Ask an Atheist

[Allnamesused]

David Koresh brainwashed those in Waco. The Apostles were definitely not brainwashed. Your portrayal of Catholicism as a cult is idiotic - and been tried before - and failed at every attempt. Catholicism is the only true faith - revelation, history, and reason all attest to this.

Interesting. History, and reason are the very reasons I’m not a Catholic.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Interesting. History, and reason are the very reasons I’m not a Catholic.

Well, try reading some more history - as Cardinal Newmann said - to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[reen12]

The proponents of Darwinian evolution just cannot say that the smaller components of the bacterial flagellum and human organs such as the ear and the eye can function fine on their own without providing actual scientific evidence of this.

For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum:

Scientists have known about the flagellum for some time. However, its structural details, which have only emerged over the last decade or so, have come as a great surprise to them. It has been discovered that the flagellum moves by means of a very complicated “organic motor,” and not by a simple vibratory mechanism as was earlier believed. This propeller-like engine is constructed on the same mechanical principles as an electric motor. There are two main parts to it: a moving part (the “rotor”) and a stationary one (the “stator”).

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

harunyahya.com/images_books/images_refuted/275.jpg
An electric motor-but not one in a household appliance or vehicle. This one is in a bacterium. Thanks to this motor, bacteria have been able to move those organs known as “flagella” and thus swim in water.This was discovered in the 1970s, and astounded the world of science, because this “irreducibly complex” organ, made up of some 240 distinct proteins, cannot be explained by chance mechanisms as Darwin had proposed.
(click on image to read more)

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution’s assertion of “step by step development.” In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum although a few tried to do so.

The bacterial flagellum is clear evidence that even in supposedly “primitive” creatures there is an extraordinary design. As humanity learns more about the details, it becomes increasingly obvious that the organisms considered to be the simplest by the scientists of nineteenth century, including Darwin, are in fact just as complex as any others.

The proponents of Darwinian evolution therefore need to refute the truth of the sound scientific evidence presented above by providing equally sound scientific evidence of their own that the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.

In the event that they are unable to do this, then they MUST concede that the bacterial flagellum has come into existence by being created and NOT evolved.

Bingo!

Who needs to make an ‘argument’ for a Creator?
And why bother? Deity is not open to empirics.
Religious belief is a series of assertions,
which are, in turn, based on the testimony of others -
20 centuries ago, or 35 centuries ago.

Intelligent Design bespeaks a creator, and tells
us that the Creator has a sense of beauty.
Yet that’s all that Intelligent Design may say,
within the canons of logic. It cannot speak to
the notion of a personal deity - simply a Creator.
An incarnate deity is even further out of the question,
*via *the canons of logic. That is a matter of faith.

reen12

 

[jen_fla]

I would appreciate your assitence in this matter. I would prefer to be listed as an agnostic or a deist.
thanks.

click on PROFILE near top of page towards the left.

then under control panel click on EDIT PROFILE.

scroll and retype your religion. pm me if you have further trouble.

 

[Ronald_E]

Bingo!

Who needs to make an ‘argument’ for a Creator?
And why bother? Deity is not open to empirics.
Religious belief is a series of assertions,
which are, in turn, based on the testimony of others -
20 centuries ago, or 35 centuries ago.

Intelligent Design bespeaks a creator, and tells
us that the Creator has a sense of beauty.
Yet that’s all that Intelligent Design may say,
within the canons of logic. It cannot speak to
the notion of a personal deity - simply a Creator.
An incarnate deity is even further out of the question,
*via *the canons of logic. That is a matter of faith.

reen12

I love discussions like this. When I was studying eastern philosophy and psychology for 30 years I always returned to reading Krishnamurti’s writings about discovering truth. He basically stated that when there is no division between the observer and the observed then truth will be revealed. If we believe that there is no personal deity then there is none for us. If we believe there is a personal deity then the deity in that belief system is a reflection of the limitations of that person’s belief system. When Buddha reached a point of losing attachment to all beliefs and had no attachment to the vulnerabilities of being human he became aware that at the source of all creation, as best as he could describe it, is love. His words could not begin to give expression to the word love that he used to attempt to explain his experience.
Intelligence seems to discover an order to apparent chaos. Mathematics seems to be the language that best attempts to define infinity but is still infinitely limited. It seems to give us glimpses to infinity. How does intelligence evolve from what is originally inorganic? How does self-awareness evolve from nothingness?
How do we become incarnate from nothingness? What I am attempting to point out is the prospect that we cannot exist if we are not possible in the first place. We cannot love if love is not in existence in the first place. We are expressions of what has always existed. That is my assertion.

 

[Shredderbeam]

hamba2han:

The proponents of Darwinian evolution just cannot say that the smaller components of the bacterial flagellum and human organs such as the ear and the eye can function fine on their own without providing actual scientific evidence of this.

For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum:

Scientists have known about the flagellum for some time. However, its structural details, which have only emerged over the last decade or so, have come as a great surprise to them. It has been discovered that the flagellum moves by means of a very complicated “organic motor,” and not by a simple vibratory mechanism as was earlier believed. This propeller-like engine is constructed on the same mechanical principles as an electric motor. There are two main parts to it: a moving part (the “rotor”) and a stationary one (the “stator”).

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

harunyahya.com/images_books/images_refuted/275.jpg
An electric motor-but not one in a household appliance or vehicle. This one is in a bacterium. Thanks to this motor, bacteria have been able to move those organs known as “flagella” and thus swim in water.This was discovered in the 1970s, and astounded the world of science, because this “irreducibly complex” organ, made up of some 240 distinct proteins, cannot be explained by chance mechanisms as Darwin had proposed.
(click on image to read more)

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution’s assertion of “step by step development.” In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum although a few tried to do so.

The bacterial flagellum is clear evidence that even in supposedly “primitive” creatures there is an extraordinary design. As humanity learns more about the details, it becomes increasingly obvious that the organisms considered to be the simplest by the scientists of nineteenth century, including Darwin, are in fact just as complex as any others.

The proponents of Darwinian evolution therefore need to refute the truth of the sound scientific evidence presented above by providing equally sound scientific evidence of their own that the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.

In the event that they are unable to do this, then they MUST concede that the bacterial flagellum has come into existence by being created and NOT evolved.

Argument ad ignoratum.

Also, that same motor with the whip-part removed is now an effective poison injector, used in the Bubonic plague bacteria.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Mathematics seems to be the language that best attempts to define infinity but is still infinitely limited. It seems to give us glimpses to infinity.

Ah, infinity.

Infinity is a pointer toward God, but if infinity isn’t seen as a pointer toward God but rather as a means of “side-stepping” coming to a conclusion as regards truth, then infinity is the very sign of evil proliferating.

By the first part I mean that when one sees infinity one should immediately think, “This is where we are to ‘collapse’ our theorizing and listen to revelation and conclude that God is the ‘ground’ of this particular ‘problem’”.

By the second part I mean that those who use a found infinity as an excuse to “become a relativist agnostic”, which means “I’m not obligated to come to even a provisional conclusion about this ‘problem’ as the found ‘infinity’ answers the question of the ‘problem’ well enough for now”, which allows relativism to reign which allows immorality to rule which is all that evil needs to proliferate as best it can.

:shamrock2:

 

[hopefully_wild]

Atheism is a belief, agnotism is not.

And as for anyone who chooses to follow a belief, the real question would be:

Why do you WANT to be an atheist?

It is NOT a choice. I cannot choose to believe in something. That just isn’t possible. Try it for yourself. Choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Now do you REALLY believe in her now that you’ve chosen to? It is not a choice. I never WANTED to be an atheist, I just am what I am.

 

[hopefully_wild]

Poor fellow.

“Beliefs are not choices.”

He has no idea his religion is a belief in non-belief, as well as the belief in his choice to believe in non-choice.

Poor fellow.

This is no atheist. This is a complete automatonic nihilist, “saving” himself from both free will and any faith [verb] in one fell swoop!

Fascinating.

:shamrock2:

You, my friend are rude and inconsiderate. I wonder what Jesus would do? It was my understanding that God and Jesus said not to judge people… maybe we’re not familiar with the same guys.

 

[JMJ_coder]

It was my understanding that God and Jesus said not to judge people… maybe we’re not familiar with the same guys.

Nope, you are wrong. We are not to condemn anyone - but we must make moral judgments.

 

[JMJ_coder]

It is NOT a choice. I cannot choose to believe in something. That just isn’t possible. Try it for yourself. Choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Now do you REALLY believe in her now that you’ve chosen to? It is not a choice. I never WANTED to be an atheist, I just am what I am.

You seem to think that believing is about feelings and emotions - it is not. One can believe without understanding or ‘feeling’ like it - you must make an assent of the will.

 

[Lance]

hopefully wild,
A while back I suggested that you read some of C. S. Lewis’ writtings and you said that you would. In the mean time I thought I would post a few of his quotes to give you a flavor of what to expect. I really think you will enjoy reading him.

1. A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.
2. A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.
3. Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.
4. Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
5. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
6. I gave in, and admitted that God was God.
7. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
8. The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is.
   When you do get a chance to read The Screwtape Letters send me a PM and let me know what you think. Thanks.

 

[sambos671]

It is NOT a choice. I cannot choose to believe in something. That just isn’t possible. Try it for yourself. Choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Now do you REALLY believe in her now that you’ve chosen to? It is not a choice. I never WANTED to be an atheist, I just am what I am.

What do you believe in? I’m still curious. I don’t think people are just born athiest. They become Atheist over time for reasons. I’m not saying they were theist and then became Atheist but what I am saying is that as a default position a human being is ambivilent towards any system of belief and advances towards a system as they experience life and are influenced by others. An Athiest is one for reasons. However, people in order to deal with their environment and interact with people develop systems with which to do so. They order their thoughts towards reality in a way they can comprehend what they are seeing or experiencing (or create a filter to view reality with) thus they have beliefs about a slew of issues but that is how humans are. So what are your beliefs? Do you believe in fairness or justice? if so why? A dog dosen’t care about fairness they just act instintively. In fact, all the animal kingdom is that way save for mankind. Why should we develop these consepts?

 

[Shredderbeam]

sambos671:

What do you believe in? I’m still curious. I don’t think people are just born athiest. They become Atheist over time for reasons. I’m not saying they were theist and then became Atheist but what I am saying is that as a default position a human being is ambivilent towards any system of belief and advances towards a system as they experience life and are influenced by others. An Athiest is one for reasons. However, people in order to deal with their environment and interact with people develop systems with which to do so. They order their thoughts towards reality in a way they can comprehend what they are seeing or experiencing (or create a filter to view reality with) thus they have beliefs about a slew of issues but that is how humans are. So what are your beliefs? Do you believe in fairness or justice? if so why? A dog dosen’t care about fairness they just act instintively. In fact, all the animal kingdom is that way save for mankind. Why should we develop these consepts?

People are born as atheists - at least, weak atheists, in the sense that they lack belief in a deity. I was born as a weak atheist towards everything - God, Santa Claus, unicorns, etc.

 

[sambos671]

People are born as atheists - at least, weak atheists, in the sense that they lack belief in a deity. I was born as a weak atheist towards everything - God, Santa Claus, unicorns, etc.

People are born ambivolent towards a deity or not a deity. Its only latter that they move in either direction. You were not a weak atheist. You were ambivolent towards any idea of those things you mention.

 

[hamba2han]

It is NOT a choice. I cannot choose to believe in something. That just isn’t possible. Try it for yourself. Choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Now do you REALLY believe in her now that you’ve chosen to? It is not a choice. I never WANTED to be an atheist, I just am what I am.

I did reply to your post in a prior post.

BTW, being an atheist is rather similar to being a vegetarian.

Nobody is born a vegetarian and we just need to examine the inside of a child’s mouth to see that he or she has grown different teeth designed for both meat and vegetable consumption.

Human beings are born omnivorous and this shows in our teeth which are distinctly different to that of a herbivorous animal like a cow or to that of a carnivorous animal like a tiger.

It is therefore simply not natural for someone to be a vegetarian and this means that one has to actually WANT and to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian.

The same applies to being an atheist → Just like every human baby is born with a natural desire to seek it’s mother’s milk, every creation is born with an inate desire to seek and to come closer to it’s Creator.

Therefore, one has to actually WANT and to CHOOSE to become an atheist because there is really nothing ‘natural’ about it at all.

 

[Shredderbeam]

sambos671:

People are born ambivolent towards a deity or not a deity. Its only latter that they move in either direction. You were not a weak atheist. You were ambivolent towards any idea of those things you mention.

Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God. Clearly, I could not have been a strong atheist - I hope we agree there.

Weak atheism is an absence of belief in God. As a baby, I did not believe in God - that belief was absent. Thus, I was a weak atheist.

 

[Ronald_E]

It is NOT a choice. I cannot choose to believe in something. That just isn’t possible. Try it for yourself. Choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Now do you REALLY believe in her now that you’ve chosen to? It is not a choice. I never WANTED to be an atheist, I just am what I am.

I love what I see in your name. When I was young that would describe me.
PLUS. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. They who say you must make an ascent of your will have no idea what they are talking about.
Will cannot know God. Only love and humility can truly know God. GOD IS LOVE.
I did not choose to return to catholicism after 40 years away. I was looking for love in all the wrong places. I wish I had written that. We have no will that is worthwhile unless we have love that matures the will. Without love working through the will we have a hardness and rigidity of theology which divides and is ugly.
My return was through God’s Love and those who are given this mystery of Grace are required to be loving so we show the light that draws those who do not know God to God.
I returned because of the mystery of God’s love being given to me. I DID NOT BELIEVE NOR RETURN BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD ME TO HAVE AN ASCENT OF WILL. WHERE HAVE ALL THE MYSTICS GONE IN OUR FAITH?
They have been pushed aside by the extroverts who tell us what to do instead of showing Love that has no boundries.
I LEFT OUR FAITH BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF THOSE IN CHARGE. I RETURNED BECAUSE OF GOD’S LOVE. I WILL NOT LET THEIR HARD HEARTS INFLUENCE ME TO LEAVE AGAIN.
WHERE ARE THE MYSTICS?
HAS ANYONE SEEN JP II?

 

[Ronald_E]

Nope, you are wrong. We are not to condemn anyone - but we must make moral judgments.

If you do not love you cannot make moral judgements. Love nurtures wisdom and wisdom is described as feminine. Therefore I believe that Hopefully Wild knows more about love and therefore has more wisdom than you. I am assuming that Hopefully is a woman.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If you do not love you cannot make moral judgements. Love nurtures wisdom and wisdom is described as feminine. Therefore I believe that Hopefully Wild knows more about love and therefore has more wisdom than you. I am assuming that Hopefully is a woman.

Are you actually saying that women are by gender more capable of love than men? Are you serious?!