I am an atheist

[_A]

In all fairness to Catholicism, there are many others here who can do a much better job explaining than I can. An apologetic I am not.

I’m very new and I’m sure at times not a very good representative.

I’m flawed…Catholicism isn’t, imo.

Nevermind - disregard that last. I was being a jerk, just trying to tell ‘z’ that she was speaking for mormons (I have no reason to think that she speaks for them). I thought if she did think she was speaking for mormons for a moment, she may have been more careful in her words. ‘Z’ speaks only for herself, and what she says can only reflect on her, just as what I say does not reflect on atheists, just on me.
I am sorry, to ‘z’ and the other readers. That was not contributing anything.
Let’s please move on.

 

[_A]

Hi A,

Does love exist? If so, what does it look like?

I can’t say.
I certainly don’t ‘believe in it’.
What does it look like? Well, I think we would have to define just what it is, and go from there. If you could define which physical characteristics are always indicitave of ‘love’, we could start there. Please make sure that the characteristics that you use can not be faked…humans quite often fake things for various reasons.
When you get back to me, we will begin.
This is exciting ! This touches on one of the biggest questions humans have ever asked. Please handle it carefully and diligently. We could really make a new discovery here. If we are diligent enough about it, we can share our discoveries with more people.

 

[notself]

Hi A,

Does love exist? If so, what does it look like?

Certainly the effect on the brain of Loving Kindness meditation exists.

Research at the University of Wisconsin.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43006-2005Jan2.html

Research at Harvard University on insight (vipassana) meditation.

news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/01/23-meditation.html

 

[AliciaCL]

Atheist, you seem to like to engage debate as you describe it. I would say that you are actually just exercising your ego. I’m not trying to insult you. This is what former atheists say of themselves, that they were caught up in their own assurance of their belief or non-belief (however you wish to characterize it). You probably would like to win over some people to your side or to cause us to doubt our faith. Whatever. A lot of the discussion doesn’t really appear to be an exchange as much as a battle. Your aren’t convicing to the others, and they aren’t convicting to you. I don’t know if others are gaining much at all.

I am indeed curious about your atheism, nevertheless. If you are not an agnostic, then you must be totally convinced that your view point is truth. Of course, this means you reject religions. WHAT SPECIFICALLY HAS PERSUADED YOU TO BELIEVE WITH FINALITY THAT THERE IS NO GOD? And saying that many bad things have been done in the name of God doesn’t challenge the possible reality (from your point of view) that Christianity, for example might still be true.

 

[_A]

Atheist, you seem to like to engage debate as you describe it. I would say that you are actually just exercising your ego. I’m not trying to insult you. This is what former atheists say of themselves, that they were caught up in their own assurance of their belief or non-belief (however you wish to characterize it). You probably would like to win over some people to your side or to cause us to doubt our faith. Whatever. A lot of the discussion doesn’t really appear to be an exchange as much as a battle. Your aren’t convicing to the others, and they aren’t convicting to you. I don’t know if others are gaining much at all.

I am indeed curious about your atheism, nevertheless. If you are not an agnostic, then you must be totally convinced that your view point is truth. Of course, this means you reject religions. WHAT SPECIFICALLY HAS PERSUADED YOU TO BELIEVE WITH FINALITY THAT THERE IS NO GOD? And saying that many bad things have been done in the name of God doesn’t challenge the possible reality (from your point of view) that Christianity, for example might still be true.

Any descriptions I have heard for god are either ludicrous or not descriptions at all. I could be wrong, if so, you will describe your god here for us. If you say non-statements like ‘god is love’, just nevermind…I could as easily say (and defend) that I am love. This is what makes it a non-description for me. If you actually do have a real description that will stand up to scrutiny, then we look for evidence to support or refute your theory.
I never said that I am certain that there is no god. I just think that the smart money is betting the other way. I wouldn’t, for instance, hope for a better world after I die, because that might make this world less enjoyable.
I also wont *pretend *that I believe until I do. I have heard that suggestion a few times, too. That would be lying. I wont lie over something so important.

By the way, as far as those former atheists you mentioned. Ask them what evidence made them change their minds. I think you will have a tough time being sure that they didn’t just hallucinate all their evidence.

You know, maybe I just haven’t had a believable enough hallucination yet.

 

[AliciaCL]

Your aren’t certain that there is no God? Then I think you are agnostic, i.e., someone who doesn’t know whether there is or isn’t a God.

It’s only my opinion, but, if your agnostic, I think it imposes a kind of duty to keep searching, keep trying to find out if there is some reason to believe. Otherwise, isn’t there a basic unfairness if pontificating and criticizing others’ beliefs. If you understand very basic theology, you already know that one cannot logically prove the existence of God, nor the nonexistence of God. Yet people have strong reasons to believe. Wouldn’t you agree that it would be a good idea to at least investigate why other people believe? Knocking down religious belief statements like you’re in a shooting gallery isn’t real consideration of a belief system. Your waiting for evidence sounds like, there’s no iron clad proof, so I guess I’ll defer to not believing in God. That isn’t atheism.

At this forum, people are instantly offended at some of your comments because they are heartfelt Catholic believers. They naturally want to defend their beliefs. I take offense myself when people criticize Catholics because it’s usually due to ignorance. They do not mean to demean you personally. They do mean to convince you that you are wrong on the concept of atheism – out of good intentions toward you, believe it or not.

It isn’t incumbent on me to find evidence or reasons for you. I think you have already admitted that you don’t know for sure that there isn’t a God. If you think you have no responsibility to make further inquiry, I’d like to know why you think that’s OK. If you don’t know for sure, shouldn’t you try to learn more so that you can satisfy yourself and/or be more persuasive to others?

P.S. If you are a real atheist, I’d like to know what you think was the origin of the universe. If it was just always there, doesn’t something reasonably have to have preceded it? Isn’t it an illogical syllogism to just conclude it must always have been there?**

 

[_A]

Your aren’t certain that there is no God? Then I think you are agnostic, i.e., someone who doesn’t know whether there is or isn’t a God.

Nope. Every single clear description of a god that I have looked into is one that I don’t believe. I don’t think that makes me an agnostic. You who have a god, but have as yet found no evidence for her (or him) are agnostic. I have some knowledge, so the term doesn’t fit. I am an atheist. I have been offered the same info that is available to any catholic, and I still have seen no reason to believe. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Should you hedge a little ‘in case’ he really exists? How about the easter bunny?

It’s only my opinion, but, if your agnostic, I think it imposes a kind of duty to keep searching, keep trying to find out if there is some reason to believe.

I have been reading here, and on other forums for quite awhile. Don’t you think I have been trying to understand? I would settle for understanding why some others believe, but most everyone says the same - a personal experience not appreciably different than an hallucination.

Otherwise, isn’t there a basic unfairness if pontificating and criticizing others’ beliefs.

I don’t mind all of you being critical of my lack of belief - many continue to say that I believe when clearly the burden of proof is on the one making extraordinary claims. I don’t believe. If you believe that there is an all-powerful being who is closely interested in your sexual habits, I would say that it is up to you to convince me that you are serious. If you want me to believe along with you, you will have to go even further.

If you understand very basic theology, you already know that one cannot logically prove the existence of God, nor the nonexistence of God.

No, but there is an overwhelming pile of evidence which shows that the bible is full of mistakes and outright hate. It takes very little research at all to dispense with that particular set of lies. Even the most devout among christians select which parts to believe and which to ignore.

Yet people have strong reasons to believe.**Nope, they have the same weak reasons…lack of evidence coupled with an hallucination.
AliciaCL;3039073:

Wouldn’t you agree that it would be a good idea to at least investigate why other people believe?

I have been. Would you like to investigate why so many people do not believe? I can recommend a few sites…

Knocking down religious belief statements like you’re in a shooting gallery isn’t real consideration of a belief system. Your waiting for evidence sounds like, there’s no iron clad proof, so I guess I’ll defer to not believing in God. That isn’t atheism.

I do not believe. Call it what you like, I say it is the evidence which has brought me here.
Did you see the link I posted earlier to the article where the bishop tries to defend his position on not letting a 12 year old rape victim have an abortion? Why not have a look at one of your church leaders in action, and see for yourself why many look at the church with disdain.

 

[Pax]

While I could not at the moment hazard a guess about astrophysics, there is something that can be done about that. While I am not an astrophysicist, I can very well begin studies in that area so that I can partially understand arguments from one. …
…
It is shades of gray, not black and white - this is key to my understanding and is incredibly important and obvious in my point of view, (as you state the opposite is to you).

Well said, and I would tend to agree with this, but that is not the problem that bother me. Please combine astrophysics and every other topic you can think of into the knowledge base. The Supreme Being has a knowledge of all of this along with all of the other things we do not know about. This includes knowing what is in each human heart and mind. We only know a few things and can only learn about a few things within the grand scheme of all things. That must always be kept in mind when it comes to God’s decisions vs our perceptions of them.

That having been said, I think that we can still intelligently discuss what concerns you and maybe even reconcile your difficulties. There will probably be some limits to this but I think it is worth the exercise. And as I said, I think we can go fairly far without getting too concerned about what we do not know about God’s decisions. We can certainly discuss what we do know.

I do have problems with Isaiah, but agree to move on to get to more important issues.

I don’t think I expressed a problem with god’s sovereignty in the past, only abuse of that power. And where you keep stating allegory, you realize that when I say it I am including literary nuances, spiritual, cultural, etc, right?

If you have concerns about Isaiah then express them. I see no reason to move on to Noah if there are things left unanswered in Isaiah. If you feel it would be non-productive to do so then that is fine, but I do not understand why. If you want to talk about the abuse of power in Isaiah then I’m up for it. It’s up to you. I think I get what you’re saying about defining allegory and I can easily live with that.

I am concerned that we are headed in the same direction as the last bunch of posts. You see the issue that we can not know or understand god as a central premise - however, an ideal discussion would have basic premises agreed on first. In our earlier posts, not agreeing on this premise has brought it forth several times.

I think you protest too much. Let’s relax and just go for it. This is only a central premise in so far as I believe that we need to recognize our limitations and therefore the limitations of our understanding. This is not to suggest that we can’t have some understanding or any meaningful understanding. On the contrary…we can understand some things, but that does not mean that everything can be understood. Even science which you hold in high esteem fails to answer a multitude of questions. Most scientists recognize the limits of science. They know that there is a lot more out there that comes into play within the scientific realm and they would dearly love to know all of it in order to understand everything. The fact is they know very little and many will admit it. That’s why they keep studying stuff and building better gizmos to test stuff.

Which views are you trying to not compromise? That you say god can not be judged/understood? Besides not agreeing on premises yet, there is an additional problem with the flood, if I understand that you think it was a real, global, not local, event. There are severe scientific problems with this. So anyways, I think in order to be on the same page, we’d have to agree on the premises first, and then agree on the science surrounding it, before we can productively discuss the deluge. This is no small feat. Is there another portion in the Bible that you can think of that would be more productive to discuss? We’d still have to come to an agreement on the premise though for us to begin to get anywhere. I am having a lot of trouble thinking of how best we can use this discussion time.
Thanks to you as well, I am hopeful we can

The deluge could be global or local. For purposes of our discussion I’m not so sure it matters. Christians have differences of opinion on the dimension of the flood. I do not believe that the Church has made any definitive statements concerning whether it was global or local. In any event, the questions that you are asking would remain the same. It would simply be a difference in scale. If I understand your view correctly, it wouldn’t matter if it were a hundred or a million that perished. If it were an “abuse of power” than you would have “essentially” the same issue regardless of scale. If not please correct me.

 

[Pax]

To me, there is no difference between your plastic jesus and any other idol. For me to accept your argument about you god being the one true god and theirs not being true, I would have to have accepted one or the other - I have not. We are still at square one, I am afraid. Offer some evidence that your god is greater than someone elses, and I will happily examine it. Until then, you will have to use a level playing field with the pagans, scientologists, mormons and many other god-worshippers.
You try to seperate your god from all the others. I understand your need to do this, but have as yet seen no significant difference. Offer your evidence or deal with them all equally.
Maybe it’s the ‘idol’ word that created this problem for me. I would put the cross, the bible, the crucifix and perhaps to a certain extent even the churches and vatican city in the same class as a carved wooden idol. If they are different, maybe you can show me how.

Early in my posts I offered you the historical Jesus and what was witnessed by those that were martyred for what they knew to be true. They attested to all that is proclaimed by Jesus and what is proclaimed about Jesus in the gospels. The numerous people that were martyred would not have done so for a lie.

Your reply to Jesus miracles was to point out that Mohammed rode a magical winged flying horse. I then asked you how many people witnessed this miracle. You did not answer. I will ask you the same question again along with another one. How many people were willing to die testifying to this event involving Mohammed?

 

[_A]

Early in my posts I offered you the historical Jesus and what was witnessed by those that were martyred for what they knew to be true. They attested to all that is proclaimed by Jesus and what is proclaimed about Jesus in the gospels. The numerous people that were martyred would not have done so for a lie.

So the men who flew airplanes in to the building a few years ago were also not martyring themselves for a lie. They were doing it for a faith that is in contradiction of yours. If your martyrs can’t be wrong, and theirs can’t also, then we are frozen again. Maybe there is something wrong with taking the words of a man to be fact without assessing the mans faculties.

Your reply to Jesus miracles was to point out that Mohammed rode a magical winged flying horse. I then asked you how many people witnessed this miracle. You did not answer. I will ask you the same question again along with another one. How many people were willing to die testifying to this event involving Mohammed?

All the men who flew planes into buildings on that fateful September morning. All those before and since who have strapped explosives to themselves to blow up infidels. Do you think they had doubts? I think they believed just as firmly as the people who you are mentioning now. Does that make them right? It does so far according to your reasoning.
Or have I got you wrong? Were you going to say that those people who believed might have been *wrong *about what they witnessed, too? People hallucinate all the time - that is no reason to believe in a god. The claims made for him are preposterous, add to that the level of evidence (zilch) and a few eyewitness reports, and you have a David Blaine special. Not a reason to believe, but only reason enough to be entertained.

 

[Pax]

The radicals that flew the planes into the towers were not eye witnesses to anything. They were people that came along quite some time after the historical events occured. There is a huge difference here. Moreover, they committed suicide and murder. They flew the planes.

If I or another Christian were to be martyred today it would be different from these radical Islamists that hit the towers. We would be murdered by others for our faith. We would not be committing suicide and murder.

If I or another Christian were to be martyred today, I would be dying for something that I believed by faith. I would not be dying for something that I witnessed as fact and absolutely knew to be true by having seen the miracles and life of Jesus right in front of me. My martyrdom would not be quite the same as that of the early Church martyrs that saw and knew Jesus when he walked the earth.

 

[Armor_of_God]

I can’t say.
I certainly don’t ‘believe in it’.
What does it look like? Well, I think we would have to define just what it is, and go from there. If you could define which physical characteristics are always indicitave of ‘love’, we could start there. Please make sure that the characteristics that you use can not be faked…humans quite often fake things for various reasons.
When you get back to me, we will begin.
This is exciting ! This touches on one of the biggest questions humans have ever asked. Please handle it carefully and diligently. We could really make a new discovery here. If we are diligent enough about it, we can share our discoveries with more people.

Would you be willing to agree that there are some aspects of love (however you perceive it) that do not appear to have a tangible character to them?

 

[Pax]

A

So it’s just like a David Blaine special? Your sarcasm is really too much especially since there is no similarity. Jesus was not a magician. Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be and the witnesses are sufficient testimony to me. I see no reason to blow it all off as hallucination or a hoax. Making such an assertion should require you to prove the allegation at least to the degree of certainty that you expect us to establish the existence of God. Somehow, I think your task will be even more difficult.

 

[_A]

The radicals that flew the planes into the towers were not eye witnesses to anything. They were people that came along quite some time after the historical events occured. There is a huge difference here. Moreover, they committed suicide and murder. They flew the planes.

If I or another Christian were to be martyred today it would be different from these radical Islamists that hit the towers. We would be murdered by others for our faith. We would not be committing suicide and murder.

If I or another Christian were to be martyred today, I would be dying for something that I believed by faith. I would not be dying for something that I witnessed as fact and absolutely knew to be true by having seen the miracles and life of Jesus right in front of me. My martyrdom would not be quite the same as that of the early Church martyrs that saw and knew Jesus when he walked the earth.

So I guess what you are saying here is that their belief is not as good as yours. I understand. I also see that you are saying that since your martyrs witnessed hallucinations in person, their delusion is more solid, or more substantial than that of the jihadists who attacked the US.
I think their families and the surviving members of their church would disagree.
So far, all you have is belief. Just because you can provide stories of others who believed, this doesn’t change the simple fact that belief is not evidence of anything except belief.

 

[_A]

Would you be willing to agree that there are some aspects of love (however you perceive it) that do not appear to have a tangible character to them?

I haven’t agreed that love exists, but asked you to start somewhere else. I wont agree that my truck has 4 wheels without I should go look.

 

[_A]

A

So it’s just like a David Blaine special?

Well, something was done as a public display. It seemed impossible. Many people came away swearing they had seen something impossible. Yes, I think they are very similar so far.

Your sarcasm is really too much especially since there is no similarity. Jesus was not a magician.

Call it sarcasm all you like. By saying Jesus was not a magician, do you mean that Jesus was incapable of magic tricks, or that magicians are incapable of making observers believe that they have seen something miraculous?

Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be and the witnesses are sufficient testimony to me.

So the testimony of witnesses is good enough for you in this case. I see. Did you know that the church has been editing this bible for a long, long time.

I see no reason to blow it all off as hallucination or a hoax.

I see no reason.

Making such an assertion should require you to prove the allegation at least to the degree of certainty that you expect us to establish the existence of God. Somehow, I think your task will be even more difficult.

Really simple. I am just offering an alternative theory. You can disprove it if you like, but frankly, it will be it’s utility which says who’s theory will survive (assuming there is some contradiction between our theories).
I offer some evidence.
1- Almost everyone hallucinates. In dreams, and in many other ways (I’ll offer an easily testable one, if more than one person wants, but there are several if you think about it)
2-Tricksters like David Blaine, or David Copperfield, have been performing these tricks for quite a long time. They have tricked large groups of people at times (think of the Statue of Liberty disappearing).
It is somewhat thin evidence, but there it is. I think it casts plenty of doubt on your ‘supreme being who gets offended if you eat meat on Friday’ theory. I could be wrong, but that’s the thing with my theory, it can be proved wrong. Your theory has been constructed in such a way that it can’t be proved wrong. Doesn’t that make you suspicious at all?

 

[Armor_of_God]

I haven’t agreed that love exists, but asked you to start somewhere else. I wont agree that my truck has 4 wheels without I should go look.

Do you think your sweetheart would agree that love exists?

And would you go out every day to confirm that your truck normally has 4 wheels, or would the experience of this fact over and over be sufficient for you to hold it to be reasonably true when it is 40 below and dark out and a blizzard is raging and you would rather not go out and check?

 

[BarbG]

I KNOW there is a God – I pray to HIM every day – in addition my son retired from 25 years+ in the Army JAG Corps early this year – he was too young to completely retire and financially had to find another job because his sons were in college. My husband died several years ago, and I go to the cemetery fairly often – WELL a couple of months ago when I went to the cemetery I asked my husband to talk to God and ask Him to get our son a job!!! Believe it or not, our son called me the next day and had been offered TWO jobs!!! Don’t tell me there’s no God------

 

[Pax]

Did you know that the church has been editing this bible for a long, long time.

Please explain yourself.

 

[_A]

Do you think your sweetheart would agree that love exists?

And would you go out every day to confirm that your truck normally has 4 wheels, or would the experience of this fact over and over be sufficient for you to hold it to be reasonably true when it is 40 below and dark out and a blizzard is raging and you would rather not go out and check?

It’s 31 below today. Windy as Dante’s last circle. I did a walkaround before moving my vehicle.
As to my sweetheart, I don’t know. Do we ever know truly what is in anothers’ mind?