Ask an Atheist

[CHRISTINE77]

Isn’t it true that you’re not an atheist so much as a nihilist?

Thank you! That is exactly what I thought. Freedom from what? The poster’s writings sound like life is Hell on earth. But then - Hell is the absence of God.

 

[hopefully_wild]

I chose my ID here from a (mangled by me) line in Ghost Busters. You remember the “Dogs and cats, living together!”, line spoken by Dr. Peter Venkman.

It seemed apropos to the “arguing” that happens here.

And you actually BELIEVE that?

It is “supposed” because I don’t believe in atheists, very much as you don’t believe in God.

If you operate according to your “ethics and morals”, your ethics must be from somewhere, and that “somewhere” is either congruency with the Church or contrarily to the Church, but in any case directly FROM the Church.

(( If you can provide me with some “atheistic ethic or moral” which didn’t come from, either positively or negative, from the Church, I’d like to hear about it. ))

My questions about your ID had to do with what it is that you hope for, as an atheist, and why you value “wildness”, as an atheist?

Ah, the moral atheist. This is another (exhausting) point that is frequently brought up. My parents like to use this one. I’m going to let someone else do some of the talking for me. This is a slice of the transcript from author Sam Harris at the 2007 Ideas Festival speaking on the topic of Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World. I think he does a really good job bringing up some really good points.

"It seems to me that religion gives people bad reasons to be good where good reasons are actually available. I mean ask yourself which is more moral; helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and defending the week out of a mere concern for their well being or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it? Clearly it is possible to teach our children to form such a concern and to grow in empathy and compassion with out lying to ourselves or to them about the nature of the universe, without pretending to know things we do not know. You can teach your children the golden rule as an utterly wise ethical precept without pretending to know that Jesus was born of a virgin. What about this notion that we get our morality from scripture? Clearly we don’t get our most basic moral impulses from scripture because these things can be seen emerging very very earlier. I mean toddlers 18 months old will spontaneously try to comfort somebody who looks upset. And a person clearly doesn’t learn that cruelty is wrong by reading the Bible or the Koran, because if you don’t already know that going in, you are just going to be confronted with endless celebrations of cruelty in these texts. I mean these books are just bursting with celebrations of cruelty both human and divine. The God of the Bible hates sodomy and will kill you for it, but he rather enjoys the occasional human sacrifice. I think at the very least we can say he doesn’t quite have his priorities straight. In the Old Testament, we witnessed the most immoral behavior imaginable. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, sexual slavery, the murder of children, kidnapping, all of it not only permitted by God but mandated by God."

All ethic morals did not come from the church. Did you really think that people were incapable of understanding the value of say, kindness, before the church ever existed? The church was NOT the first to realize this. Ethics have come from our experiences as human beings. You can even witness other animals acting ethically towards one another, and I guarantee you that they have no notion of God or the church.

My ID has nothing to do with my lack of religious beliefs. Can you tell me what my liking of a song has to do with the fact that I don’t believe in God? Because I certainly can not.

 

[hopefully_wild]

What does “live it” mean?

Why is that a good thing?

Live: to have life, as an organism; be alive; be capable of vital functions.

It isn’t. But it isn’t bad either. It just is. Kinda like two plus two equals four just is.

 

[hopefully_wild]

So, your writing isn’t to be taken seriously, even by yourself?

Why did you write it?

Why do you share it?

You did say you wanted questions, correct?

I didn’t say to not take it seriously. I said to not take it literally. There is a huge difference.

I wrote it because I thought it. So I wrote it down.

I already explained why it was posted.

Yes, but only ones that don’t seem made up on the spot simply for the sake of asking questions.

 

[hopefully_wild]

What is being presented in the 34-minute documentary does indeed meet the criteria of scientific evidence which is collaborated and explained by renowned scientists themselves and it certainly supports what I had contended in a prior post:

If you consider the incredible complexity of the DNA molecule… and then consider further the virtually unimaginable structural and functional intricacies of just a single living cell… you will then begin to understand why I say that there is a 99.99% chance (at the very least!) that a Creator does indeed exist for all of the creations that we see in this world and beyond.

Suppose that there are just 2 possibilities to choose from i.e. either that there is a Creator OR there is not → why on earth then should anyone in his right mind reject the former but would choose instead to believe the latter possibility that has merely a 0.01% chance (at the very most!) of being true?

Then I shall watch the video. But I’ll say again: complexity does NOT imply creation. It simply implies complexity. One does not follow the other, these are the simple rules of philosophical debate using a logical argument.

And this second bit IS, in fact, Pascal’s Wager. If you like I will give you this opportunity to maybe look it up and read up on it if you have not in the past.And if you still really want me to answer it I will. Just leave me a post. I’ll try and do a review of the video and an answer for Pascal’s Wager in one post.

 

[hopefully_wild]

Isn’t it true that you’re not an atheist so much as a nihilist?

Please don’t patronize.

I don’t believe in God.
Call me whatever you want.
I never really cared for the labels anyways. I mean, it’s not like we have a name for non astrologers or non alchemists…

 

[hopefully_wild]

hamba2han,

I have watched (most of) the video, and it seems that it’s only strategy is the teleological argument, or the argument from design.

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

But this argument is something refuted in any intro to philosophy class. Complexity DOES NOT imply design. This is non-sequitur logic. You assume that because natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, they therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only intelligent design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

 

[hamba2han]

hamba2han,

I have watched (most of) the video, and it seems that it’s only strategy is the teleological argument, or the argument from design.

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

But this argument is something refuted in any intro to philosophy class. Complexity DOES NOT imply design. This is non-sequitur logic. You assume that because natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, they therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only intelligent design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

Charles Darwin himself had a notion of the idea of ‘Irreducible Complexity’:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Since that was his own criteria in determining a falsification test for his ‘Theory of Evolution’, then I think that it is best for all seekers of the Truth to take him at his word.

In this matter, there are only two options that we need to decide on → 1. creationism is correct … OR … 2. evolution according to Darwinism is correct

We have to pick only one of the two because BOTH of these theories CANNOT be correct.

Since you are averse to believe in creationism, then how can you reconcile your belief in Darwinian evolution in light of what has been presented in the said documentary?

Are you saying here that the complexity and functionality of the bacteria flagellum and the human ear does NOT prove ‘Irreducible Complexity’ i.e. the very thing that Darwin himself has stated would disprove his theory of evolution?

If Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’ has indeed been proven to be wrong, then how do atheists explain the existence of life on Earth?.. What other beliefs do atheists cling on to apart from Darwinism?

 

[Highwayhound]

My young friend would you ever sacrifice your life for that of another?

 

[JMJ_coder]

This seems quite vague - almost to the point of being meaningless. Are you looking for ‘independently verified’ empirical evidence - a sort of measurement of God? Are you looking for God to suddenly appear in Times Square demanding homage or else!? Please try to be precise as to what evidence you are looking for.

God did come and reveal Himself to mankind. We have numerous documents testifying to His incarnation, passion and resurrection. The most authoritative have been compiled in a single work - the New Testament. There is also the Sacred Tradition.

As for a biblical type event, one of the most recent was at Fatima. There, on October 13, 1917, in the presence of approx. 70,000 people - including many atheists who were there for the expressed purpose of disproving everything - God made the sun dance and rain drenched clothes and ground to instantly dry. This has been testified to by all present - even the atheists.

 

[I_am_Me]

Hello Friend, I see and hear God so clearly. What would it take you Personally to know and believe that there was A God? Please forgive my bad spelling. Much love Deb

 

[xixxvmcm85]

have you heard of Pascal’s Wager ?

The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it begs the question “Which god?”

Certainly Yahweh is one God to choose from, but then there are hundreds of thousands of other gods such as Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Rev. Moon etc which means that choosing no god whatsoever carries about the same probability of being correct as devoting oneself to only one of the aforementioned deities.

As far as the appeal to DNA intricacies, I don’t think such is that good of an argument.

Spontaneous generation is possible, and if the specific DNA polymerases, ligases and other enzymes necessary for DNA replication are such entities spontaneously generated, then it is not such a huge leap to conclude (at least tentatively) that there really is nothing “irreducibly complex” about the DNA molecule (nor the cell for that matter) because it is these enzymes that bring about the sequential formation of a DNA polynucleotide.

I think appeals to the Big Bang are the best at defending the hypothesis that there is a creator. From whence came the “plasma” in the singularity that subsequently condensed into substantive matter upon the expansion of space-time?

Of course there is the hypothesized higgs-boson, yet this hypothesized particle has yet to be found, and even if it were to be found, it only pushes the proverbial goal posts back another yard.

Hence I believe in a creator. (This is at least my shot at logically concluding that there must be SOME KIND of deity out there).

PS: To the OP, sorry for temporarily high-jacking your thread.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Charles Darwin himself had a notion of the idea of ‘Irreducible Complexity’:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Since that was his own criteria in determining a falsification test for his ‘Theory of Evolution’, then I think that it is best for all seekers of the Truth to take him at his word.

In this matter, there are only two options that we need to decide on → 1. creationism is correct … OR … 2. evolution according to Darwinism is correct

We have to pick only one of the two because BOTH of these theories CANNOT be correct.

Since you are averse to believe in creationism, then how can you reconcile your belief in Darwinian evolution in light of what has been presented in the said documentary?

Are you saying here that the complexity and functionality of the bacteria flagellum and the human ear does NOT prove ‘Irreducible Complexity’ i.e. the very thing that Darwin himself has stated would disprove his theory of evolution?

If Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’ has indeed been proven to be wrong, then how do atheists explain the existence of life on Earth?.. What other beliefs do atheists cling on to apart from Darwinism?

The bacterial flagellum (see basal body of Type III secretory system) and the eyeball (see photo-sensitive cells of just about any invertebrate) have been demonstrated to not be irreducibly complex. Its smaller components can function fine, howbeit different functions.

The fact that these are not irreducibly complex, however, does not disprove God. It all depends really on the conclusion one wishes to come to in advance.

1. This demonstrates that organ systems are in no need of a creator.
2. This demonstrates that God really is omniscient as to know how evolution would unfold prior to any selection having taken place.

Take your pick of one of the two conclusions. Each carry about the same amount of weight in a scientific environment precisely because “God” is not a scientific phenomenon.

 

[jen_fla]

have you studied ontological arguments? do you think you have a solid understanding of them? most (including myself) would find them rather complex and daunting.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

you might enjoy reading through some of the threads in the philosophy forum. fascinating debates to be had … or enjoyed from the side lines like myself!

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion”. - Francis Bacon

 

[love4mary]

For me, I started thinking about “What IF I was wrong and there really IS a heaven and a hell” If I had a choice in directions, which would I choose?

Have you ever had this thought cross your mind at any time? even Once?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

For me, I started thinking about “What IF I was wrong and there really IS a heaven and a hell” If I had a choice in directions, which would I choose?

Have you ever had this thought cross your mind at any time? even Once?

It’s called “Pascal’s Wager” and is based on some very flimsy logic. Read post #71.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

"It seems to me that religion gives people bad reasons to be good where good reasons are actually available. I mean ask yourself which is more moral; helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and defending the week out of a mere concern for their well being or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it? Clearly it is possible to teach our children to form such a concern and to grow in empathy and compassion with out lying to ourselves or to them about the nature of the universe, without pretending to know things we do not know. You can teach your children the golden rule as an utterly wise ethical precept without pretending to know that Jesus was born of a virgin. What about this notion that we get our morality from scripture? Clearly we don’t get our most basic moral impulses from scripture because these things can be seen emerging very very earlier. I mean toddlers 18 months old will spontaneously try to comfort somebody who looks upset. And a person clearly doesn’t learn that cruelty is wrong by reading the Bible or the Koran, because if you don’t already know that going in, you are just going to be confronted with endless celebrations of cruelty in these texts. I mean these books are just bursting with celebrations of cruelty both human and divine. The God of the Bible hates sodomy and will kill you for it, but he rather enjoys the occasional human sacrifice. I think at the very least we can say he doesn’t quite have his priorities straight. In the Old Testament, we witnessed the most immoral behavior imaginable. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, sexual slavery, the murder of children, kidnapping, all of it not only permitted by God but mandated by God."

Break that up into it’s various propositions, or perhaps even put those propositions into question form, and we can deal with it piece by piece, and annihilate each part of it in sequence.

But, it’s your job to ask us questions, or make propositions, and not our job to read your “tracts”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

All ethic morals did not come from the church.

They all came from God, and the Church is where God communicates best to mankind.

It is quite possible for people without access to God via His Church to FIND the correct morals and ethics, and they do that by listening in humility to natural law as God has given them the capacity to do so.

Did you really think that people were incapable of understanding the value of say, kindness, before the church ever existed?

Of course people who have no access to the Church, which has *always *existed by the way, as “the Church” means those paying attention to God however they will do so", could/can know about “kindness”.

They do that by listening to God’s natural law, which all people everywhere and everywhen have access to.

The church was NOT the first to realize this.

I’m not suggesting that the Church was the first to REALIZE this, but rather that the Church (as the Body of Christ with Jesus [God] is the SOURCE of what is realized.

Ethics have come from our experiences as human beings. You can even witness other animals acting ethically towards one another, and I guarantee you that they have no notion of God or the church.

I’m not going to get into the “mechanical morals of the animals” here, although you might want to either start another thread of sub-thread to converse about that.

My ID has nothing to do with my lack of religious beliefs. Can you tell me what my liking of a song has to do with the fact that I don’t believe in God? Because I certainly can not.

I’m not saying your ID has anything to do with your so-called atheism, except that YOU chose it to be your “persona” (avatar) in a RELIGIOUS FORUM!

I’m only suggesting that your ID might be an interesting starting point to discuss your self-claimed atheism within the context of your willfully wanting to converse about religion in this forum.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
What does “live it” mean?

Why is that a good thing?

Live: to have life, as an organism; be alive; be capable of vital functions.

The question was “what does LIVE IT” mean, as you used that phrase in:
Originally Posted by hopefully wild
…I simply respond that the purpose of life is to live it.

What does one do to “live it”, or “live life”, and why do that as opposed to doing anything else?

It isn’t. But it isn’t bad either. It just is. Kinda like two plus two equals four just is.

The question was “Why is ‘living it’ [living life] a good thing?”

So, living life ISN’T an inherently good thing, even if it’s done in “the correct way”? (…where I’m assuming you think that living life as you do is a good thing and not a bad thing.)

You say, “living it” (living life) isn’t good or bad but “just is”.

So, why should we “live it” as opposed to not “living it”? Would you mind someone depriving you of your life, as it seems just as “valuable” to not have as to have, by your reconing?

 

[Hislittlelady]

hopefully wild
I THINK that on the most fundamental level, our purpose in life is to reproduce. That was our goal as amoebas, that was our goal as fish and that was our goal as apes. But as human beings our brains have evolved to such an unmanageable size that this purpose no longer suits us. We don’t want to think of ourselves as living with the sole purpose of procreation. Who would want to? So we attempt to come up with better reasons for why we should give a hoot, right? And there’s NOTHING wrong with this.

My Friend, I’m not much into scientific study, although it’s a wonderful thing, but I’m not educated in science other then the fundamentals.

Since I was young I’ve always known that each of us are born with a small measure of faith which was put there as we received the breath of life from our Creator. Now, unless this faith is fed, it will simply wither and die away. It will starve itself to death.

Faith means work. Without it, we would naturally be atheists. Even now, a firm believer that I am, I still at times fall down, and question what if there really is nothing after this life. What if it’s all a sham.This is when I sit in contemplation and think things through. Just by my reason alone, not even including faith, I can easily without doubt know that there is a Creator. We draw from the well within ourselves and we have our answer.

If you are not feeling this, then IMHO I would see it that you have totally closed your mind, your heart, and your entire being into even considering this to be a possibility. I don’t know you personally, and maybe you have studied all this and have given it much thought, I’m sure you have, but it would seem that you have shut yourself off to the possibilities of creation. Where there are possibilities, there could well be probabilities. I can’t even imagine what is so hard about believing and accepting that a Superior Intelligence or Creator made us. To my mind, how did I get here otherwise. Who made this amoeba anyway?

If you consider the possibility, then you cannot be called an atheist. I honestly don’t believe there is such a thing as an atheist. The word I prefer is agnostic, even though you deny this. To be an atheist, which I think isn’t even possible, one would have to be one hundred percent certain, which one cannot be. If you choose not to believe, that’s simply a choice but not a positive certainty.

You mentioned about being evolved from amoebas. I’ll be honest with you, but that is so far beyond what I can even fathom, that I don’t even have words for it. Science or no science, it is too unthinkable for me to imagine that a single organism, as small and microscopic as an amoeba, can evolve into a total human being. I’m certainly not a scientist or even proficient in science, but still I find it impossible to grasp that.

May I recommend a wonderful book I read. It’s called “My Descent into Death.” by Howard Storm. This man was an atheist most of his life and once you read his story, it will amaze you. I couldn’t put this book down. A true story and very powerful. Another one I’d recommend is “Fast Lane to Heaven” by Ned Dougherty. Another true story and some really awesome reading. I honestly think you might enjoy these books.

Once again I ask God, Our Almighty Father in Heaven, to bring His blessings upon you and to show you the light of heaven.