Atheists, on the other hand, think that they can explain the universe. They believe that they understand the workings and can explain the origins through scientific reasoning.

But, what existed before the "Big Bang"? How was it created or has it always existed? Finally, why did these events take place? Athiests do not have definitive answers and therefore must operate on faith, just like every other religion.

Now let's move on. The belief of athiesm is based in the scientific method. The scientific method is based on the theory that everything can be understood and explained. Taken to its logical extreme, thoughts and actions are the result of chemical reactions in the brain. These reactions, and all other reactions, are the result of predictible atomic and sub-atomic interactions. Therefore every thought, every action, every event and every consequence can be predicted through the mathematical understanding of these reactions.

Now lets take that thought to its logical extreme. Even the ability to predict actions and consequences and therefore intervene to change results should also be predictable; because that understanding is the result of thoughts that are the result of chemical reactions and so on and so on.

In other words, atheism and its scientific method, believes just as firmly in fate as the Bible and its "Book of Life" does.

Here is the ultimate irony of all of this. Atheism and the scientific method, that bastion of reason, believes that all of this just exists and for no reason what so ever. It exists because it exists. Christianity, on the other hand, believes that there is a reason for the existence of the universe.

The thrust of the Bible is on "why" things happen and it doesn't go into long explanations of how. Therefore, it does not discount the possibility that God used "the big bang", billions of years ago to create the heavens and the earth.

I can already hear people jumping up and down and saying "The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth in six days." But do they have to be earth days. A Moon day is 28 days and change long. A day on Venus is different than a day on Mars. What about the period of rotation of the milky-way about its axis? There are an infinite number of ways of measuring time.

Using the "big bang" theory and the planet development theories, is it possible, or likely that a "day", the period of rotation of the earth about its axis evolved as the planet grew? How about the possibility that the period of rotation of the earth about the sun changed as it grew? I'm trying to remember my high-school physics; but, my guess is that, if the big bang theory is correct, the period of the earth's orbit cannot have remained constant as it grew. This is how we measure time today; but how would we apply it to a period before the solar system achieved its present form?

In the end, there are more questions than answers. I think that the real difference between christianity and atheism is that christians believe that all of this has a reason and purpose and athiests do not.

[ 31 October 2004: Message edited by: ggs ]

quote:

---

Atheism, like christianity is a religion.

---

No it isn't.

quote:

---

Atheists, on the other hand, think that they can explain the universe.

---

No they don't. You are confusing them with evangelical theists.

quote:

---

The belief of athiesm is based in the scientific method.

---

No it isn't.

quote:

---

I can already hear people jumping up and down and saying "The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth in six days."

---

You should get that looked into. Hallucinations are never a good sign.

quote:

---

Without purpose and reason, all life and everything else is irrelevant.

---

That is a rather bleak outlook. Perhaps you should seek professional help, lest despair overtake your life.

[ 31 October 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]

quote:

---

In other words, atheism and its scientific method, believes just as firmly in fate as the Bible and its "Book of Life" does.

---

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. It has nothing to do with my faith in science or my rejection of fate or any of that stuff. I just don't believe in god. That's it. The word's pretty simple.

There are multiple ways to think about god, and what god is, and I don't want to go into this. One thing I'm sure about: there's very little place for the god of the three major monotheistic religions in the universe as we now know it. Scientists can explain almost everything that went on in the universe down to a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang, without resorting to god. This leads me to believe that if the god of christians, muslims and jews existed, then he must have been a kind of watchmaker, there at the beginning to start the mechanism that then evolved without further intervention (since god isn't needed to explain the universe after the big bang). If this is the case, then there's no point in praying to him. To me, the idea of an all powerful god who can do anything he pleases is unnecessary. The sheer imperfections of our world and the universe points towards something that evolved on its own. If god exists, he only kick started things and then went his separate ways. Because if he didn't, if he is really all powerful and omniscient and all that big daddy in the sky bullshit is real, then the son of a bitch has a lot of explaining to do.

You see, to me, the idea of a god that either doesn't exist, or that can't intervene in his creation, brings a lot more solace than the idea of an all powerful god.

[ 31 October 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

Another old thread.

Most of what I have to say about being an atheist has already been said.

I will, however, add this:

Consider a child. At one time or another, almost every child invents an "imaginary friend". Adults usually tolerantly indulge this, but one notices that children can get very heated about dismissal of their assertions that their imaginary friends exist.

So why, as adults, do we continue to indulge the fantasy of God as our collective imaginary friend?

Is it because people react with childlike hostility and defensiveness when it is reasonably pointed out that their imaginary friend hasn't put in an appearance yet?

-----

Addendum on science:

I get very gravelled when I constantly have to deal with people who don't know the first thing about the differences between science and religion, but who nevertheless insist that science requires faith just like religion does.

Speaking as a scientist myself, I darn well should know the differences. Here's a few.

Science requires that empirical evidence be accepted over any theoretical "proof" to the contrary. So if I see an increase in mass of an object as I watch it go to the speed of light, then I had better well be able to account for it, Newtonian mechanics notwithstanding.

Ditto the understanding that there is an inherent imprecision in the measurement of position and momentum (i.e. velocity). You can measure both simultaneously, but to do so you sacrifice precision in one to gain precision in the other.

While this may seem redundant, it must be emphasized that science, unlike religion, is not static. It cannot depend on 2,000-year-old dogma set down as the inerrant word of a supreme being if the dogma is at odds with the evidence gathered by one's measurements.

So just as we have discarded classical mechanics at the subatomic level, so too must we discard the ridiculous notion that we humans are so important to a universe so incomprehensibly vast in size as to boggle the mind, that a Supreme Being magicked us up on this planet and gave us purpose and reason.

We humans need to find our own purpose and reason independent of the assumption that any "higher being" has a special surprise for us.

I am, of course, willing to be proven wrong, and have consistently stated that if God wants to prove its existence to me, all it must do is explode my computer's monitor in colorful rainbow pyrotechnics in a manner that is clearly not consistent with normal electrical failure, and I will gladly believe.

So far, it hasn't happened. And anyone who tells me I need faith in God first misses a crucial point: Faith assumes, before any of the data is in, the existence of the thing you want to find out about.

That's bad analytical reasoning, and bad science. Properly, we look for pre-existing phenomena that cannot be explained using the current state of our knowledge. We then try to find what might be causing that phenomena.

If we never bothered to seek physical explanations for anything, we might continue to believe that gods made food grow, or rain fall.

[ 31 October 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

When you don't have religious beliefs, you are free to find and decide for yourself what your life means.

[ 31 October 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. It has nothing to do with my faith in science or my rejection of fate or any of that stuff. I just don't believe in god. That's it. The word's pretty simple.

---

Bang on! As it happens, I do believe in God. But I think it's the height of arrogance to tell someone who doesn't share that belief that they're "religious".

You don't have to spend much time on babble to realize that there's any number of contributors who are atheist or agnostic - and some feel very strongly about that. And you know what? I don't think they need to have anyone try to "convert" them.

quote:

---

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. It has nothing to do with my faith in science or my rejection of fate or any of that stuff. I just don't believe in god. That's it. The word's pretty simple.

---

quote:

---

I would define myself as a agnostic when I'm sober and an atheist when I'm drunk.

---

quote:

---

Consider a child. At one time or another, almost every child invents an "imaginary friend". Adults usually tolerantly indulge this, but one notices that children can get very heated about dismissal of their assertions that their imaginary friends exist.

---

Then, Dr Conway, you go on in your post to describe in effect the "Scientific Method". To me, it amounts to being an intelligent sceptic. And I must admit that scepticism is too often lacking on this forum of intelligent people.

On an aside, I will quote you again:

quote:

---

so too must we discard the ridiculous notion that we humans are so important to a universe so incomprehensibly vast in size as to boggle the mind, that a Supreme Being magicked us up on this planet and gave us purpose and reason.

---

quote:

---

Having said that, I really do not care if people believe in God, are agnostic or atheist. They are less dangerous and nasty than the fundamentalist religious cult followers including so called "fundamentalist Christians" that think they know God.

---

quote:

---

Because if he didn't, if he is really all powerful and omniscient and all that big daddy in the sky bullshit is real, then the son of a bitch has a lot of explaining to do.

---

Douglas Adams, in one of the Hitchhiker books, described God's last message to his creation - the universe as:

So while Atheism isn't a 'religion' in that sense that it doesn't believe in an almighty deity(ies) or an 'all encompassing moral compass' it's definitely an 'all encompassing' world-view. And in that view there is an attempt to 'push it' onto other people, like there is in religion pseudo and organized. Denying that fact is just un-true.

Now I have little doubt that gss's attempts to bring this up is shit disturbing so to speak. But the question of what caused the big bang is very interesting. Seriously if we can contemplate this then how can we come from nothing? I guess the response is what put 'God' there in the first place? This is where faith comes in on both sides, there's a faith in the religious belief and a faith in the atheistic belief. And until there is an actual answer to this that explains exactly why I can contemplate the fact that I can contemplate I'm going to have to put my faith into something, and I've chosen a religion. I don't expect other people to believe it, but I would ask that they respect it. As they say respect is a two-way street. You give it, and I will too.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
But atheism is clearly a belief. So briguy's claims of "no, No, NO" don't make that fact that there are similarities between religion and atheism any different. There are certain assumptions being made about the world if one is an atheist, and to say these assumptions don't exist is disingenuous. As there are assumptions being made about the world if one is religious.

---

Religionists make the claim that there are supernatural entities in the world. Atheists refuse to accept the claim until proven.

Now, this is pure speculation, but unlike the idea of god as creator of the universe, this speculation is based on something concrete i.e. a certain number of physical principles.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

Faith = the notion that science can someday explain everything

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
My problem with athiesm is that I have this vision of a tormented individual on a mountaintop, shaking his/her fist at the heavens and yelling, "You do not exist!" To paraphrase Shakespeare, athiests protest too much.

It is easier for me to understand agnostics.

---

My position as an agnostic is: I dunno if god exists, and I don't really care. He can't do anything for me anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Faith = the notion that science will someday explain existence.

Faith = the notion that science can someday explain everything

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

---

You know, I don't really expect science to do neither of those things. Those kinds of expectations are typical of religious people. They're always looking for absoluts. They want meaning...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:

Religionists make the claim that there are supernatural entities in the world. Atheists refuse to accept the claim until proven.

It's not the atheist's job to back up someone else's faith in something that, so far, has not manifested itself in a clear and unambiguous manner, so I fail to see how you can call atheism a "faith".

---

Easily. If you're an atheist and your going to claim that the big bang is what created us fine. But what created the big bang? Because if we are here right now then how did we get here, what caused it and what caused the thing that caused that and so on. Where was that proven? I fail to see it. So I've decided to believe in a faith, that's not the only reason (as I don't believe in monocausal reasoning usually), but if you believe the big-bang theory for all that it's worth there has to be some faith in it because the conundrum of how we got here in the first place was never proven! Mabye there are no complete answers, fine w/e, but the claim that science will prove everything seems a little dubious when applied to this example.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

In fact, it's precisely this that shows you that atheism *isn't* a religion. Those of you here who figure atheism has to be a religion are also attributing all these religion-like characteristics to it, where it somehow substitutes science for God and uses science to explain everything and so on and so forth. But we don't have to do any of that stuff, because we're *not* a religion. I don't know how the universe started. Science keeps pushing back the stuff they can speculate on plausibly, but for all I know there could be discoveries soon that will change the picture, or give vague insights into a still deeper past to which we then have to ask "what came before that?"
It's all very interesting, but it's not to the point. There were plenty of atheists before the big bang theory became current. I'm fine with not knowing. I'm just quite confident that no matter what fascinating things scientists uncover, none of them will involve God-or-reasonable-facsimile saying "Let there be light".

Look. Science hasn't explained the Origins of the Universe, although it's given us some awfully cool information on the subject. Nor has philosophy solved all the world's ethical dilemmas. But religions have generally offered utter nonsense on the creation front combined with contradictory crap on the ethics front. Sure, most of them have a few useful principles embedded somewhere amid the archaic weirdness, but not nearly as much as you can find in, say, A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. And the requirement to treat it all as divinely inspired even where it's racist, sexist, violent, or otherwise utterly captive of the society it was written in, makes those texts less useful than they could otherwise be. That's what makes me an atheist, not a belief that I do have an explanation, but a certainty that the people who think they do are quite wrong.

Well, that and the general insistence by modern theists that, whatever the specifics, the general properties of a deity would be omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. Such characteristics are not consistent with the nature of the world. The evil of humans is one thing, that's free will. But natural disasters and diseases and parasites that kill innocent children (and animals), often slowly and horribly, that's not human evil. Which means if there were a deity, it would have to be the deity's fault. Sorry, that's not good.

But as soon as the deity *isn't* the definer of morality, suddenly there isn't this "I need a big daddy to tell me what I should do" effect, because a non-good deity leaves you still needing to think for yourself about what's right. Lacking any evidence, what's the point in working hard to suspend disbelief in such a thing?

Oddly enough in your long-winded attempt to make all religion sound bumpkinish and silly there is a grain of truth, yes even within your attempts to sound insulting. Yes religion has a lot of limits, but guess what life isn't perfect and neither are atheistic views of the world. Wow what a really revolutionary statement. Maybe there are no real answers to everything, but if you wish to go along one route to find such an answer (should it exist) and I go another then it's ultimately ones free will that determines that. Hell if you don't even want to bother it's your life. And insistently comparing all religious people with entrails readers or something is insulting, and even if someone was doing such things it's their lives so long as they aren't forcing it upon you it's really not that important. In my opinion it only becomes an issue when this respect quotient isn't delivered, otherwise it's really not (or it shouldn't be).

{Oh yeah before this turns into an early morning gong show and i come back and find 100 posts, I'm not suggesting those who don't want to find out answers to such a thing (where we came from) are stupid -- so just thought I'd say that before this becomes a slug fest -- if we're going to really read into ppl's posts that is }

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

After his speech he was approached by a neat little old lady who said to him, "I listened to you young man, but I've read Guru Thingamabobby, and he says the earth rests on the back of a turtle."

"But what is the turtle resting on?" replied our cosmologist.

quote:

---

Atheism, like christianity is a religion. Both require you to believe things that you cannot prove.

---

I always love this one. Once the faithful are pushed to their breaking point by a bit of good ol' logic, they trundle this out in the hope of a quick "shut up", but it simply doesn't wash. Or if it did, we'd all have an infinite number of religions we'd need to follow.

Why? Simple. There are an infinite number of things that do not exist. As fast as I can mention them, you'll have to not believe in them, at which point not believing in them becomes a new article of faith for you. Ready?

Giant Green Squid who wander the streets, sucking the brains out of children.

Believe in them? Seen any? No? Great. Now you have a new "religion" you have to follow. It has to define you, apparently, and you have to put just as much effort into denying the existence of these Giant Green Squid as you would into worshipping them, apparently.

And don't try to weasel out by saying "but I just don't believe.. this involves no effort on my part!". It won't wash, Squid-denier! You just got yourself a new religion!

Wanna try another one, or do you need to get used to your first new religion before you add a second? Ready...?

Large Bears Driving Cabs, recklessly.

Seen any? Believe in them? If not, and you want to continue to not believe in something you've never seen then you just added New Religion #2 to your list. Heck, pretty soon you'll be so busy believing in the existence of some things and not believing in the existence of others that you won't have time to get anything done, eh?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuslim:
"Oh, you can't get me that way, young man," she said, brandishing her umbrella, "it's turtles all the way down!"

---

EARTHQUAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Atheism = there is definitely no God = faith = religion

And you guys quit confusing science and religion. Science deals with the material universe. If God exists, She is not a material being and cannot be measured by science.

quote:

---

Atheism = there is definitely no God

---

I just think that historically we've used our capacity to wonder to scare ourselves and each other, and then we made up all these myths to assuage our fears and they stuck over time--because of our human ability to communicate and keep history. We made the stories up, they didn't come from any divine origin other than the minds of other human beings.

I think it's much more powerful to have faith in humanity and our universal, collective humanness than to look outward to something other than ourselves for guidance. I think looking to god or allah or whatever is actually counterproductive, since they're not here (because they don't exist except for in the minds of believers) and can't actually direct any change or cause any action. If we spent nearly as much time revering each other as we do on god-figures, we'd definitely be living in a better place.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Loony Bin ]

quote:

---

As if they've finally proved a negative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
As much as I support atheism (it's a valid choice), I still think it's laughable that some atheists are categorical about the non-existence of God. As if they've finally proved a negative. I simply can't buy into that illogic.

---

No, I can't prove the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, just as I can't prove the non-existence of the IPU, but neither has ever been seen by reliable witnesses, there exists no evidence of their existence, and the whole idea is so laughably absurd and illogical that it's simply not worth expending any time on.

Then again,

quote:

---

No, I can't prove the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, just as I can't prove the non-existence of the IPU, but neither has ever been seen by reliable witnesses, there exists no evidence of their existence, and the whole idea is so laughably absurd and illogical that it's simply not worth expending any time on.

---

Athiest:

quote:

---

one who believes that there is no deity

---

agnostic:

quote:

---

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

---

Both from dictionary.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
RB, I don't know how to say this. That unicorn proves nothing. She is clearly not invisible.

---

Better?

What's our label?

What about for those who don't believe in Bears Driving Cabs? Is there a label for that too?

Obviously I can't speak for every atheist, but to me atheism doesn't mean a strong commitment to the idea that there cannot possibly be a God. As mentioned, this cannot be logically supported, as it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
What about for those who don't believe in Bears Driving Cabs? Is there a label for that too?

---

Fools?

School vouchers could turn out to improve public education. But you know, I really don't believe it. I'm not neutral or lacking opinion on that topic--I'm firmly of the opinion that they're a bad idea which erodes public education. I could be wrong, but based on the evidence I've seen and the groups that back them and what I know of the motivation of those groups, I am solidly in the "School vouchers do *not* improve public education" camp. I am not agnostic about school vouchers. Even though I do concede the possibility that my belief could turn out to be mistaken, it remains the belief that I hold, on grounds I consider sufficient.

quote:

---

Sure, I could be wrong, but it seems very unlikely to me that I am. You don't need 100% to qualify as belief.

---

Rufus, there's nothing in what you said that I disagree with, but looking at it meta-textually, what's with the concern about being right? Most people have faith in things because it helps them live their lives, not out a of desire to be right.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
What's the word for someone who doesn't believe in Green Squid that eat the brains of children, then?

---

Heretic. Burn, baby, burn.

as larry king said. he wishes he could interview god and ask only one question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

Better?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
Did you have a son?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Repent. The end is nigh.

---

oh i was scared for a minute if the end is only nigh i have a bit of time. i thought it was near.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Well RB, Magoo and Briguy can have this lovely room to your self. It will probably be more fun for you guys if you simply confirm each other's points.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Repent. The end is nigh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Agnosticism is like bisexuality. Some people think it's more virtuous to chose; one or the other.

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

---

I don't think that there's either an ultimate origin, and I don't believe that there's a ultimate reason for existence. We just happened. I believe that the universe just is.

Humanism is.

Humanism is predominately made up of Atheists and Agnostics, but also various forms of deists.

How can Atheists have a religion when they have no codified doctrine? What are they having faith in? Christians have faith in the principles of the bible, Muslims the Qu'ran, etc. that apply to all facits of life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
Do your religious beliefs change when you're drunk?

---

Well, I stated here, a few posts ago, that I'm an agnostic when sober and a atheist when drunk...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
As much as I support atheism (it's a valid choice), I still think it's laughable that some atheists are categorical about the non-existence of God. As if they've finally proved a negative. I simply can't buy into that illogic.

---

I see I must repeat myself:

It is up to the religionists to back up their claim that a deity exists, even if it is the Great Big Potato Chip in the sky.

It is not up to us atheists to do the work of religionists in backing up their a priori faith in something you can't interact with, without having to presuppose the existence of the deity in question.

Therefore, we have not in any way proved a negative. We have simply required you to back up your claims, and reserve the right to simply ignore the claim if evidence is wanting.

Hey god, how the hell are you? Oh, sorry, no blasphemy, right... Well, god I got a few questions... First, why suffering? Why does my friend's dad have to die of a terrible painful disease? As far as I know, he's a decent bloke... God, why parasites? Why George W.? And so on...

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
God is not a performing monkey; She does not do tricks at our command. Don't imagine some little god that suits you and demand that God be the way you want, because of course you are all-knowing and capable of imaging exactly what God ought to be like [that was sarcasm]. You can create idols that way, but it's not a way of getting to know God.

People who have experienced God did so as part of a relationship; it's a subjective experience; but that's all you get. Try talking to God.

---

This is exactly what irritates me about religion and religionists: The presupposition of the existence of a deity before you can interact with it.

Furthermore, if a deity really wants me to believe in it, I should be able to see some pretty fucking concrete proof that it exists, not this have-faith-and-you'll-see mumbo jumbo pile of BS.

Hint: If I aim a spectrometer at something that emits visible light, the wavelength the spectrometer registers doesn't depend on me waving an amulet in the air, praying to the Great Photon in the Sky, and then hopping around saying, "I believe! I believe!" and then maybe getting the wavelength to register.

YOUR claim is that God exists. MY rather reasonable question is: Why, then, does your God persist in all this silly-assed rigmarole about presupposing that he/she/it exists in order for me to benefit from its infinite store of knowledge?

Professors and teachers don't demand as a prerequisite for learning from them that students conform to any and all idiotic, moronic, or otherwise, propositions that they come up with in order to get the knowledge they desire. Hell, if I were teaching one day and I insisted that in order for a student to learn chemistry from me, they needed to jump ten times, yell "ooga booga!" and wave an amulet around, I'd probably lose my professorship so fast it'd make your head spin.

I'm actually amused at how defensive you get about God. If you're so sure God exists, why do you insist on all these qualifiers and exceptions and procedures that have to be done just so I can be sure I'm at the right dispensary of knowledge and not the wrong one?

[ 01 November 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
If you're so sure God exists, why do you insist on all these qualifiers and exceptions and procedures that have to be done just so I can be sure I'm at the right dispensary of knowledge and not the wrong one?

---

This must be a general "you" since I personally have not insisted on a bunch of qualifiers, exceptions or procedures.

And if I fail to be subjective enough and gain my spiritual experience, does that make me an insufficiently zealous believer?

The insistence that one's subjective understanding completely dominates one's everyday experience to the point of denying less-subjective truths is the way to religious fundamentalism.

I have argued before that reality can be interpreted solipsistically - i.e. that it is a product of the perceptions of the observer. However, in a great many areas, one tends to find that different observers tend to experience the same phenomena on a daily basis even though they see or hear or feel or touch or taste it from different points of view.

If I drop a ball, there is virtually no chance that someone will see it crash through the ceiling while another will see it hang in midair, while, et cetera. All will see it fall to the floor and I can state this with a high degree of probability. (See, nothing is ceeeeeeeeeeeertain, but some things are just so darn highly probable that they can be stated to occur in the future upon certain initiating events with high confidence that they will occur.)

However, there is a danger in taking the solipsistic view too far, and this is precisely what religionists do. They insist that experiences are so noncomparable that a person's failure to experience God as it is described by so many other people is not due to the probable nonexistence of an entity like that (I say "probable", since proving a negative is not possible), but rather due to personal failures, or personal defects of character.

In short, blaming the victim.

Is it any wonder that religion is directly responsible for causing agony and heartbreak for millions of people who desperately want to have that subjective understanding you say is so important since God "is not a material being", and yet who don't experience it and are told they are bad people for that reason?

All you need to know about this debate was said hundreds of years ago:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Briguy your refrain is hilarious. No it isn't, no it's not, nah ah, can't make me, nope, I dont wanna -- we get the point. The point and that point seems to be that your quantifying next to nothing. Well RB, Magoo and Briguy can have this lovely room to your self. It will probably be more fun for you guys if you simply confirm each other's points.

---

I'm glad you understand my point. But actually, I am rejecting the premise of the argument presented: atheism = religion. By the way, no it isn't. Why go further than that? There is no need to argue about the existance of god, from my view. I have my world, religious people can have theirs. From occasion, I may make fun, but only when I get annoyed by repeated arguments.

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: Briguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
RB you sure are an unpleasnt old fart aren't you?

---

Insult people, expect to get insulted back. Just how stupid are you?

Trolling? Not a bit. Just having a bit of fun with a premise I can't take seriously because it's so incredibly and obviously false. Atheism is not a religion. Period.

You were free to ignore our fun, since those of us doing that weren't interfering with you, but instead you had to start pouting and insulting people. You got insulted back. Deal with it.

And we're still waiting for you to leave this room to us. Shall I conclude you're a liar in addition to being a self-righteous pompous jerk? Or did you mean you were going to leave it to us provided we let you insult us at will and not respond?

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
...I'm actually amused at how defensive you get about God.

---

DrConway, it's not defensiveness; it is teeth-grinding frustration at the sheer boneheaded ignorance displyed by several posters here who seem to get their concept of God from a badly conceived comic book. Don't waste my time with oh, if God exists why doesn't He light up my monitor, why doesn't He make everything perfect for us? and who cares about an old man with a beard in the sky? Honestly, you sound like a bunch of cranky three-year-olds!

Let me tell you a parable; a man goes to the Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller. He meets an archaeologist there and says to her; "Look, there's a fibre-glass dinosaur in front of the museum. That proves all the dinosaur bones you have are fakes." Now should she try to explain to him how the science of archaeology works and how discoveries of dinosaur fossils and interpretations of the evidence add to a growing and changing state of knowledge? Or should she shrug, smile sweetly, and roll her eyes when he leaves?

You look at religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., etc. They have been around for hundreds or thousands of years; during that time many people have been just as smart as you are and just as subtle; they have thought and discussed and argued over the ideas and the details and the nuances of their religion and have built an edifice of knowledge and belief about their religion; similar to the edifice of scientific knowledge which is built by the efforts of many.

quote:

---

You look at religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., etc. They have been around for hundreds or thousands of years; during that time many people have been just as smart as you are and just as subtle; they have thought and discussed and argued over the ideas and the details and the nuances of their religion and have built an edifice of knowledge and belief about their religion; similar to the edifice of scientific knowledge which is built by the efforts of many.

---

Also, they're pretty certain that 1024 is the number. Of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, that is.

Unfortunately all this talk seems to have led to the same place you're telling us not to go, namely into defining what God is or isn't. If all religions agreed that they really don't know what God is, or what God wants (if anything) from us then this would be easier to stomach. But not surprisingly the very people who'll tell me that I "don't know God" or "haven't met Jesus" will be the same ones who'll tell me WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that this God that neither of us has met definitely insists that I not kiss another man, or jerk off, or use a condom.

If religions were really in it for the trip, and didn't assume they were all already there, perhaps I'd be curious enough to tag along for a while, but realistically a few critics can't change the fact that the bulk of modern, organized religion consists of sacred dogma, not the spirit of inquiry, not the scientific method. Dogma, that must not be challenged.

quote:

---

... a few critics can't change the fact that the bulk of modern, organized religion consists of sacred dogma, not the spirit of inquiry, not the scientific method. Dogma, that must not be challenged.

---

We lock people up in mental wards for "hearing the Voice of God" these days. Which is ironic, I think, condsidering that's how the Good Book was written and religions started in the first place. It might also be how these supposedly mentally ill people got the notion in their head that God might speak to them, that's what the whole bible is about. But if you believe for believing sake you get to be one of the sane ones. One mans mental illness appears to be another mans faith. Makes me shake my head. One of the many reason I don't believe is this schism.

I'm with Marx and Nietzsche on the subject of God and why he was invented and why humans believe what they believe. Fear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:

DrConway, it's not defensiveness; it is teeth-grinding frustration at the sheer boneheaded ignorance displyed by several posters here who seem to get their concept of God from a badly conceived comic book. Don't waste my time with oh, if God exists why doesn't He light up my monitor, why doesn't He make everything perfect for us? and who cares about an old man with a beard in the sky? Honestly, you sound like a bunch of cranky three-year-olds!

Let me tell you a parable; a man goes to the Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller. He meets an archaeologist there and says to her; "Look, there's a fibre-glass dinosaur in front of the museum. That proves all the dinosaur bones you have are fakes." Now should she try to explain to him how the science of archaeology works and how discoveries of dinosaur fossils and interpretations of the evidence add to a growing and changing state of knowledge? Or should she shrug, smile sweetly, and roll her eyes when he leaves?

You look at religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., etc. They have been around for hundreds or thousands of years; during that time many people have been just as smart as you are and just as subtle; they have thought and discussed and argued over the ideas and the details and the nuances of their religion and have built an edifice of knowledge and belief about their religion; similar to the edifice of scientific knowledge which is built by the efforts of many.

If you want to argue about why people believe in God; first you need to understand what they believe about God. Start with the Nicene Creed.
More info
Useful background

---

I don't think you get the point. Or at least, I don't think you understand my position. I believe that the traditional omniscient, omnipotent monotheistic god is incompatible with what we know about the universe. I'm not expecting god to announce himself (or herself) by performing some kind of miracle because I don't believe that there are such things as miracles.

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

We lock people up in mental wards for "hearing the Voice of God" these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
We lock people up in mental wards for "hearing the Voice of God" these days. Which is ironic, I think, condsidering that's how the Good Book was written and religions started in the first place...
...Even if proof surfaced that he exisits, why the hell does he get to be boss. If we don't do it his way, he gets to smite and torture us? Sounds like he's an American.

---

You sound exactly like a cranky 3 year old. Thank you for proving my point about simple-minded concepts based on ignarance.

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

I'm not expecting god to announce himself (or herself) by performing some kind of miracle because I don't believe that there are such things as miracles.

---

Fair enough then. What do you think God requires of us, and why? Frankly my concerns with other people's Gods are that those Gods apparently have some sort of requirement that we're all, collectively, supposed to fill (such as not allowing homosexuals to marry) and if we don't the followers get really bristly about it, as though their soul depended on it.

If God doesn't appear to us, does he have requirements of us while we're here on Earth? And if God won't appear to us to make those demands in the first place, why should I obey them? Because some old man 1600 years ago said I should?

quote:

---

There are many churches that have formal structures that can be used to challenge and change positions.

---

Big, sacred positions? Can someone start an honest debate about whether Jesus even existed, or are they restricted to how many angels, etc.?

quote:

---

Big, sacred positions? Can someone start an honest debate about whether Jesus even existed, or are they restricted to how many angels, etc.?

---

As I recall church history, there have been some pretty big ones -- I believe the early Anabaptists took runs at the traditional Lutherans on the humanity of Jesus (using prescribed methods of dissent). His nature is a pretty big matter in Christendom.

The challenge of Calvin's ideas on the nature of salvation were very publically challenged by the theologian James Arminius.

True, others have not been as earth shattering -- divorce for example. The really big ones, like the work of Calvin, Luther, and Knox led to splits from Rome.

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
You sound exactly like a cranky 3 year old.

---

Not to say that there are no atheistic religions. Buddhism is one. However, Buddhism, Zen Buddhism at least, can be quite compatible with other religious faiths, like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., and does not insist upon atheism, as other religions insist upon deism.

I, personally, follow the philosophies of Buddhism, but do not adhere to it as a religion. I am atheist, because my personal spirituality does not demand a god figure, and because I am simply not wired for that particular kind of belief.

So for those of you who do not subscribe to an atheistic universe, who would pronounce "atheists are this" or "atheism is that", please do not presume to judge the terms under which I, or others who do not believe as you do, understand the universe.

quote:

---

You sound exactly like a cranky 3 year old. Thank you for proving my point about simple-minded concepts based on ignarance.

---

Do you know what, I could be a real bitch here, but instead I'll just suggest that the next time you want to dismiss another persons educated life choices you spell ignorance right. You would also be wise to re-read babble policy.

quote:

---

We lock people up who are a danger to themselves or others. People with illnesses that involve auditory hallucinations are very often being treated in the community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
...the next time you want to dismiss another persons educated life choices...

---

What exactly did I write that referred to your educated life choice? I am not interested in your life choices, I am interested in the arguments we are having about various views of God.

I was describing the comments made by people on this thread and others which display both hostility to and ignorance about religion. Now it was not polite of me to compare you and others to cranky three year olds, but it was not polite of you to claim that religion was started by crazy people hearing voices and/or that it was based on fear. It demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the history of religion.

I understand why people raised in a religion may be bitter about bad experiences they have had. But people who have no knowledge need to do a little reading before attacking it.

quote:

---

...One mans mental illness appears to be another mans faith...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I didn’t mean it derogatorily. I was trying to make an unpleasant point about the religious hypocrisy when dealing with mental illness. The religious right isn’t know for being kind an understanding to the mentally ill.

---

Fair enough. My apology for taking you out of context. I guess, like NRK, I have some strong feelings about the treatment and prejudices regarding the mentally ill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:

Rufus, there's nothing in what you said that I disagree with, but looking at it meta-textually, what's with the concern about being right? Most people have faith in things because it helps them live their lives, not out a of desire to be right.

---

I did *not* say I had faith. I said I believed. Just the way I *believe* the world is an oblate spheroid. The latter at least happens to be a justified, true belief--so I can say I *know* the world is an oblate spheroid. I've been polite on the God issue in not claiming my belief to be both justified and true, not saying, in short, that I *know* God not to exist. I've been accepting the possibility that it is in fact a justified but false belief. But I'm not best pleased that someone's taking advantage of my restraint to go back to calling my belief "faith".

I pick my beliefs based on whether there is evidence suggesting that they are true. I do *not* pick them based on whether they are comforting. If I did, I'd probably be a Liberal rather than a radical; it would be a lot more comfortable to operate under the delusion that things are basically OK with our system, all we need to do is tighten our belts a bit and the captains of industry will manage the transition from whatever to whatever. There's only one problem with that--it's bollocks. And people who go around believing that kind of crap 'cause it's easier make the world a worse place.

The problem with religions is that I don't think any of them is true. And I think it is fundamentally wrong to abide by beliefs because they would "help me live my life". That kind of compromise with truth may seem easier, but it diminishes you forever. And it makes it easier to pick self-deception on the next issue, and the next. How many issues before some of them are the ones where it makes it easier for *you* to live your life, but harder for someone else? Self-deception for comfort's sake is not an ethical approach. If the truth isn't sacred, how can you tell what is? If I'm dealing with someone who is willing to deceive themselves, they will surely deceive me as well if I let them, whether intentionally or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
God is not a performing monkey; She does not do tricks at our command.

---

Look, I didn't ask it to, OK? It's not like I'm desperately looking to believe in a deity and am crushed that no such has manifested and am insisting that it give me some evidence of its existence. Rather, I'm not particularly interested, and I happen to go around believing in things for which I have evidence. That includes deities, so if evidence were to turn up, fine. If not, I assume it ain't there. Just like lots and lots of other things for which I have no evidence.

I'm not saying "Darn you, God, if you're not going to do what I want then I . . . I *won't believe in you*! So there!"--such a stance kind of envisions someone who, deep down, believes and is looking for a sign. It's not like that. It really isn't. I just don't happen to believe anything's there, and something objective would be needed to change that.

quote:

---

People who have experienced God did so as part of a relationship; it's a subjective experience; but that's all you get. Try talking to God.

---

The "performing monkey" comment was directed more at DrConway. People post on this thread from all sorts of different angles; some do appear to be looking for signs.

However, I also don't believe there is a god.

The bible is an interesting book. Nasty but interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
DrConway, it's not defensiveness; it is teeth-grinding frustration at the sheer boneheaded ignorance displyed by several posters here who seem to get their concept of God from a badly conceived comic book. Don't waste my time with oh, if God exists why doesn't He light up my monitor, why doesn't He make everything perfect for us? and who cares about an old man with a beard in the sky? Honestly, you sound like a bunch of cranky three-year-olds!

---

Considering that some Christians, among others, really do treat God like that, why can't I?

They act like all you have to do is pray for anything you want and if you do it hard enough, the magical answer drops out of the sky, metaphorically speaking, and lands on you.

So I'm just taking them at their word. If they say God can be requested to provide evidence of its miraculous existence, then I'm just playing the game as they conceive it.

Your statements about the existence of God are paradoxical. You claim that if you "talk" to God, you "might" get an answer. Yet the basic undercurrent that drives your claims about God is that you hear from "her" on a regular basis. Or at least you get enough feedback that you're pretty darn confident "she" exists, which implies that there was no "might" about your getting an answer back when you started talking.

In addition, your claims imply both a closeness to humans (since in this vast universe some supreme being actually bothered with this flyspeck of a planet and the beings that live on it, which I actually find a bit presumptuous on the part of us humans to believe, but hey), and yet God is so massive and so far away and so unconcerned with humanity that it, oddly enough, feels no need to prove it exists to any human, even though from the religious texts that have developed over the centuries, it's pretty clear that the number of believers often matters.

As for the monitor thing, I echo RPolson. I'm not wailing or gnashing my teeth because it hasn't gone up in multicolored pyrotechnics yet. However, if it's so important to you, Contrarian, that I believe in your God, how come "she" hasn't helped you out a little bit?

It'd be cool to see the multicolored pyrotechnics, but I'm not holding my breath.

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
As I will continue to repeat; God is not a material being, and you are not going to find physical evidence that She exists, because She is not a material being. The idea is that God created all material things, but God Herself is not material, but spiritual. You can decide whether or not to believe in God, but don't expect physical proof.

---

This always strikes me as protesting too much. Both the new and old testament derive much of their force from their claims of large scale material interventions on the part of God. From smiting cities to floods to rains of blood to loaves and fishes and water to wine, not to mention stars accompanied by choirs of angels telling all the shepherds to go see so they could testify later, the religious texts have God doing all kinds of material stuff.
The medieval tradition was equally strong on material intervention as a basis of belief, with stories of miracles in the lives of saints a staple of religious understanding (and entertainment).

But nowadays it's always "Oh, God would never do anything so gauche as give evidence of his existence. Please! This religion business has some standards, and actual evidence would undermine faith!"
Well, it never seemed to bother anyone back in the old days when it was hard to debunk any wild tales anyone might spin. Then it was all "Yeah, and God's a big deal 'cuz he smites major league, and when he's in a good mood he feeds people, and his son came around and brought a guy back to life and stuff!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Why? You might get an answer eventually.

---

quote:

---

The idea is that God created all material things, but God Herself is not material, but spiritual.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, if a deity really wants me to believe in it, I should be able to see some pretty fucking concrete proof that it exists, not this have-faith-and-you'll-see mumbo jumbo pile of BS.

---

Well if you need concrete proof before you'll believe anything, then it's not really belief is it?

I don't "believe" in gravity. I know for a fact that if I drop a rock it's going to fall at the same speed no matter it's weight to the ground. It's been proven again and again throughout history. I don't just believe it will, I know it.

Religion is built on faith, not proof.

quote:

---

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without
faith, I am nothing.". The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

---

[ 02 November 2004: Message edited by: worker_drone ]

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]