A question for atheists/etc

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Throw out some "evidence." I dare you.

Christians LOVE to say they have all this evidence. But when pressed, they fail to come up with a single shred of evidence and are only left with "you gotta have faith." There is no evidence to deny. There is simply no evidence whatsoever. Sorry.

Sorry, the only evidence I've seen is in my own life. Besides, you'd just discount it as something else. It really doesn't matter what I say, you wouldn't believe it anyway, so why even bother?

I can't discount solid evidence. 2+2=4. I can't do anything to discount that fact. THAT is what you call facts and evidence can easily be produced to prove it. What you have is exactly jack and squat, not evidence.

Well 2 + 2 doesn't always equal 4, but I suppose you wouldn't understand that because it does take a whole different set of mathematical rules to reach that conclusion.

Your evidence is really no stronger than that other guy's evidence for faith. In fact your evidence is evidence of faith: you believe that 2 + 2 = 4, even thought that isn't always the case.

When you attempt to compare something like mathematics, or science in general, with religion it, in my book, just shows how little you understand. I say this because when you get down to it science and religion are essentially identical, it's just the details that differ.

Please cut the philosophical crap. If you were to live by those rules of "everything is just a matter of belief" then everything is believable. You can't pick and choose where the rules are applied. If that is the case, leprechauns have become just as real as science. :roll:

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Please cut the philosophical crap. If you were to live by those rules of "everything is just a matter of belief" then everything is believable. You can't pick and choose where the rules are applied. If that is the case, leprechauns have become just as real as science. :roll:

Which is exactly the problem we have with religion.
Hope I dont offend anybody (too much), but religion survives by picking the rules it likes and discarding the rest.
You cant ignore the philisophical crap because thats what religion is based on. THe only diffference is they choose to believe really strongly about certain issues and then ignoring what they dont like. Some of its in the bible, some of its in the world around us.

GuideBot was right. We're going in circles with no real progress. (One of the great pitfalls in religion or discussing religion.)

Good Night Guys!

 

[KK]

Common sense tells me there isn't any truth to Jesus. There may have been a Jesus, but that's about it, he had no magical powers that the fictional bible says he had. Now I'm not saying that there isn't something bigger out there that's in control, just that it's not Jesus or anything in that storybook bible.

 

[Witchfire]

Without having perused all the prior entries here, all I can say is that as a life long athiest, I cannot accept the notion of a god noone can prove exists. Nor can I accept a book written some 2000+ years ago that tells of this god and his wants, needs, intentions and desires that was written by men, and who's meaning can be twisted & perverted to support just about any possible idea any self-claimed prophet or evangelist can drum up.

I don't intend to offend anyone's beliefs here, and I can honestly say that if your faith has helped you in any way, then more power to you.

Again, as an athiest, my view of religion in general (christian and otherwise) has been that it's a good crutch for those who have a problem taking responsability for their actions, be they good or bad. Granted, there have been, and are, quite a few intelligent, well meaning people of devout faith. But at the same time, there are MANY more out there weak of mind & will who grasp at whatever their 'Faith' tells them is, was, & should be. Too many who will state the latest challenge or tragedy in their life to be 'God's Will', rather than a random happening, or God forbid (pun intended), poor planning and/or choices on their own part.

As far as this whole 'Intelligent Design' debate goes... Put it this way. It's been said that if you put an infinite number of monkeys in an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of typewriters, somewhere, sometime, one of those monkeys will beat Shakespeare out of those keys. We just happened to be the cosmic Shakespeare.

This 'answer' you mention I'm suspecting is the age old question of 'Why are we here?', or 'What is my purpose in life?'. My beliefe is that we are here at this time, and in the form we are, strictly by chance. And our purpose in life is whatever we make it. We all have limited time, and it's up to each of us as individuals to better ourselves in whatever way and in whatever field may interest us. Doing anything else with your life is simply wasting it.

Overall, I can only see religion as man's own (very successful) attempt at controlling other men. More atrocities have been committed, and more wars have been fought over and about religious beliefs that for any other reason throughout history. To this day, the longest standing hatreds and inequalities in the world are a direct result of religion. And in just about every case, the more devout, fervent, or orthodox a particular zealot may be, the more willing he is to kill for his god. Whether it be Jonestown, Iraq, Jerusalem, Ancient Rome, or throughout europe during the Spanish Inquisition, organized religion has had a major hand in most of the cruelest, most gruesome chapters in the history of this world.

My intent here is not to outrage or to goad the religious here among us, it is to state my opinion on the matters of religion, and why I choose to deny it any place in my life. I don't need Christianity, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other religion to make a me a good father, a caring husband, and/or a decent human being.

 

[HermDogg]

I think one of the things that just about everyone is forgetting here is the defintion of faith:

Belief in the absence of evidence.

Faith CANNOT be proven. It cannot. If it was proven, it would no longer be faith. Stop baiting the Christians by telling them to back up their faith. Faith most often comes about through personal experiences, it very rarely arrives empirically.

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

I would like to pose my list of questions that I have for every Christian. Some of them may sound like they are leading, and they probaboly are, though unintentionally. This is merely the order that I thought them up in.

1)Is God logical?

2)Is God all-good and all-powerful?

- If so, why does Evil exist?

3) Why does God ask so much to be taken on faith in modern times as compared to the books of the bible?

4) Is humanity God's experiment in narcissism? (This is a snide question, referring to the fact that God created Man in his image, whose only purpose was to worship him. The real question comes next)

5) Why does God need worship?

6) Why must God answer to Satan?
- See Job
- See Jesus, sacrifice of

7) Why was Satan given dominion of the Earth?

8) Why does God allow evil things to be done in his name?

9) What are the limitations of free will?

10) Does God have free will?

11) (This one's more philosophical than anything else) Can it be good to be evil?

12) Man was created by God in his image. Man has the capacity for Evil. A) God has the capacity for evil. B)God did not create man in his image. Which is it?

13) What makes something Good or Evil? Is it good because God desires it, or does God desire it because it is good?

14) Is homosexuality immoral?
- If yes, why do the other Old Testament laws not apply? (Case in point- killing children for disobeying parents)
- If adapted to the times/outdated, why were only some of the laws "timeless"?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: RBachman
The basic concept is not the same at all. Like most people I'm well aware of what paper is, what gravity is, and how the two interact. Like most people, I've dropped a piece of paper on the floor. There is a precedent. A villager from a remote uncivilized tribe deep in a desert or jungle somewhere might not have seen paper before though; he might think the way it floats slowly down to the ground is magical, divine. Much like how some people still explain what modern science has yet to unravel... but I digress It's a terrible analogy because jesus' potential status as the son of an evidenceless supernatural being has no precedent.

I guess it just boils down to you cannot show someone what they refuse to see.

No, it all boils down to, you cannot convince someone of something without a shred of evidence.

Reword that to be you cannot convince someone of something if they refuse to acknowledge the evidence, and I'll agree with you.

That's very true - however if evidence doesn't exist, there's nothing to go on.

 

[LukeMan]

Originally posted by: weiv0004

Wouldn't it be cruel for god to create life, to be used as fuel? Wouldn't it have been more benevolent to create a non sentient fuel source for us? Why favor us, and not all life?

because man was created in his image, we have souls, chickens do not.

 

[DukeN]

Uh maybe some people aren't Christians and have their own faith/religious figures they believe in?

Maybe some people give rationale, logic and scientific theory a much higher level of respect than religion.

Link for you

Originally posted by: huberm
As a Christian I have developed a relationship with Jesus and through faith, without a shadow of a doubt, I know He exists and He is Lord.

However, I have a hard time understanding the motive behind not searching for an answer by many. Please don't take this post the wrong way, I am not trying to offend nor convict anyone, I am just curious in knowing your thoughts.

From what I understand, an atheist believes there is no God and our existence is merely a coincidence that happened at some point a long time ago, is this correct? Also, do you feel it is logical to think that once our body dies, we cease to exist forever?

Again, I am not trying to offend anyone. I am just seeking these answers out of curiosity. I would greatly appreciate it if no one flamed another's religion, it would make the discussion go much smoother.

Thanks!

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Wag
I'm Jewish.

You?re going to hell.

Better the Jewish hell then Christian hell

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: huberm
As a Christian I have developed a relationship with Jesus and through faith, without a shadow of a doubt, I know He exists and He is Lord.

However, I have a hard time understanding the motive behind not searching for an answer by many. Please don't take this post the wrong way, I am not trying to offend nor convict anyone, I am just curious in knowing your thoughts.

From what I understand, an atheist believes there is no God and our existence is merely a coincidence that happened at some point a long time ago, is this correct? Also, do you feel it is logical to think that once our body dies, we cease to exist forever?

Again, I am not trying to offend anyone. I am just seeking these answers out of curiosity. I would greatly appreciate it if no one flamed another's religion, it would make the discussion go much smoother.

Thanks!

Yes.

 

[OCNewbie]

Originally posted by: huberm
Also, do you feel it is logical to think that once our body dies, we cease to exist forever?

I've come to accept that even though the above thought sucks, and pales in comparison to an alternate reality that when we die our "spirits" go on to an afterlife to continue living, that doesn't mean it's not a real possibility, and IMO a probability. I really hope it's not the case, but I have no real reason, other than a bunch of conflicting books (bible, Quran, etc.) that claim that when you die that doesn't happen. IMO all those books were written by men and nothing more.

 

[LumbergTech]

your definition of atheist is wrong..it doesnt mean that you think anything specific about the origins of the world, its that you dont believe in theism

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: huberm

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
searching for an answer presumes that there is a question. for many people, this question does not exist. I ask you, what question did you have that you needed to search and find an answer for?

I came to the realization that there was no way that we were put on this Earth to exist for only a short time, and then fade away forever. There had to be some continuance beyond physically dying.

Why?

 

[IndieSnob]

I really beleive that Christ was a true living person at one time, but at the same time I don't buy his conception, death, son of god, etc.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
IMO you can believe in Jesus without believing in GOD.

I DO believe there was a man named Jesus, and I believe he did some things that made him notable in his time.

As far as believing he was the son of GOD? No. Not unless Maybe you want to call extraterrestrials GOD. I would believe he MAY have been the son of someone from another planet. And to ME that would be more plausible than then him being the son of some mythical being...

LOL, yeah I think I have a similar view. There was probably someone called Jesus it's just that back then the herbs were legal and a bunch of guys smoked a lot of it and wrote stories when they were stoned.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

There was a very good interview with Salman Rushdie recently for PBS' Faith & Reason. You can watch it online here. Its about an hour long but I thought it was worth it, especially at the end where Rusdie reads from the Satanic Verses.

Listening to Rushdie will give you some insights into an atheists point of view.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: her209
If God is all knowing, then does he know everything that he's going to do before he himself does it.

*head explodes*

I know that this is from early in the thread, but....

You are presuming that God is temporal. As a Christian, I believe that God is OmniTemporal, because time itself is a side effect of creation. Even Quantum Physics says that before the big bang there was no passage of time or information.

I picture that God is the boundary of everything, and that everything that exists, exists WITHIN him. So God would not be IN time (with the exception of Jesus) but all time would be, in totality, in one instant, in the Mind of God.

It's VERY hard for me to think about how "thought" would be for God. For me, thought is a stream of thoughts and the passing of moments, but for God I see one "eternal now" where all thought exist together all the time, without change. I know that seems pretty weird, but for a being to exist outside of time, I can't picture it any other way.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
I really beleive that Christ was a true living person at one time, but at the same time I don't buy his conception, death, son of god, etc.

That's funny. Most people these days don't realize that Christ is a title. It is the Greek root in English for the English word (Hebrew root) Messiah. Chosen One, or Anointed One (of God).

I was in a discussion once with a woman who was a Jewess and educated at Yeshiva University. She kept saying to me "Jesus Christ is NOT the Messiah"... and I kept grinning. Finally she asked what I kept grinning about and I told her that what she was say was "Jesus, The Messiah is not The Messiah". Apparently she thought "Christ" as a last name or something.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

How many atheists on here realize that Quantum Physics has had a REAL problem with the design of the universe? That in order for us to be here right now, everything (gravity, energy, matter, magnetism...all the forces) had to be within a tolerance of 1/10^30th (a 10 followed by 30 zeros) or our universe could not have existed in a state that would be able to have life. Change things just that little bit in one direction and the universe would have long ago collapsed upon itself before it cooled enough for life to have time to form.... change anything just that little amount in the other direction and the universe would have expanded SO quickly that there wouldn't be enough density of matter for life to ever form. The balance of everything was too perfect! Rational scientists knew that that odds of this universe existing in a state where life could ever exist were just too astronomically high... high enough that it had to be considered a statistical impossibility.... so unlikely that no logical person could accept that it just happened by accident.

Do you know what Quantum Physic's answer to this problem is? Imaginary Time! Yes... a time that doesn't even exist in reality, but that they can use to make models of the universe where life COULD have happened. Even with imaginary time, the odds are VERY SLIM that life could ever happen, but at least the odds are better. For more information, read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell".

My question is, why is it ok for science to theorize and calculate with things which don't exist in reality, but then use the calculations that include these things as proofs, but it ISN'T ok for Science to include a God that they also can't prove in reality and have that theory be just as valid?

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Another question for Atheists.

If the universe has no intrinsic meaning and everything is just a random interaction of particles and/or waves... if you believe science that this is all that exists, why do you put higher value on a human than a rock, when there is no intrinsic value to either... no scientific reason to value one set of particles more highly than another set of particles. In time, both will simply be recombined into other forms, and finally, over time, as entropy is dominant, there will only be dark, cold, isolation and no consciousness of any kind. Even nature shows that nothing lasts, nothing has importance over anything else... all are treated equally... all decompose and recombine without regard to human animal or rock.

I understand the emotional reasons that people value humans more than a rock, but I'm looking for cold hard science... the type that wants mathematical evidence for proof. Please keep away from the "internal programming" or "instinct" arguments, as we all go against these constantly.... like when we go on a roller coaster that to our body feels terrifying, but we do it anyway.

Joe

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Another question for Atheists.

If the universe has no intrinsic meaning and everything is just a random interaction of particles and/or waves... if you believe science that this is all that exists, why do you put higher value on a human than a rock, when there is no intrinsic value to either... no scientific reason to value one set of particles more highly than another set of particles. In time, both will simply be recombined into other forms, and finally, over time, as entropy is dominant, there will only be dark, cold, isolation and no consciousness of any kind. Even nature shows that nothing lasts, nothing has importance over anything else... all are treated equally... all decompose and recombine without regard to human animal or rock.

I understand the emotional reasons that people value humans more than a rock, but I'm looking for cold hard science... the type that wants mathematical evidence for proof. Please keep away from the "internal programming" or "instinct" arguments, as we all go against these constantly.... like when we go on a roller coaster that to our body feels terrifying, but we do it anyway.

Joe

I think you're looking at this a little too skeptically. If you know the relative value judgement as to why humans are valued more than a rock, why demand more. Haven't you found your answer? Who is to say that there is science behind this value judgement?

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Netopia
Another question for Atheists.

If the universe has no intrinsic meaning and everything is just a random interaction of particles and/or waves... if you believe science that this is all that exists, why do you put higher value on a human than a rock, when there is no intrinsic value to either... no scientific reason to value one set of particles more highly than another set of particles. In time, both will simply be recombined into other forms, and finally, over time, as entropy is dominant, there will only be dark, cold, isolation and no consciousness of any kind. Even nature shows that nothing lasts, nothing has importance over anything else... all are treated equally... all decompose and recombine without regard to human animal or rock.

I understand the emotional reasons that people value humans more than a rock, but I'm looking for cold hard science... the type that wants mathematical evidence for proof. Please keep away from the "internal programming" or "instinct" arguments, as we all go against these constantly.... like when we go on a roller coaster that to our body feels terrifying, but we do it anyway.

Joe

I think you're looking at this a little too skeptically. If you know the relative value judgement as to why humans are valued more than a rock, why demand more. Haven't you found your answer? Who is to say that there is science behind this value judgement?

For the same reason that atheists would say that believing in God when there's no scientific proof or reasoning makes no sense. If that is the case, why do they not carry this same burden of proof to other things that exist in their lives?

I do value humans more than rocks... and animals in general more than rocks too for that matter. But I also believe that there is intrinsic value and meaning and that we aren't simply random collections of particles and energy, so that makes sense. What I'm looking for is why someone who believes there is no meaning or intrinsic value to creation, and yet then assign values to subsets of the creation. If the creation itself has no intrinsic value or meaning, then neither can a subset.... and yet, as illogical as it is, even atheists value people and feel that their lives have meaning. My question is why is it ok to do that, but believing in God is silly?

Joe

 

[DaShen]

:roll: here we go again.

I might as well just keep the pie for later and leave the lawn chair out continuously.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: huberm

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
searching for an answer presumes that there is a question. for many people, this question does not exist. I ask you, what question did you have that you needed to search and find an answer for?

I came to the realization that there was no way that we were put on this Earth to exist for only a short time, and then fade away forever. There had to be some continuance beyond physically dying.

LOL.. and waht makes you any better than any other animal on the planet... we are just animals.. and if there was a so called god.. he sure as hell would not let one of his animals (even his favorite) literally destroy his other life and work for our pleasure..

he woulda flooded our ass again and started over...

now that covers the Chritsians..

what makes you think your religion is the right one? thats pretty arrogant.
Christianity is one of the NEWEST religions in the world... there are religions MANY MANY times older yet you Christians think youre the only ticket in town.. the truth is Christians are JUST AS RADICAL AS ANY MUSLIM with thier beliefs... basically if youre not with us youre agaisnt us..

religions are stupid... its a tool for you weak minded people that think youre bgetter than anything else on this planet when in reality you just another dumb ass animal...

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Netopia
Another question for Atheists.

If the universe has no intrinsic meaning and everything is just a random interaction of particles and/or waves... if you believe science that this is all that exists, why do you put higher value on a human than a rock, when there is no intrinsic value to either... no scientific reason to value one set of particles more highly than another set of particles. In time, both will simply be recombined into other forms, and finally, over time, as entropy is dominant, there will only be dark, cold, isolation and no consciousness of any kind. Even nature shows that nothing lasts, nothing has importance over anything else... all are treated equally... all decompose and recombine without regard to human animal or rock.

I understand the emotional reasons that people value humans more than a rock, but I'm looking for cold hard science... the type that wants mathematical evidence for proof. Please keep away from the "internal programming" or "instinct" arguments, as we all go against these constantly.... like when we go on a roller coaster that to our body feels terrifying, but we do it anyway.

Joe

I think you're looking at this a little too skeptically. If you know the relative value judgement as to why humans are valued more than a rock, why demand more. Haven't you found your answer? Who is to say that there is science behind this value judgement?

For the same reason that atheists would say that believing in God when there's no scientific proof or reasoning makes no sense. If that is the case, why do they not carry this same burden of proof to other things that exist in their lives?

I do value humans more than rocks... and animals in general more than rocks too for that matter. But I also believe that there is intrinsic value and meaning and that we aren't simply random collections of particles and energy, so that makes sense. What I'm looking for is why someone who believes there is no meaning or intrinsic value to creation, and yet then assign values to subsets of the creation. If the creation itself has no intrinsic value or meaning, then neither can a subset.... and yet, as illogical as it is, even atheists value people and feel that their lives have meaning. My question is why is it ok to do that, but believing in God is silly?

Joe

Just because something happened by chance doesn't make it meaningless. It means that it wasn't engineered to produce a specific result. It "means" a great deal to me that I am here, it doesn't matter how this came to be. Being a bit anthropic, creation has great meaning to us because we are the result of it. Why does there have to be "someone behind the curtain" for us to assign meaning?