Atheists....

[Quark]

I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's.

Welcome to the forum Hand of God. I think there is an important truth in your post that others have overlooked: that morality is innately human and not the result of religion or any set rules. People have an instinct or a conscious need for morality and they create a system that is descriptive of that feeling they have. You mention that killing is not justifiable not because you were taught so but because you know so. The rule you have established was created to be descriptive of what you know--it wasn't prescribed by any religion. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need systems of morality and physical existence that are descriptive of what we know and not prescriptive of further thinking. I am sure that religions began in accord with the thoughts and feelings of their time--they provided people with a reality that people found both beautiful and believable. Eventually, though, they slowly lost that connection and became fixed systems which gained supremacy over the very things they were supposed to describe.

[RobinHood3000]

Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.

Called omnipotence. Meaning that regardless of what evidence we produce, you can always say that God made it that way.

Incorrect as well: a person's world-view is always in effect in the interpretation of "facts." Atheists do have a belief: they believe there is no God (it has to be a belief because they can't prove He doesn't exist). That's the same type of argument from ignorance the evolution often argues: "since we don't know exactly what happened, and hypothesis that fits the evidence will do."

Science tweaks its hypothesis to fit the evidence. Via the countermeasure mentioned above, religion retroactively tweaks the evidence to fit its own hypothesis, prematurely accepted as truth.

There's plenty of ID info out there to suggest an intelligent designer; once that's granted, then creation becomes very feasible.

And once it's debunked, creation goes right out the window again.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't expect you to believe a word of this, and frankly don't care. What does concern me is the idea of you teaching others factually false statements such as "Evolution has no more evidence that proves it than ID does". Please stop doing that.

I think I'm reaching "saturation" in terms of this discussion and may need to give it a rest for a while (but I've thought such things before). I am allowed to say whatever I believe to be true. I can say God is real; I can say that evolution isn't; I can say that I am God; I can evan say that "Evolution has no more evidence that proves is than ID does" if I like. You continue to say things that I disagree with, things that the Bible indicates to be untrue. I don't recall that I've ever told you to stop "teaching others" what you espouse to be true. Why don't you be tolerant and allow me my opinon, sir?

[cuppajoe_9]

I can say God is real; I can say that evolution isn't; I can say that I am God; I can evan say that "Evolution has no more evidence that proves is than ID does" if I like.

You can certainly say all of those things, but the first two (or three) are matters of opinion. The fourth is a matter of fact. The evidence is there. You can argue about interpretations if you like, but denying that the evidence exists is completely dishonest.

You continue to say things that I disagree with, things that the Bible indicates to be untrue. I don't recall that I've ever told you to stop "teaching others" what you espouse to be true. Why don't you be tolerant and allow me my opinon, sir?

You are entitled to what ever opinion you want. That isn't what I'm complaining about. Whether or not there is evidence for evolution is not a matter of opinion, only whether it's conclusive is.

[Redzeppelin]

You can certainly say all of those things, but the first two (or three) are matters of opinion. The fourth is a matter of fact. The evidence is there. You can argue about interpretations if you like, but denying that the evidence exists is completely dishonest.

You are entitled to what ever opinion you want. That isn't what I'm complaining about. Whether or not there is evidence for evolution is not a matter of opinion, only whether it's conclusive is.

My statements do not indicate that evolution has no evidence; they indicate that ID has comparable amounts. There's a difference. Just because you don't buy the ID arguments doesn't make them invalid.

[Hand_Of_God]

Welcome to the forum Hand of God. I think there is an important truth in your post that others have overlooked: that morality is innately human and not the result of religion or any set rules. People have an instinct or a conscious need for morality and they create a system that is descriptive of that feeling they have. You mention that killing is not justifiable not because you were taught so but because you know so. The rule you have established was created to be descriptive of what you know--it wasn't prescribed by any religion. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need systems of morality and physical existence that are descriptive of what we know and not prescriptive of further thinking. I am sure that religions began in accord with the thoughts and feelings of their time--they provided people with a reality that people found both beautiful and believable. Eventually, though, they slowly lost that connection and became fixed systems which gained supremacy over the very things they were supposed to describe.

Thank you, you are very deep. And what do you think about ID? I think it's stupid, it's a way to mask religion as science, but it's not a scientific theory because you can't prove (or deny) it with observation and experiments.

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you, you are very deep. And what do you think about ID? I think it's stupid, it's a way to mask religion as science, but it's not a scientific theory because you can't prove (or deny) it with observation and experiments.

ID is scientific in that it points out (via empirical evidence and examination of life forms) that the complexity and specificity of certain life form points to a designer (because the odds of random design of the complexity and specificity of the life form are astronomical). Both evolution and ID use nature to argue their points - and both ultimately point to an origin that neither can prove.

[kilted exile]

The statistical argument is one that has never really held any water with me. It would be different if you could show that the odds of there being a creator and "it" creating the universe were significantly less, however I realise this is impossible to do and I would not expect it. Instead the odds argument seems to boil down to "look at the odds for anything happening in one way, it must have been this way instead" - It is not an argument for the alternative, it is a criticism of the other, something which in my mind is an important distinction.

[Redzeppelin]

The statistical argument is one that has never really held any water with me. It would be different if you could show that the odds of there being a creator and "it" creating the universe were significantly less, however I realise this is impossible to do and I would not expect it. Instead the odds argument seems to boil down to "look at the odds for anything happening in one way, it must have been this way instead" - It is not an argument for the alternative, it is a criticism of the other, something which in my mind is an important distinction.

I don't point out odds to suggest that God exists or that He designed the universe; I point out odds so that evolutionists must deal with the fact that the odds of their particular position are no better than mine - because the odds of abiogenesis are as close to zero as you can get. Since atheists argue that God doesn't exist (which would be odds of zero - but I'm not a statistician) then I'd say we're on equal ground in terms of the odds.

[Cervan]

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one! athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves. )

Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?

I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...

I know this thread started a long time ago but I had to respond to this, because you see this kind of ignorance all over the place. This ignorance as to what atheism is is so widespread that on Youtube the other day I listened to a Pulitzer Prize winning author talking to Paula Zahn and saying "What does an atheist believe? He believes in nothing, right?"

If there is to be anything productive coming out of the debates between atheism and theism, the first thing that has to happen is that theists, of whatever persuasion, must consult a dictionary and learn what the definition of atheism is. If they refuse to do this they are wasting everyone's time.

I hope that after nearly nine-hundred posts in this thread Adelheid now understands what atheism means. I also hope that he or she realizes that yes, theists can be unbelievers as well. They are unbelievers in respect to every god up for offer, which is thousands, save for the one they happen to believe in.

[obesechicken13]

I consider myself an atheists because all of the modern religions are impossibly false. This is not to say that there could be one I would join. I can recognize however that I can not disprove the existence of a sentient being that operates as the very hypersphere itself. Therefore using probability simulation I can say that there is a small chance there is a god.

You might consider me an agnostic now. Well that would be an insult, and people just wouldn't understand my real point of view. My hatred towards the thought of going to a religion was fueled by the fact that a just god would allow his closest followers to lose their loved ones. This is not my reasoning nor my subjective emotions, just an initial reason for contemplative zealotry.

[Bookworm4Him]

My hatred towards the thought of going to a religion was fueled by the fact that a just god would allow his closest followers to lose their loved ones.

God gave up His loved one for us. What better way to show a loyalty to God then by being willing to do the same?
Besides, if life was all fun and cool for Christians, then everybody and their brother would "become" one. But if hardship and suffering comes with it, then only those who truly believe would stay consistent.
Lastly, everyone loses their loved ones, Christian or not. Eventually, everyone dies, and someone else is sad. But for Christians, they know that they will see their loved ones again, and be with them forever. So they don't lose them, they're just seperated for awhile. gtg

[Stieg]

Though I can entirely discount the existance of a god or creator, but I agree with obesechicken13. My family is traditionally Christian though not all immediate and distant family members are religious. I have had contact with Christian family members and other non-related Christians.

I've seen some really sad things that angered me, I seen family and friends divided by lifestyles, one side earthy with feet firmly on the terra and the other Christ-centered living in preparation for the return of Christ. I have witnessed close people relatives even of one another become absolute strangers, and bitterly I have always emotionally sided with the former. And martyrdom is simply incomprehesible and barbaric to me. It happens today.

[quasimodo1]

These terms are not contradictory. Tibeten Buhdism believes in things like the "Bardo" and "Enlightenment"/ they require no deity in the western sense yet they believe lives have infinite differences between what westerners call good and evil. As in physics, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. A Buhdist is an atheist with strong beliefs although they would never put it that way. Believers in god and followers of the buhdist faith will both die and they will both be reborn. Just the view of one student of philosophy. quasimodo1

[Hand_Of_God]

ID is scientific in that it points out (via empirical evidence and examination of life forms) that the complexity and specificity of certain life form points to a designer (because the odds of random design of the complexity and specificity of the life form are astronomical). Both evolution and ID use nature to argue their points - and both ultimately point to an origin that neither can prove.

Red, I got your point, but let me say something. I don't say evolution is right at all costs in it's last formulation, but it is a scientific theory (in fact it can be confirmed or disproved by observations, for example finding ancient animals which respect or not what the model expects). On the other side, ID is not a scientific theory, because it has no way to do that (you can always say you see a designer in nature). So, one can believe there is an Intelligent behind universe who created or organized all, there's no problem, but it is not science. For me Evolution Vs ID is not a real match between 2 scientific models like could be dark matter vs mond.