The Agnostic and/or Atheism thread.

[BruceAlmighty]

So all you sceptics and/or non believers.
Here are a few questions to ponder.
1. Why dont you believe in a higher power (God for instance)?
2. Are there aspects to the human ''sprit'' not yet explained but cant be ruled out?
3. Is there life after death and if so what form would that take on, or alternatively if the lights are just turned off is this a bad thing?
4. Do the ''spirits'' of loved ones watch over us or are they truely gone?
5. What are your explanations for belief in a higher power (by others)?
6. If God exists, why does he favour wealthy countries (war, famin, desease, AIDS, natural catastrophy, etc...) over the poor?
7. Are there any religions that you do like/ respect?

[jacobsian]

1. Because I just don't. I plain old couldn't give a rat's arse.

2. Don't care.

3. When the lights turn off it is a bad thing, because family and friends miss you. They may invent some religious belief to help cope with the pain of losing you, however. My mother actually did this when my dieda died - she was so hurt by not having him around anymore, and she's never stepped foot in a church in her life, but as a way of coping with the loss she wants to believe that his spirit is somewhere out there looking over her.

4. Spirits are electrical impulses in our brains.

5. Denial.

6. Why should I answer this, i'm not the believer. My qualified answer though, qualified because I don't actually believe it, is that this God character created everything in the beginning, but doesn't control the outcomes, he created us to make our own decisions. Well that's what the Jesuits taught me.

7. Jediism looks like it's worth a crack.

[Adder-Laid]

5. Denial.Christianity described in 1 word...

[Homeroids]

Yob - define the soul.

The soul - the one thing any scientist begins to start philosophising. Paul Davies, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings and so many more. They all tend to say the soul is a mystery. How can just a mass of atoms with their electrons become self aware, sentient? This is the basis of all philosophies - I am, therefore....

And, there's nothing foolish in being curious about that. In fact, it seems illogical not to be curious about how your self awareness works but that's just my humble opinion.

[Adder-Laid]

philosophisingGeorge Bushism?

[Dale]

George Bushism?

"philosophizing" is a proper term. It's what lots of theists are willing to do, unlike many dogmatic atheists who are content to parrot what their uni professors tell them. :wink2:

[BruceAlmighty]

Christianity described in 1 word...

Just Christianity?

[BruceAlmighty]

I think question 2 is an important one.
The human mind remains a mystery apart from a rather crude map of spheres and zones controlling various reflexes, motoric and superficial perceptive functions.
We have all had experiences that we cant fully explain.

Such as feeling the presence of a certain person and actually running into that same person within minutes.

I've experienced this and the person in question I had not seen in over a year at the time. The location was far removed from were I would have expected to run into that person, but I when I looked my eyes were directed straight to her at a distance of 100m away.
I had a second incident at Christchurch Airport. I was in transfer between flights from Auckland to Dunedin. Again I felt the presence of someone and looked up. 10 metres away was my ex girlfriend (who lived in Tahiti) also on transit whom I had not seen in a year.
In both these occurances I felt a very strong mental awareness and physical tension. I could also pin point the individual in my head before actually having seen them and my eyes were directed straight to the individual in both instances.

I was once back in NZ on holiday. I had recently lost contact with the last of my old friends in Auckland. I was travelling north and about 100km from Auckland decided to pull over and have a bite to eat. It was the end of Labour weekend so the traffic was busy. At the moment I put on the handbrake and took the keys out of the ignition another car pulled in next to me. I payed no attention and went inside and took a table. I looked across the room and saw my friend walk in. It turned out that she was travelling in the very car that parked next to me.
My stay in NZ was very short and there was only a 2 day window in which this could of occured.
In this instance I did not feel any particlar sense apart from having thought about her as I was driving through Auckland earlier that day.

[jellyman]

possible explanations 1. coincidence and selective memory: how many times have you had a sense of someone, looked up and no one was there. You then forget 5 minutes later. The only cases you remember are the ones when you happen to make a lucky guess.

possible explanation 2. Pheremones: Humans definitely can communicate using airbone hormones. I guess 100m away might be stretching the range of this, but an ex girlfriend 10 m away seems like a good candidate as pheremones play a large part in sexual activity, and partner selection.

[BruceAlmighty]

possible explanations 1. coincidence and selective memory: how many times have you had a sense of someone, looked up and no one was there. You then forget 5 minutes later. The only cases you remember are the ones when you happen to make a lucky guess.

possible explanation 2. Pheremones: Humans definitely can communicate using airbone hormones. I guess 100m away might be stretching the range of this, but an ex girlfriend 10 m away seems like a good candidate as pheremones play a large part in sexual activity, and partner selection.

In all the instances mentioned, these meetings took place in places far removed from where I might have expected to run into them. The ex girlfriend was just leaving the bar and walking towards where I was sitting so unless her pheremones were floating all over the airport I dont think this was the case. She had not seen me untill I made eye contact, so she was not conciously walking towards me as such.
In the 2 first examples there was a definite physical tension and hightened awareness.

In the 3rd instance I would concede to coincidence.

In general terms we all have the capability to sense when someone is watching us. This is something I and I am sure yourself experience nearly daily.

[Kushantaiidan]

So all you sceptics and/or non believers.
Here are a few questions to ponder.
1. Why dont you believe in a higher power (God for instance)?
2. Are there aspects to the human ''sprit'' not yet explained but cant be ruled out?
3. Is there life after death and if so what form would that take on, or alternatively if the lights are just turned off is this a bad thing?
4. Do the ''spirits'' of loved ones watch over us or are they truely gone?
5. What are your explanations for belief in a higher power (by others)?
6. If God exists, why does he favour wealthy countries (war, famin, desease, AIDS, natural catastrophy, etc...) over the poor?
7. Are there any religions that you do like/ respect?

1. Because science seems to constantly suggest otherwise, and my own perception of the world around me also tells me that a higher power can not exsist, in this universe.
2. I beleive that the idea of a human spirit comes from human inability to explain or comprehend it's own physical and mental complexity. For someone with little knowledge in science, the mind boggling idea of a conciousness could only be explained by extraordinary ideas. I can understand that some people could not beleive that their consiousness is merely a collection of chemical reactions and electronic pulses. Note, not beleiving in spirit does not mean I am any less in awe of the universe around me or the universe within me than a religious person.
3. Unfortunately, I don't beleive in an afterlife, and hence I fear death terribly. Again, death is such a difficult concept to understand, that many people simply can not accept that death is the end. It is the end of your conciousness, but not the end of the molecules you are made out of, which will forever exsist within the universe as either matter or a form of energy, until the universe stops exsisting one way or another.
4. They're gone, but they exsist as memories. If they are forgotten, then they are truly lost.
5. Simply a will to understand the world around us, every single human being beleives in something. I beleive in science and proof, which keeps my will to learn of my sorroundings satisfied..
6. God doesn't exsist, some countries are poor simply due to the rule that the strongest survive.
7. I respect Buddism, Odinism, and any positive religion, that worships life, pride, victory, instead of sheep like religions based on obediance, sacrifice, misery and suffering.. Namely the three one god religions..

[Dale]

Kush -

Fair enough, but how precisely does science "constantly suggest" that God does not exist ? And how does your own worldview suggest that God cannot exist ?

Just curious.

[Kushantaiidan]

Kush -

Fair enough, but how precisely does science "constantly suggest" that God does not exist ? And how does your own worldview suggest that God cannot exist ?

Just curious.

I think I would have difficulty explaining this.. I may take the challenge up when i'm home from work! But a short answer, scientific discoveries seem to constantly disprove certain events that have occured in various religious texts, parting of seas for example, but then there are other interpreted ideas which may have not been so direct in such texts like the bible, like the medievil idea of earth being the centre of the universe.. Hmm.. haven't got time to make a full answer..

[Dale]

I think I would have difficulty explaining this.. I may take the challenge up when i'm home from work! But a short answer, scientific discoveries seem to constantly disprove certain events that have occured in various religious texts, parting of seas for example, but then there are other interpreted ideas which may have not been so direct in such texts like the bible, like the medievil idea of earth being the centre of the universe.. Hmm.. haven't got time to make a full answer..

I can surely appreciate the lack of time. That said, the reason I generally ask for specifics is because so many of the objections to religion that I've heard sound like warmed-over, uni regurgitation. :)

[Kushantaiidan]

I can surely appreciate the lack of time. That said, the reason I generally ask for specifics is because so many of the objections to religion that I've heard sound like warmed-over, uni regurgitation. :)

What do you mean by warmed-over, uni regurgitation?

Also... someone please explain Praying. As a child I always questioned it. There was never a response, never any sign of a god exsisting. No event has ever occured in my life to say there is anything beyond the universe's physical constraints. While scientific theories and facts always have some kind of proof or idea to back them up, religious ideals seem to be blindly followed, without question. Do christians question? It seems that religious ppl question the intentions of their god, like why is god doing this, why is my life like this, and they seem to question less the idea of whether a god can actually exsist or not.

I spose my answer to your question would be the total opposite to your answer to why YOU beleive in a god. Full answer coming soon... ^_^

[Dale]

Warmed-over, uni regurgitation - Pat objections, learned in uni, like, "science has disproved God", when indeed science does not possess the kind of reach to accomplish such a task.

As to prayer, do you mean that you prayed when younger and your prayers were not granted ? Also, I myself do not take the "universe's physical constraints" for granted. I affirm that the universe and everything in it is created and sustained by God. Nonetheless, what kind of action would suffice to establish the existence of God for you ?

And sure, I would guess that many religionists "blindly follow". but let's be real, is blind obedience a religious tendency, or a human tendency ? How, for instance, do you know that you are not blindly acquiescing to Darwinist principles ? Can you prove Darwinism ? How do you know that the facts arrayed for Darwinism are not "interpreted facts", so to speak ?

And here's a non-scientific explanation for belief in God: Generally speaking, awareness of God seems to occur so naturally that even the atheist is preoccupied with the subject. I would suggest that this phenomenon is consistent with the biblical message that God presses himself upon the human consciousness. Or as the Bible puts it, "[God] has placed eternity upon the hearts of men."

[Kushantaiidan]

Darwinism is but one scientific ideal that I may or may not follow which as we all know is riddled with holes and inconsistancies. The only action that i would need to witness to prove to me the exsistance of a god is an action that defies the rules of the universe. The bible seems to describe many such occurances, yet I myself have seen none, and i have seen nothing to imply that such a physically impossible event would or could ever happen.

The reason I am preoccupied with the subject of religion is not due to some feeling within my conscience pushed onto me by some outside force, but the effects of religion on myself and the world, be it good or bad, be it charity or war. I feel probably exactly the same about religious people as they probably feel about me. How can he beleive such a thing, it's so obvious that God does/doesn't exsist. The feeling you have within yourself that a god does exsist is probably not much different to what I feel. Perhaps it comes down to what we have been taught, and what we have taught ourselves. As a child, I went to church, and was given nothing but rhetoric and riddles, funny little phrases so open to interpretation. If some of the impossible events in the bible are in fact analogies, their meaning eludes me, and if these events were in fact supposed to have happen, then i simply see it as a book of lies. Where the bible loosely describes events, which may or may not have happened, relying on people's faith to beleive in such occurances, science is based on fact and theories. Fact's that are proven, and theories which may still await final proof, but could in fact physically occur. I beleive a theory which is impossible in this universe isn't a theory at all, but a load of gobblygook. Generally theories are made because they COULD happen.. It is physically possible in this universe for evolution to occur, whether it DOES occur, all we can use to determine this is the world we see around us. Mutations in species can occur within a human lifetime. Mutations are physically possible, and evolution, whether it is mutative, or constant, is physically possible. We can see animals adapt to their sorroundings.. These things are physically possible.

But it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to part the seas, walk on water, fit 2 of every species on the planet on a boat. And if these events are merely analogies, I would prefer to beleive concise fact such as this is that, and that is this, rather than stories passed down generations for 2000 or more years saying this impossible event occurred sometime near someplace, told in such a way that I simply find difficult to read. If all the events in the bible were dated, with perhaps a bibliography to other sources of information, further backing up what is told in that book, it might be easier to discern what may have occured back then. If the bible was to say in theory this may have happened, but this particular event DID in fact happen, in this exact location, in this particular year, please refer to (some other book), which further proves this event with carbon dating etc etc.. dividing theory and fact and fantasy into groups, so I know how to exactly interpret what is in the bible.

Facts are open to interpretation, but far less interpretation than what i find in the bible.

[Dale]

"We can see animals adapt to their surroundings" is still a long, long way from what I suspect you mean by evolution. Faith is evident here. Indeed, I might argue that you are believing what you are told, blindly so. You are not questioning. You hold to notions which are not factual, and for which there is no evidence. It's very much like an ancient religion.

And as to the miraculous in the Bible, I would point out, for starters, that skepticism abounded *in the Bible*. Put another way, according to the Bible, comparatively few believed in Jesus. Nonetheless, if there were an author of time and space, there would be nothing implausible about *him* walking on water, were he indeed a man.

[Bond James Bond]

Well I don't know about God, but I definitely believe that Satan exists, because someone deleted my "I feel like making a thread here" thread in the front section of OZscrapers. Only a Truely Evil Being would be so cruel as to delete such an important thread! :)

[Dale]

Well I don't know about God, but I definitely believe that Satan exists, because someone deleted my "I feel like making a thread here" thread in the front section of OZscrapers. Only a Truely Evil Being would be so cruel as to delete such an important thread! :)

AHH BUH-LEEEEEVE !!! *flutters hands*

[jacobsian]

Yob - define the soul.

The soul - the one thing any scientist begins to start philosophising. Paul Davies, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings and so many more. They all tend to say the soul is a mystery. How can just a mass of atoms with their electrons become self aware, sentient? This is the basis of all philosophies - I am, therefore....

And, there's nothing foolish in being curious about that. In fact, it seems illogical not to be curious about how your self awareness works but that's just my humble opinion.

If one is to program an artificial intelligence, even a primitive one, then its own ability to perform decision making using its silicon chip must be a soul as well.

That's why the concept of a soul is so ridiculous to me.

I too don't believe there's anything wrong with being curious about it. However, being curious doesn't mean I have to believe someone elses religous belief. Coinciding with my inability to give a rat's arse about religion, the natural course for me is to just chil out with a beer, play pool or whatever, and leave the bible preaching to the people who really love the stuff.

[Kushantaiidan]

when I'm chilling out with a beer on the weekend, I don't think about religion either.. It's at work when im either stressed or bored that my mind begins to wander, ussually brought on by some work collegue that has preached during the day...

[Homeroids]

If one is to program an artificial intelligence, even a primitive one, then its own ability to perform decision making using its silicon chip must be a soul as well.

That's why the concept of a soul is so ridiculous to me.

I too don't believe there's anything wrong with being curious about it. However, being curious doesn't mean I have to believe someone elses religous belief. Coinciding with my inability to give a rat's arse about religion, the natural course for me is to just chil out with a beer, play pool or whatever, and leave the bible preaching to the people who really love the stuff.

Are you talking Sci-fi here as in Data from Star Trek:TNG or reality :). The problem with defining a soul is that it's a paradox because it is the 'self' defining philosophically who and what you are. Computers do not think.

I'm not trying to push you down a religious path when bringing up the topic of a soul. More a philosophical paradigm. This thread is about agnostism/atheism. I mean soul as in self awareness, who you are, sentience. Not soul as in the Christian philosophical context which may conjure ideas of judgement and pre-destiny.

[Kushantaiidan]

Are you talking Sci-fi here as in Data from Star Trek:TNG or reality :). The problem with defining a soul is that it's a paradox because it is the 'self' defining philosophically who and what you are. Computers do not think.

I'm not trying to push you down a religious path when bringing up the topic of a soul. More a philosophical paradigm. This thread is about agnostism/atheism. I mean soul as in self awareness, who you are, sentience. Not soul as in the Christian philosophical context which may conjure ideas of judgement and pre-destiny.


I really think that the definitian of a soul as taken by most of the general population is that of the religious or spiritual kind, and I don't know many who would define a soul as self awareness or conciousness.. My own definition probably follows the popular idea, so when I hear someone mention soul, i think of the religious sense of a soul.. But i'm getting off track.

I definately think that self aware machines or electronic/data based lifeforms could theoretically exist, though we are a long way off anything like that, but we do obviously have self sufficient self sustaining programs such as viruses, of which some have the capability to evolve, which can be seen as equivilent to real life viruses which are arguably the most basic forms of life. But there is still arguement over whether virii are actually life.. Once we can electronically replicate something resembling a life form such as the most basic bacteria etc, we would be a step closer.. But this is a large barrier, that may not be breakable at all, but unless it is, i think my arguement probably has no ground at all!!

I just simply don't beleive in a soul... I obviously beleive in consciousness, and self awareness, but these phenomona are nothing more than very complex chemical and electrical reactions. I think certain phenomona (i cant spell today) such as auras and chii etc could also be explained by electronic pulses within the body, magnetism and that kind of thing.. But I am speculating..

But everything in the universe has a scientific explanation, even if we haven't found the explanation, and i will not try to explain the unexplained by palming it off to a religious ideal...

[Dale]

Homeroids -

What do you think about the teachings of some Christian groups - that man does not have a soul but rather man *is* a soul ? of course the most notable of these groups is the JW's, but the teaching is gaining traction in traditinal circles as well.

[Dale]

Kush, have you ever wondered what God thinks about scientific expalnations for himself ? :wink2:

[Kushantaiidan]

Kush, have you ever wondered what God thinks about scientific expalnations for himself ? :wink2:

I don't understand the question. I don't beleive that a god exsists.. so a god can not think as it doesn't exsist.. so.. i'm not trying to be difficult... but if there was a god, then science is void, because it would have no point. Um..

perhaps try asking questions that aren't dependant on my beleif of a god.

[Dale]

I don't understand the question. I don't beleive that a god exsists.. so a god can not think as it doesn't exsist.. so.. i'm not trying to be difficult... but if there was a god, then science is void, because it would have no point. Um..

perhaps try asking questions that aren't dependant on my beleif of a god.

I was joking a bit. But you are clearly confused about God obviating the need for science. Modern science has its roots in religion. All the early, formidable minds were believers. And many imminent scientists in our time are believers.

And I will not pretend to ask questions that don't presuppose belief in God, since I presuppose God. Even if I could ask such questions, you would attempt to explain them without recourse to God, none of which explanations would actually impinge on the existence / non-existense of God. This rather goes to my point, God exists, or does not exist, irrespective of attempts to explain him, or to explain him away.

[Dale]

Or to quote yob, if God exists, then he doesn't care a rat's arse about atheism. :)

[Kushantaiidan]

I was joking a bit. But you are clearly confused about God obviating the need for science. Modern science has its roots in religion. All the early, formidable minds were believers. And many imminent scientists in our time are believers.

And I will not pretend to ask questions that don't presuppose belief in God, since I presuppose God. Even if I could ask such questions, you would attempt to explain them without recourse to God, none of which explanations would actually impinge on the existence / non-existense of God. This rather goes to my point, God exists, or does not exist, irrespective of attempts to explain him, or to explain him away.

So in conclusion, debate over god's exsistance exsistance is pointless, as a good may or may not exsist regardless of how we debate it. But debate over the morallity of religions and it's effect on humanity is still relevant no?

Do you think that Athiesm, especially widespread Athiesm has an adverse effect on humanity, does it cause widespread suffering? Or from a religious point of view, do you merely feel pity for those that are supposedly damned to eternal torment for not beleiving? Because as I see it, religion, whether it is interpreted correctly or not, creates untold suffering accross the planet. Perhaps religious people see it, all this suffering, as a neccesary sacrifice to earn there place in place eternal of eternal joy?

I can understand that the prospect of spending an eternity in a heaven or a hell could easily drive a human to do completely illogical things. So it is this prospect that seems to drive people to kill, or imposes their beleifs on others..

I think the reason a lot of athiests speak out isn't to give the religious ppl salvation, but to try and make a diference in the world, to stop the neverending suffering of the world caused by religion. And often, the athiests themselves don't want to have to suffer at the hand of religions themselves..

[Kushantaiidan]

Or to quote yob, if God exists, then he doesn't care a rat's arse about atheism. :)


So it is thusly pointless to be an athiest..

So on the other hand, if god doesn't exsist, it is pointless being religious!!

So it's all pointless, and the only point to life is.... BEER!

:cheers:

[jacobsian]

Or to quote yob, if God exists, then he doesn't care a rat's arse about atheism. :)

Quote.... bastardised paraphrase at best. And it's "give" a rat's arse. :p

[Randwicked]

So it is thusly pointless to be an athiest..

So on the other hand, if god doesn't exsist, it is pointless being religious!!

So it's all pointless, and the only point to life is.... BEER!

:cheers:

Sir, I am interested in your Beerism and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

[Homeroids]

Homeroids -

What do you think about the teachings of some Christian groups - that man does not have a soul but rather man *is* a soul ? of course the most notable of these groups is the JW's, but the teaching is gaining traction in traditinal circles as well.

I don't understand where they are going with that. I know JW's interpret John 1.1 as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 'a' God". They add the word, 'a'. I'm lead to believe that there is no equivalent of 'a' in ancient Greek but I digress. This is an Agnostic/ Athiesm thread :).

Soul to me is what Kushantaiidan said, being self consciousness, self awareness. But, I think it is that plus the uniqueness of each individual. In other words, there is and has not, and will never be another person like me. Therefore, you could say I am rejecting the idea of reincarnation.

The whole irony of this is, that this whole discussion shows just how different we are to machines. Computers do not think and they don't (and in my humble opinion never will) have true self awareness. But even that is ideological. The irony of this discussion is that we are doing exactly what the basis is of all philosophies by asking that question, "I am, therefore...". A true athiest would not ask that question but an agnostic would.

That's why the definition of a 'soul', or self-consciousness is such a mystery to science at this point in time I think.

[Dale]

So in conclusion, debate over god's exsistance exsistance is pointless, as a good may or may not exsist regardless of how we debate it. But debate over the morallity of religions and it's effect on humanity is still relevant no?

Do you think that Athiesm, especially widespread Athiesm has an adverse effect on humanity, does it cause widespread suffering? Or from a religious point of view, do you merely feel pity for those that are supposedly damned to eternal torment for not beleiving? Because as I see it, religion, whether it is interpreted correctly or not, creates untold suffering accross the planet. Perhaps religious people see it, all this suffering, as a neccesary sacrifice to earn there place in place eternal of eternal joy?

I can understand that the prospect of spending an eternity in a heaven or a hell could easily drive a human to do completely illogical things. So it is this prospect that seems to drive people to kill, or imposes their beleifs on others..

I think the reason a lot of athiests speak out isn't to give the religious ppl salvation, but to try and make a diference in the world, to stop the neverending suffering of the world caused by religion. And often, the athiests themselves don't want to have to suffer at the hand of religions themselves..


I accuse atheists of *grossly* overplaying the hand that religion leads to bloodshed. It is true that many reprehensible acts have been perpetrated by believers in this or that god. It is also true that many evil things have been done by those who reject God.

And please do not ask me to explain the world "from a religious point of view". simply ask me how I see the world. And I see a world created and sustained by a God to whom all are accountable. Thus, while believers may well behave irrationally, it is, at the same time, illogical and irrational to oppose God, or to ignore him, or to consign him to irrelevance, or to demand that he must establish himself.

Lastly, while beer is good :) I do not regard these kinds of discussions as wasteful. We can yet learn from one another (as iron sharpens iron), and who knows but that someone's mind will be changed ? It happens every day !

[Kushantaiidan]

The irony of this discussion is that we are doing exactly what the basis is of all philosophies by asking that question, "I am, therefore...". A true athiest would not ask that question but an agnostic would.


Hi,

The above statement has completely lost me... Are you saying that an athiest doesn't question his existence? I don't think that is right?

[Kushantaiidan]

I accuse atheists of *grossly* overplaying the hand that religion leads to bloodshed. It is true that many reprehensible acts have been perpetrated by believers in this or that god. It is also true that many evil things have been done by those who reject God.

And please do not ask me to explain the world "from a religious point of view". simply ask me how I see the world. And I see a world created and sustained by a God to whom all are accountable. Thus, while believers may well behave irrationally, it is, at the same time, illogical and irrational to oppose God, or to ignore him, or to consign him to irrelevance, or to demand that he must establish himself.

Lastly, while beer is good :) I do not regard these kinds of discussions as wasteful. We can yet learn from one another (as iron sharpens iron), and who knows but that someone's mind will be changed ? It happens every day !

People's minds will be changed, either way.. but these people i doubt would have the intellegence to debate religion, if they're mind can be so easily changed by such a debate.. But as you said Iron Sharpens Iron.. Know thy enemy, and he may become your companion!

It is interesting to see that you consider it irational to demand a god establish himself or prove his exsistance. That is another thing that disturbs me about religion.. how religions seem to say that if you question the religion, you are breaking the rules of the religion. Religion always seems to say to me, you have to beleive, and you are not allowed to question your faith, or you will suffer, you will be punished! It just seems very unfair to be threatened by punishment for not beleiving in a religion that makes that threat! Beleive or suffer!

Would it not be more constructive and fair to say, Hey, would you be interested in beleiving? Here is some information, here is a pamphlet, decide for yourself, and if you're not interested, you won't be punished? It seems so forceful otherwise, and that's where I take the Blindly following idea from. The difference between religion and science is that you won't be punished or damed eternally for rejecting science...

And I think you may be right, in that, maybe it is simply the nature of humans to cause each other to suffer, and this nature may not be dependant on religion. But if you have any examples of violence or wars not based fundimentally on religion, or conversion to ones religious or political beleifs. Sure the leaders of the people they send to war may be in it for greed and personal gain, but to lead the people into battle, religion and politics is used to propel and force the people to their deaths..

Perhaps the abolishment of religions would not change a thing, the powerful will remain greedy, and the general populous will remain malleable.. But science, when something is proven, it can not be argued, because it is proven. And when one can not argue, there is no need to fight. But then again, not everything is proven, and everything will never be proven.. So I'm just contradicting myself!! Heheh.. I suck at this debating stuff!!

Science is not forced on ppl, it is left for ppl to decide for them selves
Religion forces itself on ppl, threatening them with eternal damnation if they do not exsist.

Science is based on facts, saying this is because it is proven, by maths or physics, or by the properties of the universe around us. Science follows the rules of the universe, like 1+1=2
Religion is based on stories and says this is true because we say it is true, and while we have no proof, if you do not beleive it is true, you will be damned eternally, and you are not allowed to qurestion, or say YOU ARE WRONG to the bible, to the quran, to the t.. t.. (the jewish book), *slaps forhead*, or to god, allah, some kind of profit etc..

Say YOU ARE WRONG to steven hawking, and he may debate something with you using facts or theories, but he won't say "You will suffere infinate pain for eternity for not beleiving me."

Hopefully you kinda get my point. Not trying to convert anyone, but just to justify why athiesm exsists, and why the exsistance of religion concerns me so much. =)

[Dale]

No, I understand why atheism exists. It is a quite natural reaction, at times, to boorish behavior on the part of Christians. I'll grant you that. Now I myself think this reaction amounts to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, but maybe that's just me.

I will say that yours is a rather facile use of the term "fact". I do not regard fact and truth as synonymous. Indeed, since you've referenced Stephan Hawking, you probably realize that he has recanted (re: blackholes) some of what was regarded as fact for years and which had become enshrined in textbooks the world over. What is factual ? Is evolution factual ? Indeed, it is not. It is more like a philosophical construct.

As to God and proof, I have no problem with sincere questioning, i.e., "tell me more". I do have a problem with the clenched fist, foot-stomping kind of hardened empiricism that cannot satisfy its own demands.

And you're going to have to let go of this quaint notion of religion as primary cause of mayhem in the world. More people have been killed in wars of the twentieth century fostered by atheistic regimes than perhaps were killed in all of history prior to that time.

I am enjoying our little convo, though. :)

[Kushantaiidan]

No, I understand why atheism exists. It is a quite natural reaction, at times, to boorish behavior on the part of Christians. I'll grant you that. Now I myself think this reaction amounts to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, but maybe that's just me.

I will say that yours is a rather facile use of the term "fact". I do not regard fact and truth as synonymous. Indeed, since you've referenced Stephan Hawking, you probably realize that he has recanted (re: blackholes) some of what was regarded as fact for years and which had become enshrined in textbooks the world over. What is factual ? Is evolution factual ? Indeed, it is not. It is more like a philosophical construct.

As to God and proof, I have no problem with sincere questioning, i.e., "tell me more". I do have a problem with the clenched fist, foot-stomping kind of hardened empiricism that cannot satisfy its own demands.

And you're going to have to let go of this quaint notion of religion as primary cause of mayhem in the world. More people have been killed in wars of the twentieth century fostered by atheistic regimes than perhaps were killed in all of history prior to that time.

I am enjoying our little convo, though. :)

In response to your first paragraph, the reaction you have is just you, or religious ppl. But I think I understand a bit better the way christians think. But I wonder if I can clarify something to you. You say cutting off ones nose, in spite of ones face. It seems that to christians, that athiests are people who were born as christians, yet decided to reject the religion. So the christian mind sees christianity as truth, and you are born true, born a christian. And for a christian to become athiest, they have to reject god, cut him off. That's what I see as how the christian sees the athiest.

But the thing is, I did not cut my self off from god, nor did I reject god. There was no god when I was born, and I did not beleive in god when I was born. The word you used earlier in this conversation, Prepropose.. Christians prepropose god, and athiests prepropose there is no god. Some christians (not saying you) seem to think that athiests were christians until something bad may have happened, and they athiests became angry with god, and therefor rejected and refused to beleive in god. It seems incomprehendable to christians that a person really beleives that a god can not exsist. And it is almost incomprehendable to me that a person actually beleives that a god exsists!

But from my perspective, I don't hate a god, and I have never rejected one, and i never cut off a beleif of a god due to a bad past experience, as doing all these things are impossible to me, because god doesn't exsist. But to a christian, god DOES exsist, so for someone to just be an athiest, as I have (tried) to explain, must seem impossible.

A christian once said to me "Don't you feel empty, naked without god?" and I replied, "Don't YOU feel empty with a god?", because then everything is explained, nothing in the universe would seem fascinating anymore, because everything simply is, because of god. That's a kind of sickening feeling for me, but because the universe is still so full of mystery, and what we already do no about the universe is so incredible complex, and how things come to be is incredible, I'm filled with awe towards exsistance itself, and I am very un-empty. With a god, isn't all the mystery gone? If you should blindly follow, and just accept this happened because god made it so, does that not make you feel empty? What questions can you ask, other than does god exsist? Because if god exsists, then everything is explained, and you can't ask yourself if god exsists, because you prepropose his exsistance! This seems like such an emptying thought to me!

I'm sorry, but I haven't answered your entire post yet, as i'm out of tiem, msut return to work! I'll respond to the rest when I have a chance..

And let me know if I'm sounding like an idiot! ^_^

[Dale]

Kush, you sound just fine. And I do except that some atheists are not among those who are angry with God or with Christians, though they are few in my experience.

Now why do you believe that belief in God explains everything ? Isn't this what science purports to do, explain everything ? No, for this Christian, belief in God opens inummerable new vistas to explore. And the nature of God himself is something never to be exhausted in this lifetime, or even perhaps the next.

Indeed, for me, God himself is the greatest mystery, for by definition, the creator must be greater than what is created. And we have not even begun to plumb the depths of creation, let alone the creator.

By the way, what would you say to the man who says, "I do not believe in the sun." ?

More on this tomorrow ...

[RUM]

What good comes from religion, what bad comes from religion?
What good comes from no religion, what bad comes from no religion?

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." - Usual Suspects

What do you say to the man who says, "I do not believe in the sun as a sustainable energy by itself for planet earth." :)

[Homeroids]

Hi,

The above statement has completely lost me... Are you saying that an athiest doesn't question his existence? I don't think that is right?

Yeah, in a way. An Athiest does not believe in a soul of any kind, An athiest believes (if that's the right word), in annihilation. When they die, they believe there is no more, that's it. Ok, sentience is a slightly different issue to possibilities of life after death but if you ask the question, "I am, therefore...." it leads to philosophy which logically leads to questioning ones self existence and ultimate purpose, and the idea of a soul. I have heard explanations here by athiests that there is no soul and that AI could one day, in effect, imitate the belief of a soul. It's kind of a paradox and a dilemma. It's a mystery in effect and many of the likes such as Paul Davies and other's often use the word 'mystery' in describing the soul, or self awareness, or sentience.

Maybe athiests believe in leaving a legacy with their children. Maybe they think that is the purpose of their existence. That's just an example. Hmmm another way of putting it this; scientists attempt to explain 'how' things work, how the universe came to be. Philosophers attempt to explain 'why' the universe is and why we exist. The difference of how and why may seem quite subtle at first but when you think about it, they are 2 very different questions or ways of looking at things.

Kush, I was reading over a previous post by you:

A christian once said to me "Don't you feel empty, naked without god?" and I replied, "Don't YOU feel empty with a god?", because then everything is explained, nothing in the universe would seem fascinating anymore, because everything simply is, because of god. That's a kind of sickening feeling for me, but because the universe is still so full of mystery, and what we already do no about the universe is so incredible complex, and how things come to be is incredible, I'm filled with awe towards exsistance itself, and I am very un-empty. With a god, isn't all the mystery gone? If you should blindly follow, and just accept this happened because god made it so, does that not make you feel empty? What questions can you ask, other than does god exsist? Because if god exsists, then everything is explained, and you can't ask yourself if god exsists, because you prepropose his exsistance! This seems like such an emptying thought to me!

This is a great example of using either 'how' or 'why'. The universe is a mystery to someone who believes in God if the question of 'how' is applied. Take the Christian example. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". There is no explanation there of how. There is only an assumption there that God did it some 'how' and that God pre-existed. If God does exist, it's a question of faith backed by evidence. Faith is the evidence of things you can't see, kind of :).

Now apply the question of 'why' the universe exists and to someone who believes in some kind of God, for them at least, that mystery is solved but that doesn't mean the mechanics, workings, and 'how' it works is also solved. Stephen Hawkings is trying to solve the 'how' more so than the 'why'. So with a God, all the mystery of 'how' the universe ticks with all it's complexity is just as unsolved to a Christian. I'm filled with awe to the existance of the universe just as much as you are. I love reading books about astronomy, books by Hawkings, Sagan, Brian Green, Paul Davies and many others.

[Dale]

What good comes from religion, what bad comes from religion?
What good comes from no religion, what bad comes from no religion?

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." - Usual Suspects

What do you say to the man who says, "I do not believe in the sun as a sustainable energy by itself for planet earth." :)

I don't know what to say to a man when I don't know what he's saying. What's he saying ? :)

[jacobsian]

I don't know what to say to a man when I don't know what he's saying. What's he saying ? :)

Dale, seriously mate, just let it go. There are much more important (http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=121920) things to discuss.

[Dale]

Dale, seriously mate, just let it go. There are much more important (http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=121920) things to discuss.

Oh, don't worry about me, mate. I'm a multi-tasker.

[Kushantaiidan]

This is really interesting!!!! :)

Yeah, in a way. An Athiest does not believe in a soul of any kind, An athiest believes (if that's the right word), in annihilation. When they die, they believe there is no more, that's it. Ok, sentience is a slightly different issue to possibilities of life after death but if you ask the question, "I am, therefore...." it leads to philosophy which logically leads to questioning ones self existence and ultimate purpose, and the idea of a soul. I have heard explanations here by athiests that there is no soul and that AI could one day, in effect, imitate the belief of a soul. It's kind of a paradox and a dilemma. It's a mystery in effect and many of the likes such as Paul Davies and other's often use the word 'mystery' in describing the soul, or self awareness, or sentience.

Maybe athiests believe in leaving a legacy with their children. Maybe they think that is the purpose of their existence. That's just an example. Hmmm another way of putting it this; scientists attempt to explain 'how' things work, how the universe came to be. Philosophers attempt to explain 'why' the universe is and why we exist. The difference of how and why may seem quite subtle at first but when you think about it, they are 2 very different questions or ways of looking at things.

Kush, I was reading over a previous post by you:



This is a great example of using either 'how' or 'why'. The universe is a mystery to someone who believes in God if the question of 'how' is applied. Take the Christian example. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". There is no explanation there of how. There is only an assumption there that God did it some 'how' and that God pre-existed. If God does exist, it's a question of faith backed by evidence. Faith is the evidence of things you can't see, kind of :).

Now apply the question of 'why' the universe exists and to someone who believes in some kind of God, for them at least, that mystery is solved but that doesn't mean the mechanics, workings, and 'how' it works is also solved. Stephen Hawkings is trying to solve the 'how' more so than the 'why'. So with a God, all the mystery of 'how' the universe ticks with all it's complexity is just as unsolved to a Christian. I'm filled with awe to the existance of the universe just as much as you are. I love reading books about astronomy, books by Hawkings, Sagan, Brian Green, Paul Davies and many others.