I am an atheist thread 2

[steve_b]

I had a decent definition offered to me recently. An historian (hobbyist) I know said that the word originally meant ’action based on belief’.

IMO that’s a great way to condense what St James said

James 2:

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

 

[Righteousone]

Steve b, why does it frustrate you so much to see someone who does not believe? A very large percentage of atheists and agnostics used to be believers, we’ve heard the stories, prayed the prayers, sang the hymns, went to church, have looked at the evidence, and have reached the conclusion that there is nothing there.

Matthew 5:22: whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Calling someone a fool is not the best way to convince them to listen to what you have to say.

Oh, I don’t need to be convinced. A Psalm is a Psalm. Steve did not throw the word fool in. And even if he could, it still stands. I feel sorry for your soul.

 

[Seshat]

Steve b, why does it frustrate you so much to see someone who does not believe? A very large percentage of atheists and agnostics used to be believers, we’ve heard the stories, prayed the prayers, sang the hymns, went to church, have looked at the evidence, and have reached the conclusion that there is nothing there.

Matthew 5:22: whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Calling someone a fool is not the best way to convince them to listen to what you have to say.

Oh, I don’t need to be convinced. A Psalm is a Psalm. Steve did not throw the word fool in. And even if he could, it still stands. I feel sorry for your soul.

I appreciate your concern, but I don’t think I have a soul. The “soul” is a religious construct, so…

Call me a “fool” if you wish, but I am willing to look at any evidence you have for the existence of your god despite knowing what you think of me.

 

[BlaineTog]

Let me try to understand…
God made this woman infertile then used the infertility to tease the woman into wanting a child even more, like waving a steak in front of a dog’s face, causing him to salivate and salivate, yet never giving him the steak. This god sounds cruel to me.

She could adopt. Or perhaps she’s infertile because having a child would cause her to become too attached to the child and prefer him to God, which is stupid and absurd in the extreme. Or perhaps she’s meant to find strength in her condition. Or perhaps she’s meant to give strength to others. Or perhaps her calling is to something other than childrearing. Or perhaps a child would really only make her unhappy.

*What if the husband contracted HIV *prior **to their marriage? Guess that means they’re not really married

Yes, it means they’re not married in the eyes of God. If I am a paraplegic, I can’t become an Olympic-class runner, I just can’t. Marriage is an event in which two people become one spiritually through the physical act of sex, literally through the act itself. If you can’t perform the act, then you can’t perform the act; that’s just a tautological truth.

EDIT: And guys, that psalm is horribly unuseful for converting people. It would be like trying to convert you to Atheism by saying “Anyone who believes in God is an idiot. --Dawkins 1:5” or whatever. It just doesn’t work. Nor are you necessarily interpreting the verse correctly; it says “in his heart,” not “in his mind” or “in his words,” so it very well might have nothing to do with Atheism as a belief whatsoever.

 

[Seshat]

EDIT: And guys, that psalm is horribly unuseful for converting people. It would be like trying to convert you to Atheism by saying “Anyone who believes in God is an idiot. --Dawkins 1:5” or whatever. It just doesn’t work. Nor are you necessarily interpreting the verse correctly; it says “in his heart,” not “in his mind” or “in his words,” so it very well might have nothing to do with Atheism as a belief whatsoever.

Thank you for that. I get that verse thrown at me all the time.

I hope that no one thinks I’m here to convert anyone. Discussion is my reason for being here. I think we can learn from each other. We probably have more in common than we realize. I may have concluded that there is no god, and you may have concluded that there is, but we can agree that there are believe systems on this planet that are poisonous, such as radical islam, or the Phelps clan (Westboro Baptist Church, the people who go around protesting soldiers’ funerals).

Even if we disagree about something, we can still have a civil discourse - and who knows we all might learn something.

 

[Pax]

Do you have verification of those statements from anywhere other than an anti-choice website?

Are you damning the source, the data, or both?

 

[Pax]

You can go here for some more info: bdfund.org/OGSReview.pdf

 

[_A]

Nope!!! Pretending that you have an answer by plopping singularity into a theory and say SEE NO GOD, isn’t science.

Where has science claimed there was no god? Which scientists?
I was under the impression that those making a positive claim had the burden of proof on them. (at least if they want to be believed)

 

[_A]

2 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2272.htm 96%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

Notice the second entry above.

I guess I qualify for being excommunicated, but I doubt anyone in the church will actually do anything about it.
If Hitler wasn’t excommunicated for all the lives he ended, I will have to support a LOT of abortions before the see will take notice.

I think I am safe.

 

[_A]

Well, to be fair to A,

Thanks for that. You seem better equipped to answer Mirdath than I am.

 

[Pax]

I guess I qualify for being excommunicated, but I doubt anyone in the church will actually do anything about it.
If Hitler wasn’t excommunicated for all the lives he ended, I will have to support a LOT of abortions before the see will take notice.

I think I am safe.

Hitler did not need to be excommunicated…he was not a practicing Catholic and had left the faith long before he started his political career and murderous escapades.

 

[_A]

Abortion harms women in a number of ways:

–elevated risk of death from all causes (especially suicide),

What utter nonsense ! Elevated risk of death from ALL causes? So an elevated risk of death from clandestine abortion, or an elevated risk of suicide because someone is forcing her to make a baby when she has other desires?
Read your post again.

–more depression
–more substance abuse
–more delivery problems in later pregnancies
–more divorces
–more breast cancer

I liked that you named a source, but look at the name of the URL. Do you think they are an unbiased agency, or someone who thinks it is a poor choice, then collects evidence supporting their opinion?

Abortion is not a good.

So you have already decided that it is ‘not good’. I think this shows that you have no room for learning different.

 

[Pax]

What utter nonsense ! Elevated risk of death from ALL causes? So an elevated risk of death from clandestine abortion, or an elevated risk of suicide because someone is forcing her to make a baby when she has other desires?
Read your post again.

I liked that you named a source, but look at the name of the URL. Do you think they are an unbiased agency, or someone who thinks it is a poor choice, then collects evidence supporting their opinion?So you have already decided that it is ‘not good’. I think this shows that you have no room for learning different.

I think the problems you are pointing out apply more to you than me. You just dismissed something as nonsense. Do you have an open mind?

Do you really think that I have just arbitrarily decided that abortion is not good? The fact that I have reached a conclusion about abortion does not mean that I have no room for learning. It could be that my willingness to learn has brought me to that conclusion.

 

[cgirl4ever]

I think it is all too obvious that faith itself is real.
http://www.wayofthemind.org/images/noreligion.jpg
What I want to know is how do the faithful tell the difference between a real personal experience of Yahweh, and an hallucination.
Are the men who flew planes into these two towers ‘blessed’? They certainly believed (as is evidenced by the price they paid). They likely have ‘not yet seen’.

See it is said that the men who flew the plane into the towers where Islam extremist. Their religion does not teach that it is okay to do what they did. I have never heard anyone say that they were blessed by God. They are not beleived by most to be martyrs

 

[_A]

So let me get this straight: even if the fetus were a human being, and even if abortion were murder, you would still support the woman’s right to abort her baby? Pushed further, you would say she was morally justified in doing so as well?

Absolutely. If she does not want to give life to a new person, by her own body, then how does anyone justify imposing their will on her freedom?
I don’t mind if the fetuses are aborted carefully, then raised in test tubes (or have the fertilized embryo’s placed in willing wombs).

See, when you say things like this, it proves that you don’t really understand the pro-life position, and given how much time we’ve spent trying to explain it, it has to be purposeful.

The pro-life position ignores the fact that they are forcing a woman to incubate against her will.

I have no such responsibility. People in this country are starved for children to adopt. We’re going over to China to get them because there aren’t enough here.

There are PLENTY of children here which will not be adopted. Many because they have some disability (such as FASD).

Someone would adopt the child. And if they didn’t the government (read: our tax dollars) would be responsible for them.

I wonder if you have been in a government funded ‘foster home’? I have. It was a terrible place. I hope you never have to reside in one.

No, it’s a fetus even if it’s just in a test tube.

So if we just put all aborted fetuses in test tubes, can’t your god save the ones he wishes?

Whoa there, we haven’t even gotten to the law of gravity yet! That’s at least a dozen steps away. We’re still on the senses. What other than sense data can you provide to show that sense data is accurate with respect to the outside world?

Only that this ‘internet’ thingy works because many scientists and technologists are either seeing the world as it really is, or it is all happening in my mind. I choose not to believe the latter, as it has no utility for me.

What part of “I don’t want to get into a historical debate” got garbled by the digital demons? I don’t want to argue about history any more than I want to argue about pork futures, the most recent romance novels release by the New York publishers, or multivariable calculus.

You seem to be a solipsist, so why not just imagine that I am giving the responses you would like. It makes no difference (to a solipsist’s world-view).

First, this is a thread about atheism, so if anything, the burden of proof lies with you.

I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t profess a belief, but a lack of belief. If you think I should believe your stories about your god, then I would say that it is up to you to build a case. I am glad to answer questions so that people can understand atheists (or at least me) better, but I haven’t got the time to refute all of the gods which have been invented. There are too many, and even old Yahweh (far from the oldest god) has no definition that all will accept.

Second, “burden of proof” is a conceit dreamed up for use in scored debates and has absolutely no place in a discussion whose purpose is to discover the truth.

So I can assert anything I like without offering proof? That’s just like theism.
I prefer a more rigorous approach.

Why should it be up to me to prove that something is right and to you to prove that something is wrong?

It isn’t, but if you make a positive assertion, and I find that there is no evidence backing it up, that will affect my opinion of your veracity.

 

[Pax]

…

I liked that you named a source, but look at the name of the URL. Do you think they are an unbiased agency, or someone who thinks it is a poor choice, then collects evidence supporting their opinion?
…

Why should you be upset that a pro-life group picked up on scientific studies that show the negative outcomes of abortion? It would be one thing if the pro-life group ran the studies themselves and injected a bias, but that is not the case.

The data and studies are not generated by pro-life sources. That is one of the things that increases the reliability of the pro-life position and for looking at the issue objectively.

 

[_A]

Sorry for jumping between two concepts, but i was asking about binary code, not genetic code. I was asking if a Windows operating system can possibly be created without the aid of any intelligent human being. Are you claiming that such a complex series of zeros and ones can be created in the exact order required for the operating system to function?

I mean, lets say you and i were to write a computer program together to randomly generate a random number of zeros and ones. After this random generation occurred, if we were to feed the resulting series of zeros and ones into a computer processor, would we get anything that resembled a Windows Vista Ultimate desktop and a fully-functional operating system? I don’t see how it would be possible to get anything but a garbled and meaningless mess. As programmers at my work tell me, “Garbage in = garbage out.”

Here are the system requirements for Windows Vista Ultimate, according to Microsoft:

• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 GB of system memory
• 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
• Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
• WDDM Driver
• 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
• Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
• 32 bits per pixel
• DVD-ROM drive
• Audio Output
  microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

Notice the minimum hard drive space required for the operating system files is 15 gigabytes. You or i can go to this Web site to calculate exactly how many ones and zeros this is:

beesky.com/newsite/bit_byte.htm

There are eight bits in one byte and 16,106,127,360 bytes in 15 gigabytes, so the number of bits would be 128,849,018,880. That is, there are more than one hundred billion ones and zeros in a new installation of Windows Vista Ultimate. The odds that our computer might randomly generate merely the correct number of bits is at best:

1 in 128,849,018,880Now, what are the odds that all of these ones and zeros would be arranged in the exact order necessary to create a working Windows Vista Ultimate operating system? There are billions and billions of numbers here, which would mean an astronomically large number of possible arrangements of ones and zeros. Even if we were to start running our computer program at the moment of the Big Bang and kept it running to this day, there would not be enough time to get the binary code for the operating system right.

To me, the obvious conclusion is this: To believe it is possible for random chance over time to create the binary code for a Windows operating system is absurd in the extreme.

Do you see my point?



(BTW, if you are interested in reading some rudimentary info on binary code, check out this site: computer.howstuffworks.com/bytes.htm.)

I do, but I don’t think that *only * intelligent beings could create such a complex code. A far more complex code is used in biology (hence the DNA reference), and there was no signs of intelligence creating that.

 

[_A]

No need to apologize. I’m amazed you are able to keep all the conversations you are having in this one discussion thread straight in your mind! You are doing a fine job.



If you need to slow down and wait longer before responding to me questions, write down the post number and respond when you are able. There is no rush.

Thanks, S4J, I might do that (or something like it).

 

[_A]

Yes, and you do not need to take the time to breach this subject just yet. First, i think, you or i should decide whether it is probable that useful and complex binary code can be generated without any intelligent programming. Once we decide this, we can see if this conclusion of ours has any relevance to the complex genetic code of living creatures.

(bolded by me for emphasis)
The probability, in my experience, is quite small.

 

[_A]

IMO that’s a great way to condense what St James said

I think that is because the theist/historian that I asked went to the origins of the word as it was used in the original texts, and gave me THAT definition, which I think is better than someone else’s interpretation of a later translation.
I don’t know all the facts, but his definition has the benefit of being succinct AND clear.