|
I'm not understanding this "On Faith" section of the Post. It appears that you have 4 guest writers who all have the same opinion about "faith", which is that they all have it.
Can we non-believers, atheists, and agnostics have at least ONE person representing the other side? Or is that too much to ask?
I consider myself a good person, and I certainly don't agree with point 1 of your list. Religion is an impediment to true human morality. Without religious bigots we wouldn't have an anti-gay movement.
Joe, I won't speak for Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn, nevertheless, I'll take a shot at answering your question as to why there are no non-believers, atheists and agnostics on the "On Faith" panel (please note there are many more than four on the panel, even if only four have responded to their question so far). The answer to your question is contained in the question: Quinn and Meacham have put together an "On Faith" panel, NOT an "On Lack of Faith" panel. All readers are welcome to post answers to the questions - non-believers, atheists and agnostics.
Just my guess.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
I believe that atheism is on the rise because traditional/mainstream monotheist religions have both failed to respond adequately to contemporary life and scientific knowledge and then force people through peer pressure, evangelization, or the sword to accept only one God who is omni-everything. Most atheist arguements center around disproving or scoffing at the idea of the personal, omnipotent, omnibeneficient God.
When you only have one acceptable concept of the divine, it is easy to find ways to dismiss it.
Angela: "When you only have one acceptable concept of the divine, it is easy to find ways to dismiss it."
OK, that's a fair enough point.
But a frustrating part about arguing against belief in God is the way any theistic believer can just re-define what God is when the old definition is no longer tenable.
Long ago most sensible people stopped believing that God intervened to help Joshua achieve military victories. Then we learned how humans could come into existence by biology. Then it stopped being tenable to think God condems members of other religions to hell and saves the members of ours.
So what is God? At the very least, to be considered "God" an entity must: 1) sometimes act outside scientific laws; and 2) act to moral purpose.
Is there any reason to think scientific laws have ever been suspended for moral reasons? If not, God at least doesn't DO anything.
does anyone else notice the similarity between this question and the common ground question?
i dont really think atheism is enjoying any more of a vogue now than it has in history- if we are to believe meachems figures that 95% of americans believe in god- wouldnt that rather be the opposite of being in vogue? in the 50s certainly it was in "vogue" ( i actually dislike that word) im not even an atheist but it seems to demean atheism to a fad or a passing fancy-
im sensing a very limited mindset and scope from the same questions being asked-
these kinds of questions seem to create antipathy between opposing camps rather than open up tolerant dialogue that we can all learn and frow from.
i hope im wrong but i foresee alot of intolerance brewing.
Two theories as to why atheism is becoming more popular:
The Sam Harris theory, which says that people are realizing that dogmatism may doom the entire human race to annihilation.
The Tonio theory, which says that people are fed up with dogmas telling them what to believe.
A great point of discussion for atheists and believers is whether there is a Singularity/God that does or does not know the Future.
As per Father Edward Schillebeeck, the famous, contemporary theologian in his book Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
Each of us arrive on planet earth with a wide-open consciousness. We have encountered a dramatic educational transition over the past 40 years. Before, it involved personal character development; and God was everywhere. Today we are intellectually programmed for compliance with the world of 'buying and selling'! Guided to idolize money! Faith, hope and charity is not the way to live successfully in the world we are creating!
The common ground of atheists and believers could exist in finding agreement on personal worth;--- one thing all celebrities have in common is they separated from an acquired social mind; to follow personal convictions; and so introduced truths and talent into our world. Another is the existence of an inherent social conscience; that common welfare matters; that we need continue to find physical principles necessary to ease suffering.
This conflict between believers and atheists can only be resolved by truth! It can't be denied that guidance to awareness of common ideals realized only deep in personal thought was brought forth by all the major religions; is contrary to the overall predator-prey animal inter-relationship; and the most significant advice of Christian teaching is to not be controlled by your body, but your heart!
Atheism is not enjoying vogue, it may be your view. Main reason of atheism being failure of agencies implementing religion to provide clear,scientific, and understandable model and definition of God/Religion. Purpose and use of Religion.
Atheism and agnosticism, which are often indistinguishable in practice, have been common for a very long time. What is on the rise is that people admit it or realize it. This is a good thing. The dialog? Believers and Non-believers can talk about almost anything except the nature of the godhead, and agree on a host of moral issues because these are universal and not dependent in anyway on religious sensibilities.
Moreover, theisms in which the godhead is very non-anthropomorphic, especially those that tend towards pan-theism, are also indistinguishable in practice from agnosticism and weak atheism.
Finally, religion can be used as a harmful system of childhood indoctrination, for example it can be used to teach bigotry and hate. It is by no means unique in that. Far from it. But contrary to what some might think, it is not immune from that.
What atheists and agnostics have a right to expect is that our views be afforded the same respect as those who believe in their various gods (or goddeses). That manifestly does not occur in the US today, and the composition of today's panel bears that out.
I take offense with the use of the word vogue. As Victoria mentioned it would appear that that is meant as in fashion or a fad.
I have been an atheist since I was 16. I am now 50. There are many reasons for not *coming out* and many of them are obvious. Not the least of which is of course Sterotyping & Prejudice.
To this day there are less people that know I am atheist than fingers on my one hand. To the few that do some have been ok with it and others I have had to deal with aggressive religious prostelization that caused the breakdown of freindship.
I honestly have on occasion mentioned it to a stranger or two. I received the look of horror. As if I just admitted I murdered someone. And then I get the feeling they think its a contagious disease. And they have to run like hell. It becomes tiresome, so I work on a if *they don't ask, I don't tell policy.*
I think people like Harris, Dennett and Dawkins however radical some may perceive them to be do a great service in bringing atheism into the forefront. In time hopefully people will become more tolerant and accepting. Atheists will be able to speak out more and others will see that we are not much different from themselves.
We work, pay taxes, obey laws, respect our fellow man (possibly more so), we have morals, ethics and integrity. We love and respect life (we are not miserable angry people).
I have to say from these threads in much of this website, I have the sad feeling that productive conversation is very difficult to not at all, when speaking about religion or the lack of by both sides.
For the most part the Christians quote the bible and the atheists say prove it. And then it just gets worse with name calling. I keep hanging around here, hoping to see more productive conversation but my patience is wearing thin.
I think this is a good website. If for nothing else, all of us can get a better idea on the amount of people that feel and believe the way they do.
Saying atheism is "In Vogue" is suggesting that it is some kind of fad. It is not. I believe more and more people are becoming atheists because people are becoming more aware of science and the origins of religion. The violent aspects of one of the world's largest religions was shown to the world on 9/11/01 and afterwards. I think that this lead many people to question how a "benevolent" force such as religion would not only allow this, but condone it.
With a healthy dollop of reason, people have learned that the Bible is nothing more than an ancient fictional text. It is a set of mythology no different than those of the Norse, the Romans, or the Greeks.
To suggest atheists are distracted from God due to materialism is to not give atheists enough credit. Most atheists have become that way after using logic and reason. Theists have only one way to come to their conclusion that god exists: emotion. Emotion has nothing to do with finding the truth. Want proof of that? Try to convince yourself that it is 120 degrees F outside. You just have to FEEL that it is. Now step outside. What temperature is it? If you're living in the United States, chances are it's below 50 right now.
Atheism is not a "fad" or a "trend" or "in vogue". If people are becoming atheists because it's stylish than I think they have the wrong idea. But I don't think many atheists are rebelling or trying to fit into a mold. I think that they are reasonable, logical people who see that a modern people do not require supernaturalism and superstition.
One of your columnists suggested that atheists need a "positive" title. Why? Atheists have no need for positive titles because we don't believe in anything. I guess the closest positive title we could come up with would be Humanism.
If you want more information on atheism, I suggest you read The God Delusion. Search your mind, and then you may realize that your soul doesn't exist.
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."- Richard Dawkins
"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"
A vogue? What does that mean? Atheism is finally becoming a main issue because there are finally some rather mainstream spokespeople for the point of view (I of course speak of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris). Led by these men, many of us have become much more outspoken about how we feel. I have been lucky myself, and found a significant number of people where I work who have thoughts along similar lines, but for whom religious practice is a way to remain bonded with thier families. I know quite a few people who get married at church because of their parents or grandparents.
If you take the atheist trinity, if you will, and couple that with the latest information age technology, you'll will begin to understand the reason behind the 'vogue' of Atheism. (A president who people think is an idiot and who claims conversations with the allmighty help out a little too).
The second part to your inquiry is, Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues? Of course their can. It happens all the time. As long as the issues discussed have nothing to do with whatever points of interest that believer holds are. I've had decent conversations about abortion with Catholics. The problems aride when a person of faith covers a topic for which they've discerned their position based on what their pastor/preacher has told them. Then they claim that it's in the Bible.
This is a problem for two main reasons. 1> It is painfully obvious that you haven't read your bible if you can't even come up with a faint hint of where it was you read that. And even more importantly 2> Why is the bible recognized as a reference? I don't want to discuss it here, as there are plenty of forums where one can look at the evidence which brings the bible into question as a source (see 'Biblical Errancy'). The conversation stops when the believer pulls his 'trump' card and slaps it on the table.
If you're going to engage in a conversation with anyone, the basis of that conversation is that you believe each other and your sources. When someone pulls out a questionable reference in a scientific conversation, they get called on it. That's where many crossfaith conversations go awry. So in answer to the question, conversation is possible until the believer falls back on their trump card. Then the non-believe has to convince the believer that their 'book' is incorrect (which it is). And they come up to a brick wall.
There are certain burdens upon a conversation. Before one talks, one should have a point to make, and evidence to back it up. If you don't have solid evidence, you need to expect to get called out for it.
I see no vogue for atheism right now. What I see is a process in which educated, cultured people increasingly become uncomfortable with religious doctrines taught by the churches. They may not choose to leave these churches -- the mainline churches are full of people who do not believe much of what is taught there -- nor do they call themselves agnostics or atheists. But little by little religion will be found only among the uneducated, the unsuccessful, and the downtrodden. They need religion. When Karl Marx said it was the opium of the people he meant that it was needed by them to survive their difficult lives.
As previously stated on this website by myself - it is better to be an atheist and believe something, even if in my opinion it is a negation, that to be an agnostic and not know what you believe.
My life experience has introduced me to many people who say they are atheists and are loving, compassionite people and exemplify what is considered to be a spiritual lifestyle. In other words they walk the walk and when in the aura of someone like this what does it matter what they say when their deeds demonstrate the good fight?
It is easy to understand why people choose to be non believers when there have been and are now so many crimes against humanity being committed by human beings who say they represent God.
The main thing for me is my desire for people to be free to believe whatever they choose. There is no one right way to believe in God. As all people in all places are individual and unique, all people relate to what can be called a Higher Power in their own individual way.
If someone says that theirs is the only way, you should run from that person as you would a person wishing to do you bodily harm.
Opinion polls don't shown any trend towards atheism, sad to say. There has been more discussion of atheism of late only because of the recent publication of good books by Harris, Dennett and Dawkins.
There certainly can be productive conversation between believers and atheists, but the believers have to be willing to talk and reason together. Look at three of the first four commentators. They spend most of their posts insulting atheists. It makes reasoned debate difficult.
But then, such believers don't want reasoned debate. They want the atheists to go away and stop causing them doubt. They are terrified that the atheists could be right. Talk would reduce that fear, but talking about religion is "impolite," unless you are clubbing someone over the head with your religion.
Any chance at all of having a panel that isn't composed entirely of theists to discuss the big question of atheism vs. theism?
The atheist has to have the attributes of God to know there is no God. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of God's existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because God could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. God does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry God.
Veritos
Atheism is in vogue because man loves sin more than God. (Romans 1:18-32)
Veritos
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
I'm commenting on the question of yesterday. Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes. Read the Book of John, Chapter 3, Verse 16. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and organized by people. As far as talking with an atheist or agnostic, I don't have to look too far, all I need to do is go to an AA meeting.
I'm commenting on the question of yesterday. Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes. Read the Book of John, Chapter 3, Verse 16. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and organized by people. As far as talking with an atheist or agnostic, I don't have to look too far, all I need to do is go to an AA meeting.
"The atheist has to have the attributes of God to know there is no God. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of God's existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because God could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. God does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry God."
One could apply this logic to literally anything. One cannot disprove the existence of invisibile pink unicorns, Superman or Santa Claus.
But we know, don't we, in the same sense that we know George W Bush is President of the United States, that the above entities are fictions.
Please explain the difference between belief in God than Santa Claus, in the sense of being more likely to be true.
"Why Is Atheism Enjoying A Certain Vogue?
Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"
Response:
I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.
The reasons are:
We are better educated.
Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.
Religions offer no real indications of the emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.
The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right wing agenda, which has created a global distaster and meanaces the Constitution.
We are a secular democracy and we all know that.
Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory.
Atheism is NOT a scientifically valid position, it is just another religion, whose members BELIEVE there is no God, while they cannot PROVE that there is none.
Agnosticism is the only Rational, Scientific and Honest position, where one admits that WE DO NOT KNOW whether a Real God or Gods exist
(as for the FAKE gods, they all exist, HUMANS CREATED EVERY ONE OF THEM!)
"The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory."
An Atheist is just as clueless and naive a believer as a Moslem, Hinduist, or Any garden variewty PAGAN.
The burden of proof is on the ATHEIST to prove his BELIEF that there is no God or Gods.
The WAY AROUND that is to be an AGNOSTIC.
It is the ONLY Honest, Scientific Position.
FEW, if any, people know the difference, BTW, between an atheist and an agnostic.
Why is atheism enjoying a certain vogue? Can there be a productive conversation between atheists and believers, and if so, over what kind of issues?
Probably the easiest answer to the first question is because of the continually recurring conflicts between not only religions but between religions and those that depart from them.
A second answer, and a deeper one, to the first question is the problem of faith versus proof. It seems that although man is as hypothetical as ever--and will always be a creature uncertain as to how he is to act--he is getting better at probabilizing and is less tolerant of clearly error-ridden or baseless courses of action.
An even deeper issue is that atheism is a quite violent reaction to religion and must be distinguished from agnosticism. Agnosticism simply declares there is no proof yet for God as religions have communicated the concept to us. We live in a mystery, to be sure, but this is a far different thing from saying there is a God and if we behave correctly we will go to heaven, etc.
But atheism directly insists there is no God--is violently opposed to this concept.--And my personal belief is that the concept of evil has much to do with it. There is simply no explanation for evil in the religious sense which convinces atheists. In fact we really have no explanation for evil at all (which is one reason why I am suspicious of all people, whether they are religious or not, no matter how sensible they sound).
In short, atheists are just as irrational as religious people because they say there is no God and yet like religious people they have no proof for what they say...But then again they do have proof in a sense, because they constantly point out the problem of evil, how unsatisfactory the explanations of it have been.
If there is a single issue religious people and atheists must discuss, it is the problem of evil. And it would be useless if this discussion is begun by assuming good and evil are already known.
Needless to say, from considering the last paragraph above, a discussion between atheists and believers will not be easy at all. On one side, that of the believers, there is a clearly articulated good which if followed leads to the graces of God. On the other side, the atheist side, the problem is more intellectual and centers on how to trust God when if he is the almighty creator he must be the originator of...evil.
Of course religions deny that God created evil, but their explanations are grotesquely insufficient, totally unconvincing.
Take the celebrated dilemma of God either being all powerful and therefore the originator of evil, or not the originator of evil and therefore not all powerful (for if he was all powerful he would have squashed the origin of evil opposed to him. But then again if he were to have done so that would make him the originator of evil again). In Christianity a sleight of hand is employed to get out of the dilemma by locating evil with man. There is original sin and man has fallen. And of course all throughout Christianity there has been an oscillation between locating evil with God or satan or man or...You get the point. The problem of evil, its origin, how it has literally forced itself into being perhaps the prime interpretation of our world due to our failure to come to grips with it.
A prime interpretation of the world out of our failure to answer it. An all consuming problem we cannot answer which is our world. And we constantly throw out explanations for this problem, and they clash, and we think we have answered it, but evil goes on...
I just try to be hopeful. When I reflect on the problem of God being all powerful and therefore the creator of evil (despite his goodness) or not all powerful as an attempt to preserve his goodness and to locate evil apart from him, I simply state that God indeed is all powerful and that he created evil.
And I get out of the problem of God being evil by saying that perhaps before we were born God told us what we would be getting into with life and that we accepted life, the endurance of God's evil, as something of a test of ourselves before God. A test for what reason I have no idea...
But life does seem to be something of a test as if we knew what we would be getting into before we were born and simply forgot about it as an essential part of the test. This way God is not evil and in fact we are not really evil either--and there is no satan apart from God.
God originated evil and is all powerful and we accepted the onslaught of life for some reason, as a test of some sort. This is something of what I mean about reflecting in a way which might reconcile atheists and religious people.
I am not saying this is the answer or even professing what is on my mind every day...
I occupy my mind with a lot of things. Just trying to be helpful...
But working on the problem of evil is like any problem really: After all the reasoning is done, you accept the most logical answer even if it too is fantastic...
May we have a conversation between religious people and atheists and...God.
Doug,
You are missing the point. One must have the attributes of God to say there is know God.
On what basis are you trying to reason with me on Doug?
Veritos
Atheism is in vogue because live by your own understanding of the rules is society's message today.
We have lost our love for God and increased our love for ourselves. The Bible warns against this type of thinking. It's easier to create a god of our own design to live as Christ did.
As for productive communication between atheists and Christians? This can happen, but only with humility on both sides. Most Christians are very judgemental. They tend to forget the teaching of do unto others....
peace
The reason for atheism being in vogue is that for the first time in history most of the western world has so much wealth with few restrictions in behavior. We have become so arrogant and feel intitled to whatever we desire. People have become a object for our own desires and whims. We don't want to answer for our sexual and material desires. We say "who are you to tell me I'm wrong" and "there isn't any God" so that we don't have to justify our sins.
We have become the blind leading the blind in this society and say ""enlightened people don't need a crutch like God". I say to them, the Emperor has no clothes!
Atheism is in vogue because we're all being paid by Newsweek to keep the pot bubbling and sell magazines. Was I supposed to say that out loud?
While the following is not directly pertinent to the current issue of atheism, I offer it as a example of Christian thought. It is an excerpt from the August 2006 Declaration of the Roman Catholic Church, 'Dominus Iesus:
The Lord [Jesus Christ] is
the goal of human history,
the focal point of the desires of history and civilization,
the centre of mankind,
the joy of all hearts,
and the fulfilment of all aspirations.
It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead. It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end'.
Veritos : You are missing the point. One must have the attributes of God to say there is know (sic?) God.
What does it mean to say "X does not exist"?
Let's take an example we would probably agree about: Vampires do not exist. There are no un-dead carcases of humans that come alive, drink blood, turn into bats, and show no reflection in mirrors.
Now, how dogmatic am I to make such an assertion?
Admittedly, there is a CHANCE vampires exist. It is a minutely small number, but it is not zero. Still, I think we agree that the trivially small likelihood that vampires exist does not refute the statement that vampires do not exist. Vampires might exist in the sense of being a concept in our minds, but that's not existence in the sense we're using the term here.
Does God exist? I admit that it is not impossible that God exists, and will listen to any actual evidence that there is such an entity. But the cosmos shows no signs of being any different than it would be if God did not exist. You might claim to know God, the way you have some familiarity with Count Dracula, but that's not existence.
There isn't a "new" popularity of Atheism....closet Atheists are more willing to say it openly! When I was an Atheist back in the early 70's, I spoke up and was constantly baraged with Christians trying to force feed Jesus to me. I grew up in bible belt in Florida and it was very Baptist and fundamentalist. The truth is that many Atheists don't want to speak out because they will be a target of evangelists...and they don't give up. Nobody wants to deal with the endless proselytizing.
I now believe in God, but I got to that conclusion through my own personal experiences and my own analysis and knowlege. Theologians should trust that Atheists are seeking real truth, and not the blind faith that evangelists want to force feed us. When they do find God, their belief will be stronger than those who just swallowed the theology force fed to them through peer pressure or herd mentality.
The real evil in the world is when people don't question the theology they are being fed. Whether it is Bin Laden or Pat Robertson or the Vatican, or the Communists, or The Spanish Inquisition or The Christian Campaigns against Muslims, etc.; those people did not question their religious leaders nor did they question their own beliefs, and this is what has led to the atrocities of history.
Blind faith is just that....BLIND. True faith is that which can be questioned, and verified through the LOVE that God puts in our spirit. Any person who is truly in touch with the LOVE and who is truly willing to question their beliefs and their religious leaders would NEVER commit the horrors of religious warfare or the horrors of religious punishment, or even the sin of religious intolerance.
Cody Claxton
Gnostic
Atheism is not in vogue. Atheists are just speaking up more because our terror levels are elevated by the presence of religion in the political sphere.
First; I need to know, from Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham, the source for the statement, "Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now."
Second; I agree with the posters who say that you use the term "vogue" loosely, if not incorrectly.
Third; If there is a rise in visible or declared atheism, it may be, for fear of what the fundies are trying to do to this country, that more people are coming out agianst them. For example, I don't want someone who believes in the end times, and and that it will be here soon, to be influential in matters of environmental protection.
The biggest religions are not as old as humanity. The way humans view themselves in the universe and what they think about their fate have always been different to different civilizations and generations. Believers and non believers have existed since our existence. People have followed, rejected, agreed, doubted their kings, healers, sorcerers, priests... There will never be an agreement about invisible forces or beings.
DO I BELIEVE IN GOD?
The simple answer is “no”. The reason is that, in this instance, the word “believe” means the acceptance of veracity in the absence of logic or material evidence. Since logic and evidence are the only tools, imperfect as they may be, that I have to interpret the world, I cannot accept a proposed truth without verification through their use. Blind, irrational faith is not an option for me.
On the other hand, not believing in a god does not deny the possibility of his* existence. Here again, I would need to be able to use logic and material evidence to prove that there cannot be a god. As far as I know, no one has been able to make an unassailable case for the non-existence of god either.
However, the current evidence that we have at our disposal strongly suggests that there may not be such a being and, if there is, he* doesn’t appear to have much interest in giving us help, comfort, or direction. We appear to be a rather insignificant feature in time, space, and impact relative to the vast universe that we inhabit. It also seems pretty clear that we are utterly impotent in the face of a world where the vicissitudes of probability and chance have a major impact on our very existence. Our lives can be mutated or snuffed out in an instant, often in circumstances that are senseless, cruel, and even bizarre.
I have little regard for the many man-made religions that are based on the teachings of “inspired” individuals. Some of these individuals may have had some interesting, if not divine, observations that are wise and useful, but I doubt that any of them are specially chosen by god to be his messenger on earth. I suspect that if an omnipotent, omniscient god wanted to talk to us, he could do it in a more direct and efficient manner.
In any case, whatever residual values may have been present in the original messages are invariably corrupted once organizational superstructure are erected around them. The message then becomes a vehicle for the exercise of power, control, and wealth accumulation by the official guardians of the faith. Over the course of human history, these hypocrites have unleashed manifold iniquities upon the world, all in the name of god.
Man does not need to harbor a belief in a god in order to live a good and fruitful life. In fact, acceptance of the fragile and temporal nature of our existence can provide the basis for bonding with our fellow humans. We may not amount to much relative to the universe, but we can have enormous relevance within our human community. The satisfaction of contributing to the easing of pain, suffering, and confusion in the world around us may be the closest we can come to entering the kingdom of heaven**.
Ken Moyle
Nov. 07, 2005
* For the purpose of this essay we will assume that god is a single male. Please substitute
the word she/her, it/ its, or they/their, and capitalize as you deem appropriate.
** substitute nirvana, rebirth, or any other desirable destination
The statement/question: "Why Is Atheism Enjoying A Certain Vogue?
Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"
The first thing seems to me to be that the group in control of the GOP seems to be planning to take America in a direction that most of us don't want to go, namely some sort of New World (religious?) Order. The second seems to be more of an understanding that at least a lot of the Bible was plain made up and the Bible is used for political purposes.
But one question that should be raised is why is it always only either or; multiple choice seems not to be tolerated. Why are the only choices the God of the Bible and aethism? Why only good or evil? Why only creation in six days or evolution of species by natural selection. I'm sure the list could go on.
Why are we limited to two choices, neither of which is logically correct? There must be a reason. One reason would seem to be that people are making money and controlling other people by the present concepts and they are not about to let it change. Another seems to be that it would "disrespect their ancestors". One of the biggest though seems to be that it is an easy way to control people and get them to do as desired.
I agree with RayRay and others:
I think that the phrasing of the question is most unfortunate. It reminds me of those who use the phrase "choosing the Gay lifestyle."
As a fairly mainstream person though admittedly liberal, I find the uniformity and bias of Mr and Ms. Meacham Quinn etc quite stunning for a widely read and semi-intellectually respectable paper.
Atheists like myself are not motivated by Vogue. We are certainly empowered by leaders like Dawkins and Harris who have the courage to state unpopular positions in public.
At the risk of being accused of being an elite intellectual snob, I will also drop in the fact that most studies show that people of high intelligence and a rational inclination are much less Believing than the general public. The scientists in the US who are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, for instance, have an atheist/agnostic rate of about 95% (though it is not great for careers to trumpet such beliefs).
So one reason for a seemingly growing number of atheists is probably that the educational level of the country is fairly high, there are a large number of intelligent and articulate people who have a higher probability of being atheists, the excesses of the religious dogmatists have been increasingly egregious, and Dawkins/Harris gave others courage to admit in public their true non - beliefs. Yes, there are tyrannies of the majority.
I agree with RayRay and others:
I think that the phrasing of the question is most unfortunate. It reminds me of those who use the phrase "choosing the Gay lifestyle."
As a fairly mainstream person though admittedly liberal, I find the uniformity and bias of Mr and Ms. Meacham Quinn etc quite stunning for a widely read and semi-intellectually respectable paper.
Atheists like myself are not motivated by Vogue. We are certainly empowered by leaders like Dawkins and Harris who have the courage to state unpopular positions in public.
At the risk of being accused of being an elite intellectual snob, I will also drop in the fact that most studies show that people of high intelligence and a rational inclination are much less Believing than the general public. The scientists in the US who are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, for instance, have an atheist/agnostic rate of about 95% (though it is not great for careers to trumpet such beliefs).
So one reason for a seemingly growing number of atheists is probably that the educational level of the country is fairly high, there are a large number of intelligent and articulate people who have a higher probability of being atheists, the excesses of the religious dogmatists have been increasingly egregious, and Dawkins/Harris gave others courage to admit in public their true non - beliefs. Yes, there are tyrannies of the majority.
Well, ive learned a bit here. now these are my own musings while i went to the store for cat food.
it is very easy to point out the faults of things. it takes real energy to come up with solutions.
ive thought hard about this over the years as a practicing pacifist to ridiculous and literal extremes. i really try hard to be a compassionate and selfless human which has led to all sorts of abuses from people who dont have those instincts.
it is not realistic to practice total pacifism because i have to love myself as much as my brother-
so i have to protect myself or those i love or are weaker...
it seems that not all humans are good-
it seems that most humans are motivated to be good through reward--
and that most humans are deterred from doing evilby punishment-
it SEEMS okay?? no absolutes hereno need to assume ABSOLUTES just general observations
i have wracked my soul on many occasions to see if its possible to do good for the sake of itslef and compassion and of course it is
and every evil is not deterred by punishment
but overall- it SEEMS so please just suspend arguments about this to get to another point
lets assume this is true- for me--me is writing here
what are the alternatives to living in a civill society?
are all atheists inclined toward good and can be trusted to follow any rules theyd set forth?
this seems a naive presumption
so how would atheists set up a civil society?
also- are there any atheists who have led lives of selfless service to humanity?
any atheist saints?
writing and the realm of ideas doesnt really count
im talking about actions
there are many religious figures and atheists who have proposed alternative ways of thinking that have changed lives well just assume that
but religious folks have also lived lives in direct service to their fellows
any uneducated atheists or must one be from the social strata to be an atheist saint that they can afford higher education?
not doctors or scientists because they received rewards in the forms of accolades of peers and material recompense
but selfless service without visible reward or benefit
one thing about belief is that you are never alone
is an atheists conscience constant like that?
i assume a conscience is a conscience
i assume atheists dont steal
where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable
i dont know just some thoughts
i dont really expect an answer
peace
"Lordy, Lordy! as my grandmother used to say, I a, a johnny-come-lately, in this debate. Needless to say no one will read this far down the list of comments to hear from a former student at Moody Bible Institute, a cum laude graduate of Wheaton Colege with a Masters of Divinity from Colgate Rochester and a Ph.D. in American history (mostly history of religion) from Jesuit Marquette University.
I have been born ove and over again in my life from biblical literslism to biblical criticism, from Jesus as the incarnation of God to Jesus as a fuzzily rememberd figure from the past and from the patriarchal, vengeful, mostly absent God of Western religion. My greatest conversion experience was when the burden for caarrying this God around in my heart and mind was lifted off me like a great millstone.
I converted to the greatest religious attitude we can have HUMILITY. I abjure dogmatists of both theism and atheism. Celebrate the mystery of life in great humility. As Emerson said, "Life itself is a miracle."
"Lordy, Lordy! as my grandmother used to say, I am a johnny-come-lately, to this debate. Needless to say no one will read this far down the list of comments to hear from a former student at Moody Bible Institute, a cum laude graduate of Wheaton Colege with a Masters of Divinity from Colgate Rochester and a Ph.D. in American history (mostly history of religion) from Jesuit Marquette University.
I have been born ove and over again in my life from biblical literslism to biblical criticism, from Jesus as the incarnation of God to Jesus as a fuzzily rememberd figure from the past and from the patriarchal, vengeful, mostly absent God of Western religion. My greatest conversion experience was when the burden for caarrying this God around in my heart and mind was lifted off me like a great millstone.
I converted to the greatest religious attitude we can have HUMILITY. I abjure dogmatists of both theism and atheism. Celebrate the mystery of life in great humility. As Emerson said, "Life itself is a miracle."
Atheism is not in style any more than the knowledge of the earth being round rather than flat is in style.
Why is atheism enjoying a certain vogue?
9/11
Hey Atheist, think abt this:
how did one come into being??
who is the creator of the Universe??
can anyone predict one's death??
who is controlling this Universe??
Atheism is one of many ways to view the world.
The actual goal is finding acceptance of self.
I wouldn't say that's it's in vogue as much as the fact that people are searching for spiritual truth in a consumer culture deprived of truth.
Corporations are too busy chasing profits and people are too busy chasing dollars to support spending habits. Its a very empty lifestyle, one which doesn't hold much room for God or outsiders.
I'm not sure it's a vogue, or just the media getting tired of kow-towing to religion. I've been an atheist for 20 years. If there's been an increase it's been in people coming "out of the closet," especially since fundamentalists of muslim & christian faiths are creating mayhem and murdering in the name of their god. Dubya is only marginally better than Osama bin Laden, in my opinion. Listening to a "higher father" rather than his own father, who certainly would have been the go-to guy for anyone else, and then starting an unecessary war is the height of hubris if not plain insanity. Whether civilians die as targets or as "collateral damage," they're dead either way.
As long as believers continue to lie, cheat, and steal in the name of their cause I don't see how there can be a dialogue. If you've seen Newt Gingrich's one-sided special on religion in government, you know that so-called "Christians" on the right can't be trusted.
Atheists aren't the ones who have polarized the dialogue. When religionists come around to a "live and let live" attitude and stop trying to push their fairy tales on the entire country, I'll be listening.
i am attempting to understand--
without alot of clever semantics-
it seems like alot of atheists are reacting to the closemindedness and judgementalism of fundamentalists-
what is the atheist answer? what is superior about atheism?
is intelligence valued over character or ethics?
are there atheist ethicists?
what are their conclusions?
is it all just different personal questions?
are there any famous atheists who became believers?
are there any famous believers who became athesits?
peace on you all
I suspect that one reason it is more possible for people who doubt or deny the existince of at least the god identified with Christianity is that people are more willing to admit there is no answer to the "problem of evil." In times where we see all too clearly the evil that men do, we see all the more clearly that reliance on gods is futile.
As Archibald McLeish put it in his play J.B.,
If god is good he is not god.
If god is god he is not good.
Try the following thought experiment. A serial killer is on the loose, kidnapping teenage girls, carrying them in his white SUV into the woods, where he tortures and kills them. I am a hunter sitting in a blind, with my high-powered rifle and my cell phone. I see someone fitting the description of the suspect drive up in his white SUV. He takes a bound and gagged girl out of his vehicle. I have a perfect line of sight to him, and I can kill him and save the girl with one shot. At least, I can get on my cell phone and call the police. But I do neither. I simply sit and watch until the torture and murder is accomplished. Is my conduct that of a good person? Should I be praised and admired? Or should I be condemned as morally culpable in the girl's death?
As I am to the girl, so is the Christian god to
the holocaust and any other mass murder you can think of. Either this god is somehow incapable of intervening, or simply sits back and watches, uncaring. In either case, such a god is not worth worship and instead invites our contempt.
I'll copy my answer from the 'What was your tipping point ?' over at Internet Infidels:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=189532
A combination of 9/11 and the Bush era mixing of religion and government. Especially evolution denial and gay marriage.
Really, it was kind of like 'You have abused your privilege of not being challenged about having an invisible friend who can do magic. Grow up.'
>>are there atheist ethicists?
what are their conclusions?<<
Absolutely! I suggest reading Michael Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil." He makes a compelling case that evolutionary forces created our concept of good & evil.
Richard Dawkins makes a convincing case that morals are socially constructed rather than being based on religion in The God Delusion. He offers similar alternatives in evolution.
Shermer theorizes that human communities greater than 150 in number needed some force other than mere instinct to get along and survive as a group, and religion filled that need.
Of course, there isn't a single "atheist answer" just as there isn't a single answer in any other worldview. Atheism is merely not believing in a deity. What an atheist does believe is up to the individual -- there's no catechism.
so what are their conclusions? past the where did it come from question? ok, fine it came from evolution-
by the way thank you for responding
but i guess where is it heading?
where is it going?
I thought atheists asked the big questions- did they ever come up with any answers?
i hope this doesnt sound rude im not trying to be
thanks again
i have to say honestly- alot of atheists seem pretty angry- not all of course but there seems to be a general tone- maybe anger at fundamentalists but those are just reactions
surely it goes deeper than that?
peace
Well atheism is in "vogue" in the US nowadays as a reaction to fundamentalism, both outside the US (islamic radical terrorism) as inside (the politically influential Christian coalitions).
Moderates can't seem to control the influence of radicals anymore and atheists become more public because of that. As long as moderate religious people controlled their fundamental counterparts, the large (unknown) infidel part of the nation did not need to speak up, but it seems that now atheists have realised that they not only have to speak up for their rights, but also finally educate on the errors of the faithfull, to the mass of the deceived.
I've been an atheist for about twenty years also. I came to pretty much the same conclusions as Richard Dawkins for pretty much the same reasons as he writes about in his book The God Delusion (except he does a more thorough and systematic job of analysing the arguments for and against God than I did).
I'm not an atheist because it's fashionable, although maybe some people are. Of course 9/11 and the current publicity about atheism has given me reason to speak about it. I used to keep my lack of religion to myself and never said anything to believers, but the fact that the US seems to be turning into a Christian mirror of Taliban Afganistan scares the bejesus out of me.
I think there can be a meaningful dialog between atheists and the religious. Atheism is NOT a religion and it is not a substitute for what religion provides. I think both sides have something to learn from each other.
Religion inspires, uplifts and motivates people. I think atheists can learn something from this.
I think atheists can stimulate the religious to think about what they believe and why. Since there are so many mutually contradictory religious beliefs, many religious beliefs must be wrong. Maybe some religious people will change at least some of their incorrect views - surely this must be a good thing?
If your religion is based on reality, then it should stand up to scrutiny. I think religion can only benefit from some honest scrutiny. If your religion is the genuine article, then atheists asking hard questions and asking that you justify your beliefs should only serve to clarify your belief. If your religion is not based on reality, then scrutiny can only free you from mistaken beliefs. Neither of those can be bad.
Atheists have been held down for many centuries by fear of punishment. It is wonderful to see them emerge in the light of day. They should not hold back. They have the right attitude towards the evils of religion. Religious people have nothing going for them but fear.
When you meet a believer stike him down! Stick up for the truth.
Just to start off - yes, I am an atheist, I also subscribe to secular humanism.
You have already had a number of posters comment on the unfortunate use of the word 'vogue', so I won't harp on at you about it.
On the question of whether there can be productive conversations and, if so, regarding what topics ... I would think the answer is perfectly obvious: yes, on anything that includes facts, reason, logical arguments and mutual respect of the self, but doesn't include or require acknowledgement of a supreme being(s).
In case the above response seems a little too pat to any who might read this, I'll pad it out a little...
The difficulty is that many theists presume topics worthy of discussion necessitate the inclusion/consideration of religious doctrine. An example: 'Ethics and Morality'. Be truthful now - if you are a theist, would you be capable of an indepth discussion on 'Ethics and Morality' without bringing your individual faith into it? Would your devout theistic friends be able to? Can you accept that a person who does not share, or indeed rejects completely, your particular belief structure would be capable of the same moral standards that you personally subscribe to (or think you subscribe to)?
What I would argue is, any topic that affects the whole community should be, at all times, discussed from a reasoned, secular perspective. If the individual wants to fit the outcome of that secular discussion into a faith-based perspective, then they can take it back to their temples and pray over it with their fellow sect members - that part of the discussion has nothing to do with me nor society generally and therefore has no relevance in the public debate sphere.
I'm not suggesting people have no right to discuss their belief in public. By all means, talk about your favourite invisible pink unicorn(s) as much as you like. I'm simply saying that it has *absolutely no relevance* to general public debate. And for us (atheists & theists) to be able to hold *productive* conversations together, we need to discuss things that are *relevant*.
In summary, to hold productive conversations we need to find common ground, common topics. Otherwise the conversations would only become sermons and nothing will be achieved.
Some examples of common topics:
An ethical and moral society is in the interests of all.
As is looking after our natural environment.
As is ensuring our children have a full and hearty education to ready them for the rigors of adulthood ... and yes, I think that should include full and open sex ed, not the simple preaching of abstinence. (The image of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand comes to mind on the topic of teaching 'abstinence').
As is trying to put in place the best support systems to empower individuals in self-improvement, or overcoming bad habits/addictions.
None of the above topics require assumption of a supreme being, yet many theists would find it hard to discuss the above without that assumption.
Case in point: consider Veritos' contributions to this topic.
I think my viewpoint is similar to that of Robin, an earlier poster. "For the most part the christians quote the bible and the atheists say 'prove it'. And then it just gets worse with name calling."
The answer, therefore, is to leave 'god(s)' out of it.
Robyn, you don't know anything about AA do you?
To Victoria,
I think you miss the point.
Where is what going?
Whatever it is, does it need to have a destination at all?
There are probably numerous quotations you could find regarding the travel being the point of the exercise, not the destination, but I'll try to reword it generally for you.
What is important in life is not what happens after death, but what you do with your life before death. The meaning and purpose of life is living, its not about dying. Or, at least, that is what life means for me.
If you were asking the question in the broader sense of where humanity is heading, then I give you this quote from John Schaar (I have no idea who he is, but the quote is a good one):
"The future is not a result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created--created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination."
If this doesn't satisfy you and you still have a need for a full explanation on where we all came from and where we are all headed, I have one question for you to ponder: what makes you so special (or me for that matter) that you should know and fully comprehend the answer ... if there exists one.
As one walks to the kitchen cabinet, removes a drinking glass and walks towards the kitchen sink, they are acting on a faith (confirmed by prior experience) that water will pour forth once they open the faucet. Some have found, in their experience, that they do not always find water.
David Willis, in his book Theism, Atheism and Trinitarianism yields a very major point to all Atheists. He agrees that their counterpoints to the fundamentals set forth by Theism (just and all-knowing, all-powerful God) prevail.
He argues that Christians should abandon all Theistic positions because, without the Trinity and God descending to atone and suffer and personally experience human suffering even unto death, the Atheists have the point; over against Theism.
Then Willis uses the Dialectic of Hegel and illustrates how Trinitarianism trumps Atheism because of God's descending,suffering and human death - defeat of death!
If there is still a contest going on, Christians should drop the sword labelled Theism and pick-up the Trinitarian two-edged sword.
Kate @ December 29, 2006 8:50 AM
An interesting presentation. But I have a couple of points to raise:
1. What is 'ethical and moral'? For better or worse, religion provides a frame of reference; without it (for some even with it) it amounts to 'what feels good'.
2. You seem to presuppose that only theists resort to 'sermons'. I find it interesting that atheists can be just as vocal about their beliefs; and they can become just as upset when asked to prove their point of view.
Being a theist, I am gratified that yougrnat me the privilege to consider my beliefs outside of the public venue. But I do not yield that the discussion in the public venue has to e done strictly on your terms ("any topic that affects the whole community should be, at all times, discussed from a reasoned, secular perspective"). You see, what I believe and what you believe do affect our points of view, our ethics and morality if you will.
I agree that any discussion must be based on respect for the other. But just as I am uncomfortable with the religious right-wing, I am equally uncomfortable with the absolute secularists. Both fail to respect my prerogatives.
Atheism is NOT a scientifically valid position
it is just another and very stupid religion
whose members BELIEVE there is no God,
while they cannot PROVE that there is none.
Agnosticism is the only
Rational, Scientific and Honest position,
where one admits that WE DO NOT KNOW
whether a Real God or Gods exist
(as for the FAKE gods, they all exist,
HUMANS CREATED EVERY ONE OF THEM!)
December 28, 2006 2:39 PM
:
"The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory."
An Atheist is just as clueless and naive a believer
as a Moslem, Hinduist, or Any garden variety PAGAN.
The burden of proof is on the ATHEIST to prove his BELIEF that there is no God or Gods.
The WAY AROUND that is to be an AGNOSTIC.
It is the ONLY Honest, Scientific Position.
FEW, if any, people know the difference, BTW, between an atheist and an agnostic.
To Agnostic,
I know the difference between atheist and agnostic & I consider myself atheist. However I do have respect for the agnostic position as I think I can appreciate why they hold it.
Well, I can appreciate their position in general ... your post, however, was just a load of bile.
"a very stupid religion", well thanks very much for the mutual understanding. "Clueless and naive believer", "an agnostic ... it is the only honest, scientific position". Oh great, now you're naming-calling. I'd like to know how you have been placed in a position whereby your capable and entitled to judge the extent of my honesty. I'd also like to know what kind of scientific experients, to which you allude, you've conducted to prove agnosticism as being "the only honest, scientific position".
I pretty much know the answer already.
You haven't, have you.
BTW (1) "the burden of proof is on the atheist" - actually no. It isn't. The burden of proof lies on the person doing the positive assertion. I could go into a lengthy explanation as to why, but numerous & far better persons than myself have already done that a million times over. So I'll simply ask you to do what you suggest is possible. I'll ask you to prove the non-existance of something for which there is no evidence. Invisible Pink Unicorns, for example. I assume you would deny the existance of Invisible Pink Unicorns, if you don't you'll have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Therefore prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.
BTW (2) atheism, is a-theism ... literally it means to be without theism. To deny theism is to be anti-theist - to be against theism.
So it is probably best to describe someone (like myself) who has an absence of belief as being atheist, and someone with a negative belief to be an antitheist, or at least a 'militant' atheist.
BTW (3) we are, all of us, atheists to at least a point. Even agnostics. Examle: a christian is an atheist when it comes to buddhism. Agnostics also count as atheists because there are religions which require the regular profession of belief from their followers. If you do not regular profess your belief in such a religion, that you are not counted as a follower. Therefore you are an atheist with respect to that particular religion.
Welcome to atheism, my friend.
Amy, why are you talking about politics? Neither party is worth a ....! It seems you do have a religion and its called the DNC.
In response to AM, Vienna, VA:
1) "without {religion} {ethics and morals} amounts to 'what feels good'"
AM, I'm sorry to say this, but you've committed one of the most common and simplistic theistic prejudices when it comes to atheists. Speaking as an atheist, it's also one of the most insulting.
I'll try to give a demonstration.
Scenario: I find a purse on the footpath. There is a bit of money in it. Not enough for me to retire, but certainly enough for a bit of night out to make me feel better.
Do I (a) keep the money and bin the purse, or (b) try to return the purse to the owner with all contents intact?
I'm a conscience ridden sucker, so I would return the purse. Hang on ... but I'm an atheist! If I keep the money I can buy some things that would 'make me feel good'. Yet I would still return it, as uppermost in my mind is the concern for the wellbeing of the person who lost the purse. Frankly of the theists I know, I'm not too sure all (or any) of them would do the right thing and try to return it to the owner.
What is my point here? The point is being without religious belief does not necessary make you unethical or immoral. Vice versa, subscribing to a particular religious belief does not automatically equate you to being an ethical or moral person (a second example here - child molester priests - they are unethical, immoral and religious to boot). Two conclusions result: (1) ethical and/or moral behaviour can be achieved in the absence of religious belief; (2) there are other forces influencing behaviour which have greater impact than religion.
Yes, religion can provide "a frame of reference", (though, it must be said - not always in a good way). But, for it to be possible for atheists and theists to hold "productive conversations" you need to be willing to acknowledge that religions are not the *only* available frames of reference. Theists need to be capable of approaching such a conversation without prejudging the person they converse with as being immoral or unethical simply because they do not subscribe to the same belief structure. I find many (but not all, thankfully) theists tend to have trouble on this point.
2) Yes, it is true, when people feel they are being attacked, they can become emotional and overly defensive. Atheists are not immune to this flaw. We're only human. My point would be this, I've regularly had unknown people either approach me in the street or come up to my front door wishing to preach to me about their 'god'. I have never, I repeat *NEVER*, had an atheist do the same ... enough said.
Note: you seem to have made the same error that Agnostic did. The burden of proof lies not on the atheist, but on the believer.
3) Yes, our individual belief structures do affect our opinions, judgement and decisionmaking. The problem is allowing 'belief' to have greater importance in public debate on community issues, than 'fact'. Too commonly people debate public issues from a perspective of belief rather fact and reason. Further, too commonly they argue only for their individual 'beliefs' regardless of whether or not those beliefs might conflict with the rights or beliefs of others. To have a public debate which is swayed by individual 'belief' rather than holistic secular concerns, is to sow the seeds of potential discord in the functioning of the greater community. Therefore it is a necessity that any public debate on issues that affect the entire community be discussed from a secular perspective, rather than a religious one.
There are very good reasons for the separation of church and state.
>>I thought atheists asked the big questions- did they ever come up with any answers?<<
I don't know where you got that impression. A lot of the "big questions" are theistically-based. For example, where do we go after we die? If you don't believe in the concept of an immortal soul you would never ask that question. Who made the world? The laws of physics are "what's" not "who's" so that isn't a question I'd ask either.
One excellent point that Dawkins makes is that believers conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that don't fit with the morality of their times & communities. For example, in many places the Bible supports slavery. The Bible has been used to buttress conflicting positions on many issues, and history proves that people will do what they feel is best for their society regardless of religion.
As communal animals humans need to cooperate and get along within our own group, and to defend our group from predators and other competing groups. The non-theistic commandments (i.e., not lying, stealing, killing etc) are the kind of thing humans would have come to on their own just for living together. The disincentive would be a smack-down by the victim or the group's leaders. Shermer theorizes that after human groups exceeded the size where immediate punishment and social control were possible, religion became a way of governing larger groups. Hence God as big brother looking over your shoulder and punishing you after death should your misdeeds go unnoticed by your victims.
to Soja John Thaikattil :
i wish you, and the panel, could understand just how insulting your response was. so only those of you who believe in god(s) are worthy to discuss the issue. very convenient.
LIFE LONG ATHEIST
I made a post several hours ago that still has not been posted. I'm not sure why, but to sum it up over again:
The reasons that atheism is becoming talked about increasing are:
1) The end of the Cold War
2) The rise of the Internet
3) The rise of religious fundamentalism in American politics
4) The rise of religious terrorism
From the end of World War II until the early 1990s, there was major institutional and governmental support for religion and propaganda against atheism, as this related to the issue of Communism. It is true that the Communist movement was in favor of atheism, but not all atheists are Communists, and indeed the ideals of the Communist movement were certainly betrayed by its leaders. Many of the leading opponents of Soviet Communism were also atheists, some of them former Marxists. Sidney Hook and Ayn Rand for example.
With the rise of the Internet atheists have finally been able to realize that they are not alone in America, find other people who share their views, and present their views on their own terms, something that has long been denied to us in America due to significant cultural bias and media bias against atheism and criticism of religion in general.
The rise of American fundamentalism in politics, especially since the election of president Bush, has also awakened many moderates and closet atheists who used to think that religon was okay for other people because it didn't impact them. Atheists and even religious moderates now see that religion threatens all of us, even if we are not religious ourselves.
The growth of religious terrorism has also prompted atheists to speak out and realize that religion is a threat to our survival, and as such atheists have begun to mobilize and realize that we have to speak out and can no longer sit on the sidelines and allow these delusions to threaten our survival.
Thank you,
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/
to Sonja John Thaikattil:
pardon me if you are not a member of the onfaith panel and were speaking sarcastically concerning the lack of representation of atheists, etc. my comments were meant to be directed to Quinn and Meachum.
i just came accross this gem from your mission statement:
"As Homer said, "All men need the gods." Even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful."
okay, so be it. even the most basic fairness of being heard is denied the atheist it seems, at least in your forum. how very christian of you.
to Quinn and Meachum
don't you see some irony in discussing the moral deficiencies of those of us who 'lack faith' whilst christians and muslims literaly line up to see who can have the honor of committing pre-meditated murder and thus extinguish the spark of divine life that is saddam hussein? you people are really sick.
I think there are many reasons why atheism appears to be getting more media attention. I feel that one reason is internet access and the increase of computer use. More people are able to express themselves and exchange ideas freely. More people have a chance to learn about other atheists, to feel less alone, and to say online what they can't say in the local bar or coffeeshop. More people have access to the books, websites, and blogs about atheism, and more nonbelievers are openly identifying themselves.
In the computer age, there is an increased opportunity for atheists to speak out, and many of them are doing so, online. In some cases, this causes them to become involved in real-world groups for atheists.
Atheists have various reasons for speaking out, but the popularity of the new books, the media attention, and the renewed debates about atheism and theism are inspiring more people to get involved now.
God exists! God is 'good'!
All antipathy to this possibility seems based on the assumption the physical world and humanity is in its original state.
The Bible begins saying otherwise;--essentially that we are now in a 'world gone wrong'. Science explains 'all has deviated from norm';--there is no longer the perfect gas, oak tree or human.
In which case human reality is effected by images of a defective physical environment,--taken and transmitted by a defective body machine.
Progress seems little more than escape from the mentality so formed.
The Bible, I believe in Genesis suggests the only way out of this unfortunate predicament is 'to become like gods'.
Do not all physical principles, or environmental truths arrive from, and are realized only within personal consciousness? Is this not also the case with the human creative potential that develops and introduces technology? And social behavioral principles? Has our direction not been focused on protection from environmental harm?
It could be that within each defective physical mind and body exists a vestigial intact perfect self; the cohesion of which could lead to restoration of a perfect world.
If atheism is becoming 'vogue',--it could be relative to an educational transition;--to loss of a deeper vision.
Atheism takes more faith than belief in a god
'An atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsibile persons, that the job is here and the time is now.' ~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961
What a marvelous statement! In our religiously torn and bloodied world, the very future of our species depends on the rejection of all supernatural theisms that serve only to divide humankind and hamper its advancement. As long as people love a god more that his fellowman, atrocities against humankind will continue.
thanks, Jack, hadn't seen that before. most excellent.
as Penn and Teller say on the dustjacket of Dawkins' book: "If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
I think it is important to consider the age of the scriptures. The Old Testament was compiled many millenia ago. The New Testament was compiled just under 2,000 years ago. Our understanding of the world has changed since then.
In those days, we did not know what DNA looked like. We did not know that 99% of our genes are shared with chimpanzees. We did not know that the allele frequencies of populations can change over time.
We know those now.
Hence, the stories in those scriptures are essentially explanations of how the world works, and many have been refuted by scientific progress.
There is no "vogue" of atheism. I think Dr. Dawkins expressed it best when he said that most of us are atheists about the literary gods of Greece and Rome. Some of us just go one God further.
> Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists,
> and if so over what kinds of issues?"
This is an interesting question. Most here are basically saying 'no' because I'm right and you're wrong. Failure to go along with what I know is right will land you in trouble of various sorts.
But I do feel a conversation could be productive if people were interested in having such a conversation. The productive conversation would cover shared values such as valuing truth. Of course, we all define truth differently based on our belief systems, but truth is a common value.
Doug,
We are talking about God's existence. I am simply saying that you have to possess the qualities of God to know emphatically that He does not exist. You vampire illustration proves nothing and ignores the issue.
Again, on what basis are you trying to reason with me??
Veritos
Why are you talking about "God's existence" when this topic is "the new popularity of atheism"?
Kate @ December 29, 2006 11:30 AM
Good afternoon (at least from Virginia).
Thank you for your responses, and please consider mine:
1) On 'ethics & morals' we are in closer agreement that you suspect. Please note that at no point did I state that the non-religious cannot be ethical & moral, or that the religious automatically are. I have found that when it comes to ethics and morals, almost everyone looks for self-interest. When I discuss these with a theist the frame of reference is established by default; however, it differs with the specific atheist I am discussing it with.
2) I too find many of the religious to be obnoxious. They feel free to interrupt me in a public venue as well at home. That said, most of the time when I discuss philosophical issues with an atheist I am presented with the 'how do you know' question. Invariably I get a lecture when I bounce it back. My observation is that whereas many of the religious glory in that their opinion is belief, and refuse the need for a rational presentation, many of the atheists assume they that their point of view is a priori valid and rational (by the way, on a rational basis theism and atheism have an equal footing - they both require belief, in my opinion). I question both of those positions. I also maintain that the burden of proof is on everyone: the one making the assertion as well the one who wants to refute it. Whatever the assertion, even if it is a negative.
3) I have no objection whatsoever to a 'holistic secular view' as long as it does not limit my liberties. Even with a secular view, one must revert back to the 'ethical and moral' dilemma. As for the separation of church and state, I also do not wish the state to establish a religion, as the constitution states. But I do not interpret, nor shall I accept, that it means freedom FROM religion (as many now wish to interpret it to mean), anyone's even the atheist's.
Atheists here are so fanatical, that they miss the point.
Despite their strong wishes to appear rational and scientific, Atheism is NEITHER. It is just another stupid religion, as I stated and they failed to understand why.
Agnosticism, not Atheism, is the only Scientific, Rational position.
Think about it instead of knee-jerk responding, and read my old post for explanations.
"I'll take a shot at answering your question as to why there are no non-believers, atheists and agnostics on the "On Faith" panel (please note there are many more than four on the panel, even if only four have responded to their question so far). The answer to your question is contained in the question: Quinn and Meacham have put together an "On Faith" panel, NOT an "On Lack of Faith" panel."
And yet, the question is about atheists, asking these people to characterize them. That's not unlike having a "On White People" forum and asking "hey, those black folks seem to be cropping up a lot in the news: what do we all think about them?" It's a little bizarre, no?
To respond to one of the comments, I think the atheists have responded in the calmest, most intelligible fashion. The theists are the ones sounding angry with their CAPITALS! and EXCLAMATION POINTS!
The difficulty with dialogue between atheists and believers is this: Most believers are so threatened by the atheists, that they tend to become angrily defensive.
The only people who know if a supreme being exists are the millions who have survived NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES and described what happened to them while out-of-body and clinically dead.
Since the overwhelming majority of them report identical experiences, one is hard-pressed to challenge their conclusions.
Christianity is the very definition of hypocracy. How many millions need to die for jesus ? Take a long look in a mirror, christianists !!
Steven Dallas,
Why are you so angry?
Veritos,
Why do you hate reality?
Veritos :
__________________________________________
Doug,
We are talking about God's existence. I am simply saying that you have to possess the qualities of God to know emphatically that He does not exist. You vampire illustration proves nothing and ignores the issue.
Again, on what basis are you trying to reason with me??
Veritos
____________________________________________
I am saying that I "know" God does not exist in the same sense I "know" vampires do not exist.
Do you agree that I know the latter? If your position is that I don't really know vampires don't exist because there is an infinitesimally small possibility they do, then OK there's a small possibility that God exists.
But if you accept that I know there are no vampires, why do I need God-like qualities to know there isn't a God?
Veritos :
__________________________________________
Doug,
We are talking about God's existence. I am simply saying that you have to possess the qualities of God to know emphatically that He does not exist. You vampire illustration proves nothing and ignores the issue.
Again, on what basis are you trying to reason with me??
Veritos
____________________________________________
I am saying that I "know" God does not exist in the same sense I "know" vampires do not exist.
Do you agree that I know the latter? If your position is that I don't really know vampires don't exist because there is an infinitesimally small possibility they do, then OK there's a small possibility that God exists.
But if you accept that I know there are no vampires, why do I need God-like qualities to know there isn't a God?
Plunge, your point is well taken. it almost certainly never occurred to the panel to ask an atheist to take part in a discussion of atheism.
i suspect that this onfaith initiative, like many well-intentioned endeavors, was expected to elicit a convergence of mono-theistic bon homme, leading ineveitably toward a group hug of the faithful. sadly, only we atheists are interested in debating today; all the theists are glued to the tv waiting to watch an execution by the state of saddam. shame they don't crucify anymore. ironic, ain't it?
I don't think it's atheism that's in vogue but only the appearance of atheistic principles that hover around religion like flies aroung you know what.
There's great confusion, by design no doubt, brought about by asying anyone who does not accept the Bible, Koran or Book of Mormon as God's word is ipso facto an atheists. Religion thrives on contraversy. That last just as long as the topic has a basis in fact. The argument is never about the base but rather what the base says.
All sacred scriptures are hoaxes. The Bible is the only one proved by the standard for proving literary hoaxes, finding the origional written material used by the hoaxers.
Do the other two, Koran and Book of Mormon stand alone without the Bible? Isn't Allah really the "God of your father" from Exodus, Moses speaking to a being in a burning bush? The Mormons describe themselves as followers of Christ. Is that the same Christ that was crucified? If the Bible is a hoax then all are hoaxes.
The challenge has been made and it will continue to be made. The sacred scriptures are proved by the standard method to be bogus and therefore saying one who denies they are the words of God are atheists is rediculous. Prove your basis before making claims. That's what was done with the proof the Bible is a hoax.
http://www.hoax-buster.org has the story in part. Be prepared to look at pictures for the words are unreadable.
Please, all, study the history of humankind. What we now call "God" was not even possible to for people to conceive 20,000 years ago. As each "age" of humankind has arisen, our fundamental costruct of "God" has changed, with the old construct being seen as backward, untrue. At the same time, the new construct has incorporated and reformulated older constructs, at the same time that the older construct is denied its validity.
Christianity, or more widely the current Judeo-christian construct of "God" is a thoroughly historical phenomenon. And if one believes in the progression of "history" there is not reason to believe that in 1000 years what our society now calls "atheism" or "science" will not become the foundation of a new "faith."
Cheers all.
Someone above said, in essence, "If you're not an atheist, then you must think that you have an invisible friend who can do magic. So where's your proof?" Actually, I agree with this statement. Yet I'm agnostic, because I think I do have evidence of magic: I have two grown sons, who were once were 6-7 lbs. bundles of flesh, and now are caring, thinking, sensitive human beings. How could that have happened "scientifically"? I can't explain it. (And it is true that other dads have had to watch their sons get cancer and die, and I can't explain that either.) So, until an atheist can explain satisfactorily how this could possibly have happened, I guess I'll have to stay agnostic.
Old dad, lemme paint you a verbal picture.
Your wife parted her legs, you took advantage of this situation for your own pleasure, and as a result, a biochemical reaction was triggered which resulted in a combination of yours and your wife's (we hope) DNA, resulting in a pair of naturally formed genetic hybrids which are a fusion of attributes of both yours and your wife's (again, assuming here) genetic heritage. Within your sons are the culmination of traits which have allowed you and your ancestors to survive and grow.
Also within them are "errors" in the combination process which may result in the development of a variant trait from either of their parents. These variations may be harmful, as in the case of genetic blindness or deafness, or a malformed limb, or they may be beneficial, eyes that can see more clearly than others, or ears which are sensitive enough to discern higher frequencies of sound, or fingers long enough to allow greater control over a high right curve ball or allow more advantageous control over the keys of a piano.
Even the most miraculous events in life can be broken down into mundane reactions, both chemical process that fused your DNA with that of your wife is no different fundamentally than the first chemical reactions that combined amino acids into complex structures in the primordial muck on this planet, and even they follow the same rules of elementary reaction that have guided every proton and every electron that has existed since the singularity burst into being through a process we do not fully understand 13.7 billion years ago. The rules are the same, no matter what specific processes they are applied to. How those rules came into being is unknown, but nothing thus far has indicated in any way shape, or form, that there's been a guiding hand manipulating the path of development between the high energy plasma of the first Planck instant after the Big Bang to the birth of your sons.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of atheism on this board. Atheism itself makes no claim. It does not say 'There is no God', but says 'I do not hold a god-belief'. Many so-called agnostics are actually atheists. While they do not deny the possibility of a god, they hold no god-belief.
Although there are atheists, like myself, that take the 'strong atheist' position that there is no God. While we all have to technically be agnostic to the god-idea, in the same way we have to be agnostic to the idea of fairies, goblins, ghosts, and other mythical claims that we easily dismiss, it is intellectually dishonest to hold the god-claim in any higher regard.
KATE- how can i miss the point when i am asking the question? probably you didnt notice the big list of questions on the preceeding page- what is on this page are just afterthoughts-
i thought atheists asked the big questions because that is what they claim.
but there arent any answers here.
theres alot od reaction against people who practice their religion poorly- but even i know enough not to blame science if the scientist is inept-
there also seems to be some assumption that believers dont think deeply- because if they did they would come to the same scattered conclusions as SOME non believers-
again thi is really wrong-
most of my life and now have been spent contemplating my own relationship to humanity and seeking ways to be the most effective human i can-
this is the tone that im missing from this discussion- it all seems so self centered that i am surprised i really imagined there were deeper reasons for non belief than reacting against soemthing.
ok- so now everyone has reacted against bad perpetrators of religion-
what solutions do you have?
what are the alternatives?
and how do you all agree on them?
do you not believe in some unity of purpose for mankind?
i think in oorder to reject something- you have to have a knowledge of it- maybe more than those who blindly accept it-
are you saying that because someone has faith their selfless actions are invalidated somehow?
where are the selfless servers of humanity in atheism?
(please if youre interested these are incomplete questions- go backand read the questions on page 1 at the bottom)
i agree completely- anyone who spends their life sitting in a room praying without getting out and acting is a self indulgence.
so what are you all FOR?
im all ready to respect you if i have any idea i only can find out what youre AGAINST here and that is of no interest to me -we cam all point out flaws-
ps of course it was his wife whats to question she had the babies!
it wasnt necessary to start your response with such a personal image- i think you were disrespectful to the old dad
I would say that after 9/11 many people investigated Islam and saw an eerie similarity in form, content and methodology between Islam and Christianity. Any dialogue between the two faiths - other than of an “I’m OK you’re OK” variety - quickly falls into the Subjectivism and Obscurantism that is the hallmark of faith (read: wishful thinking) driven reasoning.
Seeing this, the more objective among us actually question their own assumptions - as the aware or bright habitually do as a function of leading the examined life.
Hence, we get what the threatened called a “vogue” and the hopeful might call a “neo-enlightenment.” Whose right? Too soon to say really. Maybe those with a “need to know” can tell us with the aid of a crystal ball or angel.
I would venture to say the a mushroom cloud over New York means it’s a vogue. Lets hope its not.
We're all atheists, theists just stop one god short.
THOMAS- as a former christian and practicing muslim i have to respectfully disagree- any religious( or political or anti-faith or anything ) view is personal and subjective of course- i dont know how that prohibits dialogue between the two- most emphatically and simply it doesnt- there is constant dialogue-as far as obsurantist- again only if two idiots are talking do they try to do such a thing.
dialogue demands clarity and honesty- not a lets make each other feel good club.
im not yelling here- i just dont want this question to get lost in the text-
IM THINKING THAT RELIGION HAS ALREADY PROVIDED ANSWERS and solutions to questions non believers have even asked yet.
without casting stones at actions but instead sticking with ideas- are there any answers to civil society?
humanism has no cohesion dont we all have to have a general consensus to agree to the rules governing any society n order for it to function?
and what about the inevitable "lawbreakers"?
(you get alot fo people together youre goingt ocome up with some really insane rules
ROBIN always gives such thoughtful and deep answers-
Why Is Atheism Enjoying A Certain Vogue?
What exactly is "a certain vogue"?
Let's keep this simple. Atheism's popularity has risen to a great degree because even non-believers want to feel like they are not alone in this world.
Why is simplicity so hard to master? I fail often too.
Correction. Atheists are not afraid of the dark, so being alone in the world is not such a terrifying ordeal. We don't need the imaginary friend to protect us.
Atheism, is a thinking person religion. an educated person's whose knowledge, in science, in history, cannot allow them into believing that the world was created in a week, or that an adam and eve could be everyone's parents. The earth is a small spec in universe, which is a smaller dot in the galaxy, and so on.
Second and very importantly, historically all war and destruction has been waged on religious idealogy.
again it seems that atheists put all religion into the christian box-
sir isaac newton was a man of deep faith- and gave us the teory of gravity-
faith does not preclude intelligence-
there is no monopoloy on brains in any of the varied groupings of people-
all war and destruction has been waged on religious ideaology?
mr buchanan- in islam there is no imaginary friend protecting us- there just isnt that concept- and im not afraid of the dark- but i DO hate being enclosed in small spaces.
the dark is where i get my best realizations...
Victoria,
You ask some good questions. I like the fact that you are genuinely interested in understanding other people's views.
"what is the atheist answer? what is superior about atheism?
is intelligence valued over character or ethics?"
Firstly I should point out (again) that atheism is not a religion, a philosophy or a system of ethics. It's just a position of (dis)belief. It's very strange that such a word even exists. We don't need a special label for people who don't believe in Zeus. Many religious people seem to want to label non-believers with a label and write atheism off as an alternative religion. As some clever atheist said, if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Many religious people seem to want to compare atheism to their religion as if it was another religion. It is not. Most religions consist of a set of beliefs, a set of rules about ethics/morality, a set of rituals and customs, and they provide fellowship and social functions. Atheism provides none of those. I think, for that reason, it's a tough sell. People find it empty - because it is. If you are shopping for a new religion, atheism doesn’t look very appealing. It doesn’t look like very good value because you have to think for yourself and make decisions instead of having those decisions made for you.
Atheism says nothing about ethics – this is presumably why there seems to be a common misconception amongst theists (particularly in the US where most people don’t even know an atheist) that atheists are unethical or immoral. I don’t think there is any evidence of this. Most atheists believe it is not rational to accept an arbitrary system of ethics written by someone thousands of years ago even if they claim that it comes from God. We tend to believe that ethics should be justified by their benefits to humanity.
By your questions, you seem to imply that we have a choice about whether to value intelligence or character and ethics, as though you can’t have both. Surely, people should use their intelligence as much as possible when making ethical decisions. To do otherwise would be, well, unethical. Christians (and the few Muslims I know) do this. They reject the parts of the Bible they don’t agree with. I think it is better to do this honestly instead of being hypocritical and saying that the Bible is literally the truth and the word of God while in practice rejecting parts of it. I think the fact that people now know better than the authors of the Bible proves that at least some parts of the Bible are not the literal word of God.
Of course there are many non-theistic systems of ethics. E.g Buddist ethics, Confucianism, Objectivism etc. I personally like Buddhist and Taoist ethics and I agree with most of what is presented on the Church of Reality web site: http://www.churchofreality.org/ which provides all of the useful elements of religion that are missing from atheism.
YES, I TALK TO UNBELIEVERS ALL AROUND ME
EVERY DAY.
they fixed my car, deliver my paper, cut my grass,
fix my A/A, wash my car, etc. etc.
Hi! UNBELIEVERS!
To AM, Vienna, VA.
1) Thankyou for the correction, and, I'm glad to hear of it. Regarding the variable nature of 'Ethics and Morality' when discussed with an atheist. Firstly - I think you'll agree we can also find a significant degree of difference in ethical and moral standards from people who seem to base their standards on religion. But that difference in perspective, whether it be from an atheist or another theist is something to be celebrated and explored. (At least usually. There are exceptions to every rule.)
I find it invigorating to discuss day-to-day incidents with people and in doing so to understand how they might have perceived and considered those incidents. It helps me to form more well-rounded viewpoints. I don't necessarily accept their perspective as true or correct, but comprehending it assists in looking at the incident from perspectives other than the one I default to.
Do most people form their ethical & moral standards around their own self-interest? Yes, I agree. Though I also think self-interest has various levels of consideration within it. For example: self-interest as based purely on consideration of the self, or self-interest based on the understanding of one's self within the broader community. Some other examples: self-interest based on the here and now, compared to self-interest based upon future positioning; self-interest qualified by various levels of acceptance in personal responsibility compared to external blame; self-interest either in defense of the ego's concerns, or despite of those concerns.
I suppose I tend to have a problem with short statements (I'm talking generally, not to your specific suggestion) which suggest atheists are immoral as their behaviour is based purely on self-interest, because I perceive persons making such a statement as referring to self-interest in the sense of: solely self & not considerate of the broader community; the immediate self of the here & now, not of the future; self which has no personal responsibility; the ego. I hope you and others who might read this understand the picture that creates and why offense might be taken at the suggestion.
Perhaps the way forward for me lies not in fighting a suggestion that I form my standards of behaviour on self-interest, but in challenging the person making the suggestion to define more fully what they mean when they refer to 'self-interest' or 'what feels good'. Further, challenging that person to consider they probably do the same regardless of their religious belief.
2) When you say you are discussing 'philosophical' issues - do you really mean 'philosophical' or do you mean 'religious'?
I would hope they question you with 'how do you know?'. I hope we all get challenged in that way. Shame on any atheist (or anyone) that cannot take such a question rationally. Though I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say you 'bounce it back'.
There are some that call themselves atheist who deny the existance from a position of belief. I won't disown their atheism. That would be akin to one christian suggesting another is not christian because their behaviour is not that of what the first person considers to be 'christian'. But while there are some atheists who define themselves in belief, I think you will find most define themselves from a position of rationale or reason. The very defintion of athiesm is the *absence* of a god belief. You do atheists a disservice if you suggest that our position necessitates 'belief', as if we were a theist in disguise.
As to your suggestion that some burden of proof lies on the atheist. Try this exercise: Prove the non-existance of Invisible Pink Unicorns. It's impossible. You can't prove the non-existance of something which does not exist in the first place. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the proposition, not in the denial of it.
3) I agree the state should not be able to establish an absence of religion, but I also think the state should not be able to establish the presence of it. An individual should be able to choose to be free of religion. Yet we have 'in god we trust' on our money and 'under god' in our pledge. The state is assuming that god is a given and by adding 'in god we trust' and 'under god' in such national icons the atheist is told "this is a country of god, you much believe in god to be a true citizen".
atheism is not making a comeback it has always been here at least for the 71 years i have been on this earth.
its time we al wake up and stop believing in fairytales jesus/god and all that stuff she just doesnt exist!
and if you insist on believing and that your prayers will be answered by her try it when the next rent or mortgage payment is due.( but be wise and dont get evicted!)
it has always been clear to me that "religion is the problem and NOT the answer"!
have a great 2007
willemkraal@mac.com
To Agnostic,
"Atheists here are so fanatical, that they miss the point."
...yet more name-calling.
"Despite their strong wishes to appear rational and scientific, Atheism is NEITHER. It is just another stupid religion, as I stated and they failed to understand why."
...and yet more name-calling. Yes, you did state that you consider atheism to be a religion, and we failed to understand why. Why did we fail to understand? Because you failed to offer a proof!
"Agnosticism, not Atheism, is the only Scientific, Rational position."
Again, this is only your proposition, you have offered no proof. I have invited you to provide proof, but you have not done so. I take it, then, that your opinion is based on belief, not any scientific or rational argument on your part.
"Think about it instead of knee-jerk responding, and read my old post for explanations."
Oh dear, how remiss of me not to scroll around through the entire site to find all of your previous posts. And how remiss of you not to reference them. But let me now refer to previous posts you have made on this comments board, if you want us to respond to posts you have made on other discussion boards, perhaps you'll remember to link to them in future.
--------------
"Atheism is NOT a scientifically valid position, it is just another religion, whose members BELIEVE there is no God, while they cannot PROVE that there is none."
'You say tomato, I say tomato'. No, atheism is not a religion, it is the absence thereof. And *again* you cannot disprove the existance of something which does not exist. It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies not on the denier, but on the asserter. I've typed it before, I'll type it again, if you think the burden of proof lies with the denier, then prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist.
"Agnosticism is the only Rational, Scientific and Honest position, where one admits that WE DO NOT KNOW whether a Real God or Gods exist"
Name-calling. Plus an assertion with no proof.
"(as for the FAKE gods, they all exist, HUMANS CREATED EVERY ONE OF THEM!)"
You admit gods are fake and then say they exist? That humans can imagine the supernatural only shows that humans are creative/imagination, it does not prove their imagined things truly exist.
-----------------
"An Atheist is just as clueless and naive a believer as a Moslem, Hinduist, or Any garden variewty PAGAN."
Again, 'tomato, tomato', whatever. Interesting that you don't refer to christians as being "clueless and naive", yet feel there is nothing wrong in suggesting that Moslems, Hindus and pagans are. I get the feeling that you aren't really a true agnostic...
"The burden of proof is on the ATHEIST to prove his BELIEF that there is no God or Gods. The WAY AROUND that is to be an AGNOSTIC. It is the ONLY Honest, Scientific Position."
This point has already been addressed and dismissed.
"FEW, if any, people know the difference, BTW, between an atheist and an agnostic"
It's quite easy actually. You can find the definitions in most dictionaries.
--------------------------
There is also the whole of your post on dec 29th 9:51am where you just repost all of the above.
Not worth responding to as there is nothing new.
--------------------------
And that's all folks!
Summary:
A lot of name-calling and prejudice.
Some attempts to re-define the word 'atheism'. Plenty of assertions but no proofs offered. Repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof from the ones who make the proposition to the ones who deny it.
Try to do better, please.
To Victoria,
I think Realist has typed up a very good response to your question(s) on atheism. I agree with him/her and so won't do a separate essay on the topic myself ^^. If you still have questions, please feel free to ask again.
well, pretty much, what IS the answer then?
trhanks alot realist for what in my limited opinion on the subject seems an apt description of atheism.
so it seems atheism rejects certain biblical precepts-
what do atheists think about the Qur'an?
again not the actions of crazies who have bad hearts and misapply and misinterpert it for bad reasons( or mostly just ignore it altogether)
actually i would say that most of what are considered muslim extremists are really completely politically motivated-
or under the control and brainwashed by the politically motivated
so far what ive learned is:
*atheists have been treated pretty badly by christians in america
*atheists really hate to be accused
of intellectual laziness ( i guess thats the equivalent of of being an infidel to fundamentalist atheists)
*most are amenable to listening to reason
*people of faith should be more respectful to them and find out why they think what they do
no please feel free- he barely skimmed the surface-
MY QUESTIONS are on page 1 at the bottom and so far no one has even tried to answer them
i really appreciate realists honesty and his effort but the other questions were just an afterthought
the good ones are on page 1
ps i walked away and put the previous post in a half hour later without looking thats why i didnt respond
THANK YOU KAREN YOU ARE ALWAYS SO UNDERSTANDING AND FAIR MINDED PEACE
To Victoria,
What is the question to which you seek an answer?
Atheists think of the Qur'an as we do the Bible. A work created by man. We don't just reject the bible or christianity. We reject all religions which profess belief in a "supreme being", aka god(s).
The best way to think of atheists is purely and simply individuals who live their lives without any form of god belief. That is the only thing that all atheists have in common - lack of god(s) belief. Everything else, be it what to have for lunch or the meaning of life, is what the individual atheist decides to make of it.
When interacting with them be aware that they do not necessarily consider their lack of god belief to be a deficiency. Simply interact with them as you would with any person in the street regardless of religious belief and they will have no problem with you. Nor you with them.
If you wish to conduct a philosophical discussion with them, simply try to keep your patience, don't be afraid to say you need time to think - you don't have to have all the answers at once, and above all else be aware that some things they might say will be antithetical to your own beliefs. Don't take it personally, it's simply the nature of the philosophical differences between your outlook on the world, and theirs.
Victoria said:
"I thought atheists asked the big questions- did they ever come up with any answers?"
You are mistaken. Atheism is just the answer to one important question: "Is there a God?". "No" is the best answer that I can give based on the available evidence.
The evidence seems to indicate that people invent gods to explain things we don't understand, and for other reasons such as to influence other people. We have invented thousands of them and most of us don't believe in most of them for very good reasons.
Science asks a lot of questions and it has provided a lot of answers also. Some of the answers have been surprising. The answers that science has provided have always been closer to reality than those provided by religion. This is not surprising because science is about actually studying the real world and finding out what the real answers are.
Region provides people's opinions dressed up as the opinions of gods. People seem to prefer the opinions of gods because gods have nice simple answers that are appealing to people. Unfortunately the universe is much more wonderful and more interesting than most gods can imagine.
Gods have always been good at providing answerst to questions, and they can provide answers to every question as you suggest. The problem is that many of the answers provided by gods that we have been able to verify, have been wrong. Gods are a very unreliable source of information.
If you are looking for answers to all of your questions. Science is the best option we have, except that scientists admit they don't have all of the answers.
I prefer to be honest about what I do and don't know instead of pretending that God has told me all of the answers.
victoria : these were the questions on page 1 the others were an afterthought-
thanks for taking the time to answer i thought id post them here because i think people were responding to the afterthought which i appreciate
************************************************
Well, ive learned a bit here. now these are my own musings while i went to the store for cat food.
it is very easy to point out the faults of things. it takes real energy to come up with solutions.
ive thought hard about this over the years as a practicing pacifist to ridiculous and literal extremes. i really try hard to be a compassionate and selfless human which has led to all sorts of abuses from people who dont have those instincts.
it is not realistic to practice total pacifism because i have to love myself as much as my brother-
so i have to protect myself or those i love or are weaker...
it seems that not all humans are good-
it seems that most humans are motivated to be good through reward--
and that most humans are deterred from doing evilby punishment-
it SEEMS okay?? no absolutes hereno need to assume ABSOLUTES just general observations
i have wracked my soul on many occasions to see if its possible to do good for the sake of itslef and compassion and of course it is
and every evil is not deterred by punishment
but overall- it SEEMS so please just suspend arguments about this to get to another point
lets assume this is true- for me--me is writing here
what are the alternatives to living in a civill society?
are all atheists inclined toward good and can be trusted to follow any rules theyd set forth?
this seems a naive presumption
so how would atheists set up a civil society?
also- are there any atheists who have led lives of selfless service to humanity?
any atheist saints?
writing and the realm of ideas doesnt really count
im talking about actions
there are many religious figures and atheists who have proposed alternative ways of thinking that have changed lives well just assume that
but religious folks have also lived lives in direct service to their fellows
any uneducated atheists or must one be from the social strata to be an atheist saint that they can afford higher education?
not doctors or scientists because they received rewards in the forms of accolades of peers and material recompense
but selfless service without visible reward or benefit
one thing about belief is that you are never alone
is an atheists conscience constant like that?
i assume a conscience is a conscience
i assume atheists dont steal
where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable
i dont know just some thoughts
i dont really expect an answer
peace
December 28, 2006 10:35 PM
For my part I'm an atheist because I'm a realist.
It's as silly to believe in a god as it is to believe in astrology or flying saucers,and the more of us who say this..and keep saying it,the better.
It's the 21st century,thats why atheism is in vogue.
We're not as stupid as our early ancestors who believed all kinds of nonsense.
But we have books and universities and now the net.
Get thee behind me Satan.You too God.
You're just make believe like Santa.
> Atheism, is a thinking person religion. an educated person's whose knowledge, in science, in
> history, cannot allow them into believing that the world was created in a week, or that an adam
> and eve could be everyone's parents. The earth is a small spec in universe, which is a smaller
> dot in the galaxy, and so on.
That does not have anything to do with belief in God except for fundamentalist Christians. If you're going to argue for atheism, you need to include those who take the Bible as containing symbolism and metaphor as well as including other religions such as Hinduism.
> Second and very importantly, historically all war and destruction has been waged on religious
> idealogy.
That is not correct - look at the atheist USSR, China, Cambodia to list modern examples. Belief in God does not cause war and destruction. Egoism, power lust and other base motivations cause evil whether cloaked in religion or atheistic formulations.
To Kate who says that the burden of proof lies on the asserter of a religious belief and not the denier of such as a defense of atheism I fail to understand your reasoning.
I am agnostic and would clearly like to see proof for a great many things, but I cannot disprove a great many things I hear about. I simply live hypothetically and go by what seems most accurate.
I certainly do not feel that if I deny something I am exempt from having to provide proof for my denial.
Solid reasonings should be established no matter the belief or counter belief.
And it seems to me odd that a person should say that solid belief is arrived at by simply saying the asserter of beliefs should provide proof and if no proof then...
What do you believe if no proof is provided for an assertion? Nothing? But no one believes in nothing. Unless being a nihilist.
Even if no proof is provided we go with what sounds reasonable--and the reasonable has never been proved beyond doubt. The entirety of existence is hypothetical in other words.
Or to speak in religious and scientific terms, we have faith countered if by anything, countered only by theory, theory which itself is never conclusive.
The burden of proof is mostly certainly on the denier. We call the denier precisely the scientist. Unless of course you want to define the scientist as the person that demolishes assertions such as religions provide without needing to provide alternatives which...depend on proof.
The concept of proof itself was born of a denial of easy assertions, of taking things on faith.
The denier is the great prover or nothing at all.--And proves himself the great prover by first living in a state of tension, suspension of belief...
Denial without proof is simply the beginning and goes by the common name of suspicion.
I suspect an assertion is wrong, rests on no solid foundation, and now I work to establish a theory which proves it wrong or supercedes it or perhaps even proves it correct...
Your concept of the burden of proof resting on the asserter is a passive stance. As if you assert nothing yourself and feel you arrive at truth by simply demolishing assertions or going along with other, more clearly demonstrated, assertions.
What you fail to see is that those clearly demonstrated assertions as you call them were arrived at by denial feeling it has to provide a world for itself in the absence of feeling it can rest on what it feels is inadequately proven.
The more one feels an assertion needs proof the more one must prove oneself or simply be in a world of denial...
He who would deny must create a world for himself.
To Victoria,
Ok, you posed the questions, I'll try to answer them. Bear in mind while reading this that I am only an individual and cannot speak for all atheists. Many would probably differ from me on some points.
----------
"i hope im wrong but i foresee alot of intolerance brewing."
I think intolerance has been here all along and will likely continue to be here so long as we exist.
Every day of our lives we make individual judgements on whether we consider one option of action or thought to be superior to another. This very process, of judging what is superior, or better, leads to the possibility of considering other persons who choose the alternate option as being inferior, as they made what we perceive to be an inferior choice. That is the base nature of prejudice and intolerance.
Judgement.
-> Prejudice.
-> Intolerance.
I think the process of judgement is unavoidable, it is part of who we are, how we live from moment to moment. However, I think that if we are aware of the potential for the occurance of prejudice and intolerance that may result from judgement, then as individuals we can gain control over them or even prevent their occurance. Self-awareness is the key.
A symptom of how far we have to go in dealing with intolerance is that a good proportion of people will not be able to admit they are capable of prejudice or intolerance. Prejudice and intolerance are seen as 'evil' things that immoral people subscribe to. Until we can admit to the capability for prejudice and intolerance that lies within us all, we will never truly be able to deal with it as a society.
The problem in dealing with intolerance lies in two parts (a) how do we attempt to keep the memes of old prejudices from repeating through with each following generation and thereby becoming ingrained (in the manner that race and gender discrimination became ingrained in previous generations and religious discrimination is still ingrained today), (b) what measures/tools do we have accessible to today's generations so the damage to our society caused by intolerance/discrimination can be proactively contained?
For my own part I consider secularism to be a necessity in dealing with the problem of intolerance. Also necessary are the teaching of logic and its fallacies, teaching scientific method and teaching our children how to think of their place in the community with respect to others, not just themselves, nor just their particular social group.
The problem of intolerance is too wide and pervasive for me to have the answers, but for what they are worth, those are my thoughts.
------------------
"what are the alternatives to living in a civil society?"
An uncivil society?
"are all atheists inclined toward good and can be trusted to follow any rules theyd set forth?"
No, but then neither can all theists. You can get your axe-murderers within any and all social groups.
"so how would atheists set up a civil society?"
That would depend on the individual atheist. Personally I would prefer a democratic society based on secular humanism.
"any atheist saints?"
That would be a contradiction in terms. Saints are icons of religion, and therefore would not be atheists. Its like asking if you know of any vegetarians who eat meatlover pizzas.
"any uneducated atheists or must one be from the social strata to be an atheist saint that they can afford higher education?"
Atheism only requires the absence of belief in a supreme being. It does not require social status, a particular level of education, or even a job. It simply requires absence of belief in a supreme being.
"are there any atheists who have led lives of selfless service to humanity? .... selfless service without visible reward or benefit"
Be careful here, you are on the verge of wanting proof on the basis of appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. What makes you think that anyone, anywhere has ever led a life that was without reward, one which was truly selfless? We are social creatures, the reward of helping others and either knowing of their gratitude or otherwise having that warm fuzzy feeling of doing good is a reward in itself. Besides, it is virtually impossible for an atheist to commit to such a life as we do not have the communal structure set up to enable us to do so. We don't have the luxury of being able to rely on funding from our temples to support our living expenses in order that we be freed to travel about doing good deeds as we so wish.
No person has lived, or will ever live their life, completely without some measure of selfishness. But are atheists capable of selfless acts? Of course. All people are.
"one thing about belief is that you are never alone ... is an atheists conscience constant like that?"
And yet still priests rape altar boys. Go figure. Yes. I'm never alone. I'm always with me.
"i assume atheists dont steal"
I'll repeat back to you your earlier words here: "no absolutes ok". There are some atheists who might steal. There are some theists that might steal. People are people no matter what their station in life.
"where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable"
I've always been there whenever I've needed myself. I think thats pretty dependable. As to my personal morality/ethics, yes they are fluid, they do change. They are adjusted to new ideas, new considerations. I wouldn't have it any other way. But even so, they are still very dependable. For instance you can depend on me never getting it on with a married man. It's just something I won't do.
--------------------
"it seems like alot of atheists are reacting to the closemindedness and judgementalism of fundamentalists"
Yes. Its basically a counter-balance reaction. If religious extremism and the effects thereof weren't so seemingly prevalent, you probably wouldn't get anywhere near the same reaction.
"what is the atheist answer? what is superior about atheism?"
The fact that we don't waste a good proportion of our productive lives claiming to have knowledge about an religious idea that is, ultimately, unknowable.
"is intelligence valued over character or ethics?"
No. Intelligence is merely a potential. Thats all it is. Just a tool. And not always used wisely. Never discount the wisdom of a person simply because they have a lower intelligence.
"are there atheist ethicists?"
Of course.
"what are their conclusions?"
Read their materials and find out. Do a google for 'ethicist atheist book', that should bring up a few. Perhaps start with 'Atheism, Morality, and Meaning' by Michael Martin.
"is it all just different personal questions?"
Yes?
"are there any famous atheists who became believers?
are there any famous believers who became atheists?"
Yes and yes. Again, be careful about the fallacy of appealling to authority.
"so what are their conclusions past the where did it come from question? ok, fine it came from evolution"
That depends, are you referring to the point where everything began? If so, then no one knows the answer to that one, it's all speculation. If you are referring to the forces which shaped the way we appear today, then, yes, evolution.
"where is it heading? where is it going?"
I think I dealt with that one in the previous posting re: its all about the path, not the destination.
"I thought atheists asked the big questions ... did they ever come up with any answers?"
I don't think we're at the point where we can discuss answers, mostly we're still framing the questions. But at least we ask them. Isn't that the point?
--------------------
"theres alot od reaction against people who practice their religion poorly- but even i know enough not to blame science if the scientist is inept"
So we must show pity for religious ideology because their practitioners can be fractured and misguided? I don't subscribe to that. Whatever the calibre of the practitioners, I'm not fussed. They believe or they don't, that has no interest for me because I simply reject their belief. I am without it. Their religion is meaningless for me.
"most of my life and now have been spent contemplating my own relationship to humanity and seeking ways to be the most effective human i can"
We all do this ... I would hope. Whether you subscribe to a belief in a supreme being or not, you will still feel the need to define yourself in relation to the world you live in. Therefore belief in a supreme being is of no consequence, no relevance.
"what solutions do you have?
what are the alternatives?
and how do you all agree on them?"
Why do we have to have all the answers straight away? Surely the first step is to find common ground (I would suggest secularism) and then to sit down together and debate topics of importance without allowing religion to get in the way ... as it so often does.
"are you saying that because someone has faith their selfless actions are invalidated somehow?"
Not invalidated. Just erroneously attributed.
"where are the selfless servers of humanity in atheism?"
As discussed above. Why single out atheism? Where are they anywhere?
"so what are you all FOR?"
I can't speak for all, no atheist truly can, but what I am for is a world where people can communicate openly together without fear or prejudice, a world where issues of great importance are discussed without seeking guidance from something we cannot see or presuming to know the will of a supposed entity which we have never and will never know.
"i think you were disrespectful to the old dad"
Yes. The imagery was a little too much on the crude side.
--------------------
In summary Victoria, you seem to feel that there are big deep questions for which there should be big deep answers and you seem to think that if atheism was worth its salt, then we would be able to outline them for you.
There is no magic bean.
The reason why many become atheists, or even agnostics is just that - they don't find the answers in religions, they find only confusion. So we reject religion and we try to find answers by contemplation within ourselves and of others. We find religious debate generally just gets in the way of the truth of matters.
WELL SAID DANIEL- that clarifies my own question for me- what is the world that is created by atheists?
thanks daniel
Kate says prove the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns and then says it is impossible.--Which is why precisely they could possibly exist. But somehow Kate jumps to "you cannot prove the nonexistence of what does not exist in the first place". But the whole point Kate, is you have not proved the nonexistence of such in the first place...And if you attempt to prove the nonexistence of such it may well prove to be as you say impossible...Which is why they could possibly exist....
Victoria:
You say: any view is "personal and subjective of course - i dont know how that prohibits dialogue"
I disagree. Certain things are objective and some things are more or less subjective than others. Religious dialogues usually turn not on reason but rather on claims of the revealed will of god. I know that many debates I have had with Theists end up in the believer defending even clear biblical or quranic atrocities on this basis. So we have a dialogue but it is not a reasonable one.
You say: that "RELIGION HAS ALREADY PROVIDED ANSWERS and solutions to questions non believers have even asked yet."
I agree. If you want to be saved and your question is how can we all be saved you will find a afterlife full of pie and other rewards. The question one asks often drived the answers one finds. I can't speak for all non-believers but for me I ask what is the truth and I go there dispite what I want to be true. I believe this is the way people of reason behave, Believers on the other hand seek to bolster their belief with reason as a handmaiden. Your switch from christianity to islam is not a testiment to the power of reason but to the commonality of religious modes of thinking.
To Daniel,
"What do you believe if no proof is provided for an assertion? Nothing?"
I think you have this point confused.
It's actually the exact opposite, if no proof is required then the asserter can choose to believe anything and everything they want.
For example, they might choose to believe in: a god; that women should be confined to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant; that you will get some ridiculous number of virgins in heaven for your own personal pleasure if you commit some heinous crime to wipe out the infidel.
That is the beliefs you get when no proof is required.
That is why it is required that the asserter provide the proof.
-------------
How else do you obtain 'solid' belief without proof? If you had proof then your belief would be solid. You could also call 'solid' belief a little something I commonly refer to as 'fact'. If you don't have proof of any kind, then you only have belief. Which is neither solid nor fact.
-------------
By the way, it's not originally my reasoning, though I do subscribe to it. It's the reasoning of Logic. Do a google search on the topic sometime. Specifically search for (as mentioned before) 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' and 'burden of proof'.
-------------
"Even if no proof is provided we go with what sounds reasonable--and the reasonable has never been proved beyond doubt."
Sorry, but this is an erroneous suggestion.
I turn the stove on high. After 2 minutes I think it reasonable that if I touched the stove I would have my fingers burned. I touch the stove and burn my fingers. The reasonable has been proven beyond doubt.
There is a way for attempting to prove a 'reasonable' hypothesis as being true. It's called scientific method.
--------------
"Or to speak in religious and scientific terms, we have faith countered if by anything, countered only by theory, theory which itself is never conclusive."
Sorry, but this makes no sense. From what I can determine you are admitting that faith has no proof. Which is exactly the atheist's point. There is no proof for faith, no truth value.
--------------
"The burden of proof is mostly certainly on the denier."
You haven't explained how you arrived at the possition that the burden of proof is on the denier. Scientists actually do the opposite, they create a hypothesis and then test it in order to prove it. They don't test it in order to disprove it. Though, that can on occasion occur. But still the main point remains. Scientists conduct experiements to *prove*, not to disprove.
You suggest that god exists, so prove it.
------------------
"We call the denier precisely the scientist. Unless of course you want to define the scientist as the person that demolishes assertions such as religions provide without needing to provide alternatives which...depend on proof."
Ok, that section is really messed up. Think about the topic *before* you type. And while you're thinking, contemplate this: why are alternatives required at all?
-------------------
"Your concept of the burden of proof resting on the asserter is a passive stance. As if you assert nothing yourself and feel you arrive at truth by simply demolishing assertions or going along with other, more clearly demonstrated, assertions."
This gets back to my basic point - if an assertion had truth, it would have proof.
I said it to others & I'll repeat it to you. If you consider it valid that the burden of proof request on the denier, then prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist.
I'm still waiting for the others to give me proof. I'm not holding my breath.
------------------
"What you fail to see is that those clearly demonstrated assertions as you call them were arrived at by denial feeling it has to provide a world for itself in the absence of feeling it can rest on what it feels is inadequately proven."
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I have some doubts on whether you even do. Try to rephrase, please.
------------------
"He who would deny must create a world for himself."
I don't see why given that there already exists a world for me to live in. I can see it, it's right outside my window.
------------------
"...Which is why they could possibly exist...."
lol, you didn't just suggest that Invisible Pink Unicorns actually exist, I know you didn't. Therefore you must be pulling my leg. Good one.
------------------
Seriously, I'm getting to the point where I feel I have to start grading some of these posts ... but possibly that might be 'disrespectful', so I'll contain the urge.
Wow. Under attack for believing something -- not certain I understand what this is all about. I hold to certain fundamental ideas I believe are truths. I believe those things because of my upbringing, my personal experience, my education, and my faith. If you don't agree, fine. But why belittle me, or make comments that my faith is a fairy tale. You cannot prove it is a fairy tale. I respect that you don't believe -- it is a personal choice. My faith guides me in many ways -- I hope mostly for the good. It teaches me that all are free to believe as they choose, to accept or reject Christ. It teaches me to care for the poor, tend to the sick, forgive, and love others as myself. It teaches me to do good works, for faith without works is dead. Now maybe you don't agree with why I believe what I believe, but it is pretty hard to argue with the fundamental message of Christ. Unless, that is, you accept the notion that it is better to ignore the poor, forget the sick, hold grudges, and hate everyone except yourself. The problem with all this is so many get caught up in the argument whether Jesus is God that His message gets lost in the shuffle. For me, He is real, God and our Savior. If not for you, OK, but why belittle me in my belief. I ask you, if I can't prove to you there is a God, then can you prove to me there isn't one. ( I know, I've heard it before -- the one postulating a notion must prove it. Still, can you prove there is no God?)
Kate, honestly, you are totally silly. Honestly. Why not confine the argument to the Pink unicorns, that should make things simple.
I have never seen a pink unicorn, have you? Of course you have not. Does that mean they do not exist? Of course not--we both merely agree we have not seen one. There is no proof for one and no proof otherwise. But we have the concept in mind and it could possibly be they exist. And why not? A unicorn is essentially a horse with a horn and as we know there are many creatures with horns and even horse-like creatures oddly colored like the zebra.
But really, I wish I had not gotten into zoology.
I should have merely confined myself to saying we have no proof for such and no proof otherwise. We remain in a state of tension with respect to the concept.
And that precisely my dear Kate is the hallmark of the scientific thinker.
A theory Kate is merely a somewhat reliable hypothesis and could be proved wrong tomorrow. Science is an increase of uncertainty and not as you seem to believe, certainty.
Science is to enter a world of imagination and simply go by what is most reliable.
Science was born of a collapse of assumption, an easy belief in absolutes. It denies an easy absolute and demands proof. But all it has are theories...
This is why science and agnosticism and not atheism go hand in hand.
God may or may not exist, we simply go with what is most reliable.
And if you want, dear Kate, to start grading my posts, go ahead. I look forward to it being a high-school drop-out...One with a genius level I.Q....A man that has educated himself far more relentlessly than our ridiculous educational system...
Your so-called logic is no logic at all. I suggest you read, actually read your pink unicorn reasoning. You begin by merely assuming they do not exist and then ask us to prove the nonexistence of what does not exist. I really cannot be any clearer than that. Prove to me first Kate that they do not exist, and then tell me to prove their nonexistence--and then crow because I cannot do such.
But you cannot prove their nonexistence anymore than you can prove the nonexistence of God.
How can you fail to see that Kate? Let me repeat again, because obviously this is so complex for you.
I will type your very words. You state: "Try this exercise. Prove to me the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns. It's impossible. You cannot prove the nonexistence of what does not exist in the first place."
My dear Kate, YOU HAVE NOT PROVED THE NONEXISTENCE OF SUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT COULD BE THEY EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND IF THEY EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE THEIR NONEXISTENCE. YOU CAN PROVE THEIR NONEXISTENCE ONLY IF THEY DO NOT EXIST. AND YOU CANNOT EVEN DO THAT BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO TOTALLY BE IN A GOD-LIKE POSITION TO PROVE SUCH A NONEXISTENCE--WHICH IS TO SAY BE IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE ABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE SUCH A THING DOES NOT EXIST.
My 14 year old daughter, a young lady with a heart of gold, asked me about doubts. She worried about questions she had about her faith (we are Catholic). Is God real? Do you have doubts dad? This all scares her. I thought about what she said. It really set me to thinking. Is there anyway to prove God exists? Or that Jesus was His Son? Not sure there is. But I do know this much. A young man, who stayed very close to his home for his entire, short life, did something grand. So grand that it caused those closest to Him to go out into the world, risking their lives, to spread His message. I told my daughter, imagine why they would do such a thing if He was not special. Years after He was gone, they were spreading His message, and dying for it. If something miraculous had not happened, why would they risk all to spread His Gospel? It did not enrich them monitarily. It did not provide them with great power, or land, or security. To the contrary, it caused them to suffer consistently, to their deaths. No, those who lived with Jesus saw something miraculous happen to cause them to risk all to spread a message of hope and love. I believe the proof is there -- those who knew Him best, who lived with Him, and saw His miracles went out into the world to spread the Good News. Why else would they do such a thing? Why would they die, when simply denying Jesus would save them? So, I told my daughter, for me at least, there is the proof. A young jewish man did something so miraculous that years after His death, those around Him risked all for His message . She smiled. Not entirely certain about it all. I know her doubts -- faith is that way. It is not really subject to proof -- but logic can provide some answers, to those who seek them. For those who disagree, OK. My idea likely won't change your mind. But it is something to think about nonetheless. It is something to consider.
Kate, why not make things totally simple so even the veriest fool can understand. I will ask you a simple question: Do you or do you not believe it has conclusively been demonstrated that God does not exist?
If you believe that it has been conclusively demonstrated that God does not exist then you are indeed an atheist and of course a fool, unless you can provide for me the name of the man or woman that has demonstrated the nonexistence of God.
If you believe that it has not been conclusively demonstrated that God does not exist then you are in the camp of the religious or the agnostic, and of course the two are distinguished by the one either being an absolutist and saying God does exist or being simply a man or woman that has faith he does exist, and the other, the agnostic, preferring to go with non-belief although of course holding that it could be possible God does exist and that we simply do not have proof either way.
A simple question Kate. I would like to hear you answer it. You seem to think that it has conclusively been demonstrated that God does not exist and where you got that idea...The name of the genius please that has demonstrated such.
Greg,
I think this topic has reached the point at which all debates between atheism and theism ultimately reach: "I believe in my faith" "prove it true" "prove to me that it isn't" ... and around and around we go on the merry go round.
Personally it's why I subscribe to the belief (yes, I do have them), that the only way for atheists and theists to have 'productive conversations' is to leave god out of it altogether. Maybe then we can actually have a meeting of the minds.
Meanwhile, in the hope that you actually want to encourage your daughter in her overall development, not simply in development of belief, I'll give you this parting piece of information. The explanation that you used on your daughter is whats called an argumentum ad numerum, and possibly an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Basically you are arguing that because a lot of people believe it, or because people have believed in it for so long, it must be true/right/correct. They are common logical fallacies.
I'll try to give some examples why:
(a) slavery - for centuries people have practiced slavery. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Incidentally, the bible actually suggests slavery is ok - something you might need to address soon, given that she's already reached the grand age of 14.
(b) suffrage - for centuries people have thought of women as property, subservient to men. That doesn't mean it's true. I especially would think you wouldn't want your 14 yro daughter to think it.
If you truly wish for your daughter to honestly embrace your belief, I would suggest that utilising known logical fallacies in doing it is not the best approach. Something for you to consider.
PS I was raised catholic. Attended an all girls catholic school, the whole shebang. Only decided to refer to myself as atheist at the age of 19yrs (11yrs ago) after many years spent torturing myself trying to find just one good reason to believe. Many years wasted in which I thought that maybe it was true because everyone around me believed it to be. Still to this day my extended family are devout catholics and I have to deal with them simply refusing to acknowledge me if I say I am otherwise. I have already considered it, as you suggest, and have developed past that point.
Anyway, best wishes to you and yours.
----------------
To Daniel,
So you have a genius level IQ, welcome to club. So what? Yet *another* fallacy. Your IQ, or mine for that matter, has no impact on whether your argument is valid. Really, read up on the topic of logic and its fallacies before you try again. With a genius level IQ it probably won't take you that long.
No, I don't think that 'god' has been disproved because, as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible to disprove the existance of something which does not exist in the first place. There it is (repeatedly) stated in terms that even the 'veriest' fool should understand, but which you do not. What does that make you?
Further, how dare you presume to tell me what I am. I consider this to be true: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. By this statement I most definitely am an atheist, not agnostic. By your argument we could say that the pope is a cannibal. Simply because we have failed to witness him actually devouring anyone is not evidence that he is not a cannibal. Whereas I would suggest that as we have not witnessed him eating other people, while there is a small probability he might still be a cannibal, I'm willing to accept that he is not.
As for me, I stopped giving your words any credence when you indicated that Invisible Pink Unicorns might actually exist. But good luck with that, and with the possibility the pope might actually be a cannibal.
----------------
To MNTNMAN,
Short answer: because it *is* a fairy tale.
PS Guess what - your assertion that because as a non-christian my beliefs must be opposite of yours - that is, I must "accept the notion that it is better to ignore the poor, forget the sick, hold grudges, and hate everyone except yourself" is ... dah dah DAAAA ... yes, that's right, a fallacy! It's whats known as a 'false dilemma'. It is actually possible to care for the poor, the sick, others generally and forgive people and yet still be an atheist, or more generally, be a non-christian.
Sam Harris has a good way of putting it simply, to ensure understanding. 'the fact that a belief might be useful is no argument that it is true'.
Meanwhile, as a christian, you follow a book that promotes slavery, prostituting your daughters, and stoning people, among other things. Well, that's actually bias on my part, isn't it. Maybe you are a christian that does not follow the bible.
----------------
Seriously, what is it with theists and logical fallacies?
----------------
Anyway, as mentioned to Greg, this forum is about done in real discussion terms, so I won't be back. Happy New Years to you and yours.
KATE- it is amazing tome- but somehow you managed to write alot of text without even one answer of any substance whatsoever-
*first you used half the text to comment on intolerance which wasnt even a question anyway and i have my own answers for-
* then you answer a question i already answered myslef without seeming to notice that
the answer is it would be naive to assume atheists dont have ethics-
/seɪnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[seynt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, esp. by canonization.
2.***** a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence.
3.***** a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization.
since you blew that question off by saying the definition didnt "fit" perhaps this dictionary definition will make you reconsider
are there atheists ethicists?
you tell me to do a google?
im supposed to work for you to get your answer?
if its true just say some names-simple
atheists to believers or believers to atheists?
you tell me to be careful of appealing to authority??? who says its a fallacy? you? on what "authority? what does that even MEAN? and if i do so what! its not an answer!
and then you pretend the questions dont need answers because its all speculation- well DUUUH-
SO SPECULATE SOEMTHING THEN! it requires putting a with b
'ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS FAITH THEIR ACTIONS ARE INVALIDATED?"
where did that come from? i didnt say that- why is it in quotes? why are you answering a question that hasnt been asked
and further i am really sorry in a genuine way that in your journey on this earth your skepticism has prevented you from encountering people who have truly lived selflessly- this is maybe why you believe as you do-
without touching money for over a year i fed 100 homeless people a day and no one- no one supported me- it truly was a life on the edge and was packed with amazing coincidences and extraordinary experiences and there was no temple- no church- no person that did anything to support me- instead i managed to feed 100 every single day- it was most amazing and very very often i would literally scrape the last piece of miniscule rice from the pot and feed the last person and that is just one tiny instance and i know right ow a man who spends his life in absolute selfless service to humanity and another lady and there are just too many of them and im really sorry youve limited mankind this way but its not my purpose to convince you of the good of humans that somehow youve missed out on just know its there and thats why i asked if it was a phenomenon n the atheist community.
and then you actually presume to tell me what i expect??? that i expect a certain answer???
you are so very far removed and completely misunderstanding of my mentality so here is a clue
i respect honesty and directness- i have no time for self satisfied pat glibly given and frankly slippery answers that have no justification except in the mind of the giver-
you didnt provide even ONE single straight answer and yet you seemed to have come away imagining that you were satisfying my queries-
this post was so pretentious it is annoying me and i dont usually get annoyed but this was and this is the first time i have made any personal remark in the 100s of posts ive made-
really kate- nothing you said came close to being an answer- i reccomend that before you try to discuss how the affairs of man should be run with any secular humanist group you do some volunteer work and find out what humanity is in need of befroe pretending to have answers to questions that werent even asked
GREG- that was a really heartfelt and beautiful expression of your faith- its really appreciated for its simplicity and honesty-
i find most good and true things to be straightforward- it is in the hiding of questionable motives and ego driven purposes that people feel they have to resort to 10 dollar words and hide behind alot of words-
peace to you
KATE- I TOO AM A GENIUS OFF THE CHARTS AS WELL AS MOST OF MY FAMILY---BIG WHOOP DE DOOOO
I have never used my intelligence to castigate those around me in order to feel better than myself--
In your ego driven self centered self aggrandizing
opinions you are convincing no one of your rightness- rather you are alientaing people with your self righteous rudeness.
you are being arrogant and needlessly critical and you are among your peers-
perhaps you feel it is alright to be insensitive to others because of your "intelligence" but you are completely lacking in wisdom and also your logic is askew so as far as the intelligence goes- it is not as pristine as you imagine.
being smart doesnt mean you have to be ill mannered--- rather the opposite.
sometimes some christians will post with a fervor and sense of their own "rightness"and come off a little (or alot) smug n their beliefs- i always deal gently with them and have passed up countless opportunities to spar with tem because it would serve no purpose-
you can read back and see the incredible patience ive had with openly hostile people- so much so that many others have commented on it in my defense-
but there is no excuse for ripping people up for the sake of your own need to dominate and be right.
let us get back to our interesting and engaging conversation where we all show mutual respect for each other because that is why most of us are here.
Jon and Sally,
I must say I have certainly not experienced an atheistic vogue, or even an agnostic one. If anything, I find the country more religious now than it was around 1948 when it was first brought to my attention that there was such a thing as “religion”. If one can talk about religion waxing and waning over time, I would argue that we would appear to be at the peak (hopefully) of the waxing phase. I say that even positing that what you mean by Athiesm are those people who do not believe in God (s) or other forms of spirituality.
Actually I do think one can have a productive conversation between believers and atheists. E.G. as an atheist I must recognize that every culture we have uncovered has included evidence of some form of religion. There is more at work here than a simple absence of scientific logic and observation, i.e. science is not the exclusive path to religious belief. Indeed, it may be a consequence of evolution, where religious cultures are naturally selected over non-religious cultures. When you consider the effect of religion on the psyche, this is not so far fetched. The point is that whether or not religious conclusions or assertions are true or false does not matter, the belief in them has important actual effects on the culture, on the society. I don’t know. As an atheist I know that I remain both baffled and curious how so many people individually come to believe in religion, but they do. I certainly understand why I don’t.
There is also a lot of room for discussion about the limits of knowledge. Even atheists are ultimately bound by what is perceived between their ears as delivered from their individual senses. What can we say about what we can’t sense? Nada. There is a lot of room for discussion about morals, about codes of conduct. It is not necessary to have a religion per se to develop a system of morals.
Happy New Year !!!!!
THOMAS well my path was a great deal more circuitous than from point a christianity to point b islam-
and the greatest driving force was the acceptance of truth whether or not it happened to be palatable to me-
it went through different circumnambulations but if i may make myself vulnerable to an onslaught of criticism and picking apart of my process which is not really what i want but... well anyway the end result is in my spiritual path i prayed for 2 years for god to lead me to worship him in the way that he wanted me to- not in the way that i was comfortable with- and there was an awful lot of stuff before that happened also of course.peace
i understand your point its one ive made to others in order to get them to really question the why of what they believed
To DODGER:
I refer to the two posts dated 29 Dec 06 that you addressed to me:
At 11:49 AM you wrote:
"i wish you, and the panel, could understand just how insulting your response was. so only those of you who believe in god(s) are worthy to discuss the issue. very convenient."
SJT: I was merely suggesting that there were probably no atheists on the “On Faith” panel, because the discussion was meant for the public, which would of course include input from those who objected to the theistic views put forward by the panel. I presumed that the discussion was probably not meant to be a debate between the panellists on ‘faith vs. atheism.’ I mentioned that I had no way of knowing what Quinn and Meacham had in mind and I was merely guessing.
However my guess turned out to be wrong. Apart from Susan Jacoby and Sam Harris, who posted their views on atheism after I posted my guess, I noticed that there are at least two others on the panel (consisting of ?88) who are more likely to write on atheism, rather than on faith – Richard Hawkins and Daniel Dennett. Contrary to my conclusion, Quinn and Meacham have included atheists on the “On Faith” panel!
Pardon!
At 12:06 PM you wrote:
"pardon me if you are not a member of the onfaith panel and were speaking sarcastically concerning the lack of representation of atheists, etc. my comments were meant to be directed to Quinn and Meachum.
I just came I this gem from your mission statement:
“As Homer said, “All men need the gods.” Even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful.”
Okay, so be it. Even the most basic fairness of being heard is denied the atheist it seems, at least in your forum. How very hristian of you."
SJT:
• I’m not a member of the “On Faith” panel. I’m a lay person just like you. I simply happen to be a Christian by conviction, who is open to the truth in all religions and philosophies, including the beauty of truth and integrity and humane qualities in atheists. Some of the people I love, deeply respect and admire are atheists. I'm fully aware that some of the most generous philanthropists, greatest humanists, who have done immense good for humanity, whether it be through their generous donation of money, fighting for the underdog, fighting for justice and peace, contribution through science that have helped millions, made a difference through arts or even simple acts of kindness and great acts of bravery etc., have been and are atheists. I do not admire them because they are atheists. I admire them because they are wonderful human beings. Their lack of belief in God or religion does not stand in the way of my admiration simply because I believe that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and goodness, truth and beauty comes from God, even if the atheist may not be aware of it or acknowledge it. That is not meant to be patronising, for the potential to be good is nothing unless it is exercised by the free will of a human being. If an atheist chooses to be good, it has been chosen freely. I am convinced too that human beings are capable of being motivated by more just the will to survive.
I hold the same admiration for goodness in believers. Even if a believer's motivation to be good stems from their belief in God, the choice to actually exercise acts of goodness, must be made nevertheless. I know only too well from personal experience that it is so easy to believe in goodness, but it is so difficult to actually translate it into action. Spiritual paths lay great emphasis on training the body and mind in the practice of virtue. I'm really quite amazed when I hear that being good is natural and easy. I wish I found it natural and easy!
• NO. I was not speaking sarcastically concerning lack of representation of atheists. It did not even occur to me that one must have a representation from atheists on the panel. I thought the readers would be the ones to represent atheistic views.
. You refer to a quotation of Homer and a mission statement supposedly posted by me. Where did you find it? I do NOT host a personal website or a forum, and I have not posted the Homer’s quote or a mission statement of any sort anywhere.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Ok, this is absolutely the last one.
To Victoria,
You know, just a thought, you really should read posts before you respond to them...
------------
"KATE- I TOO AM A GENIUS OFF THE CHARTS AS WELL AS MOST OF MY FAMILY---BIG WHOOP DE DOOOO"
Which was exactly my point. IQ is irrelevant. Which you might have noted if you had actually read my posts fully. I have mentioned it in passing on two separate occasions.
------------
"ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS FAITH THEIR ACTIONS ARE INVALIDATED? where did that come from? i didnt say that- why is it in quotes? why are you answering a question that hasnt been asked"
Actually you did. Check your post from Dec 29th 5:11pm. Possibly you might even want to re-read your own posts before responding.
------------
"first you used half the text to comment on intolerance which wasnt even a question anyway and i have my own answers for"
You made a passing comment on intolerance, a topic I have some thoughts on, I expanded on my thoughts. So sue me. So much for 'productive conversations'.
------------
"then you answer a question i already answered myslef without seeming to notice that
the answer is it would be naive to assume atheists dont have ethics"
You asked the question. I gave an answer. I wasn't about to spend time pondering whether you'd found an answer in the meantime or whether your question was naive in the first place. You asked, I answered. Blame yourself for your own naivety, I had no hand in it.
------------
"are there atheists ethicists?
you tell me to do a google?
im supposed to work for you to get your answer?
if its true just say some names-simple"
You berate me for asking you search for answers, when it was you who wanted the answer in the first place. Please, take a moment to consider your hypocrisy. And besides, I gave you one name to get you started - again, actually reading the post is probably a good thing.
------------
"you tell me to be careful of appealing to authority??? who says its a fallacy? you? on what "authority? what does that even MEAN? and if i do so what! its not an answer!"
I've already mentioned the items of 'logic' and 'logical fallacies' numerous times already over numerous posts. Why am I responsible for your lack of knowledge? If you wish to learn more, google it, its that easy. To give you a starting point: an 'appeal to authority' is a type of fallacy.
------------
"without touching money for over a year i fed 100 homeless people a day and no one- no one supported me"
Obviously false. Fed 100 people a day for over a year without handling money and without support? You got support from somewhere. Otherwise this is a bit of a loaves & fishes type story, isn't it....
------------
"and then you actually presume to tell me what i expect??? that i expect a certain answer???"
Yes, I do. It was kind of an obvious deduction having observed the types of questions you had asked.
------------
"i respect honesty and directness- i have no time for self satisfied pat glibly given and frankly slippery answers that have no justification except in the mind of the giver"
...I ... must resist ... the .... uuuurge ... to suggest Victoria ... go look in ... to the mirror...
------------
lol, the rest of the post is just plain funny, so I won't bother responding to it. onto the next one
------------
"In your ego driven self centered self aggrandizing" blah blah blah
...still resisting the mirror suggestion.
------------
"being smart doesnt mean you have to be ill mannered--- rather the opposite"
I fully agree. Pity you don't.
------------
"but there is no excuse for ripping people up for the sake of your own need to dominate and be right"
If I ever 'rip' someone up it is because they have suggested something which is false. Like you have just done.
Congratulations, you're only human after all.
------------
"let us get back to our interesting and engaging conversation where we all show mutual respect for each other because that is why most of us are here"
Fully agree.
------------
Once again, farewell & Happy New Year.
Kate, honestly, you are truly laughable. Something is obviously wrong with your mind. You are not logical at all.
We shall take this sentence of yours which you tossed at me in reply: "No, I don't think God is disproved because as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place".
Dear Kate, YOU BEGIN BY ASSUMING GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THEN YOU SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. SO WHICH IS IT KATE? ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE ASSUMING GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE OR ARE YOU GOING TO SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
But really Kate, why all this tortured nonsense with touting logic and all that? It is totally unnecessary. Once again, a simple question. Do you or do you not believe there is proof for the nonexistence of God? If you believe there is proof God does not exist, I would like to hear it. If you do not have proof then you are agnostic because God could possibly exist. How difficult is it to comprehend that? We are not talking about an abstruse argument here. This is common knowledge. No thinker has demonstrated the nonexistence of God, but you continue assuming God does not exist in the first place as if there is conclusive proof for his nonexistence.
Honestly Kate, I have no idea what is wrong with your brain. No one has demonstrated whether God does or does not exist. It is as simple as that. Therefore he might exist. An agnostic simply prefers to go with nonbelief and nothing more. But atheists such as you...Well you continue to act as if it has been demonstrated God does not exist. And then you blither on as if making some stunning comment that "it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place".
Good grief woman, you are totally dense. When I contemplate all the books I have read...honestly Kate, please refer me to the books by which you learned to reason. I feel badly for you, I really do. I need not speculate that you are incapable of the uncertainty of the true skeptic. I can tell you have your personal dogmatisms. In fact I suspect you have virtually everything you consider reality reduced to your analogy of burning a finger on the stove. All in your life is as real as burning a finger or it is just fantasy and to be dismissed...But life could possibly be more than burning a finger Kate...Here's to you pulling your finger out of the fire....
Victoria wrote:
"i assume atheists dont steal
where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable"
I think your assumption is wrong. I don't think atheists are any better than religious people. Jails are full of religious people, but there are atheists there as well. There is some evidence that atheists are less likely to commit crimes than religious people, but the evidence is not conclusive.
To ask where atheists get their codes of ethics is like asking where women get their codes of ethics. There is no such thing as an atheist code of ethics. It depends on the atheist.
Atheists get their ethics from the same place as anyone else. We learn our values from our parents, we try to get along with our peers; we admire and look up to people who set a good example. Atheists are often people who gave up religion because of the hypocrisy they found in organized religion, so I find that atheists tend to place a high value on truth. We would prefer to face reality rather than hang on to comforting illusions.
I have been a Christian a Hindu a Buddhist and a philosophical Taoist. I kept most of the values from these religious traditions. Of course the values promoted by these religions are constantly changing whether their adherents like to admit it or not. My mother’s protestant values are not anything like the Christian values of the middle ages.
What I don’t like about the morality of Christianity is that it is inconsistent and hypocritical. Christians perform this mental balancing act of claiming that the Bible is the basis of their morality, but they reject and ignore much of what is written there. I think it is psychologically unhealthy to base one’s morality on what was relevant to society as it was thousands of years ago and to pretend that it is still relevant today. Society has moved on – we know better now. I love the morality that Jesus taught, regardless of whether the details of his life were fictional or not. But his ideas were not original and are similar to ideas from many other cultures and traditions.
I believe in the basic goodness of people. This is perhaps the only comforting illusion that I still allow myself. I always assume that people are good and honest until I learn otherwise. My wife, also an atheist, who has had a much harder life than I have, is much less trusting than I am. I think nearly everyone wants to feel useful and helpful to other people. Virtually everyone hates to see suffering. There are amazing examples of unselfishness, goodness and sacrifice for the good of others in every culture. I believe that reflects well on human nature.
you are entitled to your opinon miss kate but you should draw the line ar accusing someone of lying.
i fed 100 people a day for a year at venice beach california- it was remarkably like the fishes and loaves in that it required a great deal of organization and i really never touched even a coin for well over a year-
i lived in the cadillac hotel which was run by an essene who was just a beautiful beautiful huan specimen- i had no habits of any kind to support except eating- i went to all the local merchants and got them to donate rice and spices and grains and the local supermarkets let me go through all their day old veggies and fruits and things- there was a bakery that gave me day old brad and cookies and all sorts of baked goods-even local restaurants sometimes sent over little surprises because through my program i stopped alot of the angrier homeless folks from bothering their patrons in the parking lots- i was asked by the town council to become a council person there-
the hotel i lived at was a rent controlled hotel for holocaust survivors and with the help of kind pro bono lawyers when they wanted to sell the building and throw them out (the survivors) we filed a class action lawsuit and won so they were able to stay- it is remarkable that when people see you truly doing something they will go out of their way to give to you- i also worked with the welfare system to obtain hotel vouchers and other services for some families that were homeless-
i am sorry you find this hard to believe- i dont mind if you dont- but you shouldnt accuse someone of lying.
you stated your deep conscience in a previous post- perhaps you arent aware that suspicion should be for the good intentions of people-suspicions for bad intentions will get the results you put into it- but in this instance your suspicion for bad intention is.. well..fallacious.
thi si one example and certainly doesnt comprise m whole life- go to a soup kitchen and volunteer for a day and you will meet a type of person that is just like this- and ithink it would be good for your soul or sense of self or whatever you want to call it- it would be valuable for your life experience.
then maybe you wont miss some of these subtle beauties of human nature next time they are presented to you through skepticism or suspicion.
suspicion for good in people often brings out their higher natures.
peace
REALIST OOOWHEEE you must really want the women to yell at you with that statement-about women getting their code of ethics- heehee should i logically assume that there is also no female code of ethics? bee hee hee ho ho to quote fred flinstone-
thanks for your always reasonable and deeply thought out answer-
one thing that is kind of amazing tome is that ahteists seem to relate religion to comfort-
in reality fir me anyway it is a constant reasessing and re evaluating and looking deep deep into the simplest things- in a societal sense i became muslim in 1998 and im a pretty little white woman and pretty charmimg if i want to be- (which aint often admittedly) but the point is there are so many opportunities i have purposely foregone because i felt it wasnt fair- now i wear hijab(head scarf) and have been arrested and had it ripped off me because they were curious to see whatr was under it i kid you not here in america- i had my license taken away for 3 years illegally within the legal system! it cost 1000s of dollars to get it back- spat on bricks in the window threats of physical violence(real ones) and all sorts of things- you wouldnt believe how many times ive been asked if i had to wear my scarf when i worked-what am i supposed to take a tape recoreder and record my interviews?
and all sorts of sundry things social and otherwise- christians look at me like i never stop stabbing Jesus(ata) in the back- my point is- if religion is a comfort zone for someone- they are not doind it right- it is hard to really practice the tenets of religion- wanting for your neighbor what you want for yourself- being ever so patient in the face of tribulation- all sorts of things-
o there i go again- ok im talkin=g way too much peace realist
PS TODAY IS THE LAST DAY OF HAJJ(PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA) THE LARGEST GATHERING OF HUMAN BEINGS IN ANY ONE PLACE AT ANY TIME ON THE PLANET EARTH
(AND WITH A SINGLE UNIFIED PURPOSE TO BOOT)
PEACE ALL AND EID MUBARAK TO ANY OUT THERE AND HAPPY NEW YEARS TO EVERYONE
For those of you complaining that there are no atheists on the panel, you are wrong. There are at least three atheists on the panel although Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have not made any comments on the last few questions. Susan Jacoby is also an atheist.
I suggest everyone should read Sam's excellent comment on this topic if you want to hear an atheist's views.
Victoria,
You are a good person. I'm sure you would still be a good person regardless of what you choose to believe about the universe and our place in it.
After all of your experiences of religious based hatred and discrimination, why do you still put your faith in religion?
If you want moral certainty as you seem to be asking for, I don't think atheism can help you.
Moral certainty is provided by religion (and sometimes other ideologies as well). I think that is the most dangerous thing about religion. Moral certainty is responsible for most of the really hideous acts in our history. Very few people are capable of extreme violence without the moral certainty that their violence is justified.
i dont know if theres that much premeditaiton to extreme violence but maybe there is - i know people get insanely angry and get violent-
thank you for that nice compliment thats very affirming- see we are always banking off other humans to affirm our own worth arent we?
but when were really alone alone like in prison and hopeless to see the light of day - or imprisoned in hopeless situations where we have no power or self determination- we have alot of time for self reflection- there are so many affirmations in life itself for me-
i would probably b a nature worshipper for sure if i were born in another time- but since im so easily distracted i would probably focus on one aspect of it still- like i bet id pick a favorite tree or something- o wait- i actually did that-
i tjink ive been very blessed- well maybe no more than anyone else- see the idea of God also insinuates a specialness doesnt it?
ive always loved the rant in the fight club when brad pitt is burning ed norton with acid where he says were not special children of god in fact god probably hates us- i have felt hated by god in my earlier years but it wasnt god at all it was my perception of myslef- and since i am naturally compassionate and optimistic-(my dad says im like that popup doll that when you punch it it pops back up- i think at the time he was telling me to stay down i didnt get it i thought it was a compliment he later told me it wasnt) so in my life ive needed challenge and upheaval to bring out the best in me otherwise i get complacent and lazy and since i really hate complacency i abhor it- religion as a base of human interaction when its practiced in a kind and tolerant way seems to bring out the highest instincts in me anyway-
all of my reasons dont involve reason basically-
although i wont accept blind faith that isnt logical or doesnt make sense- but are based on deep inside gut feelings-----
atheists can do feelings right?
o my- i was going to go into a long thing about it but washington journal just came on and im afraid im an addict and will only give half butterfly attention to what i write and its too important for that-
also im a little afraid to expose my soft underbelly- well not that afraid i believe in the innate goodness of humans too. eeekamouse im afraid some of the extreme is it called schaudenfreade? im not sure the word- the shameful joy- saddam hussein i mean- pedros on and it looks like its going to be interesting-but im ashamed and a little repulsed because i watched bbc and saw the people actually happy at this execution-
they even actually showed it on bbc- mashalla-
i think its going to give some people an excuse because theyll show some goofballs firing their guns off in a crowd and these are strange and scary sights for most i think-well i better get off now or ill start a holy war on this site with my many political opinions-
peace and i certainly have answers for why i am what i am-
but im not sure exactly what moral certainty is to be honest.
maybe you could elaborate a little on that
thanks again for the kind words
now peace to you
I always find it strange that many religious people seem to think the morality can only come from God. Which God? If we assume it is true, then where does God get his/her/its morality from?
Morality is all about getting along with each other. What would God know about it? Who does God have to get along with? Perhaps if mono-theism is not correct, it might make sense for God to know about morality because she hangs around with the other gods and has to get along with them. The concept of morality is completely meaningless to an omnipotent being.
Much of the morality presented by religions as coming from God, is quite ridiculous. Gods seem to be obsessed with what we eat, how we dress and with our sexual activities. Why should God care about any of those things? If the rules are made by God for our own benefit, then a lot of them are just plain stupid and petty, and many aspects of morality that have been attributed to God are now rejected by most people as being obviously wrong.
I think morality and ethics should be based on what is good for people and society. It needs to be based on a deep understanding of human nature. It's purpose should be to prevent suffering and promote happiness. I think it's obvious to anyone that it is better to live in a society where people are honest and considerate than one in which they are not. We don't need God to tell us that.
I think the universality of the concept of morality and the similarity of values between different cultures and religions has an evolutionary basis. Clearly, we are better able to surve if we cooperate with each other, so we have evolved a sense of compassion. There is a flip side to this also in that cruelty and agression are also fairly universal. It's all part of our human nature.
Compassion makes us want to help others and so increases our chance of survival. There are many examples of animals exhibiting altruistic behaviour. Many social animals will risk their lives for their young and for their companions.
Unfortunately, people tend to prefer to help others of their own “group” and are hostile towards people who do not belong to their “group”. This is exactly what you woule expect from evolution because it favours our relatives who share our genes and people who are most likely to help us survive.
I think this is a fundamental problem faced by humanity. Human nature is no longer well suited to the society we have created, so we need ways to control human nature. Morality is a solution to that problem. Morality based on tribalism might have been a good idea a few thousand years ago, but it is not suitable for a global society. I prefer to base morality on shared values rather than fear of a God who want to torture us for breaking an arbitrary set of rules.
Of course I may be wrong and we could be playthings for a saddistic and unjust God.
wel i think thats a good synopsis- now my [persepctive on that take is- well bear with me ill talk a little about god - or ALLAH as i call her-
since she created us shes the ultimate artist- she really knows our natures way more deeply than we could if we spent a 100 lifetimes because wed still only have a 100 perspectives- so with that knowledge she knows how to optimize our interaction- what might seem silly or petty to us may have some unknown effect on another human- it is maximizing the best potential - the best possible interaction- you know as we grow older we become of of some subtleties that affect those around us- for instance a person who has never been ill has little real patience with sick people in general- a young person will hurry an elderly person along not realizing the strain it puts on them- and since the older person has presumably learned some patience and forebearance thety will not chastise the young for what they dont know yet- just look at the wisdom youve gained inthis short life in your dealings with others- and compound that a millionfold- perhaps you might start to feel you might need some guidelines to insure the best treatment of everyone involved- i dont know i just made this up because i havent had a chance to think about it yet-
wouldnt it be interesting to for even one minute live in another persons skin and feel their particular pains and vibrancies and feelings and chemical reactions peculiar to their existence for a minute?
imagine the level of real compassion and understanding you could develop in that minute for that particular being!
as far as compassion being a tool for survival- iwould think it could also possibly be a great impediment for survival for the precise reasons you listed - self sacrifice involving death c\sort of negates survival doesnt it?
but i havent thought about it yet just a thought
i think compassion is way deeper and consistent than that- it enables us to care about the humans in our life with an urgency thatr one lone altruistic sacrifice doesnt encompass-
and creating aesthetics and homes and societies and luxury and driving suvs and playing guitar and watching ballets- well these are all past survival too but now there are some crazy southern baptists attacking the moderate muslim on washington post and i want to see what happens
it the president of CAIR
uh oh- theyre talking about freedon now- and attacking the Qur'an with the same old 9:5 and 8:12 like a broken record i can just tell you exactly what theyre going to say ah well
peace realist also i posted on sam harris' second question just a minute ago maybe its relative to what i was going to say to you before i got so easily distracted by my friend the teeveee
yes its on the faith wont heala divided world post by sam harris
From scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt
Every now and then someone with a substantial public platform says or writes something that transcends the stupid to the realm of the genuinely idiotic. Regular readers of the Island will know I am usually a little more respectful of those with whom I disagree, but I feel compelled to respond to Newsweek/Washington Post columnist Cal Thomas' latest offense to reason if only to provide some balance in the blogosphere. Also, it's not every day that every single phrase in a widely distributed, non-Ann Coulter column is so utterly wrong. Plus, the folks who syndicate Thomas describe him as "America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist," so it's hard to let him go without a rebuttal.
So wrong is his column, if fact, that I will reproduce the entire thing here, in italics. My responses are in a normal font.
The Atheist Wager
I wonder about the question. Why is it "in vogue" to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe, who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us and not "in vogue" to believe?
I wonder where Thomas gets the idea that atheism is in vogue. Is he aware of a demographic trend previously and elsewhere unpublicized attesting to diminishing belief in the divine? More likely he's just annoyed that a few outliers among the semi-mainstream media are paying attention to Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and a few other authors of recently published books that treat religion with a skeptical eye. Last I checked belief among Americans was still hovering around the 90 percent mark, and the latest polls of members of the National Academy of Sciences shows only 7 percent are not atheists.
Anyway, of course I have conversations with atheists everyday, though I do not always know of their unbelief unless they tell me.
"Of course"? But if the subject isn't raised at every encounter, how do you know that you encounter atheists everyday? Given the depths of your faith and the small number of us out there, it seems unlikely that you would find yourself among too many atheists on any given day. I strongly suspect Thomas is once again extrapolating from a few isolated incidents.
We can talk about everything, or nothing. I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That's because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.
I don't doubt that some atheists are pro-life, but I strongly challenge that idea that they have no basis for their opinion. This idea, that morality is necessarily dependent on a god, is among the most non-sensical notions propagated by theists. As many have pointed out before, what strikes you as more ethical: a morality based on doing what's right because it maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering in the world (that's called secular humanism), or a morality based on a selfish fear of what happens to you after you die (better known as Christianity)?
Thomas also manages to betray his complete lack of understanding of evolutionary biology with his use of the phrase "evolutionary accidents." There is nothing accidental about eons of natural selection operating on a species' physiology, morphology and behavior. And even if it was, why would that grant us license to abuse each other?
In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone. If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe.
Au contraire -- it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist. The very fact that the available information has not convinced us atheists of the existence of Thomas' god should tell him something about the quality of the information.
It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe "happened" without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.
This is another staggeringly bizarre notion, one that I've come across before in various forms -- it takes more faith not to believe? How so? If Thomas means, it's harder to suspend reason that not, then I will concede the point, but I doubt that's what he has in mind. On the other hand, I don't really know what it is he has in mind. How can it be intellectually lazy to abandon the intellect in favor of faith? Why should it require more intelligence to believe the universe was called into being by a designer but not worry about what called the designer into being?
And again,"unique" things like fingerprints and snowflakes aren't the product of pure chance. For one thing, neither are unique. For another, both are the result of molecular forces of cohesion and repulsion, theoretically predictable and reproducible given sufficient information.
It all reminds me of Goebbles' "big lie" strategy, if I may introduce the dreaded Nazi allusion. When you're trying to convince someone of something so obviously wrongheaded that no sensible person would be convinced, the best course of action is to tell an even bigger lie. Here, Thomas is calling the overwhelming majority of the nation's top scientists -- those who don't share his faith -- stupid, when it fact he is one who has chosen to suspend the intellectual capacity he would argue a god gave him.
An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences.
Thomas hits rock bottom when he unearth's Pascal's inane wager. Can there be anything more offensive to any religious sensibility (not to mention common sense) than the proposition that one should pretend to embrace the ways of religion just in case a god exists? Thomas, however, argues that we should abandon atheism even if we don't really believe in a god. What god is going to fall for that? Not one that I would consider worshiping.
It's hard to believe that Thomas actually believes this argument has any merit whatsoever. In any case, we atheists can't by definition "wager" anything by refusing to buy into superstition. How could we? Remember, we don't believe we have an immortal soul.
I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships - including with atheists - and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.
Actually, I think Thomas does have the power to persuade me that his god is real. He has the ability the speak my language and even the smarts to convince the editors of 540 newspapers to run his drivel. All he is lacking is the aforementioned information, or as I would call it, evidence.
On the other hand, I don't think he can demonstrate the difference his god has made in his life. All he can demonstrate is the difference that his belief in his god has made. By this point, I'm picking nits. Mostly because Thomas has run out of steam and is just coasting on inanities. And considering I've probably devoted five times as much time to rebutting his column as he spent spewing it out in the first place, it's time to call it quits.
okay im watching the authors of the view from the center ofthe universe and ive listened tothem on the radio before and i just caught this- theyre taking about dark matter and dark energy and saying these invisible forces comprise over 99% of the universe- we humans are made of stardust and embody less than 1 half percent of the total matter of the universe-
it is not demonstrably visible in any way- maybe one could make an analogy of the demonstrable invisibilty of god well it was better when i was thinking it with a little light bulb in my head im not a scientist
yours for rhyme crime and reason
archy the cockroach
heres a poem i like
heres a poem i like then ill leave everyone alone
Background info: The narrator is a poet reincarnated in a cockroach's body.
He types by jumping on the keys of a typewriter, hence the lack of caps.
Knowing that helps :)
```````````````````````````````````````````````
the lesson of the moth
i was talking to a moth
the other evening
he was trying to break into
an electric light bulb
and fry himself on the wires
why do you fellows
pull this stunt i asked him
because it is the conventional
thing for moths or why
if that had been an uncovered
candle instead of an electric
light bulb you would
now be a small unsightly cinder
have you no sense
plenty of it he answered
but at times we get tired
of using it
we get bored with the routine
and crave beauty
and excitement
fire is beautiful
and we know that if we get
too close it will kill us
but what does that matter
it is better to be happy
for a moment
and be burned up with beauty
than to live a long time
and be bored all the while
so we wad all our life up
into one little roll
and then we shoot the roll
that is what life is for
it is better to be a part of beauty
for one instant and then cease to
exist than to exist forever
and never be a part of beauty
our attitude toward life
is come easy go easy
we are like human beings
used to be before they became
too civilized to enjoy themselves
and before i could argue him
out of his philosophy
he went and immolated himself
on a patent cigar lighter
i do not agree with him
myself i would rather have
half the happiness and twice
the longevity
but at the same time i wish
there was something i wanted
as badly as he wanted to fry himself
archy
-- Don Marquis
to: Soja John Thaikattil
hi, and thanks for the reply. sorry, i thought you represented the panel. my bad.
interesting debate and quite enlightening. personally i think the issue of atheism is getting attention for obvious reasons. our tv's are filled with religiously inspiried violence. it's a straight line from there to dumping what appears to be the cause of so much strife. it's an hypothesis at least.
as someone on another discussion thread pointed out, imagine how you would feel if most of the people in your experience spoke to spirits and, then did what the invisible spirits told them to do. it really is like living in a madhouse. particularly since these spirits have instructed everything from helping the poor to dropping atomic bombs on innocents. why, just today i watched four men in leather jackets and hoods lynch a man on tv. my president sez that's okay by him. you gotta love that 'old time religion' as my baptist preacher daddy would have said.
peace.
Vogue? Are you kidding me?
Kate, no you're wrong about it simply being about numbers. It is about seeing is believing. It is not simply that people followed Jesus, but that they did so at great personal risk, without any obvious great reward. As many who simply argue to argue, you miss the point in its entirety. It is the very fact that so many believed that they unconditionally followed, even to death. What does that have to do with slavery? Or sufferage? I don't get your point. Let me make it clear again. Why would those who personally knew Jesus leave the comfort of their home, go out into the big cruel world, and spread His message -- at risk of death -- unless they saw something that made them certain that what they were doing was right. Salvery was about money -- it had a profit motive; sufferage was about control -- men ran things, women were property. Jesus' message was about placing others first, about love and hope. It had no obvious benefit to those who died spreading the Word -- So, its not simply about numbers, but about seeing is believing. They saw, and acted upon it. Finally, regarding your advice to my daughter, my wife and I raise her, thank you very much. I have four wonderful children, each head strong, good people. They ask questions, and acknowledge sometimes the answers are hard. They are aware of all the bad things you mention -- as are most Christians. (Jesus, I will point out, condoned none of the things you mention. He stopped a stoning, admonishing those without sin to act first. He treated all equally. He comforted the sick, the poor, the dying.) I have tried to raise them in the church because I believe it important. As adults, they will have to decide where they go. You may certainly raise your children outside any church if you so choose. But your hint that somehow I need to tell her certain things you believe in order to "actually encourage her development" is suggestive of someone who has an awfully big opinion of themselves. My attempt was to bring to the discussion a thought; one that you did not address -- you danced all around it. So, if you are out there -- answer the question -- why would so many die (for this discussion, lets leave it to those who personally knew Jesus) for such a simply message, without obvious personal gain, for a Man who had been dead for years -- unless they had personally seen something to make them believe. They were with Him for several years, living their daily lives together. Do you really believe they would die such horrible deaths for a conspiracy involving a dead man, when there was no obvious personal gain? No, this is one you need to address, directly, without dancing around it -- no need for big words, or obfuscation -- just a simple answer -- why? Delusion, hysteria, mass hypnosis -- why?
Kate:
You can conveniently call this "namecalling" too, but
Your verbal diarrhea is not worth commenting on.
You are SO clueless, you cannot understand the diff between Atheism and Agnosticism, and you cluelessly think it is just like "Tomato" vs "Tomahto".
Obviously I cannot get thru to you.
Nobody else posted Anything serious in response to my post, so there is not much left to do here.
Keep wasting your time.
Again, if any of you got any brains, USE THEM, instead of wasting your time HERE.
Become SCIENTISTS, Help HUMANITY, instead of wasting space quoting passages from allegedly holy books, tell us what YOU think, try to PROVE something without the crutches of "it is so because the book says so"!
To Kate from Daniel. Kate I want to apologize to you. It was getting late and I was tired and I certainly was not very polite. And in fact it could be my reasoning was totally off. Now that I think about it I wonder if you might have something with all your logic and it scares me to think I might have missed out on something important through sheer carelessness, as if missing out on the truth by a stupid mathematical error one might make in school.
So now I try again to digest what you say. You say it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place and use this as reasoning for saying this is why you cannot disprove the existence of God.
But for the life of me it seems to me you are assuming first that God does not exist ("what does not exist in the first place") and then telling me it is impossible to disprove such. Of course I agree it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place but one cannot just assume things do not exist in the first place.
Let us phrase the sentence differently. Let me state that it is impossible to disprove what exists in the first place. To this sentence I reply that indeed one cannot disprove what exists in the first place--but here too one is assuming that the something incapable of disproof exists in the first place.
This is why it seems to me one cannot really prove or disprove God and why I call myself an agnostic.
Furthermore this is why I state (and contrary to your views) that the burden of proof is on the denier as much as the asserter.
If people tell me God does exist--try to assert such--I expect proof. But I feel the same way about those people that deny God. They had better provide some compelling arguments.
And my personal belief--and to truly aid atheists here--is that if you want proof God does not exist and want to make compelling arguments for a life without God, then tackle the problem of good and evil and not approach the problem from the standpoint of "purely logically trying to pin the believers in God down".
The big question is why has an almighty God allowed so many obviously sadistic actions to occur. If God is almighty he must be responsible for evil.
But here too Kate the burden of proof is inescapably on the denier: If one wants to be angry and dismiss God because of the problem of good and evil one had better have a better explanation for such and orient the world in a more coherant manner--and that is truly difficult.
My belief is atheists all too often do not want to approach the problem of God by the problem of evil because this means a more serious reflection on morality than anything religion has proposed so far. Without God one must perpetually create morality and too many people when they say God does not exist are simply trying to get around morally or at best are not reflecting seriously on morals. In fact it seems atheists simply try to preserve something of an enlightened take on well-worn morals without the existence of God.
But that is not enough. One must go deeper. People of faith will not become less absolute--which is to say will not recognize that they believe simply by faith--true faith--unless better explanations for evil are offered and of course better courses of action to confute evil.
This is especially true in our age of science. We are angry at God for evil and say a simple dismissal of God will do wonders and clear up so much evil, but it is precisely by science and technology that we have arrived at being able to totally destroy ourselves. Simply dismissing God will not be enough. The problem is getting people to live with science and technology without succumbing to the dangers--and that can be solved only by grappling with the problem of good and evil.--And even then it might not be solved. We could well destroy ourselves.
This is as clear a reason as any for a backlash by religion against science. Science has not disproved the existence of God and tells us not to believe and has certainly made no new inroads against the problem of evil and has made it totally possible to destroy ourselves--even destroy ourselves accidently and without malice.
Science had better tackle the problem from the standpoint of evil because human evil does not exist simply because people believe in God. In other words, removing a belief in God is no innoculation against evil. Science quite simply has the wrong strategy.
But of course science proceeds in such a fashion because it seems easier, more in line with morality and freedom, to convince people to not believe in God. It becomes vastly more treacherous to offer better explanations for evil not to mention ways to overcome evil. We plunge headlong into social engineering. The big question really is how can we avoid harrowing social engineering when it is pretty obvious all too many of us cannot handle technology with the correct responsiblity? In fact, how are we to avoid genetic engineering, the creation of humans that are equal and in fact superior to man's ability to annihilate himself?
I hope I have not offended you too much Kate. I respect your trying to grapple with the concept of God logically. In fact I hope you succeed and succeed in convincing others. And I hope this proof has something of an effect on the way people behave to one another.
Thank you for listening.
Dan
If you desire a God, then you will have a God. If you do not desire a God, then you will not have a God.
However, I do not think you can desire to not have something.
Never mind, my feeble, western brain hurts.
James Hrynyshyn's post toward the end of page three against Cal Thomas was pretty damn solid. I like your reasoning James. I thought about taking a whack at it myself but so much calls...But I probably would have gotten around to it at least concerning the Pascal's wager part--that really piqued my attention. Now that James has taken a solid shot at Cal Thomas I can wonder if there really is something to phrenology--or rather face reading. Cal Thomas certainly looks like an immensely satisfied man by the photograph given to us by "On faith"....
Daniel, the reason for evil is humans not God. We are given free will, the right to choose our actions. Some people choose evil. It is not God's will, but peoples. Beating a child is not God's will or fault, it is the act of the bad person. Humans often use religion to justify their actions, but on further review, it is only an excuse, not the reason. Usually, although not always, the reason is enrichment, power or both. Bad people do bad things because they choose to act bad.
To Greg from Daniel. Greg, this is an age-old problem. I am well aware that Christianity for example pinpoints evil on man--although actually blaming an entity called Satan as well--but the problem is that an almighty creator must be the creator of evil in the final analysis or really not be all powerful.
The ancient conundrum: either God is all powerful and therefore is evil despite every assertion of goodness, or he preserves only the element of goodness at the expense of sacrificing power and having the evil element located elsewhere.
If you believe the one, God is evil. If you believe the other, then you have God truly good but not all powerful and therefore questionable as an entity to provide salvation.
Christianity tries to balance the issue by taking the middle course of man being responsible for evil, but that is logically unsatisfactory.
Actually all throughout the history of Christianity there has been an oscillation locating evil with God or man or Satan. A most unsatisfying situation...
My current answer to the dilemma is that God indeed created evil and is all powerful but is not evil because all was explained to man before man was born...In other words, life is something of a test, an endurance and attempt to avoid evil, willingly chosen by man before his birth and he has simply forgotten about it as an essential part of the test. So in this sense I agree with you that man is responsible for evil--that we chose it of free will.
But we totally knew what we would be getting into before we were born--and still chose it for some reason, as some sort of test before God. This way none of the evil created by God rests with God but only on ourselves. We knew we would be suffering evil to the point of often cursing God and yet we chose it...
This is the explanation I have at the moment--the one I am interested in at the moment. But I never stop thinking about this problem. We must always keep the problem of evil in mind.
daniel @ December 30, 2006 2:04 PM
& Gregg (I suppose):
The essence is Free Will. It si what makes us unpredictable, even for God. It is also why 'sin' falls on our shoulders.
In other words, God can force us to act this way or that. But we determine how we will act, and therefore the sin falls on us.
Another way to put it is that we are NOT pets.
, , well you know that short lived but intense feeling of appreciation for health when one has been in excruciating pain for awhile and it stops?
or the despair and longing when in the fresh throes of insecure love the beloved is away? and then the rush of exalted peaking love hat one experiences when the beloved returns and all is right with the world again for a few minutes?
or when your stomach is hungry for days and you reach a dizzying weakness and then you take a drink of cold milk and it hits your stomach with strenghth giving pungency?
or the terrifying prospect of the possibility of extraordinary loss of control and breakdown of the body and pain and associated myriad illnesses that goes with aids and when you wait for the results of that test- ( i was bitten by an aids patient one time who ripped a chunk out of my hand in a crazed klonopin induced mania) and then you get the results and the flood of renewed gratitude at the gift of life and health and then seeswaing back to realize that for some they never get that rush of relief because they will stay sick until they die and it just gets worse for them?
these are opposite experiences that come upon us swifltly and elucidate for us the differences of experience and one without the other loses its potency somehow-
please forgive my simplicity- i am not a formally educated person and for this admission i will probably hold myself up to the derision and superior snickers of some who may value those things above all else- but i am really happy with the decisions i made in my life and decided at a very young age i would have no regrets-
we moved every 3 months most of my life so i read a book a day for so many years(many of those years wasted in science fiction as an early teen i admit)the old stuff not the fantasy junk or scifi channel stuff- well- anyway ive observed how some people accept unconditionally premises and conclusions that i didnt come to sometimes i think i was lucky notr to be indoctrinated by academia but thats another story-
i see evil in that way- and i know this is philosophy 101 but without evil how would we distinguish good?
i dont have to be a liar to recognize dishonesty when i see it- rather i think innate honest is a precursor to the recognition of lies- it doesnt mean im a fool- it means we have the ability to distinguish different qualities in others and make conscious decisions to bhave in certain ways-
it is free will- free will is what is allowing us to have this discussion- i always say that america is the land of absolute freedom (even atheists can find enclaves to live unmolested here if they really want to make that their priority in decision making processes of where to live) but here we also have the freedom to make many mistakes too- it is exactly the idea of taking responsibility for and controlling my own actions form inside me that is the same for atheists agnostics snake handlers everyone-
it is not superimposed on me as a believer- belief is also my choice-
so people seem to get stuck on the why of evil and finding someone or some entity to blame-
well as always just a thought
peace
another big why for evil is suffering- suffering is what burns throgh us and in that fire the tarnishes of all the pettiness andself centeredness and pointlessness of so many actions enacted on a daily unconscious basis are revealed rfor just that- suffering polishes the mirror of our hearts- we all know in our lives some seemingly golden people who glide through with all the advantages- are these always the best xamples of humans we have to offer?
maybe sometimes the ease of their life prohibits them from being tested and having some self knowledge in a real and lasting and consisitent way-
self knowledge is valuable isnt it?
for everyone?
suffering is what makes us recognize it in others and develop a true and sensitive compassion in excess of what is simply ncessary for survival-
again i have simplistic ideas and even an atheist can see the logic in this(by that i mean it is not god centered an atheist might utilize it no derision intended by the even an atheist)
there seems to be energy suckers and energy radiators- when i throw a styrofoam container out the window of my hummer- im sucking the life out of my fellow humans right to live in a clean environment and leaving a legacy of gases to intoxicate the next generation with- when i try to find a responsible way to live without consuming styrofoam then im givng a little-
well im wandering off point i think-
i see faith encouraging energy radiation-
for me-
ok ill stop the point was that without suffering to create a humility in us we would be even more boisterous and obnoxious and arrogant than we already are.
and suffering is i think we can agree generated by the evil in this world- but it has undeniable value- it is the water that feeds the best in us also- without it we would be like animals who while they may have a pinpointed loyalty that would enable them to make sacrifcies- they cant build a house for our children to live in etc...
also the very imporatant issue that some things that appear to be cruleor evil on the surface- through underlying factors that may not be apparent to others- may thwart a greater evil and therefore actually are good deeds- this is that old terrible example like killing hitler vback in time or something-
actually i have a beautiful stroy about Moses(pbuh) from the Qur'an but i dont want to paste it here because it might annoy some people when ive taken up so much precious space that others might want to use-
if theres a lull later i might past ethe illustration-
peaCE
> the only way for atheists and theists to have 'productive conversations'
How about humor? The following are some of my favorite buttons from nancybuttons.com - I offer them in the hopes we can take a step back and have a short smile before continuing with the deathly serious debate:
Death? Life? I never did understand Zen.
God created music so people could pray without words
I am a Quaker. In case of emergency, please be quiet.
Lead me not into temptation--I can find it for myself
Militant Agnostic--I don't know and you don't either!
These are my opinions. If they were the biblical truth, your bushes would
be burning.
To you I'm an agnostic. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.
What do you get if you cross a Unitarian and a Jehovah's Witness? Someone
who knocks on your door and asks, "Now what do *you* believe?"
God wrote the program, evolution is the output, meteor strikes are the
reset button
You're here to save my soul? I'm here to test your faith
Many are willing to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity
It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't struck by lightning
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts
I want you to know I've talked to God, and He agrees with me completely
If you find God hates the same people you do, you may have created Him in
your own image
If your religion never surprises you, you're probably doing it wrong
Regarding religious civility today, I think it has gotten far worse.
I am not religious, but before the "current occupant in the White House" I was happy being in the closet—and when acquaintances said “Merry Christmas” to me, I never thought twice about returning “Merry Christmas” back with a big smile.
The new right wing drive to demonize non-Christians has angered me though. Stores like Wal Mart are ordering their employees to tell every person who walks in their stores to be greeted with “Merry Christmas”. How grotesquely disrespectful and discriminating.
If a person is going to try and FORCE their religion onto me == yes, I am going to start giving some pushback. I think that is the reason why there have been the spate of atheist books out recently. I can tell you that is the reason you see me being vocal on this site.
The far right wing remind me of the fundamentalist ayatollahs in Islam.
Do you think it would be acceptable for minority Arab Christians living in Muslim countries to be bombarded with “Happy Ramadan” in their local schools and when entering every store to make a purchase? You know, to inform them that they are second-rate citizens.
If you think this is morally wrong, should not the same principle apply in reverse in the US?
i dont knwo warp10- i think saying merry christmas is kind of a benign stement- i dont recall having people saying it to me to impose something on me- i think people are just in their little bubbles and think they are "sharing the joy"
and im running around in a hijab(head scarf) all the time and im clearly not celebrating christmas!
sometimes ill say well you too and happy new years
or happy holidays or any thing that seems appropriate at the time
people probably assume you celebrate it-now if someone KKNOWS you dont- and they say it- id say that is snide in intention and deserves to be rejoindered in the spirit in which it is given
i see that ahteists have suffered alot at te hands of christians in america
btw EID MUBARAK fern! and anyone else-
you too warp10 happy nw year to you (since its pretty secular and all)
tis the season to be exclusive, eh?
>Hey Atheist, think abt this:>
Hey Rasha, think about this...
>how did one come into being??>
from evolution over millions of years -- with our backbone and most of our organs developed as fishes in the ocean.
Now for you. Why is this?
*Genetic studies show that DNA molecules from closely related species resemble
each other more than distantly related species.
*Genetic studies show the Human genome is comprised of 95-98% junk, with the
working 2-5% sequences containing genes that show an evolutionary history that
includes viruses and bacteria
* Scientists estimate there are about 100 million species in the world. A
large proportion of these are bugs (twenty percent of the 100 million species
are beetles!) If God specially created each species, then he must have spent
more time making insects than humans. Did He then have a special affinity for
beetles?
>who is the creator of the Universe??>
You have no special knowledge that other multiple universes existed prior to the Big Bang and there was no Creator involved.
Your question is more akin to. "How many angels dance on the head of a pin?"
>can anyone predict one's death??
Sure, If it is based on cause and effect -- such as having a terminal illness, or knowing someone has put a contract out on your life.
Lincoln correctly predicted someone would try to kill him.... pure logic....
>who is controlling this Universe??>
Did you notice this was a repeat of who created the universe? Unless you think God created the universe and the Devil controls it (or visa versa.)
On that note, another one for you.
Theology keeps it simple for the believer so they have no hard choices. Suppose the Devil usurped the throne of heaven and only the Devil (and not God) could offer you eternal life.
Would you obey the Devil to get eternal life; or would you follow goodness (or God) and lose eternal life?
The above will demonstrate if one's real motive is based on greed or not.
I would chose goodness. That is why I(at least currently) am an atheist. I started out as a believer, but I chose to follow the truth instead, at least the best that I could determine it.
Cheers
Victoria,
You missed my point.
I said == until very recently == I wholeheartedly wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
It was only after the Right Wing took to forcing Merry Christmas on everyone == that I began to resent it. Why? It showed bullying and a crass lack of respect...
So why should I respect them back, is the automatic response?
And does this make it ok for fundies in other religions to persecute Christian minorities?
Victoria,
You missed my point.
I said == until very recently == I wholeheartedly wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
Virginia
It was only after the Right Wing took to forcing Merry Christmas on everyone == that I began to resent it. Why? It showed bullying and a crass lack of respect...
So why should I respect them back, is the automatic response?
And does this make it ok for fundies in other religions to persecute Christian minorities?
Victoria,
You missed my point.
I said == until very recently == I wholeheartedly wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
It was only after the Right Wing took to forcing Merry Christmas on everyone == that I began to resent it. Why? It showed bullying and a crass lack of respect...
So why should I respect them back, was the natural reflex?
And does this make it ok for fundies in other religions to persecute Christian minorities?
Oops.
I thought my system was crashing and I was halting it.... not multiplying posts. My apologies...
If anyone is religious, you can assume the Divine presence wanted my message out multiple times... (I'll stick with the natural explanations, thank you.)
To James Buchanan:
1. You missed the point. It wasn't the conception or birthing part that was the miracle, it was the development of their concern, caring, integrity, etc. (in short, their souls) that was the miracle. Where the hell did that come from? Certainly not biology.
2. You were lousy, racist, gutless president, too.
Hi Greg
I disagree with your proof you are telling your daughter. Here is why.
If you count "willing to die" for one's religion as "proof" of its validity, then you must apply this as a universal precept to all religions! -- else you will be picking and choosing.
Therefore, turning this around as a universal precept, I ask you the question:
Do the deaths of all other martyrs in other religions represent "proof" to you of the validity of those religions?
{Take an extreme test: the 9/11 Muslims died believing they would awake in heaven after their destruction.... they did "believe" this and were willing to die for this.) Was this proof for you?
The answer is NO. They were superstitious or misguided fools.
Meaning you have a double standard and are only counting the martyrs in YOUR religion and ignoring martyrs in all other religions.
This is no proof. I can prove Santa Clause exists if you let me ignore whatever facts I choose...
Victoria,
Your question, " are there atheists ethicists?" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the topic in history and the present.
Below is a link to an organization dedicated to morality and ethical behavior -- the term is secular humanism. Go look and see what terrible things you can find. they want to actuall help people (so terrible, yes?)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration
Old Dad,
You asked:
**it was the development of their concern, caring, integrity, etc. (in short, their souls) that was the miracle. Where the hell did that come from? Certainly not biology.**
Certainly YES biology!! In a nutshell those organisms that did not develop altruistic behavior among their members did not survive as species. {The vast majority of species have died out over the aeons -- based on fossils found.)
You can find this discussed by Harvard's researh professor, Edward O Wilson under the topic of sociobiology (Consilience is a very famous work by him on this topic.)
So watch those assumptions....
Cheers.
"are there atheists ethicists?"
Yes, plenty:
Siddhartha Gautama (a.k.a. the Buddha)
Lao Tzu (a mostly fictional character like Jesus, but one of my favourite philosophers)
Confucious
Ayn Rand http://www.aynrand.org/ (I don't agree with her philosophy at all. Morality is not self evidient and cannot be derived by pure logic)
I'm sure I could come up with many more, but it takes time to verify the religous beliefs of historical ethicists.
See http://www.iheu.org/contacts for a list of humanist ethical organizations.
"joe :
I'm not understanding this "On Faith" section of the Post. It appears that you have 4 guest writers who all have the same opinion about "faith", which is that they all have it.
Can we non-believers, atheists, and agnostics have at least ONE person representing the other side? Or is that too much to ask?
December 27, 2006 7:19 PM"
I agree. And if the word "FAITH" is the driving force...well....I have FAITH any agnostic/pragmatic/reality-based need not hold their collective breaths.
Personally, I have found that people with NO organized religious affiliation have been some of the most moral and spiritual people I have had the honor to meet.
I have also found that every crook, pol and business sleaze I've had the inevitable opportunity to meet - professes to be a Born-Again.
A sad truth.
im sorry i misunderstood warp10
of course you should push back-
no one has the right to persecute anyone-
it is not an islamic premise to persecute minorities in their domain- there are definitely well thought out rules for respect for christians-
it is the fundies that mess everyone up everywhere-
because they yell the loudest they drown out the voices of reason and especially in america moderation makes for dull press--- i hope you forgive my insensitivity- thats why i said christians have given you all a hard time-
REALIST- thank you for taking the trouble-
well BUDDHA DID believe in nirvana- a state for some element of the selfhood to attain a different level of consciouness and not die-
im not sure of the claim of his atheism yet-
LAO TZU is great but the esoteric tao seems to have a little god flavor for me- but it may be what i brought to it of course-
CONFUCIANISM while it offered social order eventually fell in on itself and all i know is what chinese people have told me about the faults of the social system under it- and its all hearsay
ayn rand is a raging egoist and has nothing to offer me as far as insight into the human condition so i wouldnt probably respect her ethics but i dont know what she had to say but im also
not interested enough to even look because she already stole several hours of my life with her
books and im very unforgiving of someone stealing
my timwe-but that is a very subjective
observation ....
thank you for the posts and i dont have so much time i have to make dinner for my husband because im an oppressed muslim woman scurrying like a frightened rabbit under the demands of my roaring patriarchal chauvinist husband---
nahh im just kidding its cause i love him and want him fat and ever dependent on me so hell never leave- HE HE
KATE - I TOTALLY KNOW THAT IS YOU UNDER THE :
arent questions by their very nature an admission of a lack of knowledge and an open minded willingness to learn and thuis become knowledgeable?
OF COURSE theres a lack of knowledge!
that is why i asked!
why the sarcasm?
do you honestly believe i think helping people is a terrible thing?
mercy mercy me
well i better trundle on my merry way then
peace all
and warp10 you really are a spark of light here
Atheism may be lack of belief.
Agnosticism, for me, is a knee-bending sense of awe at mystery. On bad days, the awe beomes fear.
I have been lucky in life, so there are more good days.
Folks who mock agnostics for "not knowing what they believe" ... miss the point.
Belief is a loaded and noninclusive word. Love is not.
> Victoria EID MUBARAK fern!
And a Happy New Year to you.
> Agnosticism, for me, is a knee-bending sense of awe at mystery
I would not label that experience agnosticism but an experience of "God without form", a phrase that is used often in the biography of Sri Ramakrishna. For example: "...jnana-yoga, which believes that god is without form and which treads the path of knowledge and intelligence to get into contact with the primal source Brahman...." http://home.wxs.nl/~brouw724/Ramakrishna.html
but in his hurry to get to the brahman- in reality ramakrishna neglected his wife in the most abject way- saradevi was truly an example of forebearance and patience- but you could see glimpses and cracks in the veneer - one of the things about yoga is the constant seeking after a sensory experience- for me these are illusory and we all have to come back to earth and deal with the humans here with kindness and give them their due of attention and love.
it seems to my experience like an imbalanced way to live- also it propogated the very sexist mentality of woman as sufferer- the eternal victim and temptress that is always dragging the poor spiritually inclined men back to the nasty realities of lust and disease and the body-
but to each his own-
what is the purpose of the eid mubarak?
were you wishing me one?
thank you
Warp 10 -- missed the point. I applied the comments to those who lived with Jesus. They saw something that caused them to spread the Good News at much risk. If not, why did they? They were actually, physically present with Jesus. If He was not special, and they knew it, why did they act as they did? They were not enriched nor made powerful? They suffered for their belief in Him. Why would those who were physically present with Him die for a lie -- all of them? It does not make any sense unless they did know something. That's the point. As I said, seeing is believing.
Martyrs who died without seeing did so purely on faith. I do not use them as an example of my "proof" because it was faith that drove them to sacrifice, not personal experience. Those who lived with Jesus accepted martyrdom based on personal experience, actual seeing. There is a significant difference.
In any event, the fact you reject my "proof" doesn't surprise me in the least -- I believe I said it was personal to me. I also noted others might reject it.
Finally, your comment about other martyrs -- I specifically referenced those who actually lived with Jesus -- I don't think those who flew the plane into the twin towers actually lived with God, or even their prophet Muhommed? Did they? What martyrs are you referencing that actually lived with their diety? It is certainly easy to attempt to negate a debate point when the actual point is ignored, now isn't it.
o yes i meant to say namaste i salute the godhead within you peace
Daniel wrote:
"My current answer to the dilemma is that God indeed created evil and is all powerful but is not evil because all was explained to man before man was born...In other words, life is something of a test, an endurance and attempt to avoid evil, willingly chosen by man before his birth and he has simply forgotten about it as an essential part of the test. So in this sense I agree with you that man is responsible for evil--that we chose it of free will."
So God created evil, but isn't evil himself? Gee, that makes sense. Thanks God.
"all was explained to man before man was born" Gee that makes it all OK. God explained to me that he is an evil tyrant and is just playing with me before I existed. Funny about that, I don't remember it.
That would make God both evil for creating evil and stupid for talking to me before I existed.
My current answer to the dilema is that the Bible is a collection of stories written by a bunch of ignorant people thousands of years ago. My answer makes a lot more sense.
I'm not sure "in vogue" is the right terminology to use. Perhaps it is more than a fleeting "trend," but an awakening to rationality such as that experienced in The Enlightenment.
To Realist from Daniel. I was strictly working within the confines of that particular problem--that conundrum.
But what I find interesting and what I was waiting for was to see how people like you would react to it when my answer to the conundrum PUTS THE PROBLEM OF EVIL ENTIRELY ON MAN AS IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST. MY ANSWER REMOVES SATAN, DOES NOT BLAME GOD AND PUTS ALL EVIL DIRECTLY ON MAN AS A PROBLEM TO SOLVE--A TAKING OF THE WORLD IN GOOD FAITH AND A TAKING UPON MAN OF TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY.
But what is your answer realist to evil whether you believe in God or not?
Oh, I remember, you explained it to me before: Man does not need God in order to be good. In fact religion makes man more evil than he would be otherwise. Is that not something of your reasoning? Perhaps that is true realist, but...now with science we have the capacity to utterly destroy ourselves, and would you say realist that even if man can be good without God--even if it is true that religion conduces to evil--that stripping man from religion will make up for the drastic increase by science of man's capacity to destroy himself? And notice I have not argued at all that science is evil for having led to our capacity to utterly destroy ourselves....
I think religion is a means of manipulating and controlling people. If you can control someone's beliefs, you can make them do almost anything. This is why religious faith is dangerous.
If people based their beliefs on facts and evidence, then there would be no problem with religion. I prefer to remove the mythology from religion and learn what we can about the psychology of religion, and apply it to improving our society.
I believe people created both good and evil. They are both a natural part of human nature. We call some behaviour "good" and some behaviour "evil" depending on what is considered desirable by the society and culture that we live in.
Agression towards people who are different from ourselves is exactly what you would expect from evolution. This is a crude way to favour people with similar genes to ourselves.
Compassion is also a something you would expect. We are social animals and we benefit from cooperating with each other. Other social animals also exhibit similar behaviour.
All aspects of human nature are useful in some way for survival and reproduction. The problem is that our human nature is no longer well suited to the social environment we live in. Religion is a symptom and a partial solution to this problem.
We have to figure how to deal with our human nature in a global society. I think that's really the point of this forum. We need to agree on a cultural and moral rules that most of us can be happy with.
I think morality should be based on recognizing our human nature and finding healthy ways to deal with it.
To Realist, Kate, religious people, agnostics, atheists--anyone really--here is brute honesty.
We have religious people claiming atheists--essentially all "wayward folk"--to be less moral than religious people, and the "wayward" folk not only saying it is possible to be good without a belief in God but that religions have perhaps been responsible for more evil than any disbelief might bring to the world.
Now the "wayward" people might be correct, but correct with one small problem: It is absolutely indisputable that man's capacity to utterly destroy himself by science and technology has been concurrent, coterminous, coeval, coexistent,--however you want to put it--with the single biggest step forward in disbelief that has ever existed in the history of the human race.
And it is simply ridiculous to step forward and say man can be good without religion. In fact the disbelievers go right ahead and say religion is evil as if its eradication will make things right.
That is a hell of a thing to say after tinkering with nature to the point of being able to utterly destroy ourselves. Was it religion that is responsible for the utter destruction of the Amazon? How about global warming? How about nuclear holocaust? How about biological warfare? How about the emerging nanotechnology?
Of course science has made many things better, but when one enlarges the photo could this possibly be merely a better so that the grand finale is only larger and more destructive?
I can tell you right now, people antireligion here, you had better get real imaginative concerning the problem of evil real quick because you have not convinced me, an agnostic, of much of anything at all.
You had better damn well make sure we are entering a world of less evil otherwise why in hell would anyone abandon religion--abandon their only source of hope--or even embrace the positive aspects about science and technology--in a hellhole of a world without God?
Stupid disbelievers--you think this is a game or something. You are playing with millions of people's lives.
You had better give us a damn fine reality or we will continue to embrace illusion, delusion, or whatever you want to call it atheists be damned.
Myself, I am agnostic and will simply accept the whole sad play of affairs...But I feel both sides of the issue--I am both sides, belief and disbelief, one side believing that man is better off without God, but on the other hand...
The outcome is most certainly uncertain.
And no one it seems can be really honest about it at all.
i had a suspicion lines in the sand would be drawn when this question was posted- ive tired to answer above some thoughts on the function of evil daniel-
perhaps it was insufficient to the cause-
greg has taken a beating for trying honestly to express his beliefs and i respect him for that-
it may not satisfy others- but it only has to satisfy him.
realist is tryng to offer soutions and i applaud his efforts-
i have gained a great deal of insight into frustrations and prejudices against non believers that i was not so aware of before-
i need to think and hopefully express more deeply the whys of my faith.
i hope i have not made anyone feel judged in their morals-
i have refrained from any xpression of my own faith and beliefs the hows and whys- because i felt it might make people think i was judging them or implying some superiority to them- maybe by trying so hard to monopolize the atheists forum because i felt that they really seemed to need one free of religious interference- ive done a disservice to my own faith- and to agnostics who have gotten lost in the shuffle- i know that any reasons i have are highly subjective and experiential and wouldnt satisfy the atheist need for logic- rather the opposite- it would probably give some fuel for the refutability of religion- but if its okay- i would like to put myslef out on a limb becasue i didnt think anyone had any interest-
i think daniel you just want honest expression- and not hypocrisy.
if its ok- tomorrow i will share some of my thoughts if it isnt getting in the way-
we really dont know the reality or provability of prayer and ethereal subjects like that-
i - in my heart of hearts think to myself- why dont people ask god themselves?
no one has to know- its not like a public declaration or anything-
one prayer i prayed for a very long tie that led me to my faith wasi asked god to lead me to worship hi the way he wants me to worship him
not the form i am comfortable with-
i think it is very open ended as far as prayers go- maybe his answer for some would be to smash the negative conventions of religion with science and logic for all i know!
peace daniel
i did write about evil and suffering at the top of this page- it went uncommented on so i thought maybe it was an annoyance or something
To Victoria from Daniel. I have been reading your posts Victoria. I have read the Koran. I prefer Sufi mystics. But one thing I do like about the Koran: it concentrates the mind wonderfully on first and last things.
I was going to write to you before the last post you did but then decided otherwise--getting late, etc. But then you posted again, so here goes: I was going to say your name, Victoria, says it all. May we have victory working on all these problems together. If you want to share thoughts tomorrow, that's fine--but I won't be able to answer until a couple days.
Your husband is a fortunate man Victoria, you seem a gentle, thoughtful and curious woman. I got hungry when you wrote about cooking...
Happy new year everyone. Enjoy, and then we try to solve these problems together again.
To FERN and RICHARD WADE:
Due to the delay in responding to the comments made by both of you on another thread (by FERN on thread ‘Who was Jesus?” Page 6, 25 Dec 2006 2:10 AM and Richard Wade on thread ‘Can there be a common ground?’ Page 18, 25 Dec 2006 5:46 AM) addressed to me, I’m posting my reply on this one because this discussion is ongoing. Besides, the piece I posted on the other thread fits in well with the current discussion. My response which overlap, I’m including here.
1. By way of clarification, the conversation between the atheist philosophy professor and student that I posted is neither a story, nor did I write it. It is supposedly based on a real conversation between Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, the President of India and his philosophy professor. (PS: Dr Abdul Kalam is a scientist and Dr S Radhakrishnan, a former president of India was a philosopher.) So it is really not my remit to decide what Dr Kalam should or should not have believed or said, or attribute the conversation to Dr S Radhakrishnan instead.
2.“Have you observed evolution with your own eyes?” (highlighted in FERN’s comment) refers to the 'evolution from monkey' mentioned before that. So the question actually means “Have you observed any human being evolve from a monkey?” And the answer: “No. I don’t believe anyone has”, merely emphasizes the “no”, and probably means that no one has actually observed a man evolve from a monkey. I don’t know much about evolutionary theories myself, but I recall vaguely that there is supposedly a missing link between the ape and man, that somebody went so far as to suggest that WE are that link, that we are merely in the process of evolving into human beings. I recall vaguely too that one little piece of bone from ‘Lucy’ was unearthed and a whole theory of evolution spanning millions of years was built around it, until a little piece of bone from somebody else (I don’t remember his/her name) was discovered that made ‘Lucy’ look at least a few million years younger in the evolutionary scale. Or something to that effect. Anyway I have no problem with any evolutionary theory, even if the theory depends entirely on the imagination of the person proposing it, and each new theory shifts the evolution of man around by millions of years every time a little bone is unearthed somewhere. All theories make interesting reading. Since the theories don’t affect my life one way or another, I’m not interested in demanding any further proof.
3.The reference to a monkey rather than an ape in the conversation has to do with the fact that monkeys are commonplace in India, whereas apes are not. Since apes and monkeys belong to the same species anyway, one should not judge the error of the student so harshly. After all only an evolutionary theory separates a monkey from an ape.
4. The conversation seeks to point out that even science depends on theories. Forces not exactly perceived by the five senses are considered valid entities. It is not an attempt to discredit science, but rather to elevate faith in God to a scientific level.
5. I do not take the Bible to be a science treatise or a history textbook. It does not matter to me in the least if the first human beings God created were called Adam and Eve or John and Mary; whether God created one couple at first or a dozen or even a whole village. It doesn’t matter to me if He created the world in six days or sixty million years. All that matters to me is that God created the world, an intelligence that is greater than yours and mine or any other human being. All that matters to me is that Jesus was real, and I’m convinced He is real, even if the evidence is slightly different to that of Lucy’s bone. Even if the whole thing were a myth as claimed by some, I’m quite happy to believe in a uniquely convincing myth that has lasted nineteen and a half centuries and has achieved some really stupendous things in the history of the human race. As proof of how unique the "myth" is, here we are discussing the “myth” of Jesus as heatedly today as the Jewish Pharisees in His time debated whether Jesus was the Messiah that their prophets had written about and they had been waiting for.
6. Scripture to me is the Word of God that reveals God’s eternal truths, values and plan for man. Scripture is not meant to instruct us in history or science. I believe that God expects us to use the brains He has given us to understand our world and our everyday life, and do whatever it takes to make this world a better place than we found it. Only some skeletal guidelines about everyday practical life have been given for our help through Scripture. God has given every human being the gift of common sense to guide us along. I have not at any time tried to verify scientific facts in the Bible or any other Scripture. I believe that all knowledge comes from God and therefore scientific knowledge comes from God. Science on many occasions merely discovers what God has created. Scientists discover and achieve wonderful things with the brain God has gifted man with. But the work of scientists, no matter how spectacular, does not lead me conclude that God does not exist. For example, recently, a man made computer beat the cleverest man at chess in Bonn. Does that mean that the computer could not possibly have had a human being as its creator, especially because it has proved to be smarter than man in the very program created by man?
7. It is unfortunate that my mention of yesterday’s science being superseded by today’s science has been misinterpreted as my lack of respect for science. It was meant to highlight the limitation of science in a context where science seems to be portrayed as the absolute truth. I’m less of a lay person with regard to science than I am with regard to philosophy and theology. I even believe in playing an advocate for turning beneficial science into health policy that will benefit the masses as quickly as possible, and disapprove of scientific theories, rather than scientific evidence, that try to stand in the way.
8. FERN, I’m terribly disappointed that you have thrown away my entire barrel of good apples for the sake of one bad (in your opinion) apple, that too an apple you took out of somebody else’s barrel.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
----------------------------------------
Posted earlier to which reference is made.
Food for thought:
As part of his lecture titled ‘The Problem Science has with God, the Almighty’, an atheist professor of philosophy asks one of his new students to stand up, and the following conversation ensues...
Professor: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Professor: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal Him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
The student is silent.
Professor: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God.
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God made everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Professor: So who created evil?
The student does not answer.
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them?
The student has no answer.
Professor: Science says you have five senses that you can use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Tell us then if you have ever heard your God.
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Professor: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Precisely. You only have your faith. And that is the problem science has with God, the Almighty. You depend only on faith to prove his existence.
Student: Professor, now may I ask you a couple of questions?
Professor: Sure, go ahead.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Of course there is.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes there is.
Student: No sir. There isn't. Sir, you have heat, even lots of heat, more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. A temperature 458 degrees below zero is referred to as no heat. Our measurement of temperature stops at that point. We do not measure cold. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure it. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
After a short pause, the student continues.
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Sure there is. How could there be night without darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of light. There is low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light… But if there is no light, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is that your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue that there is life and then there is death. A good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought adequately. It makes use of electricity and magnetism, but it has never seen, much less fully understood either .To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.
The student continues after a brief pause.
Student: Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from
a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Professor: No. I don’t believe anyone has.
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is on-going, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you a scientist or a preacher?
The professor remains silent.
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain? Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it?
After a pause, the student continues.
Student: No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect sir, how do we then trust your lectures?
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir, FAITH. The link between man and god is FAITH. I take it on faith sir, that it is God, the Almighty, who creates the universe and everything in it, keeps it moving and every living thing alive.
----------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above professor-student conversation provided by Mr. P Vinod Bhattathiripad is supposedly a true incident from the life of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the incumbent president of India. The authenticity of the claim has not been verified.
wwell- i think that professor is a little dumb if the student was more knowledgeable about the nature of light and heat but its cute the way it ends up with the professor saying take it on faith- although honestly since its a story that professor is...
i sure hope the incumbent president of india isnt represented by the professor!
i mean no disrespect sir im being a mite facetious
Oops! I thought it was pretty obvious that the student was the incumbent president of India, hence didn't mention it specifically.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
seriously im glad you mentioned it-since i wasnt sure i didnt want to blather on about how really dumb that professor was because i thought it might insult some people by saying their president ws---well you know---intellectuially challenged?
hee hee and i thought maybe your name is indian but thats neirther here nor there now peace to you mr thaikattil!
Victoria, wondering if the student was Dr S Radhakrishnan ( a former philosopher president of India), rather than Dr Abdul Kalam, the incumbent scientist President of India (who was trained as an aeronautical engineer first, and probably did not attend any philosophy lecture as part of his studies) was just my thought. It goes without saying that the student is being portrayed as the cleverer one. The incumbent president was not the student of the philosopher president!
Soja John Thaiakttil
Sydney, Australia
Victoria, I'm an Indian-Australian with dual citizenship. BTW I'm female. The male middle name, John, is my father's first name. It has to do with the custom of my community - father's first name and family name is added to one's name, which is replaced by the husband's first name and family name after marriage.
I wish you a Happy and wonderful New Year 2007!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? - People are finally waking up to the truth - there is no god.
Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues? - No. Theists cannot conduct a civil, logical debate without personally attacking atheists.
yes- we thesits are an irrascible uncivilized and thoroughly loathesome bunch- devoid of any rationality- why didnt you know that your IQ drops automatically when you become a believer?
its true!
and of course we are most easily identified by our senseless and compulsive predilection for attacking in the most brutal manner any who disagree with us!
welcome SRB- so glad to have the non-biased open minded atheists come and put us in our place!!!
wheww- by your razor sharp logic you have subdued my savage breast already
wow its good you happened along- i was just preparing another mindless surprise attack on some unsuspecting atheist---
well- i guess they can close the post now since its been so eloquently answered
thank you soja- ive appreciated your posts GREATLY
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS!
I became an atheist when it dawned on me that I don't believe in the "god" of the big mouths, the bible thumpers, the flat earthers and the war mongers who govern our country.
Nice christians are out of vogue in America. These popular judgemental types are just not my cup of tea. I don't like their god at all. I can live without him.
Many people I know became atheists in response to the current, popular, "christian" god. Thank you, but I don't need an angry man in the sky invented by ancient people with a limited world view to dictate my conscience. I don't need to believe in the Genesis creation story in order to be a good person. I don't need to renounce scientific discoveries in order to be a spiritual person. I'm a much nicer, more loving and forgiving person without that 'god'.
Haven't you noticed that a lot of the so-called "christians" on television news are some of the most spiteful, hateful creatures ever? That's religion? If there really was a god person, wouldn't you think that this god would rather that his creation would freely love him rather than be threatened into loving him? He sounds like the alcoholic father in a dysfunctional family.
I prefer Jesus' teachings of love and compassion- His message is that we should look out for each other. When we look out for each other, that is how we worship god and all creation. How very simple. So simple that many christians just missed the boat.
I'd like to meet more "christians" who understand Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and perhaps I'd be more tolerant of modern day "christians." Until then, I remain a born again atheist.
DANIEL thank you so much for your kind words
i look forward to another post
Atheism became the counter-cultural thing to be starting in the 60's. Soon it will be religions turn.
If atheism is finally being talked about more by the general public it's just because more information is available than ever, and you can't hold on to your ancient mythologies in light of facts, unless you're willing to admit that you choose fantasy over reality.
One thing that makes the discussion unteneable for so many of us atheists is the judgemental tone taken by so many Christians. For example, "We are not a Christian nation because of the way you all behave" was a rather popular answer given by lots of Christians to a previous question on this website, as if the atheists are the ones filling the prisons and "killing babies".
Incidentally, it's always the Christians who come off with those ugly phrases. It's obvious that too many do in fact need bad reasons to be good.
I'm an atheist, I live a good, in fact deeply spiritual life. I hold doors open for people, take my cart back when I'm shopping, drive on my own side of the road, all the time; I go out of my way not to do anything for which I need to be forgiven.
I am open to discussion with everyone, until someone pulls out their religious trump-card, as one former poster has put it, and shuts down the lines of communication.
Oh, yeah, Agnostic; I'm not certain there's no god, so in that sense, I would have to say that all of us, even the religious, are somewhat agnostic as well. I just don't use the term agnostic to describe myself because that makes it sound as if there's as much chance of a god existing as not. There's a much greater chance that no gods exist, and besides, by calling myself aganostic, I'd be providing a concession to the religions that maybe, after all, they are correct.
They aren't, but good people will come together regardless; the rest will argue endlessly as they've always done.
It is not a matter of "believing" in God. It is a matter of what entity enables the vast ignorant masses to create Gods and religious establishments.
In algebra, we use symbols like X to stand for things we do not know. In religion, people use "God" to stand for things they do not understand. In its simplest form, "God" is the symbol for the various forces of nature, of which most are totally beyond the comprehension of most people. Those totality of natural laws that govern everything from our the physical universe to complex microbiological and biochemical processes of living things, are characterized as "God" by the ignorant who then try to influence those unbending laws of nature through "prayer."
Each day I am appalled at how religion and belief foster torture, death and neglect of the living throughout the world.
It is difficult for the enlightened to live in these dark ages.
It is not a matter of "believing" in God. It is a matter of what entity enables the vast ignorant masses to create Gods and religious establishments.
In algebra, we use symbols like X to stand for things we do not know. In religion, people use "God" to stand for things they do not understand. In its simplest form, "God" is the symbol for the various forces of nature, of which most are totally beyond the comprehension of most people. Those totality of natural laws that govern everything from our the physical universe to complex microbiological and biochemical processes of living things, are characterized as "God" by the ignorant who then try to influence those unbending laws of nature through "prayer."
Each day I am appalled at how religion and belief foster torture, death and neglect of the living throughout the world.
It is difficult for the enlightened to live in these dark ages.
i think that the propensity of people in all cultures to 'believe' in gods is due to our natural predisposition to believe what we're told. to believe what we're taught when young is obviously vital in a species that depends almost entirely on society for survival.
atheism, like many complex, sublime, beautiful things is an emergent property of intelligence; just like a snowflake is of gas pressure and water vapour.
Greg, you asked:
"It is not simply that people followed Jesus, but that they did so at great personal risk, without any obvious great reward."
Are you saying the promise of heaven and the avoidance of hell wasn't enough?
Your argument is full of flaws. the least of which is the fact that we have no actual historical information concerning what any of the people who "personally know jesus" did or did not do. The belief that the apostles were martyred is a tradition promulgated by the Catholic Church and accepting blindly ever since.
The real problem with your argument is that people act seemingly insanely all the time. Islam has as many tales of pointless martyrdom as Christianity. If you're going to use people's bizarre, inexplicable behavior as an evidence for your gods, then you can't deny any other gods without being a complete hypocrite.
Kate, no you're wrong about it simply being about numbers. It is about seeing is believing. It is not simply that people followed Jesus, but that they did so at great personal risk, without any obvious great reward. As many who simply argue to argue, you miss the point in its entirety. It is the very fact that so many believed that they unconditionally followed, even to death. What does that have to do with slavery? Or sufferage? I don't get your point. Let me make it clear again. Why would those who personally knew Jesus leave the comfort of their home, go out into the big cruel world, and spread His message -- at risk of death -- unless they saw something that made them certain that what they were doing was right. Salvery was about money -- it had a profit motive; sufferage was about control -- men ran things, women were property. Jesus' message was about placing others first, about love and hope. It had no obvious benefit to those who died spreading the Word -- So, its not simply about numbers, but about seeing is believing. They saw, and acted upon it. Finally, regarding your advice to my daughter, my wife and I raise her, thank you very much. I have four wonderful children, each head strong, good people. They ask questions, and acknowledge sometimes the answers are hard. They are aware of all the bad things you mention -- as are most Christians. (Jesus, I will point out, condoned none of the things you mention. He stopped a stoning, admonishing those without sin to act first. He treated all equally. He comforted the sick, the poor, the dying.) I have tried to raise them in the church because I believe it important. As adults, they will have to decide where they go. You may certainly raise your children outside any church if you so choose. But your hint that somehow I need to tell her certain things you believe in order to "actually encourage her development" is suggestive of someone who has an awfully big opinion of themselves. My attempt was to bring to the discussion a thought; one that you did not address -- you danced all around it. So, if you are out there -- answer the question -- why would so many die (for this discussion, lets leave it to those who personally knew Jesus) for such a simply message, without obvious personal gain, for a Man who had been dead for years -- unless they had personally seen something to make them believe. They were with Him for several years, living their daily lives together. Do you really believe they would die such horrible deaths for a conspiracy involving a dead man, when there was no obvious personal gain? No, this is one you need to address, directly, without dancing around it -- no need for big words, or obfuscation -- just a simple answer -- why? Delusion, hysteria, mass hypnosis -- why?
I think that the tipping point between athiests and religious people is in the way they present their quesion about God. An athiest asks for a prove that God exists, but a religous person would counter that by asking athiests to prove that God doesn't exist. An athiest would do almost anything to stay away from the scripture and tries to prove his theory through science. That's the major mistake in athiests' methodology in their quest to answer the question about God. Incidently, science will lead to one thing, the universe was created in a great balance and harmony that even a random creation theory cannot explain the perfect nature of how this universe is running. The Quran talks about the fact that the creation of the heavens and the earth are a bigger miracle than creating humans. It goes further and instructs people in general to go and search how this creation has started. It poses questions to athiests and idol worshippers (who inhabited the arabian island at that time) such as "have you been created from nothing?".
My point is that the scripture is a good starting point for athiests. Yet, there is a major issue that I have with athiests. They are very abstract and have very narrow focus that tend to sway them into more philisophical debate rather than scientific one. Search for the truth requires observational skills and the ability to transform subtle ideas into managable pieces of information. Did you ever wonder why most athiests come around as arrogant and stubborn? That's not because they have these characteristics, but their narrow minded approach makes it look so. Sorry if I offended anyone.
I'm writing a musical tentatively called "Oh God,Is This Boring Or What?" My first song -"Oh,the Atheists and the Theists Should be Friends," has a libretto and music but I keep falling asleep when writing the script. Anyone interested in a collaboration?
To Soja John Thaikattil,
Regarding your Abdul Kalam story. I think you may have been taken in by an urban myth. Reasons for my thinking are as follows:
a) Lack of credibility in the source. Which, and I'm sorry to say this as I don't mean to be rude (please don't take it personally), but the source is you. You repeat a story from someone else, you don't seem certain of the identities referred to within it and don't seem to have made any effort to check into the veracity of the story. Don't let it get to you, the same thing happened to me once. My sister sent me an email to scare me about HIV needles in cinema seats. I fell for it for a few days, then a friend pointed out that it was a known urban myth.
Moral of this story: just because you trust the person does not mean you can trust what they say.
The difficulty with the moral of the story: as social creatures we are kind of pre-programmed so that if we trust the person, we trust their words. At times we trust a person's words even if we don't know them ... its a difficult topic.
b) The basic outline of the story reminded me of a similar one I recalled reading which had been debunked as an urban myth. Main difference seemed to be the characters involved. So I re-read the article on Snopes.com. If you'd like to read it yourself its titled "malice of absence" and indeed, the similarities are striking: the arrogant atheist professor, the intelligent and faithful young student who challenges the professor, the reference to cold, the reference to darkness, there is even a variant to the main story which makes reference to not being able to see the brain. The main difference being, these variants of the same urban myth quote other 'intelligent and faithful' young students who put the boot up the arrogant atheist professor's butt. Instead of Abdul Kalam they use a Navy SEAL and Einstein. It seems that the story you've repeated is the same story but with different characters (perhaps to cater for an India-based audience) and a slight bit of padding out in the telling.
3) However, despite the above, there is one thing that needs to be considered. Perhaps this story is actually true? Perhaps this story was the original and the urban myths that have popped up here and there since then have simply been re-edited to cater for a western audience? So, ok, I went on a bit of googling for details and do you know what ... I couldn't find a time when both Abdul Kalam and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Dr S) were at the same educational institution at the same time. In fact, I couldn't find any corroboration that Abdul Kalam had ever attended any of the institutions that Dr S had taught at while Dr S was still alive (unfortunately Dr S passed away in 1975). Which is very strange since they are both very well known in India and as such it seems their lives have been documented well on the web.
I could list you the timeline I have been able to glean from the net, but since I've already rambled on a bit earlier about the dangers of taking any person's word at face value, I'll leave you to do the investigating, if you wish to.
Conclusion - when considering the entirety: the striking similarity to a known urban myth; the lack of corroboration of attendance at institutions; the story having an unreliable source, I have to think that your story can only be a reincarnation of the same urban myth. However I am open to correction so if you are able to track down any corroborating evidence I'm certainly happy to reconsider my stance.
Quick last comment on the story: Dr S seems to have had such a full life so that you could almost say he is revered. I read he even has a national day, "Teacher's Day" celebrated on the day of his birth in his honor. It seems almost dishonorable that his name should be used as the butt of the joke in a fiction designed purely to make theists feel better about swallowing their belief. Particularly so given he passed away in 1975, and as such can't defend himself. Surely theists can find affirmation of their belief (if they need it) in a less hateful way.
-------------
To Victoria,
No, whoever the ":" that you are referring to, it wasn't me. This is the first time I've reposted since I made the post "ok, one more". I was intending to stick to that too, until SJT posted that quaint little theist feel-good story - I couldn't let that one stand without comment and so now I'll take the opportunity to respond to you also....
"KATE - I TOTALLY KNOW THAT IS YOU UNDER THE :"
....hmmm, tell me, is that feeling of knowledge similar to the one people get when they 'know' there is a god?
Actually, don't tell me, that was a rhetorical question. In fact, *please* don't tell me, I like to respond to posts that contain thought, whereas the posts you have addressed to me have degenerated to vitriol at best.
"OF COURSE theres a lack of knowledge! that is why i asked! why the sarcasm? do you honestly believe i think helping people is a terrible thing? mercy mercy me"
Huh?
What on earth are you going on about?
"you are entitled to your opinon miss kate but you should draw the line ar accusing someone of lying"
Even if they are? Besides which, I didn't *accuse* you of 'lying', I stated the following:
"Obviously false. Fed 100 people a day for over a year without handling money and without support? You got support from somewhere."
And the hilarious thing here? You actually confirmed that it was false. You followed up with the following comments:
"i went to all the local merchants and got them to donate rice and spices and grains and the local supermarkets let me go through all their day old veggies and fruits and things- there was a bakery that gave me day old brad and cookies and all sorts of baked goods-even local restaurants sometimes sent over little surprises"
All of the things you've just listed ... that is what I like to refer to as 'support'. I'm guessing those institutions who donated items would also like to think they were doing so in 'support' of your efforts. Thereby making the suggestion that you accomplished whatever it was that you did 'without support', false.
Like I've suggested previously, Victoria, try reading the posts before responding to them. Further, try the following: if you feel like making a post, type it up but don't submit it, get away from it for an hour to calm down. When you come back, re-read it to check if it's something you really want to say and that it makes sense. Putting posts up more quickly or more frequently doesn't necessarily equate to better quality, whereas taking the time to reconsider often does.
------------
To Daniel,
You know, I actually got a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside from your 12:48pm post. It's nice to know that you're willing to try and meet me half way and that you are capable of reconsidering your position.
"one cannot just assume things do not exist in the first place"
This is the fundamental difference between you and I. You seem to think anything and everything that can be imagined exists until shown otherwise. Whereas my position is that until something has evidence of existance I will accept that it doesn't exist. My cannibalistic pope example stands. Further, I'll give you another example. I know that (entirely by itself) my body is not capable of flight. It's capable of falling, but not of flight. I'm unwilling to throw myself off a building to prove that I cannot fly until I have some evidence that I can fly. And in this particular example, it better be substantial evidence.
So now I ask you Daniel, is your body, by itself, capable of flight? And please, if you are going to test it out, remember you'll probably need a bit of a run up and a tall building. You never know, maybe we are capable of flight, but only after having been in the process of falling for 30 seconds or so - it might need some kind of falling 'warm up' before it 'kicks in' so to speak. ^^ I'm joking of course.
...we'll have to agree to disagree, I think.
"then tackle the problem of good and evil"
I have, on a personal level, dealt with the question of good and evil. In fact contemplation on the nature of 'good' and 'evil' was one of the main considerations that turned me away from theism.
There is no good nor evil.
Good and evil are just labels we apply to things or occurances based on how we perceive their impact. If there is anything that is truly 'evil' it is that we label things as such, because by labeling something as 'evil' we place blame, thereby resolving ourselves of responsiblity for it.
I live with the above approach as I find it makes a straightforward kind of sense. Well it works for me at least, what others think of it I couldn't say and I'm not about to force it on them.
"We could well destroy ourselves"
Aren't we doing so already? I think this is one of the reasons why atheists are getting so angry.
"Science ... has made it totally possible to destroy ourselves"
I usually tend to hate the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement being used, but I'm going to co-opt it at this point. "science doesn't kill people, people kill people". The same could be said for religion "religion doesn't kill people, people kill people". That'll probably get me a few dark looks from my fellow atheists, but at its core it has truth. Its not the religion itself or the science itself that kills, it's the people making use of the religion or the science who do that.
"Science quite simply has the wrong strategy"
I have a different perspective. Neither science nor religion are strategies, they are simply tools. We have yet to sit down and set out the strategy because we're still arguing over who has the coolest tool. I think science is the coolest. Mainly because its all encompassing, has measurable outcomes and its core principles are comprehendable.
"... convince people to not believe in God ..."
There seems to be a thought that atheists must have a desire to de-convert everyone. I can't speak for all atheists, but I certainly don't hold that desire. Do I despair when hearing yet another story of religious intolerance? Yes. Every succeeding generation of humanity will continually struggle in delineating between the real and the surreal. We can't stop it, that struggle is inevitable, though some particular outcomes might bring me to tears. It is pointless to attempt to stop the inevitable, but I see worth in attempting to make the path easier to navigate, by ensuring that tools are developed for the use of those who follow us so that their task isn't as difficult as ours. Tools, for example, like logic and the sciences.
"In fact, how are we to avoid genetic engineering, the creation of humans that are equal and in fact superior to man's ability to annihilate himself?"
I think you typed that last sentence more from sentiment than reason. Further I think your 4.44 am post was more a rant than anything. Not staying up too late are we? I mean - "Stupid disbelievers--you think this is a game or something. You are playing with millions of people's lives" - just sliiightly over the top methinks.
---------------
From Realist:
"I think religion is a means of manipulating and controlling people. If you can control someone's beliefs, you can make them do almost anything. This is why religious faith is dangerous"
Agree, but I also think there's an individual reason for it, not just a mob rule reason. If people want something bad enough, they'll find a reason for it. If they can't find a reason, they'll create it. Religion is a ready made list of excuses. Hmmm, deja vu. Has someone said that before? Meh, probably.
Love your posts Realist. Always well considered and so well restrained. I aspire someday for your self-control.
Kate, Please read the disclaimer at the end of the story, and my post at 7:31 AM.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, Please read the disclaimer at the end of the story, and my post at 7:21 AM.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, there is nothing to suggest that Einstein studied philosophy at the university, and the 'story' involves a discussion during a philosophy lecture.
When I first posted the 'story' on 25 Dec 06, I did not mention Dr Radhakrishnan at all. In my post on this thread I was merely wondering if the incident attributed to Dr Kalam actually happened in the life of Dr Radhakrishnan. That seems to have created the mistaken impression that I implied Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr Kalam were in a professor-student relationship.
It is the content and spirit of the discussion that interested me and hence I posted it without verifying at which university, in which year, on what date and time the discussion took place and what the name of the professor was. It wouldn't have mattered to me if the student in conversation was named as George W Bush instead.
As to believing the modes by which the HIV virus is transmitted, there was much ignorance around considering it was a new disease and you can't be blamed for being too careful.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, there is nothing to suggest that Einstein studied philosophy at the university, and the 'story' involves a discussion during a philosophy lecture.
When I first posted the 'story' on 25 Dec 06, I did not mention Dr Radhakrishnan at all. In my post on this thread I was merely wondering if the incident attributed to Dr Kalam actually happened in the life of Dr Radhakrishnan. That seems to have created the mistaken impression that I implied Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr Kalam were in a professor-student relationship.
It is the content and spirit of the discussion that interested me and hence I posted it without verifying at which university, in which year, on what date and time the discussion took place and what the name of the professor was. It wouldn't have mattered to me if the student in conversation was named as George W Bush instead.
As to believing the modes by which the HIV virus is transmitted, there was much ignorance around considering it was a new disease and you can't be blamed for being too careful.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, there is nothing to suggest that Einstein studied philosophy at the university, and the 'story' involves a discussion during a philosophy lecture.
When I first posted the 'story' on 25 Dec 06, I did not mention Dr Radhakrishnan at all. In my post on this thread I was merely wondering if the incident attributed to Dr Kalam actually happened in the life of Dr Radhakrishnan. That seems to have created the mistaken impression that I implied Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr Kalam were in a professor-student relationship.
It is the content and spirit of the discussion that interested me and hence I posted it without verifying at which university, in which year, on what date and time the discussion took place and what the name of the professor was. It wouldn't have mattered to me if the student in conversation was named as George W Bush instead.
As to believing the modes by which the HIV virus is transmitted, there was much ignorance around considering it was a new disease and you can't be blamed for being too careful.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Myriad apologies! Problem with my computer. It didn't give me any indication that the message was posted, hence I reposted it twice.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
I see myself as an Agnostic. To me, the entire universe is natural and mechanistic, i.e., that everything we see in the universe can eventually be explained in terms of chemistry and physics. That includes the basis of life.
My problem with Atheism, and especially any Religion, is the dogmatic declaration of knowing the basis of the universe. While I embrace a naturalistic view of the universe, I don't believe that any human mind can do anymore at this time than guess at the origin of space, matter and energy.
Unfortunately, astrologers, witchdoctors, priests, and followers of the great variety of religions and sects, have created fantasies.
Surely, no human knows or understands the basis of our universe.
The atheist has to have the attributes of God to know there is no God. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of God's existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because God could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. God does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry God.
Veritos
The atheist has to have the attributes of Santa Claus to know there is no Santa Claus. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of Santa Claus' existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because Santa Claus could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. Santa Claus does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry Santa Claus.
a p.s. for those who still wonder why atheists are livid, and why we've become more activist since Bushco's election:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/29/park-service-cant-give-o_n_37406.html
Due to pressure from Bush Administration officials, the National Park Service is not permitted to give an official age for the Grand Canyon. Additionally, a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood is for sale at the National Park's bookstore.
The sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View was scheduled for review over three years ago, but no such review has been schedule or even requested. The creationist book was the only item approved for sale in 2003 (22 other items were rejected).
Atheists don't assume to know the basis for, or the mysteries of the universe; most of us just find it highly improbable, and most likely impossible, that it has been satisfactorially explained by any of the world's faith-based religions. There are no absolutes, except that something either exists, or it doesn't. It either happened or it didn't, and we should have credible evidence that determines whether we believe a thing to be truth or fiction.
"Atheist" doesn't mean against god, as some who are religious like to take it; it means
without god.
Amy, your posts are always so helpful & informative. Thanks!
Nice job Dodger. Simplicity at it's best.
Nice job Dodger. Simplicity at it's best.
> Soja John Thaikattil :
> 2.Have you observed evolution with your own eyes? (highlighted in FERNs comment) refers to the
> 'evolution from monkey' mentioned before that. So the question actually means Have you observed
> any human being evolve from a monkey?
It's still a stupid question. It's asking "Have you lived for millions of years (and thus been alive long enough to observe evolution). I can't really believe that anyone would ask such a dumb question or would answer it in the way you posted.
> 6. ... Scripture is not meant to instruct us in history or science. I believe that God expects us to
> use the brains He has given us to understand our world and our everyday life, and do whatever
> it takes to make this world a better place than we found it. Only some skeletal guidelines about
> everyday practical life have been given for our help through Scripture. God has given every
> human being the gift of common sense to guide us along.
I agree with you. The Bible/Quran/Gita/Buddhist sutras provide a moral and ethical framework not a statement of science. They provide a set of basic principles around which to orient one's life not a detailed roadmap.
Hi Greg,
I wanted to respond to your "proof" that Jesus must be divine because “Why would those who were physically present with Him die for a lie -- all of them? It does not make any sense unless they did know something. That's the point. As I said, seeing is believing.”
Now you and I agree on one point: History is replete with examples of how martyrs were willing to die for their faith – and this martyrdom is no convincing proof that their belief systems was real. Here are your words:
“Martyrs who died without seeing did so purely on faith. . I do not use them as an example of my "proof" because it was faith that drove them to sacrifice, not personal experience”
So I will focus on
(i) there are other believers who were convinced their follower was divine and followed him – willing to die for their beliefs, and
(ii) provide evidence where Jesus did not view himself as divine during his life.
Other leaders claiming to be divine:
(1) The New Testament states that there were many “false Christs and false prophets” during the times of Jesus who performed great miracles – and who were so convincing that even “the very elect” might be deceived by them. (ref. Matthew 24:23-6)
“Then if any man shall say unto you. Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect... Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth..."
The gospels never deny that the “powers” from these individuals were not real. (Their powers just didn’t derive from the true god.)
(2) Kings proclaimed themselves divine even up into Roman times.
There are a number of cult leaders who have proclaimed themselves divine. Here are just a couple of RECENT examples:
--The Reverent Moon has proclaimed himself "humanity's Savior, Messiah, and Returning Lord. He has conducted mass marriages where the partners were strangers prior to the marriage.
-- the Reverend Jim Jones claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus, Akhenaten, Buddha, Lenin, and Father Divine and performed supposed miracle healings to attract new members. Many people willingly participated in the mass suicides in the People’s Temple.
(3) There are of course other individuals who claimed special divine powers (although were not necessarily part of the godhead.
The disciples of Mohammed who personally knew him and followed him and risked their life. But as he was merely the head PROPHET of the one God Allah (and not the godhead himself) – I predict you will use this to argue the followers of Mohammed – were still following their faith.
Seems to me “if” Mohammed had proclaimed himself god and had disciples, THEN what he said must have been true, according to your reasoning…
(4) There were other historical figures whose devoted disciples later proclaimed their teacher was divine. Buddha is an example of this category.
(5) There is evidence within the gospels that Jesus (like Buddha) did not proclaim himself divine during his lifetime.
-- See Mark 10:17-8, where a stranger approaches Jesus with the question, "Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". And Jesus replies: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”.
(Christian apologists argue Jesus was not really lying, but was being coy about his true powers. How could this just be coy though...)
(6) There is evidence in analyzing the gospels whether Jesus' powers were really any more “incredible” than the large number of “other” miracle workers known to be common in the Palestine during the times of Jesus.
In Galilee, one of Jesus' main occupation was said to be from casting out demons:
-"They brought to him all who were ill or possessed by devils...He
healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many
devils." (Mark 1:32-4; Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40-1)
-"So all through Galilee he went...casting out the devils."
(Mark 1:39, Matthew 4:23)
In explaining (probably why at the time Jesus’ own family did not view him as divine) why Jesus could not perform a miracle in his home town, the gospels use the following apology:
"A prophet will always be held in honor except in his home town, and among his kinsmen and family. He could work no miracle there, except that he put his hands on a few sick people and healed them, and he was taken aback by their want of faith."(Mark 6:4-6)
[Sorry - that simply is not true...]
So in short, I’m afraid your proof is not a convincing one, except to someone who already believes.
Good day.
Warp 10 -- you certainly have a right to your opinion, and I to mine. Neither will give, I am certain. That is fine. Variety is the spice of life, I have always believed. My "proof" is simply one way I look at it all, for me personally. It may or may not convince others -- so be it. I do wonder, though, if atheists ever harbor doubts. Many seem so certain in their non-belief. One of my favorite stories about WC Fields (I know not if it is true) is telling. He was an avowed atheist. Toward the end of his days, he was caught by a good friend thumbing through the Bible. When asked why, he replied "Lookin for loop holes." Ah, life, ain't it grand.
there were no institutions kate- just individual owners of shops and markets and restaurants- and i really did not touch money for well over a year-
what is the point of trying to tear it apart?
it was a great time and i have my own memories and there plenty more stories where that came from-that was just one instance in response to a particular point-
i like the way i write kate- i dont sit and contrive my responses- theyre a true expression of my forthright being- so itsl likely that i will continue in my own fashion-
thanks for your advice and concern
ansd sorry i thought that was you it wasnt so sorry
Hi Greg,
My intent was only to point out your proof would not meet the rigid requirements for a nonbeliever; And that I have a rational basis for my point of view too.
Obviously you have a rational basis for your point of view too. Meaning, as long as your views do not hurt others -- it is really none of my business; and I will respect it.
Re: the Loophole quote by WC Fields. I do not think there are any loopholes for anyone escaping death.
I was brought up as a fundamentalist Protestant and switched to atheism in my early twenties only after extensive readings on the topic of religion, history and philosophy convinced me it was all built on a foundation of superstition and a fear of dying.
I made the choice to accept the truth (as best as I can discern it) wherever it took me. Rationally everything looks like everyone stays in the grave. I could give you whole posts on this. I see no evidence for the other position -- only hope; only faith (which means the same thing as hope).
I believe my atheism has made me a more compassionate person than I was before in caring about the poor and misfortunate. How many Christians have shown a concern to how we have destroyed the homes and lives of innocent Iraqis, the suffering in Dafur, etc, etc. I think I care more now because I realize this is the only life they will ever have... and it is a miserable one.
Perhaps one has to know a little philosophy to cope with nonbelief in God. These are some of the verses that have helped me.
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus taught, that "Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not."
Mark Twain's version was: "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."
In his ILLUSION OF IMMORTALITY, Lamont suggested that by freeing ourselves from our illusion of immortality, we are revitalized to living life to its fullest depth:
"The truth about death frees us from both debasing fear and shallow optimism. It frees us from self-flattery and self-deception. To say that we cannot endure this truth is to abdicate to the weaker elements in human nature. Not only can we endure it, but we can rise above it to far nobler thoughts and acts than those centering around everlasting self-perpetuation...
"...the knowledge that immortality is an illusion frees us from any sort of preoccupation with the subject of death. It makes death, in a sense, unimportant. It liberates all our energy and time for the realization and extension of the happy potentialities of this good earth. It engenders a hearty and grateful acceptance of the rich experiences attainable in human living amid an abundant Nature. It is knowledge that brings strength and depth and maturity, making it possible a philosophy of life that is simple, understandable, and inspiring..."
Peace to you. Just please try not to elect leaders (like Bush) that make the world a worse place for ours and future generations -
oops sorry that was my post to kate
whats the use of an apology if theres no name attached, eh? i glad i peeked back in here on the way to foodnetwork
yours for rhyme time and reason
archy
An atheist is someone who has a deep and abiding faith that there is no god (or gods, almighty or otherwise) on high pulling strings, dictating fate or otherwise meddling in earthly affairs.
An agnostic is someone who can be targetted by religious groups into believing nonsense such as resurrection from the dead, eternal riches or that it is your purpose in life to suffer for the benefit of society.
A true atheist believes that heaven is (or at the very least should be) on earth and that everyone should have the opportunity to appreciate heaven.
The Seven Torah Commandments
============================
1) Do not torture.
2) Do not murder.
3) Do not enslave.
4) Swear only an oath of office.
5) Take a day of rest to worship
none other than heaven.
6) Be truthful.
7) Be succesful.
Our ancestors, you were on earth
Hallowed be your names
May your wisdom thrive
And guidance drive
So that heaven may journey with us
Give us all our daily nourishments
And help others to judge our failings fairly
As we fairly judge those that fail us
Elect wisdom within our republic
And promote peace on earth
Forever and ever.
Happy New Year everyone.
regards
Terence David Carroll,
email: tcarroll@acm.org and rabbi_general@hotmail.com
Copyright (c) 2006 Terence David Carroll
An atheist is someone who has a deep and abiding faith that there is no god (or gods, almighty or otherwise) on high pulling strings, dictating fate or otherwise meddling in earthly affairs.
An agnostic is someone who can be targetted by religious groups into believing nonsense such as resurrection from the dead, eternal riches or that it is your purpose in life to suffer for the benefit of society.
A true atheist believes that heaven is (or at the very least should be) on earth and that everyone should have the opportunity to appreciate heaven.
The Seven Torah Commandments
============================
1) Do not torture.
2) Do not murder.
3) Do not enslave.
4) Swear only an oath of office.
5) Take a day of rest to worship
none other than heaven.
6) Be truthful.
7) Be succesful.
Our ancestors, you were on earth
Hallowed be your names
May your wisdom thrive
And guidance drive
So that heaven may journey with us
Give us all our daily nourishments
And help others to judge our failings fairly
As we fairly judge those that fail us
Elect wisdom within our republic
And promote peace on earth
Forever and ever.
Happy New Year everyone.
regards
Terence David Carroll,
email: tcarroll@acm.org and rabbi_general@hotmail.com
Copyright (c) 2006 Terence David Carroll
Warp 10. Appreciated the response. If you followed my posts, you'll likely note that I did not vote for, nor support our current president. Many believers haven't supported the last 15 years of republican rule. Again, it is a big brush to paint all believers one way or the other. As for coping with nonbelief, I do just fine with it. It is for me about the freedom to chose. Believe or don't. That is what freedom is about. As for WC Fields, as I understood the story, the loop hole he was looking for related to heaven and hell -- or so I understood it. Good new year. Be careful all. I'm going out to eat. Check back later.
Greg, "as I understood the story". Yes, but you come at it from a perspective of a believer. The prejudice of such a quote that would commonly occur from the perspective of a believer is to think that that WC Fields was 'finally coming to his senses', so to speak. The believer looks for affirmation. Its another take on the old 'no atheists in foxholes' propaganda.
Try to consider it from an alternate perspectives. I'll offer you 2.
1) That of the atheist: when he is 'looking for loopholes' does he mean that he's looking for contradictions? Perhaps he was seeking comfort on his deathbed by re-affirming what he considered as ridiculous? After all, I understand he had also said in respect to the bible "I admit I scanned it once, searching for some movie plots, but found only a pack of wild lies."
2) That of irreverence: WC Fields was a funny man. He's on his deathbed reading something which he has ridiculed on various occasions throughout his life. Someone challeges him to explain why he is reading it (which raises the question, why does he need to?). He quips "I'm looking for loopholes". I don't know about you, but I think thats damn funny.
I think it likely irreverence was his intent. Perhaps in reading it he was making an attempt to self-medicate by having a bit of a laugh. It seems to fit the style of his life. It shows the desperation of theists when they wave around such a small and insignificant statement as if it were some significant validation for their belief ... but then, thats only my perspective as an non-believer.
Warp10, just one quick comment. We have to be open to the possibility that some atheists might have actually voted for Bush/Republicans for whatever reasons. I wonder if, by painting republican voters as being theists, we do so to distance ourselves from, to absolve ourselves of, the responsibility for the 'evil(s)' that Bush's presidency has brought us.
Greg, one quick comment.
I just wanted to say, from your posts I actually like you. You have come across as a sincere person. If there is one thing that I would not like you to take away from this discussion its the impression that all atheists want to do is disagree. I realise that whenever you've posted your sincere thoughts you've had atheists challenge your thought processes at pretty much every turn. We do this not because we disrespect you as a person, but because we feel the reasoning you have accepted is flawed. As Sam Harris put it - "useful delusions are not the same thing as true beliefs." Just because atheists might disagree with what you say, does not mean they disagree you as a person.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
> A true atheist believes that heaven is (or at the very least should be) on earth and that everyone
> should have the opportunity to appreciate heaven.
Then even though I believe in God, I'm also an atheist by these terms since I do believe heaven should be and will be on earth and everyone should and will have that opportunity.
Kate. Yes, as with all people, I come at everything from the perspecitve I've gained in my life. I'd like to think that in regards to the WC Fields comment, it was a joke on his part. I think it is funny. But the context of the joke suggests he was looking for a way into heaven. Even if he joking, thats the context. Nonetheless, I didn't posit the comment as support for my faith, but to address my comment that atheists seem so certain -- about something that being certain about is only a guess. I believe strongly in an afterlife, where God exists. You do not. Neither can prove which is right. I believe in Christ, but admit to doubt at times in life. Atheists on this post, at least, express a degree of absolute certainty that is hard to come by for anything in life, much less the greatest mytery -- what happens when we die. You cannot say with absolute certainty there is no God, and that Jesus wasn't His son. You may not think so, but you cannot be absolutely, 100% certain. Yet, at every turn, as you put it, I hear absolutism, where it simply cannot be. Admit it -- you cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no God. You may say that you don't believe, that I can't prove it, and that you dispute my thoughts. OK. But you can't be absolutely certain. That is why the WC Fields quote was posited. Maybe he was just joking, and maybe there are no atheists in fox holes. Don't know. Happy new year to all. I hope life treats you well.
God bless you and yours Greg and happy healthy spiritually wealthy new year to you
HAPPY NEW YEAR PEOPLES IM GOING TO GO BANG ON SOME POTS AND MAKE SOME NOISE
PEACE
Happy New Year 2007 to all from beautiful Sydney, Australia! May the New Year be filled with contentment, deep peace, great joy, good health, abundant life and a sense of greater meaning and purpose!
My thanks to all at The Washington Post and special thanks to Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for hosting the “On Faith” forum, putting together a mind-boggling 88- member Who-is-Who panel and making it possible not only for their opinions on pressing issues concerning faith to be read by people like me, but also giving everyone a chance to participate in a lively discussion among readers. How urgently we need to dispel hatred and violence, based on ignorance, among people of all faiths and none. Thank you for putting the reputation of Washington Post “at stake” for a wonderful cause, since a couple of readers commented that they feared The Post was becoming a religious newspaper.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
----------------------------------
Happy New Year to all. May 2007 bring us ever closer to Truth, to Joy, to Peace.
SimpleWords wrote:
"My point is that the scripture is a good starting point for athiests. Yet, there is a major issue that I have with athiests. They are very abstract and have very narrow focus that tend to sway them into more philisophical debate rather than scientific one. Search for the truth requires observational skills and the ability to transform subtle ideas into managable pieces of information. Did you ever wonder why most athiests come around as arrogant and stubborn? That's not because they have these characteristics, but their narrow minded approach makes it look so. Sorry if I offended anyone."
I don't think you could offend anyone, you are very polite.
Many of us have been religious and we have read a lot of scripture. We just don't beleive that scripture is anything other than the musings of people who knew a lot less about the world than we do now.
I agree that the search for truth requires observational skills. Science is all about observation. That is why we don't believe that scripture corresponds to reality. When we apply our observational skills and compare scripture to the real world, we find that scripture contradicts itself and it contradicts reality. Therefore we can't accept scripture as truth.
I think you have it the wrong way around. I've found that the last thing Christians want is a scientific debate. Religion has always been proved wrong when it has tried to take on science. Since creationism has been thoroughly discredited as not corresponding to observable reality, they are now trying to disguise it as "intelligent design", and they lie and distort science to suit their ends.
In my experience, Christians do not want to listen to anything or observe anything that contradicts scripture. The last thing they want to do is actually observe the real world.
I'm happy to consider scripture, but you must convince me that it is a reliable source of information. It seems that the more I learn about it, everything seems to indicate the opposite.
to those who they donot belive in god
see if you can get yourself another earth to live in,another sky to cover your head,the air that you breath around the clock,see if you can afford another supplier,stop eating and drinking.if death come to you see if you can stop it.hi ho the holy, life is most jolly
( only when you praise the holy ).
Mo.
critics often say about a really good CD that "it is self-recommending"
your post is "self-annihilating"
the scary thing is that it is people like you who are apt to annihilate the world.
you are at least exhibit A for how religious extremism is a form of insanity.
Mo, no MO, please.
Mo:
"see if you can get yourself another earth to live in,another sky to cover your head"
No, I can't, can you?
I didn't think so. So we'd better start looking after this one instead of pretending that God will fix things.
i submit for your approval (its twilight zone marathon tonight) that the science of consciousness simply hasnt been discovered yet- i worked with a man for awhile who was one of 5 people on the planet at honeywell bull- he was a specialist in artificial intelligence and is working on a program to teach computers how to dream- (1987) perhaps some day science will have mastered the material and can move on to the last frontier- the mind
humbly
Mr. Meachem
your question already implies that atheism is a passing "vogue" like a new skirt length, while religion is "the real thing", trying to put anybody who disagrees into an awkward defense position to start with. May I call this a dirty trick?
Looking at this fruitless discussion, may I offer an observation:
The feeling of being in the possession of „Eternal Truth“ is like a drug: You are unable even to imagine giving it up or even reducing the dosis.
That is fine for you since it guarantees a maximum degree of security and happiness. People use drugs always to achieve some sort of happiness.
This warm and cozy feeling, together with its more or less intellectual rationalization (including every sort of pertaining hypocrisy), is located in the network of the neurons in your brain. They are wired in a certain pattern depending on your biography, which in turn depends on your social experience (birth, country, language, upbringing, school, intellectual tools, friends, fights, successes, failures etc..) Everybody has his/her unique pattern, but many, of course, are similar.
It is extremely difficult for whatever we have as free will to modify the wiring of those neurons in the brain without a considerable effort to give up the drug of „Eternal Truth“ in favour of a creative amount of doubt. To process new, even bewildering information about life and nature in a reasoned, objective, provable way (provable, of course, means provable by others!) might include the risk of taking away some of your established cozy certainty.
In communications research people talk of open and closed systems. Atheists tend to be curious, ready to expand, to learn (open system), believers are certain (closed system, at least so they pretend!). Choose one. But please, don’t force your brand of drug on others!
And, Victoria, your friends are not the first ones to occupy their minds with the research of the mind!
Gerry
actually gerry i modified it in another post to the seen and unseen- im sure that others must be-thats why i dated it-
gerry- i have had the same criticism of religious practices for some time- ive posted at lenghth about different practices and how they all seem to be reduced to "feeling good" i called it pursuing sensory experiences- yogis- emotional pentacostals-
buddhists- im not trying to attack just give examples theyre all welcome to their pursuits but it has never satisfied me or been an end for me-
i am sincerely trying to refine my soul and if i ever seem apologetic or lowkey about it i dont like to speak in absolutes becuase i think it is exclusionary language- well time for bbc and to pray
peace
I want to apologize for lumping all Christians together with the "intelligent design" crowd in my last post. I realize that many Christians do not support ID.
Hi Kate and Greg--
Actually, I am very aware that about 1/3 of atheists tend to vote Republican and about 1/3 of Christians who identify themselves as (strongly) religious -- vote Democrat.
But “I” did not make up the association of George W Bush as a “good Christian” . Bush held himself out as a super Christian (even saying the Bible was his only favorite book.) I personally know a number of people who voted for Bush because he had sold them how “sincere” and “good” a Christian he was. Many of them heard this message in their churches.
Kerry was demonized for being a “bad” Christian during the last presidential campaign. It was so hypocritical when Republicans put out fliers in West Virginia and other states showing a cover of a Bible with a slash through it – to dramatize that Democrats wanted to destroy Christianity.
Now there were a small handful of preachers who spoke out against these right wing ploys (which I saw as bordering on fascism). But most mainstream churches seemed content to go along. It was crass hypocrisy for me, considering Bush was slashing funds for the poor, while creating huge deficits by giving the very wealthy huge tax breaks.
So while I agree there are some GREAT Christians – my question is why were so many of them silent while this demonization campaign was going on? Can they now really say they were not allied with Bush after all?
I have many religious friends, and (it seems obvious to me) religion by itself is not the problem. The problem is today’s right wing POLITICAL alliance with RELIGION (which many-- including myself-- would argue espouse the **OPPOSITE** of what Jesus’ teachings were in the New Testament – e.g. glorifying greed and wars; and employing hate scapegoats such as gays, evolution, secular humanists, abortion, and most recently, liberals--interesting, because I would argue Jesus was a liberal.)
And I really don’t care what a person believes in, if s/he doesn’t hurt anyone; But harming others includes empowering a person (like Bush) who does the evil.
And what do I mean by evil? Lying about unnecessary wars to enrich large US oil and construction industries, filling federal agencies with lobbyists from industries who have slashed environmental laws to protect the public, showering massive tax cuts for the very rich while creating large deficits in the Treasury for the next generation; Doing nothing about our real energy crisis and papering this over by gagging scientists on the dangers of global warming; having a foreign policy that embraces torture and kangaroo courts and has made the US an embarrassment for moral leadership in the world. Today more people in the world list Bush as a greater threat to the world than Bin Laden.
So is Bush a good Christian? By the silence from most Churches, many would never doubt it.
Good morning Warp 10. As you noted, Bush labeled himself a Christian. Actions speak louder than words. As for churches, I think alot of them spoke this last election, don't you. Remember, churches are people, not some monolithic building where one person answers all for everybody. The silence you heard on election day was almost deafening, wouldn't you say. Hope everyone survived last night --
Greg,
The simplest answer to you is to firstly ask you to reach agreement with every other theist on the planet on what 'god' actually means before asking me whether or not I can say with 100% certainty whether it exists. Plainly and simply I have no intention to debate the point with every variable which occurs today or has ever occurred in history. Reach agreeance on what constitutes the characteristics of 'god' and then you'll have the right to ask that question.
Secondly, I repeat back your words/phrasing with some slight adjustment:
"{Many} christians express a degree of absolute certainty that is hard to come by for anything in life .... You cannot say with absolute certainty there is a God, or even if 'god' is accepted as truth, that Jesus was 'his' son. You may 'believe' so, but you cannot be absolutely, 100% certain."
Should I ask that you stop considering yourself christian until you can say that you are such with 100% certainty? Would you be a fool if you did say such a thing? Does this lack of absolute certainty in the existance of 'god(s)' mean that no one person is truly a theist? Or does this mean any 'true' theist - someone with 100% certainty - must therefore be a fool?
Thirdly, I'm going to have the gall to presume you might be interested on an outline of how I came to my current atheist stance. Note this is just my story, and you cannot expect any two atheists to come to atheism through the same path.
I feel I do understand the sense of awe and wonder that theists perceive as their god(s). Been there, done that. When I was a child I lived in a country area for a good length of time. I camped under the stars on occasions and, gazing up at them, was overwhelmed with wonder at the enormity of the universe and my insignificant place within it. When I was able to get time by myself I spent hours contemplating things like a small rock, a tree, an insect, a slight afternoon breeze ... and was dumbstruck by their beauty and intricacy. If I today allowed any theistic title to be tagged on to me it would have nothing to do with a notion of 'Jesus is the son of god' but would be one which worships the beauty that we see in our environment. The 'divinity' of our land, of our planet itself. It amazes me that so many indigenous cultures had it so right in respect of their connection to the land and yet to this day 'civilised' people still think sending out their faithful to convert indigenous groups to the 'one true god' is somehow an honorable thing to do. A 'calling' even. It amazes me that we have a world around us which is truly heaven, or can be, yet we allow it to fall to pieces as we sit around endlessly debating topics which are astounding in their arrogance. Like whether 'god' would want gays to be able to raise children. Thinking of this continuing travesty regularly brings me to tears.
I've mentioned in a previous post that I went through a period where I was trying to find a reason to believe. After having read through the bible, and as a result having rejected christianity, for a while I had faith that 'god' could be found in that sense of awe and wonder you get when contemplating our land, our universe, our reality. Then one day I had a bit of a personal epiphany when I realised when I referred to 'god', what I was really referring to was my lack of knowledge. 'God' for me was simply those awe inspiring things I knew I would never be able to fully comprehend, so to label them, to define it in a way my insignificant brain could handle, I named them 'god'. From that moment of epiphany until this day being an atheist for me is simply a way of being truthful to my self. Speaking truth to the power of my ignorance.
Just as we use 'cold' in place of 'absence of heat', we use
Atheism has become more common because:
1. Many mysteries historically attributed to divine intervention have been explained.
2. Church and family have lost influence in shaping young minds (vs. the media)
3. Exposure to a wide variety of cultures has re-enforced that there is no single of view of God for all of mankind (hence no single religion can claim their God is THE God).
Good people, both faithful and atheists can agree:
1. Many religions provide a structure that can help improve behavior and provide hope
2. Bringing people together to better mankind is a good thing
3. We have lot of work to do to stop cruelty, selfishness, bigotry, and hate.
December 27, 2006 6:02 PM