Atheists....

[RobinHood3000]

Aww, just one shaft--did you mean "dissent"?

Otherwise, a very eloquent résumé, XXdarkclarityXX! (Do you happen to have a nickname to go with that?)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Indeed, I meant dissent. You wish to have my nickname? t'is.....Tim! Yes, it is my name. Thou may calleth me Tim.

[RobinHood3000]

...Tim? Well, if you say so...

Interestingly enough, I've also heard theories that the forbidden fruit of infamy was actually a pomegranate.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

...Tim? Well, if you say so...

Interestingly enough, I've also heard theories that the forbidden fruit of infamy was actually a pomegranate.

Sure you're not thinking of persephone? Mind you, both legends could come from the same original source I suppose. Both involve a woman being tempted with fruit. Personally, I find that plying them with drink and professing an interest in whatever garbage they come out with is more effective. :lol:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

What about banana beer (http://www.newconsumershop.org/shop/product_info.php?products_id=241)? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ernaehrung/food-smiley-015.gif

Sadly that has the same effect - thus proving that it does contain real bananas. I prefer beer that doesn't make my mouth swell up like this. :rage:

[rachel]

I cannot for the life of me make anything out of about half this thread.I realilze that I have been head injured so perhaps that accounts for it. Darkclarity-Tim if you will you are so confusing to me. All this time I have seen you as a troubled unhappy belligerant sort of person but then you say we mayest call thee Tim and just how you put it in that beautiful prose about well what I am not sure, I see that I have had a totally wrong impression of you. You have much more depth and swirls of humanity and emotion that is kind than I knew. But it doesn't help me understand what you are really saying or banana beer or any of this stuff. help me I am so confused
Am I to believe that atheists are always swimming in dark seas, have a lot of allergies to fruit, love beer and in general are hopeless? :confused:
please someone other than Em who made perfect sense, help me understand.
please and thankyou.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Rachel,

I think all of us (and atheism in general) is like a prism. It LOOKS clear and pretty, and it seems to be pretty simple. It's just a cool looking rock, right? Well, shine some light on it and what do you get? The full color spectrum, which initially scares the hell out of you because you're not sure of what to make of the prism because it just got WAY more complicated. People and atheists are the same way. I am not a belligerent individual, I only acted that way because I was under some very falsified impressions that I have rid myself of. Have a great day.

[Unspar]

I'm allergic to bananas. Beer good, bananas bad. Just think, if it had been Xamonas & Eve, we night still be in Eden. :lol:

Holy crap. I'm allergic to bananas too! I've never heard of that in anyone else before! Are you allergic to carrots and celery too?

Sorry to interrupt the ideas that were going on in this thread, but I can't let something so special as this pass me by. I'd have sent a PM, but that seems less interesting.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Rachel,

Yes - you got it in one. All atheists are allergic to bananas, love beer and are hopeless. Glad that's sorted out. Let's talk about muffins instead - what's your favourite flavour?

XXdcXX errrm...Tim (Are you related to Tim the evil enchanter in Monty Python & the Holy Grail? (a far more convincing version of the legend than Dan Brown's, if you'll excuse the double parentheses.))

Actually, I think you'll find that most people are multi-faceted. The ones that appear not to be are faking and I don't trust them an inch! For the record, I'm starting to think you may be more trustworthy than my original assessment.

As I've said elsewhere - superficiality is only skin deep - and that's nowhere near as flippant as it sounds.

Unspar,

I luuuuuurrve celery and have no problem with carrots. I have a slight allergy to avocados though, how about you?

[XXdarkclarityXX]

"Follow, but follow only if ye be men of valor! For the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so fowl, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived. Bones of four fifty men lie strewn about its lair! So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage, or your strength, come nay further, for death awaits you all . . . with nasty big pointy teeth!" - Tim the Enchanter, brethren of mine

XC, you are most correct in your assertions regarding my identity. My kin is none other than the Enchanter known as Tim. Watch out, for a dangerous bunny rabbit lurks within the ravages of this forum. Good day to all.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

"Follow, but follow only if ye be men of valor! For the entrance to this cave is guarded by a creature so fowl, so cruel that no man yet has fought with it and lived. Bones of four fifty men lie strewn about its lair! So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage, or your strength, come nay further, for death awaits you all . . . with nasty big pointy teeth!" - Tim the Enchanter, brethren of mine

XC, you are most correct in your assertions regarding my identity. My kin is none other than the Enchanter known as Tim. Watch out, for a dangerous bunny rabbit lurks within the ravages of this forum. Good day to all.

Fortunately, I travel not far without possessing in my possession the true and only HOLY HAND-GRENADE (I'm not going to sink so low as to do the "three shalt thou count..." routine - funny though it is). Bring on thy rabbit. Thou heathen!

oops, just remembered, I'm a heathen as well. You'd better take that as a compliment then.

[rachel]

You thought Xamonas that because I care deeply about people and know that there is something unique and beautiful in each one that I was a skin deep lollipop fruitcake unreal fake?
I LOATHE muffins. The very thought of them makes my stomach do gymnastics I never thought were possible.
Darkclarity I ask your forgiveness for even remotely thinking you less than the rich person you are. And now that I remember I also ask your forgiveness Xamonas(remember the s, remember the s) for wrongly assuming something way back that earned me the revolting hated dreaded loathed name of dude.
Now then, do atheists believe in meat eating or vegetarianism or do they just subsist on berries and beer?
You have a kitty cat Xamonas. WEll well there goes the last vestige of your snarly persona. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah ahahahaha!!!!!!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Actually, I did have a pet cat once - his name was Harry the B******. He gave me these scars. Perhaps I should have realised he didn't like playing "throw the cat into the air" a little earlier. Nowadays I just breed them for restaurants.

I actually am a vegetarian, (if you don't count cannibalism) but I make an exception with cats, they're soooooo juicy!

[Scheherazade]

I actually am a vegetarian, (if you don't count cannibalism) but I make an exception with cats, they're soooooo juicy!Do you prefer them roasted too?

[rachel]

I rescue cats and love them and feed them and find homes for them, you eat them.
Well at least we have cats in common.
(by the way your prose on Riesa has to be the funniest thing I have read since a child.I shudder to think what sort of child you were, cute or not)So as I see it atheists are vegetarians that see cats as a sort of hairy veggie?(trying to keep on topic here)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Ha, the discussion has taken an amusing turn! The chosen path now leads toward the realm of the grotesque! Fear not, for safeguarding one's mind will lead to a most needed diversion. Let not the thoughts of a few pollute the minds of many! Animals we are, and to animals we shall return...

[emily655321]

Well, it seems to suit that the atheists' corner of the religion forum would be the most off-topic and darkly humored of the bunch. "We" seem to hijack every other thread and turn it to the subject of atheism, so in the one thread specifically regarding said topic, hijacking necessitates turning the conversation in another, more cat-eating-oriented direction. :rolleyes:

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Refer to the next post for the tool of deletion has yet to be found...

[XXdarkclarityXX]

The comments of Emily attempt in vain to cast light upon an unknown cavern of atheistic belief! Are we not perplexed at the difficulty present in shedding light upon that which resides in darkness? The dwellers of such a place can only look upon the penetrating lumination as a sign of what could be but never will. What irony! Light has been repulsed by that which commands the dark! The fruitful labors of the enlightened cannot redeem those who inhabit this void of luminous prescence. Humorous is the individual who attempts to attain the unattainable, yet merely gazes in subdued disbelief after finding his attempts futile. One need not shed the light upon that which harbors it, for the darkness is too powerful. He can only hope that those who call the darkness home may one day look upon the face of the illuminator and will allow curiosity to guide his steps out into the light, for that is the moment of salvation.

[Riesa]

ah ha. another thread I would be better off to avoid. oh, pooh, everyone. just remember to breathe. why even discuss these unanswerable questions?(shut up!) It just leads to people assuming one thing or another about the other. It's sooooo lame. It's just what is wrong with the world. and it will never change, will it? God, I hate being human.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Lame is he who examines not the world around him. Damned from salvation is the individual who fails to recognize his need for intellectual salvation. Your mind is perverted by darkness! Bring forth the essence that is the light and allow it to pervade your mind! Make the choice, for the choice is yours...

[Riesa]

you are right, dearie

[Scheherazade]

I hate to drag the thread back to the topic but now there is a poll you can take on the subject!

PS: Let's try not to personalise the discussion. :)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

The truth is personal for it applies itself in a plethora of ways in order to match the acuity of the individual. However, I will restrain myself from further personalized comments. My apologies.

[RobinHood3000]

Xamonas--No, seriously. I once read a newspaper article about the supposition that the Forbidden Fruit of Eden was the pomegranate.

XXdarkclarityXX--Kindly tell that rabbit friend of yours to run around a bit. Moving targets are more challenging.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Wily is the rabbit who evades the bow and arrow. Persistent is the man who chases him. Think like the rabbit, and you will find him...until then, I shall draw amusement from your little expedition of hilarity. Carry on, bearer of the bow!

[RobinHood3000]

I'll do you one step better...

~shifts into FOX MCCLOUD, wiliest space pilot in the universe and acclaimed hunter of wascally wabbits...:D~

[water lily]

I like the way you express yourself, dark clarity, or Tim or whomsoever you be.

[rachel]

ah ha. another thread I would be better off to avoid. oh, pooh, everyone. just remember to breathe. why even discuss these unanswerable questions?(shut up!) It just leads to people assuming one thing or another about the other. It's sooooo lame. It's just what is wrong with the world. and it will never change, will it? God, I hate being human.

but sweet woman, it is just that tender humanity in you that brings sanity backfrom a whirpool of strange emotions that don't satisfy anyone. Your tender heart is needed, I am so glad you are human.
And unless you are a beer drinking, bannana allergic, hairy cat eating vegetarian , you know you have something fresh and wonderful to say that will bring joy and light to such a thread as this. :D

[Riesa]

lol. that would be something to be wouldn't it. "I was a skin deep lollipop fruitcake unreal fake?" brilliant. I love that, but you forgot Milquetoast. that would have fit in nicely there.

Sorry, Rachel.
That was it.

[Fontainhas]

I don't consider myself neither an atheist, neither a very religious person. It's hard to explain, for there are many reasons. I can't just simply worship a God as an image. I prefer to think about it as an eternal energy that includes every aspect of life from Hamburguers to psychological states. I believe that somehow we are included in the same blanket.
I'm not an atheist and I'm not a believer! Oh mediocrity!

[rachel]

lol. that would be something to be wouldn't it. "I was a skin deep lollipop fruitcake unreal fake?" brilliant. I love that, but you forgot Milquetoast. that would have fit in nicely there.

Sorry, Rachel.
That was it.

lol my dearest girl. I called myself all those things because I didn't want Xamonas to call me those things first! and I would have added MIlquetoast, I happen to love that picturesque description as well as a few other choice things but I couldn't spell them!!!! I told you guys I am not learned, I really don't even belong on this forum and I would quit it by my pm box is always full and I cannot bear not answering and being there for everyone. So unless everyone quits or dies(never may that happen) or God releases me, I am here babe. So bring it on. And hey Xamonas you never answered me now did you, did you in fact think that of me? Maybe we should have a poll. I can take it.
I have six boxes of tissue handy and a supply of milkduds. Oh and a pot of tea of course.
now to get back on topic- I understand now why poor atheists are such a tormented sickly bunch. I am just surprised none of you have caught ebola- all that cat eating. poor poor meows. And the throw the cat into the air game_ oh brother, there goes the last vestige of mean lean Xamonas machine. You are just a dear boy now who only gets hugs and flowers-for just like he who cried wolf once too many times-no one will believe you are upset except perhaps Virgil. Say there's a thought. I love reading posts where you two spar. I am happy now!

[Logos]

.. and I would quit it by my pm box is always full and I cannot bear not answering and being there for everyone.

Don't you dare even think about quitting/leaving! you're our voice of reason around here ;) :D

[Unspar]

A lot has happened since the allergies thought....

Xamonas, I don't know if I'm allergic to avocados because I've never had one. Guac's not appealling either. So maybe I am. We'll probably never know.

Muffins I like.

Ni.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Rachel,

I am building up to my description of you. I want it to be (sniggers evilly) special. ;)

[Theshizznigg]

That is simply not what it is about. Take for instance the fact that God created angels, now an angel is a perfect being yet Lucifer rebelled against God. Now from gods point of view you have this new creation Humans, would you want those that did not love you. In fact hated you? Of course not. Thats why humans were given free choice to choose, if they loved god or not. Its not his fault if someone chooses differently, and thus is simply wiped from all existence for that choice.
What someone needs to remember is exactly that. Its a choice, and choices have consequences.
As for the Religion is only a power hungry organization. Religion has nothing to do with personal faith. Just like people who go to church don't nessecarily believe in God, they worship religion, and not God.

[Theshizznigg]

I'm fascinated to learn that Eve isn't singled out in the Q'uran. That one detail has been a big deal in the history of Christianity. In the Western world, the oppression of women has often been justified by the claim that original sin (the belief that all humans are born with sin, because of the sin of Adam and Eve) is mostly Eve's fault, because she tempted Adam just as Satan tempted her. I once heard an analogy that Eve's temptation symbolized/inspired womankind's ongoing temptation of men to do evil things. Medieval monks even taught that the female body was an instrument of the devil. We're just a horrible lot, aren't we? :p

Anyhoo... Water Lily is right on with the main points. Basically, the story starts with God making the Earth, and on each of the six days he makes a different part, and then on the seventh he rests. Adam is lonely, and so God puts him to sleep and removes one of his ribs, and from it he creates Eve. They are happy and ignorant of their nakedness. Then Satan appears in the form of a serpent, and convinces Eve to take the fruit by telling her, "God said to care for Adam, didn't he? Isn't it your duty as a wife to provide for your husband?" So she gives it to Adam, not telling him where she got it. Upon eating it, they notice their nakedness and are ashamed, and so they cover themselves with fig leaves. Then God yells at them, and banishes them from the Garden of Eden to wander the Earth, where they have children, and Cain kills Abel, and so on... As far as I remember, no forgiveness in this story.

It's interesting to me to learn the Islamic version of the story. I think it's much more interesting! I heard once about some of the ancient Hebrew myths that didn't make it into the Old Testament, and I think that story (about angels bowing to Adam, and Lucifer's damnation) was one of them. Another was the one about Lillith, who isn't in the Bible, but "another woman" is mentioned... oh, somewhere in there. :p I'm a little rusty on the finer points.

Its is some very interesting points that you make about the islamic version. We must remember that the biblical version of Genesis was written by Moses about fourty thousand years after it happened. Noah is mentioned in the tales of Gilgamesh as Nephatshim. Moses was merely writing a summary of what had happened so far, and so didn't go into great detail. Got down into the real nitty gritty of it.
There are however other tales, mythologies, and ancient books that support both the creation, the first murder, the great flood, gods existence, and even Christ crucifixion.
An Interesting thing I read lately from the Wulfistan was the association of the great men, and them being turned into pagan gods. Jupiter, Mercury, so and so forth. Also I read a script on genesis that claimed that when Cain killed Abel the two groups of humans split.
Cains decendants were violent and warred amongst eachother, while Abels, or seths since he took over from his brother were peaceful. Then the fallen bred amongst Cains children, and Cains children bred with Seths, thus creating violence in the world and the warring nations.

[rachel]

Rachel,

I am building up to my description of you. I want it to be (sniggers evilly) special. ;)

Xamonas,
i really loved your description of me, you get funnier and funnier with every post. Imagine, a genius(could you please help me with math?) and so very funny. I read it to my family and they were shrieking, okay I thought they laughed a little TOO hard for my enjoyment. But it was great. thank you.
did you read mine? It is how I really do see you, except it is a little hazy since I don't know the depths of you yet. Have to get thru the layers, and don't think I won't. Even if you totally ignore me from this point on I shall study you, you don't have a 'PRAYER'!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rachel]

Don't you dare even think about quitting/leaving! you're our voice of reason around here ;) :D

your cheque is in the mail!!!
I don't know what a skin deep lollipop fruitcake Milquetoast faker can do to h elp this forum, but :
To quote Kevin McAllister at the check out"I'll give it a whirl-for the kids!
thankyou. :lol:

[RobinHood3000]

Hehe, I love that movie. Better than the second movie as a whole, excepting the entire last third (the torture chamber scenes...I love the part when Harry blows up the ENTIRE...FIRST...FLOOR).

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Xamonas,
i really loved your description of me, you get funnier and funnier with every post. Imagine, a genius(could you please help me with math?) and so very funny. I read it to my family and they were shrieking, okay I thought they laughed a little TOO hard for my enjoyment. But it was great. thank you.
did you read mine? It is how I really do see you, except it is a little hazy since I don't know the depths of you yet. Have to get thru the layers, and don't think I won't. Even if you totally ignore me from this point on I shall study you, you don't have a 'PRAYER'!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course I don't have a prayer, I'm an atheist, what would I do with it? Glad you liked the post. Have fun with those layers, I'm all onion!

[RobinHood3000]

Inspiration strikes...see the "What is the image you have of..." thread.

[water lily]

My dear atheists, I have another question. In what are your morals based? (I'm not accusing you dear folks of having no morals, because I know you do, I'm just wondering if it has to do with like having a functioning society [ie. I don't steal, because I don't want people to steal from me, and so as a society we've agreed not to steal from each other] or if it has to do with some deeper belief in the goodness of humanity, or whatever other reasons you may have). I was just thinking the other day, that if I gave up Christianity that I would still retain so many Christian values because they've been engrained into me. Let me know your thoughts.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

My dear atheists, I have another question. In what are your morals based? (I'm not accusing you dear folks of having no morals, because I know you do, I'm just wondering if it has to do with like having a functioning society [ie. I don't steal, because I don't want people to steal from me, and so as a society we've agreed not to steal from each other] or if it has to do with some deeper belief in the goodness of humanity, or whatever other reasons you may have). I was just thinking the other day, that if I gave up Christianity that I would still retain so many Christian values because they've been engrained into me. Let me know your thoughts.

An excellent question.

Personally, I believe that unnecessarily causing pain to anyone is wrong. I agree with much of christian doctrine in this respect. Do unto others as you would be done by them is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. We all have a conflict between the caring, social part of our nature and the selfish part. A balance between the two must be sought.

I am completely against morality and laws that seek to inhibit our freedom to behave as we want provided that that behavoir does not cause pain to, or interfere with the freedom of, others. In this category, I include such things as laws / moralising over sexuality (I do not include rape or paedophilia here - these cause untold misery and are thus unacceptable to me), freedom of speech (not including the freedom to incite hatred, riots, etc.), taking drugs and alcohol (except where those under the influence impose on others). This kind of thing should be left to the individual.

If everyone treated everyone else with respect, the world would be better for all. With that point made, there are times when the rights of the few must be sacrificed for the good of the many. Rapists, murderers, racists and the like should not be tolerated in any sane society (even if they are in power!) Where exactly do we draw the line though? I'm as much in the dark as anyone else, but I have a sneaking suspicion that politicians and lawyers may not be the best people to guide us in this.

[emily655321]

I was just thinking the other day, that if I gave up Christianity that I would still retain so many Christian values because they've been engrained into me.Water Lily, have you read Of Human Bondage? It deals in some parts with that very issue.

Having been raised Christian, it is entirely possible that much of my outlook is thereby influenced. However, my father was not religious at all (it was my mother who took us to church). He had been raised in an atheistic household, but he taught me just as much in the way of ethics as did my mother. My parents taught me to pay attention to how others felt, but I tend to play the rest by ear. I tend to be a very intuitive and empathetic person, so, in application, my morals come from little more than gut instinct. In a more concrete sense, though, I feel as Xamonas does; I think less of "right vs. wrong" than I do of "society vs. selfishness;" "beneficial vs. harmful." But that's really just an impersonalized way of saying, "I do what I feel is right." The pain of others causes pain in me, and so I try to make the world as painless a place as I can. In the case of so-called "victimless crimes," such as stealing or vandalism—well, for one thing, it's a matter of personal pride; I just don't do that sort of thing. But it's also a matter of respect; I don't do things that take a jab at the respectability or dignity of others. In other words, whoever owns the property, I don't feel that they somehow deserve to have it stolen or mistreated, whether or not they find out about it. I think such reasoning, which I've heard—"sticking it to the Man," you might say,—is petty and undignified in itself.

[RobinHood3000]

I think I posted it somewhere on here before...I'll see if I can't seek it out.

[The Unnamable]

An excellent question.

Personally, I believe that unnecessarily causing pain to anyone is wrong. I agree with much of christian doctrine in this respect. Do unto others as you would be done by them is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. We all have a conflict between the caring, social part of our nature and the selfish part. A balance between the two must be sought.
Xamonas, that was interesting and well expressed as always (NO irony!). However, I’m feeling a little mischievous and know that you won’t run crying when I ask you awkward questions.


I am completely against morality and laws that seek to inhibit our freedom to behave as we want provided that that behavoir does not cause pain to, or interfere with the freedom of, others.
How, in this case, can freedom exist? Your behaviour might be utterly innocuous to you but it might also cause someone somewhere a great deal of pain. Perhaps that is no fault of your own but the result of an action might well be hurtful to someone, somewhere.


In this category, I include such things as laws / moralising over sexuality (I do not include rape or paedophilia here - these cause untold misery and are thus unacceptable to me),
This issue is a minefield so I’ll try to tread carefully. In a logical sense, is it not conceivable that, given a sufficiently large change in our systems of values, even these could come to be acceptable? Perhaps the reason they cause ‘untold misery’ is because our perception of them (which must be another construct) is negative. Okay, I’ve probably outraged enough by saying that so I’ll dilute it a little.
Cultural relativity is an interesting thing. Over here sufficient numbers of daughters of very poor rice farmers move to the city to work as prostitutes to maintain a lucrative sex industry. The responses of many of the westerners I’ve seen witness it obviously varies but tends to take two forms. Some embrace it, even to the point of Kurtz-like immersion and some are horrified at what they usually term ‘sexual exploitation’. This is the cry of the West, the same West that had little to say about the economic exploitation of the rice farmers, which leaves their daughters feeling that they would do better to work as prostitutes, which the majority do. We don’t seem to mind these young women breaking their backs in paddy-fields for subsistence ‘wages’ but we are horrified when they earn hundreds of times more in the city. This is also the problem of the fact that many do not feel as exploited as our western values make us assume they should. The argument that this is simply a form of ‘false consciousness’ has to deal with the fact that this is true for the rest of us.


freedom of speech (not including the freedom to incite hatred, riots, etc.), taking drugs and alcohol (except where those under the influence impose on others). This kind of thing should be left to the individual.
If you are going to have freedom of speech meaning ‘freedom to do anything except…’ then we don’t have freedom, surely? You can’t simply decide that certain things are prohibited. You will say that it isn’t an arbitrary decision but one based on (choose your discourse). What about Orwell’s "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."?
I know you go on to say that it’s all a question of where you draw the line but you nevertheless appear to be championing freedom when really it’s only your definition of freedom.


I'm as much in the dark as anyone else, but I have a sneaking suspicion that politicians and lawyers may not be the best people to guide us in this.
That leaves us with the interesting question of just who is going to guide us? It looks to me as if democracy is becoming dumbocracy.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Interesting Unnamable (as always).

If you want my exact, personal definition of paedophilia, it is sex with a child that is physically, sexually immature. I am not referring to 'under-age' sex between consenting persons, where one or both are a birthday or 2 below society's idea of when people become emotionally mature enough to have sex. It is the former which I consider repugnant and unacceptable.

Your description of Thai attitudes, and those of Westerners to them, reminds me of Chapter 35 of "The French Lieutenant's Woman", in which John Fowles has some very similar things to say regarding sexuality and morals in the Victorian age:


What are we faced with in the nineteenth century? An age where woman was sacred; and where you could buy a thirteen-year-old girl for a few pounds—a few shillings, if you wanted her for only an hour or two. Where more churches were built than in the whole previous history of the country; and where one in sixty houses in London was a brothel (the modern ratio would be nearer one in six thousand). Where the sanctity of marriage (and chastity before marriage) was proclaimed from every pulpit, in every newspaper editorial and public utterance; and when never—or hardly ever—have so many great public figures, from the future king down, led scandalous private lives. Where the female body had never been so hidden from view; and where every sculptor was judged by his ability to carve naked women. Where there is not a single novel, play or poem of literary distinction that ever goes beyond the sensuality of a kiss; and where the output of pornography has never been exceeded. Where the excretory functions were never referred to; and where the sanitation remained — the flushing lavatory came late in the age and remained a luxury well up to 1900 — so primitive that there can have been few houses, and few streets, where one was not constantly reminded of them. Where it was universally maintained that women do not have orgasms; and yet every prostitute was taught to simulate them. Where there was an enormous progress and liberation in every other field of human activity; and nothing but tyranny in the most personal and fundamental.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

My contention is that with freedom, comes responsibility. The absolute consequences of any act can never be fully known. I was generalising to a degree. Unfortunately, there will always be those that, given freedom, will shirk that responsibility. Hence, there must always be curbs put on freedom in order to protect the greater freedoms of others.

As an example, on your point about freedom of speech. American, Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself a vociferous advocate of freedom of speech, famously once said, "Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, where no fire exists." I would argue that neither does it give one the right to shout, "Kill the B******!" at an already volatile public demonstration.

There have to be limits on all things. All fundamentalism, even fundamentalist liberality, is extremism and harmful to society.

[The Unnamable]

If you want my exact, personal definition of paedophilia, it is sex with a child that is physically, sexually immature. I am not referring to 'under-age' sex between consenting persons, where one or both are a birthday or 2 below society's idea of when people become emotionally mature enough to have sex. It is the former which I consider repugnant and unacceptable.
The question is not about what you consider repugnant or why you consider it so. I wasn’t asking for a moral justification of your position but trying to point out that, in many ways, atheism is no less an act of faith than is belief in a deity. As an atheist myself, I don’t have a problem with this. I think the main difference between someone who believes and me is that when I consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence, I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being. The comment to which you were referring asked, “In what are your morals based?” There seems to be an assumption there that morals are usually based on something incompatible with atheism. For me, they aren’t. I just don’t have any faith but that doesn’t mean that I can’t subscribe to or help generate a system of moral values.

Near the end of Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors, Martin Landau explains his murder story as if it were a film plot. Woody Allen responds, “I would have him turn himself in. Then your movie assumes tragic proportions, because in the absence of a God he is forced to assume that responsibility himself. Then you have tragedy.”




My contention is that with freedom, comes responsibility. The absolute consequences of any act can never be fully known. I was generalising to a degree. Unfortunately, there will always be those that, given freedom, will shirk that responsibility. Hence, there must always be curbs put on freedom in order to protect the greater freedoms of others.

As an example, on your point about freedom of speech. American, Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself a vociferous advocate of freedom of speech, famously once said, "Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, where no fire exists." I would argue that neither does it give one the right to shout, "Kill the B******!" at an already volatile public demonstration.

There have to be limits on all things. All fundamentalism, even fundamentalist liberality, is extremism and harmful to society.
This is a political rather than a moral stance. Its power lies in the fact that most people will agree with Holmes’s statement. It seems fair and sensible. To be honest though, I’m not sure if I agree with you anyway. I think certain beliefs are irreconcilable and, in the end, violence is necessary. I agree that there have to be limits on all things but I won’t be justifying my rejection of certain views on the grounds of ‘protecting the greater freedom of others’ or the belief that they are harmful to society as a whole. Just as everyone else does, I’ll be advocating them because they help promote the world I want to see.

[Evergreenleaf]

...atheism is no less an act of faith than is belief in a deity. As an atheist myself, I don’t have a problem with this. I think the main difference between someone who believes and me is that when I consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence, I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being. The comment to which you were referring asked, “In what are your morals based?” There seems to be an assumption there that morals are usually based on something incompatible with atheism. For me, they aren’t. I just don’t have any faith but that doesn’t mean that I can’t subscribe to or help generate a system of moral values.

This part is so true, Unnamable.

Atheism is not "against belief," it's "against theism," and theism has to do with gods and divine beings. It isn't "against faith." We can have faith in other things, such as science or justice (though justice is itself a tricky thing to define), and we can have morals without gods. I think that sometimes people don't recognize the actual meaning of the word, and therefore they misconstrue the meaning of atheism as being amoral and against belief. We're just against belief in gods. Some of us might take it a bit further, but that's a personal thing and the actual meaning of atheism stops at no gods.

By the way, thank you water lily for recognizing this and saying that you know atheists do have morals.

[BeingaBunny]

I guess I'm a nihilist, agnostic, and atheist. It's hard to explain. I know most agnostics usually don't consider themselves atheists, but I do for a reason. Because I am insulted that god, if someone could prove its existence to me, just created me. What gives god the right? What an *******. I am not a toy to be played with.

I also know that being nihilist and agnostic is somewhat contradictory. But I don't know what to believe in. All I know is, I can't find a purpose in anything. Whenever I look for anything, all I find is something close to nothing.

Also, I think belief in an afterlife or a spirit is just sad. I would not even want to continue after death. If I die and there is something more than nothing, I will be so pissed. Nothing is amazing because it is the only thing that cannot be described. Throughout life, no human being knows nothing. When one thinks of nothing, it is probably darkness that pops into one's mind. But darkness is something. Nothing is nothing. You can't comprehend what nothing is.

Anyways, I can't believe anyone enjoys life so much that they would want to have an afterlife life. It is just silly. I want what is coming to me. Give me death and give me nothing.

Of course, if anyone completely opposes my views, that's cool. :thumbs_up

[RobinHood3000]

Wow--awfully bitter, aren't we?

Darkness indeed is something--it implies that there is someone there to perceive the lack of something. I'm with you on the nothing-after-death thing, but I will attest to the comforting effect of the thought that there is something waiting after death (pearly gates and streets of gold usually being the most-looked-forward-to).

[BeingaBunny]

Well, it is sort of bitter. But being a nihilist, it's hard to have bad feelings (IMO). It's hard to really care about anything. I wouldn't recommend nihilism because you will wake up every morning wondering why you bother. But it's just what human beings do. We're animals too. Things can be good.

I was reading some stuff about Nietzsche and how nihilism is destructive or something. Nihilism is not really destructive. Nihilism is nothing. It isn't glorious like destruction at all. I'd call Nietzsche an annihilist.

That's just my take on it. I think nothing is probably amazing. I feel tranquil thinking about nothing (that sounds stupid, lol, please read the context). I just think about the entire universe, then I inverse it. Every time I have no idea what I come up with.

[Theshizznigg]

Bunny you are neither a toy, nor an unwanted creation. God made your soul, arranged for Adam's fall from grace, so that you, yes, you!
Could have the free will to choose, will I be for God, or will I not.
If you are an atheist, fine, if you make peace with God, even better.
As for the decision of yea or nay, any highschool teacher can explain to you the theory of actions, and consequences of those actions.

"It all there, all of it."
Biblical propositions.

[RobinHood3000]

Hey--who are you to say which is better and which is not?

[Theshizznigg]

To me it is even better, because I win a fellow Christian, nothing else.

[rachel]

I am just sneaking on to this thread to give my Robin a hug. love you

It is important for every being, in my opinion, to be free to search and find what he'she is absolutely truly looking for and walk in that and do no harm.
I am in love with God, now and forever. But that is me.

[Theshizznigg]

Exactly! That is the nature of humanity.

[RobinHood3000]

Actually, that's more the nature of rachel (good to see you!). Humanity, on average, is less kind and less open-minded.

[The Unnamable]

Bunny you are neither a toy, nor an unwanted creation.


To me it is even better, because I win a fellow Christian,


There you go, BeingaBunny, you aren’t a toy; you’re a prize.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There you go, BeingaBunny, you aren’t a toy; you’re a prize.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[RobinHood3000]

One wonders what variety of cereal box she inhabits.

[silence782]

Here's a question I've been wondering about: How can free will exist with an Omniscient God? How can we have free will when God knows every decision we can, have, or ever will have made? It's more like we're prewritten scripts than anything else. This question was one I strggled over before becomming an atheist...

[The Unnamable]

Here's a question I've been wondering about: How can free will exist with an Omniscient God? How can we have free will when God knows every decision we can, have, or ever will have made? It's more like we're prewritten scripts than anything else. This question was one I strggled over before becomming an atheist...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15953

Read it and weep. :D

[silence782]

Read what? Which post?

[The Unnamable]

Read what? Which post?
It begins at # 13 and goes on like Finnegans Wake.

[tfwelch]

My opinion on God is correct. Anyone whose views are identical to mine are also correct. All others are just lying or idiots. Don't feel less of me. Deep down inside you feel the same. :goof:

[silence782]

Okay, thanks for the heads up, unameable.

[bhekti]

Here's a question I've been wondering about: How can free will exist with an Omniscient God? How can we have free will when God knows every decision we can, have, or ever will have made? It's more like we're prewritten scripts than anything else. This question was one I strggled over before becomming an atheist...

Where's the connection between God being omniscient and our free will?
These two, say, concepts clearly can stand by themselves without interrupting one another. However, they also can be modified to interrupt one another.

True, we have free will (but there's always the question of how free (hence, ethics)). And, it is also true that God is omniscient. In my opinion, If a frame of mind can't put these two propositions in harmony with one another, there must be a fixed arrangement (be it conscious or unconscious, felt or not felt, faked or straight) of that frame of mind that, from the very outset, never permit that kind of harmony.

[silence782]

Your posts were simply masterful. You've put the concepts I've been thinking about in such eloquent terms, and yet, still kept your patience when dealing with illogical arguments. Well played.

[silence782]

Here's my take on the argument:
If God created everything, and knows what will, can, or ever could be, free will cannot exist without independent choice. But no one can be independent of god, because he created us to perform a task with we can neither change, nor deviate from. In fact, to belivers of an omnipotent god, only the illusion of free will can exist, not free will in the truest sense.

[silence782]

"Where's the connection between God being omniscient and our free will? "
can god be omniscient, but not omnipotent? Or omnipontent, but not omniscient? If he knew everything, but was unable to do everything, then, I could see hoe free will could exist. But, if he created me, and created all the choices I could make how is that free will? Being able to make a choice he didn't expect, one that I alone choce to make idependent of god's knolegde would be free will. Anything else is just running along the track he made for me.

[bhekti]

Here's my take on the argument:
If God created everything, and knows what will, can, or ever could be, free will cannot exist without independent choice. But no one can be independent of god, because he created us to perform a task with we can neither change, nor deviate from. In fact, to belivers of an omnipotent god, only the illusion of free will can exist, not free will in the truest sense.

Hmm... I got it.

God created us with a purpose or design, I agree. But I can't agree with your opinon that says we can neither change or deviate from it. Just look at our condition now. We can even call it "bad" (well, many of us have been so used to it that they feel just alright with it). So it means we are capable to change or deviate from the purpose or design that God always wants us to fulfill.

There's the concept of sin, an expression of our independence. Our free will, I think, is expressed when we "kill" God. (And, we kill Him continuously in our life, don't we?). But it's only one example. Another example can be when we choose to keep the faith despite our lack of understanding.

Whatever we choose to do, God is there, omniscient and omnipotent still. We perform our free will, and God let it happen. From this, victims fall. God has promised to payback for those victims, and we.... we keep on performing our free will.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

"Where's the connection between God being omniscient and our free will? "
can god be omniscient, but not omnipotent? Or omnipontent, but not omniscient? If he knew everything, but was unable to do everything, then, I could see hoe free will could exist. But, if he created me, and created all the choices I could make how is that free will? Being able to make a choice he didn't expect, one that I alone choce to make idependent of god's knolegde would be free will. Anything else is just running along the track he made for me.

That's where the 'logical' arguments for God's existence always fall down. Believers want it all ways. They will not give an inch on the following statements:

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. God gave us free will.
5. God loves all of us.

Qualify one or more of these statements and it may be possible to reconcile the idea of God with the world around us. Try to hold to them all rigidly and you fall down holes in logic all over the place. The only way to believe all of the above is therefore to rely on 'faith' and to deny the validity of logic (at least as it relates to God). This I find myself incapable of doing - I guess that's just the way God made me! :lol:

Besides, if we were made in the image of God, as is claimed, isn't it likely that the big fella is just as ****ed up as we are?

[The Unnamable]

1. God created everything that exists.

I assume you know the following Monty Python parody of "All things bright and beautiful"?

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings;
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid;
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul, and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.

[silence782]

*nods* I've always dound it strange that a person can belive in two contradicting ideas at the same time. For example, "God is good." and yet he created evil. "God is love." Yet, he created Satan with full knoledge of what he would do, and loosed him upon us.

[silence782]

Oops, sorry for the bad spelling, but it was 3 AM when I wrote that last post...

[Theshizznigg]

Silence if that is your reason for not believing in God, then you aren't seeing the bigger picture.

Now I respect XM because he is a true Athiest, and often doesn't say anything without having carefully thought it out.
And it is not that your view is wrong, its just simply misguided.
Now, I don't know what God is thinking, and I can be mistaken. But I seen the reasons God created us, and arranged for our fall.

Satan was a perfect being, and in his beauty and perfection he loved himself more than the Lord. It because of that self love that he rebelled against God, with three quarters of heavens angels.
God thus created man, planning to fill the positions lost in heaven. Knowing full well that Satan would corrupt his creations.
But he let it happen anyways, because he had already planned it to.
Why? The host of heaven were as the bible says perfect. But Satan loved himself more than God, and so corrupted himself, as did the others.
Yet God created man, for the same reason he creates everything. Love.
And he gave man through his fall the freedom of choice.
Something the angels of heaven never had.
With that freedom of choice, a human who was no longer a perfect being and was not obligated to serve God, but serves him and seeks him out of love for his creator.
Those that choose God, or Christ, it say will inhabit the kingdoms of heaven of which Satan's hosts left vacant when htey were given the realm of Hell.
Those that lived for evil means, join Satans kingdom and become his own servants.
And those that never choosed, as the bible says. Will simply never be ressurected and thus cease to exist.

So, in hindview, God has allowed evil to exist to a certain point in time, so that his creations may choose to serve him, or reject him and be done with it.

And as for the evil in the world, God doesn't create evil, his creations create evil. Thus God is blameless.

Hope this helped to give you a more open minded opinion on the subject.
Thanks for reading.
Shizz.

P.s. I absolutely loved Read or Die.

"So often we are looking, that we hardly ever see."
"I can't see the trees, because the forest is in the way."

[Theshizznigg]

XM Don't forget, that we were perfect before we were corrupted.

And also don't forget that God is the ultimate excentric, because if he wasn't then he certainly wouldn't have created the entire universe. God simply creates for a few small reasons.

For his own enjoyment. God's an artist, poet, writer, philosopher, etc.
Hence we as his creations, made in his image also exude a need to create.
God wants to be love and accepted by his creations.

God wants to have a relationship with all of his creations. His love created them and he wants to be loved in return.
This is also a major fundamental of all human makeup, since the first thing we humans ever do, or do anything for really. Is acceptence and appreciation for what we do, regardless of who the acceptance is from.

We feel connections to thing we pursue. Like growing plants, or tending animals. You feel a connection to those things, and you want to see them prosper.
God also wants humans to prosper and enjoy life, in the same way.
He get his enjoyment, out of seeing our enjoyment.

We human exhibit sinful emotions.
Emotions we were never supposed to have. Yet we also have pure emotions, like wrath, or pure anger.
Both do not equate to hatred, they are both fierce and severe, but quick to dissapate. And it is only when we consciously hold those feelings longer, that hate starts to grow.
We also feel many different forms of love, family love, love of a friend, pure passion, and pure desire, affectionate love, and deep love.
Those again can be turned to feelings of envy, and hostility.

Once again I don't claim to know all the answers, but if you look deeply at human thought, and human behaviour you find some very odd quirks, that logically shouldn't have evolved with a creature.
Though I'm sure there is more than just one arguement for this, this is indeed my answer of what I know. And i'm quite sure there are other people out there that could indeed explain all of this better.
Still, thanks again, You actually take the time to read my post before you answer them, and it is greatly appreciated. :D
Shizz.

"Tell the world, tell em all, that Franco was here!"
An address, often not included.
:banana:

[RobinHood3000]

Odd quirks, hm? Of course human thought and behavior patterns don't fit evolution--humans only started deviating from evolutionary behavioral patterns when they started denying the presence of evolution.

I don't suppose you've ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? I've mentioned it a couple times on the forums--just read it a few weeks ago, and I really enjoyed it. An eye-opener for me.

[Theshizznigg]

No I've never had the pleasure.
Have you ever read the poems of Caedemon, especially the ones written on Genesis?

"Holobolo"

[RobinHood3000]

No, I haven't--poetry isn't my preferred category for reading, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'll look into it.

Don't laugh, but I think Michael Crichton's The Lost World makes an interesting point regarding the nature of evolution. What happens it that the Velociraptors that have been cloned exhibit behaviors that are nothing like the hunters of today, and probably nothing like the hunters of prehistory.

For example, when they make a kill, all ages of raptor leap into the fray to feed, without any form of hierarchy based on rank or sex. If one raptor is contesting the meal against another, it is liable to be disemboweled and then added to the menu.

The reason for this is because, when the Velociraptors were cloned, only their GENETIC blueprint was copied. Any form of social hierarchy that existed in raptor "culture" was lost when they went extinct, and with it any rituals or practices (such as feeding patterns) that kept them orderly. Other group predators by comparison, like lions, undergo no such chaos after hunting.

So, the question is, when humans replaced the family/group structure that exists in other branches of the primate tree with a counter-evolutionary thought pattern, how did they manage to survive? For example, I was thinking about poisonous mushrooms earlier in the day (I haven't the faintest idea why). How is it that humans have to be formally educated in which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous, yet wild animals manage just fine without posters or the New York Public Library Desk Reference? Or take all of those abominable commercials for Viagra and comparable drugs--if the condition being treated is so serious and epidemic that it merits medical research to fix, how is it that we managed for the past 40,000 years as a species?

[bhekti]

5. God loves all of us

I don't think so. Not all of us he loves.

[Stanislaw]

hmm 5 truths?

well that is what religious people believe,
"1. God created everything that exists.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. God gave us free will.
5. God loves all of us."

Number 1 is logical, but its wording can allow for a wide range of interpretations, from God has created each and every thing in the galaxy personally, to God created the matter needed by the "big Bang".

number 2, why not.
number 3, why not.
number 4, now here is a dilemma if God knows all, he knows what choice we will make so is it free will, but theoretically we are still free to make the choice, it's just that God knows the outcome.
Number 5, why not.

All of these cannot be proved nor disproved, so when discussing this one must be carefull not to commit the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, God exists because you can't prove he doesn't, and God doesn't exist because you can't prove he can.

We'll just have to wait till we die, so untill then the choice is to have blind faith or not. Maybe a different question is why do you think God does/doesn't exist, why does it have meaning for you, or why does it not have meaning for you? Is religious faith really so bad?

[bhekti]

If God does not exist, how can rules (either thought or felt) function?

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted" including murder (of any forms, at any levels), theft (of any degrees), betrayals, etc. And, those things would happen at the very beginning of the history of mankind that it would take an illogical effort for the logic to accept the fact that human race have managed to survive this far.

If God did not exist, the history of mankind would not even survive a day. If God did not exist, every actions that we now call "evil" would be justified. There would be no faults, wrongs; everything would be right, good.

The reason why today we still witness people doing evil is because they don't admit the presence of God, or if they admit it (such as religious people), they openly reject him, preferring their own desires.

[RobinHood3000]

Wow, somebody has an EXTREMELY warped view of us atheists.

Look outside--assuming you don't live an a major urban center, there's probably some form of wildlife out there. What you see are creatures existing peacefully who haven't the faintest concept of a deity and, what's more, probably aren't inclined to seek one. Yet they've survived just dandy of MILLIONS of years without committing mass murder, wanton rape, or conscienceless theft like you seem to think we'll do.

I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school. I was born by my mother--I didn't emerge from a smoking hole in the ground. No late-night sex rituals, no sacrificing small animals. Prejudice is an ugly thing, bhekti.

[Stanislaw]

our friend above is assuming that a clean life can only be discovered from God, and that people could not create a morale notion on their own...from a strictly evolutionary sense it is only natural that people would develop morals or law codes...it is simply group dynamics.

Personally I do believe in God, and that God is the source of good, however, the argument is a week one, athiests are capable of making moral decisions.

[ElizabethSewall]

I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school. I was born by my mother--I didn't emerge from a smoking hole in the ground. No late-night sex rituals, no sacrificing small animals. Prejudice is an ugly thing, bhekti.
I'm an atheist as well, and I wouldn't have defended that case better. Thanks Robin!! :D
I think what's really important is whether or not you have principles, isn't it? :confused:

[Whifflingpin]

RobinHood3000: "I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school."

Ah but... your disbelief in God does not prevent Him from being the author of your conscience. I think that it (your disbelief, I mean) may make you better able to fulfil His purposes, because your moral code is something that you work out and choose for yourself, rather than taking it ready-made from some book. Religion can be a great barrier to godliness, and atheists do not have that hurdle to jump over.

Now, if you could just be a bit more positive for good, as well as negative towards bad, then...

[Stanislaw]

Very well said, and supported by the parable of the son that leaves and then is welcomed back and treated as a king when he returns. Leading a good life is the main thing.

RobinHood3000: "I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school."

Ah but... your disbelief in God does not prevent Him from being the author of your conscience. I think that it (your disbelief, I mean) may make you better able to fulfil His purposes, because your moral code is something that you work out and choose for yourself, rather than taking it ready-made from some book. Religion can be a great barrier to godliness, and atheists do not have that hurdle to jump over.

Now, if you could just be a bit more positive for good, as well as negative towards bad, then...

[RobinHood3000]

Perhaps--whether God's purpose is authored by Him or me, I am glad to at least live my life by principles to which I can claim some degree of personal authorship.

I wonder if a valid parallel would be trying to find the right diet--often, the one that works best is one that's customized for you, rather than one from the mouths of Atkins or Jenny Craig.

[Stanislaw]

Perhaps--whether God's purpose is authored by Him or me, I am glad to at least live my life by principles to which I can claim some degree of personal authorship.

I wonder if a valid parallel would be trying to find the right diet--often, the one that works best is one that's customized for you, rather than one from the mouths of Atkins or Jenny Craig.

indeed, I do not understand some of these flash diets they are as fake as some of the television preachers!

[Theshizznigg]

Ahh, Diets, its "Die" with a T.

Its often a hard realization that in spite of our efforts, we are not getting anywhere.
In truth this is sometimes upsetting, in many forms of a way, and indeed vexating on a persons mind.

For this reason it is very difficult trying to discuss things with Atheist, and the like, because we all naturally assume that our faith is the correct answer, and thus all other answers are lacking, or void in usefullness.
This is why it is often difficult to make any head way. I can understand the views of the world from the eyes of an Atheist, but many can't, just as an atheist cannot understand the actual feelings of true faith.
All the more we are to pitied, equally.

For these simple reasons.
We as Christians believe in Christ, and thus want to share our faith with those around us, while those around us usually do not wish to open their minds to that specific way of thought.
Moreover, many people site the church as an excuse for not wishing to belong to Christianity. And we as Christians are so often causght in defence of the church that we fail to acknowledge the fact that the Atheists are right.
Many churches are spiritually bonded to religion, or religious rituals and hardly encourage the development of personal faith.
People who follow these, are often Sunday Christians, who neither seek a true relationship with Christ, or wish to know more about their creator.
These people are disfunctional Christians, because the do not essentially understand Christianity fully. Thus they fall into religious doctrinations of those churches which in many cases crushes someones faith.

Many Atheist who I know were former Christians, who caught in that spiritual stagnation lost their faith, because there was no room in those churches for an individuals spiritual growth.
This often embitters a person towards Christianity. And thus makes them unwilling to recieve or even consider ideas from a Christian perspective, because they've already been involved with church that was repressive and thus think that all Christian ideals are equally repressive to the attitude of that former church.

Therefor its hard to convince or share and idea with anyone who is deadset against what you say, before you've even had the chance to say it.

More than likely this will be shot done, or ripped apart, but by doing so it only really proves what I've said in the above.

"How often does though comst here? Too often I thinketh!"
Bartle Bronags.

[RobinHood3000]

Oh, I wouldn't say that, shizznigg. Not all atheists are lunatics bent on converting the world to paganism. Some of us are quite open to religious opinions.

I'd also like to point out that being an atheist sometimes requires just as much faith as believing in a god.

[Theshizznigg]

Oh, I wouldn't say that, shizznigg. Not all atheists are lunatics bent on converting the world to paganism. Some of us are quite open to religious opinions.

I'd also like to point out that being an atheist sometimes requires just as much faith as believing in a god.


I would say that it requires even more.

What I don't understand about this post is, that all atheist are bent on converting the world to paganism?

Are you a paganist? Or do you try to convert people to paganism? :confused:
I didn't mention anything about atheist trying to convert people, merely the difficulties many have with being unbiased when given spiritual questions about Christianity.
I'd in no way think for a minute that Atheist are the enemies of my faith, and so on, because your not.
In my eyes you are merely people, the same as everyone else.

Take care, Shizz.

"Lollipops!"

[Anon22]

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! :lol: athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves. :lol: )

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... ;)


Well... I don't know whether I should consider myself an aetheist or not... but here's what I think... that most likely... there isn't really a god in the sky... but from watching my grandmother, I love the way she just believes in him and that almost convinces me that there is a god. Sometimes though... I think that it isn't true and the reason why things turn out better for people that truly and deeply believe in God is because they believe in themselves more than anything... they assure themselves that everything is going to be alright because they know that God will open their way. This belief, it brings hope and they will know that something good is going to happen no matter what, so in my view, belief in God=unlimited feeling of hope and that's why I love that belief in God. Even though... the thing is, it's too unlikely that he exists and therefore I choose to not believe in him sometimes because I need to be realistic, things are the way they are, and if there is no God... well I can't just stand there as if a road was going to magically open for me, nothing can ever be gotten from that (even though I do tend to do that either way). Even though, the fact that there is a possibility that he might exist, shift my view every once in a while and well... it gives me faith in him... and thus... I get that feeling of hope, and also... of course if he exists I say "God... if you exist, I'm sorry for not believing... but I just can't prove if you are real... but if you do exist... thank you for what you have done". It doesn't just end there, I continue on "and if there is by any chance more gods... thank you all".

So... where does that put me? An aetheist because I don't really believe in God?

[Stanislaw]

So... where does that put me? An aetheist because I don't really believe in God?
agnostic maybe?

[Anon22]

huh... didn't know there was such word... hehe... well then yes I am agnostic... :D

[RobinHood3000]

To shizznigg--sorry, I think I was trying to make the point that some atheists are more open-minded than others and are available for some degree of "headway."

To DigitalCrash--I'm thinking you're more of an agnostic than an atheist.

[Anon22]

If God does not exist, how can rules (either thought or felt) function?

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted" including murder (of any forms, at any levels), theft (of any degrees), betrayals, etc. And, those things would happen at the very beginning of the history of mankind that it would take an illogical effort for the logic to accept the fact that human race have managed to survive this far.

If God did not exist, the history of mankind would not even survive a day. If God did not exist, every actions that we now call "evil" would be justified. There would be no faults, wrongs; everything would be right, good.

The reason why today we still witness people doing evil is because they don't admit the presence of God, or if they admit it (such as religious people), they openly reject him, preferring their own desires.


Here's what I don't get... if God is just... why does he have to punish those that aren't? None of us chose to be born in this family, in this life... and our minds are something that are created through experience. Sometimes I just think... and think... and I realize we never truly chose to like what we like, it simply just happens. When I was younger I had this bird and I loved it... it died 8 days later but those were some of the best days of my life, but because of that event... birds have become my favorite animals. It sounds like a choice but it kind of isn't, if I was in another body, with another mind and another life... would I still like birds? well that depends on the life you know... the experience. On the other hand... if you lived through exactly, but I mean exactly the same thing I went through when I was younger, with exactly the same thoughts and ideas... I think you would like birds. It's something I thought about, and since its not our fault that we like what we like and we hate what we hate... then its not a murderers fault that they're killing others, its simply the way things are and if God is just... then he can't punish him over something the poor man couldn't control.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Here's what I don't get... if God is just... why does he have to punish those that aren't? None of us chose to be born in this family, in this life... and our minds are something that are created through experience. Sometimes I just think... and think... and I realize we never truly chose to like what we like, it simply just happens. When I was younger I had this bird and I loved it... it died 8 days later but those were some of the best days of my life, but because of that event... birds have become my favorite animals. It sounds like a choice but it kind of isn't, if I was in another body, with another mind and another life... would I still like birds? well that depends on the life you know... the experience. On the other hand... if you lived through exactly, but I mean exactly the same thing I went through when I was younger, with exactly the same thoughts and ideas... I think you would like birds. It's something I thought about, and since its not our fault that we like what we like and we hate what we hate... then its not a murderers fault that they're killing others, its simply the way things are and if God is just... then he can't punish him over something the poor man couldn't control.
First of all, Digital, I love your signature.
As to what you ask, we must not blame our faults on our difficulties. I have never circumstantially had an easy day in my life thus far, yet I feel remorse for every sin I have ever committed - even in failing to do what would have accomplished absolute Good. I am surrounded, though, by people that give no thought to ethics, who claim they hardly have ever known hardship, and, even at the best of times, treat others like worthless dirt to walk over and hurt as they run to fill themselves with heartless luxuries. They have the same freedom of will that you and I have, but do you not grieve even for those that you are not at fault for the suffering of? I think that you do - otherwise, why would you spend so much of your heart struggling for an answer to others' sufferings?

No one is born a pedophile - that's a sinner's chosen obsession, resulting from a carrying on of avoidance of proper cultivation. No one has the inclination to be a faithful spouse because of mere circumstance, but because of a chosen cooperation with Graces from GOD, whether with perfect or imperfect awareness at some points along the way filled with trials and exercises.

Saint Francis of Assissi was the son of a godless man who encouraged his son to carry on in his juvenile delinquency, as he led his peers in rebellious teenage trouble-making. Then one day, while still rather young and popular, the lad's heart changed, and he decided to become a Catholic Christian. He was threatened by his father with rejection if he didn't reject his new Christian Life, but he chose GOD over the father he had never wanted to lose the acceptance of. All that had seemed a place of priviledge to Francis, he now saw nothing in, while all the Good he had previously had every motive to ignore, was now his one occupation.

A person may kill, undoubtedly, for a different reason than another, but murder is still murder - because of the motive. No one has a murderous motive due to mere background - because one's choice for or against a targetted disposition or attitude will remain a strong motivation against the tide. I know of some people that are exceptionally cheerful and gentle despite the odds seeming against them comprehending such good qualities. How is this? Because GOD has assigned virtues to our nature - but we choose what we shall come to: whether we cooperate with the CREATOR so that we solidify these qualities within ourselves like pottery being set in the kiln, or drift ever more and more away from our original GOD-given nature.

[RobinHood3000]

Ahem--you should know that I have sworn faithfulness to my significant other (and in the future, my spouse) without any divine intervention whatsoever.

[Grumbleguts]

As an atheist, not only don't I believe in god, but I don't believe in 'true faith' either. In my opinion, faith cannot be true if the object of that faith is non-existant. Faith is merely a more socially acceptable name for wishful thinking.

[Stanislaw]

As an atheist, not only don't I believe in god, but I don't believe in 'true faith' either. In my opinion, faith cannot be true if the object of that faith is non-existant. Faith is merely a more socially acceptable name for wishful thinking.

You have faith that there is no such thing as faith or God? It can't concretely be proven either way, so in a sense you are wishfully thinking that there is no god.

[Scheherazade]

As to what you ask, we must not blame our faults on our difficulties. I have never circumstantially had an easy day in my life thus far, yet I feel remorse for every sin I have ever committed - even in failing to do what would have accomplished absolute Good. I am surrounded, though, by people that give no thought to ethics, who claim they hardly have ever known hardship, and, even at the best of times, treat others like worthless dirt to walk over and hurt as they run to fill themselves with heartless luxuries. They have the same freedom of will that you and I have, but do you not grieve even for those that you are not at fault for the suffering of? I think that you do - otherwise, why would you spend so much of your heart struggling for an answer to others' sufferings?This is awful lot of generalisation. Believing in a deity does not necessarily mean one will lead a 'good' life. Nor does one need to believe in a divine being to lead a moral life. There are many people who are atheists or, even though they believe in God, who do not actively practise any religion. If it makes it easier for one to lead a moral life in the light of religious teachings, that is perfectly fine but to assume that without those teachings one will automatically be led astray is a biased opinion in my eyes.
A person may kill, undoubtedly, for a different reason than another, but murder is still murder - because of the motive. No one has a murderous motive due to mere background - because one's choice for or against a targetted disposition or attitude will remain a strong motivation against the tide. I know of some people that are exceptionally cheerful and gentle despite the odds seeming against them comprehending such good qualities. How is this? Because GOD has assigned virtues to our nature - but we choose what we shall come to: whether we cooperate with the CREATOR so that we solidify these qualities within ourselves like pottery being set in the kiln, or drift ever more and more away from our original GOD-given nature.This is interesting. If we do good things, it is because God has assigned certain virtues to us and if we don't, it is because we choose to do so? Why does God assign 'not-so- pleasant' virtues to some of us then? Like jealousy or greed? Or why does God create some of us weak enough to give in the temptation?

[Stanislaw]

You guys seem to be neglecting the devils influence on the situation.

[Anon22]

First of all, Digital, I love your signature.
As to what you ask, we must not blame our faults on our difficulties. I have never circumstantially had an easy day in my life thus far, yet I feel remorse for every sin I have ever committed - even in failing to do what would have accomplished absolute Good. I am surrounded, though, by people that give no thought to ethics, who claim they hardly have ever known hardship, and, even at the best of times, treat others like worthless dirt to walk over and hurt as they run to fill themselves with heartless luxuries. They have the same freedom of will that you and I have, but do you not grieve even for those that you are not at fault for the suffering of? I think that you do - otherwise, why would you spend so much of your heart struggling for an answer to others' sufferings?

Not all aetheist are like that. You see part of me doesn't believe in God, is skeptic about it (and I choose when to believe in him), it's kind of like a Jekyll and Hyde thing without the evil vs good in it. Anyhow... assuming God doesn't exist, then there would be no right or wrong, which means anything is possible, so because of that, I could just kill anyone I want right? so, why do I choose not to? It's simple, because, even though I don't believe in God (a part of me), life is life, it ends up being random events without him, it's short, and life is life, and you only get one of it, I don't kill because there is a God, the reason I don't kill is because even though I can do whatever I want, I understand that there are other people around and quite frankly, this being a one-time experience, I don't want to take that away from anyone. In order to have such a belief, do I have to believe in a God? No, and this is the reason why most aetheist don't kill, they want to give everyone a chance to live and enjoy the wonders of life. Believing in God simply adds more motive to this, but quite frankly... I don't want to kill because there is a God, because that just feels too selfish, I don't want to kill simply because I want to give others a chance, and that is, in my opinion, a much better reason for not killing. So taking this into though, does that mean aetheists are evil or bad? No, they aren't, they deserve to choose the path they want (even if it is just "given" to them, by, from my not-believing-in-God side, life)



No one is born a pedophile - that's a sinner's chosen obsession, resulting from a carrying on of avoidance of proper cultivation. No one has the inclination to be a faithful spouse because of mere circumstance, but because of a chosen cooperation with Graces from GOD, whether with perfect or imperfect awareness at some points along the way filled with trials and exercises.

Saint Francis of Assissi was the son of a godless man who encouraged his son to carry on in his juvenile delinquency, as he led his peers in rebellious teenage trouble-making. Then one day, while still rather young and popular, the lad's heart changed, and he decided to become a Catholic Christian. He was threatened by his father with rejection if he didn't reject his new Christian Life, but he chose GOD over the father he had never wanted to lose the acceptance of. All that had seemed a place of priviledge to Francis, he now saw nothing in, while all the Good he had previously had every motive to ignore, was now his one occupation.

So, he just had a change of heart just like that? Magically? I find that impossible... nobody has change of heart for over no reason at all. That would mean that one day he was "I believe in no God" and the next he just magically changed and became "I believe in God", if that was the case, there had to be doubt about what he wanted somewhere in his life. Assuming there's a God, God set out the rules of this world, and psychology is one of them.



A person may kill, undoubtedly, for a different reason than another, but murder is still murder - because of the motive. No one has a murderous motive due to mere background - because one's choice for or against a targetted disposition or attitude will remain a strong motivation against the tide. I know of some people that are exceptionally cheerful and gentle despite the odds seeming against them comprehending such good qualities. How is this? Because GOD has assigned virtues to our nature - but we choose what we shall come to: whether we cooperate with the CREATOR so that we solidify these qualities within ourselves like pottery being set in the kiln, or drift ever more and more away from our original GOD-given nature.

Well, how do you know that? Have you ever murdered before? I mean... a murderer murders for a reason, always, and once again... as a child... if they're mistreated, well, does a child really have such experience in life, if as a child they were taught that killing was good, then it's not their fault. Ok, if that was the case, then it'd be similar to your previous story, but as a child who is mistreated and is taught that killing was good, there's a pretty slim chance that they'll have such a change of heart, I mean, putting myself in their shoes, that's pretty tough unless something in life sparks my mind and gives me knowledge of morals. So in other words, God gives us virtues and its our decision to follow or deny them, but life, depending on the way it treats us, motivates us to either follow or deny them, but is it really our fault if we can't handle such pressure. I mean, putting myself in their shoes if I think really deeply, something awful must've happened to get them to start killing, don't you think? Decisions don't just pop out of no where.

[bhekti]

I'm an atheist, I'll say right now. I'll also say that I don't swear, drink, or smoke, and have sworn a personal vow of chastity until I am married. I have no criminal record whatsoever, and am near the top of my class at school. I was born by my mother--I didn't emerge from a smoking hole in the ground. No late-night sex rituals, no sacrificing small animals...

Uhm... don't take offence....but since you are an atheist (and, here, for politeness sake, I am trying to adjust myself to your conviction), does it make any difference if you are not as you are?

I mean, you can't be serious with that personal description of yours, can you? Coz, what for? Is there any value in it? What is value anyway? there is no God...


Prejudice is an ugly thing, bhekti

So? There is no God, remember? you say it's ugly, my companion here says it's not ugly, another companion of mine over there says it's necessary, .....

[Anon22]

Uhm... don't take offence....but since you are an atheist (and, here, for politeness sake, I am trying to adjust myself to your conviction), does it make any difference if you are not as you are?

I mean, you can't be serious with that personal description of yours, can you? Coz, what for? Is there any value in it? What is value anyway? there is no God...



So? There is no God, remember? you say it's ugly, my companion here says it's not ugly, another companion of mine over there says it's necessary, .....


He is what he is, and he does what he believes is right. Prejudice being an ugly thing for him is an opinion. You have to remember though that peer pressure and stuff like that plays an important role in your beliefs, there may be no God, but because so many people frown upon prejudice, they teach their kids to frown upon it to, does it make it right? no, does it make it wrong? no, does it make it liked? no. Also, people fear problems and will try to avoid them as much as they can, thus most learn to respect others, making prejudice be more frowned upon. So basically, what happens is that, in this way, morals are created without there being a God.

Another thing I would like to add about morals, according to your term of morals, God created them, like laws that we should follow. What's more important though, the fact that he exists, or the fact that we believe in him? As long as we believe in him, the morals are still there, and even if we don't, there will still be the "preferred" morals.

[RobinHood3000]

Uhm... don't take offence....but since you are an atheist (and, here, for politeness sake, I am trying to adjust myself to your conviction), does it make any difference if you are not as you are?

I mean, you can't be serious with that personal description of yours, can you? Coz, what for? Is there any value in it? What is value anyway? there is no God...

So? There is no God, remember? you say it's ugly, my companion here says it's not ugly, another companion of mine over there says it's necessary, .....
Aye, there is value in it. I may not believe in a God, but I believe in goodness to others. My creed in life, since it obviously is not to serve God, is
To do my best to bring about the optimal balance of my health/happiness/well-being and the health/happiness/well-being of others.
Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

Did you just tell me that my beliefs are ludicrous, worthless, and empty, then ask me not to take offense?

Personally, I think that it is somewhat selfish (albeit natural) for a person to think that there is no purpose to life if there's no afterlife to work for. Regardless of what personal concern (or ego, depending on whom you ask) would tell us, the world continues beyond our passing. It is thusly that I hope to leave an impression--by seeking make the lives of those around me better and more pleasant. One does not have to believe in a god to understand the concepts of pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.

In addition, it is based on this that I can say that prejudice is an ugly thing--it attempts to portray me and those like me as less of a person because of what I believe. To me, it equates to you sacrificing my contentment for your personal self-satisfaction at having struck a blow against us heathens. Your actions thus go against my beliefs as my existence apparently goes against yours.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

You really should try a wanton orgy sometime. Tell me your well-being is detrimented afterwards if you can. ;)

[Stanislaw]

even if people are atheist they can lead a good life, because they want to be curtiouse to others in a hope that other will be curtiouse to them...

I think if everyone just respected the others beliefs this world would be a happier place. :cool:

[bhekti]

.... You have to remember though that peer pressure and stuff like that plays an important role in your beliefs, there may be no God, but because so many people frown upon prejudice, they teach their kids to frown upon it to, does it make it right? no, does it make it wrong? no, does it make it liked? no. Also, people fear problems and will try to avoid them as much as they can, thus most learn to respect others, making prejudice be more frowned upon. So basically, what happens is that, in this way, morals are created without there being a God.

I see that there is a God there in your system of thought when you are thinking about moral. It's the "peer", the "so many people", the social. And, one characteristic of this God is that it creates moral out of fear. (Facism?)


.... Another thing I would like to add about morals, according to your term of morals, God created them, like laws that we should follow. What's more important though, the fact that he exists, or the fact that we believe in him? As long as we believe in him, the morals are still there, and even if we don't, there will still be the "preferred" morals.

There is a Godless moral. Such a moral can indeed be the "preferred" moral (and, I think it is most "preferred" today). But, it leads to nowhere but the depreciation of its subjects. There is something of the persons of those who profess this moral that has to be died down ( is this sentence correct? please forgive my english). Such moral corrupts something, making the persons professing it repress something of their natural endowment. But, of course, this repression will not be admitted because what becomes most important is the Godless aspect. In other words, for these persons any kinds of morals will do as long as there is no God.

[bhekti]

You really should try a wanton orgy sometime. Tell me your well-being is detrimented afterwards if you can. ;)

There you go, Robin. :p

[Logos]

Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

Wanton orgies are great I highly recommend, especially when they bring the dim sum carts around at regular intervals PHOAR! :lol:

[Stanislaw]

Wanton orgies are great I highly recommend, especially when they bring the dim sum carts around at regular intervals PHOAR! :lol:


Did I hear someone mention wanton orgies? And no one invited me! :mad:

:D

[RobinHood3000]

Well, since everyone's set on having a wanton orgy :rolleyes:, what say we all travel over to Stan's ship? Plenty of rum and room below-decks...

[beer good]

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

[bhekti]

Aye, there is value in it. I may not believe in a God, but I believe in goodness to others. My creed in life, since it obviously is not to serve God, is
Therefore, the reason why I do not drink, smoke, have wanton orgies, etc., is because such actions are detrimental to my well-being and the well-being of those around me.

"Goodness to others", "Well-being" are principles, or elements of a principle. What is the origin of these principle? It is God. So, God is the embodiment of principles without which human life is impossible, both in physical and moral realms.


Did you just tell me that my beliefs are ludicrous, worthless, and empty, then ask me not to take offense?

Ludicrous? No. Worthless and empty? consequently. (please don't take offence. forgive my language. I factually don't know how to put it into more polite phrase)


To me, it equates to you sacrificing my contentment for your personal self-satisfaction at having struck a blow against us heathens. Your actions thus go against my beliefs as my existence apparently goes against yours.

No, i don't mean that way. I'm really sorry Robin.

[Anon22]

I see that there is a God there in your system of thought when you are thinking about moral. It's the "peer", the "so many people", the social. And, one characteristic of this God is that it creates moral out of fear. (Facism?)




There is a Godless moral. Such a moral can indeed be the "preferred" moral (and, I think it is most "preferred" today). But, it leads to nowhere but the depreciation of its subjects. There is something of the persons of those who profess this moral that has to be died down ( is this sentence correct? please forgive my english). Such moral corrupts something, making the persons professing it repress something of their natural endowment. But, of course, this repression will not be admitted because what becomes most important is the Godless aspect. In other words, for these persons any kinds of morals will do as long as there is no God.

Or in other words, the morals aren't the same anymore because something in them dies (faith in a god is a lot different than faith in no god), and thus one of the reasons why I am not completely aetheistic, I really don't want to give up such a thing. Imagine a world where everybody was aetheistic, I know that that's not necessarily a bad thing, but everytime I see my grandmother talk about God... her eyes shine with knowledge and certainty of his existence. It's faith, a really strong faith, and I don't really want to give that up (besides, with faith comes hope, and with hope may come fortitude and optimism). Deep down I know that God doesn't exist, and this I am certain of, nevertheless, I believe in him as if he existed. Seems odd? I guess it's just something you have to experience. Perhaps there is a God though, but if there is, he's not what we would expect him to be, he's not going be a ruler, and would just simply be to life, what the Grim Reaper is to death, and it's good enough for me.


The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

As I said earlier before, God isn't the one creating the morals, it's the belief in him that does it, as long as we believe in him, the morals will remain, regardless of whether he exists or not. Also the wanting to be kind to others will stop us from commiting murder, raping and stuff. Friends are an amazing thing and I don't want to lose that, and thus I know that that will prevent me from commiting such things whether god is or isn't. Remember that love for others will still exist.



But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, the "you can't be serious" implies that you think my principles laughable--i.e., ludicrous.

And I disagree that principles inherently originate with God. The principle of pain = bad, pleasure = good is instinctive and coincides with either science or religion (whichever you prefer). This, combined with the empathy derived from sentience and status as a social creature (that's a mouthful), establishes the beginnings of my mission statement (as stated previously).

[Theshizznigg]

No, I haven't--poetry isn't my preferred category for reading, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'll look into it.

Don't laugh, but I think Michael Crichton's The Lost World makes an interesting point regarding the nature of evolution. What happens it that the Velociraptors that have been cloned exhibit behaviors that are nothing like the hunters of today, and probably nothing like the hunters of prehistory.

For example, when they make a kill, all ages of raptor leap into the fray to feed, without any form of hierarchy based on rank or sex. If one raptor is contesting the meal against another, it is liable to be disemboweled and then added to the menu.

The reason for this is because, when the Velociraptors were cloned, only their GENETIC blueprint was copied. Any form of social hierarchy that existed in raptor "culture" was lost when they went extinct, and with it any rituals or practices (such as feeding patterns) that kept them orderly. Other group predators by comparison, like lions, undergo no such chaos after hunting.

So, the question is, when humans replaced the family/group structure that exists in other branches of the primate tree with a counter-evolutionary thought pattern, how did they manage to survive? For example, I was thinking about poisonous mushrooms earlier in the day (I haven't the faintest idea why). How is it that humans have to be formally educated in which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous, yet wild animals manage just fine without posters or the New York Public Library Desk Reference? Or take all of those abominable commercials for Viagra and comparable drugs--if the condition being treated is so serious and epidemic that it merits medical research to fix, how is it that we managed for the past 40,000 years as a species?


I would absolutely love to experiment with the aspects of humanity. See if humans could be manipulated into certain thinking, or if they could be completely co-existent without the traditions passed on by humanity.

The only problem with this, is that it would be considered by many as, a person playing God, because he is subjecting his fellow humans to different tests, and therefor manipulating the social, religious, mental hierachy that has existed since human creation.

Thus such subjecting becomes a human rights issue, because under the microscope it would be considered immoral to try and raise humans to think differently, or act differently of society.

From a clearly interesting point of view, it would be interesting to see if a human removed from all obligations of religion/social teachings would indeed be able to adequitely exist in a pure state of atheism, or would indeed try to find some form of spiritual connection.

I also think it would be interesting to study, subversive, or repressed genological memories, and the modest role they play in the shaping of the human mind.
Since I think that those genetical memories, (something caused by great trauma/joy or shock) that so affected Adam and his descendants could very well be laying in the more dormant part of the human brain, and thus affect the reason that the human race has a singular set of moral values which seems to be bastardized by several forms of belief or religion.

This is not an unfounded realization, since we share our parents genetic makeup, and there parents before them, we could also inherit through our genetics, memories of past family members.

Still this is all for time and science, and it would seem that as we answer another question of the mind, another ten suddenly crop up to take its place.

"Do you come here often?"

Esquire Hanza

[Whifflingpin]

Getting to God is like climbing to the top of a mountain. Each religion is like a stream running down the mountain. So follow the stream up. You could leave the stream, but you might get lost. You could find a different stream, but it might be hard. But, if you try hard enough, you come to a place on the mountain that is higher than all the streams, and then you have to go on without one.

Of course, many people by the stream think only of its refreshing qualities, so they picnic in a pretty spot, and there they stop. :yawnb:

Atheists, perhaps, are those who do not care for streams. There is nothing to stop them from going up the mountain, but maybe no reason why they should, especially as it is cold :cold: and clouded. They look down on the picniccers, and say, "no thanks - keep your cool refreshing water, we've got our own bottles of brandy." :cool: They look at those climbing beside the streams and say that there is no point in going up to a land of cloud and ice, and they laugh "look at all those climbers, they can't even agree on which stream is best." Not surprising, since many of the climbers are wasting their efforts :smash: on trying to call to climbers in different streams, to tell them they are going the wrong way.

Agnostics wander near the streams, not daring to walk far away, but not daring to get their feet wet either. :bawling:

:lol:

[ThatIndividual]

That was certainly interesting.

[beer good]

Whifflingpin: Well put, but you forgot to mention that those of us who choose to stay down on the plains have had hot and cold running water and indoor plumbing for the last 150 years or so... plus, we took a helicopter ride to the top once and didn't find anything there! :brow:

[Scheherazade]

Wifflingpin> What happens if you reach the top and realise that the journey has not been worth it?

Beer_Good>That was my first reaction as well when I read Whiffling's post! :D

What if someone prefers the valleys or the plains?

And how does the saying 'You can take the girl/boy out of valley but you cannot take the valley out of her/him.' saying fit into all this? ;)

[Stanislaw]

Stanislaw Lem once said something that I feel is perfect for this ocasion:
"Once you have reached the top, you realize that every road leads down"



Maybe people are just irational? :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There's nothing at the top but a view of what you're missing being up there!

So come on all you stream followers, follow them down the hill. It's an easier trek, and I can promise you a beach at the end of the trip! With Ice-cream! :lol:

[Whifflingpin]

God is like an ocean. Each religion is like a stream running down to the sea. So follow the stream down. You could leave the stream, but you might get lost. You could find a different stream, but it might be hard. But, eventually, whatever stream you follow, you reach the ocean.

Of course, many people by the stream think only of its refreshing qualities, so they picnic in a pretty spot, and there they stop.

Atheists, perhaps, are those who do not care for streams. There is nothing to stop them from going down to the sea, but maybe no reason why they should, especially as it is deep and maybe full of monsters. They look down on the picniccers, and say, "no thanks - keep your cool refreshing water, we've got our own bottles of brandy." They look at those going down the streams and say that there is no point in going down to a place of mud and seaweed, and they laugh "look at all those bumblers, they can't even agree on which stream is best." Not surprising, since many of the travellers are wasting their efforts on trying to call to travellers in different streams, to tell them they are going the wrong way.

Agnostics wander near the streams, not daring to walk far away, but not daring to get their feet wet either.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Some streams reach lakes and go no further, some turn into foetid swampland, some get culverted and end up behind dams getting pumped into reservoirs - which religions are they? Care to expand? ;)

But a nice switcheroo, nevertheless - respect!

[ThatIndividual]

Whiffling, as much as I have enjoyed your allegorical representations of the almighty, they are becoming magnificently redundant.

However, worry ye not, for I bestow unto thee a dancing banana.

:banana:

(In fact, god is like a dancing banana. Indeed! He is, indeed! Ever mocking his own human creations, he is himself a silly reminder of our origin; of our being as apes on enormous ego trips.)

Behold! I give ye! ..........

the dancing banana: :banana:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

ThatIndividual,

I think you may be on to something there. It is obvious to me now that my banana allergy only began when I became an atheist!

Perhaps if I were to embrace religion again, I would be able to enjoy bananas once more!

On second thoughts, I never liked bananas that much. ;)

[ThatIndividual]

You know that's funny... now that you mention it, I am also mildly allergic to bananas. they give me a dreadful stomach ache (like no other food.)

I am, however, not an atheist. (Takes far too much faith to be an atheist!)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I think there's anough for a thesis here. :D

[SleepyWitch]

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?


yeah, that's a good point.
I've been a filthy heathen all my life and weathered 13 years of Religious Education completeyl unscathed.
But on the other hand, i've always tried to be a good person. even in primary school my teacher said how helpful and considerate I was towards the other kids... lots of times I just feel I want to help people and there's no real motivation behind it.. I'm not some kind of goody-goody preacher who tells everybody that being altruistic is a good thing.. it's just something I do and I don't even care if people will help me in return or will be grateful or whatever...
well, hehe, i voted dunno, because I certainly don't believe in the kind of god most Christian denominations would have us believe in. but on the other hand I also believe there's more to human life than just material things or the laws of natural sciences...
--> so, what does that make me (apart from a rambling bore? ;) )

[Anon22]

Agnostic or something... not sure... lol anyhow, here's the reason I don't like believing in a God. Even though I loved seeing my Grandma believe in him and everything... it was just marvelous, the reason I don't really like believing in a God is pretty much the same reason. Now this is just one reason, and it's not too major, and as a matter a fact its not even something you have to do. Basically it's putting faith in him, that everything will turn out fine, that everything will turn out spectacular, but the reason I don't want to do that, is simply because it feels sort of like "as long as there is a God and you believe in him nothing bad will happen" or somewhere along those lines, which isn't necessarily true. Well... basically what I don't really like is the fact that it's not you... it's not coming from you... it's not "I know it will happen", it's "I know it will happen because God is with me"... ok... having God with you is good but... I'd rather take the "I know it will happen" because it's just a stronger certainty... it's coming from me, and it's a true feeling... it's not just because God exists, it's just because it simply is and shall be, it's trusting myself, and not God, to make sure that everything will be alright, to know that everything will be alright and with the belief in God, that sort of loses it's quality and uniqueness or something... it kind of feels as if we're in despair and the only reason there's hope is because of God or something... or perhaps... I'm just rambling or something... O.o I don't know.

[Theshizznigg]

I absolutely love the first, or maybe its the third Gymnopedies.
I quite enjoy classical music.
have you ever listen to Faure's Pavane.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I prefer the gnossiennes personally, they have a deliciously melancholy tinge to them. If you're ever in Normandy, go and visit Erik Satie's house in Honfleur. It's been converted into a bizarre, surrealist museum. There is quite honestly nowhere quite like it.

[Oceallaigh]

I believe that there is no god for the same reason that I do not believe in the existance of fairies. It is merely a matter of common sense.

[Redzeppelin]

The idea that without God there can be no morals is, to me, not only ludicrous but also a bit scary. Doesn't this imply that any Christian would immediately indulge in any sin from wearing mixed threads to murdering, raping and pillaging if he/she would somehow lose his/her faith in God? If not... then why not?

But hey, what do I know. I'm just trying to live a good life. Apparently that makes me a fascist.

The idea as you stated it does sound silly, but it's not incorrect. Correctly stated, the position is more like this: in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding? A law established by a Divine Being carries authority that overrides human dysfunction and "preferrence." Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.

No - the absence of faith does not mean that the Christian becomes a socio/psychopath; it simply means that the stable, unchanging nature of morality is gone, and I am now free to decide what kind of moral framework I wish to exist within. That's only a good thing if I am a "good" being - but what if I'm not?

Nothing wrong with "living the good life" as long as your idea of "good" doesn't deprive me of my rights and freedoms.


I believe that there is no god for the same reason that I do not believe in the existance of fairies. It is merely a matter of common sense.

Only under your definition of "common sense." We who believe in God call our view "common sense" as well - so perhaps you've got an argument that differs from mine?

[metal134]

in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding?
That's very simple: because we need it to be that way. Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.


Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.
But it already is that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

[RobinHood3000]

I disagree with the contention that "humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work."

Animal populations have known this intuitively for years, at least insofar as primate social structures are concerned. The only thing that really happened along the line was that humans started to question why this was the case.

[Redzeppelin]

That's very simple: because we need it to be that one.

That doesn't make it binding beyond mutual agreement. Once another party decides to not agree, to what do we appeal to bring them back into line beyond sheer force? And how can we even "bring them back into line" if law was merely what we agreed it was? I'm not arguing that human-constructed laws have no power; I'm well aware of their necessity and that - in general - human law does a decent job of governing things. However: for much of history human law was constructed under the umbrella of Divine Law - and as such, human law held more authority - and authority is the real issue I'm talking about. Human law works, yes - but its authority is questionable because it is open to revision and rejection in ways that Divine Law is not - hence making Divine Law ultimately more stable.


Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.

"Somewhere along the line"? That's kind of vague. And why should they figure out that these particular things - murder, rape, etc - are bad? To what standard were they appealing when they "quickly figured out" that these things were bad? Why should (not why are) these things be considered immoral at all?



But it already is that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

No. Your response does not work because it is only radical Islam extremists who believe killing in the name of God is OK. Christianity and Islam do not radically differ in how they believe followers ought to behave to each other. The real problem is not between religions, but cultures. Once there is no larger framework that transcends human law that we can appeal to, we now have to allow genocide, slavery, female genital mutilation, child sex workers - you name it, because who are we to question the laws of another culture? You can't see that trap?

[metal134]

You're only making one religious comparision; it's not just Christians and Muslims. There is Judaism, Buddhist, Hindu, Janism, Taosim, etc. and while there are basic values across the board; don't murder, don't steal, etc., there is no shortage on issues of morality that are disagreed upon.
And why did they figure out that those things are bad? Because it meant chaos. If you allow others to murder at will, then you could be murdered, so peopled agreed that anyone who murders will be punished, therefore protecting each other. It's in my best interest to say murder is bad because if I say murder isn't bad, then I could be murdered. I have studied ethics in college and believe me, there are many theories on the origins of morality that work every bit as well as religion. Egotism, utilitarianism, relativism, etc. I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

[JGL57]

I am an atheist. I used to be a southern Baptist. I defy anyone to demonstrate that that is not an improvement. :lol:

[Wintermute]

Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.

[Silvia]

I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit.
I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...

[Redzeppelin]

I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

I don't believe my posts indicated anything of the kind. Morality can exist without religion - I've never argued otherwise. My point is simply about authority. The only point I keep sticking on is the authority behind the law. That $20 bill in your pocket is - by itself - worthless; it is only the guarantee of the US mint that makes it worth something - the authority behind the piece of paper gives it value. If you knew that the local judge would dismiss your case in your favor for that $20 bill, how seriously would you take the police? A bad, simplified example, but I think you get the point: it is not the police who are so powerful but the authority behind them. Sure: you can flee a cop, argue with one, assault and even kill one - but the authority behind that badge means that you have now brought a force to bear against yourself that will bring you to justice. My contention is that morality without a Divine Figure behind it (note that I did not say "religion") who establishes the "rules of conduct" is simply a man-made construction; as such, it cannot claim any authority over other men than what it can - by force - enforce. But if I create a bigger force, then I'm right - right? Why should the decisions of other men restrict my ideas as to what is "right" or "wrong"? Divine Law means that humanity cannot override what is "right" or "wrong" in favor of personal bias or just plain cultural wierdness because a Being beyond humanity (and, therefore, we assume, smarter than humanity) created that law.

[metal134]

I don't buy that for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't buy that for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.


Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) we have invested it with that power (which means we can also divest it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules.

"Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?

[metal134]

You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they might happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther is a divine influence.

[JGL57]

Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) we have invested it with that power (which means we can also divest it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules.

"Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?

Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.
As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.

What in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?

[Redzeppelin]

You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they might happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther is a divine influence.


Well, metal134, how would you know why I'm saying what I say? Only God would know such a thing (and maybe me, if I'm thinking before I'm speaking :) ). Your attempt to reduce my belief to a "security blanket" (and thus trivialize it) doesn't change the validity of my point.

What do you mean "possibilities"? Those behaviors occur in reality RIGHT NOW. And, without a higher moral law to appeal to ither than cultural agreement, on what basis do you condemn those behaviors?

[JGL57]

Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.


I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit.
I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...

I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.

Is that ok? :)

[Redzeppelin]

Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.

Right. I have no argument with this - what have I posted that indicates I don't agree with this?


As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.

Yeah.


in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?

I understand it just fine. What do you think I don't get? My disagreement isn't based on confusion - it's based on a different opinion than yours. Do you understand that?

Neither you nor metal have answered my question: how do we interact with societies that condone behavior that we believe to be immoral? What gives us the right to "intervene" if their vision of morality is equally as valuable as ours (since both are human-created)? Deal with my argument rather than act as if I don't get your points. I get them fine.

[metal134]

But I've already made the point that it IS that way. Christain morals and laws are different from Buddists. Buddist morals and laws are different from Taoists. Taoists are different than Muslims. You're making it seems as if there currently is one unifying standard of withics across cultures. There isn't. You ask how, if there was moral ambiguity across cultures how we would deal with it. There alreasy IS moral ambiguity across cultures and we already DO have to do with it. If there is a divine authority as to what is moral and what is not, then how do you exlain the differences in ethics that ALREADY exist across cultures and religions.

[Wintermute]

I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.

Is that ok? :)

Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.

[Redzeppelin]

But I've already made the point that it IS that way. Christain morals and laws are different from Buddists. Buddist morals and laws are different from Taoists. Taoists are different than Muslims. You're making it seems as if there currently is one unifying standard of withics across cultures. There isn't. You ask how, if there was moral ambiguity across cultures how we would deal with it. There alreasy IS moral ambiguity across cultures and we already DO have to do with it. If there is a divine authority as to what is moral and what is not, then how do you exlain the differences in ethics that ALREADY exist across cultures and religions.

I'm not arguing how things are; I'm arguing that our lack of a transcendant standard reduces the authority of humanly-constructed "morality." The current existence of "moral ambiguity" validates my position: since all standards are "equal" then we are in the sticky position of having to condemn behaviors without having a standard to appeal to that the other culture will acknowledge as having authority. I'm speaking hypothetically: I'm not so much saying we have to have a divine law as much as I'm saying that our current difficulties are largely due to the fact that we don't have one. That's all.

[kilted exile]

we are in the sticky position of having to condemn behaviors without having a standard to appeal to that the other culture will acknowledge as having authority.

Ok, this part interests me. Why would we assume that they would acknowledge the divine authority that they do not believe in, or follow. Surely if they were willing to acknowledge that authority they would already be ascribing to those principles?

[Redzeppelin]

Ok, this part interests me. Why would we assume that they would acknowledge the divine authority that they do not believe in, or follow. Surely if they were willing to acknowledge that authority they would already be ascribing to those principles?

OK - I probably need to shut up now because I must not be making any sense because people don't seem to understand what I'm saying. My post indicated that I'm speaking hypothetically. I'm simply trying to point out some of the pitfalls of extracting morality out from the context of Divine Law. If we accept that a Being of INFINITELY greater intelligence established guidelines for life then we have a "frame" within which to judge/evaluate human behavior - a "frame" based on the acceptance that the Divine Being knows better than I about what is right/wrong, good/evil. Once we eliminate a transcendent law that is above and beyond human bias/preferrence, we now have difficulties in moderating/judging conflicts between cultures. I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.

[JGL57]

Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.

As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists".

I see that as a distinction without a difference. E.g.:

1. I have no belief in leprechauns.
2. I also believe that no leprachauns exists.


Does sentence #2 above add information that either clarifies or contradicts anything is #1? No, I don't think so. It's the difference between saying "John's house is white" or "The white house is John's".

[JGL57]

...I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.

Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?

Yes, that would be a great benefit, but I don't think that is ever going to happen, so I don't worry about it much, one way or the other.

There may be a god, but there is no evidence of such, so the fact that it would be of great benefit if it did is of little consequence.

Somehow I must muddle along without my dreamed of one billion dollars and likewise humans must muddle along and make their own way, find a way to organize societies and live in peace without the dreamed of source of absolute morality that you find so fascinating.

If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?

[RobinHood3000]

It's more like a difference between statements like

1. I don't promote war.
2. I believe in pacifism.

One is passive, the other active. There is a difference, however subtle.

[metal134]

OK - I probably need to shut up now because I must not be making any sense because people don't seem to understand what I'm saying. My post indicated that I'm speaking hypothetically. I'm simply trying to point out some of the pitfalls of extracting morality out from the context of Divine Law. If we accept that a Being of INFINITELY greater intelligence established guidelines for life then we have a "frame" within which to judge/evaluate human behavior - a "frame" based on the acceptance that the Divine Being knows better than I about what is right/wrong, good/evil. Once we eliminate a transcendent law that is above and beyond human bias/preferrence, we now have difficulties in moderating/judging conflicts between cultures. I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.
No we understand perfectly. The issue here is that you say because of said hypothetical, then it must be divine law. Just because the absence of divine law means moral ambiguty doesn't mean that divine law exists. That's the pitfall. You're saying that because x might mean y, then z has to be true. Well, I'm saying that maybe x does mean y.l

[yingqiee]

JGL57: The metaphor you have used is flawed. You have already assumed God to be non-existent.

If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?

You cannot prove that God is non-existent.

[kilted exile]

You cannot prove that God is non-existent.

And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can

[Wintermute]

As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists".

I see that as a distinction without a difference. E.g.:

1. I have no belief in leprechauns.
2. I also believe that no leprachauns exists.


Does sentence #2 above add information that either clarifies or contradicts anything is #1? No, I don't think so. It's the difference between saying "John's house is white" or "The white house is John's".

I guess my only point was that you believe something. Assuming theat belief implies certainty, a belief that something exists is not much different from believing that it doesn't. If belief does not equal certainty, then I retract my statement. 8-)

[Redzeppelin]

Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?

Was that supposed to be a serious comparison? Intellectual debate becomes very difficult when one's opponent is either unwilling or unable to even try and see the other person's point-of-view.


Yes, that would be a great benefit, but I don't think that is ever going to happen, so I don't worry about it much, one way or the other.

OK - but just because one doesn't "think" something "is ever going to happen" does not mean that it cannot or willnot.


There may be a god, but there is no evidence of such, so the fact that it would be of great benefit if it did is of litter consequence.

Only if you're correct.

I'm so tired of the "no evidence" argument about God. There are plenty of firm beliefs that people base their ideas of reality on that they have never actually had "proven" to them - they've been told by a book or a person that such-and-such is true, but that's not personal verification. I doubt your life is based on a ruthless commitment to believe only that which is "scientifically" proven to you through "evidence." Please.


Somehow I must muddle along without my dreamed of one billion dollars and likewise humans must muddle along and make their own way, find a way to organize societies and live in peace without the dreamed of source of absolute morality that you find so fascinating.

If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?

Very entertaining - but you really didn't offer any substantial answer to my post. Could you address my argument, please?


No we understand perfectly. The issue here is that you say because of said hypothetical, then it must be divine law. Just because the absence of divine law means moral ambiguty doesn't mean that divine law exists. That's the pitfall. You're saying that because x might mean y, then z has to be true. Well, I'm saying that maybe x does mean y.l

No I didn't. I did not imply any causal relationship. You're flipping my argument around and drawing a conclusion I did not suggest. I'll try again. I'm suggesting what the absence of Divine Law leads to: our current moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity may result in trivial conflicts, but at some point - even if that point right now seems remote and incredible - at some point something somewhere will be offered up that you and/or your culture will object to, and object strongly. I am simply telling you that the lack of a transcendant moral law means that we are now on very unstable and virtually undefendable ground when it comes to condemning certain practices - especially if committed by another culture. What's so confusing about that?

[ennison]

'What's so confusing about that?'
Pretty straightforward. Nothing confusing at all.

[bluevictim]

I'm suggesting what the absence of Divine Law leads to: our current moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity may result in trivial conflicts, but at some point - even if that point right now seems remote and incredible - at some point something somewhere will be offered up that you and/or your culture will object to, and object strongly. I am simply telling you that the lack of a transcendant moral law means that we are now on very unstable and virtually undefendable ground when it comes to condemning certain practices - especially if committed by another culture. I guess it's hard to discuss religion with strangers because everyone comes to the table with so much baggage that it takes several rounds before people start understanding each other. I'll probably regret jumping in, but here goes:

I think your line of thought is pretty reasonable. If you'll allow me to try to paraphrase in my own words, it runs something like this:

Without something or someone divine to hand you a moral law, any theory of morality will logically amount to might makes right.

I more or less agree here, but I also get the impression that you feel this theoretical moral ambiguity is a relatively new phenomenon. If we simplify things and just focus on the Christianized West, it sounds like you feel a new moral ambiguity is rising because the West has abandoned it's traditional belief in God-given authority. This may well be true, but (IMO) I don't think it is much different than the previously existing moral ambiguity resulting from the difficulty of determining what the divine moral law is. Should the laymen simply accept what the clergy says is right and wrong? Do the Papists have it right, or are the Schismatics the true followers of God? Rome or Constantinople? Practically speaking, the world has always operated according to the principle of might makes right (IMO, again).

I offer these thoughts in the hope that some of them can fuel a more productive discussion.

[Redzeppelin]

Without something or someone divine to hand you a moral law, any theory of morality will logically amount to might makes right.

I more or less agree here, but I also get the impression that you feel this theoretical moral ambiguity is a relatively new phenomenon. If we simplify things and just focus on the Christianized West, it sounds like you feel a new moral ambiguity is rising because the West has abandoned it's traditional belief in God-given authority. This may well be true, but (IMO) I don't think it is much different than the previously existing moral ambiguity resulting from the difficulty of determining what the divine moral law is. Should the laymen simply accept what the clergy says is right and wrong? Do the Papists have it right, or are the Schismatics the true followers of God? Rome or Constantinople? Practically speaking, the world has always operated according to the principle of might makes right (IMO, again).

I offer these thoughts in the hope that some of them can fuel a more productive discussion.

Thank you for a balanced response - such a refreshing thing around this thread. It's not that I think moral ambiguity is "new" but I do believe that the effects of postmodernism has taken the moral ambiguity present in the world and accelerated it to a new and scary height. Whereas in the past we might have some qualms about moral conflicts between culture, now we are virtually paralyzed because postmoderism "flattens" all belief systems into a false equality, where all cultural views are accepted as equally valid, despite their moral problems. That is a fairly recent (20thC) view - a view that has been exacerbated in American culture by the immense well-spring of guilt we collectively possess as a by-product of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Our postmodern culture posits the idea that we are to "accept" all views, cultures, religions and views as equally valid and equally worthy of respect (except Christianity, it seems). So, yes, moral ambiguity is not new, but the severe "levelling" of all systems of belief is.

[bluevictim]

It's not that I think moral ambiguity is "new" but I do believe that the effects of postmodernism has taken the moral ambiguity present in the world and accelerated it to a new and scary height. Whereas in the past we might have some qualms about moral conflicts between culture, now we are virtually paralyzed because postmoderism "flattens" all belief systems into a false equality, where all cultural views are accepted as equally valid, despite their moral problems. That is a fairly recent (20thC) view - a view that has been exacerbated in American culture by the immense well-spring of guilt we collectively possess as a by-product of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Our postmodern culture posits the idea that we are to "accept" all views, cultures, religions and views as equally valid and equally worthy of respect (except Christianity, it seems). So, yes, moral ambiguity is not new, but the severe "levelling" of all systems of belief is.What's interesting, of course, is that the political side of postmodernism is fueled in no small part by attitudes like my own, that 'the world has always operated on the principle of might makes right'.

One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about diatribes against postmodernism is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in addressing the issues that postmodernism is a reaction to. I think that perhaps this frustration is, in part, behind comments like, "Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?" Postmodernism is a reaction to a lot of difficulties that arose out of modernism. Yes, a belief in our own divine correctness made it easier for us to justify our actions, some of which are hurtful to other people. Unfortunately, we have run against some major difficulties in trying to prove our own divine correctness. Even according to our own traditional belief system, we have to account for the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken.

This brings up the idea of proof. In fact, I think postmodernism is strongly related to 20th century developments in logic which exposed major problems with the Enlightenment trust in the power of reason. This probably isn't the place to discuss that, though.

Anyways, you may be right to find the postmodern culture scary. If history is any indication, it may indicate the beginnings of the fall of our empire. However, I'm not sure it's possible to go back.

[kilted exile]

Ok, firstly I do not believe there has much disrespect towards christianity (or anyone elses beliefs) over the last few pages. Perhaps my comment about not being able to prove I can not make myself invisible was out of order, however it was in direct relation to a previous comment about not being able to prove god does not exist: Proof of the existence or otherwise of any supernatural being is impossible, I'll find out when I die - it is solely a matter of belief, I do not believe such a thing exists this surely shouldn't impact anyone else's faith in the same way that people believing in a god figure has no impact on mine. It has no place in this debate, but if people post about not being able to prove non-existence they must accept that there will be a response.

There has however, been response made to posts, questioning the exact meaning/origin of the idea, together with putting forward our own beliefs on the subject (which have been treated by the believers in the same manner as we have treated theirs). This has been done for the most part in a respectful manner.

Now, that is out of the way on to my main reason for posting (bullet posted for quickness):

- I believe being a fellow human being this gives me the right to criticise what I find to be unethical and proffers me the voice to do it.


- This is not to say however that if I criticise the culture of another culture/country that they are required to change their practices to suit my beliefs as to what is right or wrong. An example would be gay marriage, I believe it is unethical to deny homosexuals the right to marry - however I respect that the church & I are ideologically opposed on this issue and if they do not wish to recognise/carry out these ceremonies that is their decision and they are free to not comply if they wish not to.

- Where this relates to practices where it brings harm(of any kind) to another unwilling person, the perpetrator forgoes their right to participate within the society - where this relates to foreign countries, I believe that international organisations are the place to decide these cases.

- I actually believe that moral relativism is a good thing, as I have said on another thread I am glad we no longer accept some of the things which were thought to be Ok in the past.

[Logos]

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! :lol: athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves. :lol: )

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... ;)

Wow, talk about topic drift. Nothing wrong with it but.. this is friendly mod note to all that just because someone doesn't agree with you or believe the same thing(s) doesn't mean they're being disrespectful or not allowed to express their perspective/opinion etc.

.
.
.

[JGL57]

I guess my only point was that you believe something. Assuming that belief implies certainty, a belief that something exists is not much different from believing that it doesn't. If belief does not equal certainty, then I retract my statement. 8-)

No, belief does not equal certainty - unless it is supernatural (theistic) belief associated with organized religion. That is, one hardly hears of the existence of an agnostic Christian or an agnostic Muslim. Followers of theistic organized religion are dogmatists generally by definition (though, admittedly the rare agnostic theist does exist, similar to the white rhinoceros). ;)

Atheists, on the other hand, are much more diverse. My proof? - well, besides meeting and talking to several dozen over the years, and interacting with many, many atheists on line over the years, I posted two polls regarding atheism last year on the Internet Infidels website forum and both times about 80 per cent turned out agnostic atheists and about 20 per cent dogmatists (those willing to assert "there IS no god.").

[JGL57]

JGL57: The metaphor you have used is flawed. You have already assumed God to be non-existent.

You cannot prove that God is non-existent.


And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can

As kilted exile replied, one can never prove a universal negative - which doesn't matter because the burden of proof is on the one asserting a positive belief.

Have theists met their burden? I haven't noticed. Thus, my assumption must be 1. god is imaginary or 2. if god exists his existence is unproven, apparently non-provable, has no affect on my life, and thus "there is a god" is a trivial claim at best and a irrelevant or nonsensical claim at worst.

Another metaphor: the ball is in the theist's court.

[mo_dingo]

Wow, talk about topic drift. Nothing wrong with it but.. this is friendly mod note to all that just because someone doesn't agree with you or believe the same thing(s) doesn't mean they're being disrespectful or not allowed to express their perspective/opinion etc.

.
.
.

:rlaugh: I was reading page after page of this and was amazed at the tangents. As often happens with threads of this nature, I suppose.

As a 99.9% atheist I do consider myself near fundamentalism at times, because I am narrow minded. I am waiting for proof of existence; and until that happens, and argument is frivolous IMO.

I say I am 99.9% because 100% would make me a complete fool. It wasn't so long ago that we thought the world was flat. Why should we think that anything MUST be true, even in presence of great evidence. I will never cave into any absolute; even someone saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, without a doubt.

A fool thinks he is wise; a wise man knows he is a fool. - not me.

The basis of my belief is that there is not one single thing in this world today that is conclusively supernatural. Just because we cannot explain something completely doesn't automatically make it supernatural (i.e. how the earth was created). A quote I really took to heart was "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear supernatural". I take that one further in saying "anything sufficiently advanced will appear supernatural".

Because in the beginning of our existence, we could not explain many things in this world, we deemed them supernatural. This spawned the idea of God, witches, etc. A final and absolute idea to explain everything in our universe. Kind of nice not needing to wonder about the world around us when you have an idea like God to explain everything, eh?

The popularity of God is due to it's widespread belief in history; The idea of an atheist back then would have got you hung. It still continues now, as no open atheist would ever have a chance to get elected president.

I believe it was Bertrand Russel who conjectured the "floating teapot". If you are not familiar, it postulates that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, so small that you could not see it with the most powerful telescope. What if everyone, in history, gave it the same attention, reverence and relentless respect that was given God? Would we still believe it? Personally, I truly think so. Just as with God, you can never disprove it, especially if you gave it the omnipotent/omniscient characteristics that God has.

And the argument that "you cannot disprove God" holds the same weight as "you cannot disprove the floating teapot". Lack of proof leads to no logical conclusion.

A paraphrased sherlock holmes line. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." Obviously, since you can neither eliminate the idea of god's existence or lack thereof, this logic cannot apply.

I have more, but I will conclude my epic in hope that you all enjoy what I have written, and I cannot wait for your retorts.
Scott

[yingqiee]

Have theists met their burden? I haven't noticed. Thus, my assumption must be 1. god is imaginary or 2. if god exists his existence is unproven, apparently non-provable, has no affect on my life, and thus "there is a god" is a trivial claim at best and a irrelevant or nonsensical claim at worst.

IMO, I believe that argument to be flawed; it can be applied both ways:

Have atheists met with their burden of asserting God does not exist? If I applied your argument, then I get this proposition which appears flawed:

"The non-existence of God is apparently non-provable, has no effect on my life, and thus "there is no God" is a trivial claim at best or nonsensical at worst."

This presents a contradiction in such an argument. Just because something cannot be proved does not mean that it is trivial or that it has no effect on our lives. I'd like to use the hackneyed analogy:

I have never in my entire life seen, felt, tasted or heard my brain. Does that mean it does not exist and that it cannot affect me? I would not like to think so.

Thus the atheist is as much a believer as the theist is; one has faith in the existence of God, the other in the non-existence of God.

[yingqiee]

P.S. I apologize if my previous comment about not being able to prove that God does not exist offended someone. I'm rather blunt in my writing.


And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can
With respect to the argument about turning invisible, you raise a valid point that I also am unable to prove that God exists. However, my argument was not about proving God but rather against the argument that:

1) God cannot be proven
2)God does not exist

I think we have misunderstood each other because we are basically arguing over the same thing from a different perspective. My bad; should have been more clear.

[Redzeppelin]

Ok, firstly I do not believe there has much disrespect towards christianity (or anyone elses beliefs) over the last few pages.

If this is a response to something I said, I wasn't clear. My comments were not about this thread so much as society in general in reference to postmodernism. If you take even a quick look at the news or media publications, you'll see that there seems to be a push to tolerate all systems of belief - whether that be Islam, Buddhism, etc - but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. That was what I was referring to.

[Wintermute]

If you take even a quick look at the news or media publications, you'll see that there seems to be a push to tolerate all systems of belief - whether that be Islam, Buddhism, etc - but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. That was what I was referring to.

Funny, I see exactly the opposite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU&eurl). Perhaps one's perspective is driven by one's preconceptions?

[kilted exile]

All right moving on from the respect/disrespect issue, it's a sidebar and will get us nowhere.

I have a question for anyone who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical:

If you were criticised for a practice which another culture found to be unethical, would you be willing to change that practice if the critics argued that it went against the teachings of their religion (however this is not a religion you follow)?

[metal134]

but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. .
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The problem as I see it, and I have personally run into this many times, if you say something like; "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a man", Christians take that at bashing Christianity. Since most of the overwhelmin majority of people are Christians, they don't find dismissal of other religions beliefs offensive. But I have seen many, many a Chritian become persoanlly offended by dismissal of a Chiristian belief and percieve it as oppression.

[JGL57]

IMO, I believe that argument to be flawed; it can be applied both ways:

Have atheists met with their burden of asserting God does not exist? If I applied your argument, then I get this proposition which appears flawed:

"The non-existence of God is apparently non-provable, has no effect on my life, and thus "there is no God" is a trivial claim at best or nonsensical at worst."

This presents a contradiction in such an argument. Just because something cannot be proved does not mean that it is trivial or that it has no effect on our lives. I'd like to use the hackneyed analogy:

I have never in my entire life seen, felt, tasted or heard my brain. Does that mean it does not exist and that it cannot affect me? I would not like to think so.

Thus the atheist is as much a believer as the theist is; one has faith in the existence of God, the other in the non-existence of God.

That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard. Would it help if I said I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of a god, just like I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus or leprechauns or fire-breathing dragons on Neptune?

I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".

My disbelief in the three claimed supernatural entities mentioned about DOES NOT constitute a belief - disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.

As for your god/brain analogy, it fails on this point: If I ask you to produce your god, or even some indirect evidence for its existence, I doubt you could do it (could you?). However, if you doubt the existence of your brain, I can remove it and show it to you before you then die - ditto your heart, liver, etc.

IOW, there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.

IOW, yingqiee, let your imagination run wild - just don't expect me to take you seriously.

[JGL57]

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The problem as I see it, and I have personally run into this many times, if you say something like; "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a man", Christians take that at bashing Christianity. Since most of the overwhelmin majority of people are Christians, they don't find dismissal of other religions beliefs offensive. But I have seen many, many a Chritian become persoanlly offended by dismissal of a Chiristian belief and percieve it as oppression.

I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.

[Domer121]

That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard. Would it help if I said I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of a god, just like I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus or leprechauns or fire-breathing dragons on Neptune?

I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".

My disbelief in the three claimed supernatural entities mentioned about DOES NOT constitute a belief - disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.

As for your god/brain analogy, it fails on this point: If I ask you to produce your god, or even some indirect evidence for its existence, I doubt you could do it (could you?). However, if you doubt the existence of your brain, I can remove it and show it to you before you then die - ditto your heart, liver, etc.

IOW, there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.

IOW, yingqiee, let your imagination run wild - just don't expect me to take you seriously.

I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?
THink about this: The parts of a sports car may be floating around the Galaxy, but without someone there to put them together how could they come about? Not simply by chance and hope that they will, in time, be put together.
And the simple fact that there are Athiest's does not disprove the existence of God, actually quite the contrary.
"If there were no God there would be no Athiest's"
G.K CHesterton 1922

[Wintermute]

I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.

I live in Georgia and agree with both of you. To suggest that the bible may not be entirely accurate is to invite ridicule and disdain. To vocalize the notion that the christian god might simply be myth of human origin feels dangerous. Sometimes I'm uncomfortable even posting in forums like this because it's entirely plausible that some religious (or atheist) zealot my come to power and use internet trails to hunt down and 'reeducate' so folks--a digital inquisition if you will. But then I think, well, if it goes that far do I really want to play anymore?

[Wintermute]

I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?


Hi Domer,

As an agnostic, this is easy to answer: I dunno.

I'm sure this has been pointed out a gazillion times in this and other forums, but the same could be said about God, no? How did God come about? Was it really just sitting in a vacuum for infinity, then 13 billion years ago decided to create a universe? Seems a little hokey to me. What created God? Who was Jesus' grandfather?

The fact that the universe appears to exist is an amazing thing. By my simple logic, there should be nothing, nada, zip. Yet here we are. Something amazing is going on. What it is I don't have a clue, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't care if I eat meat on Fridays or not.

[Redzeppelin]

I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.


There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. Questioning is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.

[metal134]

There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. Questioning is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.
But see, the only reason this is percieve as targeting Chritianity is because it is really THE religion that is prevelent in this country; I can't say that I've had religious debates with Muslims or Jews because, quite frankly, it's almost all Christians to be found. And to be quite frank, I am dismissive of ALL organize religion because I feel very, very strongly that it is illogical. That doesn't mean I am atheist; I am open to the possibilty of a Supreme Being, heck, I even think it's probable. But I on't pretned to know. As someone said before, the burden of proof is on religion. People say, well you can disprove this or that about religious matters, but I don't get that logic. I'm more concerned with whether it can be proven than disproven.
As far as the dismissive factor; why shouldn't people be dismissive? We should all respect a person's right to have a different belief, but the belief itself is open to scrutiny. Because the fact of the matter is, with all the hundreds, nay, thousands of different belief systems on the nature of divinity and the universe, only one can be right. And naturally, if I think mine is right of course I'm going to think that everyone elses is wrong because if I am right, then everyone else IS wrong, and it goes back the other way as well.

[bluevictim]

I have a question for anyone who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical:

If you were criticised for a practice which another culture found to be unethical, would you be willing to change that practice if the critics argued that it went against the teachings of their religion (however this is not a religion you follow)?This is a good question, and hopefully one that can serve as a starting point to help clear up what everyone is trying to say. Actually, I'm not exactly sure if I qualify as someone "who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical", so I guess my answers might help to clear that up, too.

Hopefully it's ok if I simplify the question a little and assume that the practice I'm being criticized for is required by my religion (and, of course, I assume I believe wholeheartedly in the tenets of my religion). In that case, I would not change my practice.

I don't know what point you're trying to make (if you're trying to make a point at all) with this question, but I might guess it is that believing in the existence of a divine moral law doesn't add any weight to ethical criticism because here is a critic who believes in the existence of a divine moral law and yet his criticism of my behavior is not any more effective for it.

I'd like to point out, though, that my critic can prove that my practice is incorrect in his logical system, in which one of the axioms is that Zeus (say) thinks my practice is unethical, and another axiom is that Zeus is always correct.

If we make realistic assumptions about everyone's logical system (e.g., that it is true in everyone's logical system that our judgement is subject to error), I think it would be very hard to build a consistent (or at least not easily shown to be inconsistent) system without Zeus (or something very Zeus-like) in which my critic can prove that my practice is incorrect.

Like everyone else pointed out, this doesn't prove the existence of Zeus. It does allow my critic to sleep better at night after he burns me at the stake.

[Domer121]

Hi Domer,

As an agnostic, this is easy to answer: I dunno.

I'm sure this has been pointed out a gazillion times in this and other forums, but the same could be said about God, no? How did God come about? Was it really just sitting in a vacuum for infinity, then 13 billion years ago decided to create a universe? Seems a little hokey to me. What created God? Who was Jesus' grandfather?

The fact that the universe appears to exist is an amazing thing. By my simple logic, there should be nothing, nada, zip. Yet here we are. Something amazing is going on. What it is I don't have a clue, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't care if I eat meat on Fridays or not.


I respect your answer....I mean, there are a lot of questions out there and not a lot of answers.. I am simply saying that the rejection of a God seems, well, illogical. The way that any faith expresses themselves is up to them,whether that means not eating meat on Friday or not..I have never been able to understand the reasoning behind Athiests..But I suppose they say the same about Christians.

[yingqiee]

That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard.

You can prove there are no dragons on neptune the same way that you can prove i have a liver. Yours appears to be as defective as mine.



I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".


Well, by the same argument that you apply faith to your disbelief, I apply faith to my belief: I have an utter lack of disbelief in the non-existence of this forum, in the non-existence of the world, just like I have an utter lack of disbelief in the non-existence of God. God does not exist just because you have linked the existence of God to examples of the existence of ridiculous creatures like fire-breathing dragons. If you wish to apply the philosophy of radical skepticism to belief in God, as you have just done, try applying it to your disbelief on God. Care to elaborate on why you don't have a burden of proof?


disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.

Disbelief is still belief. Lets reduce this to well-defined propositions as present in mathematical logic. Let P be a proposition. Let not-P be the inverse of P. (1)Suppose disbelief in P is not belief. Disbelief in P would suggest a person belives in not-P because that is the inverse of P. Referring to (1), it creates a contradiction. Thus disbelief is belief of the inverse WELL-DEFINED proposition. A well-defined proposition is one in which it represents only one value, like pyramids existed in Egypt in 2006, July........


there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.

same thing. your disbelief in God is an immaterial and invisible entity. I wont put the non existence of God as imaginary, because I cant prove that and like wise you cant prove that God is imaginary. I would also not label it as ridiculous.

In the end I believe lack of proof for the existence of something does not constitute its non existence. If someone believes or does not believe in something, its faith.

Just like I notice that many of my atheist friends have faith in the theory of evolution.

[yingqiee]

I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?


That is very true. According to Professor Morowitz from Yale, evolution of just bacterium from random interactions would exceed the 15 billion year age of our universe, and the 5 billion year age of the Earth.

[Guzmán]

without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?
'Evolution is faulty'. well, that is a pretty pretentious claim considering that evolution is accepted by many (if not most) biologists without the hand of God to connect its supposed faults. Perhaps you could point out those faults you talk about, as well as your sources.



THink about this: The parts of a sports car may be floating around the Galaxy, but without someone there to put them together how could they come about? Not simply by chance and hope that they will, in time, be put together.
Think about this: you have a disordered room, all of your stuff is lying on the floor and everything is out of its place. Now suppose you start kicking and throwing things around at random, there is a chance (though quite small) that at some point everything will become ordered, just by chance. The same way some unordered chemicals left at the mercy of the forces of nature may arrange themselves into something more complicated. YThe chance may incredibly small, however, I wonder how much beyond what you think is "common sense" you know about this topic to talk about the consecuences of probability and time. I suggest youread a little about Statistical mechanics and Statistical thermodynamics or stochastic processes before making that sort of claims about what probability may or may not do at the mercy of time.

[Guzmán]

That is very true. According to Professor Morowitz from Yale, evolution of just bacterium from random interactions would exceed the 15 billion year age of our universe, and the 5 billion year age of the Earth.

Perhaps you could add some bibliography. In which paper did you find this, website, magazine, etc.

[RobinHood3000]

There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. Questioning is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.Not that I condone dismissing or snide comments on either side of the line, but I should point out that, at the base of it, many of us atheists believe what we believe because we believe that to believe otherwise contains an element of the absurd. (Tough sentence to wade through, I know, and for that I apologize.) There does come a point where to try and describe atheist beliefs in pithy and simple language is to sound offensive, particularly when speaking with people just looking for reasons to take offense.

So far, I've seen a lot of atheists make an effort to be civil, but when the occasional theist gets his/her fix of righteousness by being snide and dismissive to us and regards our arguments (however civil) as heresy, it's hard not to be a little huffy about it.

[Redzeppelin]

Not that I condone dismissing or snide comments on either side of the line, but I should point out that, at the base of it, many of us atheists believe what we believe because we believe that to believe otherwise contains an element of the absurd.

I understand this - but Christians feel the exact same. To us, some of evolution's claims and atheist answers for this reality we wander through seem just as outlandish to us - the difference is that atheists appear to have science on their side, so there's a tendency to speak to us as if were delusional madmen.


So far, I've seen a lot of atheists make an effort to be civil, but when the occasional theist gets his/her fix of righteousness by being snide and dismissive to us and regards our arguments (however civil) as heresy, it's hard not to be a little huffy about it.

And as my post agreed, there is no shortage of obnoxious Christians out there who have a hard time according sufficient respect to their atheist opponents. Perhaps it's just me; but I have a difficult time hearing any opponent who is dismissive about my beliefs. Dismissiveness telegraphs a disdainful attitude, one that doesn't encourage open discussion, but the more hostile tone of mud-slinging. I can't imagine posting some of the things towards atheists that I get thrown at me. I lose interest in dealing with such people because I don't expect to get as fair a hearing as I 'm attempting to provide them with.

[RobinHood3000]

I understand this - but Christians feel the exact same. To us, some of evolution's claims and atheist answers for this reality we wander through seem just as outlandish to us - the difference is that atheists appear to have science on their side, so there's a tendency to speak to us as if were delusional madmen.By the same token, there's also a tendency to speak to us atheists as if we were hedonistic sociopaths. ~shrug~ People are lousy sometimes.



And as my post agreed, there is no shortage of obnoxious Christians out there who have a hard time according sufficient respect to their atheist opponents. Perhaps it's just me; but I have a difficult time hearing any opponent who is dismissive about my beliefs. Dismissiveness telegraphs a disdainful attitude, one that doesn't encourage open discussion, but the more hostile tone of mud-slinging. I can't imagine posting some of the things towards atheists that I get thrown at me. I lose interest in dealing with such people because I don't expect to get as fair a hearing as I 'm attempting to provide them with.Agreed - thankfully, I've had the good fortune to encounter quite a few friendly and open-minded Christians (for some reason, I never get to meet other major religious sects, although based on demographic research of my school, they're a serious minority, so it's not that surprising). Of course, there have been one or two not-so-open-minded folk, but they, too, are in the minority. I'm just apprehensive about what happens when I enter the realm of adults, i.e. "people who get a lot more leeway about criticising beliefs." At least people my age have the fallback of "You're mean!! I'm telling!! ~huff~"

[Redzeppelin]

People are lousy sometimes.

Amen to that, brother.



I'm just apprehensive about what happens when I enter the realm of adults, i.e. "people who get a lot more leeway about criticising beliefs." At least people my age have the fallback of "You're mean!! I'm telling!! ~huff~"

Well, being in the realm of adults, I still don't think we should have the prerogative to be dismissive and disrespectful. As I tell my students when teaching them to argue a point, the goal is not to "conquer" your opponent but to win him/her to your side. People are more likely to hear you out if they sense you respect them.

[metal134]

the difference is that atheists appear to have science on their side
We don't appear to have science on our side. We do have science on our side.
And again, I'm not atheist, but I lump myself in that general group because I do, quite frankly (and I don't care if anyone is offended by this) find religion to be absurd. You can say to me that you find my belifs absurd, that's fine. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be absurd.

[Redzeppelin]

We don't appear to have science on our side. We do have science on our side.

So you say.


And again, I'm not atheist, but I lump myself in that general group because I do, quite frankly (and I don't care if anyone is offended by this) find religion to be absurd. You can say to me that you find my belifs absurd, that's fine. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be absurd.

Fine.

[Lector]

Metal, You would claim that you you as an atheist have science on your side? I would like to know then, scientifically how you believe that the world has come into being. As an agnostic you could easily answer that you niether know nor care, but as an atheist who claims to have science on your side I should hope that you could back that up with somthing. The way I see it science,by its very nature, has a very difficult, if not impossible task at figuring out the origin of it all. The reason I say this is that the scientific method is:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" -Merriam-Webster dictionary
The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically on what basis can one believe in it? faith? And if it is faith (which I believe must be the foundation of all beliefs) then I have my choice in what I put my faith in. From what I understand the majority of people today believe either in evolution or in a divine creator. So if I believe in evolution I, in essence, believe (pardon my simplification) that somehow everything there was (we don't know where the everything came from) came together and began to spin at an incredible rate until it finaly exploded creating all the matter in the universe. From that point and in contradiction to the law of entropy, order was born and became more and more complex until here we sit today arguing about the existance of God and from this point onward who knows what will happen next.
The other option is to believe that God, a supernatural being who is beyond our comprehension for reasons we cannot fully understand created everything and here we sit.
The way I see it, both of these theories sound rather far fetched, in fact I am going to go so far as to say that, in the normal and natural realm of possiblity, both of these theories are impossible. However, one of these theories has an answer for the impossible, the theistic creationist view leaves room for the supernatural.

[Guzmán]

The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically
Wrong. Evolution can and has been tested and proved scientifically, but perhaps
you could you explain why you maintain that it cannot?

Besides, I wouldn't go around making epistemological research on a dictionary.

[Guzmán]

Im sorry to say that religion also has science on their side:

www.answersingenesis.com
www.leaderu.com
www.discovery.org

One of the claims against evolution by the people at answers in genesis goes a bit like:
"Oh but fossils dont come with 'age tags' on them showing their age".
I guess thats what radiocarbon dating is for, duh

[Redzeppelin]

One of the claims against evolution by the people at answers in genesis goes a bit like:
"Oh but fossils dont come with 'age tags' on them showing their age".
I guess thats what radiocarbon dating is for, duh

Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain assumptions about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain assumptions in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."

[JGL57]

Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain assumptions about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain assumptions in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."

Everything is based on assumptions except one's own consciousness, according to solipsism and Descartes’ famous dictum. And "I" think that even that may be based on a last assumption of "I", i.e., "something" thinks, therefore "something" is.

Nothing is infallible. Science has never claimed infallibility. You are confusing science with religion. Religion always claimed infallibility - all 40,000 of them.

Thus you do not understand science, Redz. Science, by the way, is self-correcting over time. Religion is not - it just claims truth, unverified and unverifiable, and just sticks with whatever it first came up with until forced to change by science, e.g., geocentricity. Science as a process or methodology makes progress in time. Religion does not.

[metal134]

Metal, You would claim that you you as an atheist have science on your side? I would like to know then, scientifically how you believe that the world has come into being. As an agnostic you could easily answer that you niether know nor care, but as an atheist who claims to have science on your side I should hope that you could back that up with somthing. The way I see it science,by its very nature, has a very difficult, if not impossible task at figuring out the origin of it all. The reason I say this is that the scientific method is:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" -Merriam-Webster dictionary
The problem this creates for using science as a means of discovering the origin of all things is that, if evolution is true, scientists have no way of observing or experimenting with these things and they have no way of testing thier hypothoses, thus negating the scientific method for research on evolution. And sicne evolution cannot be proven scientifically on what basis can one believe in it? faith? And if it is faith (which I believe must be the foundation of all beliefs) then I have my choice in what I put my faith in. From what I understand the majority of people today believe either in evolution or in a divine creator. So if I believe in evolution I, in essence, believe (pardon my simplification) that somehow everything there was (we don't know where the everything came from) came together and began to spin at an incredible rate until it finaly exploded creating all the matter in the universe. From that point and in contradiction to the law of entropy, order was born and became more and more complex until here we sit today arguing about the existance of God and from this point onward who knows what will happen next.
The other option is to believe that God, a supernatural being who is beyond our comprehension for reasons we cannot fully understand created everything and here we sit.
The way I see it, both of these theories sound rather far fetched, in fact I am going to go so far as to say that, in the normal and natural realm of possiblity, both of these theories are impossible. However, one of these theories has an answer for the impossible, the theistic creationist view leaves room for the supernatural.

I have already said about three times that I'm not an atheist. Why is it that as soon as you say you don't believe in the bible, you are an atheist? I believe in a Supreme Being, but I don't think he/she/it 1)Has anything at all to do with the affairs on this planet 2) doesn't really care anyway. And I don't mean that in a "God has forsaken us" kind of way, I mean it in a "we are not God's concern" kind of way.

[Redzeppelin]

Everything is based on assumptions except one's own consciousness, according to solipsism and Descartes’ famous dictum. And "I" think that even that may be based on a last assumption of "I", i.e., "something" thinks, therefore "something" is.

Nothing is infallible. Science has never claimed infallibility. You are confusing science with religion. Religion always claimed infallibility - all 40,000 of them.

Is there a particular reason you're throwing all this at me? Guzman made it sound like it was a foregone conclusion that carbon dating establishes the scientific age of the earth. I simply pointed out that that method is not without a certain amount of "assumption" behind it - and assumptions are not scientific proof. Scientific assertions based on methods that incorporate assumptions are open to question. That was my only point. What you're responding to, I have no idea.



Thus you do not understand science, Redz.

Please - spare me your assumptions of what you think I do and do not know. You know next to nothing about me or what I understand about science.


Science, by the way, is self-correcting over time. Religion is not - it just claims truth, unverified and unverifiable, and just sticks with whatever it first came up with until forced to change by science, e.g., geocentricity. Science as a process or methodology makes progress in time. Religion does not.

OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't. I'm not trying to sway you from your beliefs in science. Have at it and enjoy the comfort it gives you (at least for now, until it has to "correct" itself again, and what you believed to be right must now be revised).

[kilted exile]

Ok, I am going to adress bluevictims response to my question (thanks by the way). However, first something that has been annoying me: Carbon-14/Radiocarbon dating is only used for attempting to date something within the last 60,000 years, beyond that it is unreliable due to the 1/2life of the C14 isotope. For objects thought to be older than that a different isotope is used to estimate age; usually Uranium-238, also carbon dating is generally used solely on formerly living organisms. It annoys me when people refer to others as not knowing about science and then go on to use the wrong terms. This is radioisotope dating not necessarilly radiocarbon dating.

Anyway.....


This is a good question, and hopefully one that can serve as a starting point to help clear up what everyone is trying to say. Actually, I'm not exactly sure if I qualify as someone "who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical", so I guess my answers might help to clear that up, too.

Hopefully it's ok if I simplify the question a little and assume that the practice I'm being criticized for is required by my religion (and, of course, I assume I believe wholeheartedly in the tenets of my religion). In that case, I would not change my practice.

I don't know what point you're trying to make (if you're trying to make a point at all) with this question, but I might guess it is that believing in the existence of a divine moral law doesn't add any weight to ethical criticism because here is a critic who believes in the existence of a divine moral law and yet his criticism of my behavior is not any more effective for it.



It is fine to simplify the question to a religious requirement (though I am also interested on perhaps whether there would be a higher likelihood to change if was solely a cultural, not religious practice).

That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religion - perhaps with the exception of the golden rule which there is a version of in nearly all religions (if I remember my World religions class correctly)

[Guzmán]

Carbon dating is not infallible, and any dating done by it is based on certain assumptions about the way carbon decays and the consistency of that decay rate. The fact that this method of measurement requires certain assumptions in order for it to be considered viable, immediately brings the veracity of carbon dating into question as a valid source of measurement - so no: it's not necessarily an obvious "duh."
Your comment is correct, i agree with you, the duh remark was out of order. Besides as another user points out apparently it is not carbon thats used but another element, my mistake. (Then again shouldnt carbon dating be enough to tell things are older than 6000 years?).

However my real point was about the "answers in genesis" website. The thing is that in all of the articles in their page that i read it was stated, as a fact, that scientist dont know the age of fossils, and uranium dating (or any other method for that matter) wasn't mentioned even once!!!
Its not like they said, as you pointed out, that scientific dating of fossils may be innacurate, they just ommited it altogether and said that science cant tell the age of fossils, period. That in my book, is hiding information from the public in a malicious manner, unless they are terribly ignorant, how can they make such an outrageous statement and not offer an explanation or one friggin source is unbelievable. And they claim to be teaching people.

[Guzmán]

Ok, I am going to adress bluevictims response to my question (thanks by the way). However, first something that has been annoying me: Carbon-14/Radiocarbon dating is only used for attempting to date something within the last 60,000 years, beyond that it is unreliable due to the 1/2life of the C14 isotope. For objects thought to be older than that a different isotope is used to estimate age; usually Uranium-238, also carbon dating is generally used solely on formerly living organisms. It annoys me when people refer to others as not knowing about science and then go on to use the wrong terms. This is radioisotope dating not necessarilly radiocarbon dating.

I didnt lecture anyone about science, nor claim that carbon dating is the only method for dating fossils, nor anything at all about its accuracy or reach into time, i just tried to make a point about how many of this websites make outrageous claims appealing to public common sense and ingenuity to promote their world view. It is very often that these websites make claims without justfication or justify them without citing the sources from which they get the information, making it impossible for the reader to examine what they say with a critical eye. Again, im not trying to discuss carbon testing or any other device for chemical dating (which i admit to have very little knowledge of the intricacies of the subject), i only brought up radiocarbon testing because it is the most commonly known.

[JGL57]

OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't....

End of debate. Bring in the clinical psychologist.

BTW, sometimes atheists have this same problem. Anyone remember Ayn Rand? Boy, she was quite a piece of work too.

[Lector]

Wrong. Evolution can and has been tested and proved scientifically, but perhaps
you could you explain why you maintain that it cannot?

If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.

As to you not appreciating my use of a dictionary I thought that since you brought up science on your own behalf that it would be prudent to work with an actual deffinition of the scientific meathod.

[ranzy]

If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.

The fact that something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That's what proofs are for. If we observed evolution we wouldn't need any proof.
Btw, I found this site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#7), which compares some major creationist statements against evolution and their evolutionist rebuttal. I've found it interesting.

[Redzeppelin]

End of debate. Bring in the clinical psychologist.



The ad hominem fallacy - a sure sign of an opponent in retreat. Was this your response to my point?

[Logos]

Please discuss the topic and not each other.

[Guzmán]

If this is true than I am mistaken, I have never read nor heard of evolution (that is macro-evolution) ever being observed. I am now curiouse and hope that you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this.
As to you not appreciating my use of a dictionary I thought that since you brought up science on your own behalf that it would be prudent to work with an actual deffinition of the scientific meathod.

Lector:
From what i understand from ypur original post you reasoned to discredit scientific proof of evolution in this way:
-The scientific method requires some ammount of observation to take place.
-Evolution cannot be observed
Therefore evolution cannot be proved

Let me present you with the following analogy:
A policeman will never observe the murder taking place, however, through forensic science he may find out who commited the murder by looking at the scene of the crime.
Science can observe evolution (the murder) by looking at the scene of the crime, your claim that science cannot observe evolution, is wrong. Your way of reasoning is one that is often heard from creationists (im not saying you are one) when they take science to laymans terms (is this the word?) and they appeal to public common sense saying evolution cannot be observed claiming that evolution takes thousands of years, or "you'll never see a monkey turn to man", etc..
Now, what is evolution's "scene of the crime"? now i dont know much about the subject, however, according to wikipedia (i know that wikipedia isnt necessarily a reliable source, yet on the articles that i've viewed there were tons of references to what seemed reliable sources, i checked many of them) there's the fossil record and the anatomical record and comparisons drawn between the two to figure out the lineages of different species. There's also genome sequencing which accounts for many species genotypic similarities, etc. Maybe you should check out wikipedias article of evolution as well as many of the sources included at the bottom.
There's also the unofficial Stephen Jay Gould archive website, which features plenty of articles: www.stephenjaygould.com

It is interesting to notice how science has not only seen the scene of the crimee but apparently also the murder itself:
The theory of recapitulation, which has actually been disproved in its most absoloute form by biologists, yet may be acceped in partial form, is an example. Recapitulation, or ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, is the theory that the development of an embryo imitates the development of the species to which it belongs. There are some interesting, if technical, papers about this in the Gould website.

Speciation, the process through which new species arise, has been witnessed too apparently. This is from www.talkorigins.com, (which provides its own references at the bottom of each page):
"Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures." This is from the article "29+ evidences for macroevolution" which I suggest you check out as well.

Finally I adress your concern about my remark on the definition of the scientific method you provided. I didn't imply that your definition was an erroneous one, but the fact that you looked it up on a dictionary seemed rather odd, thats all. I apologize if I may have sounded rude on that occasion, i just meant to imply that there's far more to the scientific method than that definition, in my opinion, and i gather that many epistemologists would be out of a job if it were that simple. I have gotten into arguments of that sort with young humanity students who claimed the most radical things about science and the scientific method, but who knows.

[Redzeppelin]

Please discuss the topic and not each other.

Of course. My apologies.

[RobinHood3000]

OK - so you and I worship different gods - what's the big deal? Yours makes mistakes and needs to "fix" itself and mine doesn't. I'm not trying to sway you from your beliefs in science. Have at it and enjoy the comfort it gives you (at least for now, until it has to "correct" itself again, and what you believed to be right must now be revised).First of all, please do not for an instant assume that we worship science.

And second, one could argue that science admits the possibility of mistakes up front. The interpretation of texts such as the Bible is decided UNstatic. It's been "correcting" itself in its own way, simply beneath the folds of the Church. Do you mean to tell me that ever since you first recognized yourself as a Christian, your beliefs have never changed in the slightest?

[Redzeppelin]

First of all, please do not for an instant assume that we worship science.

My statement was in no way meant as a blanket comment on all atheists; to do so would be as unfair as the blanket statements I dislike being made about Christians. My statement applies specifically to JGL57. I exaggerated a bit, but my point stands: neither science nor religion can definitively answer the question of where we came from and how we got here with definite, empiracle, verifiable, whatever-you-wish-to-call-it PROOF. As I've stated many times before, both evolution and Creationism require a certain amount of faith in the authority of our - for lack of a better term - "sources." By "worship" I exaggerate the idea that the atheist and I are engaged in a similar process - but we are exercising different types of "faith."


And second, one could argue that science admits the possibility of mistakes up front. The interpretation of texts such as the Bible is decided UNstatic. It's been "correcting" itself in its own way, simply beneath the folds of the Church. Do you mean to tell me that ever since you first recognized yourself as a Christian, your beliefs have never changed in the slightest?

Not at all - but my beliefs are not comprable to scientific "fact" (in quotations because it is subject to revision). The Bible says what it says - that we have misinterpreted it throughout history doesn't make the Bible wrong - it makes us bad interpreters. If God is not leading the interpretation, there is a high degree of probablility that the interpretation will be wrong. But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.

[JGL57]

....But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.

Funny - then why is there over 34,000 christian denominations and only one science.

Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.

HUMANS repeat the same errors every daily-religious or atheists. This reminds me of Tolkiens' quote about fish-that if fish had fish lore the bussiness of anglers would be little hindered-humans have their own lore and yet they repeat the same mistakes-if history has taught us anything it is that people constantly make the same mistakes.

[RobinHood3000]

But the Bible doesn't get re-edited by God every few centuries to correct its "mistakes" or "errors" as science must.Nor is the Bible constantly expanded in order to encompass more and more knowledge, as science is.

[Bii]

It's interesting to read the to-ing and fro-ing between belief systems here - whether it's a belief in God or a belief in science; what is apparent here is that whilst everyone is arguing their differences, there seems to be a failure to recognise what you share which is faith (be it in God or science). Science and Religion, seem to me, to be two opposing ends of the spectrum. Religion requires positive belief - i.e. a positive affirmation in the existence of an omnipotent being, albeit that the belief must exist in the absence of tangible proof. Science, on the other hand, requires a negative belief system - so more a case of; I'll believe this in the absence of something proving otherwise, but I accept this belief could probably be wrong. So in reality I get the impression that neither side will ever agree, and perhaps if humans as a race of people spent less time focusing on their differences, and more time focussing on their similarities, there would be fewer wars fought in the name of ideals based on faith (which is not just aimed at religion, by the way).

To answer the original question raised here, I consider myself to be an athiest because I do not believe in the existence of God. For me to believe I would require proof or evidence of some kind; if that evidence became apparent I would then not believe in God but rather know or understand that there was a God, hence no belief. No matter how I dress it up that ability to have faith in something in the absence of some tangible evidence is just not in me, and there's little point in lying or pretending about it. That being said, I would apply the same rules to science and find it difficult to believe that science has the answers because science is constantly changing and disproving and disagreeing with its own conclusions. What you believe one day is wrong the next. Again, science makes bald statements which, on the whole, the general public cannot understand or prove or disprove for themselves (and I've tried reading Stephen Hawkings and it's still clear as mud!) so people are left taking science largely on faith, even though as a system it is supposed to be based on proof.

Either option seems flawed to me - but what I really don't understand is why people feel so strongly about proving their view is right?

[Redzeppelin]

Funny - then why is there over 34,000 christian denominations and only one science.

Science makes progress through time. Religion just repeats the same error from start to now - sort of like famous christian George Bush does, e.g., what christians believe on Monday they believe on Wednesday, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, e.g., fifty per cent of Americans, mostly christians, believe as a matter of faith that the earth is six thousand years old, tops. That's real genius.

Here we go again.

1. Denominations are based on mutual agreements as to what a particular group believes the message of the Bible to be (since any work containing complex ideas is subject to interpretation by the very flexible nature of words themselves). That there are whatever amount of denominations has nothing to do with what the Bible says and everything with how people choose to interpret it.

2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.

Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.

Which part of this is unclear: the Bible does not claim to be a textbook on the nature of physical reality or our origins. It is a narrative that is concerned first and foremost with the revelation of God's character and his presence in the history of His people. It claims to be nothing more. For you to insist that it stand up to science is absurd. It is not meant to "prove" anything about the earth, the universe or God. For those who believe, it tells us invaluable things about who we are, who God is, who we are meant to be and why the world (the social world primarily) and human nature are the way they are. It was not written as a scientific book. As Bii correctly states above, science and religion both require - to some extent - a degree of faith.

And remember: to the believer, the atheist's dogmatic faith in science can seem just as silly and blind. Each side of the debate believes it is the enlightened side. Facts are persuasive - but they are not ultimate reality.

[JGL57]

…1. Denominations are based on mutual agreements as to what a particular group believes the message of the Bible to be (since any work containing complex ideas is subject to interpretation by the very flexible nature of words themselves). That there are whatever amount of denominations has nothing to do with what the Bible says and everything with how people choose to interpret it. ...

Actually I misspoke – there are over 34,000 religions, but only about 12,000 christian denominations. IF christianity is the one true religion (a giant IF), then what good is it if everyone is free to interpret it and only one group gets it right? How can I know that it is YOUR group that got it all correct and everyone else is at least slightly off the mark?


…2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.

Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing. ...

No, there is nothing illogical about my statement that there are innumerable religions and denominations and only one science. Science has a lot of branches or disciplines, but so what? Zoologists are not a war with botanists over scriptural disagreements. Astrophysicists do not oppose microbiologist in any way. All of science is of one piece. There is no Baptist chemistry vs. Catholic chemistry, or christian anthropology vs. Muslim anthropology? That would be crazy. I.e., that is the essence of religion – utter disagreement about the basics. There is no disagreement about the naturalistic working assumptions that underlie all of science.

Rather than being illogical, I think you don’t even know what logic is.


…Which part of this is unclear: the Bible does not claim to be a textbook on the nature of physical reality or our origins. It is a narrative that is concerned first and foremost with the revelation of God's character and his presence in the history of His people. It claims to be nothing more. For you to insist that it stand up to science is absurd. It is not meant to "prove" anything about the earth, the universe or God. For those who believe, it tells us invaluable things about who we are, who God is, who we are meant to be and why the world (the social world primarily) and human nature are the way they are. It was not written as a scientific book. As Bii correctly states above, science and religion both require - to some extent - a degree of faith...

Religion is not science and is NOTHING like science. Agreed. Religion is “faith” in things that go bump in the night. Science is “faith” or assumption that what we observe is real and naturalistic and science can only be done under that assumption, and science works or produces based on its reasonable assumption of a naturalistic ontology.

So, let’s keep religion and astrology and crap like that out of science classes – then everyone can be happy.


…And remember: to the believer, the atheist's dogmatic faith in science can seem just as silly and blind. Each side of the debate believes it is the enlightened side. Facts are persuasive - but they are not ultimate reality ...

That doesn’t even make sense. To a Scientologist a christian or a Muslim is a fool. To a christian or Muslim a Scientologist is silly. To a Jew a Mormon is wrong-headed – and the reverse is obviously true.

Atheists have no problem with modern science. The naturalistic assumption is based on reason and observation and a disinterested view and commitment to objectivity. That is how scientists from different countries can verify the findings of each other. Religionists, OTOH, know nothing about anything, and can only have “faith” in their respective narrow, provincial, ethnocentric, narcissistic sectarian belief system – none of which are worth a bucket of warm spit to someone actually interested in understanding the fascinating reality in which we find ourselves.

Religion is just giving up and saying “goddidit”, over and over again, until a normal person just gets sick and throws up.

But this is American and you have your rights. Enjoy them – but you seem to assume e you have some right, some free pass, to avoiding criticism. You don’t.

[Lector]

Thanks Guzman, I appreciate your thorough response, I have not had time to look into it all yet but I do plan on it.

But one thing you did not address for me is that of origin. I know that this is a rather subjective argument, but to me it simply seems more farfetched to believe in a spontaniouse big bang than in a divine creator; I mean which of those takes the greater faith and is there any way to truely, scientificaly back up either one?

[Wintermute]

to me it simply seems more farfetched to believe in a spontaniouse big bang than in a divine creator

Hi Lector,

What about a spontaneous divine creator? At some point, say a gazillion years ago, wouldn't the divine creator need to ... come into existance? I guess I dont see a difference.

[Redzeppelin]

But this is American and you have your rights. Enjoy them – but you seem to assume e you have some right, some free pass, to avoiding criticism. You don’t.

Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.

[JGL57]

Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.

And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

[Redzeppelin]

And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Freud. The only person who really has no argument is the person who professes to know the content of someone else's heart and mind - which is precisely what you claim. You know neither, and your claim that you do is beyond absurd.

[Logos]

Mod note to all:

Please stop with the

'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours' posts.

Stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...:(

[Redzeppelin]

OK, I'll play nice.:D

[JGL57]

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

So, back to the OP:

The word atheist, like the word asatanist, is not a very informative word, intrinsically. One is stating what one does not believe (in), not what one does think is true. One does not believe in Satan - or a god - so now what? What does one positively believe about the nature of reality?

Technically, there can be as many personal philosophies as there are atheists. However, the word atheist is used by many as a synonym for one who assumes a naturalist, materialist, or rationalist world view. It has come to mean, then, looking at the negative side, that an atheist does not believe in the reality of so-called supernatural or paranormal claims. E.g., an atheist is generally not thought of *** someone who could be a deist, a pantheist, a believer in astrology, homeopathy, or believe in the reality of any entity, force, power,or "energy" or what have you that cannot be understood in scientific rationalist terminology.

This would describe me, for instance. However, it has come to my attention over the last 30 years (the time I have considered myself an atheist) that atheists can indeed believe in various crazy and/or unhealthy ideas. E.g., Marxism, Ayn Rand Objectavism, nihilism, escapist hedonism, anarchism, etc. Also, I have met atheists who were narcissistic - in the clinical sense of the word.

So, my view now is that being an atheist is a healthy start, but a person may still have a long way to go. Putting aside the socialist politics, which is a huge can of worms, I think the Humanist Manifesto II is a good philosophy of life. Albert Einstein, although thought to be a "mystic" by many, qualifies enough as an atheist for me to see him as a fellow atheist - certainly he was a non-theist. Einstein articulated a great many good precepts that could form the basis of a decent and rational lifestyle.

Which brings me to two final considerations - agnosticism and Buddhism.

This can be argued endlessly by those who wish to split hairs, but an agnostic is certainly not a believer in things that go bump in the night. The word was invented by Huxley to mean a person who does not claim certainty but who still rejects unsubstantiated claims, with the burden forever being on those making such unsubstantiated claims (e.g., Huxley rejected all second-hand revelations as being unsubstantiated).

So agnostic = non-absolutist atheist in my view (agnostics, if you wish to argue this start another thread rather than hijack this one - thanks).

Thus, agnostics such as Ingersoll, Russell, Huxley, Sagan, and many others have articulated a view of life that is rational, ethically uplifting, meaningful, productive of happiness and contentment, and all the other wonderful things in life that I could mention. Such people have articulated "something to believe in" that seems adequate to me and, really, the best we can do. So-called religious "faith" seems to work quite well for some - not so well for others. But that is someone else's ball game.

Now, to Buddhism - many westerners (Occidentals) have articulated a Buddhism that is agnostic in nature and is completely understandable, pragmatic, and morally uplifting. Esoteric Buddhism, not to mention Taoism and Hinduism, are non-supernaturalist in nature, and all can be informative to a sane, rational, moral, and happy life (really, reincarnation and karma belief are optional).

So, in a nutshell, atheists are radical individualists for the most part. They can disagree on the best positive philosophy in many ways. So, grouping them together and putting them in a box and thinking you now understand them, makes about as much sense and is as useful as grouping together things that are purple i.e., the commonality is overwhelmed by the variables.

[bluevictim]

That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religionI pretty much agree here, except I would add that it also "works" with people who are willing to change their beliefs to those of that religion.

One thing I was trying to point out was that, to someone who believes in that particular religion, this is all that is necessary. He has enough logical structure to prove to himself that he is right, and to prove to his fellow believers that he is right. Since he really believes that his religion is true, he doesn't need to be bothered by the fact that others reject it (he simply concludes that they are wrong).

[RobinHood3000]

2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.

Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.
Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

[Logos]

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...:(


OK, I'll play nice.:D

Thanks you guys :)

[Redzeppelin]

Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

You are quite correct: religious systems are mutually exclusive because they all claim to have the truth. Scientific subdivisions complement each other - I get that. But, I think some of the branches of science may be easier to validate factually and provide evidence for than others (which must, by necessity, be more theoretical) - which was the point I was trying to make (but obviously not very clearly).

Good to see you back, Robin. I'd noticed your absence on the forums :)

[RobinHood3000]

Agered, and nice to know i was missed. :) How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

[Dorian Gray]

I'm an atheist.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

[JGL57]

I'm an atheist.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

Thanks, my friend, for proving my point. Atheism actually referred to non-belief in theism - nothing more, nothing less. The word has come to mean a lot more because of all the historical baggage, but I think we should just stick to the etymological definition to avoid confusion.

[Redzeppelin]

Agered, and nice to know i was missed. :) How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

The Sad Cafe does not use microwaves - it's harder to appear tragic and tortured ("in the middle of the tall drinks and the drama") if your coffee is hot and piping.

[RobinHood3000]

It'd be even sadder if it was decaf. :p

[Redzeppelin]

It'd be even sadder if it was decaf. :p


Right - it's the Sad Cafe - not the Catastrophic Cafe.

Hmmm...perhaps you and I ought to get on to some sort of debating...but I'm tired (cold coffee doesn't have much "zip" in it - caffinated or not).

[Lector]

Hi Lector,

What about a spontaneous divine creator? At some point, say a gazillion years ago, wouldn't the divine creator need to ... come into existance? I guess I dont see a difference.

I guess the differance would be that it seems to be impossible within the natural order of things for there to be an infinite regress of causality, there had to be something that had no cause to get tha ball rolling as it were. However, since the natural order of the universe we inhabit does not allow for something to happen without any cause than isn't it rational, at this point, to look at the possibily of something (or someone) opperating outside of the natural order of things? An infinite God

But a question I often hear after a statement like this is "who created God?" and although this seems to be a valid question, it is, in fatc, catagorically invalid. God is infinte, to ask for His beggining assumes that He had a beggining which is false; it is like asking how much red weighs. A color has no weight as much as an infinite being has no begining.

[JGL57]

The Buddhists don't believe in a creator god. Hindus believe all is god.

Does anyone here accuse either or both of these traditions of being "illogical"?

[RobinHood3000]

But a question I often hear after a statement like this is "who created God?" and although this seems to be a valid question, it is, in fatc, catagorically invalid. God is infinte, to ask for His beggining assumes that He had a beggining which is false; it is like asking how much red weighs. A color has no weight as much as an infinite being has no begining.Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

[Stanislaw]

Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

Right...because the universe is infinitely expanding outwards, but from an origin point, well atleast a theory.

A very difficult question.