Questions for Atheist in America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Raging_Teddy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Well, though she eventually did the right thing, she certainly didn’t handle the situation in a godly manner. Assuming your version is the truth. No offense, but how do we really know? [/quote]

You don’t, and I’m having neither means nor intentions to prove it.

I will say this: My post is a VERY short summary of what was really a long, drawn out clusterfuck of a breakup involving breaking up, her having second, third, and fourth thoughts, and eventually coming out with that gem I told you about in my previous post and wasting a solid two months of my life.[/quote]This is not at all a complicated biblical principle. Her difficulty with it demonstrates a lack in her and probably her fellowship as well.

262

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve never personally met a true atheist. Everyone when it comes down to it believes in something.[/quote]

Right. Even if all you believe is that a universe was created where life is ‘possible’. If you research what the great minds thought you get a mixed bag just like the masses. I agree with Einstein that this is not a ‘personal’ god. He is not ‘rigging’ the game by listening to individual prayers, granting a new truck here, a baby there - determining the outcome - we have free will. Everything has a purpose is nonsense.

My neighbor is a young Baptist preacher and our kids play together ( Reformed Baptist he drinks wine with dinner ). Listening to the kids repeat stuff was annoying. However his wife said that ‘nothing is possible without Jesus’. I let that go but my former neighbors wife was also Baptist and she said to me ‘If you do not believe in God then you have to have a strong belief in yourself’. I agree and going Godless is harder, mankind just seems to function better thinking there is always a watchful Father figure in the sky, removing mans worries and allowing each man to focus on things that can make a difference in his life.

I always liked evolution and biology but again this occurs in a universe that seems to allow it or was designed with the capacity. If you follow the science it explains how things unfolded, but only religion attempts to explain where things came from prior to the Big Bang science has no answer for that. Indian religion is cool because it seems to follow the Universal pattern, they have a word for the cycle of big-bang big collapse ( not too far off on the duration in years either ) and see it as a never ending cycle in which nothing from the current universe ever makes it into the next.

What is everyone doing in heaven I asked the neighbor preacher ? Must be a crowded place by now after all the Bible does not really define hell the way the flock does. He said it is like Earth only not f’d up.

We are optimized for running around on Earth so when we attempt to ponder the universe prior to big-bang, heaven, a timeless God etc - we just cannot really think in that realm.

Most people believe in God because as was said to me ‘I was raised that way’. Well they should do their own thinking and I have known horrible examples of people calling themselves Christians and I have known good ones but I always say I am open minded to both. Work is not the place to take a side on this issue or even discuss it.

263

I’m an Atheist. I don’t discuss it unless asked, as I believe everyone should do with any religion/non-religion.
I will not hide it or lie about, and if that takes away opportunities by hypocritical Christians, so be it. I have come to realize the more religious someone claims to be the more of a hypocrite they are. The louder they proclaim their religion, the more they trample what it stands for. Usually, someone who practices silently is doing a better job in their religion than others.

I really don’t care what religion anyone has, and I full support their decision to practice it. I just absolutely hate it when someone tries to press their beliefs upon me or assumes I’m Christian. As far as what you were saying about Atheists being the “least trusted” group in America, well, that just goes to show you about the hypocrisy I was talking about.

264

The Gospel Matthew:18-20

[quote]<<< 18-And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19-Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20-teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” >>>[/quote]The Prophet Jeremiah 20:8b-9 [quote] Because for me the word of the LORD has resulted in reproach and derision all day long 9-But if I say, “I will not remember Him. Or speak anymore in His name,” Then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire. Shut up in my bones; And I am weary holding it in, And I cannot endure it. >>>[/quote] For the gospel of Jesus Christ at least, you, like most people anymore, haven’t the first flickering clue what it “stands for”. True worshipers of God, while not going out out their way to do it, absolutely know that the authentic risen Christ is a “rock of offense and a stone of stumbling” to the unbelieving heart. They fully expect to offend those they proclaim the Word to because that’s exactly what they’re told by their God is supposed to happen. So you see, what you “absolutely really hate” is not in the least relevant to them. What Jesus Christ absolutely really commands IS.

Of course there will be no shortage of groovy post modern liberals who will tickle your ears with their “loving” non judgmental pablum (like Joel Osteen for instance), but that ain’t the gospel. The gospel is: repent of your sin, forsake your life and believe with all your heart that the life, death and resurrection of the only begotten Son of the most high God alone will save you from an eternal death that you fully deserve after which you will live an increasingly holy life as a testimony to others of His transforming power. That’s no fun though.

265

[quote]Raging_Teddy wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Simon Adebisi wrote:
Weird.
You would think that someone who takes their faith that seriously would try and find out if their significant other shared the same beliefs a bit earlier on in the relationship.
[/quote]

lol agreed, unless the guy was just blatantly pretending to be religious, in which case he’s definitely the asshole.[/quote]

I told her right away I wasn’t Christian or anything else. At first, it wasn’t that big of a deal. Then, she started trying to convert me, and I told her I’m an atheist and she was wasting her time and offending me.

She told me I was immoral (everyone who knows me had a good laugh at that one) and that I’m going to hell and that she couldn’t stand to be with me anymore.

No, we weren’t married.[/quote]

RT, I think I’m approaching a very similar problem. I’ve been in a relationship a year and a half. I’m without a god, she’s a Christian. She knows damn well that I don’t share her beliefs and (I hope) she’s not harboring any notions about converting me. I’ve tried to push her into a conversation about it once or twice but she seems content to let it alone. I’m wondering what it’s going to take to make the other shoe drop, but damned if I’m going to break off a relationship that makes me happy because of religious beliefs (that’s what the pious do).

266

[quote]HiredGun wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve never personally met a true atheist. Everyone when it comes down to it believes in something.[/quote]

Right. Even if all you believe is that a universe was created where life is ‘possible’. If you research what the great minds thought you get a mixed bag just like the masses. I agree with Einstein that this is not a ‘personal’ god. He is not ‘rigging’ the game by listening to individual prayers, granting a new truck here, a baby there - determining the outcome - we have free will. Everything has a purpose is nonsense.

My neighbor is a young Baptist preacher and our kids play together ( Reformed Baptist he drinks wine with dinner ). Listening to the kids repeat stuff was annoying. However his wife said that ‘nothing is possible without Jesus’. I let that go but my former neighbors wife was also Baptist and she said to me ‘If you do not believe in God then you have to have a strong belief in yourself’. I agree and going Godless is harder, mankind just seems to function better thinking there is always a watchful Father figure in the sky, removing mans worries and allowing each man to focus on things that can make a difference in his life.

I always liked evolution and biology but again this occurs in a universe that seems to allow it or was designed with the capacity. If you follow the science it explains how things unfolded, but only religion attempts to explain where things came from prior to the Big Bang science has no answer for that. Indian religion is cool because it seems to follow the Universal pattern, they have a word for the cycle of big-bang big collapse ( not too far off on the duration in years either ) and see it as a never ending cycle in which nothing from the current universe ever makes it into the next.

What is everyone doing in heaven I asked the neighbor preacher ? Must be a crowded place by now after all the Bible does not really define hell the way the flock does. He said it is like Earth only not f’d up.

We are optimized for running around on Earth so when we attempt to ponder the universe prior to big-bang, heaven, a timeless God etc - we just cannot really think in that realm.

Most people believe in God because as was said to me ‘I was raised that way’. Well they should do their own thinking and I have known horrible examples of people calling themselves Christians and I have known good ones but I always say I am open minded to both. Work is not the place to take a side on this issue or even discuss it.[/quote]
Ugh I felt compelled to reply, I really dislike the Freudian argument because it has nothing to do with whether a personal God exist or not and can easily be used by the theist to say that the atheist has daddy issues and vice versa and is just an argumentative point that goes nowhere between a discussion between believer and unbeliever.

The hindu conception of an eternally cyclic universe is absurd as it commits an infinite regress and yet even if such a thing did exist, is not an adequate response as to why such a universe exist in the first place not to mention that current scientific evidence shows that the universe will not experience a big crunch.

Certainly professing Christians should have a better answer than just “I was raised with it”, in fact the bible says in 1 Peter 3:15 “To always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who ask for the reason for the hope that you have but with meekness and respect.” The word answer here comes from apologia and means a substantive reasoned answer and not a weak sophomoric one and there are certainly Christians who take this very seriously.

Anyways what interests me most is why the deistic approach to God? Is it the problem of evil in the world that you think he has no purpose for his creation? Don’t be afraid to ask your neighbor some of the questions you have over dinner or a barbeque when your kids are playing together or something.

267

What makes it all very difficult is that so many don’t even know the definition of the word “atheist.” People in this thread are literally arguing with the dictionary.

I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t hide it. I also don’t draw attention to it. In recent memory the only time it’s been an issue was when I didn’t want to go to church with an ex…which led to a conversation about baptism and how to raise the kids, and suddenly I realized that my opinion didn’t count. I thought it was the ultimate compromise to raise kids to think for themselves and expose them to both sides, but…that didn’t go over well.

What’s more meaningful: morality provided by some external source, or morality arrived at through reason?It strikes me as odd that greater value is placed on doing charity in the name of God than on doing charity because it makes sense.

What we need isn’t more religion to tell us what to do. What we need is more reasoned arguments for morality.

268

[quote]wfifer wrote:<<< What we need is more reasoned arguments for morality. [/quote]Might as well include you now too. Forgetting even about morality directly for a minute. What is reason and why is it trustworthy? I started keeping copies of certain of my posts that I knew would end up saving me from typing them 40 more times.

269

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]

Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.

Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.

You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.

Circular reasoning is circular.

[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]

That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]

Oh please, your argument is rubbish.

[/quote]

(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.

270

[quote]orion wrote:
FYI, this argument is one that is used in Kants critique of pure reason and is one of the several where he makes a conclusive case for a case and then against it, showing that pure reason cannot be the only source of knowledge because it itself is flawed.

Not the God but, just that the universe in and of itself must have a cause.[/quote]

Kant preferred ontology, but if you look at his argument it more or less breaks down into cosmology using an ontological approach. What Kant’s biggest problem had to do with ‘existence as a predicate’. In the end, he saw this as a problem, (not sure why) but never could get around it.

271

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If you believe in good and bad, then you have a god of some sort. Good and bad are supernatural.[/quote]

Good and bad are words that we use to describe ideas in our–very natural–heads. Perhaps that’s all they are.

Or maybe not. I don’t know. No one does.[/quote]

“Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.”

This is the statement I was commenting on. If you think good and bad exist, you aren’t atheist.

I never said anything about whether they do or not, or whether you personally do. But believing in them is logically equivalent to believing in god.[/quote]

SMH is again correct - good and bad are words we use to describe ideas. I suppose if someone believes in an absolute Kantian type of good and bad then we can say we are in the realm of the supernatural. But few people, even religious ones, believe in such absolutes. Even a concept such as killing is not absolute. For instance, it is justifiable to kill someone in self-defense or in the defense of others. Although I suppose if you asked a Catholic priest about masturbation he would say that masturbation was always “bad.”[/quote]

The statement I commented on stated that most atheists believe that good and bad exist, noted by the use of the word “is”.

An idea does not exist. Believing they exist goes far beyond noting them as the abstract result of a chemical reaction in your brain.

And your thoughts about absolute morals are way off. Most people, including atheists, would agree that rape is always wrong. Murder out of jealousy is wrong. Murder for money is wrong. Est. That is not part of the fabric of the universe. Those are statements supernatural in nature.
[/quote]

Are ideas, emotions, attitudes, etc. natural or supernatural?[/quote]

none exist in the natural world. You tell me.[/quote]

Not correct. Ideas and emotions are the product of brain function. Various chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain combine to product emotions, ideas, and thoughts. A neurosurgeon can stimulate various parts of the brain with electrical impulses to make a patient see, hear, or experience things that aren’t there. But the experiences are very real to the patient. I don’t see anything supernatural about this. [/quote]

Key phrase: ‘product of’ meaning that those things may be a product of, but are not in themselves the objects in question. An electro-chemical reaction may produce and idea, but the reaction itself, is not the idea.

272

[quote]Raging_Teddy wrote:
My ex was a christian. After a year and a half, I decided to finally tell her I’m an atheist. She broke up with me on the spot.[/quote]

Year and a half? Sounds like an open and honest relationship…

273

[quote]wfifer wrote:
What makes it all very difficult is that so many don’t even know the definition of the word “atheist.” People in this thread are literally arguing with the dictionary.

I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t hide it. I also don’t draw attention to it. In recent memory the only time it’s been an issue was when I didn’t want to go to church with an ex…which led to a conversation about baptism and how to raise the kids, and suddenly I realized that my opinion didn’t count. I thought it was the ultimate compromise to raise kids to think for themselves and expose them to both sides, but…that didn’t go over well.

What’s more meaningful: morality provided by some external source, or morality arrived at through reason?It strikes me as odd that greater value is placed on doing charity in the name of God than on doing charity because it makes sense.

What we need isn’t more religion to tell us what to do. What we need is more reasoned arguments for morality. [/quote]

LOL! Raise kids to think for themselves? You truly can’t have children or you’d know how absurd that concept is. They by default try to make the world conform to them.

274

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Well, though she eventually did the right thing, she certainly didn’t handle the situation in a godly manner. Assuming your version is the truth. No offense, but how do we really know? [/quote]

There’s a ‘Godly way’ to dump someone?

275

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
FYI, this argument is one that is used in Kants critique of pure reason and is one of the several where he makes a conclusive case for a case and then against it, showing that pure reason cannot be the only source of knowledge because it itself is flawed.

Not the God but, just that the universe in and of itself must have a cause.[/quote]

Kant preferred ontology, but if you look at his argument it more or less breaks down into cosmology using an ontological approach. What Kant’s biggest problem had to do with ‘existence as a predicate’. In the end, he saw this as a problem, (not sure why) but never could get around it.[/quote]
You might already know this but the modal ontological argument removes existence as a predicate by fairly recent developments in modal logic compared to St. Anselm’s versions. If I remember correctly you said something about a Kantian ontology for the existence of God or something of that nature?

276

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]wfifer wrote:<<< What we need is more reasoned arguments for morality. [/quote]Might as well include you now too. Forgetting even about morality directly for a minute. What is reason and why is it trustworthy? I started keeping copies of certain of my posts that I knew would end up saving me from typing them 40 more times.
[/quote]

I actually answered that and erased it. Don’t know why. It’s not hard to see this stuff coming (and I’m sure you feel the same, albeit on the other side of the argument). It would’ve read like:

“At the end of the day, I have to trust my ability to reason. Without that I might as well stick my thumb up my ass and jump into the ocean.”

Even if you are a devout theist, you rely on reason to a certain extent. It literally defines our species. I always find it interesting that we rely on reason in all areas–just look at the world we’ve built–except when it comes up against belief. Suddenly it’s not valid anymore? I don’t get it. Science and reason are reliable until a dusty old book says otherwise? I’m not trying to be facetious, I just don’t understand how this system is conducive to progress for either side.

All I’m talking about is taking a common goal, say human well-being, and coming up with a set of rules–a morality–based on this goal. We can say things are good and bad relative to that goal without invoking the supernatural.

277

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
FYI, this argument is one that is used in Kants critique of pure reason and is one of the several where he makes a conclusive case for a case and then against it, showing that pure reason cannot be the only source of knowledge because it itself is flawed.

Not the God but, just that the universe in and of itself must have a cause.[/quote]

Kant preferred ontology, but if you look at his argument it more or less breaks down into cosmology using an ontological approach. What Kant’s biggest problem had to do with ‘existence as a predicate’. In the end, he saw this as a problem, (not sure why) but never could get around it.[/quote]
You might already know this but the modal ontological argument removes existence as a predicate by fairly recent developments in modal logic compared to St. Anselm’s versions. If I remember correctly you said something about a Kantian ontology for the existence of God or something of that nature?[/quote]

I wasn’t familiar with that flavor of the argument, but upon review it seems to be dealing with a ‘perfect being’. My biggest problem with ontology is it simply cannot make that leap from concept to reality. It can get really close, but you cannot get around the problem that you cannot tie the concept to actuality.
And honestly, perfection is so elusive, I cannot really conceive of perfection much less something that can posses such a quality.
I don’t mean to dis ontology. It certainly has a place, but that concept/ reality divide is troublesome. I do think it’s darn handy when tied together with cosmological forms. Tying the two together really fleshes Godly existence.
We do know existence ‘exists’. You cannot engage non-existence, so I don’t see the problem of presupposing existence. We may not know what ‘existence’ really is, but something exists, we do know that.

278

[quote]pat wrote:

LOL! Raise kids to think for themselves? You truly can’t have children or you’d know how absurd that concept is. They by default try to make the world conform to them. [/quote]

Sounds like you’re just a shitty parent. :slight_smile:

I was a very argumentative child. All I ever wanted was someone to give me a good reason other than, “because I said so.” I think there’s a lot of value in teaching kids from the start that we don’t have all the answers. And that when we do have answers, they have reasons, even if they don’t like those reasons (which I’m sure they don’t). I honestly don’t see them point in dogmatizing parenting. Can you look around and tell me most people are doing it right?

279

@wfifer:
You are way late to this discussion. You are naked and bleeding already and you don’t even know it. I’m gonna ask you the same thing I’ve been asking everybody. What do you know for certain and why? Forlife and I have been on this as of late. Please help me further demonstrate to the glory of God that EVERY SINGLE LAST thinking heathen (affectionately spoken) on this planet can have their epistemology reduced to the precise universally identical thing in short order. I hope thebodyguard sees this.

280

I’m agnostic. I don’t purport to know anything.

I’ve gone down the reductionist road. It’s not hard. You have to start with some assumption, some axiom. I’m sorry you’ve had this conversation, I have too.