Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 3

[Darkb0rn]

I believe a Jesus Christ existed...rather he was the son of God or a prophet or a wise man...

That's my take on it as well. I think he walked the earth but whether or not he was the son of god idk.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Sort of like King Arthur.

 

[redhawk23]

Jesus is attributed to teaching some valuable lesson's but they are not originally from him and the rest of his premises ususally involve trusting in him or his "father", which I don't finally particularly valuable.

 

[redhawk23]

Atheism =/= adherence to scientific theories. For one thing it assumes everyone accepts reality as existing, which not even all religious folks do.

 

[NateHevens]

Atheism =/= adherence to scientific theories. For one thing it assumes everyone accepts reality as existing, which not even all religious folks do.

While true, I've yet to meet an atheist who... you know... rejects evolution, believes in ghosts and other paranormal stuff... and rejects scientific theories in general. Most atheists I've met tend to be "scentific skeptics", in that they expect any claim about the nature of reality to be verified scientifically, and any such claim that has been verified (via the scientific method and the peer review process) is generally excepted.

That's the way I think, as well. And if it's not yet been verified, I remain undecided. If the claim is proven to be false, I reject it.

This only works for questions about the nature of reality, of course. Questions about the nature of our experiences are not scientific questions.

With Jesus, while I'm convinced that the story is based on someone, that someone was probably nothing more than an ancient hippy, maybe inspired by the lies of his cheating Mom.

 

[Lighthouse]

While true, I've yet to meet an atheist who... you know... rejects evolution, believes in ghosts and other paranormal stuff... and rejects scientific theories in general. Most atheists I've met tend to be "scentific skeptics", in that they expect any claim about the nature of reality to be verified scientifically, and any such claim that has been verified (via the scientific method and the peer review process) is generally excepted.

That's the way I think, as well. And if it's not yet been verified, I remain undecided. If the claim is proven tobe false, I reject it.

This only works for questions about the nature of reality, of course. Queetions about the nature of our experiences are not scientific questions.

With Jesus, while I'm convinced that the story is based on someone, that someone was probably nothing more than an ancient hippy, probably inspired by the lies of his cheating Mom.

This is why I always preferred the term "skeptic" over "atheist". It's much more specific.

 

[NateHevens]

This is why I always preferred the term "skeptic" over "atheist". It's much more specific.

I have a problem with labels... in that I love them. I'm happy to tell people that I'm a Jewish Agnostic Atheist, but also a scientific skeptic, a Secular Humanist, an optimistic realist (used to be cynic), a liberal libertarian, an anthropology student, a Blues guitarist, straight, boring, a Zephead... you get the drift...

 

[bullets]

 

[DBryan]

Is that real? I'd find it hard to believe someone could be that slow.

 

[Dr.]

Is that real? I'd find it hard to believe someone could be that slow.

Poe's Law:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

In this case, the corollary of Poe's law might apply:

Legitimate fundamentalist beliefs are mistaken for a parody of that belief.

 

[E-Man]

While true, I've yet to meet an atheist who... you know... rejects evolution, believes in ghosts and other paranormal stuff... and rejects scientific theories in general. Most atheists I've met tend to be "scentific skeptics", in that they expect any claim about the nature of reality to be verified scientifically, and any such claim that has been verified (via the scientific method and the peer review process) is generally excepted.

That's the way I think, as well. And if it's not yet been verified, I remain undecided. If the claim is proven to be false, I reject it.

This only works for questions about the nature of reality, of course. Questions about the nature of our experiences are not scientific questions.

With Jesus, while I'm convinced that the story is based on someone, that someone was probably nothing more than an ancient hippy, maybe inspired by the lies of his cheating Mom.

I think the reason why free thinkers usually adhere to science is because science itself is about finding out the truth. You can't deny science because the whole method is about finding and proving how things work. At the simplest level we find that we breathe oxygen, and it's been proven countless times. When it comes to stuff like religion it makes sense that if there was some sort of proof of a deity that someone would have found it by now.

At least a corroboration from other cultures would be a clue. In one of the gospels in the Bible it says that Jesus' resurrection caused earthquakes all over the world, and that dead people rose from the graves and began to walk. If that really happened you would see all other cultures talking about the Night of the Living Dead, but you see it nowhere besides the Bible.

And personally I like the term free thinker. I don't like classifying myself, but if I just had to be labeled I'm a strong agnostic, or what some call a militant agnostic. Free thinker sounds cooler. I could put that on a t-shirt.

 

[NateHevens]

I think the reason why free thinkers usually adhere to science is because science itself is about finding out the truth. You can't deny science because the whole method is about finding and proving how things work. At the simplest level we find that we breathe oxygen, and it's been proven countless times. When it comes to stuff like religion it makes sense that if there was some sort of proof of a deity that someone would have found it by now.

Exactly. This is why science is not the same as religion or faith.

At least a corroboration from other cultures would be a clue. In one of the gospels in the Bible it says that Jesus' resurrection caused earthquakes all over the world, and that dead people rose from the graves and began to walk. If that really happened you would see all other cultures talking about the Night of the Living Dead, but you see it nowhere besides the Bible.

Again, spot on.

And personally I like the term free thinker. I don't like classifying myself, but if I just had to be labeled I'm a strong agnostic, or what some call a militant agnostic. Free thinker sounds cooler. I could put that on a t-shirt.

Free thinker does sound cooler, but I must, if you don't mind, put up an objection to your use of the term "agnostic".

I really hate when people use this label as if "agnosticism" is somehow a middle-ground between atheism and theism. How can it be when a/theism deals with belief in a higher power and agnosticism, in this context, deal with knowledge of a higher power? Knowledge and belief are not one in the same... they are not even comparable.

I hate using the term "agnostic" to describe myself (although I will and do in an attempt to avoid the negative connotations infuriatingly foisted upon the word atheist) because I find it to be redundant. As I see it, the "agnostic" monicker should be outright assumed, because everyone, whether or not they'll admit it, is agnostic. No one alive can know, and if the dead do know, there's no way us living will ever find out what they know until we die. We do not currently have the technology or know-how to answer the question of whether or not gods exist (though I refuse to believe that we never will... it just won't happen any time soon), so I don't see how a single person can honestly say that they know for a fact one way or the other.

But not knowing for a fact should not stop us from taking a position on whether or not we believe. Atheists do not believe in a higher power or powers. Theists do believe in a higher power or powers. "Knowing for a fact" is neither needed nor interesting in this case.

I'm not trying to foist my opinions upon you, of course. I'm merely pointing out what I see is the problem with the "militant agnostic" moniker. It seems to me to make a whole lot of assumptions about both atheism and theism that just aren't true.

 

[E-Man]

^Well I always assumed that agnostic was basically a banner to put a lot of miscellaneous beliefs that are similar under. Some agnostics would believe there is a god, but not know which religion supports it or if it has been represented. Some might believe there is a god that just doesn't care about humans one way o another. Some believe there is no god but can't prove it, and then there is the strong agnostic that I heard believes that we can't tell one way or another if there is a god because we are incapable. Looking at all that I felt I came closer to the strong agnostic.

I can see where atheists come from too. I don't believe there is a god either, but I do have this idea that all of our energy sort of travels the universe after death in a form of reincarnation throughout the universe. Of course that's not something I'm concrete on, so I don't think I can claim myself as one thing or another besides the cool ass term of free thinker. It's a great term when talking to women. Since I'm a Southern Negro I've ran into some religion problems with dating, but damn if that free thinker term didn't blow their mind and turn them on.

 

[NateHevens]

^Well I always assumed that agnostic was basically a banner to put a lot of miscellaneous beliefs that are similar under. Some agnostics would believe there is a god, but not know which religion supports it or if it has been represented.

This would be an "unaffiliated theist".

Some might believe there is a god that just doesn't care about humans one way o another.

Either a pessimistic theist or a deist.

Some believe there is no god but can't prove it,

Atheist

and then there is the strong agnostic that I heard believes that we can't tell one way or another if there is a god because we are incapable.

Two things:

1. What does that have to do with belief?
2. I agree that we are currently incapable of answering the question, but by what logic are we forever incapable of answering the question?

I can see where atheists come from too. I don't believe there is a god either, but I do have this idea that all of our energy sort of travels the universe after death in a form of reincarnation throughout the universe. Of course that's not something I'm concrete on, so I don't think I can claim myself as one thing or another besides the cool ass term of free thinker.

Thing is, you just described yourself as an atheist. The only requirement for atheism is that you do not believe in a higher power or powers. You could believe in reincarnation... you could even believe in Heaven, and souls, and ghosts, and all of that! All that is required is that you don't believe in gods.

I should say, though, that I can tell you what happens to our energy. It gets reused by the planet as food for life... plants, worms, bacteria, and so on. Your death basically means life for other forms of life.

It's a great term when talking to women. Since I'm a Southern Negro I've ran into some religion problems with dating, but damn if that free thinker term didn't blow their mind and turn them on.

Ha! Lucky... it doesn't seem to work for me, but then I am a white boy with a Jewish heritage... which means that I'm quite small where it counts...

 

[DBryan]

So, anything interesting going on in the world of atheism?

 

[Lighthouse]

So, anything interesting going on in the world of atheism?

Apparently we're engaging in "war on religion". I don't remember getting any draft papers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, religion started the war.

 

[enterthemadness]

Well, religion started the war.

I'm trying to form a response...but so many things are in my head. I may be wrong, but Christian Faith likes War, no? Doesn't sound Christ like to me...

 

[Sloth7d]

Brilliant. That was like something out of Plato.

 

[DBryan]

 

[Rocketman]

I'm just going to throw this out there.

There has to be intelligent design. There has to be.
The Big Bang makes absolutely no sense.

Now, before you mistake me for religious, I'm not. I don't believe in religion or the Bible, and I think the Bible is pure fiction.

But having said that, we had to have gotten here somehow. And I really doubt that the universe magically appeared into what we know today because a tiny dot the size of a pencil-tip blew up and made everything. What caused that explosion? What was outside of the dot?

The mere fact that something caused the Big Bang tells you right there that there was a force that caused something, and that force was in existence before ANYTHING ELSE existed.

Now, I don't believe in "God" or "Gods" - I don't think there's a white bearded man in the sky who wears a white robe. But I certainly believe that there was a conscious intent / intelligent design that conjured everything into existence.

 

[DBryan]

I really doubt that the universe magically appeared

Instead, you just think a magical being did it.

I'm not making fun, I'm just illustrating that by your own reasoning that your alternative explanation is not rational.

What caused that explosion? What was outside of the dot?

There are ideas. I know Stephen Hawking thinks it has something to do with string theory.

But you know, let's say that we just don't have the necessary information.

Do you know what the only honest answer to your question is, then?

We don't know!!

And there is nothing wrong with saying we don't know.

The mere fact that something caused the Big Bang tells you right there that there was a force that caused something,

I agree with you up to this point.

But how do you go from - there was something that caused the big bang - to - whatever that something was had to be intelligent. How do you make that leap?

and that force was in existence before ANYTHING ELSE existed.

Anything that we're aware of, anyway. We don't really know what it was like before the big bang.

Your reasoning is the exact same reasoning that primitive people used to say that its Zeus who causes lightning.

Turns out that lightning has a natural cause.

The world is full of things that were once thought to be supernatural but turn out to be natural phenomena with natural causes.

When there is a gap in our knowledge, we don't turn around and say "god did it", we say "we don't know, let's try to find the answer".

There's no reason to insert an intelligent being as an explanation for the big bang. That's a massive leap.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm just going to throw this out there.

There has to be intelligent design. There has to be.
The Big Bang makes absolutely no sense.

Now, before you mistake me for religious, I'm not. I don't believe in religion or the Bible, and I think the Bible is pure fiction.

But having said that, we had to have gotten here somehow. And I really doubt that the universe magically appeared into what we know today because a tiny dot the size of a pencil-tip blew up and made everything. What caused that explosion? What was outside of the dot?

The mere fact that something caused the Big Bang tells you right there that there was a force that caused something, and that force was in existence before ANYTHING ELSE existed.

Now, I don't believe in "God" or "Gods" - I don't think there's a white bearded man in the sky who wears a white robe. But I certainly believe that there was a conscious intent / intelligent design that conjured everything into existence.

I will never understand this arguement.

Why is it any easier for you to accept that GOD came from nothing, than it is to accept the universe did.

If you have issue with seeing how the universe can appear with no reason or cause, then why do you accept God existing, with no reason or cause having made him exist. He's just sprung out of no where

This intelligent design aspect... What CAUSED that? What caused God?

And everyone always responds with 'God is infinite, nothing caused him'.

Well if you can accept that, then why can't the universe be infinite?

It just seems so utterly illogical to me!

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think it's rather unrealistic to expect that a bunch of apes, living on a small planet can know the workings of the entire universe. We haven't even set foot outside the Earth-Moon system.

New findings show there are very likely aliens all around us. Ask them.

 

[Dr.]

Now, I don't believe in "God" or "Gods" - I don't think there's a white bearded man in the sky who wears a white robe. But I certainly believe that there was a conscious intent / intelligent design that conjured everything into existence.

Based on your own description, it sounds like you do believe in god.