Problems w/ Atheism

[AntiTheist]

if we are to become energy what makes you think we won’t think anymore, as consciousness if you recollect me mentioning this continues to exist (outside of the body) even after death?

Because consciousness, as far as we can tell, is an emergent property of brains. It emerges from this current configuration of matter and energy. After you die, your matter and energy will get recycled back into the universe, but its configuration – the thing that produces your consciousness and makes you “you” – won’t be around any more.

Again, this is all based on everything we know so far. What makes you expect anything differently? If all you have to go on is a few near death experiences, then I hate to break it to you that these experiences tend to confirm beliefs that the people undergoing them have in life (i.e. the brain seems to be generating fantasies of what people expect to see after death).

 

[josie_L]

Well, when a character is described to me, whether he exists or not, I can’t help but evaluate him on the basis of my values.

I can tell you this – if any earthly dictator developed a mind reading machine and a way to punish his subjects for all eternity for the crime of not loving his rulership, I would judge him to be one of the most detestable human beings ever to live.

Heh, weren’t you the one who said morality does not exist (that would include values), heck, Andrew couldn’t even get you to call what Hitler did evil? Why the sudden change of heart?

 

[josie_L]

I have looked at near death experiences, I didn’t just walk away from religion without giving it years of thought. Neurologists tell us they’re just dreams, and there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Then you haven’t searched hard enough because that is not what all neurologists say.

 

[josie_L]

Because consciousness, as far as we can tell, is an emergent property of brains. It emerges from this current configuration of matter and energy. After you die, your matter and energy will get recycled back into the universe, but its configuration – the thing that produces your consciousness and makes you “you” – won’t be around any more.

Again, this is all based on everything we know so far. What makes you expect anything differently? If all you have to go on is a few near death experiences, then I hate to break it to you that these experiences tend to confirm beliefs that the people undergoing them have in life (i.e. the brain seems to be generating fantasies of what people expect to see after death).

That’s not what the testimonies say, in fact, many if they are generating fantasies have been able as a result of their near death experiences to describe things while they were away from their bodies to a tee. You would need to read the stories and there are thousands of them in order to appreciate what I say. As I said consciousness can survive death and live outside of our bodies.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Are you denying that we have free will?

most theologians (at least western Christian theologians) say god is omniscient (in the sense that he has prescience, or can see the future and has exhaustive knowledge).

If you think about it just the degree of knowledge required for an intelligent designer to create the universe and the mechanism for our evolution, would easily be enough intelligence to predict the likelihood of flaws like Hitler or Stalin (in fact it would really have to be such an immense amount of intelligence, it would have to be exhaustive or virtually exhaustive). In other words if a conscience being analogous to a god exists, who created us knowing what would turn out, he (or it) would logically have to be omniscient. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume this god did knowingly create a world where Hitler would kill 6 million Jews using mechanisms like gas chambers.

So it’s not a question of Hitlers free will, it’s a question of the six million Jews who were slaughtered.

 

[AntiTheist]

Heh, weren’t you the one who said morality does not exist (that would include values), heck, Andrew couldn’t even get you to call what Hitler did evil? Why the sudden change of heart?

No, I’ve been quite clear that just because there is no morality, that doesn’t mean that there are no values.

People act based on their values and evaluate the actions of others based on their values.

I’m not saying that this “god” character is somehow objectively evil or bad – but he has values that I find detestable. I’m guessing that the values of most people in our Western society would agree that aspects of this god’s values are detestable…you know, if they gave it a little thought.

My values lead me to condemn punishment for thought crimes.
My values lead me to condemn eternal punishment for finite crimes.

You’re free to disagree, and that would tell us quite a bit about your values.

 

[josie_L]

I bid you guys a good night and God bless.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Then you haven’t searched hard enough because that is not what all neurologists say.

I’m sure you can always find some expert who says what you want them to say (whose glad to write a book and earn your money). Nevertheless Josie I look at the opinion of the majority of the scientific community, or I at least look at sources who were subjected to peer review, and if there’s disagreement on a particular theory I would at least limit my sources to what’s generally considered within the range of reason.

I suppose there can be exceptions to this rule, but that’s not the case here. Sadly there’s nothing to suggest these near death stories are anything but dreams (as real as they may seem for the people who experience them).

 

[josie_L]

No, I’ve been quite clear that just because there is no morality, that doesn’t mean that there are no values.

People act based on their values and evaluate the actions of others based on their values.

I’m not saying that this “god” character is somehow objectively evil or bad – but he has values that I find detestable. I’m guessing that the values of most people in our Western society would agree that aspects of this god’s values are detestable…you know, if they gave it a little thought.

My values lead me to condemn punishment for thought crimes.
My values lead me to condemn eternal punishment for finite crimes.

You’re free to disagree, and that would tell us quite a bit about your values.

Oh I see God is evil for having the tenacity to create a place for people who reject good, like for example Hitler who more than likley died with evil in his heart. I’m sure you’d be happier if God defiled Heaven for the likes of these people only to appease your sense of justice.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Oh I see God is evil for having the tenacity to create a place for people who reject good, like for example Hitler who more than likley died with evil in his heart. I’m sure you’d be happier if God defiled Heaven for the likes of these people only to appease your sense of justice.

Again Josie you’re not understanding the logic here. You’re focused on the question of creating Hitler, and forgetting about the 6 million Jews, handicapped Germans, and homosexuals he slaughtered (not to mention all the others killed during WWII).

You’re looking at this way too simplistically with big blinders on.

 

[123rock]

if you said there’s a monster in the closet, and I said no there’s not and as proof I opened the closet to show there was no visible monster … would that be acceptable proof?

first religion tells us that man and woman was created by a god in a single day (and that god was apparently both visually and audibly detectible by Adam & Eve). We say nope, can’t be right, look here’s these skeletons of our ancient evolutionary ancestors. You say … that’s OK, Genesis must be figurative.

They said the earth is at the center of the universe, we say nope – wrong again. Then we prove you wrong, but you say that’s OK … the bible isn’t a science document, and all it’s creative and other references to the physical universe are figurative.

Then we say come on Exodus can’t be within the range of historical possibility. The line of Hebrews (assuming 600,000 men of fighting age, their wives, children, elderly population, and a mixed scattering of non-Jews, equalling at least 2 million people) would have been 150 miles long, and would have equalled half of Egypts population at the time. You say OK that’s figurative too. Then we say, the Tower of Babel story is impossible (given what we know about the history of linguistics and migration patterns). But that’s OK that’s figurative too.

So, it wasn’t a real monster in the closet … it was just a figurative monster.

Well, really it’s just an imaginary monster.

I take it you’re not under the absurd notion that “proving a negative is impossible” as many atheists seem to be. First, you’ve assumed evolution is true and that it is accepted by all. Then, you’ve read the passages which have references to the sun “rising” and assumed the geocentric theory is being applied. Then in the case of the Exodus, you haven’t even read it! The Israelites didn’t all travel in one line, but in divisions (something rectangular in shape). And if the Hebrews were indeed half of Egypt’s population that left, that would be no different than the case of the Hyksos, who may have even been the Israelites themselves. What do you know about linguistics and migration patterns that makes the story of Babel impossible? I suspect nothing, or else you would have shared it with us as in the case of your Exodus impossibility theory.

Proof = a common sense assesment of these sort of fact!!

Facts which you don’t know!!

 

[josie_L]

Again Josie you’re not understanding the logic here. You’re focused on the question of creating Hitler, and forgetting about the 6 million Jews, handicapped Germans, and homosexuals he slaughtered (not to mention all the others killed during WWII).

You’re looking at this way too simplistically with big blinders on.

You lost me at hello Yankee (I mean I don’t know what you’re talking about)? Hitler chose evil, therefore, upon his death I assume he will continue to choose evil and as such a place for those who reject good will be necessary, that place is called Hell.

 

[yankee_doodle]

That’s not what the testimonies say, in fact, many if they are generating fantasies have been able as a result of their near death experiences to describe things while they were away from their bodies to a tee. You would need to read the stories and there are thousands of them in order to appreciate what I say. As I said consciousness can survive death and live outside of our bodies.

Research by Olaf Blanke in Switzerland found that it is possible to reliably elicit experiences somewhat similar to the OBE by stimulating regions of the brain called the right temporal-parietal junction (TPJ; a region where the temporal lobe and parietal lobe of the brain come together). Blanke and his collaborators in Switzerland have explored the neural basis of OBEs by showing that they are reliably associated with lesions in the right TPJ region

Blanke, O., Landis, T., Spinelli, L., & Seeck, M. (2004). Out-of-body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin. Brain, 127(Pt 2), 243–258.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I take it you’re not under the absurd notion that “proving a negative is impossible” as many atheists seem to be. First, you’ve assumed evolution is true and that it is accepted by all.

OK I’ll play along. First, a theory is a hypothesis related to observations of the physical world. In other words we have the evidence that shows evolution happened, for instance we have skeletons of 14 different species of hominids (our evolutionary ancestors). Natural selection remains the best explanation of evolution, but it tells us how and why evolution happened, not if.

Then, you’ve read the passages which have references to the sun “rising” and assumed the geocentric theory is being applied.

huh? Can you link to the specific post you’re referencing here and refresh my memory (I don’t think I related a “sun rising” to geocentrism, much less ever mentioning anything like a “sun rising”)?

Then in the case of the Exodus, you haven’t even read it!

I have read it … several times.

The Israelites didn’t all travel in one line, but in divisions (something rectangular in shape).

yes, but it was a formation (like a military formation, but with women, children, and the elderly in tow). Formations are lines, but they’re spaced apart (i.e. a grouping of rectangles spaced apart but in a continuous formation or line). Studies have shown that this formation (if that term suits you better) would have had to be about 150 miles long.

The event was outside the range of historical possibility.

And if the Hebrews were indeed half of Egypt’s population that left, that would be no different than the case of the Hyksos, who may have even been the Israelites themselves.

actually if this was true then the bible is still inaccurate (since the Hyksos ruled Egypt for over a century, and were a wealthy elite class … not a bunch of slaves).

What do you know about linguistics and migration patterns that makes the story of Babel impossible? I suspect nothing, or else you would have shared it with us as in the case of your Exodus impossibility theory.

um, OK if demonizing people in your mind helps you justify your beliefs … then

With regard to language, we know it evolved. There’s two basic schools of thought. One believes it began to evolve about 2 million years ago, with simple sounds and gestures that eventually evolved into complex grammatical speech. Another hypothesis holds this same series of events occurred, but more recently (beginning between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago).

Facts which you don’t know!!

whatever

 

[123rock]

I take it you’re not under the absurd notion that “proving a negative is impossible” as many atheists seem to be. First, you’ve assumed evolution is true and that it is accepted by all.

Hominid skeletons don’t prove evolution. Natural selection cannot account for evolution alone.

Then, you’ve read the passages which have references to the sun “rising” and assumed the geocentric theory is being applied.

huh? Can you link to the specific post you’re referencing here and refresh my memory (I don’t think I related a “sun rising” to geocentrism, much less ever mentioning anything like a “sun rising”)?

No, you don’t post any verses or supporting evidence for that matter. Your claims are all over the place with absolutely nothing to back them up. In fact, I’d be surprised if you ever even read a verse that had anything that could be interpreted to do with the geocentric theory, but those are the only verses you could be referring to, because there are no verses maintaining the sun spins around the Earth as if it’s a fact.

Then in the case of the Exodus, you haven’t even read it!

I have read it … several times.

Then I guess you must have missed verses like these:

Numbers 10:14: “The divisions of the camp of Judah went first, under their standard. Nahshon son of Amminadab was in command.”

Numbers 33:1: “Here are the stages in the journey of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt by divisions under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.”

The Israelites didn’t all travel in one line, but in divisions (something rectangular in shape).

yes, but it was a formation (like a military formation, but with women, children, and the elderly in tow). Formations are lines, but they’re spaced apart (i.e. a grouping of rectangles in a formation, or in a line). Studies have shown that this formation (if that term suits you better) would have had to be about 150 miles long.

The event was outside the range of historical possibility.

The only way a line would be 150 miles long with 1.5 (the most amount with 600,000 men 20-50) people and c.1 million cattle is if they travelled in a line 10 people wide, 5 feet spaced out (each row of 10). Do the math: 150 miles=792,000 feet, divide that by 1.5million/10(per each row) and you have 5 feet. Who in their right mind would walk like this? With divisions (of who knows how many: 100x10 for example), the number is under a mile. Studies…yeah right…

And if the Hebrews were indeed half of Egypt’s population that left, that would be no different than the case of the Hyksos, who may have even been the Israelites themselves.

actually if this was true then the bible is still inaccurate (since the Hyksos ruled Egypt for over a century, and were a wealthy elite class … not a bunch of slaves).

They may or may not have been; the discrepancies are mostly due to the account we have from the Egyptians, but even if they weren’t it provides a concrete example of half of Egypt’s population leaving.

What do you know about linguistics and migration patterns that makes the story of Babel impossible? I suspect nothing, or else you would have shared it with us as in the case of your Exodus impossibility theory.

um, OK if demonizing people in your mind helps you justify your beliefs … then

Not demonizing you, just pointing out that you don’t really have anything to support your assertions.

Facts which you don’t know!!

whatever

I don’t think your mom would like that attitude young man!

 

[AntiTheist]

Oh I see God is evil …]

No. I did not say evil because I do not subscribe to notions of morality. What I said, more or less, was that the god depicted in the Bible is a reprehensible, unjust monster.

for having the tenacity to create a place for people who reject good, like for example Hitler who more than likley died with evil in his heart.

I’m honestly baffled by this comment. I have been talking almost exclusively about the god character being unjust for having, as part of his values of “justice” the notion of punishing people – eternally, I might add – for thought crimes…i.e. for denying his existence.

I have mentioned Hitler only to point out that such a god character is impossibly more reprehensible than him: Hitler was a mass murderer, but he never tortured his victims for all eternity for thought crimes.

We could bring up other unpleasant characteristics of this god character – his enjoyment of blood sacrifice, his unjust idea of punishing the son for the crimes of the father (i.e. “original sin”), or the unjust idea of vicarious atonement (punishing a person to make up for someone else’s crimes) – but my point is clear: this being’s idea of “justice” is warped and twisted.

Again, not evil – just reprehensible, unjust, and something that I wouldn’t want a part in even if it were real.

 

[Chancellare]

Other atheists, agnostics, and deists: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Bill Gates, Adam Smith, Warran Buffet … hmmm, I think I’m in pretty good company.

As for the commi psychopaths you listed, when you think about modern “WESTERN” countries that said bye bye to your invisible friend, think Sweden, Finland, France, etc. Countries rated among the happiest on earth (well, don’t know about France), with some of the highest per capita incomes, lowest poverty and imprisonment rates, etc. etc.

So keep singing that old tired tune, Stalin, Pol Pot, bla, bla, bla. It won’t make your fairy tales true and it won’t bother smart people

hahaha! So you actually like those non-atheist countries after all! Good choice! By the way, don’t be so sure those personalities are really atheists either. Unless you know what their inner-most thoughts are. Some of the wives might not agree with you about your presumption on their husbands’ beliefs. Be careful.

 

[Chancellare]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are not “atheist exemplars”. Most atheists I know are opposed to imposing any sort of doctrine on an unwilling people, whether that doctrine is God-worship or leader-worship.

Maybe it would help if you considered the position of most modern, mainstream atheists to be something close to freethought. It’s not quite an accurate descriptor for all atheists, but at least it’s closer than the mistaken assumptions you’re apparently using for atheists for you to think that Stalin should be some sort of “atheist saint”.

The problems with your rejoinder are:

1. You want to exclude the bad atheists yet you condemn all Christians for their beliefs. If that’s mainstream atheist thinking, what more for those at opposite ends?
2. Freethought does not an atheist make. - Although they would prefer to be aligned.
3. Atheists who oppose other atheists who impose their doctrines that are precisely based on the belief that there is no God push themselves in the irrational envelope. That’s like saying Cannibalism is good for as long as they stay away from me! If you accept a certain system of thought, you cannot reject its logical consequences. That’s basic. Unless you insist that atheism does not follow logic.

 

[djeter]

Alan Mittleman is director of the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies and professor of Jewish philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary. Whenever I find myself dealing with the subject of God’s existence, I find this essay a suitable way to say, “Here, read this and don’t ask me that again.”

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/23/asking-the-wrong-question-a-meditation-on-the-question-%e2%80%9cdoes-god-exist%e2%80%9d/

You guys might enjoy taking a break from this endless discussion forum…

dj

 

[humble_maid]

No. I did not say evil because I do not subscribe to notions of morality. What I said, more or less, was that the god depicted in the Bible is a reprehensible, unjust monster.

Humble maid:
So you are a nihilist? And what do you think naming someone an ‘unjust monster’ means–EVIL.

I’m honestly baffled by this comment. I have been talking almost exclusively about the god character being unjust for having, as part of his values of “justice” the notion of punishing people – eternally, I might add – for thought crimes…i.e. for denying his existence.

It seems you view God in this negative light yet you have very little understanding of Him. It would be wise that before you make a judgement on someone that you thoroughly and without bias read and understand all there is about Him. If you wish not to then refrain from making false interpretations.

I have mentioned Hitler only to point out that such a god character is impossibly more reprehensible than him: Hitler was a mass murderer, but he never tortured his victims for all eternity for thought crimes.

How would you know this. If you don’t believe in an afterlife than what Hitler did is worse because he took away the only lives his victims’ had. He knew this because he was an Atheist as well. He did not regard God or His laws. And don’t give me that argument about how he was christian because he totally disregarded it.

We could bring up other unpleasant characteristics of this god character – his enjoyment of blood sacrifice, his unjust idea of punishing the son for the crimes of the father (i.e. “original sin”), or the unjust idea of vicarious atonement (punishing a person to make up for someone else’s crimes) – but my point is clear: this being’s idea of “justice” is warped and twisted.

What in God’s name do you know anything about religion other than your ignorant views. Learn first then we can discuss. If you don’t care then leave it alone. If you mention it then be informed, at least Yankee gives us this much though he is bias in his opinion which we have proven wrong on several occasions.

Again, not evil – just reprehensible, unjust, and something that I wouldn’t want a part in even if it were real.

You don’t understand evil. I saw it and experienced it through the power hungry, self-centered, men who do anything for their gain. I suppose that violating a woman is just reprehensible to you or a mass murderer who likes to torture his young victims and then dispose of them is just and act of injustice to you. If anything should happen to you, God forbid, tell me then how you would feel…