' atheism, as well. It seems to imply that, if I wished, I could choose to stop being an atheist, and I couldn't.


You make atheism sound inevitable - but I feel the same about Christianity. People choose how to view the world - no view is forced upon someone that he cannot ultimately reject - just as you have chosen to reject the belief system you were given has a child. If you can choose to disbelieve in God, why can you not choose to believe in Him (which would, by necessity, mean choosing not to accept atheism as a valid world-view)? Atheism is not the "default reality" that questioning God leads to; some people question their beliefs and reject them; others go into a period of doubt and eventually return; some find their convictions strengthened by the questioning. You make it sound as if questioning beliefs ultimately results in atheism. You could have chosen a number of paths - you picked the one that made most sense to you based on whatever criteria that you personally have invested meaning into. Those who invest great meaning in the observable world of science may reject God as a viable entity, or they may find that science affirms their faith - there is no systemitized (is that a real word?) progression from belief to non or vice versa. That's why I say "choose" - your questioning could have gone a number of different directions.




> I never made a concious decision to be an empiricist. In fact, I was one long before I ever heard that word.


We don't need to know the terminology to pick a philosophy. At some point - since you said you were raised in a religious environment - you did choose to accept the claims of science as a more valid reality than the claims of Christianity as to the nature of that reality.

I like your points, by the way. Everytime I see your postings they surprise me with their intelligent twists and turns  :Smile:

----------


## 5c0H

Atheism is stupid. There is God, and sorry people; but God is the only true lord.

----------


## dramasnot6

5cOH, your statements are direct insults and go unsupported. Could you please expand on your thoughts in a more rational manner?

----------


## subterranean

> It makes perfect sense. Christians are atheists towards Thor and Ra, atheists are atheists towards Thor, Ra and Yahweh.


I think David in Psalms acknowledge the existance of other gods beside the God he worshipped. 




> Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.





> Atheism is stupid. There is God, and sorry people; but God is the only true lord.


How do you figure?

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Atheism is stupid. There is God, and sorry people; but God is the only true lord.


From where I'm sitting, we're not the ones you should be sorry for.

----------


## Pendragon

> Atheism is stupid. There is God, and sorry people; but God is the only true lord.


I'm sorry, but am I to take it that this is how you would have people look at one who believes in God? This insults not only the Atheist, but every Religious person who is making any sort of effort to show them that God does exist. "If you love not your brother whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen?" Cut them, and do they not bleed?

----------


## subterranean

> 


Precise facial expression!


Chris, can we get more emoticons, please?

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Milla Jovovich is the
> best actress.


And yet sometimes, they can be so eloquent and insightful . . .

----------


## Ryduce

IMO,Atheism is just as assumptive as any other kind of faith.Maybe even more so.

To me,it just seems like a greater leap of faith to believe in nothing,when we are all beings who essentially were created out of infinite nothingness.

I just can't wrap my head around the concept that the universe always was,and life on this earth just happened by chance.There has to be a definite beginning of existence.It didn't just happen by itself spontaneously without some sort of supernatural help.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Atheism is stupid. There is God, and sorry people; but God is the only true lord.


My brother - please don't do this. These kind of statements fling mud on we believers who are interested in respectful, intelligent interaction with others who hold different beliefs. Your post reinforces the worst negative stereotype of Christians that many of us are working hard to invalidate. Besides, most experienced debaters know that the _ad hominem_ argument is a sure sign that one is either a) losing an argument, or b) has no argument at all. Earn your opponent's respect, not his scorn, OK?  :Smile:

----------


## RobinHood3000

> I just can't wrap my head around the concept that the universe always was,and life on this earth just happened by chance.


Good - neither do we. Few anymore believe that the universe (in its current incarnation, anyway) existed forever, you know. As for the concept that "life on this earth just happened by chance" being difficult to believe, it helps if you remove the modifier "just." It trivializes the statement, which drains it of much of its gravity.

No one respectable believes in the original "spontaneous generation" idea anymore. But it helps in wrapping one's head around said concept knowing that in laboratory conditions simulating the early earth, period chemicals plus energy (in the form of lightning) produced simple organic substances. Things most likely went uphill from there, for a while, anyway.

Of course, a bunch of scientists zapping petri dishes is not likely to fundamentally alter your belief system. Perhaps science and religion are meant to forever coexist, each meaningless alone, serving as alternatives for one another. Although I'd like to think that someday people can do without religion, but as long as bad things keep happening and constitutions need supporting, I seriously doubt that will come about.

*And on the off-chance that 5c0H returns, I say again: you don't sell more Coca-Cola by insulting Pepsi drinkers.*

----------


## Logos

> Atheism is stupid. There is God, and sorry people; but God is the only true lord.


from this topic:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...254#post301254



> I don't like the book, but I'm not going to insult it. People have their opinions, and you people are rude; expecially the person that called it dumb and stupid.


oops! please re-read the forum rules 5c0H.

----------


## blp

I'm just asking because, as I understand it, regligious discussion, like political discussion, is supposed to be off-limits here unless it's based on a discussion of a specific text. 

Last night there was an interesting documentary on here about the formation of the New Testament. It took centuries for the canon of books to be agreed and there were many others that were excluded, notably the gospels of Peter, Thomas and Mary. One theory about why Peter's gospel was excluded was that it suggested that Christ did not suffer on the cross - which gave the early, persecuted Christians nothing to relate to. Another view has it that the decision about which books to include was based on whether their authors were apostles - but several that are attributed to apostles, such as Revelations (which nearly didn't make it in) and the Gospel of St. Matthew, make no claim in and of themselves to apostolic authorship. 

This kind of thing is one of the reasons why I'm an atheist. I went to a Christian missionary school in Kenya for a year when I was 12 and one of the primary proofs of Christianity they used to put forward was the mere existence of the Bible - which would imply that pretty much any book, including books that contradict the bible, are also true just by virtue of having been written. Pretty dumb, and I know most Christians here can probably do a bit better than that, but the fact that the bible has this awkward genealogy, much of it influenced by politics and circumstance, makes it hard for me to give it much credence. 

There's also the peculiar problem of Christ's sacrifice, to name just one rather contradictory element in the mythology. Slavoj Zizek talks about this better than I can, but I'll try to cobble together his argument from memory since I don't know how I'd find it online. Christ is God, but he is also the son of God. Prior to his sacrifice, God demanded sacrifices from us to atone for our sins. Then, in his boundless generosity, he gave his only son, who was in fact himself, so that we could all be saved just by accepting this sacrifice. In other words, he set up the terms on which we need to be forgiven by him, then simply negated them by sacrificing himself to himself. It's a bit like being offered a 'discount' on the normal price of things so often that, as Zizek puts it, in a separate argument, 'discount' becomes the normal price. Why was any of this necessary? 

Well, I haven't remembered it completely, so I'll try to dig it out when I've got more time. But one of the early theologians, and the first, in fact, to have the idea of a new testament, tried to address this absurdity in the story by rejecting the old testament completely. His idea was that the two gods were separate and that the one who sacrificed himself had saved us from the older, meaner god. This was the only way he could make sense of the whole thing. The Christian elders of the day took up his idea of a new testament, but didn't think much of his rejection of the old one, so they excommunicated him.

As well as believing in god, 5c0H also believes that Milla Jojovich is 'the best actress'.

----------


## Logos

> ....as I understand it, regligious discussion, like political discussion, is supposed to be off-limits here unless it's based on a discussion of a specific text.


Although this specific topic is in the Philosophical Lit area.. from the Religious Texts Forum Rules
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410

"This area is for discussions of specific religious *texts.* _Any other general religious topics started will be subject to Admin or the Moderator's discretion as to whether they remain."_

just wanted to clarify that  :Smile: 
.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"This kind of thing is one of the reasons why I'm an atheist. I went to a Christian missionary school in Kenya for a year when I was 12 and one of the primary proofs of Christianity they used to put forward was the mere existence of the Bible - which would imply that pretty much any book, including books that contradict the bible, are also true just by virtue of having been written. Pretty dumb, and I know most Christians here can probably do a bit better than that, but the fact that the bible has this awkward genealogy, much of it influenced by politics and circumstance, makes it hard for me to give it much credence."

Curious. The experience and history that you quote (including the fact that your "history" was from a television programme, and therefore biassed to make good television, rather than good history,) should make you deeply sceptical about humans, but it need not affect a belief in God.

So you had bad teachers - so human theologians and scholars did not immediately understand what God, or Jesus, were all about - nor do they still. This only shows that humans are inadequate, and unable to comprehend or describe the infinite.

(In idle moments at work, I used to try to describe leaves on a tree I could see from my window, so as to show why a leave was unique. I failed utterly. I could see perfectly well that each leaf was unique, but my language was totally inadequate to explain the experience - even of so tiny a part of the world as a single leaf. So what hope is there for humans in describing God satisfactorily?)

Whether or not you believe in God should depend on what you experience (or otherwise) of the divine, not what you read or hear from others. Other writings or teachings may help to make sense of your experience, but the primary "proof," either way, is within you.

----------


## blp

> Whether or not you believe in God should depend on what you experience (or otherwise) of the divine, not what you read or hear from others. Other writings or teachings may help to make sense of your experience, but the primary "proof," either way, is within you.


And why, Whifflingpin, should you be any less sceptical about your internal processes, when human beings are subject to madness, hallucinations and numerous other self deceptions and delusions, from the very small ('everybody hates/loves me') to the very large ('The Aryans are the master race' 'Iraq has WMD' 'America is the Great Satan')? I must say, I don't think much of the things people 'just know' as proof, especially when it's so often so culturally specific - Christians born Christian just know that Christ is their saviour, Muslims just know that Mohammed is Allah's prophet and so on. A lot of people just know a lot of things that, all put together, are actually mutually exclusive. 

I thought I'd made it clear that my answer was partial. Oh well. The main reason I talked about texts was because this is a literature forum. What part of this television programme do you think might have been slanted to make it 'entertaining'? My point was that the new testament didn't arrive fully formed. Are you suggesting that was a lie? Other than that, the Slavoj Zizek thing is about the central Christian myth (Christ sacrificed himself for our sins) and points out an absurdity in it that seems to me to be a serious flaw in it. 

But since, implicitly, you ask, I have never had an experience I would say was religious.

----------


## Pendragon

> But since, implicitly, you ask, I have never had an experience I would say was religious.


Hi, blp, haven't seen you since our long discussion on the Creationism/Evolution thread.  :Wave:  Trust you are well. I wish to ask you something about your last statement here, as I seem to recall you asking me something similar when I questioned if one should believe what science proclaims to be fact which we cannot ourselves experience. Is this statement, that you have never had a religious experience, enough to say that there cannot be one, since you didn't witness it? Many people are convinced they have, myself included. Now at least the possibly is there that we are all delusional. But that cannot be proven, anymore than I could prove that sub-atomic particles are hooey because the vast majority of us will never actually view them. The possibility also exists that the scientist who discovered them was so desperate to gain fame and had stared into so many microscopes delusion took over. Probably not. Nor can religious experience be so easily dismissed. See who will stand unwavering when the chips are down.  :Smile:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"But since, implicitly, you ask, I have never had an experience I would say was religious."
There we are then - that is a good reason for your being an atheist. As it happens, I did not ask that question, implicitly or otherwise, because you had already stated yourself to be an atheist. Had you had an experience that you considered religious, you would not have been so firm in your atheism. {Edit: just seen Pen's post - I am not implying that you should wait, and eventually a religious experience will come along, or even that there must be such a thing as a valid religious experience. Just because Pen and I perceive some things as divine does not mean that you should.} 

"My point was that the new testament didn't arrive fully formed. Are you suggesting that was a lie?"
Of course not. The finished book may or may not tell you something about God, but the development of the book only tells you something about humans.

"but the fact that the bible has this awkward genealogy, much of it influenced by politics and circumstance, makes it hard for me to give it much credence."
It should not be surprising that the early generations of Christians took some time to formulate their beliefs, or that there were many different views expressed, which were ultimately rejected by mainstream Christians. Why should that undermine the conclusions they came to? The conclusions (as embodied in the writings that were finally accepted into the New Testament) should be judged for themselves. 

"the Slavoj Zizek thing is about the central Christian myth (Christ sacrificed himself for our sins) and points out an absurdity in it that seems to me to be a serious flaw in it. "
Just so. There is a doctrine that makes no sense to you on its own merits, which is a good reason for rejecting the faith of which it is a major part. 
For my part, I have never heard of Slavoj Zizek, but this doctrine is one of the three that I found unacceptable when I decided that I could no longer call myself a Christian. I took the line that the it made no sense for God to behave in that way, so therefore that was not a sensible doctrine about God. This is not the same as saying, "such a doctrine about God is nonsense, so God must be nonsense."



"And why, Whifflingpin, should you be any less sceptical about your internal processes, when human beings are subject to madness, hallucinations and numerous other self deceptions and delusions,"
Please yourself, of course. Not being Descartes or Wittgenstein I can only say that I prefer my own madnesses and illusions to those offered by others. I think you should prefer your own to mine, or any one else's. 

I am not sure why you have taken offence when I say that you should make your own judgement on what to believe, on the basis of your own experience, rather than the teaching of others.

I can see why bad teaching might put you off the subject being taught, but when you are, as you have shown yourself to be, able to separate the teaching from the subject, then the bad teaching should no longer be a reason for rejecting the subject. There might be other good reasons, of course, for rejecting the opinions of the teachers.


*** *** ***

"What part of this television programme do you think might have been slanted to make it 'entertaining'?"
I did not see the programme, but any such progamme is limited in the breadth and depth of the scholarship that can be displayed. Your account includes the phrase "One theory is..." That theory may be totally false (or not.) There may (or may not) be fifty other theories to account for the same fact, but you were only presented with one or two. So, it is my opinion (reject it if you like) that such a programme is likely to have a particular slant and will be intended to be entertaining as much as informative.

However - one specific thing I can say purely on the basis of your comments. The programme seems to have appeared to you as a kind of "shocking new revelation about the corruptedness of Christians." 
In fact, the development of Christian thought, the defining of the New Testament, and the many doctrines that were around in the early Christian centuries, are bread-and-butter subjects to Christians. They are known about (in greater or lesser detail) by any Sunday School teacher - or such was the case, at least, when I was a Sunday School teacher, four decades ago. 
So, if your programme was implying that its subject was, in substance, new or deliberately hidden from ordinary Christians or others, then that would have been an unjustifiable bias.

----------


## Mason

Even though I identify with atheism, I try not to label myself as one. 

For me atheism is the same as a drawback, I use it to recede and examine other viewpoints in an unbiased manner.

----------


## Stephanie B.

> Hi toni!  What a wonderful idea for a thread! 
> Well, i believe in atheism for several reasons, and ill make em brief and concise this time...I'm trying to get out of my bad "excessive use of laguage"/"rant" habits 
> 
> 1) There is more evidence for how and why natural phenomenon(sp?) occur in the field of science then religion.
> 2) Beliefs of "god" differ between religions. But I'll refer this reason specifically to more patriarchal religions. I refuse to worship or follow without question any man or male figure. 
> 3) I have been raised in an Atheist family. It rubs off.
> 4)Nowadays most religion is presented as so commercial. Vegas churches, christian rock, where's the soul in it? How do you expect me to take anything seriosuly that is presented in tacky neon lights? Theyre beliefs, not beer ads. 
> 5) Religion can be very hypocritical. Priests mollesting young boys, corrupt "donation" collectors. The only way to be a hypocrate when youre an atheist is to secretly believe in God. Not only is that not harmful to others, but i have never even heard of a case of hypocritical atheists....
> 6) Same reason i never fell for Santa. When there is someone who can see your every move, feel your every thought, for gods sakes(no pun here folks) dont trust them!. 
> ...



Not every single catholic priest has mollested a young boy and not every donation collector is corrupt. So is it that you don't trust religious figures? I'm not making excuses for these people but I'm not perfect and neither are you. 
BY the way if you have ever gone to a church that truely believes in God there is plenty of soul. Maybe you are just looking in the wrong direction.

----------


## Triskele

Stephanie B.

"BY the way if you have ever gone to a church that truely believes in God there is plenty of soul. Maybe you are just looking in the wrong direction."

or, maybe they are merely looking at a different style of religion, some people find comfort in tradition, in regularity, and i deep symbolism. 

still, it is true that much of current religion is comercialized and politicized, there is a lot of industrialized and mainstream religions meant to feel good rather than inspire thought and good will.

also, it must be stated that there is a place in society for religion, it is clearly a deep part of many peoples lives, whether as a comfortable tradition, or an earth shaking testament of devotion. religions, whether or not there is a god, have exerted a great deal of good on the world, the credo of many religions "love your neighbor as yourself" or however you want to phrase it, has aided in making flourishing communities based on family and love rather than military advantage. but one must take the good with the bad, the dark side of religions, ALL religions, is that fanatic devotions disregards others not a part of that specific ideology.

just a coupla thoughts

----------


## blp

Hello Pen. Scientists don't have an experience and then just ask people to believe it - if they want to call it science. They get it peer reviewed by other scientists. Further generations of scientists then study their results, repeat their tests and observations and a lot of them try very hard to disprove the original findings. I suppose it's just possible that the whole thing could be a gigantic conspiracy to get us to belive completely untrue things, but, like...really? And, other than that, which chips do you have in mind? I'm not much one for standing unwavering. If new and better informaton arrives, I'll change my position accordingly. 

I didn't take offense, Whifflingpin. I respect the fact that you've moved on from Christianity having perceived fallacies in the doctrine. I didn't find the programme a 'blinding revelation' (sounds suspiciously like a religious experience in itself  :Wink: ), just tried to use it as an example of how what forms the basis of a lot of people's faith was constructed almost arbitrarily as a result of the socio-political conditions of the day - as opposed to being the immutable word of truth and law.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Whifflingpin. I respect the fact that you've moved on from Christianity having perceived fallacies in the doctrine. "
Hmm - thanks, but don't be too respectful. Christians have always been aware of the paradox - in fact St Paul proclaimed it - so it is not a matter of being clever enough to see the "fallacy" merely a choice of accepting it or not.

One relevant passage from Paul runs:
"For it is written, I [God] will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent....For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

Translate "Jews" into deists like me, i.e. those whose idea of God does not, for example, include His self-sacrifce. Translate "Greeks" into atheists like you, i.e. those who seek explanations within the scope of human reason. You then see that Paul is aware of our arguments, and believes that we have got it wrong. 

In other writings of Paul, notably his letter to the Romans, but also elsewhere, you will find an answer to Zizek's point. 

I think what I am saying is that the doctrine is internally consistent, and not "flawed" in its logic. It is just that I don't happen to believe it.

----------


## Pendragon

> Hello Pen. Scientists don't have an experience and then just ask people to believe it - if they want to call it science. They get it peer reviewed by other scientists. Further generations of scientists then study their results, repeat their tests and observations and a lot of them try very hard to disprove the original findings. I suppose it's just possible that the whole thing could be a gigantic conspiracy to get us to belive completely untrue things, but, like...really? And, other than that, which chips do you have in mind? I'm not much one for standing unwavering. If new and better informaton arrives, I'll change my position accordingly.


Whoa, now. I wasn't asking you to change your position. I meant see who hangs on to their religious belief when trouble arrises. Like the girl at Columnbine High with the gun to her head who still refused to say she didn't believe in God. That's strong belief, she was shot dead for it. That's all I meant. I said it before, and I'll say it again. If *I* convince someone that they are wrong, they will always wonder if they are believing in "The Gospel According to Pen". But if they become convinced on their *own*, the words of the Bible finally *mean something to them*, they they are not dependent on me. Have a good holiday, mate!  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

I like Pen's point - one of the difficulties in discussing the topic of atheism is that it seems that atheists often want Christians to provide a convincing argument for our belief in God. That can't be done - at least from my limited ability to argue. I think the same is true for atheism - a convincing argument cannot be made to me to accept the validity of the position. Why is this? I think this goes back to a couple words that have been tossed around in this thread - "belief" and "choice." Ultimately, neither system of belief can convince the other because each involves a _choice_ to accept a particular view of the world - a view chosen for a variety of reasons - personal make-up, upbringing, life experience and personality, society and education. All we can really do is clarify for each other our position, but convince? More powerful things than mere argumentation must be in play to make our arguments convincing.

----------


## Rossiya

.: edited :.

----------


## dramasnot6

come on guys, please state some support of your opinions and be a bit more considerate and aware that others have beliefs other then your own that deserve agknowledgement and respect.

----------


## Pendragon

Drama, I know not what to say when this is the second time the "so-called" religious have blatantly insulted the atheists. I once said I didn't care what someone believed, the insults were wrong. I stand on that. No Atheist is ever going to believe in a God whose servants cannot have basic manners. I ask again, how are you doing the work of God with the tongue of a snake?

----------


## dramasnot6

Very well put Pendragon. I really respect the way you phrase your opinions and beliefs and always maintain the manner of a true , admirable gentleman. You are a wonderful example to us all, atheist or not.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hear, hear, Pendragon - well said, Drame. Regardless of my beliefs or yours, Pen, I can only be grateful for the privilege of debating with you, alongside or against.

----------


## blp

> I like Pen's point - one of the difficulties in discussing the topic of atheism is that it seems that atheists often want Christians to provide a convincing argument for our belief in God. That can't be done - at least from my limited ability to argue. I think the same is true for atheism - a convincing argument cannot be made to me to accept the validity of the position. Why is this? I think this goes back to a couple words that have been tossed around in this thread - "belief" and "choice." Ultimately, neither system of belief can convince the other because each involves a _choice_ to accept a particular view of the world - a view chosen for a variety of reasons - personal make-up, upbringing, life experience and personality, society and education. All we can really do is clarify for each other our position, but convince? More powerful things than mere argumentation must be in play to make our arguments convincing.


Yeah. But you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to stop trying to convince people too, as the obsessive compulsive profusion of debates like this on these forums shows. And each one's replete with people saying there's no way in the world anyone can say anything to convince them to change what they believe. 

Because of this, I started a thread on another forum once asking for stories how people changing what they believed. It was nice not to be having an argument for a change. Three people responded. One was a Jewish man who'd lost his faith when he visited Auschwitz. Another was a Catholic who'd left the church, but not abandoned her belief, when she needed to get out of an abusive marriage. So, yes, big stuff and no one showed up saying, 'I was a devout and pious virgin planning to take the veil until I read a quote from Richard Dawkins in an online literature forum. Now I'm out every night until 3 and I've lost count of the boys and girls I've bedded.' 

The notion of choice in all this is odd though. I'm not sure it really plays that much of a part. I think if I could choose, I'd choose to believe in God - a nice, unconditionally loving one, ideally. I'm not particularly wowed and not at all comforted by the idea of a limitless, random universe, but everything seems to me to point to it. As you say, Redzeppelin, a lot of circumstances play a part in forming beliefs and we don't have a choice of those circumstances. But it's precisely the circumstantial causation of people's beliefs that makes them turn to sand in my hand. In this sense, atheism is almost not belief at all, but lack of belief.

----------


## Poetess

> I fully agree with you, 5c0H, but I must tell you something: I have read in an interview that our lovely Milla Jovovich doesn't believe in God, she just believes that _"the energy of the dead remains,"_ or something like that. So, does it mean she believes in the soul, but not in God?  And who created that "energy"?
> 
> Anyway, Milla: I do believe in both soul and God, and I agree with your parents on politics (I can be considered a "Republican" and I'm a staunch anti-Communist), but...: *Не могу жить без тебя.*


Well, I don`t believe it`s stupid. It is just another form or realizing existence, worshipping, and believing.
If you believe in God, others don`t. Let them, help them, don`t be harsh on them.
Someday, all of us will know some truth.

I do help Atheists the way THEY think. Like, if they ask for my help, I would help them according to THEIR beliefs, not mine.

Let`s not despise or hate what we are not.

----------


## Rossiya

> Let`s not despise or hate what we are not.


I don't hate Atheists, for your information, and there are Atheists too who ridicule believers.

And a question: if someone do not believe in God, can his conscience be the same? If for someone God does "not" exist, who is going to punish him for his wrongdoing?

But it's funny you talk about hate... What about the hate against your Jewish neighbours?  :Crash: 

Bye

----------


## RobinHood3000

> There are Atheists too who ridicule believers.


That doesn't excuse the converse.




> And a question: if someone do not believe in God, can his conscience be the same? If for someone God does "not" exist, who is going to punish him for his wrongdoing?


It can. The belief that lack of a God means lack of a conscience, if you'll excuse my bluntness, is a very primitive and convenient (for purposes of debate) way of thinking.

I don't believe in a higher power to punish me for my wrongdoing, but the lack of a divine punisher does not automatically create in me the desire for wrongdoing. I don't rape/murder/steal for a simpler reason - they're not nice things to do. Empathy, not fear of punishment, is what keeps me in line.

----------


## Rossiya

> I don't believe in a higher power to punish me for my wrongdoing, but the lack of a divine punisher does not automatically create in me the desire for wrongdoing. I don't rape/murder/steal for a simpler reason - they're not nice things to do. Empathy, not fear of punishment, is what keeps me in line.


If God doesn't exist, who determines what evil or good is? Without God, all would be relative, so evil and good.

Empathy, says you? And what about abortion? Many people don't seem to feel many empathy towards unborn children...

Who is going to stop people who have no empathy? No, pal, God is necessary, God must exist. Without God this world simply has no point... (it's not surprising the rate of suicides is much greater among Atheists...). If God would not exist, evil would be unpunished and good without reward, and therefore justice would not exist! And that means: It would be just the same doing bad or good things.

You say lack of a God doesn't mean lack of a conscience? So, who created your conscience? Without God, nothing would be right or wrong, because that a religious concept.

I think many Atheist are Atheists just because of convenience. Atheist are too proud to admit they have a Creator, and they have to obey some "rules." Atheism is a utilitarian way of thinking.

Bye

----------


## RobinHood3000

Hrmm. That wasn't very nice, but somehow, I doubt your conscience is bothering you much for that.




> If God doesn't exist, who determines what evil or good is? Without God, all would be relative, so evil and good.


_I_ determine what evil and good are, for me. The only person's actions I can deem to control are my own, and hence I need only determine what good and evil are for myself. As far as those are concerned, my definition of good is "that which produces the optimum combination of health/happiness/well-being for myself others while demanding minimal sacrifice on the part of said others." Evil, of course, is the opposite. That much, at least, can indeed be called utilitarian. You say it like it's a bad thing.




> Empathy, says you? And what about abortion? Many people don't seem to feel many empathy towards unborn children...


I'm not many people. I'm one person. Your choice of topic seems a bit arbitrary, but fine, abortion it is. I think that abortion should be avoided if possible - that's well and good. But the planet is grossly overpopulated. That particular problem, I'm afraid, is somewhat more demanding and considerably worse. Abortion never rubbed me the right way - but neither do a lot of things that are a lot worse.




> Who is going to stop people who have no empathy? No, pal, God is necessary, God must exist. Without God this world simply has no point... (it's not surprising the rate of suicides is much greater among Atheists...). If God would not exist, evil would be unpunished and good without reward, and therefore justice would not exist! And that means: It would be just the same doing bad or good things.


First of all, statistics would be nice. Second of all, the necessity of God (or gods) occurs strictly on a case-by-case basis. I have no delusions about trying to strip you of your religious identity, and I seriously doubt you have any intent to do the same to me. You're making an awful lot of assumptions here: that people without empathy (a demographic that includes theists as much as atheists) will behave any differently for fear of God; that existence is pointless without God, which I contest vigorously; and that evil (which you have yet to define) is punished only by God. Can you honestly look me in the eye (or, y'know, in my avatar's eyes) and tell me I don't believe in justice? I don't doubt you can, but if you do, you'll be wrong.




> You say lack of a God doesn't mean lack of a conscience? So, who created your conscience? Without God, nothing would be right or wrong, because that a religious concept.


Right or wrong, a religious concept? Not so. Like I said, _I_ create my conscience, and it's serving me just fine. The assumption that God is the only source of right and wrong appears again, and is equally mistaken.




> I think many Atheist are Atheists just because of convenience. Atheist are too proud to admit they have a Creator, and they have to obey some "rules." Atheism is a utilitarian way of thinking.
> 
> Bye


Think it if you like, but it makes the belief no more valid. I may be proud to be an atheist, but I'm not the only one with humility issues. I have rules, just like you do. They're not set in stone, obviously, (pun intended) but that's what I like about them. As I live life and experience new things or encounter new arguments, I can change them, tweaking the foundation for my life.

Have a nice day.

----------


## dramasnot6

> If God doesn't exist, who determines what evil or good is? Without God, all would be relative, so evil and good.
> 
> Empathy, says you? And what about abortion? Many people don't seem to feel many empathy towards unborn children...
> 
> 
> Bye


 You are assuming all atheists share the same political beliefs here, what is with that? Atheism is the lack of belief of one concept, you can not assume all atheists believe the same thing for all areas. 
I have known plenty of atheists who are both pro-choice and pro-life.




> Think it if you like, but it makes the belief no more valid. I may be proud to be an atheist, but I'm not the only one with humility issues. I have rules, just like you do. They're not set in stone, obviously, (pun intended) but that's what I like about them. As I live life and experience new things or encounter new arguments, I can change them, tweaking the foundation for my life.


Well put Robin. Just because someone does not conform to a pre-made set of rules doesnt mean they cant create their own. In a way it's a braver path to take, as you create your own rules based on experience which is far more spontaneous and scary then following rules already there. Designing your life and beliefs based on your own experience and feelings can make one feel much more in touch and control of their life and mind. You mentioned "punishment"earlier i believe. That one must suffer to distinguish what is good. Religious beliefs are not what determine personal suffering and happiness. Everyone suffers just because they are human, everyone laughs just because they are human. Everyone has the right to pick and shape the contents of their value and belief system because they are human. Certain beliefs do not deprive anyone of any aspect of experience and living, they merely shape how we live them. How we laugh, how we suffer. Sometimes our thoughts when we do so. If you try to change someone elses beliefs without their consent, you arent giving them something they are lacking. You are depriving them of part of themselves. No belief will ever be seen as superior by all eyes in the world because all eyes see and interpret differently. It's what makes the human experience beautiful, because we are all different and yet the same. Of all the truths in the world, that, and that we will die someday, are to me the most real and irreversable. But of course, thats my belief, you may have another.

----------


## Poetess

> I don't hate Atheists, for your information, and there are Atheists too who ridicule believers.
> 
> And a question: if someone do not believe in God, can his conscience be the same? If for someone God does "not" exist, who is going to punish him for his wrongdoing?


You are defending God, I suppose. Why did you ask that question? The one to punish them for their wrongdoings is definitely God.  :Smile: 





> But it's funny you talk about hate... What about the hate against your Jewish neighbours?


Did I ever tell you I hate Jewish? Please, don`t accuse directly.
And please, do not mix politics with religion, because when we say "Atheism" we refer to beliefs. Plus, my hate for 'some' people isn`t because they are Jewish or or or, it`s because of some social acts.
I am muslim, I have Jewish friends, I have an Armenian boyfriend, my granny is Maronitte Christian, and best friends are all Christians, Sunnas Atheists, communists and so on.


Back to religion, my religion forbids me to hate or despise anyother religion or sect.





> Bye



Take care.

----------


## dramasnot6

> If God doesn't exist, who determines what evil or good is? Without God, all would be relative, so evil and good.
> 
> Bye


Also, let me ask you, is your argument against atheism that they dont believe in anything or that they dont believe in the same God? For example, if tomorrow i was to convert to Hinduism, would you be satisfied that was i following some sort of a religious "path? Even if its not yours? Your argument is not only assuming many things not common to all atheists, but narrowing religious belief to be strictly that of your own. There are hundreds of religions and moral standards, all with different definitions of whats wrong and right.

----------


## The Jackle

Even if god exists or not, religion has the benefit of stating that there are consequences to our every action and a reward for being good. However man (and woman) has over history betrayed religion and used it to inflict there will upon others going to the extent of war and acts beyond reason and logic. Yet on the hole religion has, and will, serve us to keep control and order and moderate the selfishness and evils of the masses. The arguments between atheists and those whom believe in god will not abide to an conclusion, for the simple reason of faith. A Christian has faith in the priest being correct and an atheist has faith in the scientist being correct. Both have valid arguments that are equal on every level and hence no one can ever become victorious and the only real action that bares result is the stupid mud flinging between the two groups, trying to slur the others reputation in an attempt to gain some more support. I can only argue with the following quote on which is better:



> The chances of there being a god or not are 50/50. However, the consequences of us being wrong and the risk of eternal damnation are so great it is the safest option to believe in god and hope that your correct

----------


## RobinHood3000

Pascal's Wager, is it? How kindly would a higher power look upon those who believed in its existence only because it was the safe thing to do?

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I don't believe in a higher power to punish me for my wrongdoing, but the lack of a divine punisher does not automatically create in me the desire for wrongdoing. I don't rape/murder/steal for a simpler reason - they're not nice things to do. Empathy, not fear of punishment, is what keeps me in line.


The argument is not that the lack of a "divine punisher" (effectively quotifying Rossiya here) leads you to "rape/murder/steal," or creates in you a "desire for wrongdoing." The argument is that without an objective source for morality, there isn't any great, valid, binding reason for people to behave one way as opposed to another (murder, for example). 

“In line?” Where is the line? Who established it, and why is it any more legitimate or needing to be followed than any other?





> If God doesn't exist, who determines what evil or good is? Without God, all would be relative, so evil and good . . . Without God, nothing would be right or wrong, because that a religious concept.


Quite so. 




> I determine what evil and good are, for me. The only person's actions I can deem to control are my own, and hence I need only determine what good and evil are for myself.


And if you (being anybody) determine that murdering someone is perfectly “good” in your mind, is it at all morally wrong (in any real sense, outside of your own opinion)? If you think it is, why is it?




> As far as those are concerned, my definition of good is "that which produces the optimum combination of health/happiness/well-being for myself others while demanding minimal sacrifice on the part of said others."


Why is that any more valid or invalid than Ghandi’s personal definition? Or Hitler’s? Or Mother Theresa’s? Or Stalin’s? 

It clearly isn’t. You have an opinion/preference/belief/definition about what “good” is and how you want to operate, and lots of other people have conflicting others. Isn’t any value judgment on any of them mere subjective opining?




> That much, at least, can indeed be called utilitarian. You say it like it's a bad thing.


Of course it is. Hitler deciding that exterminating the Jewish race from the earth was the best thing to do, and he went about doing it. He was quite the utilitarian. 





> I think that abortion should be avoided if possible - that's well and good. But the planet is grossly overpopulated. That particular problem, I'm afraid, is somewhat more demanding and considerably worse.


And thus, the moral aspect of the abortion issue (whether it is deemed morally correct or wrong) is given less interest, and the utilitarian aspect is favored, because the planet is overpopulated. There is a reason why Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was a satire, you know. 




> First of all, statistics would be nice.


“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”




> Like I said, I create my conscience, and it's serving me just fine.


Creating his own conscience also served Jeffery Dahmer just fine. 




> The assumption that God is the only source of right and wrong appears again, and is equally mistaken.


It isn’t an assumption, Robin. It is a philosophical doctrine that theists and atheists alike agree on.




> Well put Robin. Just because someone does not conform to a pre-made set of rules doesnt mean they cant create their own.


Of course they can create anything they want. See the list of personages above for a good idea of what “rules” humans can create for themselves. The point is not that you don’t have creativity, it is that whatever rule you create is not objectively correct or morally valid or binding. And everybody’s is then found to be in the same mold. It follows therefore that Ghandi’s beliefs, Hitler’s beliefs, Mill’s beliefs, Aristotle’s beliefs . . . they are all just subjective ideas created by those people. None are “right” or “wrong,” but they are rather valued according to how many people ascribe to them. 

Which is, of course, untrue.




> If you try to change someone elses beliefs without their consent, you arent giving them something they are lacking. You are depriving them of part of themselves.


And it would have been so wrong to attempt to change Pol Pot’s beliefs, wouldn’t it? We wouldn’t want to deprive that brave, creative soul of part of himself, surely we wouldn’t.




> But of course, thats my belief, you may have another.


And neither one is better than the other. 




> Pascal's Wager, is it? How kindly would a higher power look upon those who believed in its existence only because it was the safe thing to do?


I agree with you (I think), “Pascal’s Wager” is a joke.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> The argument is not that the lack of a "divine punisher" (effectively quotifying Rossiya here) leads you to "rape/murder/steal," or creates in you a "desire for wrongdoing." The argument is that without an objective source for morality, there isn't any great, valid, binding reason for people to behave one way as opposed to another (murder, for example).


Great? No. Binding? No. Valid? Yes. Most of the people you name (Jeffrey Dahmer, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) would probably not have acted differently with a belief in divine retribution. Well, so far as I would suspect, anyway. I also feel it is worth mentioning that Hitler believed in Christianity. Not any kind of recognizably benevolent Christianity, but Christianity nonetheless.




> In line? Where is the line? Who established it, and why is it any more legitimate or needing to be followed than any other?


People do - or, expressed differently, society does. They're the ones affected by my actions, yes? Therefore, they (to an extent) exert influence on my belief system. If I go on a genocidal killing spree, society reacts accordingly. Retroactively, perhaps, or ineffectively, but they will. I suppose you could say that society would punish my wrongdoing if I did it, but my motivation for good works is for society's sake, not mine. Not sure if that makes total sense, but that's mostly because the thought just occurred to me. Probably still needs tweaking.




> And if you (being anybody) determine that murdering someone is perfectly good in your mind, is it at all morally wrong (in any real sense, outside of your own opinion)? If you think it is, why is it?


Excellent question, but I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for. Am I to answer in terms of my personal philosophy?




> Of course it is. Hitler deciding that exterminating the Jewish race from the earth was the best thing to do, and he went about doing it. He was quite the utilitarian.


Utilitarian is a broader descriptor than that. I prefer to place a higher negative value on genocide than Hitler did, placing it firmly out of the question in terms of producing the "optimum combination of well-being."




> There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.


A Mark Twain quote, pithy and applicable in certain situations. But what it means is that statistics can be twisted to mean just about anything. That doesn't mean that assertions can go unsupported.




> Creating his own conscience also served Jeffery Dahmer just fine.


"Serial murder" does not equate to "just fine."




> It isnt an assumption, Robin. It is a philosophical doctrine that theists and atheists alike agree on.


Atheists agree? Which atheists?




> I agree with you (I think), Pascals Wager is a joke.


Agreed.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The notion of choice in all this is odd though. I'm not sure it really plays that much of a part. I think if I could choose, I'd choose to believe in God - a nice, unconditionally loving one, ideally. I'm not particularly wowed and not at all comforted by the idea of a limitless, random universe, but everything seems to me to point to it. As you say, Redzeppelin, a lot of circumstances play a part in forming beliefs and we don't have a choice of those circumstances. But it's precisely the circumstantial causation of people's beliefs that makes them turn to sand in my hand. In this sense, atheism is almost not belief at all, but lack of belief.


Hmm...I hate to intervene in this lively debate, but I've been absent long enough to have some comments come between blp's response to my last post. Whenever I bring up the issue of choice in terms of what people believe, I get a similar response, usually from atheists that "choice" isn't really involved in their atheism. Such a response implies a sort of mindset that says, essentially, "the evidence for atheism (or against the existence of God) is so incontrovertible that I have no choice but to [what verb should I use if not "choose" or the oft debated "believe"?] accept (is this term radically different from believe?) atheism." But would the atheist accept the same kind of logic: I wish I could stop believing in God - life would be less restrictive and guilt-inducing - but "everything seems to point" to God's existence, so it's not really a "belief" in God but a lack of belief in randomness. Huh?

We _choose_ what we believe. The numerous statments in this thread about how atheism isn't a "belief" that people "choose" bewilders me, because there are numerous ways to view this world - and, according to post-modernism, they're all equally valid. How can any world-view be as _inevitable_ as atheists seem to suggest theirs is in their choice of [or denial of] terminology.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Really? I rather like either "choose" or "believe."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Really? I rather like either "choose" or "believe."


Well thank goodness, Robin - I appreciate that.  :Smile:  I think _belief_ is so central to this entire discussion that I can't understand why people want to dismiss the idea that we all _choose_ what we _believe_ - we may have many extenuating circumstances in our lives that can _influence_ how we choose - but we still choose. History is full of atheists and Christians who chose to "switch sides" in this debate.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Cheers - part of the reason I switched to atheism was that I wanted to be able to choose my own beliefs (micromanager at heart). Who really has only one choice in their beliefs?

----------


## Poetess

> I don't rape/murder/steal for a simpler reason - they're not nice things to do. Empathy, not fear of punishment, is what keeps me in line.




I admire that.
Let`s not only ask who would punish Atheists for their wrongdoings.
Man, there are loads and loads of those who believe in God, kill, rape, steal and abuse.



So, my theory says, Don`t believe in God if you want -since someday you might be changed-, but do act healthy so that we all live happy

----------


## Triskele

i think that empathy/social concience is really more of a necessity of human society. at one time it may not have been necessary, with tribes consisting of primarily related people, the relationship was familial, but with larger cities, and huge population masses, the social concience that prevents us from hedonistic plundering of the world, is what keeps humanity a communal species.

----------


## Rossiya

Hi, I have so little time, this is my last post here awhile, sorry if I cannot answer everybody.  :Frown:  




> Also, let me ask you, is your argument against atheism that they dont believe in anything or that they dont believe in the same God?


It is rather that they don't believe in anything, there is only one God, called with different names, but He is the same God.




> For example, if tomorrow i was to convert to Hinduism, would you be satisfied that was i following some sort of a religious "path? Even if its not yours?


Yes, I would be satisfied, even if it's not my "path."




> Your argument is not only assuming many things not common to all atheists, but narrowing religious belief to be strictly that of your own.


No, it isn't. I talked the whole time about God, not about Christianism or some specific religion.  :Wink: 

But maybe you are right not all Atheists think the same way and many of them would disagree with each other in moral questions, thanks for this point.




> There are hundreds of religions and moral standards, all with different definitions of whats wrong and right.


The moral standards of all thouse religions are not that "different." Your idea, wrong and right are that relative, even among different religions, is a part of the Atheism. I am not surprised Atheists follow moral relativism.




> Hrmm. That wasn't very nice, but somehow, I doubt your conscience is bothering you much for that.


What wasn't very nice? If you mean my comments, I was just saying my opinion and trying to bring up some reasons.




> _I_ determine what evil and good are, for me.


You see? Moral relativism. For you, evil and good are "decided" by oneself, there is no "superior power" who says what's right or wrong, only you decides and so you make a tailor-made conscience. Then it is not moral, that's utilitarism. You cannot decide or define evil and good, you cannot make your own moral rules and your own religion. That may be very practical and easy, but it's doubtless self-deception. Why? Because if we have to admit that your OWN relativism is "for you" right, that could only mean that evil and good are relative concepts, and they are not!!




> The only person's actions I can deem to control are my own, and hence I need only determine what good and evil are for myself.


You cannot make your own rules! That's convenience.




> As far as those are concerned, my definition of good is "that which produces the optimum combination of health/happiness/well-being for myself others while demanding minimal sacrifice on the part of said others." Evil, of course, is the opposite.


I think your definition of good suits rather the concept of hedonism...
The denition of good (I think you asked about it) is: "Behaviour and thoughts that are morraly right." And you will ask: "What is right and wrong?" Right and wrong were written by God.

What if there is something that "produces a benefit for yourself" but is damaging for other? What would tell you your tailor-made conscience? It would propably tell you to make the best thing for YOURSELF (egotism). My religious conscience would tell me to do the MORAL thing, not my own profit, but the morally right thing, even if it is not good for my interests, and if I wouldn't do, my conscience would bother me. Would your conscience bother you? I don't know, tell me. So, that's what I think, I really hope you don't get offended by my openness.




> That much, at least, can indeed be called utilitarian. You say it like it's a bad thing.


It is. What if someone who is poor decides that he can steal a bank, because he needs the money? That would be very utilitarian, he did it because it was good for him. Utilitarism lead us to the idea _"end justify the means,"_ what of course is morally wrong.




> I'm not many people. I'm one person. Your choice of topic seems a bit arbitrary, but fine, abortion it is. I think that abortion should be avoided if possible - that's well and good. But the planet is grossly overpopulated. That particular problem, I'm afraid, is somewhat more demanding and considerably worse. Abortion never rubbed me the right way - but neither do a lot of things that are a lot worse.


Someone said that _"there is no theoretical Atheists, only practical ones..."_




> I have no delusions about trying to strip you of your religious identity, and I seriously doubt you have any intent to do the same to me.


You're right in this point, I have no intention to convert you and you could no possible make me an Atheist.




> You're making an awful lot of assumptions here: that people without empathy (a demographic that includes theists as much as atheists) will behave any differently for fear of God;


Why only for fear of God? Why not for love to God? ;-)

But I think it is so: some people obey law not because they love "law & order", but because they fear punishment.




> that existence is pointless without God, which I contest vigorously;


Can you explain what sense would have existence without God, without the soul? If when you die you stop forever to exist, what meaning and sense would have existence?

Oh, please, don't tell me you don't believe in God but you believe in "the energy of the dead" like Milla Jovovich...




> and that evil (which you have yet to define) is punished only by God. Can you honestly look me in the eye (or, y'know, in my avatar's eyes) and tell me I don't believe in justice? I don't doubt you can, but if you do, you'll be wrong.


No, I'm not going to doubt you believe in justice, but I doubt only, how your concept of justice is, I don't know it.




> Right or wrong, a religious concept? Not so. Like I said, _I_ create my conscience, and it's serving me just fine.


Yes, you created your own conscience, your own rules, your own moral. You created a tailor-made conscience, yes. And OF COURSE it's serving you fine, that is what it is all about, convenience. You are therefore not doing the "morally right thing", you are just doing the practical suitable thing for your own interests.

If you want to fornicate, you have only to make a new rule who says: "It is perfectly alright, I'm not hurting anyone and the other person want to make it too," and ready, you can sleep around and your conscience is not going to bother you.

I see it like a dictatorship, you rule your own conscience with full power and you make your own rules, cool! But that doesn't mean your rules are actually right.




> The assumption that God is the only source of right and wrong appears again, and is equally mistaken.


Of course God is the unique source of right and wrong, truth is not relative.




> I have rules, just like you do.


Yes, but you made your own rules; I didn't, I cannot change the rules, they were given to me.




> They're not set in stone, obviously, (pun intended) but that's what I like about them.


Of course you like it, I fully understand. You can make new rules and change them whenever you want to. Just imagine a country where the thieves could change the law and make that it allows them to steal.




> As I live life and experience new things or encounter new arguments, I can change them, tweaking the foundation for my life.


Oh, man, I wrote my last statement without reading this. So, I was right, you like your way because you can change anything to your convenience, you admit it!




> Have a nice day.


Thanks, you as well. By the way, I have to ask you: Is my English acceptable, mediocre, bad, good, terrible or how?

Bye.
Merry Christmas time.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pascal's Wager, is it? How kindly would a higher power look upon those who believed in its existence only because it was the safe thing to do?


Did I not always say that "scared religion" was "no religion", because if you remove the source of fear the source of piety also goes? No, don't use belief in God as a "fire escape", or fear of punishment, or hope of gain. As Robin says, what higher power would feel truly worshiped by someone with those ends? Put it in human terms. I'm a big guy, strong, and deadly with a knife. What if I were also rich? I might have to wonder whom was a friend because they were afraid of me and whom because they were sponging off me. I'd want a friend who liked me for me.  :Smile:

----------


## RobinHood3000

Okay, Rossiya, there's a lot to discuss here, so if you don't mind, I'm going to make two posts: one general, and one specific. I'm a little short on time today, myself, so the specific one may end up coming later. I hope that's all right.

Before I forget, your English is pretty good. As far as I could tell, it sounded like your first language, so kudos.

When I said that my idea of good and evil was the "optimum combination of well-being for myself and others," I should have mentioned that I place a higher value on the well-being (I hope you don't mind, I'm going to shorten "health/happiness/well-being" to just "well-being" - they're all pretty broad terms, anyway) of others versus myself. A lot of it is more on a practical level than a moral one, although the moral stems from the practical. To take your bankrobbing example, I don't rob banks because it benefits me (assuming I get away with it, which is a whole another IF altogether), but only at the EXPENSE of others. Therefore, regarding society as a whole, it would be better for me not to rob the bank, so I'm above-average in well-being and everybody with money in the bank (to say nothing of the bank itself) stay happy, as opposed to making everybody associated with the bank unhappy just so one person (me) can be happy. Is that more palatable?

To extend this to the fornication example, I wouldn't do that outside of marriage (and have no intent of doing so) because it's potentially detrimental to my physical and social well-being as well as that of my fellow fornicator. By the same logic, I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. - because it's harmful, to my health and the health of those around me.

Oh, and also: hard as it may be to wrap one's head around, I don't believe in anything after death. Or, more accurately, I believe in nothing. It's a depressing thought (scares the willies out of me), but as the most logical and natural extension of my beliefs, it would be hypocritical for me to think anything else. So no, I'm not in the same camp as Milla Jovovich (thank - er...that's the trouble with atheism, there's no grateful oaths).

I'll try and talk more later, but this should be enough to continue the conversation on until then.

Happy Winter-een-mas, Rossiya.

ADDED: Oh, and when I said "that wasn't very nice," I was referring to the last paragraph of the post to which I was responding. It rubbed me the wrong way, it sounded as if you presumed to know my motives, is all.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Most of the people you name (Jeffrey Dahmer, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) would probably not have acted differently with a belief in divine retribution.


Where did I state or imply that they would? My argument is not that they would have acted differently  my argument is that by identifying objectively valid moral values, we can be sure that their actions were wrong (even when the persons themselves were convinced that their actions were right).




> I also feel it is worth mentioning that Hitler believed in Christianity.


I specifically chose Hitler for this very reason, hoping that someone would mention this. The irreconcilable incongruity between Hitlers actions and the Christian faith only serves to further my argument. With a grasp of moral values, we can decry and abhor Hitlers beliefs and actions. We can identify evil and say that it is objectively morally wrong. A relativist cannot. A relativist must say that, from his situation, time period, and point of view, he thinks Hitler shouldnt have acted that way, according to what he knows about the world.

If objective moral values exist, we can state that murder is wrong, period. That genocide is wrong, period. 





> People do - or, expressed differently, society does. They're the ones affected by my actions, yes? Therefore, they (to an extent) exert influence on my belief system. If I go on a genocidal killing spree, society reacts accordingly. Retroactively, perhaps, or ineffectively, but they will. I suppose you could say that society would punish my wrongdoing if I did it, but my motivation for good works is for society's sake, not mine. Not sure if that makes total sense, but that's mostly because the thought just occurred to me. Probably still needs tweaking.


So the line is arbitrary. A number of fellow human beings have congregated and decided that they would rather not have people murdering each other. Thats all well and good, but is murder _morally_ wrong? Is killing someone with premeditated malice wrong? 

If you think that is, how can you support that belief? Why should anybody else agree with you? Dahmer decided that murder was something he wanted to do. You would disagree. Are either one of you correct? According to your statement above, Dahmer decided for himself what was right and wrong (and was correct in doing so). 




> Excellent question, but I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for. Am I to answer in terms of my personal philosophy?


No, because your personal philosophy does not hold for others. My point is that if morals do not exist outside of peoples brains, if they are not anything more than preference, then murder cannot be said to be wrong. My further point is that this is clearly false, and it follows that objective morals exist and that murder is patently wrong.




> Utilitarian is a broader descriptor than that. I prefer to place a higher negative value on genocide than Hitler did, placing it firmly out of the question in terms of producing the "optimum combination of well-being."


You can _prefer_ to place a "higher negative value" on genocide, but Hitler did not. His actions were perfectly in line with his personal philosophy. Are they then morally wrong? According to what youve said above, I dont think that you can say that.

I mentioned Swift's "A Modest Proposal" for a few reasons. Firstly, this is a Literature Forum  :Wink: . Secondly, it is ultimately utilitarian, and given its argument, is therefore a satire.





> That doesn't mean that assertions can go unsupported.


I too questioned Rossiyas assertion that the suicide rate is higher among atheists. How could one possibly know? Unless every dead person carried a theist or atheist card.




> "Serial murder" does not equate to "just fine."


It did in Dahmers world. Were his practices wrong merely because the majority of society would disagree with them? Again, you stated earlier that: 

*I determine what evil and good are, for me. The only person's actions I can deem to control are my own, and hence I need only determine what good and evil are for myself.* 

How then can you condemn Dahmer for doing the same exact thing?




> Atheists agree? Which atheists?


Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hegel, Hume, cuppajoe_9 (a little closer to home :Wink: ), and I would suspect every other atheist on this board and the planet. Atheism necessarily entails moral relativism. If we are simply biological organisms, then morals are mental products of socio-biological evolution, and can't be said to exist or be binding in any real sense.

My point is that this is clearly false. Objective moral values _do_ exist.

In the Objective Moral Values thread, cuppajoe_9 agreed that given atheism, systematically executing children and using their bodies as natural fuel could not be said to be "immoral." Given the premises, I agreed with his conclusion. I am also of the opinion that the premises are false, and that there is an objective source for objective moral values.

If you could offer any legitimate defense of objective morals existing apart from a divine source, you'd be the first atheist philosopher to do so.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Atheism necessarily entails moral relativism."

I do not think this is true.

For example: an atheist may believe that morality consists in doing that which is conducive to survival of the species. This sets morality on a plane that is higher than an individual preference, or even a cultural or time based preference.

This has a great advantage over any supposedly God-based set of values, in that it is to some extent measurable. 

"I specifically chose Hitler for this very reason, hoping that someone would mention this. The irreconcilable incongruity between Hitler’s actions and the Christian faith only serves to further my argument. With a grasp of moral values, we can decry and abhor Hitler’s beliefs and actions. We can identify “evil” and say that it is objectively morally wrong."

But, given that the basis of Hitler's morality was Christianity, what grounds do other Christians have for saying that he was objectively morally wrong? All they can say, I think, is that his interpretation of Christian ethics/morality differs from theirs - which is back to a subjective judgement.

----------


## subterranean

Oh, I need a holiday to be able to read all of these posts.  :Frown:

----------


## blp

> Hmm...I hate to intervene in this lively debate, but I've been absent long enough to have some comments come between blp's response to my last post. Whenever I bring up the issue of choice in terms of what people believe, I get a similar response, usually from atheists that "choice" isn't really involved in their atheism. Such a response implies a sort of mindset that says, essentially, "the evidence for atheism (or against the existence of God) is so incontrovertible that I have no choice but to [what verb should I use if not "choose" or the oft debated "believe"?] accept (is this term radically different from believe?) atheism." But would the atheist accept the same kind of logic: I wish I could stop believing in God - life would be less restrictive and guilt-inducing - but "everything seems to point" to God's existence, so it's not really a "belief" in God but a lack of belief in randomness. Huh?
> 
> We _choose_ what we believe. The numerous statments in this thread about how atheism isn't a "belief" that people "choose" bewilders me, because there are numerous ways to view this world - and, according to post-modernism, they're all equally valid. How can any world-view be as _inevitable_ as atheists seem to suggest theirs is in their choice of [or denial of] terminology.


I can only reiterate what I said before: if I could believe in God, I would. I didn't really mean to use this scepticism about 'choice' to debunk belief and I'm a bit surprised that you're so keen to hang onto the idea of choice. If you think belief in God is just a choice, it sounds almost like not really believing at all. 

My point about atheism being a lack of belief is pretty debatable, I'll grant you. What I meant by it is that I don't really believe in anything, I'm just working with the evidence I've got so far. This might, I suppose, constitute agnosticism more than atheism.




> Oh, I need a holiday to be able to read all of these posts.


LOL. Surely you can think of a better way to spend a holiday.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I can condemn Dahmer because what he did lacked any rationale or purpose for the sake of society. My moral line may be flexible, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

I would like to contest the argument that objective moral values exist. Moral values are highly subjective (just look at the differences in cultural practices from region to region) on at least a detail level, but it's society, not God, that agrees on the big stuff (e.g., genocide is bad). If tomorrow, everybody decided that murder was moral, no one could disagree on any moral basis. More accurately, no one would be AROUND to disagree on any moral basis. This has happened on small scales at least once before. One such occurrence was called the Inquisition.

I have no intent of finding origins for objective morals outside of divine influence, because I don't believe in objective morals. I believe in subjective morals that derive conclusively from reality. Murder is bad because it causes pain and backtracks the propagation of the species. Ditto for genocide (on a larger scale, of course) and a host of other negative activities.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm a bit surprised that you're so keen to hang onto the idea of choice. If you think belief in God is just a choice, it sounds almost like not really believing at all.



_Choice_ is crucial because it connects to both _faith_ and _freewill_. God desires our love be given freely - that we _choose_ Him. Love cannot exist without choice. We choose to love our family, our lovers, our wives - there is nothing but choice that maintains love. You have no verifiable proof that anybody who says they love you actually does love you - you choose to believe them unless you get evidence to the contrary. Because we are creatures bound by our 5 senses, and because God cannot be experienced with those senses _directly_, we must choose to believe that He is real. Once you choose to believe, He becomes more real because you have chosen to believe. Once we choose, then all our supporting "evidence" (be it God or atheism) appears to us, and appears reasonable to us. I think that atheists - because their particular system of perspective (I'm trying to avoid the word "belief") is based (apparently) on the verification of scientific observation - tend to think that their position is obviously correct because science (the god of humanity ever since the Enlightenment) _seems_ to deconstruct the idea of God.

You could choose _not_ to believe in atheism - there are many former atheists (CS Lewis is one) who chose to believe in God (granted - something happened inside Lewis's heart for this to happen - but he still had to make the choice. God doesn't come into someone's life against his will).

----------


## RobinHood3000

I agree with Redzeppelin. The most significant premise of possessing a belief system is choosing it.

----------


## golgi

Most of people in the world have no right to choose... If they were born in a radical system.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Thanks, Robin.




> Most of people in the world have no right to choose... If they were born in a radical system.



Huh? Would you care to elaborate on this statement? The phrase "radical system" is a bit unclear, as is the object of the infinitive "to choose" (i.e. choose _what_?).

----------


## Poetess

_"When you want to believe in something, you also have to believe in everything that's necessary for believing in it. "_
Ugo Betti 

I read it, and thought about mentioning it.
Those who don`t believe in God, I believe, should have believable excuses, although it`s sth. belonging to THEM.

----------


## subterranean

> LOL. Surely you can think of a better way to spend a holiday.


From where I'm standing now, reading these posts would be a very fine option.




> _Choice_ is crucial because it connects to both _faith_ and _freewill_. God desires our love be given freely - that we _choose_ Him.



Hi Red,

Merry Christmas  :Wave: 

Just some scriptures that struck my mind related to your post:





> Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


. 



> If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


And there are other verses which basically saying that in Christianity, it's not man who choose God, but vice versa. Hope we're talking about the same definition of "choose" here...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hi Red,
> 
> Merry Christmas 
> 
> Just some scriptures that struck my mind related to your post:
> And there are other verses which basically saying that in Christianity, it's not man who choose God, but vice versa. Hope we're talking about the same definition of "choose" here...



Hi there - Merry Christmas to you, too  :Smile:  

We're on the same wavelength - God _does_ choose us first - but the relationship is only established when we _choose back_. Again, it's all about choice in what we believe. Our relationship with God is a freely made choice (if He is - as He claims - a God of love). Whatever we believe to be true, we have chosen (for whatever reasons). No belief is forced upon us that we cannot ultimately reject.

----------


## blp

> I can condemn Dahmer because what he did lacked any rationale or purpose for the sake of society.


Sounds like a description of contemporary art.

What basis would I have for chooooosing to believe in God? I might as well choose to believe in a giant liquid rabbit in my sitting room. Or a harem train. Or an apostrophe table rack.

----------


## masterlibrarian

Hi everyone, here's my point of view:
Atheism is faith itself
Be sure of the existence of god is faith, be sure that there's no god is also faith.
Our minds are too little to understand the truth.

----------


## dramasnot6

I like that librarian. Very nice  :Smile:   :Thumbs Up:  I very much agree too. Faith is something human, not limited by having or not having specific beliefs.

----------


## Pendragon

But you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything!  :Wink:

----------


## Taliesin

Stand for yourself?

----------


## RobinHood3000

Stand in line?  :Confused:

----------


## blp

Stand for being messed around?

----------


## Pendragon

No. What ever you decide is the right thing is stand for, belief in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Paganism, Atheist—stand rock solid. Don’t waver every time the wind blows from a different direction. If you are convinced of something why let someone else convince you you are wrong?

When Mark Twain was learning to be a riverboat pilot, he had to learn to take clues from landmarks. One day the old salt that was teaching him asked if he knew where he was. He got his bearings and said he did. “How do you run the boat through here?” “Right up the middle, there’s no bottom.” “You sure?” “Yes.” “Then take the wheel, I need a cup of coffee.”

Twain was running the boat fine when he heard the mean who “heaved the lead” [tested depth of water] began to cry out that the river was getting shallow. Finally, scared out of his wits, he ran to the speaking tube to the engine room and yelled for them to back the boat. The old salt came in grinning.

“Thought you knew where you were.” “I thought I did.” “Don’t you know there’s no bottom here?” “Well, yeah.” “Then why did you let me or anyone else convince you any different?”

Stand for what you believe is right until you, not someone else, come to believe that you are wrong.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What basis would I have for chooooosing to believe in God? I might as well choose to believe in a giant liquid rabbit in my sitting room. Or a harem train. Or an apostrophe table rack.


What is the basis for _any_ choice you make? Why choose the blue shirt over the red one? OK - that's not really a response, but our lives our filled with choices - what are the basis of those choices?

As far as the fanciful things you suggested "choosing" - well, maybe so - but none of those listed things offer an explanation as to where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going. The "basis" for choosing God may vary greatly from person to person, but a person who chooses God may very well do so because God provides the "frame" for human existence that makes the most sense. The same basis, I believe, that an atheist might choose atheism for: it provides an explanation that (for whatever reason) makes the universe "make sense." 

As well, none of the things you listed explain some of the paradoxes of human existence as Christianity (or many other religions) does. In fact, paradox itself may be one of the key defenses of Christianity - how else can we explain some of the things that human beings do?

----------


## RobinHood3000

The things that human beings did, or the things that human beings do?

On the subject at hand, I highly recommend _Ishmael_ by Daniel Quinn. I imagine it may rub some theists the wrong way, but I thought it was pretty eye-opening.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The things that human beings did, or the things that human beings do?



Both. But I was speaking in terms of the paradoxes of human nature in terms of the things humans have always done. You know - the paradox that giving feels better than getting, that brave men and women will run into a situation that scares them to death, that people will walk away from a high paying job for a much lower standard of living in order to live a more meaningful life, that 
people will face death rather than compromise their beliefs. I don't know - none of those are compelling examples, I know, but humans do things that seem to defy the "logic" of rational thought/behavior. If "forces" are in charge (biochemical, neurological, physical, sociological) it would seem that we would be a much more orderly species than our often bewildering behavior would suggest.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Well, as far as evolutionary forces are concerned, at least, I'd say those when down the tubes a while ago. C'est la vie.

----------


## blp

The former British goalkeeper and soccer commentator David Icke explains human history by saying that we're all secretly ruled by a an alien race of shapechanging, human eating lizards called the Illuminati. Members (heavily disguised) include Prince Phillip. Ludicrous as it is, it seems to help in explaining the otherwise rather baffling behavior of many of our leaders.

----------


## Pendragon

> The former British goalkeeper and soccer commentator David Icke explains human history by saying that we're all secretly ruled by a an alien race of shapechanging, human eating lizards called the Illuminati. Members (heavily disguised) include Prince Phillip. Ludicrous as it is, it seems to help in explaining the otherwise rather baffling behavior of many of our leaders.


_Our Leaders_, that would be country leaders, given whom you mention. That applies to the topic of belief in God or non-belief in God exactly how? That idea is not new, the aliens-in-disguise idea has been around a long time. Are you endeavoring to say that perhaps these creatures perpetrated the whole "God" idea? Or are you just being facetious?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Hi everyone, here's my point of view:
> Atheism is faith itself
> Be sure of the existence of god is faith, be sure that there's no god is also faith.


Abuse of the word 'faith', in my humble opinion. Faith based on empirical evidence, sound rational judgment, patern recognition and experimental verification is not 'faith' at all, at least not in the religious sense. I do not have religious faith that compasses generally point north, that unimpeded objects travel towards the centre of the earth or that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Abuse of the word 'faith', in my humble opinion. Faith based on empirical evidence, sound rational judgment, patern recognition and experimental verification is not 'faith' at all, at least not in the religious sense. I do not have religious faith that compasses generally point north, that unimpeded objects travel towards the centre of the earth or that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.


Your suggestion that atheism is empirically proven is suspect. While your example provides a good illustration that there are many things about our existence that we can observe to be clearly true, that example does not translate into the origins of humanity and the universe. Science has not empirically proven anything of the sort concerning either one. Science has taken the clues available and attempted to construct an explanation. That explanation sounds very convincing (even to me), but simply because a argument appears well supported and convincing does not make it "empirically proven." Atheism requires faith that science's construction of our origins is correct.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Your suggestion that atheism is empirically proven is suspect.


_Nothing_ is 'empirically proven'. Proofs do not happen in empiricism, evidence happens. Proofs happen in logic and math, not in science.




> That explanation sounds very convincing (even to me), but simply because a argument appears well supported and convincing does not make it "empirically proven."


No, but it makes it very very likely that objects tend to travel towards the centre of the earth and that human beings are related to chimpanzees.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> _Nothing_ is 'empirically proven'. Proofs do not happen in empiricism, evidence happens. Proofs happen in logic and math, not in science..


OK - so I played fast and loose with my terminology. Mea culpa - I'm an English major. Either way, "empirical" deals with experimentation, the purpose of which is to produce evidence which is used to draw a conclusion which may or may not be labled a "proven" truth. 




> No, but it makes it very very likely that objects tend to travel towards the centre of the earth and that human beings are related to chimpanzees.


Gravity is tough to argue with; evolution not so tough. We don't have to postulate gravity's former character because we have no reason to assume it ever functioned differently than it does now. We can study gravity because it's here, now and make reasonable speculations about it. The construction of a human being - that's a different thing. Without the "missing link" scientist's are simply drawing a line to connect dots that they _believe_ (there's that pesky word again!) create a unified design.

"Related" doesn't mean "evolved from." I'm related to my sister.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> OK - so I played fast and loose with my terminology. Mea culpa - I'm an English major.


Me too, actually. Off to UVic next year to continue with that.




> Gravity is tough to argue with; evolution not so tough.


Ever heard of an ERV? It's a slight and harmless change in the genetic code caused by a viral infection of a sex cell that went on to produce offspring. It functions as a genetic marker for relatedness. The probability that two people (or animals) share an ERV but not a common ancestor is a one followed by a very frightening number of zeros.

Humans share dozens of ERVs with chimpanzees.

This is one piece taken from the mountain of evidence for biological evolution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Me too, actually. Off to UVic next year to continue with that.


Well then, you're a heckuva lot more well-rounded than I ever was when I was an undergrad. Very impressive.




> Ever heard of an ERV? It's a slight and harmless change in the genetic code caused by a viral infection of a sex cell that went on to produce offspring. It functions as a genetic marker for relatedness. The probability that two people (or animals) share an ERV but not a common ancestor is a one followed by a very frightening number of zeros.
> 
> Humans share dozens of ERVs with chimpanzees.
> 
> This is one piece taken from the mountain of evidence for biological evolution.



Yes, I've heard that we share something like a 98% genetic similarity to chimps - but that 2% is enough. As for the odds you quoted, I've heard the odds of life spontaneously generating from the primordial sea are equally impressive in the number of zeros as well. 

Listen, I won't deny that there's a lot of persuasive evidence on your side of the fence, and - as a Christian - I sometimes don't know how to respond to these impressive facts you've amassed. Ultimately, I don't think God can be rationally argued into believability to someone. Yes, I fall silent before some of your stunning facts - but they will _never_ change my mind. When science comes into conflict with who God says He is, I have to have faith that God knows what He's talking about. That may mean science _appears_ to be right and may be proven wrong, or it may mean I misunderstand something God has said. Either way, you and I are proceeding on faith. But many atheists are unwilling to call it that - and that really is my main point.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Yes, I've heard that we share something like a 98% genetic similarity to chimps - but that 2% is enough.


Enough for what?




> As for the odds you quoted, I've heard the odds of life spontaneously generating from the primordial sea are equally impressive in the number of zeros as well.


Ah, but the primordial sea had quite a few more chances at it, didn't it?




> Yes, I fall silent before some of your stunning facts - but they will never change my mind.


I assumed as much, and it was never my intention to win converts. I am simply trying to defend myself against the accusation that atheism is akin to religious faith, the faith you have described here:




> Listen, I won't deny that there's a lot of persuasive evidence on your side of the fence, and - as a Christian - I sometimes don't know how to respond to these impressive facts you've amassed. Ultimately, I don't think God can be rationally argued into believability to someone.


What I'm trying to get across is that I really don't have anything in me resembling that sort of religious faith. Sometimes I wish I did, and a lot of times I'm glad I don't, but the fact remains that it isn't there, and it isn't a prerequisite for atheism.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I assumed as much, and it was never my intention to win converts. I am simply trying to defend myself against the accusation that atheism is akin to religious faith, the faith you have described here:
> 
> What I'm trying to get across is that I really don't have anything in me resembling that sort of religious faith. Sometimes I wish I did, and a lot of times I'm glad I don't, but the fact remains that it isn't there, and it isn't a prerequisite for atheism.


But "faith" is not exclusively a "religious" term - it is used to describe any hope/belief in that which cannot be factually verified. I never suggested the faith of an atheist is "religious" in any sense. But since you yourself admitted on the evolution thread (which I just left - man, you are exhausting to chase around!) that "high probability" is probably the closest to certainty we'll ever get. Right: which means that your belief is based on "high probablilty" rather than absolute, verifiable fact. Which means - as far as I'm concerned - that your belief requires at least a little bit of faith.

I'm trying to say that we both have a common ground in that neither of us can present to the other any absolute certainty that ultimately verifies the veracity of our claims (despite the "mountains" of evidence you claim).

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I'm trying to say that we both have a common ground in that neither of us can present to the other any absolute certainty that ultimately verifies the veracity of our claims (despite the "mountains" of evidence you claim).


We certainly do have common ground in that we are both fallibilists. Believing anything, in a falibilistic worldview, requires faith as you define it, I agree.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Absolute veracity does not exist.

----------


## blp

> _Our Leaders_, that would be country leaders, given whom you mention. That applies to the topic of belief in God or non-belief in God exactly how? That idea is not new, the aliens-in-disguise idea has been around a long time. Are you endeavoring to say that perhaps these creatures perpetrated the whole "God" idea? Or are you just being facetious?


I'm responding to Redzeppelin's idea that one might believe something just because it seems to provide a good explanation of why certain things are the way they are.




> Absolute veracity does not exist.


My, but you seem absolutely sure about that!

----------


## Whifflingpin

"idea that one might believe something just because it seems to provide a good explanation of why certain things are the way they are."

Is that not the only good reason for believing in something?

And the only good reason for rejecting a belief is that there are other "things" that actually conlict with the belief.

Lack of evidence may be a reason for not taking up a belief, but it is not an argument against a belief.

----------


## Pendragon

> Absolute veracity does not exist.


Let me rephrase that for you, little bro. "For a human being to claim that they possess absolute veracity is ridiculous!"  :Biggrin:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"the aliens-in-disguise idea has been around a long time"
and David Icke is fairly convincing evidence for that theory - barring the disguise part.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> My, but you seem absolutely sure about that!


Touch&#233;!  :Biggrin:  But 'tis but my opinion, of course...


...only a Sith deals in absolutes. That is, such is what I believe.  :Tongue:

----------


## Pendragon

> "the aliens-in-disguise idea has been around a long time"
> and David Icke is fairly convincing evidence for that theory - barring the disguise part.


Now, Wiff, let us be charitable. Perhaps he's only eccentric!  :Alien:  I still don't see that he has any relavance to the subject matter, but then I haven't read any of his works. Basically, it comes down to an individual's decision based on what they chose to use for a measuring stick for their life. In the end, that seems to be what I see most people do. If something fits with their view OK, if it doesn't, they feel they can safely ignore it as uniportant. I am not at all sure this is a good thing, as my belief in God will not allow me to ignore scientic reason as some do, but que sera sera.  :Smile:

----------


## Matsiah

> Now, Wiff, let us be charitable. Perhaps he's only eccentric!  I still don't see that he has any relavance to the subject matter, but then I haven't read any of his works. Basically, it comes down to an individual's decision based on what they chose to use for a measuring stick for their life. In the end, that seems to be what I see most people do. If something fits with their view OK, if it doesn't, they feel they can safely ignore it as uniportant. I am not at all sure this is a good thing, as my belief in God will not allow me to ignore scientic reason as some do, but que sera sera.


I too agree with the notion that: If One disagrees with that which he's previously read, he'll prove reluctant to comment on it; no one wants to deal with the almost everlasting debate that follows. I could understand if that were the case; in fact, I could probably understand if that was not the reason for the passive assertive behavior. What I'm really trying to say it: We can't have this dismissal of imputing One's opinions. How can One see through and try to relate with another's perspective, if they're not willing to face a debate - or any other repercussions, for that matter.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We certainly do have common ground in that we are both fallibilists. Believing anything, in a falibilistic worldview, requires faith as you define it, I agree.


And that is all I wished to communicate. I do not believe atheism is akin to religion in that it has a systemitized code of "theology." I only meant to imply that atheism/evolution (like Christianity) is in a situation like Zeno's famous paradox about distance - the idea that - since you always have to cross half of a distance remaining before you before you can complete any journey that (theoretically) you can never finish your journey (because you always have half the distance remaining between you and your destination). Neither Christianity nor atheism can bridge that last portion of the journey because we're always traversing the next "half" of the distance. (Did that make any sense? I didn't do a clear job of presenting Zeno.) The unknowability of the distant past requires that each of us exercise a certain amount of faith.

----------


## Nimph

So I would like to point out a couple of flaws in everyones thinking. Please do not consider me a self-centered, narcist becase u might be mistaken about me...although I think that it isn't that far off my real personality.

Everyone here(at least the people that I read) are missing a couple of things. First, I would like to point out the fact that a lot of the people said that religion has no proof and that science does. Well, I would like to say this: Science has no proof either. Did u guys know that WE, us humans, made up time, distance, relevance, comparison. EVERYTHING you know is made up by us! We like to critisize and quantify. Well what if the religions are right? Did anyone of you pose that question and actually thought about it? Well I have to tell you that they might be right. Science is a quatity, we see FIVE apples, ZERO cents left, it took TEN minutes. Well what if it didn't. Do you guys realize that God, in any religion, is a cause not an explanation? God created Earth in six days, right? So that is the cause of the creation of Earth, but did that statement ever say how God did it? No it didn't! See religion is a very generalized theory no one on Earth can disprove it. So now people tell me that there is no proof. Does anyone remember the 9th grade definition of a thoery, or even a law? Well let me jog the memory of those who forgot! Theory is something that presents a scenario that explains something, with moderate back up facts and has not been disproved. A law is something that seems to be correct and will remain correct until something does not function by it. Well, has religious thoery ever been disproved? NO! Does it always seem to be correct? For some reason it always does! Was Earth not created? Hmmm, I guess it was!
Second of all, I remember someone in the very beginning saying that they feel like they are themselves and that they are not the same as everyone else. Well by scientific THEORY, we ARE all the same. We are comprised of same atoms, molecules! For pete's sake we are comprised of the same FOUR nucleotides! All we are is DNA, GCAT... and so on. Nothing else. One might think of emotions as something special. Nope, its all controlled by neurotransmiters, why what else would control them, its not like there would be such a think as GOD!
Third of all, I would like to point out the fact that I too am an atheist of some sort. I don't think atheism is a religion, an occupation, or something that is the same for everyone. I myself don't believe in the existense of God, to me he is that thing(?) that is just used for an excuse by older generations. I think that there is something that science won't explain though, something that is inexplicable by anything but PURE thought. Science is tainted by the idea of realism, it is tainted by our senses! Religion is tainted by belief! I believe in something that isn't tainted, something that I think Einstein got pretty close to. Einstein showed people what thought can do and I think that it can do much more than what Einstein thought it could.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Religion is tainted by belief!


Hi Nimph - welcome to the forums.

I'm not sure I understand all of your lengthy post. On the one hand, you almost seem to argue for creation, but on the other hand, you call yourself an atheist. What exactly were you implying?

Second, could you elaborate on the statement I quoted from your post - I don't understand it. Without "belief," religion is nothing. In many ways, belief is (next to a divine being) the central feature of most religions.

----------


## Pendragon

And not to stir the pot. Nimph, mom ami, but from where does thought come if Science is tainted so that we cannot say "The human brain, functioning on its own." and Religion is tainted so that we may not say "God created humanity with the ability to think for themselves."? And did you miss that I always say, (quoting Charles Schultz, through Snoopy), "Has it ever occured to you that you could be wrong?" You seem to have it all figured out. The problem with that is, when people have it all figured out, they invariably leave something out. God bless.

----------


## RobinHood3000

'Tis true that humans quantify everything relative to themselves. The question is, what else is there to quantify by?

----------


## Redzeppelin

Right: I think it's natural to do so. We can only understand life through the limitations we possess. But: God gives us another perspective through which to process our understanding. In other words, sometimes I only understand your life by "walking in your shoes" (as the old proverb goes); I cannot "walk in God's shoes," so He came and "walked in our shoes." Christ's experience as a man allowed Him to fully participate in what it means to be human - and as such, His experience allows Him to understand us - and through that understanding, He helps us understand life though God's perspective.

Kind of convoluted, and probably not very convincing - perhaps I need to go have some coffee instead of trying to answer complicated questions  :Biggrin:

----------


## poem2poes

I am not an atheist, I am a theist, but I believe in the existence of God because I choose to believe. I would never try to argue the point logically. 

There is no proof for the existence of God. 

I would never let the true believers of any specific religious persuasion influence me on this matter. It's true there are a lot of self-righteous people who base their hypocrisy on a belief in God (and usually also a book they claim God wrote), but their behavior is not proof that there is no God. 

All the logical arguments against the existence of God have influenced me strongly. For a while, I did not believe. My head tells me that God does not exist. My heart tells me something else. One of these is wrong, I just don't know which, and maybe I never will.

In the meantime, I choose to believe in God for personal, rather than logical, reasons. 

Nimph, I am not going try to talk you out of your belief that there is no proof for science. It's always hard to talk to people who think that we can't know anything and that we somehow made it all up. If you trust the evidence of your senses, there are plenty of things we can know, and there's plenty of proof. 

No one has ever disproved any religion. No one has ever disproved the existence of God. In science, when you want to say that something exists, or is true, the burden of proof is on you. You must prove that a thing exists, not point to others and make them prove that it does not. 

You think realism is a "taint" as much as "belief" (faith). I don't think either are. I think they are both valid ways that humans relate to the world. Trusting the evidence of our senses works time and time again. Humans have done everything from inventing the wheel to flying to the moon based on that. Faith has moved mountains as well, only in very different ways and for different reasons. 

Faith cannot argue with reason. That's why I would never try to talk anyone into a belief in God, and why I could not talk you into trusting the evidence of your senses (you call it realism). That goes right back to Descartes. If you can't trust your senses, then nothing can be known and all discussion ends.

----------


## Nimph

Redzeppelin, I am sorry I was a little unclear. What I meant to say is that I am for both and I guess I am also for neither. I think that the unity of the two is the only correct answer. I think that a mix would be a very good way of summarizing what the world is and how it was brought up and everything in between. I remember in the very beginning someone said that they dont know of a hypocritical atheist, well I guess I am one, or something like one. I see the world with different eyes. Something that may seem obvious to you may seem intriguingly complex to me. Not on one occasion did I understand things that my friends could not possible comprehend (nothing to say about my friends they are all smart). I was trying to go for creation at first because I have read way to many posts trying to show that God is just not there and it is impossible and that they do not believe in them. Well, I guess its one of my weird things, but I just felt compelled to stop those people from squashing the model of the Earth. This kinda gets back to the response that Pendragon gave me. I understand that I sound like an all-knowing person, but you dont have to mind that. I am open to suggestions and that is why I am a mix of both, creation and its opposite. So far I have seen the world only dealt with by compromise so I will keep that belief and apply it to this issue also.
Now, to answer your question Redzeppelin. What I meant by saying that is that religion cant possibly be an explanation to how Earth came about because it includes belief. See there are a lot of things that are wrong with religion. In my previous post I was talking about how science is wrong and stuff. Well, religion is not better, that is why I once again chose the middle ground. Religion, or at least one of them, declared that Earth was created in six days. Well let me tell you that I am a strong believer in evolution. As one comedian said, I hate all those people that watch the Flintstones like its a documentary! I agree with him, but the question that always forms in my mind is how did the first creatures, things, whatever came about? As far as I know science has not yet provided valid proof of their very famous theory. So if you look at this situation then you can clearly say, religion REQUIRES someone to believe, blindly follow, and not question whatever it is that happened. Science on the other hand REQUIRES that it would seem comprehensive and someone in the world will have to show how it correlates with the real world. But I think that PURE thought is the only answer, that is why I like philosophy. Science, by the way, has been straying away from their usual ways. Science has been going towards the pure thought area, with their whole quantum mechanics, all thanks to Einstein. That there is even more reason for everyone to start believing in the middle ground.
Now, your question Pendragon. Although I think I somewhat answer it, but I will still try to do it more clearly. Science has not saidyetthat the human brain functions by itself. Actually it is doing quite the opposite. It has been telling us that everything is mechanical, that we are closer to robots than we have thought. In fact, if science would be unopposed then I am sure that we will all have been proven to be robots that are very high tech. Well if that is the scenario, then I guess religion is completely correct, someone has to construct robots, dont they? But unfortunately that is not the case. So far we are still human! Thought comes from thinking outside the box, except the box is the material world. If we try to stop explaining why things happened here, where things came from, and how it happened on EARTH, we might get somewhere. Now I am a very math-centered person and I have already figured this thing out in math. You CANNOT prove something by giving examples. We are an example, so if we prove something here, that does not mean that it is correct. Let me give you an example, although it used to be an awesome joke. Did u know that all odd numbers are prime? Well look at this: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime! All odd numbers are prime, right? WellNO! We only gave specific examples and we did not look at the whole. That is why science and religion is tainted. Pure thought would try to look at ALL the odd numbers at the same time.

Lastly, I would like to point out the fact that I am speaking like this because I am writing a philosophical book, so I kinda got a head start on most of the people. I talk about religion there and everything, so I gave it a lot of thought. Also, it sounds more reassuring, doesnt it? And lastly, this is what I THINK, so I THINK it is correct!

----------


## Chava

I remember when all my friends started getting confirmed in church, and i was the odd one out. And i remember that very few of them actually believed in God. I do remember a lot of them getting very drunk at the parties afterwards...
I considered becoming religious, I've got agnostic tendencies, but in the long run, I tend to get tired of all the conotations with religion.
I know christianity encourages love, and kindness; but you can do that without a religion.
I know also that in some places christianity oppresses women, and other things that i dissagree with.
Religion is guidelines to existence right? So, somehow they seem redundant to me. Being an atheist all the ethical and moral things like kindness and love and bless the meek comes just as naturally.
Concerning the need to believe in something, the need to have faith in a higher being, God bless you to it, in that sense i'm an agnostic.
But the one thing that really makes me an atheist is people who use religion as an excuse, who hide themselves behind their religion and fight others in a zealous pursuit.
I can accept religion the day that people stop abusing or misinterpreting it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> do not believe atheism is akin to religion in that it has a systemitized code of "theology." I only meant to imply that atheism/evolution (like Christianity) is in a situation like Zeno's famous paradox about distance - the idea that - since you always have to cross half of a distance remaining before you before you can complete any journey that (theoretically) you can never finish your journey (because you always have half the distance remaining between you and your destination).


Okay, I'm with you here. Stupid fallibilism, taking away all my absolute truths...




> We are comprised of same atoms, molecules! For pete's sake we are comprised of the same FOUR nucleotides! All we are is DNA, GCAT... and so on. Nothing else. One might think of emotions as something special. Nope, its all controlled by neurotransmiters, why what else would control them, its not like there would be such a think as GOD!


What is it about being made up of molecules and neurotransmitters that takes away worth? I believe (and I think that most agree with me) that suffering is bad and pleasure is good, and whether those emotions are made up of neurotransmitters or dieties of quantum uncertainty or magical leprechauns is irrelivant to that belief.




> I remember when all my friends started getting confirmed in church, and i was the odd one out. And i remember that very few of them actually believed in God. I do remember a lot of them getting very drunk at the parties afterwards...


On red wine, I hope.  :Biggrin: 


Anyhow, one reason for being an atheist that nobody has brought up yet (which is slightly surprising, because it's so obvious) is that you have to be an atheist to get into Atheist Heaven.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Ehhh...I'm not a huge fan of the middle ground - feels wishy-washy to me. Neither religion nor science is infallible (which both manage to prove on a regular basis), but science has the better track record. Science isn't my reason for being an atheist, of course, but it has its strong points. The biggest thing that science and religion have in common is that humanity has its ways of screwing them up.

----------


## Pendragon

> Ehhh...I'm not a huge fan of the middle ground - feels wishy-washy to me. Neither religion nor science is infallible (which both manage to prove on a regular basis), but science has the better track record. Science isn't my reason for being an atheist, of course, but it has its strong points. The biggest thing that science and religion have in common is that humanity has its ways of screwing them up.


Well, my brother, I've never tried to change you because if you have no desire to change then I would not try to change you. But I am far from wishy-washy in attempting to find middle ground. I refuse to let my faith in God blind me to the knowledge that science has discovered. I believe it will dovetail together at some point along the line. Man is ever courious, and searches for the who, what, when, where, why, and how. And sometimes, he finds them. Sometimes he cannot. Sometimes he reaches a point of plausibility-- this might be it. I try to weigh the results and see if I can believe them. That's all. The Bible says something about "trying the spirits to see if they be of God." I try the results to see if I can accept them. Some are correct without question. Some, I cannot see. It doesn't mean I'm always right. I could always be wrong myself. But I'm trying. God bless.  :Smile:

----------


## blp

The point is that science admits its fallibility. It's always ready to give way to better information.

----------


## white camellia

> The point is that science admits its fallibility. It's always ready to give way to better information.


Indeed, just as the philosophy of Karl Popper as he pointed out the nature of science, offering this model: P1→TT→EE→P2

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Indeed, just as the philosophy of Karl Popper as he pointed out the nature of science, offering this model: P1→TT→EE→P2


 :Confused:  What do those things stand for?

----------


## white camellia

> What do those things stand for?


To him, any scientific hypothesis is bound to be found certain false point that is hidden there. Through the process of offering a hypothesis, discovering its error that can be proved and then putting forward a new hypothesis, science attains its development. Its fallibility is not a weak point, rather a strong one as this is the very thing that improves it, with the falsification as its mark. On the contrary, others are less than it at this point.
P1: proposal1
TT: testing theory
EE: eliminate error
P2: proposal2
Just something like this!  :Smile:  
Anyone knows more?

----------


## blp

Sounds similar to Hegelian dialectics: thesis meets antithesis, resulting in synthesis, which becomes a new thesis and meets a new antithesis. And so on, on and on. It's a sort of picture of truth as endlessly unfolding, which runs against religion's attachment to stable, absolute truths - except that Hegelians often posit a final synthesis. For Marx it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. For Francis Fukuyama, it was free market capitalism.

----------


## white camellia

Ahh, nice hit! I recently read Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics. He talked about the special form of art and displayed its development, its three phases: symbolic form→classic form→romantic form. In the beginning, symbols are absolute unconscious and purely sensuous and then art reached its perfection with a harmonious relation between idea/spirit and its form which the spirit determined for itself in its own reality, but spirit could not just dwell in its form and finally it abandoned the external form and obtained its complete realization in its own world of consciousness. I just wondered, is romantic form the highest stage of art? and how does it, romanticism do with rationalism. It seems that religion appears more like a romantic form of art and atheism, or the human mind reflection of science, more like some other form?

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Well, my brother, I've never tried to change you because if you have no desire to change then I would not try to change you. But I am far from wishy-washy in attempting to find middle ground. I refuse to let my faith in God blind me to the knowledge that science has discovered. I believe it will dovetail together at some point along the line. Man is ever courious, and searches for the who, what, when, where, why, and how. And sometimes, he finds them. Sometimes he cannot. Sometimes he reaches a point of plausibility-- this might be it. I try to weigh the results and see if I can believe them. That's all. The Bible says something about "trying the spirits to see if they be of God." I try the results to see if I can accept them. Some are correct without question. Some, I cannot see. It doesn't mean I'm always right. I could always be wrong myself. But I'm trying. God bless.


Oh, Pen, I did not mean to offend - I didn't realize quite what I was saying. I think of the middle ground in the sense that one skips over the conflicts between religion and science, as opposed to reconciling them as you do. My humblest apologies.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I'm interested in this "middle ground" that's been tossed out a few posts ago (before the formulas came up and freaked my poor liberal-arts brain out  :Sick:  ). I'm not sure I see religion and science as opposite ends of a continuum that one picks a position on: how can two systems of thought be on the same continuum when - at their basis - they completely contradict each other? Granted, I think there are times when they do line-up (so perhaps a Venn Diagram would be more appropriate a graphic organizer with which to conceptualize the relationship between the two?) - and I don't think it's wise for Christians to ignore science. I simply stand by the idea that science may or may not maintain the integrity of its claims/discoveries as time moves forward. What looks like "x" may turn out (upon implementation of whatever new technology we come up with) to be actually "a."

----------


## blp

> Ahh, nice hit! I recently read Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics. He talked about the special form of art and displayed its development, its three phases: symbolic form?classic form?romantic form. In the beginning, symbols are absolute unconscious and purely sensuous and then art reached its perfection with a harmonious relation between idea/spirit and its form which the spirit determined for itself in its own reality, but spirit could not just dwell in its form and finally it abandoned the external form and obtained its complete realization in its own world of consciousness. I just wondered, is romantic form the highest stage of art? and how does it, romanticism do with rationalism. It seems that religion appears more like a romantic form of art and atheism, or the human mind reflection of science, more like some other form?


This is all a bit beyond my ken and erudition, but I do know that Romanticism contains a strongly anti-rationalist tendency, which led some Romanticists to oppose Newton, claiming that his discoveries, notably about the colour spectrum, were against beauty in that they destroyed mystery.(Newton's own view was that his discoveries were a tiny scraping against a still gigantic mystery - he said he was like a child playing with the driftwood from a huge sea of mystery - something like that). 

It's interesting that Enlightenment rationalism, which already sees itself as a sort of _ne plus ultra_ of thought and aesthetics, starts unravelling in various ways almost as it comes into being. Leibniz had a long running debate with Newton that was crucial to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - a more complex and considered questioning of our rational faculties than the rather phillistine Romantic refusal. 

Kant begins a process of inquiry that continues in Hegel and on into the present as the underpinning of numerous strains of philosophical thought. Some of these, such as deconstruction/post-structuralism, can appear anti-rationalist. At their worst (their modishness has attracted some fairly shoddy thinkers, not to mention atrocious writers) the accusations may be just - but it's still misleading to lump the tradition as a whole in with New Age-ism, resurgent religious fundamentalism, political/economic millennarianism, management dead language and other assaults on enlightenment tradition, as Francis Wheen does in a recent book. The reason is that the western philosophical tradition is engaged in something similar to science - a constant questioning of even its most fundamental precepts - even, as the title of Kant's first great works shows - reason itself. Of course this means it must leave itself open to things that might appear to threaten it. But as this brief overview shows, this has been happening since the 'start'. It's like democracy - in a system where all voices, by definition, have a right to be heard, some voices will be heard that threaten democracy itself. The contrast is between openness on the englightenment side and the closedness of fixed belief in monolithic, 'objective' truths. 

The picture is then not of the opposition between two different beliefs, but between a shifting multiplicity of debate and a comparatively proscribed and stagnant fixity of belief. Within the former, it would be absurd to hold up one tendency (Romanticism, Classicism, whatever) as the highest form of art or thought. Hegelian dialectics is a simple picture of the impossibility of doing this, but perhaps one's own sense of change and development, yours anyway, white camellia, gives a sense of the impossibility and the lack of need to do so. As your summary shows, Romanticism to some extent is not the pinnacle of a linear progression, but a pulling back from the Classicist idea that it is possible and desirable to achieve total mastery and understanding - a turning back to the unconscious, without understanding. I find something unappealing in this, but it's just theory - and, anyway, I also find something unappealing in the idea of mastery. In practice, Romanticists such as Wordsworth, Shelley and Delacroix can be searingly great, just as artists from any era, country or stream of thought can - though of course, thou shalt have no other Godard beyond Jean-Luc.  :Wink:  (now I'm just being subjective).

----------


## Pendragon

One thing is certain, regardless of what one believes: Man is possessed of an insatiable curiosity. Mankind will always be in search of the answers to the many questions of the mysteries of life. As science grows, many things once thought to be correct will have to change. It will have to change whether it was the scientist or religious that was in error. Science will never disprove God. How things work may have to be rethought, as the writers of the Bible could only interpret what they saw in their own limited way. Let me give an example. Say a prophet in the Bible saw a vision of an airplane. To him it would be a great bird. He never saw a plane before. It would be like when the first mammoths were discovered. They were hairy elephants, because that was what they looked like to us. We knew what an elephant was. This one had a lot of hair. They were frozen with food still in their mouths, so search was on for live ones. No such luck. They were then classified as extinct and given the name by which we know them.

----------


## white camellia

> ...some Romanticists to oppose Newton, claiming that his discoveries, notably about the colour spectrum, were against beauty in that they destroyed mystery.


It's Wordsworth, as I remember. Some, like him, tended to separate art from science, and some, like Flaubert and Einstein, did not view them as something that repel each other, but rather, something integrated at last. 




> The picture is then not of the opposition between two different beliefs, but between a shifting multiplicity of debate and a comparatively proscribed and stagnant fixity of belief...


I agree.




> One thing is certain, regardless of what one believes: Man is possessed of an insatiable curiosity. Mankind will always be in search of the answers to the many questions of the mysteries of life.


Yes, and intuition too. Einstein emphasized the role of intuition which is exactly way to build a theory instead of a logic passage. And isn't that, intuition, the very thing that our judgement rely on, whether it's the judgement of an atheist or not? Then how we react to either judgement in their own right appears more important.

----------


## Pendragon

> Yes, and intuition too. Einstein emphasized the role of intuition which is exactly way to build a theory instead of a logic passage. And isn't that, intuition, the very thing that our judgement rely on, whether it's the judgement of an atheist or not? Then how we react to either judgement in their own right appears more important.


True. You will note that I said "*regardless of what one believes.*" That includes the Atheist. Curiosity and intuition are hardly limited to those who believe or disbelieve in the existence of God. Both are human, and that makes them innately curious as to an explanation for everything, and gives them intuitions that they act upon. It also gives them a third trait: tenacity. They are willing to go to any length to endeavor to prove themselves correct. And there is where conflict begins to arise, because one is as sure of his belief as another, and neither wants to listen with a truly open mind, as in listening with any chance in the hot place of changing their mind in the least. Its the old, Im listening, but bear in mind, I think its all hogwash. This goes for both sides of the equation, and often as not for the man in the middle as well. No wonder differences never are settled!  :Idea:

----------


## Ann Ganon

> I don't BELIEVE in atheism... It isn't a religion, at least not to me, which means the element of faith is completely removed.
> 
> I was 8 years old when I figured out that god couldn't possibly exist, because if he did, surely he'd DO something about all the awful things in the world. I still don't buy the Christian argument that he's testing us all.
> 
> As I grew older, I couldn't see any reason to start believing, and several awful encounters with Christian zealots certainly didn't help. 
> 
> I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation, I know of no actual experiences with deities (in older and less educated times they seemed to drop by to chat all the time, but they must have stopped that), and I don't need the comfort of belonging to a religious belief system. Actually, most religions I know of appear to create more problems than they solve.
> 
> You may deduce from the above that the closest I come to a belief is that in rational thinking.


Great! I know of few Christians who even believe in Rational thinking! They of all people should. But, what IS Rational thinking?
I know of a great philosopher that says he can prove that God exists by being rational. It's simple: There must be something eternal.
If nothing is eternal then all is temporal (law of non-contradiction.
If all is temporal, then all had a beginning.
So... how can something come from nothing?
It can't. Therefore, only God is eternal. It also can be proved, from reason, that He is all good and all powerful, which would bring us then to that nasty problem of evil. Then, and only then, should we switch from General to Special revelation.

----------


## Ann Ganon

> I don't BELIEVE in atheism... It isn't a religion, at least not to me, which means the element of faith is completely removed.
> 
> I was 8 years old when I figured out that god couldn't possibly exist, because if he did, surely he'd DO something about all the awful things in the world. I still don't buy the Christian argument that he's testing us all.
> 
> As I grew older, I couldn't see any reason to start believing, and several awful encounters with Christian zealots certainly didn't help. 
> 
> I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation, I know of no actual experiences with deities (in older and less educated times they seemed to drop by to chat all the time, but they must have stopped that), and I don't need the comfort of belonging to a religious belief system. Actually, most religions I know of appear to create more problems than they solve.
> 
> You may deduce from the above that the closest I come to a belief is that in rational thinking.


Hey, there's plenty of things Science can't ever explain. For example, the mind is not the brain. Science can never explain why we think in terms of right and wrong or good and evil. But, more basically, it can't explain why we have this need for meaning. Otherwise, we live in meaninglessness, boredom and guilt.

----------


## blp

> It's Wordsworth, as I remember. Some, like him, tended to separate art from science, and some, like Flaubert and Einstein, did not view them as something that repel each other, but rather, something integrated at last.


Are you saying that Flaubert and Einstein are Romanticists?

----------


## Nimph

First, before I explain my middle groung, I would like to point out the fact that you guys again stumbled upon my thoughts of tainted religion and science. Intuition is a very important part of discovery and understanding, but here is the funny thing. Science will not let intuition explain things unless there is proof! Religion, unless there is sense to it and it corresponds with belief! I am not good at explaining htings that I have thought offor a long time because they seem semi-obvious to me, but I guess you guys got to it before I could explain myself.
Now for the middle ground that Pendragon was curious about. I think that neither a continuum or a venn diagram describe the relationship between religion and science. Personally I don't know what the relationship is, I am refering to the middle ground in somewhat of a poetical sense. I would like to believe that both and neither are true! Umm, here is the bad explanation, tell me if it works! There are points on which science and religion agree, right? Well those points are part of the middle ground. Then come the points on which the two disagree, thats where it is a little copmlicated. The middle ground of those points is where each looses a part, and has a part in it. It is like a compromise, where both win a part and lose a part simultaneously. I will elaborate more on it if that didn't make sense, most likely it didn't! But thank you for reading anyway  :Smile:

----------


## white camellia

> Are you saying that Flaubert and Einstein are Romanticists?


...not necessarily a romanticist,but probably the one who is influenced by it. I noticed that Einstein was born in Germany in 1879 and this was the subsequent time of Romanticism (dominant in the first half of 19th century)that had changed people's attitudes towards creativity. What romanticism advocated is originality and spontaneity. These elements could be found in his mode of thinking. And Flaubert was born in 1821, exactly in the first half of 19th century.




> ...Intuition is a very important part of discovery and understanding, but here is the funny thing. Science will not let intuition explain things unless there is proof! Religion, unless there is sense to it and it corresponds with belief!


Intuition is just the start of a hypothesis and helps to reach a proved theory. It appears, resonating with our experience or it depends much on experience.



> Personally I don't know what the relationship is, I am refering to the middle ground in somewhat of a poetical sense. I would like to believe that both and neither are true!


...as Russell said, science is the right way for us to get close to truth and there is no absolute truth. And the practice draws energy from our will to be sceptic.

----------


## blp

> ...not necessarily a romanticist,but probably the one who is influenced by it. I noticed that Einstein was born in Germany in 1879 and this was the subsequent time of Romanticism (dominant in the first half of 19th century)that had changed people's attitudes towards creativity. What romanticism advocated is originality and spontaneity. These elements could be found in his mode of thinking. And Flaubert was born in 1821, exactly in the first half of 19th century.


Mmm...tenuous, if you don't mind my saying so. You could easily read Flaubert's Madame Bovary as an attack on, if not romanticism, at least a romanticist turn of mind. Baudelaire describes romanticism as the insistence on seeing yourself as the central character in a novel, _un roman_ and Madame Bovary is a quintessential example of this - and look where it gets her!

Einstein does seem to have been a kind of visionary, but it would seem to diminish that to suggest that his leaps and intuitions are somehow culturally determined.

----------


## white camellia

;-) You raised that question to me which I did not know if they were really romanticists or not. I was not saying that both Flaubert and Einstein are romanticists. I was only quoting them by explaining their attitudes toward science and art. That one is influenced by romanticism does not necessarily refers to that he/she is beliving in it, may even against it. Some writers or artists at that times did oppose romanticism, but this could not deny the fact that they were influnced by it to some extent.




> Mmm...tenuous, if you don't mind my saying so. You could easily read Flaubert's Madame Bovary as an attack on, if not romanticism, at least a romanticist turn of mind. Baudelaire describes romanticism as the insistence on seeing yourself as the central character in a novel, _un roman_ and Madame Bovary is a quintessential example of this - and look where it gets her!


The question is, is it really romanticism that gets her to that point?




> Einstein does seem to have been a kind of visionary, but it would seem to diminish that to suggest that his leaps and intuitions are somehow culturally determined.


Not culturally determined, but influenced?

----------


## blp

> The question is, is it really romanticism that gets her to that point?


Yes! Oh, I don't know. She wouldn't say she was a romanticist, just hopeful. But it might be possible to argue that she's being used as a symbol/example to show the problems of romantic individualism - while also acknowledging the quotidian mundanity that gives rise to that. 





> Not culturally determined, but influenced?


I'd say no, that whatever it is in someone that makes them spontaneously construct scenarios visually - in visions - that then prove to have a basis in empirical fact, you can't explain it with anything as simple as influence. And that almost seems to be getting this conversation back on to questions of belief and scepticism...

----------


## Ravenwing

Alot of words for an arguement of "Emptiness".

----------


## blazeofglory

Atheism or theism are things that simply confounding things, and in both notions there are no elements of certainty and indeed we are uncertain abut the existence of God or consciousness or about scientists' hypotheses too.

----------


## trippy star

Atheism, for me, is a rejection established knowledge. Not only religious beliefs, but all thinking is subject to my skepticism. 
No book or author really turned me onto these views; it was just how I was raised; and my parents have always advocated the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking skills. 
While books can help one find their path, one must ultimately disregard these stepping stones to find a truely individualistic paradise; which, to me, is the ideal I am always striving for, grasping at.

----------


## andrew23

Lend me thy ears, all of thee, and hear me once and for all.

"Why do you believe in Atheism?"

1. Regardless of whether someone believes in something, it doesn't mean that what he/she believes is true. Few people are aware of this, which is why few people also undergo to the process of analyzation. 
2. What you choose to believe is determined by factors such as your family, your present knowledge disposition, the people around you, your environment, and etc. 

What one believes, can be either true or false. It is true, when what you believe is in the universal truth set. It is false, when what you believe is in the universal false set.
3. If what you believe is only determined by such worldly factors, then no one is to blame in what believe. No one is to blame if what we believe is wrong. Infact, the act of blaming is time and energy wasting. Blaming is only a natural body reaction to as a result of misunderstanding. And that misunderstanding, is a result of people's knowldge differences. 
4. If we are not responsible for our destiny, there is no test in the world. If there's no test, and since if test doesn't exist, then to say that there's a test in the bible is illogical, it simply does/can not exist. And if there's no test, the prophecy ain't true, if the prophecy ain't true, the bible ain't true. And if the bible ain't true, then there's no God. If there's no God, then i am destined to believe in atheism.
5. The universe only follow laws and rules. The one I described above is more known as "Causality". We human beings are only here in this world to follow universal rules. And yes, we are conscious of it, but being conscious of it doesn't mean you can change your destiny. We are conscious of what we are doing, but consciousness is completely irrelevant to our actions. Are actions are determined by universal laws and factors. And contrary to the saying that consciousnes is a tool for deciding our fate, well it isn't so. Consciousness is a way of viewing the world. But how the world goes around is left to the play of universal laws and factors.

"Why do you believe in Atheism?"
Because it's my destiny to believe in Atheism at this point of time in space...
Why did I believe it? Due to certain universal laws and factors such as my present knowledge disposal. And I must suggest, one need not to exert so much effort in finding certain answers. Sometimes you only need to scrutinize the basics. Let's be effective in doing things, but let's be efficient too. Let's save time and effort..hehe

----------


## NikolaiI

> Lend me thy ears, all of thee, and hear me once and for all.
> 
> "Why do you believe in Atheism?"
> 
> 1. Regardless of whether someone believes in something, it doesn't mean that what he/she believes is true. Few people are aware of this, which is why few people also undergo to the process of analyzation. 
> 2. What you choose to believe is determined by factors such as your family, your present knowledge disposition, the people around you, your environment, and etc. 
> 
> What believe, can be either true or false. It is true, when what you believe is in the universal truth set. It is false, when what you believe is in the universal false set.
> 3. If what believed is only determined by such worldly factors. Then no one is to blame in what believe. No one is to believe if what we believe is wrong. Infact, the act of blaming is non-sense. Blaming is only a natural body reaction. 
> 4. If were not responsible for our destiny, there is no test in the world. If there's no test, and since if test doesn't exist, then the test in the bible is illogical, it simply does not exist. And if there's no test, the prophecy ain't true, if the prophecy ain't true, the bible ain't true. ANd the bible ain't true, then there's no God. IF there's no God, then i am destined to believe in atheism.


Atheism is a word and a concept but where is it reflected in nature? On what tree does atheism grow? It is devoid of identity, as are each of our terms. Everything that we think, in fact,
everything we sense, think about, have, create, destroy, it's all devoid of identity.
Atheism and all our terms will pass as we do.

----------


## andrew23

> Atheism is a word and a concept but where is it reflected in nature? On what tree does atheism grow? It is devoid of identity, as are each of our terms. Everything that we think, in fact,
> everything we sense, think about, have, create, destroy, it's all devoid of identity.
> Atheism and all our terms will pass as we do.


1. Yes, it is a word and a concept, and it refects on the universe itself, which is void of supernatural interventions(Gods). 
2. Who the hell cares on what tree does Atheism grows.
3. It is full of identity right now at the point of time. And so are words, there's so much existing words right now, and each one with a unique identity and description.
4. Everything that we think, sense, have, create, destroy, it all has identity. Duh :Sick:  If it's devoid of identity, then you shouldn't know those terms by now.
5. Atheism and all our terms will pass. Yes, all terms may pass but what those terms have described regarding nature will never pass. Such as the universal forces, they shall never pass. The strong nuclear force in the universe will never pass.. :Biggrin:

----------


## NikolaiI

> 1. Yes, it is a word and a concept, and it refects on the universe itself, which is void of supernatural interventions(Gods). 
> 2. Who the hell cares on what tree does Atheism grows.
> 3. It is full of identity right now at the point of time. And so are words, there's so much existing words right now, and each one with a unique identity and description.
> 4. Everything that we think, sense, have, create, destroy, it all has identity. Duh If it's devoid of identity, then you shouldn't know those terms by now.
> 5. Atheism and all our terms will pass. Yes, all terms may pass but what those terms have described regarding nature will never pass. Such as the universal forces, they shall never pass. The strong nuclear force in the universe will never pass..


Every word is an illusion. Their nature is void, and without identity.

----------


## andrew23

If you think words are illusion, then you may say that it is the nature of it. Its an illusion of how nature is, it reflects nature itself. That is its nature and that is the identity of words in this world. Words help us communicate more effectively and efficiently, and words help us also to more easily describe nature.

However, even if the statement "Words are illusion" is true, it doesn't justify anything. More importantly, it doesn't invalidate any of those statements I have mentioned above.

And oh, by the way Nikolai, your quote of my post #293 which you posted on #294 has typographical errors. So I edited post #293.

----------


## NikolaiI

> If you think words are illusion, then you may say that it is the nature of it. Its an illusion of how nature is, it reflects nature itself.


I would say that words reflect reality, and reality is illusion too. Rather; reality is real, it's the base, but things like trees, those are illusion. A word has flimsy walls, a tree is more essential, but they are still both unessential. After all sensations in the mind arise so powerfully they are thought to be real, but we usually see that our anger is not a physical force against us, it's just something in the mind. The same is true with other things which exist; they exist in our minds.




> That is its nature and that is the identity of words in this world. Words help us communicate more effectively and efficiently, and words help us also to more easily describe nature.


Yes, and I want you to know; I don't mean to argue with you. I possibly wouldn't have mentioned anything had you not mentioned thinking analytically. Words are lacking identity, as is ego. Nietzsche and Schopenhaur were two of the first to challenge the supreme validity of language. Nietzsche said "there is no thing," "there is no 'I'". Schopenhaur's "The World as Will and Idea" is a great read to help explain...

Perhaps saying words are illusion is not true; perhaps there is nothing to say other than that they are unessential. Temporary. Anyway; if they are symbols which reflect a more essential reality, then understanding this is the way to understand words, and the same is true for things like Metaphysics. Human relationships. Human relationships are based on a lot of klitch, but if the klitch comes from a heart-mind that is connected to reality, then the relationship is more real. 




> However, even if the statement "Words are illusion" is true, it doesn't justify anything. More importantly, it doesn't invalidate any of those statements I have mentioned above.


No, no, it supports them. I mean all I want to do is analyze and understand. I don't think an honest inquiry leads to belief in God, it goes more to atheism, yet I see how fallacious it is to call anyone an atheist...

I mean a person is a person. And in fact, we only call them persons because of language. Soul and super soul are good metaphors for the God within us; and I don't disvalue metaphysics or anything, it's just the base of metaphysics is friendship, and it is all klitch, and is real if it's essential.

Ontology should be studied, it really should.  :Smile:

----------


## blazeofglory

Theism, atheism, metaphysics, spirituality, materiality, so on and so forth. All are illusive things, and muddling too. Of course we can not put an end to this limitless discussion. Both sides, theists and atheists too are armed with logic, points and reasons but they land nowhere and their ideas are fleetingly unreal and are like morning vapors in winter and they disappear in the thin air.

Forget all these gibberish ideas. The truth is you. And I revere you, and you individually and collectively in union or communion with the rest. 

In this we are in this endless eddy and we can get no shore. Let him believe if anyone holds some faiths. for there you can not prove him wrong. 

Let us respect all, and their beliefs or disbeliefs, theisms or atheisms. For all of us are simple human beings. Everything is mysterious. We know very little of th e root of everything.

----------


## andrew23

> Theism, atheism, metaphysics, spirituality, materiality, so on and so forth. All are illusive things, and muddling too. Of course we can not put an end to this limitless discussion. Both sides, theists and atheists too are armed with logic, points and reasons but they land nowhere and their ideas are fleetingly unreal and are like morning vapors in winter and they disappear in the thin air.
> 
> Forget all these gibberish ideas. The truth is you. And I revere you, and you individually and collectively in union or communion with the rest. 
> 
> In this we are in this endless eddy and we can get no shore. Let him believe if anyone holds some faiths. for there you can not prove him wrong. 
> 
> Let us respect all, and their beliefs or disbeliefs, theisms or atheisms. For all of us are simple human beings. Everything is mysterious. We know very little of th e root of everything.


Noble words. I salute you.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## blazeofglory

Often I think deeply and profoundly of course ideas of theism and atheisms are nauseating and I simply despise the terms. 

Indeed philosophies at time take us away from our own beingness or realties. We are what we are, and not what is philosophized, not of course what is idealized or things of ideation. 

We are human beings and I respect simple facts and not rationalization.

If somebody believes in God it is totally his own belief system and to critique him is sheer gibberish. Nobody can say there is God or there is no God. 

Personally I take God as something like truth, indistinguishably truth alone. People through images, at times through mythological images or scientific metaphors are trying to understand God or truth.

I respect everyone' belief. For we are all journeying and can not claim what is truth and what is not.

All philosophers and scientists seemingly voicing with the seeming degree of authority and their endeavors to negate others are bunk. 

For all we are dusts flying in the eddy of this cosmic chaos.

----------


## Remarkable

You cannot believe in atheism since it is not a doctrine.Atheism is exactly the contrary of believing,the contrary of practicing something in the name of your belief.
My reasons to be an Atheist(not to believe in Atheism)are many and as such,I shall not reveal them all here.Well,for a start,there have been many crimes in the name of God,which the Lord himself wouldn't have allowed,no?Or are we just part of a test,where barriers are put in front of us and if we cross them,we deserve eternal happines?Than is another question,the afterlife.And then,it is a fact that many of what religion held for absolute true has turned to be absolute untrue and provable by sience.
However,I respect all beliefs,all religions and all believers.This is a choice of mine and it does not affect others,for the simple reasen that individuals are not affectable(masses are).

----------


## NikolaiI

Remarkable; you have a very liberated view!!!!

----------


## Leaver

i think the question should be "why do you believe in a God/religion?" instead of "Why Do You Believe in Atheism?" since not only atheism is not a religion and therefore not something to believe in but also because atheism is the normal human state. 
i can't even find one valid reason to believe in a god, and i see religions as nothing more than "toxic mimics" of true spirituality. 
Religions divide us, inflict fear on the believers, and through out history they were used as excuses to commit unforgivable murders and all types of atrocities. Religion was and is still used as a way to control others, to have and maintain unquestionable power.
i know we should respect everyone's believes and that what each person believes in is actually none of my buissnes but religions have stopped (decades a go) being a personal thing, i mean, they caused and are still causing wars.

----------


## Emil Miller

> You cannot believe in atheism since it is not a doctrine.Atheism is exactly the contrary of believing,the contrary of practicing something in the name of your belief.
> My reasons to be an Atheist(not to believe in Atheism)are many and as such,I shall not reveal them all here.Well,for a start,there have been many crimes in the name of God,which the Lord himself wouldn't have allowed,no?Or are we just part of a test,where barriers are put in front of us and if we cross them,we deserve eternal happines?Than is another question,the afterlife.And then,it is a fact that many of what religion held for absolute true has turned to be absolute untrue and provable by sience.
> However,I respect all beliefs,all religions and all believers.This is a choice of mine and it does not affect others,for the simple reasen that individuals are not affectable(masses are).


Science has indeed demonstrated that former beliefs have turned out to be untrue but it isn't a question as to how the universe was created but WHY.
Until scientists can answer that, religions will persist.

----------


## Trystan

Yes - I believe in atheism.

Every Sunday I knock on doors and say: "Have you heard the bad news . . . ?".

----------


## The Atheist

> Science has indeed demonstrated that former beliefs have turned out to be untrue but it isn't a question as to how the universe was created but WHY.
> Until scientists can answer that, religions will persist.


Nah.

No matter what science can or can't prove will make no difference to people who believe in god/s.

----------


## mmaria

Are there more atheists or religious people in the world? Is the majority of the population in the world atheistic or religious? If such statistic exists.

----------


## The Atheist

> Are there more atheists or religious people in the world? Is the majority of the population in the world atheistic or religious? If such statistic exists.


16% non-theist, the rest mostly christian, hindu or muslim with the balance smaller religions.




.

----------


## mmaria

> 16% non-theist, the rest mostly christian, hindu or muslim with the balance smaller religions.
> 
> .


According to this, people are either atheistic or religious. I wonder if there is something in between.

----------


## The Atheist

> According to this, people are either atheistic or religious. I wonder if there is something in between.


The "non-theist" breaks down into many sub-groups, not all of which can accurately be described as atheist.

I have no idea on the accuracy of Adherents, but it feels about right - Europe has little god-belief, but the rest of the world is pretty devout.

A good guide only.

----------


## backline

> According to this, people are either atheistic or religious. I wonder if there is something in between.



Welp, in my experience there are some people who observe a distinction between "religious" and "spiritual."

I personally know people who once catagorized themselves as religious, who now object to that and wish to proclaim themselves as spiritual, citing that religion is a set of rules and regulations, but spiritual matters are something else.

For instance, I know a Buddhist Practitioner who has a MA in Psychology. This person does hospice work. To my knowledge he subscribes to no supernatural knowledge, but has a somewhat mystical view of Truth, reality, etc.

I would not call him an atheist, but if the common meaning were closer to "of no particular theology," instead of the commonly accepted "non-believer in theism," I might think that's accurate.

Linguistics aside, this might be an example of something other than black or white catagorization.

----------


## librarius_qui

> - or rather, what made you decide to be an Atheist? Was it a book that changed your belief that there is a God? And last question, what is your personal defenition of Atheism? 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence. There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God. I'm not sure there is even any meaning to the former. Before one can disbelieve in something, that something must be intelligible and it must be understood. Since belief in new gods may appear in the future and it is impossible to know what will be meant by reference to those gods, it makes no sense to say one disbelieves in all gods. Likewise, some conceptions of God are so confusing as to be little more than gibberish. How can one disbelieve in the "ineffable ground of all being"? The expression has no meaning for me and I suspect that those who claim it is meaningful to them don't know what they're talking about. 
> 
> However, since there are many concepts of god(s) and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods or groups of gods.
> 
> Some atheists may know of many gods and reject belief in the existence of all of them. Such a person might be called a polyatheist. All theists are atheists in the sense that they deny the existence of all other gods except theirs, but they don't consider themselves atheists. Most people today who consider themselves atheists probably mean that they do not believe in the existence of the local god. For example, most people who call themselves atheists in a culture where the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God (JCoIG or Jaycolgee) dominates would mean, at the very least, that they do not believe that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient Providential Personal Creator of the universe. And, people who believe in the JCoIG would consider such disbelief tantamount to atheism.
> ...



I was an atheist, once.

My atheism consisted in denying the being of a general god ("demiurge", one might try to name it ...).

I was raised as an atheist. My parents taught me atheism. (Not theoretically, but through their way of life.)

Their atheism used to be denial of their Catholic childhood religion.

I was inclining to agnosticism, when I stumbled on a god.

Atheism, as I understand, is denying the existence of a spiritual part of life. I understood everything as human aspects and creations, under a completely accidentally being world. It made perfect sense to me, and it does, in a way (for there is and there will be no proof of the being of a god or gods, that cannot be interpreted as a human literary and, or artistic creation).

As I began to grow up, and think about things around me, I turned to the thought that, as well as I could not prove that there was a god or gods, I couldn't either prove that there is none.

SOMETHING ELSE

The quote makes reference to people who believe in different gods, and deny the being of others (are atheists to other gods). It's an efficient argument, but it's only an argumentative stand. A religious person will not admit himself an atheist to other gods, if he has at least a bit of self criticism.

Faith is faith. The meaning of it is variable. Maybe "ineffable ground of all being" has no meaning to you, as a definition of (a) god, as well as it has no meaning to me, because my definition of a god is different than this, but this definition has meaning to whomever takes it seriously as a definition. We are different from each other. I can't despise another person's god, or how he defines him/it.

MY THOUGHT

It was a book that changed my concept of god. I stumbled on a book, and it happened to be a god.

I used to treat this matter as something "out of my vocabulary". Now, I don't deny that, if I open the dictionary, I'll find a word "god". I believe in a particular god.

All words in the dictionary are part of humanity, and we can deny none of them. Actually, we can, but it's a decision of each of us. I prefer not to. It's me, right? Anyway, I use a lot the dictionary, I am a graduated Classicist, and hope to become a philologist, some day ... So, I'm the kind of guy who makes dictionaries ... What would be of me if I started to choose words to be or not to be in a general dictionary? ...

god
religion
atheism
rite
sacred
heaven
hell
devil
goblin
elf
vacuum
space
moon
priesthood
sin
sacrifice
work
art
way
mountain
water
fire
breath
word
book
bird
music
light
night
home
past
future
world
imagination
pencil
hadkerchief
brush
honey
bitterness
behemoth
vegetable
food
saturday
astronomy
west
ocean
boat
lamp
storm
roof
lion
wood
statue
chess
life
death
dream
mare
run
walk
rest
peace

war

paganism

change

wind


computer


number


letter


write


read



travel



meet




friend





miss





you






her







and







a








day










will












come














stop

















 :Bawling:

----------


## curlyqlink

> Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence.


I don't believe there is any real distinction here. It seems quite possible to be indifferent about something that one does not consider to be real. I also don't quite understand this business of "active rejection". Do I "actively reject" the existence of UFOs, or leprechauns, or Bigfoot? Or am I simply indifferent? To-ma-toe, To-mah-toe.




> There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God.


Not really, no.




> I'm not sure there is even any meaning to the former. Before one can disbelieve in something, that something must be intelligible and it must be understood.


This seems to me a clever rhetorical device intended to prove that it's impossible to disbelieve in something unless one actually believes in it first. Clever nonsense, in other words. It attempts to confuse _understanding_ with _belief_, two related but far from identical concepts.




> Since belief in new gods may appear in the future and it is impossible to know what will be meant by reference to those gods, it makes no sense to say one disbelieves in all gods. Likewise, some conceptions of God are so confusing as to be little more than gibberish.


Referring back to UFOs and leprechauns clears this right up. I have no problem disbelieving in leprechauns, even though there are (I suppose) many varieties of leprechauns and I am not familiar with them all. There may even be whole families of leprechauns yet to be dreamed up-- I don't believe in them either.

Gibberish, indeed.

----------


## backline

> ...There may even be whole families of leprechauns yet to be dreamed up-- I don't believe in them either...




Ow. :Bawling: 
Don't hold back now.










.







.





 :Biggrin:

----------


## Auriga

> I was an atheist, once.
> 
> My atheism consisted in denying the being of a general god ("demiurge", one might try to name it ...).
> 
> I was raised as an atheist. My parents taught me atheism. (Not theoretically, but through their way of life.)
> 
> Their atheism used to be denial of their Catholic childhood religion.
> 
> I was inclining to agnosticism, when I stumbled on a god.


I think this is the problem I have with most theistic arguments for the conversion towards a particular faith, or belief in god. They 'stumbled' onto god, or god revealed himself to them. How is that possible? How did you stumble onto god? Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real, the creator of the universe who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously? I'm not trying to be degrading to your faith, but I'm just not entirely convinced that you know yourself what it means to stumble upon god. And if that's the case, then how can one in your situation truly go from an 'atheistic' upbringing towards a religious, or, dare I say, spiritual revelation. Also, you mention you were inclining towards agnosticism as well. What does that quite mean? A friend of mine has rightly pointed out that people who claim that they are not quite atheists, or theists, but that they are inclined towards agnosticism really don't quite understand the word. You were inclined to not knowing if you knew anything? 

Again, I'm not attempting to degrade your 'spritiual' beliefs, I'm simply attempting to have you clarify these sort of vague impressions of religion that you're giving. 

On a side note, in reference to a post on the first page of this incredibly long thread which has, apparantly, made it to nearly 3 years running, about**:




> "I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation,"
> 
> What is the scientific explanation for love, or sorrow, or regret, or ...?


.

This is often espoused as an argument against the disbelief in god, as if to say that god is the source of our notions of love, sorrow, regret; essentially suggesting that god is the source of all emotions. 

Well, this link, I believe, is a pretty interesting scientific explanation regarding the biological and evolutionary nature of our understanding of love. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ewvCNguug

----------


## Virgil

> I think this is the problem I have with most theistic arguments for the conversion towards a particular faith, or belief in god. They 'stumbled' onto god, or god revealed himself to them. How is that possible? How did you stumble onto god? Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real, the creator of the universe who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously?


It's quite possible, no quite evident, that you don't know what it means to stumble into belief. It's quite possible that people suddenly see God in every living thing, in every moving part, in every inanimate thing, in every molecule and sub atomic subsetance, in every biological and physical function. If you don't, then why do you deny what other people see?

----------


## The Atheist

> It's quite possible that people suddenly see God in every living thing, in every moving part, in every inanimate thing, in every molecule and sub atomic subsetance, in every biological and physical function.


I think anyone who thinks they see a god in everything is actually a candidate for a jacket with ties at the back. That's religious mania, not religion.

----------


## Virgil

> I think anyone who thinks they see a god in everything is actually a candidate for a jacket with ties at the back. That's religious mania, not religion.


Well, then I need a straight jacket.  :Wink:

----------


## Auriga

> It's quite possible, no quite evident, that you don't know what it means to stumble into belief. It's quite possible that people suddenly see God in every living thing, in every moving part, in every inanimate thing, in every molecule and sub atomic subsetance, in every biological and physical function. If you don't, then why do you deny what other people see?


Well that's just the thing. How do you see God, an otherwise inanimate force, in physical things? Not to mention sub atomic substance.. what does that even mean? You can't see the sub atomic by definition. And in any case, I don't deny that people 'see' god in these physical and biological functions. What I'm saying is that people WANT to see god in every day life, so they do. They ignore the scientific explanations and claim gods will. Or worse, they claim the scientific explanations themselves are gods will. At what point do we say to ourselves, isn't it good enough to understand how the universe works without wondering if there was some higher being out there who created it all for us and will guide us through it? I find that personally insulting to my own intelligence. I don't need some guy who's universally transcendental making decisions about my everyday life for me, not to mention he has complete control over my eternal 'soul' once I die.

----------


## NickAdams

I don't believe in a deity and saying I'm an atheist is a very simple way to express that, but I don't like the connotations. I suggest that my existence is based on the opposition of an established order. Like, and this is only an example which is familiar to most, evil exist only because good does. It can also suggest that I have an anger against theism and want to declare my stance against it. I don't wake up and tell my self there is no God. Being and "atheist" means that God has no relevance in my life, so defining myself as not believing in a deity would defeat the purpose.

The Atheist: I have to agree with Virgil, but not because I see God in everything but because I see art in everything. It's like a new romance in which you see that person in everything. Whatever you cherish in life finds itself in everything.

----------


## Guinivere

> Well, then I need a straight jacket.


Me too. Maybe we'll get a reduction if we buy them in pairs.

----------


## Virgil

> Well that's just the thing. How do you see God, an otherwise inanimate force, in physical things? Not to mention sub atomic substance.. what does that even mean? You can't see the sub atomic by definition. And in any case, I don't deny that people 'see' god in these physical and biological functions.


Oh stop being coy Auriga, you know exactly what I mean. If you don't believe in any form of theism, that's fine. I understand. But don't play this game that you don't know what I mean.




> They ignore the scientific explanations and claim gods will.


I don't know anything about you, but I'm willing to bet that between me or you one of us has a science degree at a college level. I know i do. I'm also willing to bet that one of us actually makes their living in science (I happen to be a mechanical engineer), dealing with physics every day and I bet it's me. If all you understand about theism is God's will, then you don't know anything about theism. Perhaps you should educate yourself like I have with science.

----------


## NickAdams

I can't say I agree with religion, but I'm definitely against people who denounce religion only to worship another social institution (i.e. political parties, government, etc.). We must also avoid judging a doctrine on those we perceive as their representatives. There are many who have perverted our perception of certain religions, but we shouldn't let their deviations define the doctrine. Even a non-believer like myself can enjoy the a good religious doctrine. They contain great tales and a lot of times very poetically and whether you believe in the deity or not, they still contain moral questions that should be pondered. Do we denounce Plato, or Socrates, because of their monotheistic belief? We can read them as philosophy and parable, so why not the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita? This is why I would rather not define myself as an athiest because it's "representatives" have come across as anti-belief and not non-belief. 




> I don't know anything about you, but I'm willing to bet that between me or you one of us has a science degree at a college level. I know i do. I'm also willing to bet that one of us actually makes their living in science (I happen to be a mechanical engineer), dealing with physics every day and I bet it's me. If all you understand about theism is God's will, then you don't know anything about theism. Perhaps you should educate yourself like I have with science.


Burn! :FRlol:

----------


## Dr. Hill

Having a degree in Physics doesn't exempt your beliefs from being ludicrous, Virgil. Plenty of great scientists have been theists, and plenty of them atheists. I still think the theists were incorrect and delusional in their beliefs, whether they were great thinkers otherwise or not.

----------


## Virgil

> Having a degree in Physics doesn't exempt your beliefs from being ludicrous, Virgil. Plenty of great scientists have been theists, and plenty of them atheists. I still think the theists were incorrect and delusional in their beliefs, whether they were great thinkers otherwise or not.


I understand that. All I was commenting on was Auriga's reference that people should learn science and they would drop their beliefs.

----------


## NickAdams

> I still think the theists were incorrect and delusional in their beliefs, whether they were great thinkers otherwise or not.


Everyone has at least one delusional belief. Who is exempt?

----------


## Dr. Hill

No one. That was my point. I have delusions as well, I just don't credit them to anything but my feeble mind. I didn't mean to attack anyone directly, just thought Virgil was using his science degree to negate anything being said about his beliefs.

----------


## Virgil

> I didn't mean to attack anyone directly, just


I think you're doing a pretty good job of attacking people in a number of places. Give people the respect they are due. I don't see theists here insulting atheists, but I see it fairly regularly the other way. You have to realize, you're not going to convince anyone and no one is going to convince you.

----------


## Dr. Hill

I don't think I've attacked anyone. I can state my opinions, and they can then state theirs.

----------


## Jozanny

Since biology has not quite yet broken the coda of age killing most mammals off at a certain point, most of us are still going to die, at least those of us over 40. Death is a universal experience none of us can say anything about, to prove who is right or who is wrong, be it Christian, Jew, Muslim, three groups who essentially believe in one god but are highly intolerant of each other's coda, or eastern in faith, and eastern is, in a word, different, more polytheistic, and integrated to natural order, and honestly, I am bored by it, even though I tend to believe that the rise of atheistic advocacy in the West is essentially a progressive fight.

My mother wasn't a good Catholic, far from it, she was a troubled woman whose parents never got her adequate mental health services, which in turn spilled off on her children, who have their own issues. If my Catholic god really exists, he already put me in hell on earth, so I have no use for him or his hell in the hereafter. If he isn't Catholic, but Allah, or Hebrew, well, opps, I was born in the Roman Church; if he is none of these, well, why play games with humanity?

And if he isn't anything at all, these arguments are moot. I will sort of agree with Nick that the politic of studying religious traditions can be interesting, but for the most part members here don't really do that. We are merely advocates, and since we merely advocate, I fail to see the point--that is why I am increasingly inactive in Religious Texts.

Which is sometimes interchangeable with the equally weak Philosophical Literature...  :Smile:  My boo boo.

----------


## Auriga

> I understand that. All I was commenting on was Auriga's reference that people should learn science and they would drop their beliefs.


Though I like how you conveniently took my quote out of context and disregarded the following sentence which suggestes that, for those theists who make their living in science, and there are a substantial number, many of them simply chalk their scientific ideologies to being another extension of God's infinite plan. But I guess if we're going to resort to judging the validity of people's arguments based on their educational degrees, then what's the point of talking about religion, when most of us here don't have degrees in that field? Atheist scientists should just stop questioning the dogmas religion has set up over the thousands of years because they didn't go to school in theology? Because I'm working on a degree in English literature I shouldn't discuss what (little) science and theology I know? Please, give me a break. Somebody else in thsi thread said religious people deserve to be put in straight jackets, and nobody called him on it. I say religious people are selectively delusional and you try to tear me apart. A little consistency would be nice.

----------


## librarius_qui

> I think this is the problem I have with most theistic arguments for the conversion towards a particular faith, or belief in god. They 'stumbled' onto god, or god revealed himself to them. How is that possible? How did you stumble onto god?


It's like (exactly like) to stumble onto E=mc2. Why do you trust that E=mc2?
(Do you?)
Anyway, until anyone presents you anything more eficient, you will believe that E=mc2.

To *stumble* onto a god means that something unexpected happened, and it simply happened, and it was accidental (to me) like stubling onto a stone. Faith is very related to *accident*, in a way.





> Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real, the creator of the universe who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously?


Wow! ... lots of questions in one ... let me try to do anything with it!  :Crash: 

"Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real?" *Person* is a very significant word for my undertanding of the god I _stumbled onto_. A relationship with a god is started by the god, not necessarily by a man. With me, it was entirely by the god, because I wasn't searching a got AT ALL. As I said, I was an atheist by bringing up, and was becoming an agnostic. (I'll talk about agnosticism below.)

"[Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was] the creator of the universe?" No, he simply presented, saying, "hello! there is a god!". This talk of creation is after you think about many other things. But he's, above all (the god I came around with) very humble. He didn't say "hello, I created the universe!". He said, "hello, ye know those things you were thinking about? ... Here they are: like this, this and this". It had nothing to do with explaination of the universe. It had to do with explaination and knowledge of myself, intimately. He simply knows me! He knew ev'rything about me! A bit scary, ye know? But, what to do?: undeniably true. I can do nothing, nor guarantee it may happen with everyone. Or with you. It happened with me. Full stop ~

"[Did he personally come to you and tell you that] _it was he_] who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously?"

No. And yes. It's a crazy thing. But my primary thought was to say that no (absolutely no!) because of the word you used: "must". He doesn't say anyone "must follow" what he says. He says some similar things, but not at all this way. Because he's humble, I think.





> Also, you mention you were inclining towards agnosticism as well. What does that quite mean? A friend of mine has rightly pointed out that people who claim that they are not quite atheists, or theists, but that they are inclined towards agnosticism really don't quite understand the word. You were inclined to not knowing if you knew anything?


Agnosticism is the denial of gnosticism. gnosticism is the doctrine (speaking in very rough words ...) which teaches that god can be known through secret ways, and iniciation in rites. Agnosticism is a kind of a doctrine that says that god, if he ever exists, cannot be known, or reached, and doesn't care about reaching anyone (or making anyone stumble onto him ...  :Biggrin:  )





> I'm not trying to be degrading to your faith, but I'm just not entirely convinced that you know yourself what it means to stumble upon god. (...)
> 
> Again, I'm not attempting to degrade your 'spritiual' beliefs, I'm simply attempting to have you clarify these sort of vague impressions of religion that you're giving.


Nothing can convince you. It's a matter of respecting. If you respect that some people simply stumbled pon a god, it's something of their lives, and experiences with ... the universe! Respect it. That's all. A god rarely shows himself to those who search too much for him, because the search is usually too scientific and, or methodic. There's no method to stumble onto a stone. It's accident! It happens! and we usually avoid it!, but it happens, if it has to happen! If it didn't ever happen with you, hey! maybe you're lucky!

These impressions I'm giving aren't vague ... but to you. And to whomever never stumbled in their lives ... When you stumble, you fall, and you get hurt. When it hurts, you don't forget.

You tell twice you aren't trying to "degrate" a man's faith ... I see that you truly make such effort! So, mate, you're making it right. Never mind! don't worry! Stop searching! If you walk looking to the ground all the time, you never get sight of the sky, the blue above, or the stars! Walk looking upwards! It doesn't mean you'll stumble, but it'll certainly be a more pleasant walk! ~


 :Crash:

----------


## Auriga

> It had nothing to do with explaination of the universe. It had to do with explaination and knowledge of myself, intimately. He simply knows me! He knew ev'rything about me! A bit scary, ye know? But, what to do?: undeniably true. I can do nothing, nor guarantee it may happen with everyone. Or with you. It happened with me. Full stop ~


My reasoning for this is that, while you may believe it's god, have you ever wondered maybe it's just your subconscious telling you something about yourself, becasue, well.. you know.. it's your subconscious? It just seems like a more plausible to me to believe that you had a personal epiphony about your own existence which was independent of a supernatural being. If this god that you stumbled on didn't reveal any knowledge about the universe, its purpose, how it got created, why we are here, where we go when we die, but only revealed to you things about yourself that you would presumably, if you are any bit as sane as you sound from your posts, know about yourself readily, then why automatically make the jump to assuming it's god? 

My problem isn't necessarily with the belief or faith in god. It's the acceptance of this faith based on little to no evidence. I believe in E=MC2 because there is enough evidence to suggest its validity. Same thing with, say... Gravity. Or Earth revolving around the sun.

----------


## The Atheist

> Well, then I need a straight jacket.


Wouldn't that rather negate the "free will" concept, which is pretty important to all of christian theology?

And just one nit-pick from later on in your posts - while I agree that engineers use physics, they are not generally considered to "work in science".

Evidence.

----------


## Jozanny

> I say religious people are selectively delusional and you try to tear me apart. A little consistency would be nice.


One quibble Auriga. I think we have to be careful with terms like "selectively delusional". People assert that the divine speaks to them or through them all the time, and their faith is formed on this emotive basis. I am not sure how different this is than the intensity of my own feelings, which include anxiety, pain, suffering, fear, as well as the more positive aspirational, which is why I was once a noted poet, and even now, a still forceful writer when I am not shredding myself to pieces. :Tongue: 

I simply don't trust any feeling as evidence as something beyond the three dimentional space I inhabit. Others do--but this in itself is not evidence of delusion which needs to be corrected. Normal as a state doesn't have a definitive existence either. How well adjusted anyone is matters in degree, not in absolutes.

----------


## Virgil

> Wouldn't that rather negate the "free will" concept, which is pretty important to all of christian theology?


No not at all. 




> And just one nit-pick from later on in your posts - while I agree that engineers use physics, they are not generally considered to "work in science".


According to who? We hire scientists to work along with us. We have a mix of both on a given team, if it so warrants. I guess it may depend on the type of engineering one does.

----------


## librarius_qui

A friend wrote:

"Dear friend;

"Good job. My only "disagreement" with you is your statement, 


" 'A god rarely shows himself to those who search too much for him, because the search is usually too scientific and, or methodic. There's no method to stumble onto a stone. It's accident!'


"The Bible encourages people to search for God and a search which begins an an intellectual one is not necessarily a bad angle to approach knowledge of God. It is not just an accident or luck, but a heart searching for God which finds him. Acts 17:24-28 and Jeremiah 29:10-15 suggest that God is found by those whom God calls, but also those who search for him.

"Keep up the good work.

"Your friend"



 :Crash:

----------


## Tecumseh

Atheism, for me, is a lack of beliefs. They don't want to have faith put into something that might not be there.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm not religous either. I suppose 'agnostic' would be closest to what I am. At this time I'm leaning more torwards atheism, though.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

Atheism is not the lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, and has slowly morphed into this widely accepted scientific method of thinking that we experience (at least in North America). 

What you are thinking of is closer to nihilism than to atheism...

----------


## billyjack

lets call a spade a spade. atheism is an offshoot of christianity. rather than defining itself by the bible, it defines itself as in opposition to the bible.

similar to a colony, say the americas, pretending that its something completely different than its previous ruler (britain). its not. both countries have more in common than in difference. so goes with christianity and atheism. their structure is the same. one holds god holy, the other "truth."

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheism is not the lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, ...


Sorry, but you're quite wrong - we've been over this many times now.

"I do not believe in god/s" = atheist.

Simple as that.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

> Atheism is the belief that there are no gods





> "I do not believe in god/s" = atheist.


It seems to me that you are repeating exactly what I said. Maybe you should "go over it" again.

----------


## The Atheist

> It seems to me that you are repeating exactly what I said. Maybe you should "go over it" again.


No, the two are subtly different.

----------


## JacobF

There was never one particular moment in my life that marked the "awakening" I had. My subscription to atheism was a gradual one. I was raised to have theistic beliefs: my family would go to Church every Sunday, pray every night, et cetera. These rituals never meant much to me, though. As I got older I began to realize that I didn't need the idea of God, nor religion, to live my life. The whole concept of a celestial body watching over our every action seemed silly to me, and I then transitioned from a state of indifference to a state of full rejection. 

I no longer go to Church. I feel that we can find spirituality and guidance within ourselves, not from a vengeful, but at the same time loving, God. The same follow-the-leader mentality that governed the cavemen is the only thing that legitimizes the idea of a God and religion as a mainstream system of belief. That's not to say religion is completely useless. We can still take a little something from Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, et cetera. But it's the complete devotion to these religions that is, in my opinion, deplorable. 

But anyways, I'm getting a bit off topic. I guess I hate the idea of religion more than I do of God.

----------


## NikolaiI

> There was never one particular moment in my life that marked the "awakening" I had. My subscription to atheism was a gradual one. I was raised to have theistic beliefs: my family would go to Church every Sunday, pray every night, et cetera. These rituals never meant much to me, though. As I got older I began to realize that I didn't need the idea of God, nor religion, to live my life. The whole concept of a celestial body watching over our every action seemed silly to me, and I then transitioned from a state of indifference to a state of full rejection. 
> 
> I no longer go to Church. I feel that we can find spirituality and guidance within ourselves, not from a vengeful, but at the same time loving, God. The same follow-the-leader mentality that governed the cavemen is the only thing that legitimizes the idea of a God and religion as a mainstream system of belief. That's not to say religion is completely useless. We can still take a little something from Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, et cetera. But it's the complete devotion to these religions that is, in my opinion, deplorable. 
> 
> But anyways, I'm getting a bit off topic. I guess I hate the idea of religion more than I do of God.


Well for some loving God and loving creation must go hand in hand, and there is no difference. You can't have one without the other.

I was an atheist until a few years ago. I don't think any one way is absolutely better than others. I don't flip flop like some people though, and if I say I believe in God then I really mean I do. I was confident as an atheist and I'm confident as a believer. Though I don't think either is absolutely right over the other, currently I am a believer. I don't care if that word has negative connotations to others, because it has no negative connotations for me. Religion is corrupted by humans but human religions basically aren't religions. 99% of it is not. If you are slaughtering animals you cannot come to God.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

The difference would be that you are referring to a believer and I am referring to the belief itself.

----------


## andrew23

#Why Do You Believe in Atheism?

#who cares what i believe. my answer to that question will be insignificant, unlike if an entire country full of atheists had this survey, now that would be different and worth wasting time.

#but then again, we are here upon the dark caves of internet, it's like some sort of hiding place for bored people around the world.

#so then, let me answer the question despite the insignificance of my answer. 

What exactly does it mean, to "believe"?
If we say it is to "assume something to be true", 
Then yes, I believe in Atheism. And Atheism holds that God does not exist. Therefore I assume that God does not exist."

Why believe in God? 
Different people have believed in different Gods since ancient times up to the present. Various religions were created. Most of those religions were based on books. These books, including the funny/creepy stories in it which I'm not really fond of, despite the charade they bring to the world, are priceless.. 

Why?

THE PROS:
Apparently, religion is efficient and effective enough to aid human survival. 
1. Most religion have laws that force people to be good. And if people are good and kind to each other, survival will happen. 
2. It unifies people. (Although not everyone around the world)
3. It gives purpose to many people, and adds meaning and color to their 
lives. 

THE CONS:
1. There are many religions, some contradicting each other ending in debates, flying salivas, or worst..blood bath.

2. Many people do not completely abide the laws of their religion. And to compensate for the weakness of religion, countries now have their so called "government". Again, laws were invented to supplement the weakening force of religion. Yet, criminal rate is still troubling, and will be still unless we modify our current policies to a somewhat harsher figure. e.g. a world without privacy (cameras everywhere, even in the bathroom), a world in total control. Utopia starts with knowledge, knowledge starts dramatically near the end of religion, then politics and technology will pave the way to Utopia. Then after stability in earth, maybe we can evolve our civilization to the next level. (****! Sci-fi is closer than before. The spaceship and all that. Haha)
*But alas, I'm not really good at predicting things. haha, but anyway, good luck to mankind haha  :Biggrin:

----------

