Atheists....

[Wintermute]

And does it matter if they are wrong in the story they believe in?

Hi Val,

Very well thought out and written. Thank you.

It only matters to me if their beliefs have negative impact on others--banning stem cell reasearch being an example that comes to mind--the world trade center attacks would be another. When beliefs turn to zealotry, certainty, and intolerance that's when problems arise. Another tenant of most religions is the golden rule. But alas, many seem to have swept this under the rug when it comes to folks that disagree with their stories/beliefs.

[valiantiris]

Indeed. As long as beliefs or actions are not to the detriment of others, they are ok by me.

[quasimodo1]

Allow me to digress and explain how one person arrived at atheism as a point of view. Like most people, religion was an integral part of upbringing, family life etc. You remember, back when fathers were around and mothers, well, before Gloria kind of lifestyle. If you believed, it was logical to go the distance. A roman catholic seminary in my case. After three years of that, atheism became a substitute for cynacism; you have to get way inside a religion to debunc it with any knowledge. Don't mean to offend or bait anybody. Just another road that doesn't get traveled that much. If jihadists, and christians are praying to the same deity, I guess that entity really has a conundrum on his/her/it's hands. Where is my spellcheck? whatever. RJS

[Matrim Cuathon]

Atheists have been described as those who believe in no god, but you have to believe in something . That is saying that you don't choose something. You have still chosen, it's just that you have chosen to NoT choose. Truthfully, I think that atheists, since they choose to not believe in a god as a spiaritual being, they make themselves "their god"; they practically "worship" themselves (in a sense). It's not what God can do for them, it's what they can do for themselves. Atheists say that no one can prove God, or miracles, but all you have to do is look around you for proof. Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind? Not to mention the fact that the human mind has calculated these chances, and they are so mathmatically and scientifically miniscule they are termed "impossible" by most scientists, yet they are simply to afraid to admit to the world that they cannot know and explain everything with their calculations. The truth is, people are afraid to acknowledge that there may be something greater in the world that they will have to answer to. People want to be in charge. I'm not trying to preachy or anything, I'm just stating the truth. In fact, if you talked to some philosophers and pychcyatrist people, I bet they would tell you that fact, that people want to run their own lives and be in charge. Just look at history to confirm it. Why did everybody try to conquer everything else? To rule the world. As humans, we can't face the fact that someone might rule us. I think that that is why atheists don't believe in a god. They don't want to have to submit. It's jsut human nature.

read the chapter in
God
The Failed Hypothesis
to see a theory that is equally if not more reasonbable than god that explains a way the universe was created.

[Dante Wodehouse]

[QUOTE=Wintermute;340677]

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.

[Bookworm4Him]

Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator?

Same question, no?

As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.

Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?

You say you are fairly certain that something amazing is going on, but you think that God just wamming into place isn't possible, but tell me, which is stranger, an all powerful being that has been since the beginning of time, (for only an all powerful being could be from the beginning of time), or a "god" that isn't in control? Let's define our terms for a second. Forget everything else that you have heard and believe about the "God of the Christians", or the "God of the Muslims", or whatever, and let's say that- as you believe that something amazing, not molecules wamming together, happened, there must be a being, or even just a divine force, that is controlling it. It would therefore make sense that this "being" would be there from the beginning of the world, the universe, the beginning of time! and there would be no beginning for it, as it created the beginning. That long of a time space is to incomprehensible for our brains to understand. But if it wasn't there from the beginning, then there must be something that was there, or else there wouldn't be a there. And since there must be something that was, then it would now be our being, divine force. That would be what most people term "God" in our culture.
In other words, could a "creator" poof together and be created? If it had, then it wouldn't be the "creator", the thing that created it would be. It shows that there had to be something, and that something had to have been there since forever. And you could spend your whole life trying to comprehend it, and never be able to, because it's beyond our comprehension.
I'm not saying that he cares if we don't eat meat on certain days of the year, by far. (the whole point of that was to show a sacrifice, as Jesus did for us, but now it has become a corrupted holiday in which people don't even think of the reason they celebrate it.)
As to your second point, Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place? As a divine being, our now termed "God" has to have had some purpose to make the world and its inhabitants in the first place. He created the animals, and the plants, but most importantly man, and made man have some of the same attributes as Himself- especially, in this circumstance- a Choice. The choice to pick btw. right and wrong. But man chose wrong, and as God did not want his creation to be without hope, sent his Son, to give us a way out, but again, with a choice, not forced.

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there? If that was the whole point in the first place, then he wouldn't have made us in the first place. If you were going to make something, but knew that it was going to be messed up, and throw away by someone, and there was no purpose in making it, then would you make it?? The point is, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was, He made us for his own glory. But enough for now.

[Bookworm4Him]

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand.

[Wintermute]

The point was, He made us for his own glory.

Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

[Wintermute]

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand.

Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully.

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

[Wintermute]

[QUOTE=Dante Wodehouse;341717]

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.

Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

[ennison]

'That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.' I'm sure your granny was right too but we here are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and are looking at the wrong things. God can create just for its own glory because a spirit infinite, eternal, unchangeable does not behave according to the rules that we understand. Rejecting God's existence is a human prerogative. It doesn't matter to God. It does matter to us as the resulting gap has to be filled with something - consciously or unconsciously.

[Bookworm4Him]

Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

Why did you join this site? Why do we make millions of types of special food? Why do authors create fictional places with characters? Why do little kids make objects out of Plato? Why do we make things in the first place? For our personal enjoyment! Do you think that if all the things we created had minds, they would be against worshiping us, their creator? One difference btw. things we make and us being made by God, is that we were made in His image, as I stated before. Notice the fact that we like when things worship us. We inherited it from Him. And in a way, your grandma was right. We do provide fellowship to Him. It's not like a "bow and worship the Almighty powerful Creator, or I will shoot lightning bolts at you." Providing fellowship to Him does worship Him.
But He can do what he wants. Who are we to question Him?

[Bookworm4Him]

Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully.

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one? And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me.

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?
I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Is being certain possible?

[kilted exile]

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift.

What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"

[Matrim Cuathon]

Book, thats because you dont understand the point...
but if you need more simplification,
can god do something that he cant undo?
omnipotence is impossible.
or can god kill himself?
if he cant he isnt all powerful and if he can he can die and isnt all powerful. you are looking at the literal thing instead of the point.