New questions: 1. I definately became one, in fact when I let my parents know, I had to defend it for such a long time until they were satisfied I thought it out well enough 3. I told you I would take them case by case, and you could call these things god, but whats the point, call nature nature, reality reality, the universe the universe. We COULD start calling anything god but then words become useless, like god in this sense. 5. I believe i explained this enough the first time, I would like to add though, athiest who act properly do it with no wish for eternal salvation, theist do it for salvation, what does that tell you about their true character?
While there is a legitimate philosophical difference in what is deemed knowable, I doubt that any competent atheist would reject verifiable evidence of the supernatural. Similarly, both 'weak' and 'strong' atheist would place the existential possibility of God(s) right up there with that of Unicorn poop and Pixie dust - neither of which is, to the best of my knowledge, logically impossible. To counterpose the 'weak' 'open minded' atheist to his/her 'strong' 'close minded' counterpart simply legitimatizes the worst rhetoric of the theistic fringe.
O' Vital, 1. I don't actively try to convert people; however, when the situation arises I do discuss factual matters and any relationships people put together is up to them. 2. It's a fantastic man-made claim about a living super-entity that exists at this very moment in time. Sadly, (like the easter bunny) it's just a fairy tale and it's a mental handicap to accept fairy tales as true or possibly being true. 3. I don't know what all the concepts are; however, any master-creator-of- the-universe types are simply complete and utter fantasy. 4. Suddenly, all atheists are masters of physics eh? There are many questions that we may not be able to answer; however, we admit it rather than using 'God' as the answer. As for this specific question... 'I don't know'. In fact I don't even know if the question of 'why' is applicable. 5. I value a nuturing environment where people can meet and exceed their potentials. The point of having values is perhaps to meet human-level needs?
1. Agreed, it's the same on both sides. Although the fact is one side's voice is overwhemingly available for all to hear, while the other I feel wants their voice simply to be heard.. so that everyone knows that the option is out there. There's nothing wrong with causing someone to question their way of thinking. 2. In cases where something might exist or not, in a debate, it is up to those arguing for the existence to show evidence and proof. Something cannot be inferred with no physical proof, then said to exist because it cannot be disproven. 3. I'm not sure if I'm atheist or what (I'm more scientist for physical matters and semi-buddhist for others) but I can speak for myself and those that I know that when I deny the concept of God, I am denying the concept of a creator God as well as other such mystical entities (like the gods present in the ancient Egyptian religion, and Hindu faths for example). I can accept them as poetic symbolism, although the purpose of inventing these creatures still eludes me. I also deny concepts of God that claim God to be beyond concept or human comprehension (these typically come from the "don't take the Bible so literally" side). Such arguments are in no way falsifiable (or provable for that matter), and therefore worthless. 4. I don't understand the question. Are you suggesting a rock is a rock because it wants to be a rock? I think I'll go with Crunchy Cat on this one.. "I don't know" but add ", but I'd sure like to find out." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 5. So that life can be pleasurable and enjoyable. No need to fear eternal suffering in hell; happiness in the present is good enough a reason for me.
1. I don't try to convince people to not believe in god. If they ask me about it, I will explain, and try to get them to understand and reason things out for themselves. The rest follows. 2. One basic reason why is because god goes against life. To believe in a god is to believe your life is not your own, and if not there is no reason to live it. But there are many other reasons. 3. Of course all, since one god is not better than the other, they all want something that isn't their's to have. 4. For an in depth explanation take a few college chemistry classes or ask the chem forum. For a basic idea, take some bb's in a large plastic container, shake them. That's a gass. Put more bb's in, that's watter. Fill it with bb's, that's a solid. Take that with many different substances as different things than bb's, consider heat how fast you bounce the bb's and then there is all the in depth chemistry that you dont need to know. 5. My moral values revolve around reason and life. What's good for life, is good in a morality sense. But everything is based off reason. The point of having morals is because we think, we CAN reason when we try, and to live well, we need morals that benefit our life, through reason we get these morals. Reason is why we aren't monkeys in trees, but rather humans with carpet. And no, just because I believe reason is the answer to anything, doesn't mean i have no emotions or can't have fun. I always experience emotions, I just don't let my emotions control me when it's against my morals. Now if any religious types are so bold as to answer, i ask you what you think is wrong with my ideas?
You assume way too much. I don't. I claim that I know of no evidence warranting a belief in God(s). I know of no evidence warranting a belief in God(s). The map is not the territory. I reject teleology. To answer that question here would do it a disservice. I have grandkids. Much matters.
James, Given that only around 4% of Americans identify themselves as atheists, what makes you think that secular humanism will find its way into the very heart of societal life, education, politics etc.? It is one thing to claim belief or non belief in God, but it is another to act according to those beliefs. I myself claim to believe in God, but i act as though God does not exist in almost every aspect of my day to day life. So in one breath i am a theist because i say so, and in another i am not, by way of action. An atheist does not believe in God and acts accordingly. The true standard of acting upon one's belief in God, is in these day extremely high, almost unobtainable. To me this is the reality, not polls. Raithere, The whole point of science is that faith is not requisite. Religion also, Jesus had transcended the need for faith by developing his faith. When on the cross asking God to forgive the people due to ignorance, there was no faith involved (as in "does God exist or not"), it was simply a request. In science, faith is required in the ability of the scientist. In fact, faith is contrary to the scientific method which rigorously examines the veracity of any and all claims in order to identify assumptions and errors. But not contrary to the human being. The most wonderful thing about science is that its results are reproducible; if you don't believe a result is accurate you can duplicate the experiment for yourself. That means you don't have much faith in the current result. Jan Ardena.
I will let James answer Jan's response, but I just wanted to jump in here and ask if Jan has been reading what James wrote. James: "faith is contrary to the scientific method" Jan: "you don't have much faith" Wow. Intelligence abounds. Continue.
It’s similar to first finding out that Santa Clause isn’t real and then trying to convince the other kids around school of this. You sound like a kid who wants a Santa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See above. Although your question is a little anthropomorphic I see where you are going. Matter tends to reside in it’s lowest state of energy. Morals are societal. There’s no point per say, however such notions as empathy, acceptance, and maintaining a cohesive and civil society play a large part and motivating a person to adapt certain morals. Hope that helped. And you? What are your answers?
Ellimist, I will let James answer Jan's response, but I just wanted to jump in here and ask if Jan has been reading what James wrote. James: "faith is contrary to the scientific method" Jan: "you don't have much faith" The question is; have you been reading what James wrote? You silly boy. Wow. Intelligence abounds. Obviously not in your quarter! (surprise, surprise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Dummy! Jan Ardena.
1. What's the point of trying to convert theists into atheists (saying a religion is false) when you don't like it when theists try to convert atheists? Isn't that hypocritical? There is no attempt at conversion. Because yes, I would consider it hypocritical. Religion itself is not false, but what religion believes in *may* be false. By way of empirical principles there is no 'proof' of the existence of an omniscient being. Why does one believe? 2. If there's no definite proof that god doesn't exist, or does exist, why deny the existence of god instead of having an open-mind in between? That is called agnostic. A derivative of atheism. And as so, many do remain 'open' as you say. 3. Do you deny all concepts of god, or just the popular judeo-christian view of god? If you refer to 'God' as a conscious being, which single handedly created the universe, well, see above. 4. Why do all forms of matter have a certain state they want to be in? (Please don't say they 'just do') I don't understand the question. 5. What are your moral values? What's the point of having moral values if there is no afterlife and nothing matters? How do you want future generations to perceive life? This, in and of itself, is cause for having an ethical structure. Notice I said ethical not moral.
I am a Brendanist, which means that I believe everything that Brendan believes. That is my religion (a set of moral codes and beliefs, etc). I am a materialistic Athiest, which means that I believe that nothing goes above and beyond existance. Anything not in existance, does not exist. If you follow me. I do not attempt to convert others, actually, I constantly try and convert myself. If, in the process, others get converted to what I currently believe, so be it. I accept that "God" is possible. But, just as I don't believe in invisible, pink unicorns, I don't believe in God. I can't observe, seems illogical, need more proof before I can accept the claim. I deny the Christian god because he is immoral. I don't believe that exists because I don't have enough proof. I would pay respects to a god who was not immoral (at most, a nod and a smile), and I would believe in gods if I had more proof. *not a physics major....is more into music and philosophy* Who says I don't believe in an afterlife? I will always be around...everything that makes up me, every stitch of my being will be around as long as existance exists. It won't be in this order, or course, but I'll still be here. (just as rocks and old women and fire exists through me...I inhereted their energy/matter). I gain pleasure through being moral...it is just as natural as someone gaining pleasure through sex...being the social creatures that we are, we look out for our own. Thiesm usually implies the realm beyond the material. To say, "The material realm is above the material realm" is contradictory, in my opinon. It is what it is. (though, before becoming Athiest, I fringed on panthiesm)
I'm not quite sure how this is relevant. Not at all. That was my point. Proper science gives the information necessary for one to duplicate the experiment. One does not need faith in anyone for one can test the hypothesis for themselves. Neither is irrational belief in things that do not exist. I don't see your point. I don't rely upon faith Jan. ~Raithere
Raithere, I'm not quite sure how this is relevant. Jesus didn’t have faith, he had knowledge. Faith is only needed when you do not have knowledge of something, but wish to learn from someone who has. Not at all. That was my point. Proper science gives the information necessary for one to duplicate the experiment. If the information given was the be-all end-all, then faith would not be required. But the information given via scientific calculation, are links in the chain, and as such, newer informations are always needed. Faith is invested in the scientific method, performed by scientists, to move to the next level of information. One does not need faith in anyone for one can test the hypothesis for themselves. Who said that faith was needed for this particular thing? How did you get to the point where you are able to test? At some point you or any scientist “didn’t know”, meaning you were taught. Neither is irrational belief in things that do not exist. I don't see your point. Faith is a people thing, not an object thing. So the faith is not in the scientific method as seen on paper, but in the scientists who work according to the method. Scientists too are irrational, but they are probably good scientists, just as people who have faith in God, who are seen to be irrational, can make good scientists. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. I don't rely upon faith Jan. Neither do I. But I do not deny it. Jan Ardena.
Faith is trust in someone or something. But faith in God is not our own effort, but of God who completes our trust. In that case, however, God is trust, for the Son trusts the Father and the Father trusts the Son, and Jesus says, "if you have, faith you can move mountains". Thus, faith, at least in the bible, cannot be irrational belief. We also have to remember that Jesus had practically no physical Knowledge when he was baby since Isaiah says, "he will grow in spirit and truth". You are quite correct about science or any human endeavor. It all takes some leap of irrational belief or uncertainty.
Okinrus, Faith can mean that, but trust is usually earned and is not typically blind – normally you would have REASON to trust someone or something. Faith has no such implication. Then you are just a mindless puppet. But wait – your statement is ambiguous – you say it is not your own effort and then you say God completes the action – which is it? You or God? If God were to influence you being faithful then that really devalues your own efforts if any. And this is your cue to explain how humans are so weak and helpless that they can’t do anything worthwhile without God’s help – right? Your continued assertion here reinforces the idea that we must just be mindless puppets. Consider the reverse where these multiple personalities of a single god did not trust each other – supernatural schizophrenia – wow! Ever tried moving any mountains recently? Of course since it assumes God exists – we on the hand have no rational base to believe he exists and any who claim faith in God do so completely blindly. Uh huh! Not sure I have ever heard of any baby that has some physical knowledge of anything at birth. And here you are just plain wrong – and being uncertain is not irrational – and nowhere does science ever claim absolute certainty unlike religion. The overwhelming essence of science is evidence and logical proof – and nowhere in science is faith needed or desired. As for human endeavors – for sure many people place unjustified faith in their efforts and actions and usually pay a high price when their gambles fail miserably. Most worthwhile human endeavors are founded on hard work, training, education, and solid evidence for going forward. Any belief that a god exists or that a god will help in any way is founded entirely on pure blind faith – this is the exact opposite of real science. Kat
Why do you assume that believers would not have any reason to trust God? Both. However, faith is never our own effort without God because we cannot do anything that is truly good without God. Faith itself is usually not called an action in order to differentiate between works. No, but I don't have true faith to move a mountain, nor does God tell me to. Believing that God exists is not faith. So is faith based up irrationality or uncertainty? Clearly, you must have faith in something or someone, if even yourself, to have any certitude. Hard work, training, and education lessen the risk of failure, but the risk still exists. Now since you bring up success in the work place, what sort of foundation must someone who desires virtues have? For someone who claims to not have faith in God, it's strange that you classify a believer's faith as irrational. For instance, I would consider Newton quite rational. With the evidence he had at hand, he developed a fairly accurate model of gravity that served his need. Thus, while the developing of the model was rational, the model itself was not completely accurate. Now since it's impossible for you to know why each theist believes in God, claiming to know is just as irrational. Perhaps the theist does not have prior knowledge that you have, but is still making a rational decision to believe based upon his knowledge. Maybe the theist believes in God based upon Pascal's gamble. It seems to me that there is much less inherent risk in theism as long as you don't join a cult, and remain free thinking.
Quote: (Jesus didn’t have faith, he had knowledge.) Jesus was an illiterate!. He had no knowledge, he spoke in parables easily to understand metaphor, had he had knowledge he would have never utter the words "Father why have you forsaken me" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When he was nailed to the cross. Godless.
Okinrus, I said “REASON”, to be differentiated from “a reason” or “any reason” – meaning the logical process of reasoning that has evidence as the foundation of its premises. I understand that this is Christian doctrine and myth – it is otherwise absurd. Why the quote then? It is if you have no evidence. Faith based belief is irrational. Faith is the certain belief that something is true despite the lack of evidence. Uncertainty is an expression that one doesn’t know whether something is true or not, and could also be called healthy skepticism. Why? I have no reason to trust anyone until I have evidence they can be trusted. I have no reason to believe I can achieve something until I attempt it and build some evidence for myself of my capabilities. I do not see any case in the life of a truly rational person that anything need be based on faith. For sure and that is part of life. But taking a risk knowing that one might fail is quite different from blind faith where there is total certainty of success. The emotional turmoil that results when the person fails is of course another issue. Sorry – I don’t understand the question. People are not inherently rational; they combine a mixture of rational actions and some quite irrational actions, emotions have much to blame for this. Newton very rationally developed his scientific findings but he also quite irrationally believed in the existence of God. People are a mixture but this doesn’t change the fact that religious beliefs are illogical and irrational no matter who chooses to believe such things. Kat
