What about us atheists? Where do we stand?

[dazzlingamy]

Me too please!!

Its hard when someone cannot accept your answer so contiues to tell you you're not explaining it properly. Manaja! haha

So fellow atheists, have you had trouble with religious people in the past due to your views? We did a few years back. A lady was going house to house reading bits out of the Bible. I politely told her I wasn't interested, but she persisted, I then told her I was agonostic and therefore was not interested in listening to her preach with the bible. The look on her face was priceless! Unfortunately over the next two months she would ring the doorbell all the time with various members of her church including a priest at one time (apparently we were living in sin) she then started leaving Bibles and bits of scribbled paper by our door. It wasn't until I found her dumping our mail on the ground to wedge a bible in our postbox that I went off a threatened to call the police and 'tell the church you've been victimising me' She went pale and has never approached the house again but when I see her when I'm going for my morning run she always makes the cross at me Some people!

 

[trevster2k]

Well, my grandparents used to call me a heathen, does that count?

 

[A_Wanderer]

has no right suggesting our views are incorrect.

Wrong, the right to tell people they are incorrect is a fundamental aspect of free speech. The right that protects those assumptions and assertions is the very same that allows me to attack the malicious expression of human nature that belief represents.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Again, I'm not questioning whether you can love and be happy without God. I know for a fact that you can lead a happy life without God. I'm asking you to logically explain to me why it matters in the grand scheme of things. Why do you feel you can judge others about their actions in a universe with no higher meaning? Your emotions and thoughts would make perfect sense in a scientific sense, but I'm asking you if they matter in any other sense.

But the nature of this debate is that the atheists are arguing that there is no other sense to it beyond a reducable materialistic one, all the way to subatomic particles government by a limited number of rules and constants. Atheism does not mean relativism, one can be very strong in the philisophical conviction of objective reality in a Godless world and also condemn violations of liberties, the rights and liberties are the protections of sentient organisms that we recieve and grant in engagements with eachother, their relative goodness is a concequence of logical consistency and adoption by individuals due to their favourable nature - not the threat of force.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I just noticed that I used government instead of governed, an FYM freudian slip

Anyhow heres a decent documentary that seems to paralell the points that have been made, I found it while looking for a good Dawkins quote on atheism.

The Root of all Evil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230

Virus of the Mind: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127

 

[fly so high!]

I'm not sure what i am to be honest.........I believe in evolution,nature and luck.........i believe in Ying and Yang. I don't believe there is a "heaven" or "hell" because i think Earth is both heaven and hell at times for all people (alot more for some parts of this world) that occupy this planet.
But i do believe a certain type of energy is responsible for all of it ....is it God?...don't know.......is it Satan?......don't know.
But i do remember a quote from
"The usual suspects"............ "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

 

[Liesje]

I know this will sound like a cop-out, but the fact that I believe in God grants me certain liberties as to skipping out on logic (I'm gonna get bashed for that), but only when it directly applies to God's miraculous work in this world, which I could never claim to explain.

It's not a cop-out. If you believe in God, you can't possibly "explain" him using human logic. It would be unreasonable and would be a very restricted concept of God.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Likewise the argument of design offers a very restricted explanation of the complexity of life, we can't just explain an improbable event with an even more improbable agent. Furthurmore any discussion about what matters has to be taken from the position that the Bible is not an inerrant collection of documents and the world does not contain supernatural events, it is not a resonable piece of evidence to the existence of a deity, in point of fact the absence of any evidence towards a deity should stop us from entertaining the concept in the first place, the argument of design really falls flat on it's face in light of what scientific investigation has yielded about the history of Earth and Life, it was not created or crafted and we can explain it's processes on the basis of what actually exists. No need for God, and I would venture furthur no want for God.

Perhaps one fo the most interesting aspects of faith is that the most brilliant mind can create the greatest justifications for their own beliefs regardless of evidence to the contrary. The argument about the neccessity of cause or greater purpose seems to be part of that, one persons fundamental proof cannot be violated from external perspective.

 

[Liesje]

Likewise the argument of design offers a very restricted explanation of the complexity of life, we can't just explain an improbable event with an even more improbable agent.

If my "complexity of life" you mean evolution of various species, there's nothing the Bible denying this. I've no trouble believing in a God and evolution. I've no trouble using logic for science, math, etc - human concepts. But using human logic to define God cheapens the concept of a God.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I fully recognise that people reconcile their faith with the real world as much as they can ~ to some it strengthens it but for others such compromise would falsify their worldview, although any influence of a creator acting through evolution with a guiding hand is totally unnecessary and there is no evidence for it.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

It's not a cop-out. If you believe in God, you can't possibly "explain" him using human logic. It would be unreasonable and would be a very restricted concept of God.

It's the superlative form of cop-outs, if there is one. It's an extremely transparent way of saying 'God doesn't exist and has no effect in this world.' It's so blatantly transparent is sickening. Whenever we question your God about things that make absolutely no sense and we run into wall after wall after wall, the Christians textbook response is, 'Do not even begin to try to understand God, he is far too complex, so shutup and do not question him!' It's just a very easy way for Christians to write off any criticism about the foundation of their faith. It's a cop-out.

 

[Liesje]

It's the superlative form of cop-outs, if there is one. It's an extremely transparent way of saying 'God doesn't exist and has no effect in this world.' It's so blatantly transparent is sickening. Whenever we question your God about things that make absolutely no sense and we run into wall after wall after wall, the Christians textbook response is, 'Do not even begin to try to understand God, he is far too complex, so shutup and do not question him!' It's just a very easy way for Christians to write off any criticism about the foundation of their faith. It's a cop-out.

Perhaps failing to see what's right in front of you because you can't explain it through human logic is also a cop-out? I don't think that way, but many do.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But then just to take that adopted line of thinking along I may ask what particular thing in front of me, since in the world all I have ever come across is matter and energy.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

And what's right in front of me?

 

[Liesje]

And what's right in front of me?

It's the million dollar question. If we're not seeing the same thing, than it makes sense we don't understand how the other defines it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What we see and often times feel is quantifable; that is objectively measureable. Any future understanding of the human mind will surely rattle the foundations of faith, almost as contentious as the genetic effects of race.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

It's the million dollar question. If we're not seeing the same thing, than it makes sense we don't understand how the other defines it.

Have you 'seen' god, in the very strict sensory definition of 'see'? Of course not. I'm adhering to Wanderer's post, every 'feeling' of God you have experienced is exclusively attributable to that of neurochemicals. I used to have what many people would define as 'feelings of God,' in my life, fortunately I was prudent enough to circumvent the explanation of 'God speaking to me,' I knew what was really happening in my mind.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

The greatest trick Christianty ever pulled is convincing the world that a lack of any evidence CAN be used to prove the existance of such beings.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Have you 'seen' god, in the very strict sensory definition of 'see'? Of course not. I'm adhering to Wanderer's post, every 'feeling' of God you have experienced is exclusively attributable to that of neurochemicals. I used to have what many people would define as 'feelings of God,' in my life, fortunately I was prudent enough to circumvent the explanation of 'God speaking to me,' I knew what was really happening in my mind.

I know I was asked to lay off this thread for a little while. Well, I've done that now, and I have something important to contribute in response to the above, so I'm going to.

Can you come up with an explanation for this true story of mine:

As I was driving northbound toward an intersection one evening, I received the following message. It was not an audible voice, yet it was a dictinct and clear command that came to my mind:

"Stop at the next interesection."

In my mind, I argued with the command saying "but the light is green".

The command was addended:

"Stop at the next interesection because that car is not going to stop."

I looked to my right, and the car approaching the intersection westbound was indeed stopping.

I argued in my mind, "Yes it is."

But still the command was persistent:

"Stop at the next interesection because that car is not going to stop."

So reluctantly, I obeyed, and stopped at a green light. The car traveling westbound stopped at its red light. However, a car that I had not seen, a blue Mustang traveling east did not stop - she blew her red light at a speed of at least 45 or 50 miles an hour. I would have been killed or seriously injured.

Can you explain this with any non-supernatural explanation?

 

[Irvine511]

I know I was asked to lay off this thread for a little while. Well, I've done that now, and I have something important to contribute in response to the above, so I'm going to.

Can you come up with an explanation for this true story of mine:

As I was driving northbound toward an intersection one evening, I received the following message. It was not an audible voice, yet it was a dictinct and clear command that came to my mind:

"Stop at the next interesection."

In my mind, I argued with the command saying "but the light is green".

The command was addended:

"Stop at the next interesection because that car is not going to stop."

I looked to my right, and the car approaching the intersection westbound was indeed stopping.

I argued in my mind, "Yes it is."

But still the command was persistent:

"Stop at the next interesection because that car is not going to stop."

So reluctantly, I obeyed, and stopped at a green light. The car traveling westbound stopped at its red light. However, a car that I had not seen, a blue Mustang traveling east did not stop - she blew her red light at a speed of at least 45 or 50 miles an hour. I would have been killed or seriously injured.

Can you explain this with any non-supernatural explanation?

i think Joseph Smith would agree with you: it was God talking directly to you in a manner similar to how God told Joseph Smith that he would be able to find buried gold and treasure through the use of a magic stone or by looking into a hat.

you cannot prove the existence of the supernatural without independent verification, and if only you heard the voice, it remains unable to be either verified or falsified.

but what matters is whether or not it was real to you.

 

[Greenlight]

Thinking about the original post it struck me that Tony Blair even though he's known for his religious faith has never to my knowledge used as an argument that the war in Iraq was partly justified because it was what his God would have wanted or he had a calling from God as Bush has purported happened to him. If he had done so he would probably have been completely hammered for it in the press here. One difference between England and America seems to be that England is largely a secular country now with only a very small number of people bothering to attend any Christian church (with the exception of Christmas Eve when some go for a drunken sing a long to carols after the pubs have shut!), whereas in America it seems from over here that a far higher percentage go to Christian churches on a regular basis, with some of these churches being quite extreme in their views. I'm sure if this isn't the case someone will put me right!
Was Bush then using the God calling card as a cynical attempt to try to appeal to his many voters who are Christians as they would immediately support any religious justification for the war, his other arguments for justfiying it having failed? Has this had any backlash in the States or did he receive support for it?
Sadly wars will always happen even if the world ever became totally secular but using the justification that a God supports such a war is to my mind completely abhorrent and just inflames the situation.
Given some of the dogmatic, implacable views expressed by some of Christians on this thread does anybody else find it ironic that the title of this forum is Free Your Mind?.
Thanks also in particular to Trevster2k for his posts. He's articulated a lot of my thoughts far better than I could.

 

[80sU2isBest]

you cannot prove the existence of the supernatural without independent verification, and if only you heard the voice, it remains unable to be either verified or falsified.

You're right; I can't prove it, and I wasn't attempting to. Someone said that the "feelings of God'God speaking"" could be explained away, so I responded by asking if he could explain away what happened to me.

but what matters is whether or not it was real to you.

It was real to me. It was real. I know it happened; I experienced those moments. That event was every bit as real as the fac that I am breathing at this moment.

 

[Irvine511]

It was real to me. It was real. I know it happened; I experienced those moments. That event was every bit as real as the fac that I am breathing at this moment.

and this is why i'm agnostic and not atheist.

if it was real to you, then it was real. if God is real to you, then God is real. i think independent verification of God as a requirement for existence of something that by definition is neither verifiable or falsifiable totally misses the question.

the absence of evidence of God isn't evidence of his absence, and vice versa.

so the best people can do is look within, and respect everyone else who looks within and finds different things.

 

[80sU2isBest]

so the best people can do is look within, and respect everyone else who looks within and finds different things.

Right, and I am respectful of athiests.

I don't agree with them, but I don't ridicule them.

 

[shart1780]

God can be real to one person and not real to another...?

 

[Irvine511]

God can be real to one person and not real to another...?

precisely.

 

[shart1780]

That's not possible.

 

[Irvine511]

That's not possible.

of course it's possible.

it basically says that objective proof of God is not just impossible, but it's irrelevant to the relevance of God for the individual.

unless the individual is bothered by the lack of objective proof.

 

[yolland]

Sorry amy, but there's not much more I can do to referee this. Some of what's happened since I last checked in is fine, some of it's not, but I can't hover over this waiting for the next not-fine exchange to close it.

Is there any type of decent accusation against this?

[/QUOTE]
Threats and accusations...methinks thou doth protest too much. Derailments and repeated refusals to cooperate with the thread starter's intent; the loud and clear messages from other participants that they were fed up with being hounded; and my own requests to respect both of the former is more like it. In the last several pages no fewer than 9 posters, including several religious folks, explicitly made or endorsed complaints (in several cases repeatedly) that the thread kept getting hijacked and/or that they had already answered the (interjected) line of questioning being posed over and over as best as they could and wanted to get back to the thread topic.

The two of you and A_W are all up for an exhaustive round of back-and-forth on the topic. Fine. Email each other and continue the discussion that way. I don't myself have a problem with this approach to debate and would be content to let it play out here, *if* it was clear to me that the majority in here wanted that *and* it was in line with the thread starter's intention. Neither is the case.

Like I said earlier, there is no such thing as a thread with a "Keep Out" sign, which makes it hard to be optimistic about the future of threads on this topic. Unfortunately some people on both sides, whether out of sincere ignorance or mere rhetorical device I can't tell, insist on presenting their questions and/or personal outlooks in the form of utterly absurd caricatures of how most people on the other side actually think and what they actually believe. That's the tinderbox right there. If you can't refrain from doing that, and others can't refrain from responding in kind, then every thread on this subject is going to turn into a mess.

It doesn't have to be this way. But a discussion that's come to people posting simply to say that they refuse to acknowledge another poster because they've had it with circular arguments is not a discussion worth continuing.