Why Atheism?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Psh. There is no yes or no answer. Some people will attempt to force their beliefs on others, whether they're religious or not.

[Nancy Allen``]

Of course, but I'm asking the people here. Does anyone here they have a right to persecute religion the way I had described?

[Samuel Dravis]

No, not like that. Criticism and rejection of actions based on those beliefs is entirely ok though.

 

4. I prefer a set objective of right and wrong, not something based on what feels good at the moment or an ethic which constantly experiences change. If you look at a naturalist view, even with the empathy/morality paradigm, things change, i.e. in a naturalist view, man has changed and developed over time. Our ability to reason has changed over time. Our ability to empathize has changed over time. If the level of empathy is tied to morality and empathy changes, then the level of morality changes. Among individuals--if their ability to empathize is different, and clearly there are individuals who have more empathy than others, how is a set level of morality maintained?

As I saw it from Spider's posts: empathy is 'how well a person can put themselves in another being's shoes'. This can change relative to the person, surely, but the underlying fact of exactly how much a person hurts, etc. does not change. Because of this, morality is not relative (I personally find relativism abhorrent as well). The only thing that is variable is people's ability to find the moral solution to a problem - and that's a problem with all moral systems, theistic ones included (see the row over Terry Schiavo for an example). However, if you make a determined effort to be moral, you can hardly be faulted for failing sometimes because of ignorance particularly if you're trying to learn to do better - which is what the empathic morality actively seeks.

 

There can be no sliding scale for evil, because if there is, then nothing can truly be condemned as evil--someone somewhere will always declare that x act is 'right for him' or 'right for that situation' and therefore not evil to him, even if it's the most reprehensible act to the majority of the rest of us.

Quite. I have little respect for that view.

[Jae Onasi]

I don't why I'm even bothering with this, since you only responded to one point in my previous arguments...

Because you are the eternal optimist, and also can forgive me for having an acute and rather serious attack of Life right about then. Man, am I glad that's over....

 

Neither can religion. The typical response I hear is 'God created it.' Whenever I ask 'where did God come from, then?' I have never heard anything other than 'God is infinite. He always existed.'

Hey, at least it's an answer, even if it's one that some don't like and is incomplete. I'd love to know how He did it. I suspect there's not enough room in all our brains to fully understand it, however.

We are finite beings. It's hard for us to conceptualize infinity. Heck, in the US it's hard for us to conceptualize anything longer than 0.3 seconds.

We're still learning how the eye sees something more complex than the orientation of 1 line, so the fact that we can't completely understand everything about God or the universe doesn't bug me. Something that ends does have to have a beginning. Something that does not end is not required to have a beginning--it is possible to be a self-existant, infinite being and not have an origin him/her/itself. God made the matter and the singularity that were needed for the Big Bang. It's more satisfying than saying it just appeared out of nothing.

 

Quite impossible. Both atheism and religion offer huge questions that cannot be sufficiently explained. In enough time, however, it's inevitable that the origin of the universe will be discovered. How long that'll take I can only guess, but far sooner than the origin of something I don't even think exists.

That's speculation--we don't know which will happen first, though it's unlikely either will happen in our lifetimes.

How God could even create the universe is another unanswered question. I've not seen any logical explanation for how there be a being with such tremendous power either.

I don't know how He did it, either. Do you think we'd even be able to understand it at this point? We don't even have particle and quantum physics anywhere near mastered yet.

 

I wouldn't mind. Biology isn't my specialty.

I'll see what I can do then.

Regardless of the improbability of life existing, it still happened.

Try taking all the atoms in the universe, mark 1 of them, and then pick that one out from a universe-size container the first time. For anything else except abiogenesis, we'd declare that impossible. For some reason with abiogenesis, that kind of statistic is accepted as possible, regardless of the ridiculously low probability.

Ah, the key difference. I don't factor my personal opinion into the existence of reality.

So you'd prefer I just said 'I was put here for a purpose.' I can live with that.

Atheism isn't intended to offer you any meanings, philosiphies, or hidden messages to put it bluntly. Just simple facts.

Simple hypotheses, not facts. Atheism is a philosophy in itself.

Personal opinion does not and should not factor into how one perceives reality. I could declare right now 'the sky is green!' and say that the evidence I had to support that was that I think it's green. Opinions, naturally, shouldn't count at all towards such an idea; if I looked outside and the sky was green, then that statement would obviously have merit.

And depending on the weather in the Midwest, the sky sometimes really _is_ green, in which case it's time to get to the basement before the tornado arrives, but meteorology is a different topic. And depending on how the color receptors work in your particular eyes, the sky could really be green to you. Perception is highly personal.

Religion, no offense inteded, is actually much more similar to that example than you might consider. There's no definite proof there's a God, but His followers feel He exists, so that's enough for them.

Pasteur 'felt' bacteria existed before people could actually see them under the microscope. Watson and Crick 'felt' DNA existed before we could actually see it with an electron microscope. We don't have adequate tools to 'see' God, but to be honest, would we not still have doubters even with all the physical evidence in the world staring them in the face?

 

What about laws? Those aren't inspired by religion, but they've done a far better job at enforcing order than any examples Christ has provided.

A good chunk of those laws are based on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Don't kill, don't steal....If we all followed the 'do unto others' philosophy, we wouldn't need half the laws we have. Further, the laws had to be broad enough to have relevence across cultures, countries, and millenia. 'Don't kill' is pretty easy to understand for pretty much everyone. It encompasses our arbitrary degrees of first degree murder, other types of homicides, manslaughter, etc., etc., etc. 'Don't commit vehicular manslaughter by driving a car while intoxicated' would only apply in cultures with cars and drunk drivers. 'Don't kill' would cover that specific law plus a great number of others. 'Don't steal' is broad enough to cover the laws of 'don't take your neighbor's chickens' all the way to 'don't steal people's money through internet phishing schemes,' and everything else in between.

That's a great question to ask an anarchist.

and doesn't answer my question.

What is it our earthly laws are for, then? If you rob someone's house, you obviously should have to give back what you've stolen and pay something additional. Common sense alone can tell you that.

Tell that to insurance veeps and former Enron executives. It apparently was/is common sense to take whatever they want at the expense of others, so long as they don't get caught.

Religion provides an indefinitely inferior set of laws. The Ten Commandments are far too vague to actually be applied to our reality; while they can serve as inspirations, it's impossible to say they can deal with specific instances.

The very thing you condemn as too vague is an advantage when you're talking about disseminating core values. Specific laws are just variations on a theme.

Religion provides far less in the way of that. Does it say anywhere in the Bible what the penalty should be for selling twelve pounds of cocaine? Or fifty pounds? It had some humane principles, but it's been left to man and not the supernatural to come up with crime and punishment.

Why does it need to? It provides the basic values that we then adapt to our specific problems.

The Bible is outdated in any event. You yourself have agreed on this.

I don't believe I used the term 'outdated'. The theology of Christ's sacrifice serving as atonement for sin superseding Judaic sacrificial Law is an entirely different thread, anyway.

 

 

There is no ban on prayer in public schools, moreover, I would be against such a ridiculous thing.

There was a ban on all prayer in our high school, including individual silent prayer. Granted this was a few years back....

How they were supposed to enforce that, I don't know. Like God is going to come down and plant the answers to the tests in someone's mind when they haven't studied anyway. Sigh....

 

I don't see why atheism would try to. Science seeks to, but science and atheism are hardly synonymous terms regardless of how many scientists are atheist.

Both theists and non-theists have to have some answer for first cause, in the case for non-theists, science is the tool used to attempt to find that answer. Which religion's version of genesis is correct is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

These people [end-times nutters] see no reason to leave a positive legacy or make decisions today that have value in posterity. Global warming, the price of oil, toxic waste, resource depletion, wetlands destruction, fiscal management in government, social programs designed to last decades, etc, etc. -none of these hold true meaning to believers in the end times mythology.

Then (since they are working in the Christian paradigm) they are ignoring the biblical imperative to be good stewards of this world and the very specific verses that state that no one knows when Christ is coming back. My very conservative brother-in-law and I were having a discussion on politics and he was disturbed about all the regulations on business. I pointed out to him that there won't be any business (or worship or anything else for that matter) if we allow companies to pollute our world too much for us to live in it. He had to concede that one. I'm very concerned about habitat destruction--we're running roughshod over various areas and we have absolutely no clue what impact it has on nature and its creatures. We're losing I don't know how many species of animals and plants with destruction of rain forests, and some of these plants could have tremendous pharmacological and other benefits that we're just ignoring, aside from the loss the world experiences when something goes extinct. There's a chemical that some poison dart frogs exude that has more potent pain-killing effects than morphine, but we're not going to have these frogs around very long if we destroy their habitat. I'd love to see more solar and wind power because it's far better on the environment, and I detest the fact that OPEC and the oil companies have us all by the throat.

 

And I need to get to bed for the night (or technically early am, if you like), because as interesting as this is, I'm still worn out and am falling asleep typing.

[Samuel Dravis]

Hey, at least it's an answer, even if it's one that some don't like and is incomplete. I'd love to know how He did it. I suspect there's not enough room in all our brains to fully understand it, however.

We are finite beings. It's hard for us to conceptualize infinity. Heck, in the US it's hard for us to conceptualize anything longer than 0.3 seconds.

We're still learning how the eye sees something more complex than the orientation of 1 line, so the fact that we can't completely understand everything about God or the universe doesn't bug me.

Then why would you assume God did it? Do you also assume that God makes the eye magically work (at least until we figure it out, if/when that time comes)? Because, of course, even though you don't understand something doesn't mean that it requires a supernatural explanation.

 

Why do things that just don't have an adequate explanation at the moment make you want to invent one? I really don't see how that helps anything.

 

Something that ends does have to have a beginning. Something that does not end is not required to have a beginning--it is possible to be a self-existant, infinite being and not have an origin him/her/itself. God made the matter and the singularity that were needed for the Big Bang. It's more satisfying than saying it just appeared out of nothing.

This is saying that you have no actual idea what happened, but it'd be nice to think that God did it. Do you honestly just believe that because it feels good?

 

That's speculation--we don't know which will happen first, though it's unlikely either will happen in our lifetimes.

True, there is no guarantee of anything being discovered. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

So you'd prefer I just said 'I was put here for a purpose.' I can live with that.

Clever, though this is exactly the thing that every single agnostic-atheist here has shown is irrational.

 

Simple hypotheses, not facts. Atheism is a philosophy in itself.

Only some types of atheism are philosophies. Agnostic-atheism is not; it says nothing about gods because there is no reason to believe in them. If there were such reasons, there wouldn't be any agnostic-atheists.

 

And depending on the weather in the Midwest, the sky sometimes really _is_ green, in which case it's time to get to the basement before the tornado arrives, but meteorology is a different topic. And depending on how the color receptors work in your particular eyes, the sky could really be green to you. Perception is highly personal.

And the wavelength is exactly the same for everyone. There's a problem when someone says one wavelength is another because it is his personal belief that that's the way it is.

 

Pasteur 'felt' bacteria existed before people could actually see them under the microscope. Watson and Crick 'felt' DNA existed before we could actually see it with an electron microscope. We don't have adequate tools to 'see' God, but to be honest, would we not still have doubters even with all the physical evidence in the world staring them in the face?

Interesting question. Some people claim that every single thing in the universe is "evidence" for a God. What sort of evidence do you mean?

 

A good chunk of those laws are based on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Don't kill, don't steal....If we all followed the 'do unto others' philosophy, we wouldn't need half the laws we have. Further, the laws had to be broad enough to have relevence across cultures, countries, and millenia. 'Don't kill' is pretty easy to understand for pretty much everyone. It encompasses our arbitrary degrees of first degree murder, other types of homicides, manslaughter, etc., etc., etc. 'Don't commit vehicular manslaughter by driving a car while intoxicated' would only apply in cultures with cars and drunk drivers. 'Don't kill' would cover that specific law plus a great number of others. 'Don't steal' is broad enough to cover the laws of 'don't take your neighbor's chickens' all the way to 'don't steal people's money through internet phishing schemes,' and everything else in between.

And all of those sentiments were around even earlier than the Jews, in the Babylonian's Code of Laws, India, Egypt, etc. I'm not sure how you mean that easily derived morals based on empathy and self-preservation are somehow based solely on the Judeo-Christian foundation. That's where they came to Europe and eventually the US, sure, but they didn't start with the Jews and they won't end with us.

 

What's funny is that the Golden Rule, the core of morality for practically every religion on earth, is based on empathy. Interesting.

 

Tell that to insurance veeps and former Enron executives. It apparently was/is common sense to take whatever they want at the expense of others, so long as they don't get caught.

Isn't it interesting how many of those guys might actually be classified as sociopaths? Maybe the job attracts people like that, those who have an incredibly low level of empathy (or perhaps none at all). Even Hewlett-Packard had an incident a few weeks ago where the CEO actually ordered wiretaps (not in so many words, but definitely meant) on someone, snooped on their dad, etc etc. Slightly atypical IMO.

 

There was a ban on all prayer in our high school, including individual silent prayer. Granted this was a few years back....

How they were supposed to enforce that, I don't know. Like God is going to come down and plant the answers to the tests in someone's mind when they haven't studied anyway. Sigh....

Bans on prayer are unconstitutional (and evil). Bans on faculty leading prayer are necessary.

 

Both theists and non-theists have to have some answer for first cause, in the case for non-theists, science is the tool used to attempt to find that answer. Which religion's version of genesis is correct is a whole other kettle of fish.

Have to have? I think you're mistaking your first cause argument. If it always existed, then there is no cause. Atheists, of course, would not say that because they don't know, which means that it may remain perpetually unanswered. So what? I'm not sure how that bothers anyone in particular. In fact, being unable to ever explain something is expected, because we are, as you said, limited beings...

[ET Warrior]

God made the matter and the singularity that were needed for the Big Bang. It's more satisfying than saying it just appeared out of nothing.

Wouldn't it be just as satisfying to say it always existed? If god is capable of infinite existence then why isn't the matter of the universe? Conservation of matter states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so why isn't it just as fair to assume that the matter and energy of the universe have always existed?

 

If you can't accept that the matter and energy always existed, how can you accept that god always existed? If one of them MUST have some kind of beginning than so must the other one.

 

I am under the assumption that some Atheists believe they have the right to persecute religion. Prove me wrong please.

And I am under the assumption that you're still mis-using the term persecute. That is, assuming you're saying that some atheists that post in THIS thread believe they have that right. If you're talking in generality, well then duh. SOME atheists probably DO believe that. Some religious people believe they have the right to murder innocent people for their deity. Some people are stupid. Some people are jerks. Just because there are SOME people who want to 'persecute' religion means nothing. I've noticed plenty of religious people who believe they have the right to persecute religions that aren't their own. I don't know what your point is.

[Windu Chi]

Neither can religion. The typical response I hear is 'God created it.' Whenever I ask 'where did God come from, then?' I have never heard anything other than 'God is infinite. He always existed.'

There maybe infinite Gods, infinite universes and infinite forms of reality.

I like to take the Quantum Mechanics approach; all possibilities happen.

It might be found, if it is ever found, that God or Gods always existed.

Quite impossible.

As I always say, Nothing is Impossible.

How God could even create the universe is another unanswered question. I've not seen any logical explanation for how there be a being with such tremendous power either.

Theorectical Physics maybe give the answer.

If the physical properties(if you can called it that) of these surpreme beings are infinite, then the jury is still out if we or any other civilization will be able to find evidence of these beings in a experiment.

But it maybe be the case that the mathematics and physics that our society uses probably can't explain the God or Gods of our universe if they are infinite.

I believe, if the God or Gods have greater energy content and have a greater information entropy value than the astrophysicists measure in our visable universe, then it is not hard for me to realize how the universe was created by whatever.

Also when the physics quantum entanglement become fully understood, It maybe be the case that our universe itself is a living entity because of the consciousness of all life that dwell in it.

 

 

Regardless of the improbability of life existing, it still happened. But again, the existence of a supreme being who can do anything is an even more improbable occurence than regular mortals like us. How can something with an infinite lifespan exist? How can this same being create planets on a whim? I doubt any scientist can give a rational explanation for how that's possible.

 

It maybe is no rational explanation.

If existence is infinite.

 

 

Atheism isn't intended to offer you any meanings, philosiphies, or hidden messages to put it bluntly. Just simple facts.

Atheists are too close-minded for me, those so called ''facts'' are greatly incomplete.

Atheists conclusion on the argument that God or Gods don't exist, is only base from perspective of EARTH.

There is more complexity to our universe and even more complexity to existence .

I can't form any conclusion, with high confidence on the argument of surpreme beings.

Because of the great complexity of existence, for anybody on this planet to say completely, that these surpreme beings don't exist with no consideration on that stance, are just plain arrogant.

[Nancy Allen``]

I am under the assumption that you're still mis-using the term persecute.

 

If you scrolled down a little you would have found this.

 

I think we all, me included, need to have it spelt out whether Atheists believe they have the right to persecute religion. Not discuss or debate, but out and out persecute religion. The way Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists persecute those who do not believe their blashemus Islamic fascism. Do Atheists believe they have a right to persecute religion in this way? Yes or no? I'm almost positive the answer is no but reading some of the posts I need confirmation.

 

Now when asked earlier in the thread whether Atheists had the right to persecute religion the reply was yes Atheists did. Now it's time to put your money where your mouth is, put up or shut up. Now that I've made it clear what I mean by persecute do Atheists, straight answer, believe they have the right to persecute as in Al Qaeda style, Nazi style, hell, American style persecution?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

If you condemn people simply on the basis that they don't think the way you do then you are a fanantic. That is what fananticism is, to condemn others simply on the basis that they do not think the way you do.

I've already supplied you with the dictionary definition of the word "fanatic", and no atheist in this thread remotely qualifies as a fanatic. You're just trying to be insulting.

 

Furthermore, as stated earlier, I doubt whether ANY atheist can legitimately be described as a "fanatic" on the topic of atheism, because atheism is based on critical thinking, and fanaticism is defined specifically as uncritical in nature.

 

Furthermore, no atheist has "persecuted" anyone in this thread, and no atheist has "condemned" anyone in this thread. It's pure fantasy and nonsense to suggest that they have.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

As for what I mean by accepting that others believe in religion, I mean...just that. Being able to accept that people choose to follow religion. That is doesn't matter whether or not people choose to delude themselves.

Of course it matters whether people choose to delude themselves or not. We've seen how people who delude themselves can adversely affect the course of human science, discovery, morality and thought.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Now when asked earlier in the thread whether Atheists had the right to persecute religion the reply was yes Atheists did

This is just an outright lie. No atheist has said "yes" to your irrelevant and ludicrous question in this thread.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by MasterRoss08:

You feel as though

your the ones getting attacked here about people in your oppinon trying to

force there beliefs on you. I can also say some people are forcing your

beliefs on others. With banning prayer in schools, even trying to get rid

of the pledge of aliegance etc.

What schools are you talking about here?

 

The only relevant organisations trying to force their beliefs onto impressionable schoolchildren at this time are the religious and fundamentalist political ones. Not atheists.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Here's where atheism loses me:

1. It cannot explain the origin of the universe.

Conversely, theism explains nothing. Religion makes up childish fantasies that claim to explain things, but since these fantasies are illogical nonsense, they explain nothing.

 

And frankly, you're confusing atheism with science. Atheism doesn't seek to fill the gaps religious delusions claim to fill. It is a LACK of delusion. Pure and simple.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

2. It cannot, in a satisfactory way, address abiogenesis in a manner that requires less faith than religion, i.e. it's so statistically improbable that theism is more probable.

Rank nonsense. Theism is always THE most improbable answer to the questions that arise from our study of the universe.

 

I am a caveman. I see a snowflake. It's complicated. Because my knowledge is limited, I then state "THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER DID IT!!!!111"

 

This is theism. It's abject, absolute, utter drivel. It's the king of all non-sequiturs: "If we don't understand it, skydaddy must have done it."

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

3. I prefer to think that I was put here for a purpose rather than think that I'm some cosmic accident--atheism does not offer me the same meaning in life. And before that gets jumped on with a vengeance, let me state that there are a zillion people who obviously find meaning in life outside theism. I just find it far more difficult in my case to do so.

Well then, the plain fact of the matter is that you want other HUMANS to tell you what your purpose is. Because when you read the bible it sure as heck isn't some skydaddy telling you what you're here for, it's a bunch of antique priests and churchmen.

 

I personally don't want to be told what the purpose of my life is by other humans who knew no more about the mysteries of the universe than I do. The really wise men in the world all say the same thing: Create your own purpose.

 

It's the only purpose there is to your life: Your purpose. If you allow others to dictate what your purpose is, then you're betraying yourself. It's your right to do so, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

4. I prefer a set objective of right and wrong, not something based on what feels good at the moment or an ethic which constantly experiences change. If you look at a naturalist view, even with the empathy/morality paradigm, things change

No they don't change. You obviously don't understand the basis for objective, logical empathy-based morality. Read the thread I recommended to you. It's fascinating.

 

Morality has evolved as a human concept totally independently of religion. Religion != morality.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Turns out I had the wrong atheist who was debating Zacharias--it was Bernard Leikind, not Dawkins. I suspect Leikind mentioned Dawkins which may be where I got that misconception. And why yes, I _had_ forgotten Dawkins doesn't do debates like that...

Dawkins may avoid debates with ravening creationist morons, but sadly for him he has engaged in such debates in the past, usually on news and current affairs programmes. I can point you towards them if you're genuinely interested.

 

Dawkins "wins" all the debates of course, because... well, his "opponent" really didn't have ANY logical arguments to present. Some of them try to shout Dawkins down, some of them try to sound reasonable... but they're all just peddlers of illogical nonsense.

 

So more of a win by default than anything else. Tragic.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Simple hypotheses, not facts. Atheism is a philosophy in itself.

You're wrong.

 

In so far as there CAN be "facts", atheism IS based upon them.

 

Fact 1: There is no logical argument to support the assertion that there is a god.

Fact 2: There is no tangible evidence that suggests that there is a god.

 

Therefore... atheism. QED.

[Mike Windu]

If you can't accept that the matter and energy always existed, how can you accept that god always existed? If one of them MUST have some kind of beginning than so must the other one.

 

 

Mike welcomes himself back into the fray. Been a while.

 

*thund'rous applause*

[Ray Jones]

Try taking all the atoms in the universe, mark 1 of them, and then pick that one out from a universe-size container the first time. For anything else except abiogenesis, we'd declare that impossible. For some reason with abiogenesis, that kind of statistic is accepted as possible, regardless of the ridiculously low probability.

Having seen only "our own" planet, can you surely say that this probability is really that low?

 

I'd love to see more solar and wind power because it's far better on the environment, and I detest the fact that OPEC and the oil companies have us all by the throat.

No, I'd hate to have more solar fields and wind power, as it clearly has an impact on the development of the climate. Wind power fields effect the near ground winds by taking much, much energy from them, which cannot be any good. Solar fields take a huge amount of the energy that would otherwise go into the earth. That cannot be any good, too. I highly doubt that wind and solar based energy will give proper future solution to our energy problem. Neither does "oil", though.

[SkinWalker]

Now when asked earlier in the thread whether Atheists had the right to persecute religion the reply was yes Atheists did. Now it's time to put your money where your mouth is, put up or shut up. Now that I've made it clear what I mean by persecute do Atheists, straight answer, believe they have the right to persecute as in Al Qaeda style, Nazi style, hell, American style persecution?

 

This is the sort of strawman I've no interest in. Sorry.

[Jae Onasi]

Not being an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to have a clue as to what atheism could offer you with regard to your "purpose" in life. But I would hardly hold that against you.

Which is why I asked the questions I did in the initial post. I wanted to learn how it's viewed outside the theistic paradigm, and from people who are actually living and dealing with these kinds of things. Texts can only go so far.

[igyman]

I can't believe I didn't see this thread earlier.

 

First of all, atheism, as I see it, is not something you believe in. It is a label invented by religious people of the late 18th century Europe that is used to designate people who do not believe in god.

 

When I chose to designate myself as an atheist, I considered that moment as a moment that made me more mature. An atheist, as people have mentioned before, believes in things that can be backed by real evidence. I personally believe in science. It's rational, it's realistic, it consists of proven facts and it's here to help mankind's progress.

 

Moral dilemmas - morality is not religion. Being moral means that you can distinguish proper and improper behavior, or rather socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior. As far as I know, sociology doesn't have anything to do with religion either.

 

Right and wrong - I think everybody is capable of distinguishing right from wrong, religion is not a requirement for that. Why some people choose to do wrong things instead of the right ones (by this I mean things like robbery, murder, drug dealing...) is a discussion for another thread.

If by this question you were referring to controversial topics like abortion, cloning, artificial insemination, vasectomy, etc. I base my views on them according to scientific facts.

 

Benefits - there is only one benefit and that's that you feel more mature, more serious, more evolved, if you will. There are no downsides, at least not for me. You mentioned something about supporting each other in times of need. I can do that without being religious, because it also has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with how good of a friend you are. For example, a friend of mine was in a really rough spot back in September. My friend didn't have a place to live, so he slept at the same place where he worked. He didn't have a place where he could wash up and do the laundry. He asked me if I could help him with that and I did. He would come over once a week to wash the laundry and take a shower. A few weeks later he found and rented an apartment. You'll probably ask why didn't I let him stay at my place until he found an apartment, the answer is because it isn't up to me. I still live with my dad and he's a rather... difficult man. My friend understood my situation and never asked for anything more than what I could do to help him.

 

What's so great about atheism? I already partially answered that question above, but besides feeling more mature, you actually become more mature. If you want something, you don't pray to get it, but you work hard in order to achieve your goal. You gain more self-confidence, believe more in yourself and your own abilities, instead of relying on some deity to help you through a rough spot.

[Nancy Allen``]

I've already supplied you with the dictionary definition of the word "fanatic", and no atheist in this thread remotely qualifies as a fanatic. You're just trying to be insulting.

 

I may as well ask this even though it'll probably cause more trouble than it's worth. Do you consider you have the right to be insulting while others don't?

 

This is just an outright lie. No atheist has said "yes" to your irrelevant and ludicrous question in this thread.

 

Actually there is, yours. Quotes below.

 

And as I said before, would it be such a bad thing if because of atheist logic, some religious person lost their delusion? A rational life is a moral life, it's a life that makes sense, it's a life with rational goals and purposes and the search for truth and right. It's a good life. And best of all, it's not a delusional life.

 

And what gives you the right to do that?

 

What gives me the moral right to speak rational truths? Why, that would be... the inviolable moral right (and responsibility) to speak rational truths.

 

There is another train of thought on the issue of Atheism. Tell me, as Atheists, how do you feel when people discuss religion? Does it bother you?

[igyman]

There is another train of thought on the issue of Atheism. Tell me, as Atheists, how do you feel when people discuss religion? Does it bother you?

It depends on the situation in which religion was mentioned. Of course it would bother me if those people were trying to impose their beliefs on me and call me all sorts of things for being an atheist. It bothers me when religious parents convince their still very young children to follow their religious beliefs. I think they should raise that child religious-free and let it make his/her own choice when he/she's mature enough (meaning puberty or end of puberty, most likely). It bothers me to hear politicians exclamate religion as very important during their political campaigns, but that's mostly because I hate politicians and I know that it's just a bunch of lies to gain political points with the people which is why I have a low opinion on them.

Otherwise, I can't think of any more particular situations when religion related discussions bother me.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by igyman:

What's so great about atheism? I already partially answered that question above, but besides feeling more mature, you actually become more mature. If you want something, you don't pray to get it, but you work hard in order to achieve your goal. You gain more self-confidence, believe more in yourself and your own abilities, instead relying on some deity to help you through a rough spot.

Quite correct. In essence, discarding delusions and becoming atheist is to take responsibility for your own life.

 

Religious people dodge responsibility for their own lives, dodge their responsibility for defining their own purpose in life and dodge responsibility for making their own moral judgements with reason and logic.

 

Which is not to say that atheism makes one perfect in these respects, but it certainly puts one on the right path, in a way that theism simply cannot do.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I may as well ask this even though it'll probably cause more trouble than it's worth. Do you consider you have the right to be insulting while others don't?

You're the only one who's insulting anyone else around here, Nancy. Mild insults, to be sure, but insults nonetheless. Calling people "Fanatics" specifically. An inaccurate label, not applicable, merely insulting.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Actually there is, yours. Quotes below.

Here you go with the random quotes again... Once again, these quotes don't show what you seem to think they show. Nowhere in those quotes do I answer "yes" to your ludicrous question as to whether certain people should be "persecuted". QED, you're wrong.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen`` :

There is another train of thought on the issue of Atheism. Tell me, as Atheists, how do you feel when people discuss religion? Does it bother you?

No discussion bothers me.

[Mace MacLeod]

Not at all. I am under the assumption that some Atheists believe they have the right to persecute religion. Prove me wrong please.

If the fact that not a single Atheist in this entire thread has suggested anything like persecuting people for their religious beliefs, then I don't know what you're expecting to see that might satisfy you. This "assumption" is defying all common sense and logic in its persistence as there is no substance whatsoever to your repeated claims of persecution. Your desire to make Atheists into nasty people trying to force you to recant your religion in order to justify your own attitude is obviously the problem here, not the Atheists themselves.

 

Nobody should face persecution for their religious beliefs or the lack thereof providing they do no harm to those who do not share their beliefs.

 

Reply to post impossible. Reason: arrogant and condescending tone too great.

Well, stop saying irrational and hysterical things, and I'll stop telling you to stop saying irrational and hysterical things.

[Nancy Allen``]

What about people believing and practicing religion. Do you, as Atheists, believe they have the right to do so?

[Samuel Dravis]

Insofar as they do no harm, then yes. You hardly have to be atheist to agree with that. It's called "freedom of religion," and it's a constitutional right in this country...

[Spider AL]

Nancy, your question has been answered several times by several atheists in this thread already. Please re-read the thread in its entirety to re-acquaint yourself with every atheist's opinions before asking any more repetitive, unoriginal, already-answered questions.

 

Answer again: People have the right to believe in whatever they want. But is delusional uncritical belief GOOD for them? No. Is it good for the state of the world? No. Is it beyond criticism? No.

[Nancy Allen``]

Would you say Atheism is beyond criticism?

[Spider AL]

NOTHING is above or beyond criticism, Nancy. People have the right to criticise EVERYTHING they want to criticise. That's part of how the truth is found, by people's criticisms being rationally evaluated.

 

And that's another question that you've asked before, and that has been answered before. Please follow my recommendation and re-read the thread. Chances are your NEXT question will also have already been answered.

[Emperor Devon]

Because you are the eternal optimist, and also can forgive me for having an acute and rather serious attack of Life right about then.

 

Depends on how serious it was... I don't like typing all this up for nothing.

 

Hey, at least it's an answer,

 

And an insufficient one. When I deal with questions like these, I look for complete ones. Otherwise, my side of the issue is the only one that can sufficiently explain why it knows it's correct.

 

I suspect there's not enough room in all our brains to fully understand it, however.

 

So you have no evidence or theories as to how God even came to exist in the first place, then?

 

We're still learning how the eye sees something more complex than the orientation of 1 line, so the fact that we can't completely understand everything about God or the universe doesn't bug me.

 

If we don't try to understand something, we never will. Can you name any research being conducted into the origins of God? I can't. The only reponse I've ever gotten to the question I asked you is 'we're not able to understand it.' Well, we never will be able to understand it if we don't try to. But is it impossible to attempt even that? If you can't even try to guess at how something came to exist, I would doubt it actually does.

 

It's more satisfying than saying it just appeared out of nothing.

 

Saying something appeared out of nothing seems much more rational to me than saying 'there is something which never even started, but exists.' If God is totally infinite, He would have no starting point, correct? How can you say that something exists if it never began? That's nothing but a giant contradiction.

 

That's speculation--we don't know which will happen first, though it's unlikely either will happen in our lifetimes.

 

It probably won't happen in our lifetimes. However, I think scientists will be able to explain how something could emerge out of nothing far better than they could explain how something which never began actually exists.

 

I don't know how He did it, either. Do you think we'd even be able to understand it at this point?

 

Example time: I can tell you that rain falls, for instance, because of a process involving precipitation. If you wanted me to go into a lecture about what every single quark does in the process, I couldn't tell you very much. However, mentioning precipitation would provide you with more depth and a better understanding than if I just said 'water falls out of the clouds'. Why can't this same concept be applied to God, then?

 

We don't even have particle and quantum physics anywhere near mastered yet.

 

Very true. However, we can still provide partial explanations. Again, why can't you do the same thing for God?

 

Try taking all the atoms in the universe, mark 1 of them, and then pick that one out from a universe-size container the first time. For anything else except abiogenesis, we'd declare that impossible.

 

However minute, it is still a possibility. Technically quintillions to one odds don't constitute as an impossibility, but a low probability.

 

I find low odds to be more believable than contradictions, though.

 

So you'd prefer I just said 'I was put here for a purpose.' I can live with that.

 

It probably sounds bleak, but mankind didn't come to exist because of a purpose. Not to say that we can't have on now that we do, though.

 

Simple hypotheses, not facts. Atheism is a philosophy in itself.

 

Samuel addressed this, so I won't bother echoing him.

 

And depending on the weather in the Midwest, the sky sometimes really _is_ green, {snip}

 

Discussing that was the intent of my example, and you probably realize it. Would you mind going back and addressing my main point?

 

Pasteur 'felt' bacteria existed before people could actually see them under the microscope. Watson and Crick 'felt' DNA existed before we could actually see it with an electron microscope.

 

They had a cause to believe in that, however. God does not.

 

We don't have adequate tools to 'see' God, but to be honest, would we not still have doubters even with all the physical evidence in the world staring them in the face?

 

Just a crazy minority. If there was proof God existed, I would believe in Him. However, when there is no proof of something, I seen no reason to consider it fact.

 

A good chunk of those laws are based on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Don't kill, don't steal....

 

The Ten Commandments were delivered to Moses, supposedly, after the Hebrews escaped from Egypt. I imagine you're aware that the Egyptians, by that point, had a system of laws?

 

and doesn't answer my question.

 

Your question can't be applied to anyone other than an anarchist. Laws don't exist to be open to individual levels of empathy.

 

Tell that to insurance veeps and former Enron executives. It apparently was/is common sense to take whatever they want at the expense of others, so long as they don't get caught.

 

Insurance isn't what I'm discussing here, which you probably realize.

 

The very thing you condemn as too vague is an advantage when you're talking about disseminating core values.

 

Laws and core values had existed long before the Ten Commandments. If God actually sent them down to us, He was really just reiterating what we'd already thought up.

 

Why does it need to? It provides the basic values that we then adapt to our specific problems.

 

In which case you have contradicted yourself. You condemn humanism for being up to interpretation, but so are the Ten Commndments. The specific instances would be left to the individuals.

 

I don't believe I used the term 'outdated'.

 

I thought you considered the concept of a wife being her husband's property outdated?

[Emperor Devon]

So is there a "debate" left? Hard to say. Was there ever a real debate on the cards, when one "side" can't agree on the necessity of logical argument?

 

Jae and I have been having one so far. There's been logic in most of her arguments.