Thoughts on Atheism

[MaryLupin]

Those statistics suggest that we sexually misbehave - they do not authoritatively tell us that "Sex has never been something reserved for marriage." In fact, the reality that the behaviors you've listed are generally frowned upon by society tells me that sex indeed is supposed to be reserved for marriage.

There is no necessary link between the fact that sex is a regulated behavior in all human societies and the concept of marriage. Marriage does give the participants the "right" to expect sexual activity, but sexual activity is sanctioned in many more places than the marriage bed. The regulations that are applicable to any given person differ according to age, gender and status. The rules pertaining to women and sex are different than the rules pertaining to men and sex. This is true in all human societies. Some societies accept the need for sexual activity between men before marriage occurs or during long military campaigns (for example.) The rules differed for their wives, however. Some societies expect(ed) men (even married men) to use prostitutes to siphon off some of their "manly" urges so as not to frighten their wives. If you read Victorian literature, for example, you will find much moralizing about the proper placement of sexual activity. However, you will also find a great deal of literature dedicated to its "improper" placement. Both are equally Victorian attitudes and both must be taken into account when describing what Victorians actually believed...because there is usually a big difference between what is said and what is actually believed and/or practiced. The only way to know is to look at the whole gamut of what was done.

The same is true, by the way, with incest. There is a universal human prohibition against incest and it is also universally practiced with dedicated vigor. So what do we humans actually believe: do we judge by what we say or what we do?

[Redzeppelin]

There is no necessary link between the fact that sex is a regulated behavior in all human societies and the concept of marriage. Marriage does give the participants the "right" to expect sexual activity, but sexual activity is sanctioned in many more places than the marriage bed. The regulations that are applicable to any given person differ according to age, gender and status. The rules pertaining to women and sex are different than the rules pertaining to men and sex. This is true in all human societies. Some societies accept the need for sexual activity between men before marriage occurs or during long military campaigns (for example.) The rules differed for their wives, however. Some societies expect(ed) men (even married men) to use prostitutes to siphon off some of their "manly" urges so as not to frighten their wives. If you read Victorian literature, for example, you will find much moralizing about the proper placement of sexual activity. However, you will also find a great deal of literature dedicated to its "improper" placement. Both are equally Victorian attitudes and both must be taken into account when describing what Victorians actually believed...because there is usually a big difference between what is said and what is actually believed and/or practiced. The only way to know is to look at the whole gamut of what was done.

The same is true, by the way, with incest. There is a universal human prohibition against incest and it is also universally practiced with dedicated vigor. So what do we humans actually believe: do we judge by what we say or what we do?

Your answers to my comments are always breath-takingly filled with all kinds of knowledgable commentary, but I often feel like you're responses are kind of "footnotes" of historical information rather than a clear-cut answer to what I've said. This could very well be my perception and does not require a rebuttal - it may just be me.

What you are speaking of are tacit "conventions" that cultures tolerate moreso than encourage IMO. What society tolerates and permits does not necessarily equal what society accepts as proper and right. Various levels of acceptance to sexual configurations outside marriage are a description of how things were/are - but such descriptions are not what things should be; statements of how things are cannot be equated with the way they're supposed to be. Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish; the bonding that occurs during sex (emotional and spiritual) makes sex an extremely powerful/meaningful experience. Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other; sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from.

I'm not sure how long I want to pursue this argument - from a Christian standpoint, marriage is an institution established by God - not the legal aspect, but the spiritual aspect: men and women who have sex "become one" and this joining at a spiritual level is not something that ought to be taken lightly - you cannot "become one" with 20 other people; furthermore, you cannot then sunder that bond without it causing traumatizing things within your heart and soul. Despite your arguments-in-waiting about cultural this or social that, about "rules" and "taboos" and such, understand that (yet again) you and I are not going to agree on this. Our foundational principles are at odds, and as such, much our conclusions will follow thusly. If sex is a spiritual thing as God has indicated, then I'm right. If it's just something humans do with no spiritual/emotional ramifications, then you're right.

But let's not confuse what society or people do with what it/they ought to do. Two very different things.

[MaryLupin]

Your answers to my comments are always breath-takingly filled with all kinds of knowledgable commentary, but I often feel like you're responses are kind of "footnotes" of historical information rather than a clear-cut answer to what I've said. This could very well be my perception and does not require a rebuttal - it may just be me.

Red

So I am going to step back for a moment and look at the basic argument you have made. I am going to use the marriage example just because it is most recent.

Preachers (of which group I count you a member) often use a basic argument. They say
1) God told us to do this.
2) We haven’t done that.
3) This is the consequence.

The first step of the argument relies on textual evidence (i.e. there is a passage [or passages] which is interpreted by the preacher as an injunction against the addressed behavior.) Since the evidence comes from the text, any argument against or for the specific interpretation must come from the text. A person could feasibly say, “that word in this version of that statement is a mistranslation,” for example. Since the evidence cited is textual one could not logically say, “well I don’t believe in it” as a valid argument against a question of interpretation.

The second step of the argument relies on worldly evidence. By saying “we haven’t done that” the preacher is making an empirical claim about human behavior. As such world evidence can and must be used to make any dispute against this kind of claim.

The third step also relies on worldly evidence. It makes a claim that our disobedience is related to a specific worldly event in a causal manner.

In step one the rules of textual analysis apply…biblical hermeneutics, for example. In step two and three the basic rules of evidence apply. In neither case is it can the applicable rules be dropped for convenience. This would be inconsistent with the purpose of logical argument and discussion.

To say that marriage is the only acceptable venue for sexual relations because god gave us this order in the bible is a textual question (step 1 of the larger argument). You can cite chapter and verse is support of this statement. No one can say “well in the Upanishads it doesn’t say anything like that so you are wrong.” This would be nonsensical. Equally no one can say, “well the I don’t like it so therefore you are wrong.” This is using worldly evidence when only textual evidence applies.

Equally, to say that we have not obeyed god in this matter (step 2) and we are suffering as a consequence (step 3) requires its own body of evidence. This requires worldly evidence. What I have done in past posts is give you worldly evidence to argue against steps 2 and 3 or your various arguments. I have not (as yet) asked you to cite the textual evidence to support your step 1.

Integrity of argument is about maintaining consistency between the terms of the argument and the evidence used to support or deny the claim. You made a claim about the state of the world. This means that the proper evidence to refute or support the claim is worldly and not textual.

What you are speaking of are tacit "conventions" that cultures tolerate moreso than encourage IMO. What society tolerates and permits does not necessarily equal what society accepts as proper and right.

Terms such as "proper" and "right" are claims made against a specific moral/belief system. In your case against the version of the bible that you support. As such these are evidenced through step 1 of your argument and can not be denied nor supported by evidence from the world, unless you open the claim of "propriety" to attack by the same evidence. For example, someone says, "The bible is correct because there is clear evidence in the world that supports its statements." If one does that then the corollary is then also on the table, "The bible is incorrect if the evidence shows that the world does not support its statements."

Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish; the bonding that occurs during sex (emotional and spiritual) makes sex an extremely powerful/meaningful experience. Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other; sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from.

Here are the basic steps from the passage above. Step 1 has already be laid out - that sex ought to be reserved for marriage. Step 2 begins with "Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish." This is a worldly claim and as such can be supported or denied by worldly evidence. As part of step 2 you make the additional worldly claim, "Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other." This also makes a claim based on worldly evidence. (It also makes a bunch of subsidiary assumed claims - for example, that an enhanced bond is a good thing. This would also be open to worldly analysis.) It can be shown as accurate or false, for example, by examining married couples and assessing their bonds with respect to their faithfulness and other factors that might contribute to the state of their marriage. You make step three when you give consequences for not doing what you claim (but don't give evidence for) in step 2. Step 3 is "sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from." Again, this is taking an argument form a text (step 1) and saying here is my worldly support to show that what this text says is empirically true about human nature and behavior. When you do that you leave yourself open to worldly rebuttal.

So if you don't want to argue at the worldly level then we have to confine the argument to textual sources. But then you can make no claim about the practicality or usefulness of the bible as a way of life. This would be a worldly claim.

[Redzeppelin]

Red

So I am going to step back for a moment and look at the basic argument you have made. I am going to use the marriage example just because it is most recent.

Preachers (of which group I count you a member) often use a basic argument. They say
1) God told us to do this.
2) We haven’t done that.
3) This is the consequence.

The first step of the argument relies on textual evidence (i.e. there is a passage [or passages] which is interpreted by the preacher as an injunction against the addressed behavior.) Since the evidence comes from the text, any argument against or for the specific interpretation must come from the text. A person could feasibly say, “that word in this version of that statement is a mistranslation,” for example. Since the evidence cited is textual one could not logically say, “well I don’t believe in it” as a valid argument against a question of interpretation.

The second step of the argument relies on worldly evidence. By saying “we haven’t done that” the preacher is making an empirical claim about human behavior. As such world evidence can and must be used to make any dispute against this kind of claim.

The third step also relies on worldly evidence. It makes a claim that our disobedience is related to a specific worldly event in a causal manner

In step one the rules of textual analysis apply…biblical hermeneutics, for example. In step two and three the basic rules of evidence apply. In neither case is it can the applicable rules be dropped for convenience. This would be inconsistent with the purpose of logical argument and discussion.

To say that marriage is the only acceptable venue for sexual relations because god gave us this order in the bible is a textual question (step 1 of the larger argument). You can cite chapter and verse is support of this statement. No one can say “well in the Upanishads it doesn’t say anything like that so you are wrong.” This would be nonsensical. Equally no one can say, “well the I don’t like it so therefore you are wrong.” This is using worldly evidence when only textual evidence applies.

Equally, to say that we have not obeyed god in this matter (step 2) and we are suffering as a consequence (step 3) requires its own body of evidence. This requires worldly evidence. What I have done in past posts is give you worldly evidence to argue against steps 2 and 3 or your various arguments. I have not (as yet) asked you to cite the textual evidence to support your step 1.

Integrity of argument is about maintaining consistency between the terms of the argument and the evidence used to support or deny the claim. You made a claim about the state of the world. This means that the proper evidence to refute or support the claim is worldly and not textual.



Terms such as "proper" and "right" are claims made against a specific moral/belief system. In your case against the version of the bible that you support. As such these are evidenced through step 1 of your argument and can not be denied nor supported by evidence from the world, unless you open the claim of "propriety" to attack by the same evidence. For example, someone says, "The bible is correct because there is clear evidence in the world that supports its statements." If one does that then the corollary is then also on the table, "The bible is incorrect if the evidence shows that the world does not support its statements."

I'm sorry Mary - I have tremendous respect for your intellect - but you exhaust me with this plodding rundown of argumentative qualifications. I'm a simple man, so I'm going to argue simply: the Bible gives Christians guidance in how to negotiate this life. It tells us that sin leads to unhappiness, bitterness, despair, loss, etc. I believe that when we violate God's restrictions, we suffer. Dostoyevsky's brilliant Crime and Punishment is in part his argument that "Thou shalt not murder" has real life consequences: guilt, anxiety, isolation, etc. You may call that social conditioning, but that was the whole point of the "extraordinary man theory" (borrowed from Hegel and Nietzsche) - that even if you have a "good" and "justifiable" reason for killing that benefits society, the human heart suffers (ditto the theme of Macbeth)).

God made it clear that men and women "become one" when they have sex. For a minute, pretend that that is true - that the couple becomes spiritually bonded in a way that is not sundered merely by leaving the person's life. This tells me that "bonding" with multiple people creates spiritual/emotional baggage that interferes with future relationships - even atheists I assume would agree that the more relationships one is in, the more "baggage" one carries into the next relationship. When I look at the state of relationships today, I am making an inference based on what I believe to be truth: a monogamous marriage (while no guarantee of happiness) is probably the path that avoids the most "baggage" - that multiple sex partners - even serial monogamy - contributes to the failure of relationships; most people agree that entering another relationship before "getting over" the prior partner is generally a recipe for disaster - well: what if you were connected in a way that you couldn't just "get over" with time?

You're responses are made from the platform that assumes the Bible to be "just a book" written by men - and so anything attributed to God you simply brush off. As such, you will present to me evidence that humanity has consistently violated God's ideal for marriage from the beginning - as if that's evidence that God's law is wrong; as far as I'm concerned, all you're doing is building evidence in my favor: configurations that go outside monogamous marriage generally do not result in long-standing satisfaction, happiness, contentment. If it did - why are relationships in such disarray - since the 60's pretty much wrote marriage off?

Here are the basic steps from the passage above. Step 1 has already be laid out - that sex ought to be reserved for marriage. Step 2 begins with "Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish." This is a worldly claim and as such can be supported or denied by worldly evidence. As part of step 2 you make the additional worldly claim, "Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other." This also makes a claim based on worldly evidence. (It also makes a bunch of subsidiary assumed claims - for example, that an enhanced bond is a good thing. This would also be open to worldly analysis.) It can be shown as accurate or false, for example, by examining married couples and assessing their bonds with respect to their faithfulness and other factors that might contribute to the state of their marriage. You make step three when you give consequences for not doing what you claim (but don't give evidence for) in step 2. Step 3 is "sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from." Again, this is taking an argument form a text (step 1) and saying here is my worldly support to show that what this text says is empirically true about human nature and behavior. When you do that you leave yourself open to worldly rebuttal.

So if you don't want to argue at the worldly level then we have to confine the argument to textual sources. But then you can make no claim about the practicality or usefulness of the bible as a way of life. This would be a worldly claim.

I'm sorry - I cannot follow much of what you've said here; I understand about inconsistencies in argumentation and such, but I have no idea what you're suggesting here. I'm applying the Bible's claim to what I see happening in the world. Because the Bible is authoritative to me, and becaue I believe God restricts things because the consequences are undesireable, I assume that evidence of behavior contrary to the Bible will reveal a conclusion consistent with God's warnings about the consequences of sin.

I'll do you a favor: if I'm not arguing in a way that you think is appropriate or consistent, you are free to tell me so, disengage and I will respect your choice - but don't dictate to me how I have to do it in order for you to take the argument seriously - I think you're splitting some hairs here rather than dealing with my argument - which is what seems to happen here.

God reserved sex for marriage; that society ignores that doesn't mean God's wrong: the results of sexual liberality are before us in all their glory - argue them out of existence if you can.

[MaryLupin]

I'm sorry Mary - I have tremendous respect for your intellect - but you exhaust me with this plodding rundown of argumentative qualifications. I'm a simple man…

How very disingenuous of you. All I did was expose the structure of the argument you set out.

Apart from basic argumentative strategy, there is something else I have noticed about preacherly rhetoric. If you want to win a crowd, capitalize on
1) the congregations’ natural desire to believe in (or at least reluctance to challenge) an authority figure,
2) their relative lack of political and historical sophistication and
3) the ease through which declamations cloud the capacity to think.

The problem with the strategy is that occasionally up pops someone who
1) questions the veracity of the statements made and
2) knows more about the history of humankind and the world in general than the preacher (not at all difficult in some contemporary American cases).

The “solutions” to this uncomfortable situation for the preacher are commonly two. The first is to scream “Devil!” and stampede the knowledgeable offender out of the room (I saw this one once on a university campus). The second is to resort to emotional tactics of the “I am a simple man” sort and simply act as if the knowledgeable offender is speaking (intellectual) nonsense (i.e. get rid of them by a kind of emotional shunning—I’ve also seen this one in action.). The strategy often works too, especially with people who cannot or will not mark the difference between “is” and “ought.”

You're responses are made from the platform that assumes the Bible to be "just a book" written by men - and so anything attributed to God you simply brush off.

No. I haven’t even asked you to quote scripture to support your claim that the bible says
1) sex must remain inside marriage, that
2) men and women are happier inside marriage, that
3) there is any connection between marriage, sex and happiness at all.
I have not asked for any textual evidence that the bible talks about this at all. I am merely providing evidence that refutes your empirical claims about the state of the world. I have said nothing about your subjective experience of the bible as a truthful, divine document.

Even if we accept for the moment that 1) god is real and that 2) your version of the bible represent its actual desires and commandments, it still doesn’t negate the difference in necessary evidence between saying “the bible says” and “this is what happens in the world.” With “the bible says” one proves it by pointing out scripture. With “this is what happens” one proves it by pointing out empirical evidence…even if the bible and what it says is true and actually represents the word of god. If the bible is true as you say it is, you do it a great disservice by resorting to inaccurate history to “prove” its points. Surely if it is true it can stand up to an accurate history of the world.

I'm applying the Bible's claim to what I see happening in the world.

Yes you are, but at the same time refusing to accept that this means worldly evidence can therefore be used to refute the claims you make. This is intellectual hypocrisy.

I'll do you a favor: if I'm not arguing in a way that you think is appropriate or consistent, you are free to tell me so, disengage and I will respect your choice - but don't dictate to me how I have to do it in order for you to take the argument seriously - I think you're splitting some hairs here rather than dealing with my argument - which is what seems to happen here.

I sorry you can’t follow the logic of your own basic 3-step argument, but I don’t have to withdraw from your inability; you already have by resorting to “I am a simple man.”

[Sandra Mc]

Mary,
Are u an atheist? Reading ur posts that is what I feel u r. But I should say that I support Red more than u. But I do admire u a lot and I mean it. Seriously (if u r atheist) u must be having enormous power to believe whatever scientists say. I find it very hard to believe it myself!! I feel that somewhere deep inside of u there is a belief that someone created this world. For if u believe the big bang theory and stuff seriously I must say u have A LOT OF FAITH!!
Suppose I take a watch and break it, put it in a bag and shake the bag for a million yrs. ( God knows whether I'll live that long!! But Still think abt. it!!) What is the possiblity of me getting the watch back as before? I don't think its possible! I guess even u would agree. Well anyway I know I have diverted u from ur initial topic on Marriage etc. But I think u should think abt what u have said. Dont u think having a pure and a clean partner is more acceptable?! I haven't used any Bible quotes nothing I have just put in my views.
If u did not like what I have said then I ask u to forgive me. Anyway U are a very smart person!!
God Bless You!!

[Orionsbelt]

Wow this has certainly gotten interesting and a bit deeper than the usual stuff. great job. Personal story...... I knew a couple who were married according to the " rules of ought". Once connected so, they discovered at a practical level that staying with one another was not going to work. So they separated, and the "rule keepers" pushed them back together. That occurred 9 times. Each time they had a child. You see at some level they loved each other but could not live with each other. When the final explosion came and they kicked out the keepers of ought, they divorced for good. Eventually, Married other people and lived happily ever. Having a good relationship with on another as well. The first of these children, who witnessed the strife of the forced union, have emotional problems to this day. Jobs, relationships, education has failed. The younger children raised in the happier homes of later developments are living successfully. In my opinion and in the opinion of everyone who witnessed this tragic play, They ought to have let go long before they did.

[Redzeppelin]

How very disingenuous of you. All I did was expose the structure of the argument you set out.

Nice. What if I was being sincere? How do you know I wasn't? Answer: you don't. You ASSUME you know what my comments were motivated by.

Apart from basic argumentative strategy, there is something else I have noticed about preacherly rhetoric. If you want to win a crowd, capitalize on
1) the congregations’ natural desire to believe in (or at least reluctance to challenge) an authority figure,
2) their relative lack of political and historical sophistication and
3) the ease through which declamations cloud the capacity to think.

The problem with the strategy is that occasionally up pops someone who
1) questions the veracity of the statements made and
2) knows more about the history of humankind and the world in general than the preacher (not at all difficult in some contemporary American cases).

Done flattering yourself? None of this is germane to the discussion we're having - but it does appear to provide evidence of yet another tangent where you get to display your considerable knowledge. Bravo - but it would help our discussion to keep it somewhat focused on the issues at hand.

The “solutions” to this uncomfortable situation for the preacher are commonly two. The first is to scream “Devil!” and stampede the knowledgeable offender out of the room (I saw this one once on a university campus). The second is to resort to emotional tactics of the “I am a simple man” sort and simply act as if the knowledgeable offender is speaking (intellectual) nonsense (i.e. get rid of them by a kind of emotional shunning—I’ve also seen this one in action.). The strategy often works too, especially with people who cannot or will not mark the difference between “is” and “ought.”

Amazing. I essentially have admitted that I don't have the kind of mind that can follow the complexities of your discussion about argumentation and you decide to paint it as the tactic of a coward. I didn't say you were speaking nonsense - I said I couldn't follow it - and I did not indicate that that failure to comprehend was your fault. Again: you assume I'm being disingenuous, but if you're wrong, that makes your comments inappropriate and hostile.

I have not asked for any textual evidence that the bible talks about this at all. I am merely providing evidence that refutes your empirical claims about the state of the world. I have said nothing about your subjective experience of the bible as a truthful, divine document.

I'm sorry - I'm not certain I've seen anything "refuted" just yet.

Even if we accept for the moment that 1) god is real and that 2) your version of the bible represent its actual desires and commandments, it still doesn’t negate the difference in necessary evidence between saying “the bible says” and “this is what happens in the world.” With “the bible says” one proves it by pointing out scripture. With “this is what happens” one proves it by pointing out empirical evidence…even if the bible and what it says is true and actually represents the word of god. If the bible is true as you say it is, you do it a great disservice by resorting to inaccurate history to “prove” its points. Surely if it is true it can stand up to an accurate history of the world.

What "inaccurate history" have I presented?

Yes you are, but at the same time refusing to accept that this means worldly evidence can therefore be used to refute the claims you make. This is intellectual hypocrisy.

You have not provided evidence to the contrary of the inferrence I'm drawing. Based upon what God says about sin, and the assumption that His decisions and commands are based upon reasonable realities, then I find it reasonable to assume that violating God's commands should show a real-world result. Which part of that is unreasonable? If I read a book by the foremost expert in marine biology who says if we do "x" the oceans will suffer and we go ahead and do "x" and the ocean suffers, I have reason to believe that the foremost marine biologist was correct in his caution.

I sorry you can’t follow the logic of your own basic 3-step argument, but I don’t have to withdraw from your inability; you already have by resorting to “I am a simple man.”

Please don't condescend to me - I lose my interest in discussing things with people who cannot manage basic civility. I can follow my own argument - it was the complexites of your discussion of it that started to lose me; you seemed to be more hung up on telling me the invalidity of my argument than in dealing with its points. I'm not certain I can configure my comments to suit your ideas about what an argument should look like, so I essentially told you that you are free to disengage if you do not see my argument as being framed in a logical, reasonable way.

I can do without the subtle hostility and condescension. I've said I respect your intelligence and in return you've essentially insulted me in a number of subtle ways here.

[XY&Z]

One should not have thoughts on something that one doesn't believe that exists.

[NikolaiI]

To that, I say "bollocks." Just because something's arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't practical. At any rate, the boundaries Sun is not defined by visibility in any way - it's defined by physical presence. The energy it gives off is no more closely associated to the Sun itself than is the energy I'm using to type this. You may as well consider a squirrel or a cockroach identical extensions of the Sun, because the energy necessary to create them came from the Sun.

If you want to make your point, make it - but frankly, I think the analogy made above is ludicrous. Simply because he says something is a "reasonable definition" does not make it so.

No, he was saying they were not reasonable definitions, because you can't say where the light ends, or heat, and we are inside the light. That was his point, but and I'm not saying he said we should change our definition of the sun. But I think those are reasonable definitions, at least as reasonable as the other ones, because they were chosen for arbitrary reasons, that is, which senses we like to use and view the world by.

And you say physical presence, but isn't light photons, isn't that physical? What is the sun? If a photon leaves what the sun is, then it's not the sun, but the sun's light? Why do we say the sun's light is not the sun? I'd say it is. I mean, of course you can't calculate that, because then we are inside the sun, and the sun is inside all the stars whose light reaches it. But what is wrong with this definition? It seems to me to be closer to reality, although it's still words superimposed on physical reality.

[Noisms]

1) Atheism is not a belief system. It is non-belief or an absence of belief in theism, hence a-theism.

Strictly speaking, a-theism does not mean "absence of belief in theism"; rather, it means "without-God-ism", which tends to suggest it is a belief system.

All atheists must, at some point, make a leap of faith. This is because, in order to explain their own existence without resorting to a god (or mystical force of some sort) they must put faith in a theory that has no evidence to support it and that defies logic - the idea that something (everything, in fact) sprang from nothing.

[Hi, by the way. This is my first post here. How exciting.]

[MaryLupin]

One should not have thoughts on something that one doesn't believe that exists.

Funny guy...it's called imagination!

[MaryLupin]

All atheists...must put faith in a theory that has no evidence to support it and that defies logic - the idea that something (everything, in fact) sprang from nothing.

Re: no evidence...how much physics, evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology have you read that you can say there is "no evidence to support it?" In other words, what evidence are you citing to show there is no evidence?

Re: defies logic...much that defies "logic" is nevertheless true. For example, do you believe the earth rotates around the sun? Or do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe?

I was reading a site earlier today that had these two sentences:

"Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century."

Can you spot the problem(s) with their presentation of fact? If you can do that can you take it further and think about what it means about the way this person thinks, and what s/he assumes? See if you can guess before you go look at the site.

A less tendentious recounting of information can be found at: www.scar.utoronto.ca/

Hi, by the way. This is my first post here. How exciting.

Welcome and have fun.

[Noisms]

Re: no evidence...how much physics, evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology have you read that you can say there is "no evidence to support it?" In other words, what evidence are you citing to show there is no evidence?

I'm not talking about evolution - I'm talking about more fundamental issues than that. The point is that for atheists to account for the very existence of reality, they have to resort to saying "something came from nothing". In other words, once upon a time there was absolutely nothing, and from that, everything came - of its own accord.

The onus is on the atheist to provide evidence that something can come from nothing. Unfortunately, it defies logic, and defies physics. Something can not come from nothing. Most thinking atheists are well aware of the problem, and they come up with intellectual contortions to escape it (for example, the universe is continually contracting to nothing and then expanding outwards; or there are infinite universes; or universes pop in and out of existence like bubbles inside a bigger universe; or, if they're lazy the universe has always been here) but the best they can come up with is a postulation.

Of course, the same problem exists for theists, who usually explain the problem away by saying "god has always existed, and he created the universe" - which is equally inadequate.

Re: defies logic...much that defies "logic" is nevertheless true. For example, do you believe the earth rotates around the sun?

I think you're confused about what logic means. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun does not "defy logic". It follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics. Unfortunately, the idea that all of creation could have sprang from nothingness (or 'a singularity') does not.

[Orionsbelt]

Is it a leap of faith (for and atheist) or he limit of understanding? If I have concluded that there is no god (rejecting one idea for creation) and something cannot be created from "nothing" .. a singularity.. have I simply arrived at a point where my understanding fails or do I have a dilemma as you have describe. The existence of another problem does not make any previous postulate valid or invalid. I only makes for a bad answer to the retort what then?