Atheists?
 

I'm just wondering how many (if any) other atheists there are here on CD?

Note: If there's already something for this, sorry, I searched and only came up with slightly similar threads (on the topic of religion) both from over a year ago

Re: Atheists?
 

this isn't a response to the mormon thread is it? :)

in any case, im atheist

Re: Atheists?
 

w00t! Go atheists :D

Re: Atheists?
 

I hold no religious beliefs.

Still waiting for that thunderbolt from the sky,
-Andy A.

Re: Atheists?
 

I'm Agnostic, I've got some friends from other teams that are atheist though. All from the Holland area.

Re: Atheists?
 

All:

The Chief Delphi forums are for FIRST programs and robot discussions.
This is not a religious forum.

Please no more posts here, and will a moderator please close this thread.

Re: Atheists?
 

At the risk of raising the spectre of discussions long past, I would be willing to argue that this thread, in this forum, is appropriate and within the spirit of the Chit-Chat forum. Additionally, nothing that has been posted in this topic has violated any of the ChiefDelphi.com rules.

As long as this, or any other religion-based thread, is kept flame-free, I'm all for it.

Re: Atheists?
 

As requested by Brandon and others on this forum, I'm closing this thread before it gets bad.

Focus on robots, guys - not religion. Thanks.

Re: Atheists?
 

First of all, if you really tried to lock these threads it didn't work :p

Second, if we can have a Match-Making thread (ancient history I know) then I have no problem with people trying to find their co-religionists here on CD. Yes, Atheism is a religion by the classical definition, not one I subscribe to but one none the less.

One of the purposes of CD is a place for people to meet and share common interests. One of those interests is robots, religion is a legitimate interest as well, as is finding interesting people of your prefered gender. Finding those people who share both an interest in robots and a particular set of religious beliefs with you is an OK thing to do here.

As long as it stays in the proper sub-forum and there are no flame wars, if people want to talk, let them talk. It probably wouldn't hurt to keep a close eye on these sorts of threads to ensure things stay civil. But really, must we cut off all discussion of a subject that is important to people just because something might happen or somebody might be offended? I see nothing wrong with anything posted in either of the current religion-related threads except an attempt to shutdown a legitimate and calm discussion.

If Brandon really wants this thread closed I'm sure he could do a much better job.

Re: Atheists?
 

The threads were locked; another moderator must have unlocked them. *shrug*

I was asked to close these threads ("and put as the reason for closing is that posters should focus on the robots") while Brandon - and most of the other moderators - were in Atlanta. I was the only moderator around who had access to the chit-chat forum at the time, so I was the one who closed them. Doing so did not reflect my personal opinion, which runs closer to what you said above.

Re: Atheists?
 

I opened it back up until we figure out what we're going to do about threads like this.

Re: Atheists?
 

Since religion is basically a statement and a way of life, it is not really all that much different then posting I am female and am part of the FIRST Robotics program.

So yeah. I am atheist too.

~ Jill

Re: Atheists?
 

I'm going to quickly mention that if I had started an Atheist Robotics Union a year ago and had members, say to the tune of the RCU, this would be a non-issue. Or better yet, if I were to ask if there were 'any other Muslim people on the forums,' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is the Chit-Chat Forum, where "Any off-topic discussion should happen," and the rules are the rules; bearing in mind that rules can be changed by ChiefDelphi, I think petty attempts at censorship don't reflect well on us. This is meant a general statement (a rant really) and it's not a pointing of a finger... but why am I consistently seeing atheists being discriminated against over the years I've been active on the forums? I personally think atheists are more than respectful to theistic religions, comparitively.

Re: Atheists?
 

I think it's great the way people involved in FIRST always try so hard not to argue. It's a good sign that all the talk of Gracious Professionalism is working.

Re: Atheists?
 

All:

I acted based on my understanding of the CD position on these types of subjects, and have learned that I probably acted too quicky in this case.
Judgement error on my part.

The CD leadership is working to develop and define a policy, and when issued, I will do my part to work to it - whatever position it is.

Apologies if I offended anyone or made anyone feel they were being singled out for their beliefs. That was absolutely not my intention.

Re: Atheists?
 

I agree that this should be open, and if this topic offends you, then you should maybe open your eyes a little more to reality? there are people all over the world with different beliefs and everyone should be entitled to their opinion. It does seem that if this were about another personal issue not about religion it would not be a problem, and as far as i can see it follows all the rules from ChiefDelphi.
I am also atheist and support this discussion group : )
thanks guys
Ben
TEAM 281

Re: Atheists?
 

Well I'll just chime in and say that I am also athiest.

Onto the discussion of whether this thread should exist or not, beyond the debate of whether or not the thread should exist there has yet to be no bickering or flaming that I have seen, which is, as far as I know, the reason for the controversy. Maybe we all have a little more gracious professionalism that we thought.

Re: Atheists?
 

I'm glad to see this thread back open . I was angery to see this thread closed since there was lengthy discussion about the Jewish Seder at Nationals. As if the moderators were trying to encourage religious conformity into Christianity or Judaism.

Re: Atheists?
 

I don't think it's fair to say ChiefDelphi (or any moderators representing Chief Delphi) were trying to force a religion onto someone. They were doing what they could to try to prevent a large scale flame war from breaking out. Nearly all forums I've been on in the last couple of years have had a thread like this opened... and there were about 3 forums that had to be shut down because nobody was visiting them since the thread started.

ChiefDelphi was just trying to protect their forums from a controversial subject. Hopefully with GP this will be a credible thread, and not just a bunch of people discriminating against someone else's religion.

Re: Atheists?
 

Since religious posts have been acceptable in the past I think this thread should not have different rules. This thread was closed preemptively; there weren’t any negative or inflammatory posts. Everyone on this forum posts using Gracious Professionalism, Atheists included. It was closed simply because of the subject. One might say that it was to prevent argumentative posts. I “call it as I see it,” and from my perspective it was an attempt to censor the Atheist viewpoint.

Re: Atheists?
 

Yes, religious posts have been acceptable in the past, but there hasn't been an Atheist post in the past. From what I've seen in the past, any post about Atheism/Agnosticism/Paganism usually results in a flame war, which justifies the pre-emptive closing of the thread. I also never said Atheist's didn't post without using Gracious Professionalism. You said everyone here posts with Gracious Professionalism, is it graciously professional to close a thread because of the thread starters religion? Please don't accuse people of discrimination without some rock hard solid proof. Now before you say that I am trying to censor Atheism, I believe that this thread should be open as long as people who post in it use Gracious Professionalism.

Re: Atheists?
 

Your perspective is wrong.

Re: Atheists?
 

whoa...I had no idea I would spur such a debate. I didn't know about the other fourms, mostly this was just attempt to see if there were many (if any) others on CD.

Re: Atheists?
 

I don't think there was any 'censorship' going on here. The Mormon thread was closed and reopened the same time this one was. They both got closed for fear that religious threads do tend to get out of hand but were reopened. I guess I don't see what the problem is since that was resolved. Anyways, I'm agnostic, I think.

Re: Atheists?
 

As Brandon pointed out earlier, this is an issue for the community that needs to be resolved with some semblance of specificity or else the mods won't know what to do and will act inconsistently. To close or not to close has been discussed and debated ad nauseam and to no foreseeable conclusion. And this thread tells me that ChiefDelphi (and its mods) need to present a rule to be followed regardless of what posters think of it sooner rather than later. It's up to you guys, because clearly the community can't and never will agree. Institute a rule and tell the mods to enforce it, or there will be another one of "this kind of thread" in the next two months and the cycle will repeat. From my persective (and please don't tell me my perspective is "wrong," because that makes no sense) there are two overwhelming schools of thought expressed in the community upon which the Powers that Be could base this rule:

1) Religious/Political/National issues can be discussed so long as threads of this kind don't tread onto the primacy of one belief or attempt to discredit another.

• precedent was set in the God thread that a (for the most part) scholarly and logical discussion of beliefs was probably crossing the line, because people are easily offended
• everyone has an opinion that they naturally want to express
• this broadens the scope of the forums and the community
• good for everyone that can handle forming an argument, and very bad for the minority of people who can't

2) We should as a community avoid all such discussion -- pretend it doesn't exist on the forums, which are for FIRST discussion anyway -- and we will be better for it.

• I can think of at least two respected posters that completely ignore this on all three counts in every post however it's not like they belong to this school of thought anyway
• keeps the forums focused on their original purpose
• will reduce flaming, pretty much guaranteed
• might drive away some posters who don't care for "dry secularism"

I'm going to refer to the mods as a single entity, because clearly they are trying to (and should) present as cohesive and consistent an image as possible to the community. A mod told Mike Dubreuil that his "perspective is wrong." I think the meaning of this is clear; it was never the intention of the moderators to do anything so vile as to censor a belief. I believe that. I have two things to say to that. First, what happened resembles the employment law term "indirect discrimination" in that it is unintentional and actively well-meaning but has a deliterious effect on some group. I would be lying if I didn't see the perceived merits in stopping discussion of the foundations of Mormonism (as Evulish mentioned) or Atheism. Secondly, I think the mods gave in to a request (or a series of requests) that had no justification other than "this is bad so you should close it," and did as they were asked, not based on any rule they were supposed to follow. I wasn't too impressed. Now feel free to tell me this isn't the case, but it sure is what appears to have happened.

My point is this: someone in charge needs to, with some urgency, institute a rule about expressing beliefs and opinions and tell the mods to enforce it with the ferocity of the Gestapo, or else controversy will pop up every time a lowly poster like me utters the words god, Iraq, or Bush.

Re: Atheists?
 

A clear ruling is being worked on, along with other rule-related decisions. It's up to the coaches to figure out what is best for the team and our sponsors. I can't make the decision .. the moderator's can't make the decision .. and in a call like this, the community can't vote on a decision. I know they're working on getting together to discuss it .. just give it time.

Re: Atheists?
 

Another forum I go on has a sub forum called Hot Topics. Basically, it is a forum for politics, religion, etc. The threads are watches semi-carefully, and there is no flaming allowed. Perhaps those who wish to express religious beliefs or political affiliations could do so in a similar forum?

Re: Atheists?
 

Wow! has this thread gone off topic permanently?!

Im not an atheist, but I do find the idea interesting from a philosophy perspective. Im wondering, do atheist define gods in the traditional sense?

is it only the gods of established religions that they believe do not exist?

where would you draw the line? Do atheists believe there could be life in other star systems?

if so, could that life be so far advanced from us that they would be god-like?

could they be what we would call spiritual beings (as opposed to physical?)

is it a matter of creation? god created the universe? or could it be that some alien life form created humanity and seeded our planet?

I guess Im trying to understand exactly what it means to be an atheist?

Re: Atheists?
 

What does it mean to not believe in ghosts?

All it means to me is that I don't hold any religious beliefs. I believe that no being is a god, or god like. Everything and everyone follows the same basic rules, even when we don't fully understand them. I believe that with enough time and effort, anything can be understood. I believe nothing is magical, nothing is miracle, and nothing is a Divine act. I believe we are the source of all the good and all the evil in our world. I believe that when we die, we die.

I have religious friends who are convinced I'm cheating my self. I don't think I am. I simply don't feel the need for a god in my life. I get along fine with out Him (or Her or They or any variation you want). Meaning in my life comes from my desire to do good for the sake of my fellow man, not to please Him or because He wants it to be so. I strive to make things better, just as any religious practitioner would, but with out the religion. I relish being a good person because I want to be a good person, not because I've been told to be. Maybe some people need religion, I don't.

No one event or situation 'drove' me to atheism. I didn't decide one day that I was going to be an atheist from then on. I just never felt that any religious explanation fit, or that I required any religious guidance to be a good person. So if I don't believe in any god, I am an atheist by definition.

I don't mean to say that Atheism is right, and religious beliefs are wrong. But they are for me. We must all chose what explanations we want to believe. As long as you follow the basic rule (Be good), I don't really care what you believe. It simply doesn't, and shouldn't, matter to anyone but you what god you do or do not believe in. Just be good.

Thats my take on it, anyway. Others are likely to disagree, and thats OK. Everyone needs to figure this stuff out for themselves.

I do get really annoyed when people call Atheism a religion though. It's like calling bald a hair colour.

-Andy A.

Re: Atheists?
 

Some atheists are more respectful than other atheists.

When I was an atheist (became one while my parents were still dragging me to church every week), I was annoyed by the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. But I didn't go around loudly demanding a court decision to remove those words, because I knew most people believe in some kind of God and I believed they had a right to their beliefs. And I think any atheist who also believes in the rightness of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights would have a similar viewpoint. My solution was to not say those words.

But some atheists seem to think that anyone who mentions anything about God or religious beliefs or scriptures in their presence is violating their rights. One result of this kind of attitude is that these days, most public school curricula completely exclude God or religious viewpoints, thereby favoring atheism over any form of deism. And in some classrooms, if the teacher allows free reading time, students may read any book whatsoever, EXCEPT their own Bibles.

Which is worse? Being sent to the principal's office for refusing to say "Under God?" Or for reading your favorite book? I think that, through the perspective of the First Amendment, either case constitutes a violation of religious freedom (call it freedom of belief if you prefer).

The problem, of course, is that the rights of at least two different groups are in conflict. This is an inevitable result of having rights in the first place. Attitudes such as Gracious Professionalism (or just plain graciousness) are the only way people on the polar opposite ends of belief can get along. And I'm afraid there will always be some people in any belief system who go about making life harder for others by being insensitive, mean-spirited, or worse.

Re: Atheists?
 

You trivialize atheism greatly with your questions. Atheism is simply the lack of a theistic belief, a belief in the existence of god(s). Not all atheists are rationalists (or, ‘one should only believe what one has rational reason to believe’) who take the principles of Occam’s Razor and Tripartite Theory to heart; for example, some don’t believe in god(s) on the basis of the Problem of Evil or because they reject premises of the Cosmological Argument, and some follow a religion that has no concept of a god. Atheism is a very broad outlook that consists of different reasoning, and is not a religion, though there are many religions which can be described as atheistic (Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism don’t mention god for example), just as how many religions believe Jesus was more than an ordinary man. It doesn't necessarily preclude the belief in the supernatural or holy, but is simply a disbelief in a deity – being a person upon whom our fate ultimately depends exclusively and whose power is infinitely greater than our own – or multiple gods which form the same purpose of a deity (another philosophical debate revolves around whether there is really a distinction between multiple omnipotent beings and one singular being, a definite description). God is almost always defined in philosophical circles as the great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) define him, wherein God functions as a definite description, and this is the main reason people get confused around the definition of “god” in philosophical arguments.

I’m sure some atheists believe there is life in other solar systems, but most theists and atheists alike will agree there is a gaping hole in your logic when you equate powerful beings with gods. Atheism, as I described earlier, clearly does not have anything to do with this. In a theistic world, Star Trek’s Q could exist, as he could exist in an atheistic one. For one thing, Q is neither our creator, nor divine. For another, judging by what he does to the Enterprise, he is not infinitely good, as the great religions say god is.

So that’s what atheism means. I doubt that’s what TheShadow meant when he asked what other atheists were on the forum, but so-called ‘positive atheism’ is unquestionably not the only type of atheism exhibited by ChiefDelphi posters. I personally am surprised there aren’t more atheists here; after all, most scientists are atheists, and ChiefDelphi is a breeding ground for young scientists.

Re: Atheists?
 

Heh, I like the philisophical aspect of this kinda stuff too. Have you checked out Deism, Agnosticisim, or Existentialism?

Existentialism is my favorite :)

Re: Atheists?
 

lots of good points in your post. I guess one would have to define what God is in order to state their opinion on whether that being exists or not.

I dont agree with your take on eastern religions - they do have a belief in god, but the difference is that we can attain that status ourselves - we can tap into cosmic conscousness, and achieve an equal participation, like buddah did.

If you toss creation into the mix then it opens up problems. Eastern religions teach the universe has always existed, so there was no creation, therefore no creator - Science has shown the universe is expanding from a single point, at an accelerating rate, so it will never collapse back on itself - therefore the big bang was the creation of the universe. At first there was nothing, then it exploded

what exploded? nothing did! :ahh:

dont think about that too long or blood will gush out of your nose :^)

What am I getting at? I guess creation must be at the core of God with a capitol G, right? in that sense an alien with abilities and power that we would perceive as supernatural would seem god-like to us - and if one came here he could easily claim to be god, and many would follow him. But unless he could create matter and energy and life, and time itself, out of nothing, he could not have created the universe. so he would fail the 'god test' on that point.

I dont know that I agree that we are able to understand everything about the universe. Its very likely there are aspects to the universe that we have neither the senses or the intellectual capacity to understand, or even to observe. Try to explain color to a blind person. They can learn the words, but they cant experience it or understand it, not really. And you certainly cant paint a landscape if you cant see the sky or the paint.

Your assertion that most scientists are atheists, I think that most young scientist might be atheists (college students) - but the more you study physics, esp astro and quantum physics, there are things there, if you really grasp it, that lead us to believe the universe cant be real.

How was it put? its as if the universe is only a simulation in the mind of God. One famous scientist (I forget his name at the moment) was so disturbed by the paradoxes in quantum physics that it literally blew his mind, and tragically he ended his life. He could not accept the idea that the universe might not be 'real' at all.

Personally I try to keep an open mind.

Re: Atheists?
 

Just as a very religious friend of mine (girlfriend, to be precise) can't imagine living in a world with out God, I can't imagine living in a universe that has secrets that humans will never be able to figure out. The notion that humans are just not cut out to understand the 'really tricky stuff' bothers me.

I still maintain that, with enough time and effort, humanity can understand any aspect of the universe. The analogy of explaining color to a blind man is a good one. But then, even now there are rudimentary artificial eyes that allow the blind to see light and even simple shapes. So, instead of trying to explain light to a blind man, we are on the verge of giving him the sense its self. It's pretty cool medicine, and I think also analogous to how humanity will deal with all the 'really screwy' problems of the universe that are simply beyond our ape brains. We'll invent a better brain.

It'll take some time, but we'll get this universe figured out. I can't think of any reason why we can't.

-Andy A

Re: Atheists?
 

the example of color and blindness only works because blindness is a handicap - people who can see do understand color

so we can grasp the difference of what the one person experiences compaired to a blind person. 'Fixing' the blind person is cheating.

one simple example. we understand things by creating a mental model. If we can build a model in our minds we can grasp it

but our minds are finite

Remember when you first learned of infinity? Our minds cant grasp it. How can the universe go on forever in one direction?

actaully, it cant. Before the big bang there was no time and there was no empty space either! We think of space as being nothing, but there was no nothing!

as the universe expands that boundary between 3 dimensional space, and the nothing-nothing outside it expands - time does not exist outside that boundary

how can that be? My mind cant grasp the idea of empty space not being there beyond the edge of the universe

but thats what the laws of physics require.

I dont think we can understand everything. That doesnt mean we should not try to grasp as much as we can.

Re: Atheists?
 

Actually the laws of physics needs a unified theory before we can be making any conclusions about anything. It's annoying but there has to be a single theory that combine all four forces.Actually.... a better example would be picking up the book flatland. In fact that is the whole point of the book. For all we know there could be a million dimenions that exist but we can only see the effects of them in the dimensions we can see which is why the circle saw the cube as being flat.(Please don't yell at me if I got the shapes wrong. I got the basic idea.)

Re: Atheists?
 

I think the progress of science is a continuous reminder that there is more out there to understand than can ever be understood.

As far as atheism, I'm atheist. I was raised catholic (and still am) but in recent years i've passed through different levels of agnosticism and now i am almost purely atheist. I think the matter of "what atheist is", which has been discussed a lot in this thread, is more complicated than defining "God". I also believe that a person can be atheist in certain ways, but not others.

For example, although I highly doubt the existance of an all-powerful spirit that created the universe we live in, I do not rule it out. It may not comply with scientific laws, but the concept makes sense.

I am 100% convinced that no afterlife exists - at least not in any way remotely resembling that which is depicted by various religions. I find that the existing ideas about an afterlife do not comply with logic. I use this arguement to pick apart the common idea of an afterlife:

• the common idea of an afterlife is that when we die our "spirit" move on to another life, but what is our "spirit"?
• if a spirit is supposed to be everything non-physical about us
  • how would our memory be transfered, since our memory is stored as physical information in our brain?
  • our personality is also the product of what is in our brain, would we lose that too?
  • since everything that makes us "us" is stored physically in our brain, would our "spirit" just be a blank slate consisting of nothing but our stream of consiousness?
  • if so,
    • how could the supposed "final judgement" be passed upon all of these theoretically identical entities?
    • would this even count as an afterlife, or is it just "recycling" the soul?
• if a spirit is supposed to be an imprint of our mind, rescued from our body before death
  • what happens to the brain-damaged? are they eternally cursed to a less enjoyable afterlife?
  • what about those who are braindead entirely? would they be able to experience their afterlife at all?
  • what about people who die because their brain is destroyed? are they lost too?

i personally think that people believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of ceasing to exist when they die. i don't think that is really something to be afraid of.

i can tell you one thing: when i no longer exist, i won't care much, will i?

Re: Atheists?
 

computers make the quetions of body and mind and spirit a little easier to grasp.

I think your soul is like the SW that runs on a computer. If I take a blank CD and weigh it, then put $1000 worth the SW on it, and weigh it again, the CD weight is exactly the same

therefore, SW has no mass - therefore SW is not confind by the laws of physics. It can travel faster than the speed of light (mass = 0) and it is eternal. The embodiement of it in our physical world is not eternal, but we can make copies of copies of copies, and that SW can exist forever without being changed or diminished in the slightest 'bit'

likewise our souls.

Our bodies then are the HW. You install SW on a computer and it controls what that computer will do, within its HW limitations. You put WORD on a 186 and it will run slow, but it will be the same SW as if you put it on a 1G Pentium

The HW limits what the 'soul' can do, but the character of what it wants to do is the same.

Memories - I can use WORD for years and build up a lot of doc files on a hard drive. Erase the HD and all those files are gone, but I can reinstall the SW (WORD) on a new machine, and it will be the same WORD that was on the old one - it just wont remember all the papers that had been written with it.

Spirit is a little more tricky. People use spirit and soul interchangably, but I think that is a mistake. I think our spirit was the counterpart to our phycial bodies, that we interacted with the spiritual world through. our soul connects to the physical world through our body, and our soul use to interact with the spiritual world (Gods domain) through our spirit

and that is unique about the christian religion - that our spirits were lost back when Adam messed up, and to be the way we were intended, our spirits must be 'born-again'

reconnecting us with God - like hooking up the network cable again.

Thats my take on it - I could be totally out in the woods, but if I am, its kinda nice out here in the woods :^)

I think there are things about us, our souls, that control who we are, that control our character - Christianity teaches that we will be given new bodies (a HW upgrade) in the afterlife, we wont be disembodies souls floating around - When Jesus was ressurected He didnt simply come back to life in His old body, He was different - so different that people didnt recognize Him.

how much of this current life experience will be uploaded into that new body? I dont know.

Re: Atheists?
 

Your description of your current beliefs--not ruling out the deity whose existence you doubt--closely describes what I believed when I was an agnostic. No matter what "level" of an atheist or an agnostic you are, you cannot still be catholic (Roman Catholic) in your religion. For example, how can you go to Confession, if you don't believe in God? If there is no God, then you cannot have sinned against God, and therefore have no sins to confess! (If you are still feeling guilty, can you be an atheist? ;) )

Anyway, I am amazed when people say that they are Catholic, but are also atheist, or not Christians, or something else that is definitely out of line with Roman Catholic teachings. Most demographers consider Roman Catholicism to belong in the category of Christian religion (belief in God the Creator, Jesus Christ the Savior and Son of God, etc.). Is there now a valid concept that Catholicism is some kind of ethnic rather than religious category?

I'm wondering, how can you say you are "still" Catholic? What do you mean by this?

People often wonder about what will happen to them in the future. High school students may wonder what college will be like, and try to imagine their life in college. Similarly, people may wonder what dying, death, and the afterlife will be like, because these are all future events. Dying is often very painful, and most people are afraid of pain. So, people are often afraid of death and/or dying.

If, after death, consciousness ceases forever--well, try to imagine yourself not existing. Blank. Nothing. It is an unimaginable future. I think many people's minds sort of short circuit when they try to imagine not existing. You can daydream about college, or your future career, or marriage to a Special Somebody. You cannot daydream about your own nonexistence, as seen through your own nonexistent eyes! Belief in an afterlife may be less about fear, and more about what's incomprehensible.

Re: Atheists?
 

I like your analogy; it's a very interesting argument, but I take issue with the first premise. A CD is encoded with a series of physical bumps that represent zeros in binary. A CD burner uses the heat from a laser to chemically change the translucency of CD-R dye via phase shifting. These are both physical and observable changes, just as how a floppy disk is magnetized. In any case, mass is not a measure of how substantial something is (just as how software's alleged ability to "travel faster than light" doesn't make it any less grounded in the laws of physics). You can't weigh, for example, an idea, or a concept, such as "dignity" (nor can you draw dignity, to which Simpsons fans will attest). A CD (or similar storage device) is not magically imbued with information; it is physically changed in a manner devised by engineers such that it can be read by a machine devised by engineers. While I'm sure a lot of people on this forum would like to equate engineering with god, I personally don't buy it. Therefore your conclusion that software -- and therefore a soul -- gets to forego the laws of physics is fallacious.

The bottom line is this: Mike -- in addition to pointing out that our thoughts are as far as we know the simple product of neurons firing -- raised some philosophical questions of a religious nature that both religion and science will never be able to answer to any reasonable degree of epistemic satisfaction. Based on this information however, I think it's easy to see his position on why there isn't enough information to justify the existence of a soul.

Like Karen however, I would like to know what Mike meant about still being a Catholic, whether he meant it in an ethnic sense, I suppose in the way Robert Novak is a Jewish Catholic.

Re: Atheists?
 

Well it looks like this thread has gotten kind of back on track.

I am not an atheist but then again I don't like to consider myself in any religion. I like to think I am in my own little religion. I believe that God created evolution for one instance.


My opinion on atheists are just like any other religion or race, they all have their goods and bads, but all in all its just another brick in the wall...wait wait wait wait....i mean all in all they are all just people.

Re: Atheists?
 

Ok, I have held off on joining this discussion long enough. Generally, I steer away from the political/controversial threads. However, since this thread seems to be keeping relatively calm (considering the topic that is being discussed), I think I will share my opinions with the CD community. Keep in mind that my experience with religion is mostly of a Christian background - I do not claim to make accurate judgments of other world religions. In this case, I will be using Christian examples for the most part.

I am an agnostic, meaning that I believe that one can never know for sure whether there is or is not a God or gods, and that I do not deny or endorse the existence of a higher power(s). I used to be a Christian - I was raised as Christian, and both of my parents are Christian, although they belong to different denominations. In my eighth grade year, however, I started to question my beliefs in God shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Number one, I simply could not believe that God could have allowed the attacks to take place, and kill so many people. I had never questioned this aspect about God before, because all of the violence in the world that I would hear about on the news seemed so distant.

When 9/11 struck, however, I felt that my world had been turned upside down, and all of a sudden, violent death and destruction was only 2 hours away from my house. I did not understand why a being with so much power could allow innocent people to die - ruin the lives of thousands of husbands, wives, children, and loved ones. At age 13, I was beginning to mature more and more intellectually, and it led me to think about the rest of the world - all of the wars, people starving to death, children dying - and I wondered to myself... "If I were God, I would never EVER let people have to suffer, or die unjustly, or allow the preconditions to exist in the FIRST PLACE to let those things happen!" This was the beginning of the loss of my faith.

The other thing that led me to lose my faith was the sermons that were being preached shortly after 9/11 in my mother's church. The pastor in my church viewed the events of 9/11 and the war in Israel as signs of the second coming (the end of the world according to Christians). Now, let me tell you, [1] having your world turned upside down by the 9/11 attacks and struggling to comprehend them, PLUS [2] being told that the world was about to end, was a very stressful thing for a child. Everything I knew as being true - the stability of knowing that the world was going to stay here, and knowing that people are basically good, and believing that life in general is basically good - was being challenged by these events in my life. I did not want the world to end, and I was terrified of it every day. I wondered how God would create a world he was only going to destroy - my world, the only thing that I have - and give people free will only so that they can choose to kill each other, and allow terrible things to happen and ruin people's lives.

One of my main problem with the Christian religion (I am not very knowledgeable of other world religions) is this idea of God's "gift" of free will to human beings. Why did God choose to give Adam and Eve free will, knowing that they would choose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Yes, he HAD to know, because according to the Bible, God is omnipotent. Why on earth did he choose to put an evil thing in the garden of Eden, with the full knowledge that it would spell destruction of the world and would cause millions upon millions of people pain and suffering? How can Christians claim that God is all-loving, when he spelled out our own fate to suffer upon the earth that he created? It is almost like putting a chocolate bar in front of a two-year old, telling them not to eat it because it is bad for them, and then walking away - later coming back to find that the two year old had eaten the chocolate bar, and deciding not only to banish them from your home, but banish all of their future descendants as well. Yes, the analogy is extreme, but is it really all that different from what God chose to do to Adam and Eve? Does not sound very nice or loving or forgiving AT ALL to me.

The other problem that I have is the idea of the coexistence of good and evil according to Christianity. According to the Bible, God made everything in the Universe - the angels, the earth, humans, flora and fauna. According to the Bible, God is also perfect. So wouldn't all of the things he created also be perfect? However, the things that God created were not perfect - in fact, so flawed that one of his own angels, Lucifer, decided to rebel against him and ultimately was banished to hell and become known as Satan. If you follow this logic, then technically God created evil. He also created evil when he chose to place the Tree of Knowledge and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. How can an all-loving, perfect God create evil? Create the very thing that causes pain and suffering in this world? How is God therefore perfect? How can we trust him? Why did he create evil in the first place, if he knew that it would cause so many iniquities and terrors in the future? Why does he banish people to hell for acting in the way that he created them to act? None of this is fair!

I have problems not only with the Christian religion, but organized religion as a whole. Lets look at it this way:

The most difficult people you will encounter in life are those who believe that they are inarguably, unquestionably, right. In the work place, the most difficult coworkers you will find are going to be the ones who wont listen to you, or have an open mind about any other ideas besides their own. If you are an engineer, and you are working on a design project, you will not want people on your team who will be so steadfast about what they think, that they are absolutely unwilling to let their ideas be modified or not even used at all.

In the same way, organized religion creates factions of people who believe that they are unarguably, unquestionably, right. This simple fact is what leads to the religious wars that have occurred throughout history and are continuing still today. It is what has lead to the unnecessary, unjust killings of thousands and thousands of people in the past, and unfortunately, will kill many in the future.

Not only is organized religion responsible for many of the wars throughout history, but it also pronounces unfair judgment against those who it believes are immoral or just plain wrong. It allows for very little ability to accept other religious beliefs or ethics - this is almost unarguable, because those who do not believe in God's law are not to attain salvation and are instead doomed to go to hell. When I was a Christian - and I am very ashamed of this - I used to prejudge people who did not believe in God or were not Christian. I know I do not speak for all Christians when I say this - I am merely reporting my own experiences. For example, I remember that I would never go out with a guy who was not Christian, and I would have somewhat of a distrust for non-Christians. I am very embarrassed about this fact, but this is the effect that organized religion can have on people, particularly young children, as I was. I did not realize that there are good, ethical people in this world who are not Christian. Now, I strongly dislike the fact that Christianity says that all non-believers will go to hell, because I know that there are many good people in this world who are non-Christian, and certainly do not deserve to go to hell. How can God send good people to hell? Again, this does not seem remotely fair to me, especially because God is claimed to be just and forgiving.

As much as I dislike organized religion and Christianity, I do see why people choose to practice religion. Not everything about religion is bad. I think the main reason that people turn to religion is because of their desire to feel comfortable with the world around them, and have an explanation for the things that they don't understand. Religion also functions as a guideline for how you conduct your life. Most religions have certain rules about how one is supposed to behave. All of these rules have to do with improving your life, and other people's lives, and consequently the world. Most religions concern themselves of ridding the world of evil. Therefore, religions exist as a means for human beings to acquire happiness - something all human beings are constantly striving for.

I also want to maintain my happiness and improve the world. However, the difference between me and a religious person lies in where I derive the "rules" of my life from, and what sources I use to gain a greater understanding of the world. I derive my ethics from what I feel and observe about people, and what I see as being right and wrong. A religious person instead follows what the religious leaders or texts say should be considered moral behavior. I rely on empirical observations and scientific knowledge to explain the world and the universe, while religious people see the universe in a more religious context - finding ways to link what they see with what they believe.

Well, now that I have written practically a book for everyone to read, I will leave it at that. Please respond in any way you wish. I hope that I have not offended anyone by the statements I have chosen to make. In fact, I SINCERELY, DEEPLY hope that I have not offended anyone. One of the hard things about making controversial posts is the possibility of losing respect of those within the FIRST community. Sometimes, when I read these threads, I am like... no... no don't say that! I respect you, I don't want to know your religious or political affiliation because it may cause me to judge you or respect you differently! In that way, I almost wish that these types of threads were not allowed, but I do enjoy a good intellectual discussion. Along with many people on these forums, I am not sure whether or not this type of discussion should be allowed. I guess that is a decision we all need to think about now.

-- Jaine

Re: Atheists?
 

you are mixing together the physical implementation (the CD) with the SW itself (1s and 0s)

how fast you can write or read SW onto a CD or other storage media has nothing to do with the SW being written, the limitation is the physical media

the CD or floppy disk or MP3 player memory does not change in weight (mass) when you erase it, or load it up with SW.

Force = mass times acceleration. If I put 1000 blank CDs in my car and drive around, then write very complex code onto those CDs, my car will not require any change in force to drive around, because those CDs still have the same mass.

Something with zero mass is not governed by our laws of physics - because it is not a 'physical' object.

The only way we know of to transmit SW or information presently is by physical means, the fastest is by electromagnetic energy (light or radio waves)

but there could be spiritual ways to communicate, in which case, our souls (our SW) would not be limited by the laws of physics, because our souls have no mass.

its only a crude analogy, but I think it gets the idea across.

Re: Atheists?
 

The problem with that argument is that your assuming that the spirit or soul or whatchamacallit is somehow seperate from you. Jonathan touched on this, but think about it this way.

Looking at it from an aethistic/no intelligent designer view point: say that, several billion years ago, a singularity decided to explode. (We won't go into why the heck it did that.) Everything from the moment that singularity started to expand to now has been governed by the laws of physics. That means that, through only physics, the Earth was formed, the first life was formed, that life somehow underwent billions of years of evolution, and eventually we ended up with you.

Everything that has happened to you and will happen to you is the result of physics. This thread's thoughtful, insightful posts are the result of how the neurons in your head fired. What you "perceive" as thought isn't thought; it's just physics.

Basically, I feel that your spirit/soul is actually "you." It governs what your body does, what you think, etc. Maybe the brain is a temporary storage vessel for your life's events, but your mind and your soul are connected, so a brain damaged person might lose brain functionality in this life, but in the next they'll get a new body (assuming the Christian perspective) and they won't have the same problems. I don't know if they'd remember (depending on the type of brain damage) what they went through while they lacked full brain functionality, but it wouldn't be a hinderance in the next life. The brain's information on your life events isn't "copied" at the end of your life. It's probably more similar to (going to the computer analogy) a RAID 1 setup, IE a full, running copy of your life experiences. I don't know how that information is "stored," but there are a lot of other things I don't know...

Re: Atheists?
 

From what I understand from my couple years of CCD lessons, is although many people think heaven is a tangible place, it's really just a state of being closer to God. Therefore, if you pray, you are in heaven.

Re: Atheists?
 

Wow Jaine - you hit on a couple of the most often raised issues of religion

you sorta brushed over the answer to all these questions - freewill, or freedom. As humans our freedom is our most cherished right, and it is also the thing that gets us into the most trouble.

When you have children the hardest thing of all is knowing when to stand in their way, and when to let them go

but at some point you have to let them go completely, or there is something seriously wrong with you as a parent. Imagine if your parents went with you to summer camp? If your parents went with you to your prom? On your honeymoon?

The old adage: if you love something, let it go.... if its comes back to you...

I think there must be some aspect of our character that God cherishes above all the pain and suffering we experience in our lives, and that our personal freedom and freewill to choose is somehow inter-twined with it

if Adam had no way to sin, no way to rebel againts God, then he was not free. If I flip a coin a hundred times and everytime it comes up heads, you can be sure that coin has two heads, it is not free to come up tails.

As for God sending people to hell, it sounds like most of the situations you have listed are things other people have told you, not something God told you. Go back and read the ten commandments. There were specific punishments for people who broke them, and in many cases specific ways people could repent and make offerings to have their crimes forgiven

but none of those punishments say "though shall not kill, or God will send you to hell" - seriously, look it up yourself.

I think part of the problem young people have with understanding religion in our time is that so many people interpret or simply make-up their own version of what it means to be a christain, or how other religions are followed - its a real mess.

A genuine spiritual search takes many years, research and study, compairing many religions and sources of information - its not something that can be left to someone else, not something you can trust to someone else to figure out for you - its a path we all have to explore on our own.

Re: Atheists?
 

This is a very good analogy which allows me to understand your perspective much clearer. However, this analogy is based on a very key assumption - the assumption that freedom is good. As humans, you are correct - we do cherish freedom and the power to make our own decisions. However, here is another associated philosphical question:

Is the freedom that we enjoy good to have in the first place? How much freedom is too much?

Would you knowingly give freedom to a person you knew would commit a crime, or would cause others to commit crimes?
In this way (another somewhat extreme analogy, but it illustrates my point), this would be similar to allowing a criminal to roam free, instead of being put in jail, in the hopes that he would come back and "return" to what society deems as moral conduct. Not all freedom is good. Not all criminals (in fact, very few) would return to ethical behaviors on their own accord. In the same way, God should have known (because he is omnipotent) that not all people would return to him. He should not have allowed it in the first place.
I think that if God was truly benevolent, then he would not have made us to love freedom (which according to you, seems to be the reason which necessitates the granting of free will). That way, he could have kept complete control over us, nothing bad would happen, and we would still be happy. Adam should not have been given free will in the first place, nor should he have been given the desire for freedom. This would have been the most logical way for God to solve the problem of wanting to keep his people happy, and still keeping the world a safe, wonderful place. I still view the granting of free will as cruel, because God gave us a trait that we could in turn use to violate the laws he set before us to follow - and consequently punish us for these reasons.

I am not talking purely about the Ten Commandments, although I do see your point when you use them as an example.

However, in the examples I listed, I was talking about those who belong to a non-Christian religion, or those who have no religion at all. I believe that somewhere in the Bible it says that not believing in God is a terrible sin. (OK, that was a bit sarcastic - I KNOW that in the Bible, not believing in God is a terrible sin.) In the Bible, it states that those who do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as their Savior will be cast into a lake of fire at the Second Coming, while those who are followers of Jesus will be taken into heaven. I believe that this is unfair because, in my opinion, just because you do not profess faith in Christianity does NOT mean that you are a bad person who deserves to be tortured for eternity. I know many people whom I admire and respect who do not profess a faith in Christianity, and I know that they are good people because of the personal standards of ethics that they hold and believe in. This is what I was talking about when I wrote about the injustices of sending good people to hell. Those who hold different beliefs about ethics and religion are rejected by the Christian God, even though they may be good people. I am a strong believer in understanding other religions and cultures, and I find it offensive to judge them in a manner that is so "black and white."

I hope this clarified some of my statements.

-- Jaine

Re: Atheists?
 

Just a quick point, the way theistic philosophers have historically addressed the problem of free will is that it is inherently good. Furthermore however, evil exists in the world toward a greater, if impossible to forsee, good. This basically shuts down any argument against the Problem of Evil, because it will always be imposible for humans to prove otherwise. Religious debate is at a standstill because of this.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that in order to have any information, software must take a man-made form, must be represented tangibly. In execution, software is nothing more than a conceptual tool. In this capacity, it is not subject to the laws of physics. When you put it on a CD to store it (or in RAM, or on a hard disk), you physically alter the CD. The (debatable) fact that the CD does not change mass does not change the fact that software on a CD is a physical manifestation. Software per se does not "exist" without some physical manifestation. It is impossible to prove otherwise.

Let's use another example. You are saying that a concept can exist without a physical representation. How then, do you explain the colour green? Can you conceive of or define green without it ultimately coming down to a range of light wavelengths? I propose that you cannot (lack of knowledge about wavelengths is no excuse).

This is flat out incorrect and is partly why your logic goes off track. The laws of physics do not only apply to objects.

Re: Atheists?
 

Well, I don't care to further exhaust this topic, but I will anyways because I do want to put in my two cents on this.

The idea that God would implement evil to achieve a greater, if impossible to foresee good, seems flawed to me because it is awfully unecessary, in my opinion. Why do millions of people need to die in order to achieve a greater good, when God could have eliminated any problems at the onset of creation, by creating everything perfectly to begin with? Is he just trying to play games with us by watching us have wars, and kill each other, just so he can see if his litttle experiment is going to work? I don't think that any argument is "shut down" because of this, at least in the Christian instance - I think that it is only made deeper. It is further evidence that God is contradictory because he is both perfect, and the creator of evil. Maybe there is some purpose that can't be understood, some problem in the overall universe that he feels he must solve - however, according to what I see, there is no purpose to torture, pain, and killing - no justification for the deaths of millions, all to solve a problem that God, being all powerful, could have solved the very instant he created us. If there is a purpose, I don't see how it pertains to us since we can't comprehend it - therefore, it seems unecessary.

This touches on why I claim to be agnostic - I do not know for sure whether there is or is not a reason for the pain in this world, and I do not know if it is God(s) who is causing it to happen, and whether or not he/she/it/they has a good reason for doing so. I guess in that sense, you are right Jonathan, that it is impossible to ever prove. Same thing goes for every philosophical argument that can be made. However, I don't agree that anything is "shut down." The very act of stating "evil exists in the world toward a greater, if impossible to forsee, good" opens up realms of possible discussions and counter arguments. One can still investigate the nature of reality, even if it is impossible to prove actual truths.

-- Jaine

Re: Atheists?
 

I feel that unless we are free our lives are meaningless. If I am forced to act only in one way, then of what value am I as a person? I have no choice.

If I have to wake up everyday and say "hey God I love you" or He will strike me dead, then do those words I say everymorning mean anything at all?

I can program my computer, so that everytime I turn it on it writes on the screen "I love you Ken, Im so thankfull for all the things you have done for me, and I cant tell you how happy I am to be your computer!" do you think I would get a warm feeling every morning when I hit the power button?

but if I have a son or daughter, who I raise to be independant, and they accomplish many great things in their life, and when they are 30 they come to see me and say "I love you dad, Im so thankfull....."

!

I think you are missing the flip side of freedom. So many incredible acts of love and kindness have been done by humans. I cant even begin to list them all - if we had no choice, then those things would be meaningless.

I can only conjecture that what we do really means something to God - our actions and our feelings are important to Him.

As for fairness - I dont know how God will deal with everyone - I can only hope He will be fair as only God can be, that He wont treat people the way we treat each other when we are at our worst.

Re: Atheists?
 

Ken's comments on free will presuppose the nature and existence of a certain deity...in a thread concerning atheism, I think that bears a little closer scrutiny. Assuming that the Christian god exists, and that that god is omnipotent (as is traditionally assumed), any so-called free will is necessarily conditional. If God can grant free will, he can also suspend it.¹ (And, he can create the illusion that it exists, or the illusion that it does not!) If God doesn't want something, he can most certainly put a stop to it, if he chooses. Then again, it's an open question why something that he didn't want would even exist, because he had the power to preemptively prevent it.

To quote Captain Kirk, "What does God need with a starship?" Similarly, what does God need with a warm feeling every, or any morning? God, by virtue of omnipotence could create such a feeling without going to the trouble of creating a world and people to frolic upon it. This doesn't clarify anything.

But what does God value the most? Freedom? Justice? Benevolence? Happiness? Ken assumes that there is something that God likes about us, that supercedes other considerations (like suffering)—but isn't it a little bit strange to assume that such a thing exists, but not know what it is? This reeks of wishful thinking; that there must be a purpose to all this suffering and these misdeeds, lest the Christian worldview be tarnished. I phrase this like a self-fulfilling prophecy, because in a very real sense, it is. The endemic unwillingness to deal with the thought that the complex structure of God and free will might be a fantasy leads people to believe in the comfortable explanation—that it's all part of God's plan. Of course, it could be so—but wouldn't it be nice if we could actually prove it?

Furthermore, if our free will is linked to this greater purpose, as Ken suggests, are we implying that our actions are taken with the implicit consent of an omnipotent god? Once again, maybe we should endeavour to know more about the morality of God—because it seems that it may not exactly agree with the traditional definitions of good and evil.

But since this is a thread about atheism, I'll stop counting the angels dancing on the pinhead, and note that while many people believe in elaborate structures of religious belief, any given set of such beliefs with which I am familiar, taken as a whole, is ultimately unfounded; many beliefs are laughably incorrect, many are hopelessly unprovable, and (I would be remiss to not point out) some are quite reasonable. The mere fact that some religious ideas work well in society is not a reason to expect every such idea to be good. Similarly, it is not a reason to take these religious ideas at face value (such as the more-than-ten commandments)—these stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of whatever mythology exists around them.

In the spirit of disbelief as a default position, I wonder what gives anyone the monopoly on determining what it means to be Christian (or another similar religion, as the case may be). I know—let's wait for God to lend an opinion! I think that a problem with most religions is that they necessarily evolve over time, making concessions to slightly different interpretations, enduring a schism or two, and eventually end up with a mess of different beliefs that are only marginally self-consistent. By conducting your own "spiritual search", you might find something that you like, but who's to say that it is even remotely correct?

When dealing with religious belief, it all comes down to the lack of evidence; much is wholly conjectural, and all is built upon the shakiest of foundations. From that, we note that any argument based on the purported truth of some religious tenet must be irrevocably tied to the case for that belief's accuracy. This is the real question—whether or not God permits suffering has no bearing on anything, if God himself is a fiction. And is he? Well, nobody has managed to answer that in any conclusive fashion, without resorting to other unproven beliefs. In essence, this is the core of atheism: it makes no sense to believe in something that can't be supported with a substantial body of evidence, because there are an infinite number of such situations, each of which are supported by the same quantity and quality of evidence; which are true?

In the end, we can't prove or disprove much when it comes to omnipotent deities themselves, but there's certainly a lot that we can consider rationally, as far as religion goes.

¹Let's leave the postulation that God can create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it out of this, and assume that he can undo whatever he does. If this postulation were true, we would end up dealing with Aquinas' farcical redefinition of omnipotence—meaning "not quite all-powerful, when convenient".

Re: Atheists?
 

Physics is about the physical world - thats what the word literally means - matter and energy

SW is neither matter or energy. I can create SW in my mind, without ever writing it physically, or even speaking the algorythm out loud

but I can run that program all the time. If I figure out its better to put my pants on by putting my feet in first than it is to pull them on over my head, thats SW - thats an algorythm "FGIF" (Feet Go In First)

I can then run the FGIF SW everyday of my life, and there is no way you could study the cells of my brain and find the SW in there

There is a branch of science that deals with this: information technology. Physics is not involved at all. You cant apply force to information - it does not accelerate - it contains no mass or energy, but information does exist

an example of information defying the laws of physics would be prayer. We are physical beings - we can only communicate with each other by putting information into some physical form - but the concept of praying - that God can know what we are thinking, that we can communicate 'telepathically' with God starts to open some insight

if we could communicate telepathically, would it take 2 seconds for a telepathic message to reach an astronaut on the moon? or would it be instantainious?

Re: Atheists?
 

Not yet there isn't. But inferring from what we do know scientifically, it is more conceivable to suggest the FGIF algorythm is stored chemically in the brain. To suggest otherwise can only be premised upon a belief in the supernatural, that the brain is "magical," which is simply your stance in the first place. A circular argument.

It certainly does exist. In a tangible form somewhere. Locked up in a computer or locked up in the mind, it does not transcend the laws of nature and physics.

This is of course based upon a rather hefty conditional premise, and is thus a bad example. But humouring you, I could just as easily say that God created a law of physics such that prayer was instantaneous. It cannot be proven either way, therefore you cannot say this is untrue.

Re: Atheists?
 

The idea of conducting a spiritual search of your own stems from the fact that we enter this world with no understanding, and are given parents and an environment that we did not choose.

Many people simply accept the beliefs of their parents, or their community. But my experience has been that, by studying the different religions that humanity engages, you come to understand the differences, and the simularities. In the end you see what seems right to you, on your own level - what is external to you that matches what is inside you.

But that is not the end of it. If I can generalize, eastern religions teach that we can ascend, that we are born at one spiritual level, and we can reach a higher level through hard work, study, prayer, mediation, and eventaully you can tap into the shared 'cosmic concouseness' that all living things are a part of. If you follow these teachings, and you learn to mediate and you fast, and you focus on your spiritual growth, you will personally experience things: an inner peace, deep meditation, some people have visions... things actaully happen to you personally

and isnt that what religion is really about? not that there is some distant God out there who created the world and gave it a good spin, then left us to ourselves. Religion is about God interacting with humanity. The bible for example, the Hebrew people hardly ever went more than a generation or two without God interacting with them personally, or sending an angel to communicate a message. They had no doubt that God was real.

So where does that leave us? from your post again:

your spiritual seach leaves you with an understanding of your own nature, what seems to be right for you personally

but do not be too hasty to declare that God no longer interacts with us personally. When I was in college I tried to figure out how I could know if God existed. Could I ask for a sign? Could God somehow prove to me that He was real?

what sign would I accept? What if someone knocked on my door in the next 10 seconds and said "God sent me to talk to you" would that be a perfect sign? or might it happen to be someone going through my neighborhood, saying that to everyone?

The answer I finally came up with, the only way I could know if God existed, would be for God to communicate with me, to reveal Himself to me, personally. It seemed like that would be too much to ask for at the time, but millions of people throughout the world have experienced exactly that. A personal interaction.

In hindsight, that is the only way our freewill can remain intact - we have to decide what is right for us, personally, first. Otherwise, if a 100 foot tall God appeared to everyone on Main street tomorrow, and said "Im God and this is the way its going to be" then what else can we do? listen to Him, or die? No more freewill.

If you got the absolute proof of God's existance that you seem to be demanding, then what will you do afterwards? What meaning would there be to anything you do after that point? What other choice would you have?

Re: Atheists?
 

How do we know what God is? Is he 100 feet tall, or 2.5 inches? This is just the problem: we simply don't have sufficient evidence to ascertain the existence, much less the nature of any deity. Even if this God of Main Street demonstrated his capacity to emit lightning from his eyes, or summon a plague of tarantulas, we wouldn't know if he were your chosen God, or merely a powerful impostor.

An omnipotent god could impose on us the understanding that he is the one described scripturally, but short of that, we can't prove on our own that any powerful deity is that deity, because powerful deities (by their nature) are assumed to have capabilities that are currently beyond our capacity to prove (otherwise, we would hardly have cause to call them deities).

As for personal interaction with God, you'll grant that people sometimes believe crazy, even stupid things (Santa Claus, homeopathy, Elvis lives, etc.), and that sometimes, they refuse to be convinced of the falsehood of those beliefs. How can I be sure that your personal interaction with God was real, and not a delusion? Similarly, I could conjure up such an experience, if I were to experiment with certain substances—would you believe me if I said that I personally interacted with God?

Why would I need special meaning, or another choice? If it were real, and absolutely, provably so, then so be it. There is no dichotomy here.

Re: Atheists?
 

your life would have no meaning. You would have to do what you were told and your personal freedom would be gone.

In general humans place a high value on personal freedom.

BTW, Ive never met a single adult in my life who told me that Santa Claus had been in touch with them. In fact I have never met any adult who belives there is a man at the north pole living with elves and raindeer

but 90% of the world population believes there is a God of one sort or another, and those who claim a personal interaction has occured have very similar experiences.

Re: Atheists?
 

Want another extreme analogy?
Years ago, I read a news story about a group of parents belonging to some way-out religious group. A "prophet" told them that their children would grow up to be monstrous criminals (robbers, murderers, and such), so they threw their babies into the ocean to ensure that such a horrible thing would not happen. They did with their children what you seem to be suggesting that God should have done with people: total prevention of evil.

Somehow, I have to insist that my judgment of that religious group as being "way-out," and that prophet as being a false, evil prophet is reasonable. I think our government judged those parents as being murderers (I didn't see any follow-up news stories, so I'm merely assuming the parents went to prison, based upon the usual laws governing our society). Even if a mother is certain her child is going to make bad decisions in life, she has no right to utterly prevent those bad decisions by preventing her child's becoming an adult (either by outright murder, or by being a "control freak").

What about known criminals (and other wrongdoers)?
When I was 14 years old, I did a terrible thing. My parents were shattered when they learned what I had done. We had to make a decision about how to deal with the situation. I am sorry to say that we made the wrong decision, and I wound up adding wrong to wrong. My bad decisions cost my parents a lot of money, too. Many parents, after having their trust violated in this way, would put their daughters on restriction forever. They would never want to let their daughters out of their sight! However, my parents told me that even though I had violated their trust, they had decided to trust me again. They felt I had made a mistake, and learned from it. They did not punish me.

If you put a criminal in jail, one day you will have to let her out, unless she committed a very serious felony. Her parole board has reports on her behavior in prison, but they do not know how she will behave in society. (Prisons are not known as places where criminals reform.) Currently, the news media are filled with stories about sex offenders. Many people believe that this class of criminals is bound and determined to commit crimes again. Yet the law requires that they be released back into society when they have met the requirements of their sentencing. Should their neighborhoods be plastered with flyers warning that a Very Evil Person lives there? Should we lock them up and throw away the key? Easier still, why not just put them to death? Or is there hope that they could change?

If God chose not to "lock us up and throw away the key" (at least, not in this life), is he behaving any worse than one of our parole boards? Would you call our parole boards evil for releasing a felon who has "done her time?" Would you call parents evil if they decide to hope for the best for their wayward children?

Re: Atheists?
 

one of the problems with this is the concept that God is all knowing.

Does that mean God knows everything about the present state of the universe, including people

or do we include the future? Does God know what we are going to do, before we do it?

I dont think He does, because that also negates our freewill. If God knows what we will do as individuals, before we decide to to those things, then we are programmed and we have no real choice - no freewill.

I think God knows what we are capable of doing, both good and bad - He knows what our limitations are - we cannot sprout wings and fly, one man cannot grow enough food to feed the whole world - one man cannot care for all the sick and elderly

and I think God is able to interact and deal with any situation that we might create

but I think we really are free - that God does not know what we will do until we decide ourselves.

Re: Atheists?
 

I believe that God does know what we will do in advance, but I also believe that we have free will.

There are two basic camps on this issue. The first side is predestination, which says that God knows everything because he set it up and decided what would happen. According to that viewpoint, there is no freewill. The other idea is known as foreknowledge. The basic idea from here is that God knows everything which will be done, but he didn't script it.

One possible way that God could see the "future" is through dimensions. If time is the 4^th dimension, then what if God was "in" the 5^th? Just as a (3D) sphere appears to the beings of flatland (a 2D world) to be a circle, our time appears to us as a single point where it intersects our dimension, even though it may extend infinitely in other directions which do not intersect with the 3^rd dimension. Therefore, if God was in the 5^th or higher dimension, he would be able to see all of time. The knowledge the "future" that God possesses wouldn't really be the future for him, because he isn't contained by time.

But I suck at philosophical arguments, so I'll be an engineer...

Re: Atheists?
 

I think the most fundamental problem that both you and Ken are having with my opinions is the fact that you are both making your opinions based on the premise that God and humans have a relationship exactly parallel to that of a parent and child. I can see why you would make this assumption - God created us, just like our parents created us. However, I do find that there are distinct differences between humans and God, and a child and their parents.

I don't believe that I ever said that God should have behaved in a way similar the irresposible actions of the parents you described above. I most certainly do not believe that God should have killed Adam and Eve. However, I think that God should have set up his relationship with Adam and Eve in a way much fairer than he did. I am not, as you seem to be suggesting, proposing that the only option that God had to prevent evil was to kill the human race, or "lock them up and throw away the key", as you said in your corollary to the analogy I made about criminals. I am suggesting that God should have done something entirely different. Human beings should have been created differently from the onset, which is what I stated earlier:Read on for my explaination, because I guess it was not clear enough the first time.

According to the Bible, God created everything; the heavens and the earth. Because God was all powerful, he chose to make all of his creations in the exact way that he wanted them. He could choose exactly how he would create us. Ken, as a human being, loves freedom, and describes this sentiment below: God obviously created humans to be lovers of freedom. However, with a parent and their child, a parent has no control over the exact nature of their child. Their child will be born human, and therefore a lover of freedom and a possesor of free will - this is a fact, and the parent has no control over this matter. The key difference between God and a parent lies in how much they have control over their creations - God chose to make us lovers of freedom. Parents do not control whether or not we desire to be free, but God does.

I can see how you would think I was being too extreme if I had said that God should never have given us free will, even though we desire freedom (this is NOT what I sais, although I believe this is how you interpreted my words). If God did not give us free will, and we wanted to be free, then yes, I can see how our lives would have no meaning to us, because it would be impossible for us to pursue any personal goals and fulfill what we felt to be our purpose. In that case, I agree with you.

However, I think you missed what exactly I was questioning with my earlier statements about Christianity. I asked the question: Why did God create us to want freedom? Why couldn't he have made it so that we do not want freedom? He had the power to determine our likes and dislikes, so why couldnt he have done this? If he had made it so that we did not want freedom, then our lives would still be purposeful if he did not grant us free will. We would be happy that way, and it would be impossible for us to commit any evil. Humans happy + No Evil in World = Good in the Eyes of God.... right? It seems only fair to me that God would have created us in a way that would allow us to be kept under control, yet happy at the same time.

Can you see now the difference between God and a parent? A parent can not choose whether or not to create their child to desire freedom of will. You are correct that a parent who is over-controlling of their child, or even kills their child, for the purpose of preventing them from harming others - has serious problems and is being unjust - just as God would be being unjust if he did not allow us to have free will, but still gave us the desire for freedom.

However, since God has alot more control over the nature of humans than a parent has over the nature of their child, he should have made us differently!! He should have come up with a different way to make us feel that our lives have purpose - other than freedom of will. Parents have no control over what will make their child happy, but God does. He should not have made us to love freedom in the first place; instead he should have made us love some other aspect of life that would make us feel happy and complete. Freedom of will is extraordinarily dangerous, and God should have known that! Why did he create us to love it so much? Why did he make it so that if he were to rescind our free will, we would be unhappy? It should be the opposite - God should have given us a means to obtain happiness other than by making our own choices; something that would not be the cause of the death, torture, and unhappiness that has plaugued millions upon this planet.
If this analogy were truly representative of the condition that exists between humans and God, then God would not have created the preconditions for the aforesaid criminals to be criminals in the first place. God would never "lock them up" or "put them to death", because these people would never have had the option to commit those crimes in the first place (this is if God had chosen to create humans in the way that I feel he should have - if he really wanted to make people happy and live in an evil-free world). Furthermore, this thread is primarily concerned with religion, not the ethics of this country's legal system. I personally believe that criminals should be given a chance to change. We as humans have the option of change. However, I have a problem with the Christian interpretation of God when it comes to the issue of having these choices in the first place.

I don't understand why God would have created us in a way that allows people to commit terrible crimes against one another. I think that he should have made human nature differently, in a way that would not be harmful to other people, and would still leave us satisfied. The solution I proposed above is just one of many options that I feel God could have had when it came to designing human nature. Another one might be that he could have made us to have free will, but not have made it a part of our nature to believe that killing anther human being is OK. He could have made us more tolerant of those who are different, and could have made it unnatural for humans to fear what they are not familiar with - such as people with a different skin color, religion, or sexual preference. Can you imagine what this world would be like if God had not given humans the ability to hate? What if God had given humans all of the attributes that we have today, except for the one which allows us to hate? It would have saved so many people's lives if he had done that! If I were a God who cared about my creations, why would I design them in such a way that they were susceptible to hatred and violence? Why would I make them capable of killing one another? Why couldn't God have made humans peace-loving creatures, who would rather die themselves than kill another person?

This, I do not understand. This is the problem I have with Christianity.

-- Jaine

Re: Atheists?
 

Janie,

I understand the position you are taking, and the nature of your question. I think if you got things the way you say you would have preferred it, that you would not be very happy with the results.

There are answers to your question. If I never failed at anything I would not treasure my successes. If I had never been lonely I would not cherish my friends

we could create a society without crime and without violence - all we have to do is surrender our freedom, let someone else tell us what to do with every minute of our lives

we could even be pumped full of morphine so we would feel happy all day. Thats not what I want, and all I can say is for some reason, that is not the way God wanted us to live.

I do know that in the biblical frame of reference our lives are nothing but an instant. What is 70 years compaired to 700 years? its 10%

compaired to 70,000 years? its 0.1%

what is 70 years compaired to eternity? mathematically its zero.

when we are 100,000 years into eternity this short life will be like nothing but a bad dream. What purpose does it serve? I think only God can answer that.

But to look at this from a larger perspective, whether or not we understand why God has done the things He choose to do, has no effect on whether or not He exists.

If I dont understand the tax laws, or how to file my tax return, or if I think the IRS is unfair, that does not make the IRS dissapear, and it does not make me exempt from paying my due tax.

Re: Atheists?
 

So what meaning does my (and similarly, your) life have, that would be stripped away by the simple act of meeting a god? That god, presumably being omnipotent, would have the power to make me do what I was told, but unless he did so, freedom, free will, and my own actions would not be affected. You seem to expect that I would be compelled to do this god's bidding, just because I was aware that he was a god—this is nonsensical. Look to the mythologies of ancient Scandanavia, Greece and Rome, rather than Christianity to see why that assumption is erroneous.

Are we making the appeal to popularity again? Remember that correlation is not equivalent to causation.

Neither you, nor Thomas Aquinas can have it both ways; you either believe God is omnipotent, or do not. (This is the cop-out that I footnoted earlier.) To satisfy Christian dogma, it is necessary that God be omnipotent (or else the dogma would be wrong...imagine that), and yet, you propose that there is a power which God does not possess. He would therefore not be omnipotent. You instead propose that God is very powerful—that's fine, and well supported in other mythologies, but it isn't a traditional Christian idea. It might be possible to skirt this issue by saying that God chooses to disregard certain information, (which he, through omnipotence, would be able to access) and this creates a condition of free will. But that would mean that God could change his mind, and snap his fingers (or twirl a wand, or click his ruby-slippered heels, or whatever he does to make stuff happen) and make free will vanish. Do you consider the spontaneous elimination of free will to be a real threat to your personal freedom?

Aren't you forgetting something? The fact that we can easily show that IRS exists (what's written on the tax form—"IRS", and a number which you can call to ask "does the IRS exist"); there is no such contact information on God's purported work, no direct line to the divine.

The whole point is that you expect us to presuppose the existence of God, and use that as the justification for the things you advocate (most prominently, belief in God). This is a circular argument.

Re: Atheists?
 

presently you have an out. You can say that God is a myth, and therefore the things that have been communicated to us (the character of God, that we are expected to emulate) are simply made up, therefore you do not have to follow the things He has taught us.

But if you dig down deep, and the things that one religion or another speaks to you, matches your inner nature, and you decide "this is the way I will live" even though you dont have absolute proof that you will be rewarded in the end

then that accounts for something - that says something about your own nature and character, that you will do the right thing simply because you believe it is the right thing

but if God steps in, and confronts you in person, before you make that personal decision, then anything you do after that is out of fear, or out of barganing. That is what you lose if God appears to everyone.

You say 'show me God first, then maybe I will do what He wants'. Christianity says, do the things God desires from you, and God will reveal Himself to you, only to you, in His own way.


no, its human nature. If you are faced with an overwhelming force you will act in a certain way out of fear. Do you drive a car? do you ever exceed the speed limit? if you see a patrol car, do you keep right on speeding or do you slow down until you think no one is clocking you?

would you say that to a scientist? if 90% of the scientist on earth are able to repeat an experiment and get the same results would you say that means nothing, and plea a logical fallicy? God is not governed by the laws of science. God is a being, an intelligent independant being. You cannot conjure Him up by saying the right words, or by faking a prayer of repentace. God interacts with whom He chooses, in His way. The fact that 90% of humanity believes there is a God of some sort means that by a wide margin, most people have personally gathered enough evidence to sway their opinion. I have not asserted that you should believe because everyone else does, I am saying that based on the testimony of millions of people something supernatural is interacting with humanity.

now you are playing word games. omnipotent means 'all powerfull' and you inteject the power to know the future and the power to change His own character. The future does not exist. We have no scientific evidence that time flows both ways - only theories. Being all powerfull or all knowing does not include knowing something that does not (yet) exist.

Other religions assert that God is whimsickle, that His character and nature changes with His mood. Christainity teaches there are three things God cannot do:

1. He cannot change. God is holy and perfect. If He changed in any way, He would no longer be holy, or perfect. This means He does not take back His word, He does not take away what He has given to us, and that includes our freewill.

2. God cannot learn, because He already knows everything. I have already stated I dont think God knows what we will do as individuals, but He does know all the possibilities, so there is nothing we can do to surprize, or teach God.

3. God cannot change the past - to do so would negate our freewill (boy freewill keeps coming up a lot! :^)

there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people who dont believe the IRS has the authority to collect income taxes (for various reasons) and they dont pay taxes. Part of the nature of the IRS is its authority - the fact that they dont believe that authority has been granted doesnt exempt them from taxes.

Christianity and other religions do say that we have a direct open line to God. And you have the personal experiences of millions of people as I pointed out before - ask someone why they believe in God? did they have a personal experience? a miracle in their life? An undeniable awareness of Gods presence?

I have not asked anyone to presume, assume or presuppose anything - in fact, the opposite - I pointed out that each person must undertake their own spiritual search and find their own answers. That is not circular reasoning.

I can say one thing, you will not find God, or disprove God with an equation or logic or an experiment in a lab. We are emotional creatures - we are not Vulcans - many of the things we do in our lives we do because there is an emotion attached to that endevour.

If we are children of God, then God would not be a logical being either, His primary motive would be emotional as well.

God may be all-powerfull as we choose to define those words, but we can still bring Him happiness, and we can cause Him pain and sorrow. Thats where the connection is.

Re: Atheists?
 

Ken-

I think this is where the discussion between Atheism and Religion breaks down.

Generally, the Atheist asks for proof that god exists.

Generally, the religious states that it can not be proven, only accepted.

There are people, my self included, who can not accept something that can not be proven in consistent manner. Clearly, you believe very deeply in the existence of God, and you clearly have your reasons for that belief. I don't question it and I don't want to change it. I try very hard to understand where these beliefs come from. It's a constant issue between a person I love very much and myself. Just as I have trouble understanding why such an intelligent young woman would believe so many irrational things, she has trouble understanding why I can't accept something she _knows_ is right and doesn't question at all.

I ask her why she knows it's right. 'Because I have faith, and I belive' is the usual response.

Try to understand that, to me, that statement just doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense. I couldn't live my life like that. It's as alien a thought to me to belive as for her to not believe. There is a fundamental difference in how we view one little word. In most other respects, we are very much the same. But when the word 'faith' is concerned, we are as opposed as can be. Faith to her is the corner stone of her life. It is the first thing she thinks of when she wakes, and the last when she goes to bed. Faith to her represents everything she aspires to be; a good Christian in the eyes of God. Faith means god and god means faith. The two are intertwined and connected.

To me, faith is antithetical to the very way I live my life. Faith represents to me self dilution, blindness, a weakness. How could I believe something that goes against everything I know to be proven truth? 2+2=5. How could I just accept that although there is no proof that any of it is true? It would be like lieing to myself.

Some simply can not manage faith. I won't presume to say that all the atheists on this board, or in the world, are faithless. As has been stated, atheism is a broad term, and there are many different kinds of atheist. I'll try to just speak for my self, but I imagine my feelings are shared.

To me, faith is different from trust. Trust is earned. I trust my family, because more often then not they have been trustworthy. I trust my friends for the same reason. I even trust people I've just met, to an extent, because most people I've just met are again, trustworthy. People have proven to me that they can usually be trusted. I have evidence.

Faith isn't trust. Faith is faith.

I am told to believe in God.
Why, I ask.
You just have to believe and/or have faith that He is real, and He loves you.
Why?
Because.

The more I ask 'why', the more I am told because. Thats what my discussions usually come down to with religious friends. They can't tell me why, and I can't tell them why not. The lack of evidence simply doesn't bother them, and they can't understand why it should bother me so much.

I can trust, but I can't just have faith. Any religion requires faith at some point. You need faith to believe in God. Theres no way around it. You just have to be able to accept something as being true that can not be. You have to accept something that doesn't follow any of the rules. It's like accepting that 2+2=5 to me. I just can't do it, no matter who says it's true or how many say it's true. It just doesn't follow the rules I see everything else follow.

As always, I'm not trying to dump on anyones religion, or make statements that anyone feels they have to defend. I wouldn't bother trying to defend against anything I've said. My girlfriend can already do a better job of that, I assure you (did I mention she's intelligent?). I just wanted to maybe convey where I think some atheists are coming from. We could get stuck in an endless loop, one side asking for proof the other stating that proof doesn't matter. That doesn't accomplish anything. But it ends up happening because neither side understands why it's important to the other.

I applaud Ken for posing the questions of what being an atheist means, and answering every question put to him. Equally, I applaud everyone who has voiced their views on what being an atheist is, means and why. That takes guts these days- Atheism isn't a very popular view (has it ever been?). I especially thank everyone for keeping this thread civil, interesting and alive. I hope that this kind of discussion keeps a home here, because I think it has value (certainly more then pickup lines).

So keep up the good work.

-Andy A.

Re: Atheists?
 

Andy,

we are on page 5 and I apologize if I am starting to mix peoples posts together, was it not you who said you think the universe is knowable, that we are able to grasp everything, and eventaully we will understand everything?

You metioned something about "how could I have faith in something when I know its not true?" I going to assume you are talking about the apparent conflict between science and religion - things that science says are different from what religion says. The age of the earth, or the universe, or the origins of man, evolution.

This is a point where christianity and other religions part. The bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of thousands of years, but its purpose is to communicate a unified message to us, the understanding of our relationship with our Creator. It is not intended to be a physics book. It is not intended to be a history book. Scientific or historical information that it contains is only there as part of the understanding of the ways God and humanity have interacted over the centuries.

People that try to turn the Bible into a science book or a history book end up on their face. Scientific knowledge is in there, history is in there, but its not complete.

A good example that people often bring up is the middle ages, when religious leaders insisted the earth was flat, because the bible speaks of the '4 corners' of the earth - not only was it flat, it was a sqare too!

If you look into this seriously the original word used (in hebrew) actually refers to the 4 quarters of a sphere, the four half hemispheres. The hebrews were not mathemeticians, and did not have a developed language of geometry - these words were not comonly used. You can also find other places that say, viewed from a distance the earth is circular, or spherical, and that God hung the earth in space 'on nothing'.

But if you go back, the text these things were taken from were not discussions about the shape of the earth - it was talking about some aspect of our relationship with God.

That is the message of the bible - the thing that christianity is suppose to communicate - our relationship with God. That message is very clear, and I think you will have a hard time proving that aspect is in error.

As for faith - faith is an emotional issue, not a scientific one. Can you love someone unless you have faith in that person, and faith in human nature? Loving someone and trusting your life to them is not logical. You cannot prove that your loved ones love you back (a problem that wealthy individuals often face). You could test someones love: put them in a contrived situation and see how they respond (but that would be a creepy thing to do - if you love someone you have faith in them, and you dont test them).

The thing I have faith in as a christian is that Gods character is something I should emulate, and that God loves me. Im not especially worried about how old the earth is, whether or not the earth was flooded (totally or locally) or how many generations existed between Adam and Jesus.

Your Creator loves you personally - that is the message. That is the issue of faith. That is what we believe.

Does God exist in the first place? If love is being poured out on you like a river, it must be coming from somewhere.

Re: Atheists?
 

Ken-

Ken, I don't really take issue with what the bible says about the age of the earth and such either. I, and I think the majorty of christains are beyond even arguing about that (although I do worry about Kansas a lot). It would be foolish this day in age to even try to argue those issues either way.

The problem is that I have to belive in God in the first place to accept the bible as anything more then a book written in the bronze age. With out god, the bible holds no more relgious meaning to me then the equivelnt text of the Anazazi. Maybe it's a historical curiosity, but you wouldn't guide your life by it, because you already know the truth about God.

The bible doesn't prove the exsistence of God, as nothing does or can. Before any other aspect of Christianty (or any thiestic religon) can be belived, you must first accept the exsistenice of God, a god, gods, ghosts, elves, talking rabbits or any number of things that simply can not be proven true or disproven. Can you beyond any doubt prove to me that elves don't exsist? Don't bother saying that no one has ever proven they do! Lack of proof isn't proof of nonexsistentice, right? Besides, elves can turn invisible and operate out of phase with the rest of the universe, which is why there are no pictures. Since you can't prove that they don't exist, you have to accept that they do, and maybe if your lucky one day one will talk to you and show you his elvish city.

Ok, so I'm getting a little to sarcastic here. But do you see my point? This is why the debate between Athisem and Religion doesn't usally get anywhere. Before you can seriously expect an athiest to accept your arguments on what the nature of the Bible, God and Christainty is, you must first provide some credibilty for God. Since that isn't ever going to happen with out some more burning bushes and booming voices from the sky in our everyday lives, I'm not liable to smack my self on the head and say 'oh, now I get it! God exsists because Ken just told me he does!'

Thats where you and I disagree. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me, but the distinction I've made is very real to me. Faith is blind, trust is earned. I don't have faith in people, I have trust. Those I love have proven to me, not in a contrived test but every day through action, that they are trustworthy. Again, I draw a very clear distiction between trust and faith. I apply to that to my life alone, but it makes a whole lot of sense to me. I don't expect you or anyone else to completely understand what that means because I know I don't articulate it well. But, faith is a word that means 'trust in the untrustworthy' to me.

Who said anything was being poured onto me? It's using these metaphorical assertions, and speaking of them as fact, that really bug a lot of atheists. I've never seen or heard of love being poured onto anyone, and I don't understand what you even mean by it. I don't know what you mean when you say it must be 'coming' from somewhere. I've always thought that the love I feel, like any emotion I might feel, is rooted in my mind, and my mind alone. No outside forces, no deity's, no voices in my head. My love is my own, and doesn't come from a god. I rather think that the notion that love only exists because god is pouring it out of a bucket on us cheapens the emotion.

-Andy A.

Re: Atheists?
 

Sorry to hijack the thread but this comment about love intrigued me.


Yes, you can love someone and not have faith or trust in them. If you can't than I'm not human, because out of all of the people I love, I trust only three, and sometimes even then, it's with hesitation. Two of the people I don't trust are my parents, but you cannot tell me I do not love them. Why is love not logical? I know it can be irrational, and even crazy, but I think there's logic behind it too. If you buy a puppy, and you feed it, play with it, pet it and take care of it, it's only logical for that puppy to love you. I also think a lot of people do test the people they love, whether they know it or not, maybe not with contrived situations, but by pushing limits and such.

I'll now return you to your regular discussion.

Heidi

Re: Atheists?
 

Andy,

Lets look at this from a logical and scientific angle then. If you find an ancient document, that contains either historical or scientific information, or information and insite into human nature

then the information it contains is either correct and accurate, or its wrong. Would you agree with that?

For example, if this ancient document says the universe had a beginning, before the beginning matter, energy, empty space and even time itself did not exist, and then the universe was created 'from nothing' - we can check into that - we can study the universe and see if it always existed, if its in some repeating cycle, or if something like the big-bang brought the universe into existance 'from nothing'.

Now if this ancient document says that information was gathered by astronomical observation, or was obtained from 'someone' who communicated it to us, that does not change the validity of the information itself, right?

Hitler made this mistake. He rejected Einsteins work and theories, because he would not accept 'jew science' - he rejected the facts because he rejected the source.

What am I getting at? The bible contains incredible insite into human nature. When Jesus preached to the masses the law of the land was an eye for an eye, and justice was brutal - society was brutal. People were amazed when He explained the rules existed to show us our own weaknesses and shortcomings, but the way to live together is through love, forgiveness, reconcillation and kindness. Love for our friends and love for our enemies.

It was a totally outragious concept at the time. Now we have lived for hundreds of years with the 'golden rule' - so it seems more natural for us, but back then it was new information, and in other parts of the world it is still a foreign concept.

So heres the thing: is the information correct? Are the teachings of Jesus the best way to live? If you put the concepts to the test and live that way, is your life better or worse?

And if its better, then does it really matter where the information came from? If the knowledge of human nature is accurate then it stands on its own.

Prophecy in the biblical sense had three components: a prophet would communicate: 1. this is how it was, this is how we got to where we are now and 2. this is how it is now - this is whats going on and here are your options and 3. this is whats going to happen next: if you do A then BC&D will happen, else if you do E then XY&Z will happen

if we cant be certain about the past part, and the future part hasnt happened yet, all we have to go by is the now part - that we can test. If you follow eastern religions your life will go in one direction. If you believe in karma then your life and your interactions with others will go another way. If you treat people the way you would want to be treated (regardless of how they treat you) then you are on a different path

Is this proof? is this evidence? Science says drop a hammer and it will fall and obey F=MA. Jesus says if you do A then BC&D will happen.

So you try A and you see BC&D happening. you watch other people doing E and you see them experienceing XY&Z

is that proof? Proof of the information, yes. Proof of the source?

if the application to your personal life proves to be correct, then does it validate the source? Does the source really matter?

I guess at some point you would have to figure out how a carpenter and a couple of simple fishermen 2000 years ago had such a profound insite into human nature, or how Moses knew the universe had a beginning. If the information did not come from them, then from where?

But the information itself stands on its on merits.

Re: Atheists?
 

that is an excellent point. I think part of the reason is that hope is a major component of love.

Love is something we choose to do, not a squishy feeling that overwhelms us. We do love people we are at odds with and I think part of the reason is we are holding out hope that our love will reach that person, and the differences will be reconciled.

If you were absolutely certain that a person is going to cause you pain and grief for the rest of your life, and there was no hope of the situation ever improving, would you still want to have a continuing relationship with that person?

My faith in human nature tells me if Im kind and loving to someone else, that person will be affected by my actions, for the better.

Re: Atheists?
 

Wow this definatly strayed from the point of this thread.

Re: Atheists?
 

Not "exactly parallel"--which is why I started my post with the phrase "extreme analogy," which is the same words you used earlier. Analogies can be useful as illustrations, but sooner or later they always break down, logically, because they are only analogies. And the analogy of the misguided parental murderers IS extreme. :D

Re: Atheists?
 

I think that Andy has captured the spirit of what I'm getting at rather well. As I read Ken's posts, I can't help but notice the repeated use of concepts that, in order to be valid, require the existence of the Christian god, or Jesus, or some other aspect of Christian scripture. At the heart of the matter, therefore, is the question of how to verify these that these prerequisite things are real and true—after all, from a neutral perspective (not even atheistic—rather agnostic in the strictest sense), it makes sense to look before one leaps; what if it's not only a lie, but in fact, the Norse gods are real, and they condemn devout Christians to the basement of Niflheim? How can you possibly know for sure? What if you're wrong?

Constructing beliefs around a fundamental uncertainty, and then using those beliefs to make the uncertain seem certain is one thing that I can't stand, from a philosophical point of view—the circularity of it lends it credence, because everything seems to fit; upon reflection, though, it is apparent that everything builds upon uncertainty, with the sheer volume of the belief disguising the fact that it is all conjectural, hinging upon that uncertain premise. (Hence, "We Recycle"....)
For example:
It is clear that, to accept these points as valid arguments in support of Ken's concept of omnipotence, one would have to accept a slew of premises concerning the nature and existence of God—to me, since I am unconvinced of those premises, citing teachings that build upon them without offering any proof of their own seems to add volume, but not substance.


I think that Ken feels that his creator was God, and that that god set down some specific principles that Ken should hold in high esteem. The trouble with faith, applied injudiciously, is that it can justify anything. For example, the suggestion that "[i]f love is being poured out on you like a river, it must be coming from somewhere" was used to imply that God exists; but why couldn't it imply that Gaia exists, or that one's loving family exists, etc.? Even if we accept the premise at face value, why assume that it is a reflection of God, when, in fact, it could be a representation of any number of concepts, or maybe just a coincedence signifying nothing special at all?

Indeed, if you don't care about the veracity of the source, you can make a strong case for religion—but religion stripped of the legendary aspects becomes (principally) a set of moral and societal values. If, by chance, these are reasonable values, why even associate them with their sources; let them stand on their own merits.

Morality is not the sole domain of religion; the fact that the "golden rule" is accepted widely could be the result of Jesus's proselytization, or it could be the result of the fact that such a rule tends to benefit societies in specific ways, regardless of religion. (The supposition that it was a new concept is also strange—I'd be willing to bet that it predates Jesus by at least a few centuries in written form, and that it could be argued that similar—but uncodified—conventions of behaviour have existed in nature for far longer still.) In short, Christians like Ken seem to attribute their morality to religious influences; I prefer to take a less radical stance, and not assume the existence of excess components. In the end, I do suspect that, from a moralistic point of view, much will be held in common.

Re: Atheists?
 

Tristan, Andy, Ken and everyone,
Interesting posts so far. I thought I might add a little testimony here. I too went through a time where I doubted the existence of GOD. It was in my enlightened youth during college when all the world seemed so ordered that a supreme being couldn't possibly exist. So, you see, I understand all of your points thus far. I can't prove the existence or non-existence of God but I believe he exists. I can't prove that the Christian God is the only one, but I believe that an omnipotent God would reveal himself in any form that an individual or group might be more willing to accept. So for the Greeks and romans it took several different gods, for Hindus or Buddhists something completely different.
There were a few things that began a change in my beliefs from atheist/agnostic to where I am today. The first was travel which opened my eyes to the natural wonders that abound on this great green planet. The biodiversity is beyond understanding in that pure luck, evolution and coincidence could not have come up with the varieties we have. How does a life form evolve into a narwhal or a kangaroo without some push? The shear amount of geographical features and plant life also astound me. In these things there is so much beauty. If you have ever stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon and seen it for more than the biggest hole on the face of the earth or watched the sunset over the west rim or it fall into the ocean off Hawaii it somehow will touch you forever.
The second thing to change my mind was having children. What a wonder that we are able to put two beings together and form a third. To watch a child grow and learn is too astounding to not have some other force involved.
So I am not giving these things for an argument or explanation just a description of one person's experience and transition. There were a few poignant lines in the movie "Oh God" with John Denver and George Burns that seemed to me to say it best. God said that he gave us a free will but that meant he could not come in change our thoughts or actions. He gave us all the natural resources and intelligence we would ever need and we could use them any way we choose. That meant we could use them for exceptional good or we could screw it up, our choice. We could love our fellow man and advance or we could hate and subjugate and decline. He could make it rain whenever he wanted but why screw it up for everyone so he made it rain inside John's car. The point is for me is that everything could easily be part of God's plan, evolution, the planets, stars, mole rats and the bible, Koran or Stonehenge. These things are not mutually exclusive in my mind.

Re: Atheists?
 

Tristan,

Good question. How could you possibly know for sure?

If the God of Judiasm and Christianity is real, exactly as it has been reportedly communicated to us by the people who interacted with Him

then, what proof of His existance, and His character would you (personally) accept?

what would you consider acceptable proof?

Re: Atheists?
 

An interview with Terry Gross would be a nice start.

-Andy A.

Re: Atheists?
 

?!? if you saw God on TV, that would be all the proof you need?

Re: Atheists?
 

Well, to begin with, it would be necessary to establish what traits (etc.) have been attributed to that particular God, so that we would have a basis for comparison. In doing so, it would be very useful to ascertain which reported communications were from reliable sources, and which were not (after all, we want our basis of comparison to be accurate). Once we know what the working definition of God is—and I realize the inherent difficulty of the task, given the many interpretations of God's nature—we could then progress to testing a significant number of these traits, to see if they are compatible with our model.

But even if we've shown that these things could be godly traits, we're only part of the way there. We must additionally try to show that they are possesed by the god in question, since it is possible that other factors may have had a coincedental result. We would minimize this step by testing traits (if any exist) that are unique to God, and not possible through other means—of course, finding such a trait is rather problematic, given that any other omnipotent entity could potentially posess equivalent traits (unless we can show otherwise, either by definition or by example). Note that this step is crucial, and often forgotten: are you familar with instances where someone declares an event to have been miraculous, but in fact, a perfectly mundane explanation also existed?

Once some statistically significant amount of supporting evidence were achieved (I won't consider here how that statistical model would be defined and evaluated—I only have the faintest idea), with only a statistically small amount of counter-evidence, the proposition could be declared proven. (This is an empirical, scientific type of proof—it is not absolute, because we are generalizing based on a sample set of results; only by testing everything, and having everything come out positive, could we be absolutely sure. This standard of proof doesn't exist when dealing with material things, as a practical consideration—all of science is based on variations upon the above method.)

But we aren't quite done yet. Now we need to make sure that we conducted our research dilligently and correctly; traditionally, this would involve peer review and duplication of findings. If others can reproduce the result, using the information and procedures described in the original study, it would tend to become accepted by the scientific community.

Then, I would accept it.

Is this standard of proof impractical? Well, for a god, of course it is. But gods' powers are very likely too broad to capture with a small quantity of evidence: how does one test the ability to create a world as described in Genesis? Isn't this capability fundamental to the nature of God as he is defined in Christian scripture? Isn't testing that well beyond our means as a civilization? The mere fact that we can't test it says nothing about the truth; all it says is that we simply don't know.

It comes down to this: we can't practically prove that a god exists, nor can we prove that no god exists. Don't conflate the fact that I have outlined an impractical scenario with an attempt to divert attention, or dodge the question; I have merely set the standard of proof at the same level demanded of any other scientific study. We must not accept an insufficient proof, simply because it is convienient, even if that means we cannot conclude at all; no conclusion is much more helpful than making the wrong conclusion.

In the absence of sufficient evidence of any gods, I therefore take the position that I don't know for sure whether or not any gods exist, and as a practical matter, do not acknowledge the existance of any, through religious ritual, or any other means.

Re: Atheists?
 

Tristan, that is a very interesting reply.

You are approaching the question of proof of Gods existance as a scientific endevour. If the scientific community launched a study on the existance of God, and found sufficient proof of His existance then you would accept those findings.

Even if you did not participate in the study yourself? you would accept the findings of scientists (assuming of course you were allowed knowledge of the raw data, equations used, methods employed...) ?

Are you aware that science as a discipline deliberately chooses not to include the possibility of Gods existance in all of its fields of study? Science studys that which is physical in nature (matter and energy), and is observable, and is repeatable (control-able in the lab, or controlled observations). God is none of these.

In physics labs you run experiments, and you run them over and over. If you drop a ball ten times and it accelerates at 32'/S^2, and you record the velocity over time, but one of your trials has very different results - they teach you to ignore that data. That trial is tossed out, and attributed to sensor error, operator error... and the remaining trails are averaged to get the 'right' answer.

Why? because the one trial that produced 'unacceptable results' cannot be repeated. It cannot be explained. We dont know what caused it (impact with a mason, black hole flying by the earth, or the hand of God) so science ignores it and pretends it didnt happen.

In a way you have slammed the door shut. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove the existance of God, and you say that is the only proof you will accept. That would be like saying I will only belive OBL exists when the FBI finds him. The FBI does not look for people outside the United States. They never will look for him. The CIA will, the military will, Interpol will, but not the FBI.

Science, as a discipline, assumes there is no God - not from a moral sense, but for the sake of being able to run controllable and repeatable experiments and observations. Science would not be able to draw any conclusion otherwise unless they tacked 'God willing' onto the end of every theory or law - so they simply assume there is no God.

Its also interesting that you focus on evidence of Gods existance, but for some reason you dont even consider finding God Himself. If God came to your door and revealed Himself to you personally, you would reject Him? You would drag Him off to the nearest university to have Him tested by the physics department?

You would not be able to determine by yourself if you were standing face to face with the Creator of the Universe?

Re: Atheists?
 

If I had to believe something (and remember, "no belief" is a legitimate position), I'd tend to believe a well-reasoned study, conducted by competent parties, with compelling evidence and reproducible methodology. I don't put much faith in crackpots. But are you saying that you would ignore such a study entirely, instead putting all your faith in religion?


Where does it say that God is not observable (Moses conversed with God on the mountain) and not physical (what did they nail to the cross, if not Jesus)? And repeatablity refers to the principle that if I find something, I describe it so that someone else can duplicate my methods, and we can see if they find the same thing—this in no way limits the search for God. Science does not exclude God any more than it excludes unicorns; if evidence exists, it can be studied. So, are you therefore saying that there is no evidence?


Are you saying that science would systematically ignore God's influence, because God's influence is limited to occasional and seemingly insignificant effects? What about a plague of locusts—is this an outlier? A great flood, a new world created in a week, a booming voice from the heavens; what else could God do to get noticed by scientists. It is absurd to think that scientists are ignoring God because his past exploits have tended to be subtle.

As for the type of research you've focused on, instead consider ornithology: an expedition is organized to some godforsaken jungle, and there, a team of scientists looks for evidence of some godforsaken bird. They're not necessarily running a clinical trial, but they're still looking for evidence.


Can you fault scientists for believing that they won't be making productive use of their time in proving the existence of something for which it is exceedingly difficult to even gather data? I've outlined the scientific approach to finding proof of God's existence; perhaps they, as I, feel that there's simply too much to test to actually find him and show that he's not an impostor.


We can make up any fanciful, unprovable thing, and then be forced to qualify our science with "'thing' willing". The scientists' assumption is that there is not enough evidence for acceptance of God: therefore they don't factor God (or unicorns, or fairies, or talking animals) into their science.


You would? If the entity says, "I am the creator of the universe", and then stands there, expecting you to genuflect, or at least look impressed, do you? You just accept it? How do you know it's not Satan? How do you know it's not me?

As for me, I realize that there's a another little problem: what if it's a powerful alien (hypothetically), and not God, but the alien can do 99% of the things God can purportedly do. It's likely very hard to construct a test that can distinguish the two, especially on a face-to-face, conversational basis. If the entity shows off several of his parlour tricks (parting of Lake Ontario, etc.), I might be impressed, and might even say that for lack of a better category, he's a god—but we'd have to figure out something about his history to figure out whether or not he's your god.

How do we recognize people? We know their appearance, or their voice, or know something about the way they behave, etc.—but how can you know these things about God? Do you just read scripture, and hope that you can piece together a description that fits? You must have heard of people who claim to see images of religious figures in mundane items—windows, stains, burn marks, etc.—what are they recognizing, the face of God, or a stupid pattern in a mundane object?

So, to cut to the heart of the uncertainty, I could ask the purported god to prove himself to me; then, at least, I would only have to figure out whether or not he's lying. But isn't that just another nearly-unanswerable question? Sometimes, it's better to just admit that you don't know. It's not exciting, but at least it's intellectually honest.

Re: Atheists?
 

Tristan,

your reply indicates you do not accept what I have said about science ignoring God. It is a common misconception amoung people today that science HAS looked for God, looked for evidence of God, and concluded God does not exists, or as you have said, the evidence is inconclusive.

If you will not accept my words do a little research on your own. When did scientists put together a study to search for evidence of God?

Most of the scientists in your science books did believe in God, and most of them were Christians. Its only been in the last hundred years or so that science has delved into the question of "If God did not create the universe, and all life on it, then how did we get here"

but again, the starting assumption was 'If there is no God'.

Please dont take my word for it, or reject what I am saying out of hand, look into it for yourself. Philosophy studies man and God, theology studies man and God - but science deliberately excludes God from its realm of investigation. (for the reasons I have already pointed out).

No I am saying there has never been such a well-reasoned study, and there never will be. You apparently believe such a study has already been conducted and reached its conclusions, or that it has already been determined that such a study would be a waste of time (presuming the result without actually doing the investigation).

Ive already mentioned that a large number of scientists in history already did believe in God, and it never occurred to them to attempt to prove His existance. Science looks for understanding that can be implemented in the physical world - electric power, mechanical systems, medical research... That is the basis of their field, understanding the physical world so that WE can control it, modify it, and exploit it to our benefit.

What would be the end result of science finding God? would they put Him in a cage and hook wires to Him to tap into His unlimited power? Would they petition Him with suggestions for how to improve the universe? Would they appoint Him head of the University of California?

If or when you 'find God' the only logical outcome would be the establishment of a personal relationship. Science does not deal with personal relationships.

then science would be stood on its head. If some being has the power of life and death, has the power of creation from nothing, exists outside our time domain, can read your thoughts (telepathy), can control matter and energy with its mind (telekinesis)

then our science and technology has been reduced almost to zero, but the most important issue on that day would be one thing only: our relationship with that being. Whether or not that being is our Creator, we would have to understand what it expects from us, how we could co-exist

understanding its nature and character would be critical to our survival

and the only thing you would have to go on would be:

1. what it chooses to reveal to you about its nature and
2. the eyewitness accounts of people who have interacted with the being

in the end, it would come back to what type of relationship you had personally established.

in fact, you would then find yourself in a situation, or a field of study very much like the religion, philosophy, theology... fields we have now. You would have all these personal eyewitness accounts (like the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books of the bible), you would have living individuals who claim some sort of interaction, you would have leaders appointed to be the official alien go-betweens

you would have to worry about whether this being was evaluating us as a species or as individuals for some purpose

it would be like starting a new religion from scratch

this is what it all comes down to. God would have to reveal Himself to us personally, in a way that we would accept (my terms?)

This question does have an answer. Each person comes up with their own answer to what they will accept.

And as I talked about before, many people have accepted the reality of Gods existance (in one form or another). Its not something they can show you, or convince you of, because you have no way of knowing whether the evidence they accepted was real, or they made it up, or someone deceived them

so in the end, this is one thing in life that each of us must decide for ourselves, based on our own observations and our own personal conclusions.

(almost as if we are being tested somehow)
(tested? sorted? selected? measured? characterized?)

Re: Atheists?
 

Aha.... You are assuming that our world is deterministic. Actually according to one interpretation of quantum physics the IRS isn't neccessairly there until you actually observe it. I know that sounds stupid but that's one interpretation. You can't say the IRS is located in Washington D.C. because the world is based on probability. The many world interpretations says that the building is actually following different probabilistic patterns but we can only observe one. The many world interpretations is really interesting if you think of schrodinger's cat. Somewhere there is a cat that can get out of a posionous gas chamber alive while all our cats will just die. Yes.... I just threw a major monkey wrench into the argument. A really ugly monkey wrench. :)

Re: Atheists?
 

From a philosophical perspective the reality of our world is only a probability as well.

Do you know where your car is? Of course you do, you remember where you parked it, so you know where it is.

or do you?

has it been stolen?
is it legally your car in the first place (some paperwork mix up at the DMV?)
did someone take your car last night and replace it with one just like it?
did a sink hole open up in the parking lot and swallow your car?

if you consider all the possibilies then the only thing we can really prove to ourselves is that we exist (because we think). Everything else we perceive to be real could be an illlusion or a deception.

My present stream of conscouseness began at 6AM this morning when I woke up. Was yesterday real or only a dream? Are any of my memories real?

We only exist in the present, so the reality of anything else is a matter of probability. Most likely I did exist yesterday, and my car is where I left it, but can I be 100% certain?

honestly? No, I cant!

(dont think about this too long unless you have a fluffy teddy bear close at hand :^)

Re: Atheists?
 

I'm Agnastic really.. I don't know what to believe in, but its kinda close to being Atheist... eh?