Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Sloth7d]

Okay, let's pick apart his claim then, at the most superficial level, and we'll see why I have absolutely zero interest in giving him or his views any time of day.

"Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist"

First off, he's most obviously stating that there is a direct correlation between a person's intelligence and their religion. That's a good way to let people know how little you think of them, and really, it's the most basic form of religious intolerance ever. The "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb" argument. It equates to someone saying "Somebody as intelligent as Dawkins would have been a Christian".

Second, his statement is inherently false, and can't possibly be true. Say Jesus existed, if so, he was clearly not an athiest, BUT Dawkins says he should be, because he's so smart. But Jesus can only be considered intelligent due to his teachings, which are Judeo-Christian in nature. So the very thing that makes him too intelligent to be religious is impossible to separate from religion. It boggles the mind, and shows me that Dawkins doesn't have a good understanding of religion at all, and while he's welcome to his own opinion, shouldn't be trying to convert others if he doesn't understand why they're religious.

Third, there are only three ways to look at Jesus, and none of them fit this statement. One, Jesus existed and was merely a prophet and teacher, who while teaching generally good lessons, was ultimately wrong about the nature of the universe, and was quite mad to believe that he was the son of god. The other says that Jesus did exist and WAS the Son of God, not much else to say there. The third, Jesus never existed and is just a fictional character like Mickey Mouse or Superman.


Now, after reading that profoundly arrogant and ultimately incorrect headline, why should I continue to listen to Dawkins? If he has something deep and profound to say, why wouldn't he put his best face on? Why start a conversation in which he wants to convince someone of something by insulting them?

Because it doesn't really have anything to do with what was said in the interview. I can't even remember if he actually said it now, as when I first looked at, so little of the interview was about Jesus. In fact, I can't remember if his name specifically came up. If it did, it was a very brief side statement that mattered little in the grand scheme of everything else said. I'm not sure why you would let a headline prevent you from reading or watching an interview when everyone should be aware of how misleading they can be in their sensationalism. He didn't even come off as snide or anything.

If God is perfect, we cannot understand His motives and all that anger, aggression, greed and such is part of what He intended. God being perfect, or even being good, doesn't hinge on Him being nice or understandable to us.

The idea of God being perfect never sat well with me, so that's definitely a big "if" with me. If God is perfect he would be perfectly understandable. If God was perfect he'd be incapable of making imperfect things, nor would he have a desire or need for things to exist outside of himself. Even If I believed in God, I'd hesitate to call him perfect.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

None taken at all. Just another lesson in how carefully I should choose my words, and I don't take that lightly.

 

[Dr.]

Okay, let's pick apart his claim then, at the most superficial level, and we'll see why I have absolutely zero interest in giving him or his views any time of day.

"Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist"

First off, he's most obviously stating that there is a direct correlation between a person's intelligence and their religion. That's a good way to let people know how little you think of them, and really, it's the most basic form of religious intolerance ever. The "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb" argument. It equates to someone saying "Somebody as intelligent as Dawkins would have been a Christian".

Second, his statement is inherently false, and can't possibly be true. Say Jesus existed, if so, he was clearly not an athiest, BUT Dawkins says he should be, because he's so smart. But Jesus can only be considered intelligent due to his teachings, which are Judeo-Christian in nature. So the very thing that makes him too intelligent to be religious is impossible to separate from religion. It boggles the mind, and shows me that Dawkins doesn't have a good understanding of religion at all, and while he's welcome to his own opinion, shouldn't be trying to convert others if he doesn't understand why they're religious.

Third, there are only three ways to look at Jesus, and none of them fit this statement. One, Jesus existed and was merely a prophet and teacher, who while teaching generally good lessons, was ultimately wrong about the nature of the universe, and was quite mad to believe that he was the son of god. The other says that Jesus did exist and WAS the Son of God, not much else to say there. The third, Jesus never existed and is just a fictional character like Mickey Mouse or Superman.


Now, after reading that profoundly arrogant and ultimately incorrect headline, why should I continue to listen to Dawkins? If he has something deep and profound to say, why wouldn't he put his best face on? Why start a conversation in which he wants to convince someone of something by insulting them?

Given the amount of analysis you’ve put into this, you really should have researched it better. First, did you know that interviewees don't write the headlines for their published interviews? (Even the interviewers don't do that; it's usually an editor.) Second, did you actually watch the video? Nowhere in it does Dawkins draw a comparison between innate intelligence and atheism. Quite the contrary. He castigates certain “accomodationist” atheists for maintaining their own non-belief while supporting religion as a necessary crutch for the unwashed masses. In other words, he criticizes that kind of intellectual elitism.

As for the actual quote, that only appears in the longer, Guardian.uk audio interview. The context is that morality can and does exist separate from religion. Whereupon, Dawkins mentions – with a chuckle in his voice – that he was once given an “Atheists for Jesus” t-shirt (which he has worn). And with the same jocularity, he quips (paraphrasing the bumper sticker) that Jesus would have been intelligent enough to be an atheist. It was a bit of conceptual irony – a wise god being so wise that he rejects his own existence. In many circles, this is what’s known as a joke.

 

[Red Mask]

Why does christianity get argued over the most? I mean theres tons of other religons but why does christianity get foot hold over those? When people argue about or talk about it on forums and what not its always christianity.

I don't know. Because if Christians want to argue the possibility of a god existing, then other religions should be given an equal chance to be considered too. t: Who knows? Maybe it was the ancient Egyptians who got it right.

 

[redhawk23]

Question for all of you atheists: if there is no god, then how exactly are we here? How do you account for the existence of, not just us, but everything if there is no higher power? Do you honestly believe that something came from nothing, or do you think that matter is eternal or what?

This question gets brought up often. Can something come from nothing? People often argue the existence of God or the "unmoved mover" in the case of Aristotle to prevent an infinite regress of causality. There has to be a source or a cause for everything right? The infinite regress is essentially a paradox. God seems to solve this.

But where does God come from?

God is also a paradox in many ways.

Essentially arguing from this angle is replacing a paradox we perceive in the world around us with one that is inherently un-observable and is separate from our reality.

As for where matter comes from, we have evidence and quite a few models of the mechanics of where matter originally came from. After this initial stage though we have quite a bit of knowledge of how the original particles formed the basic building blocks for what we now recognize as matter. The initial origin of matter does represent a current limit to our definitive knowledge. There will always be limits to knowledge, there will always be frontiers. However we do not need to reach those frontiers and simply turn our backs to them and shout "God did it!"

http://io9.com/5818706/where-did-matter-come-from

Here's an interesting article about matter if your interested in some of the perspectives on its origin.

 

[Alex Summers]

I have a question for the theists who attend church: Has your pastor/minister/priest ever shared with you that the authors of the canonical gospels are anonymous, and that they were written years afte Jesus died?

I do find it funny that people think that the gospels were written by Jesus's disciples, when they they were probably illiterate peasants.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

However we do not need to reach those frontiers and simply turn our backs to them and shout "God did it!"

Completely agree with you.

God isn't a solution to the 'well what came before' problem, because you have to ask 'what came before God then?'... It's just as paradoxical. And if you can defend that by saying 'God is infinite' why can't we accept that the Universe is infinite?

I was obsessed with the beginning of time for a while. The more I thought about it, the more scary it got - the idea of there being NOTHING at some point, and then suddenly something.

When I think too hard on it, it really freaks me out.

The only way I can wrap my head around it is to simply accept that time is not how I conceive it. That we have put labels like 'beginning' and 'end' on certain things, but they just don't apply here.

 

[Franklin Richards]

What happened to a song before you sang it? When you blow out a candle where was the fire before you lit it?


Beginning and End are kinda simple to understand. Sounds like you just don't believe in nothing.

 

[Slushy]

Even if you don't believe Jesus Christ is your lord, savior, and the son of God who had the ability to make the blind see, multiply food, turn water into wine, and come back from dead; by all accounts, he was a really nice carpenter.

Science does not require belief. It just is. You can test theories and prove them right or wrong, hence solidifying them as facts. Science can prove that snakes can't talk, that a man can't split the ocean in two with his hands, and that a virgin cannot give birth without artificial insemination. It's just what science does. It's nothing personal against religion; again, it just is.

Personally, I go by facts. I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a Christian or anything else. If something is a fact, I just listen to facts. The Bible, according to facts, cannot be a book that depicts real events. So I don't accept it as anything legitimate. It's not worth my time, and it's just as believable a story as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. In other words, I don't see why it would be healthy to believe that the Harry Potter books are depictions of real occurrences.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so when the body dies, where does that energy go? We got recorded evidence of dissipating shadowy figures, floating orbs of lights, faces and figures of people in photos that weren't there at the time of the picture being taken, the skin of human beings being cut and objects being thrown / touched by an invisible force, etc.

All these scientific findings lead me to believe that there is a life after death. There may not a place of eternal peace with angels or torture by demons, but I'm perfectly fine with wandering the Earth as a spirit. That's much better than nothing happening although I kind of wish reincarnation was true. I think it would be cool to get a second chance and come back as somebody else.

 

[redhawk23]

Even if you don't believe Jesus Christ is your lord, savior, and the son of God who had the ability to make the blind see, multiply food, turn water into wine, and come back from dead; by all accounts, he was a really nice carpenter.



Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so when the body dies, where does that energy go? We got recorded evidence of dissipating shadowy figures, floating orbs of lights, faces and figures of people in photos that weren't there at the time of the picture being taken, the skin of human beings being cut and objects being thrown / touched by an invisible force, etc.

All these scientific findings lead me to believe that there is a life after death. There may not a place of eternal peace with angels or torture by demons, but I'm perfectly fine with wandering the Earth as a spirit. That's much better than nothing happening although I kind of wish reincarnation was true. I think it would be cool to get a second chance and come back as somebody else.

The same place your body heat goes. The same place the electrical signals of your body already emanate to, into to in the environment. (the kinds of things sharks use to hunt) Much of the energy that makes up our brains is chemical and not electrical anyways. You are correct that energy is not destroyed. The energy remains stored as chemical energy. Those chemicals often decompose with the rest of our bodies and that chemically store potential energy returns to the environment. Our bodies are fertilizer in the end.

Also photographic artifacts are hardly taken as scientific evidence and most of what you cite is anecdotal.

 

[bunk]

Is it even agreed that Jesus was a carpenter? I was under the impression he may have been some sort general laborer, depending on the translation.

 

[redhawk23]

Completely agree with you.

God isn't a solution to the 'well what came before' problem, because you have to ask 'what came before God then?'... It's just as paradoxical. And if you can defend that by saying 'God is infinite' why can't we accept that the Universe is infinite?

I was obsessed with the beginning of time for a while. The more I thought about it, the more scary it got - the idea of there being NOTHING at some point, and then suddenly something.

When I think too hard on it, it really freaks me out.

The only way I can wrap my head around it is to simply accept that time is not how I conceive it. That we have put labels like 'beginning' and 'end' on certain things, but they just don't apply here.

We have quite a bit of evidence that it isn't.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

What happened to a song before you sang it? When you blow out a candle where was the fire before you lit it?

Beginning and End are kinda simple to understand. Sounds like you just don't believe in nothing.

If your going to attempt to make me look stupid by using those ridiculously comparisons, at least use proper grammar.

It should be 'don't believe in ANYTHING'

As for you questions, we could go round and round in circles.

Where did the fire come from to light the candle? A lighter, or a match. Where does a match come from? Etc etc. And when we got right down to the bottom of that pointless chain or questions we might get to my point.

What came before absolutely anything existed.

Which as I said, I don't think has an answer because I believe the universe to be infinite, and our perception of things having to begin and end because of our interpretation of time, to be flawed.

 

[Alex Summers]

Is it even agreed that Jesus was a carpenter? I was under the impression he may have been some sort general laborer, depending on the translation.

I think back then a carpenter and a general laborer were the same thing.

 

[KingMob]

Wait...we have evidence that the universe isn't infinite? That there is an ending? I'm surprised, because all I've ever heard was that it goes beyond what we can even calculate or perceive. We don't know how it actually began, or how big it is.

Either way, anyone declaring they KNOW anything, be it the existence of God, or the size of the universe, don't have a clue. So, atheists and people of faith are pretty much arrogant in my opinion. We don't know ****.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

We have quite a bit of evidence that it isn't.

That time isn't as we concieve it?

Yes, I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article I read in the midst of freaking myself out about the big bang and how it happened.

If you know of any good links with more info about it, can you let me know?

 

[SuperFerret]

If we have evidence that the universe isn't infinite, then we'd better change the name.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so when the body dies, where does that energy go? We got recorded evidence of dissipating shadowy figures, floating orbs of lights, faces and figures of people in photos that weren't there at the time of the picture being taken, the skin of human beings being cut and objects being thrown / touched by an invisible force, etc.

All these scientific findings lead me to believe that there is a life after death. There may not a place of eternal peace with angels or torture by demons, but I'm perfectly fine with wandering the Earth as a spirit. That's much better than nothing happening although I kind of wish reincarnation was true. I think it would be cool to get a second chance and come back as somebody else.

Nothing you described is a scientific finding. And everything you described can be explained as something perfectly normal by science, and not other wordly at all.

Yes, the reality that when we die we are just gone, is scary. Especially when you think about your consciousness as a whole, your entire world just ending.

There is nothing wrong with believing it won't. I think that's very comforting and helps a lot of people deal with loss and with their own life.

But there is absolutely no real evidence.

 

[DBryan]

It's very easy to explain weird photographs when you understand things like double exposure and shutter speeds.

 

[redhawk23]

If we have evidence that the universe isn't infinite, then we'd better change the name.

Well not infinite in that we have evidence of when it began. In terms of space it is by definition everywhere.

 

[Franklin Richards]

If your going to attempt to make me look stupid by using those ridiculously comparisons, at least use proper grammar.

It should be 'don't believe in ANYTHING'

As for you questions, we could go round and round in circles.

Where did the fire come from to light the candle? A lighter, or a match. Where does a match come from? Etc etc. And when we got right down to the bottom of that pointless chain or questions we might get to my point.

What came before absolutely anything existed.

Which as I said, I don't think has an answer because I believe the universe to be infinite, and our perception of things having to begin and end because of our interpretation of time, to be flawed.

I didn't think I was insulting you but I guess you felt the need to lash out at me. Sorry if I was speaking colloquially on the internet. I usually don't attempt to appear pretentious when just speaking with "the gang". But whatever...


Ya ever hear the joke about the cowboy at the high society party? Cowboy walks in and asks a lovely lady...

"Where y'all from?"

The lady replies, very dryly...

"Where we're from we don't end our sentences with a preposition."

The cowboy smiles and says...

"I'm sorry. Where y'all from, *****?"



My earlier point was a philosophic one. I didn't really want to explore the science of fires. I also notice you didn't reply to the song analogy.


Oh and by the way. All of that is irrelevant. I actually meant the sentence I typed.


It sounds like you don't believe in "NOTHING" as a concept. So maybe you should just back the **** up.

 

[Dr.]

I was obsessed with the beginning of time for a while. The more I thought about it, the more scary it got - the idea of there being NOTHING at some point, and then suddenly something.

When I think too hard on it, it really freaks me out.

The only way I can wrap my head around it is to simply accept that time is not how I conceive it. That we have put labels like 'beginning' and 'end' on certain things, but they just don't apply here.

A slight tangent… but I’ll try to steer it back again.

Chomsky observed that we have the capacity to form grammatically correct statements that have a logical form - but which lack semantic coherence. He famously devised this example: “colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”

Change it to a question by adding “Why do” and its profundity is not improved – it’s still nonsense.

By a similar token, asking what happened before the Big Bang may, superficially, seem like a coherent question. But on closer inspection, “before” denotes temporality. And, by some definitions, time is one of the things created at the Big Bang. So the question is akin to standing at the North Pole (where all points are south) and asking which direction north is. There’s no answer because the question, itself, is meaningless.

When it comes to certain “big mysteries,” the Universe isn’t obliged to provide satisfactory answers – especially if ask the wrong questions.


And as you mentioned, positing gods – who are subject to the exact same existential dilemmas – is no help. They represent a restatement of the problem – not a solution.

 

[redhawk23]

Which as I said, I don't think has an answer because I believe the universe to be infinite, and our perception of things having to begin and end because of our interpretation of time, to be flawed.

A definite possibility. I think it has to do with the way we are wired to constantly form and seek out patterns. This is of course they secret to our success as a species but I also think we jump to conclusions, misunderstand patterns and systems either though over simplifying or over complicating them and more often than not seeing patterns that aren't really there or aren't really significant (Number 23 syndrome essentially).

I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with causality but it is a definite possibility. It is beyond my capability to step back any further from the problem however, though I try. Applying my personal understanding of rationality to my personal understanding of rationality is inherently problematic when trying to look for internal inconsistencies or failings.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Well not infinite in that we have evidence of when it began. In terms of space it is by definition everywhere.

Actually I had a poor choice of words. I was thinking more about the beginning of TIME, but said universe.

I accept the logic and evidence for the big bang.

But time is a complicated one.

From what I've gathered from reading stephen hawking, there are two lines of time. The 'real time' which was created at the Big Bang, and the 'imaginary time' which is basically whatever exists outside of what can be measured, like space itself.

And we should consider both space and imaginary time, not as a line, but something with no boundaries like the surface of the earth. It's finite in that it is contained, but doesn't have a specific start or finish.

I might be reading that all wrong though lol, I'm not a bloody genius myself.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

My earlier point was a philosophic one. I didn't really want to explore the science of fires. I also notice you didn't reply to the song analogy.

Oh and by the way. All of that is irrelevant. I actually meant the sentence I typed.

It sounds like you don't believe in "NOTHING" as a concept.

FYI, I felt insulted by most of what you just said too.

So I'm just going to deal with the relevant parts.

First of all, I am logically comfortable with the concept of 'Nothing' as an ending. But since I am uncomfortable with something coming from nothing (as in the universe just randomly beginning without anything having existing before), I find it a lot easier to understand time as simply something that exists outside of beginning and ends, outside of the smartest person on the planets pereception of it.

So in that sense, no, I don't believe there is such a thing as 'nothing'.

Second of all, perhaps you could explain your philosophical point and how it contributes to this debate... Because I think I must have missed your point.