Survey for Atheists

[ted]

Richard Dawkins rocks.

for all his high brow posturing, Dawkins isn't impressive...his escape hatch for any tough question is always "science will figure that out someday"

sure....

actually he has painted many a theological scholar in a corner only to have them play the faith trump card...which is that they believe because they believe it because they believe it...there is nothing left to debate at that point.

Both sides have their unanswered questions. The hard part is accepting those limitations and acutally admitting them.

Instead, many feel the need to make up the difference in the lack of understanding with self-made assumptions.

Looking back, that is probably the cause of most of the arguments I have ever heard or participated in.

t.

[LionOfZion]

Do you beleive that you are too smart to believe an intelligent entity greater and more powerful than yourselves, capable of creating a universe, even though you know it cannot be proven scientificallly that the entity exists?

Yes!

Actually, I find this question very strange. I've noticed that every time a christian posts these "questions for atheists", the atheist who responds gets slammed with all sorts of "why are you on this board? are you trying to convert me?" It would be very hard for christians to debate atheists on this board if no atheists responded to their posts. So, do us all a favor. If you want an atheist's opinion and want to debate it - great, ask away. But, let's stop with the accusations of "you're just here stirring up trouble."

Now, I need a chicken wing. LOL

i agree, but the question seems to attack in a way. as if you ask if my ego is to big to believe. for me my struggle with faith is at the end of your question. even though you know it cannot be proven scientifically that an entity exists. i dont search for proof. just evidence, and i have had trouble for years comming up with that.

[Grungekid]

If God has left us to our own devices though, why do Christians insist that he continues to intervene? If he chooses to intervene on a small scale, why not intervene at a larger scale? You make it sound as though he created us, we sinned, and he walked away to leave us on our own.

Now you're just trying to move things in a cycle. Of course, theology teaches that He has not left us, but that He has given us a way back to Him, His son.

The dead sea scrolls pertain to the old testament, which I would agree is more historically accurate than the new testament. You cannot lump them together. The new testament is of suspect origins to put it politely. Historical accuracy aside, this proves nothing about its claims.

Actually, I can, and you're wrong. Most historians believe that the New Testament is more reliable. Also note that you completely failed to mention the proof I asked for. Your argument is clearly failing here.

Right, but obviously not every male lion is killed off or they would cease to exist. Also, lions travel in small prides naturally, too many members would upset their natural balance...you can not use this same arguments for humans, who obviously have a greater chance of survival in larger groups. And yes you are correct that evolution is only concerned with the survival of the individual...but often times (as in humans), the survival of the group is beneficial for the survival for the individual.

That still doesn't give a reason for humans to follow a moral code. The survival of the group does not necessitate the survival of all the individuals.

You see this universal moral code as God, I see it as a set of benefial behaviors embedded through evolution...that is probably the essense of our different world views. Of course there are other species who do not exhibit these behaviors, but there also those that do...and this is a far more important observation. About the spiritual side of the argument, I do not feel that belief in the Christian god is necessary for being spiritually fulfilled. I get this same feeling when I look up at the stars at night and think about the magnificence of the universe. I choose not to cheapen this experience by attributing it to God though and instead stand in awe of the beauty of nature itself.

These are all presuppositions and not arguments, and they are entirely based on faith rather than true argumentation. I don't find a godless universe majestic at all, and so that is simply an issue of taste.

I won't address your ad hominem attacks, they are unneeded and childish. I do agree with your guarantee that non-christians have killed, cheated, etc....this is the "evil people doing evil things" part. You have done nothing to prove the quote invalid besides attack the man.

Actually, your entire argument is extremely impotent, its not an issue of anything but truth. I gave reasons, and you even accepted them, then refused to acknowledge them once more. Christians are not responsible for all of the evil in history, in fact they do not add up for much in the face of the Russians, or Khan, or others throughout history without God. That disproves his statement. If you don't like others facing facts at you - whether or not they are true, then just don't get involved.

Richard Dawkins rocks.

Especially in that he is so good at describing members of his own movement. Other than that, he is entirely overrated. Most of his claims on philosophy are not very strong, and his theory about evolution is interesting, but not taught in schools for good reason: it's far too vague.

If you believe that looking at things from a humanistic and realistic point of view only leads to nothing but disappointment and negativity, then I would say you have a very sad view of humanity.

Geez, talk about 'ad hominem'. Your entire argument is based on preference and an emotional opinion of my own reasoning. You completely avoid proving anything about the philosophy of nihilism being true in the case of atheism. The view isn't sad, its philosophical truth. Ask anyone with a proper sense of philosophy

I appreciate your assumption of knowing how I think about the world...as I assume you probably think all atheists see the world...but again, you are wrong. To call myself an atheist does not mean that I do not have faith. My faith is in mankind and the ability of man to do good. I see the world around me and I constantly think how lucky we are to exist and that we should make the best of it. Yes there are people who seek to do nothing but bad things in the world, but my faith is that the number of good people in the world far exceeds that of bad people. Furthermore, I think that the belief in a creator fails to allow mankind to recognize the fact that we control our own existence and ultimately stands in the way of human advancement. I think that you have a very sad grasp of reality and I wonder what has made you lose your faith in the goodness of mankind.

Then your faith is ill-placed. Humans have killed masses of themselves throughout history, sometimes under your same ideologies. Humans are just as animalistic as any other creature, and it shouldn't take an amateur historian to tell you that they are NOT in control of the destiny of their race. Good people are quite easilly outnumbered, take a look around. You really are the blindest folks capable of sight that I have ever met. Humans can progress under God, much more assuredly than they can under themselves. Another thing - you may think you feel this alternated state of consciousness without God, or other things that you deem spiritual, but that does not make them such, and the fact of the matter is that your spirit is in a very poor condition. I have a very positive view of humanity, one that exceeds your own view by and far. I am saddened that you will never realize this view, and that you will pay the consequences at the end when your materialistic world you rely so much on falls from your view.

The proof that God is optional is the fact that we are not forced to accept him. Even he did exist he would still be optional...this is called free will. The fact that atheists are the fastest growing minority in the USA is proof that God is optional. I have lived a great life up to this point without God and will continue to do so into old age thanks to mankind's advancement in medicine...not out of God's benevolence.

Man, you can't seem to get anything right, can you? Atheists are not the fastest growing population in America, Pentecostels are, the last time I checked.

What's more, you can refuse to believe in God just like others refuse to believe in evolution, so what does that prove about anything being optional? I guess all truth is 'optional' from that point of view.

yes, saying that one things is ok while something else is not, is a basic ethical premise...claiming to know the mind of God is not. It disturbing to me that you are ok with not knowing why it is that God would put us here...but I guess that is the problem I have with religion in general...it teaches us to be ok with those things that we do not understand...this is not how I operate.

Interesting. Most atheists like being atheists because they 'don't claim to have the answers, and that's alright with them.' I'll get back to you on the reasons for God creating us, but I think that, once again, you haven't proven anything against most of the answers thus far, and that a reason is not particularly needed in this argument.

[cwcrenshaw]

Now you're just trying to move things in a cycle. Of course, theology teaches that He has not left us, but that He has given us a way back to Him, His son.

Then he is certainly not omniscent, and if so...certainly not benevolent. In any case, "theology teaches" is not really an effective way to conduct a debate with an atheist.

Actually, I can, and you're wrong. Most historians believe that the New Testament is more reliable. Also note that you completely failed to mention the proof I asked for. Your argument is clearly failing here.

I ask you then why you reject the Koran or any other ancient holy book? Maybe for the same reason I reject the Bible? I'm not going to get into a deep debate about the historical accuracy of the Bible, you're the expert about your invisible God. If you could provide rock-solid proof of the validity of the Bible, I urge you to do so...you may win the Nobel Prize cause nobody else has accomplished that yet.

That still doesn't give a reason for humans to follow a moral code. The survival of the group does not necessitate the survival of all the individuals.

Wow, talk about a cyclical argument. The survival of the group DOES necessitate the survival of the individuals...what do you suppose a group is comprised of?

These are all presuppositions and not arguments, and they are entirely based on faith rather than true argumentation. I don't find a godless universe majestic at all, and so that is simply an issue of taste.

There is no truth, only perception We can only make assertions of "truth" based on evidence. The religious want so badly for this not to be the case. You don't find a godless universe preferrable so of course your perception of reality involves a creator.

Actually, your entire argument is extremely impotent, its not an issue of anything but truth. I gave reasons, and you even accepted them, then refused to acknowledge them once more. Christians are not responsible for all of the evil in history, in fact they do not add up for much in the face of the Russians, or Khan, or others throughout history without God. That disproves his statement. If you don't like others facing facts at you - whether or not they are true, then just don't get involved.

Swing and a miss once again. Nowhere did I say Christians are responsible for all the evil...and then you point out others who have done evil...again, evil people doing evil things. The quote refers to "religion"...not Christianity or the Christian God exclusively.

Geez, talk about 'ad hominem'. Your entire argument is based on preference and an emotional opinion of my own reasoning. You completely avoid proving anything about the philosophy of nihilism being true in the case of atheism. The view isn't sad, its philosophical truth. Ask anyone with a proper sense of philosophy

yes, nihilism is one possible path, but it is not the only path of atheism like you claim to believe. Even so I wouldn't pretend to believe something just to make me happier about my existence...it is what it is.

Then your faith is ill-placed. Humans have killed masses of themselves throughout history, sometimes under your same ideologies. Humans are just as animalistic as any other creature, and it shouldn't take an amateur historian to tell you that they are NOT in control of the destiny of their race. Good people are quite easilly outnumbered, take a look around. You really are the blindest folks capable of sight that I have ever met. Humans can progress under God, much more assuredly than they can under themselves. Another thing - you may think you feel this alternated state of consciousness without God, or other things that you deem spiritual, but that does not make them such, and the fact of the matter is that your spirit is in a very poor condition. I have a very positive view of humanity, one that exceeds your own view by and far. I am saddened that you will never realize this view, and that you will pay the consequences at the end when your materialistic world you rely so much on falls from your view.

You seem to be echoing the "evil people do evil things" claim that you just got done arguing against. I meant to say that humans control their own destiny due to the fact that they are the dominant species on the planet...This of course is precluded by natural or astronomical events (not supernatural events).

Humans can advance under God? really? Why is it that nearly every scientific advance in history has been met with the utmost contention from the church? I'm sure it must have been God's will and not scientific advance that wiped out Smallpox and many other diseases. I'm sure its God's will that we now have the longest lifespan in the history of human existence...surely that could not be due to scientific advance. Thank you though for continuing to think you know about my outlook on the world and the condition of my "spirit". You hear the world "atheist" and automatically think you know everything about me, how arrogant.

Man, you can't seem to get anything right, can you? Atheists are not the fastest growing population in America, Pentecostels are, the last time I checked.

What's more, you can refuse to believe in God just like others refuse to believe in evolution, so what does that prove about anything being optional? I guess all truth is 'optional' from that point of view.

of course that depends on who's poll you trust, but whatever. Again Truth = Perception.

Interesting. Most atheists like being atheists because they 'don't claim to have the answers, and that's alright with them.' I'll get back to you on the reasons for God creating us, but I think that, once again, you haven't proven anything against most of the answers thus far, and that a reason is not particularly needed in this argument.

No one knows the answers my friend, but at least science (atheists) tries to figure things out and doesn't just make up Gods to explain things.

[Grungekid]

Then he is certainly not omniscent, and if so...certainly not benevolent. In any case, "theology teaches" is not really an effective way to conduct a debate with an atheist.

You're going to have give reasons why offering someone a chance to redeem themselves is not benevolent, and you really don't have any proof that He did not see that He would have to give His son.

I can defend my beliefs using theology, since that is what I believe and that is what we are debating. If you do not understand theology, you cannot argue against what I believe. You said that He had left us without a chance to get back to Him, and that is not true of Christianity in any way. Its like telling me what I believe and why it's impossible, rather than debating what I actually believe. Its not a debate at all. Also, you are saying that theology is not a good source of truth, yet you have not even proven that there is anything wrong with it.

I ask you then why you reject the Koran or any other ancient holy book? Maybe for the same reason I reject the Bible? I'm not going to get into a deep debate about the historical accuracy of the Bible, you're the expert about your invisible God. If you could provide rock-solid proof of the validity of the Bible, I urge you to do so...you may win the Nobel Prize cause nobody else has accomplished that yet.

Because I don't agree with the Koran, haven't seen it work in anyone's lives like I have the Bible, and because my book, which you cannot discredit, tells me not to.

Well, winning prizes is not my aim. Truth is, and it is entirely possible that the 'intellectual community' will not be able to appreciate this truth until some time after I and many others who try to do so are dead.

Wow, talk about a cyclical argument. The survival of the group DOES necessitate the survival of the individuals...what do you suppose a group is comprised of?

Yes, but you are the one who wrought that. Think individual, not group. Also, humans do not need groups to survive, especially not in the masses we have now. Nature is actually falling apart because of our 'success'. Taking the life of a human (which is merely an advanced primate, right?) if that person is somehow unable to defend themselves abates the likelihood of those genes resurfacing in the species. Simply, we do not need ALL the individuals in the group. Re-read it and think about it, only this time, actually look at your own argument critically, holding that 'survival of the fittest' is true.

There is no truth, only perception We can only make assertions of "truth" based on evidence. The religious want so badly for this not to be the case. You don't find a godless universe preferrable so of course your perception of reality involves a creator.

I, as a Christian, and many other Christians, do not have a problem with that idea. What bothers us is that atheists are the ones who go over the line saying that they have proof and we don't, and that we need to change and be nothing-worshippers like them. And [sigh] actually, there are plenty of philosophical reasons for believing, but I think that would be way over your head. We'll just leave it at this basicity for now.

Swing and a miss once again. Nowhere did I say Christians are responsible for all the evil...and then you point out others who have done evil...again, evil people doing evil things. The quote refers to "religion"...not Christianity or the Christian God exclusively.

Then you would still be very wrong. Would it be news to you that people kill eachother for money very frequently? Or power? Or to actually try and PREVENT war? Sometimes out of hate, even. Sociological fact shows, we know that humans and human institutions in general have all, in some way or another, erred against fellow human beings, for various reasons. Religion was often only minutely involved, if not at all.

yes, nihilism is one possible path, but it is not the only path of atheism like you claim to believe.

Only two other options, and they aren't popular with metaphysical naturalists, which I assumed you were.

You seem to be echoing the "evil people do evil things" claim that you just got done arguing against. I meant to say that humans control their own destiny due to the fact that they are the dominant species on the planet...This of course is precluded by natural or astronomical events (not supernatural events).

Perhaps I should elaborate. Human beings have similar moral codes. That does NOT, however, mean that they act strictly according to those laws. And what exactly are you saying, that you believe we can divine evil-doing through 'natural and astronomical events'? Don't tell me your a horroscope advocate.

Humans can advance under God? really? Why is it that nearly every scientific advance in history has been met with the utmost contention from the church? I'm sure it must have been God's will and not scientific advance that wiped out Smallpox and many other diseases. I'm sure its God's will that we now have the longest lifespan in the history of human existence...surely that could not be due to scientific advance. Thank you though for continuing to think you know about my outlook on the world and the condition of my "spirit". You hear the world "atheist" and automatically think you know everything about me, how arrogant.

And see, this is where I get especially frustrated. Atheists are responsible for almost no advance in human history. Science was actually established by God-fearing men, almost every law that you can think of. Even the process of science was not invented by atheists. Philosophers have often come to conclusions that there are or is a god/goddess/s/es, and if you study the history of the subject you'll see this. There haven't been a whole lot of prominent atheists outside of politics and philosophy that have done very much of anything worthy of history, in fact. Even America, the foundation point of atheist societies, was not created or improved through very much effort of atheists. So, you can see, that God is by no means a hindrance and that we have indeed, prospered and advanced under God. This does not mean that atheists are useless, or that you cannot be an atheist - it simply means that Christians aren't half-bad either, euphemistically speaking.

of course that depends on who's poll you trust, but whatever. Again Truth = Perception.

Uh, it was an article on the National News.

No one knows the answers my friend, but at least science (atheists) tries to figure things out and doesn't just make up Gods to explain things.

No, you invent a whole load of explanations that are hardly intelligable to many human beings, instead. Its gotten to the point where the Razor actually favors monistic theism.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Grungekid

[cwcrenshaw]

You're going to have give reasons why offering someone a chance to redeem themselves is not benevolent, and you really don't have any proof that He did not see that He would have to give His son.

I can defend my beliefs using theology, since that is what I believe and that is what we are debating. If you do not understand theology, you cannot argue against what I believe. You said that He had left us without a chance to get back to Him, and that is not true of Christianity in any way. Its like telling me what I believe and why it's impossible, rather than debating what I actually believe. Its not a debate at all. Also, you are saying that theology is not a good source of truth, yet you have not even proven that there is anything wrong with it.

He's not benevolent because he (supposedly) put in this position in the first place.

I'm not going to debate about what you "actually believe" because frankly, I don't care. Everyone seems to have thier own a la carte version of religion nowdays so trying decipher which particular interpretation you follow is impossible. Of course you can use theology to justify your belief if you like...like I said, you're the expert on your God....I'm just pointing out that using theology as an argument for your side is to assume that I also find it a credible structure from which to base an argument....which is definitely not the case. Like me trying to base an argument for leprechauns on leprechaunology.

Because I don't agree with the Koran, haven't seen it work in anyone's lives like I have the Bible, and because my book, which you cannot discredit, tells me not to.

Precisely, but what you fail to realize is that this is an incident of birth. If you were born, say, in Pakistan...you would have been raised Muslim, witness the Koran "working" in people's lives, and reject the Bible because your holy book tells you to. I can't completely discredit any holy book sir, but I think they do a good enough job of that on their own.

Well, winning prizes is not my aim. Truth is, and it is entirely possible that the 'intellectual community' will not be able to appreciate this truth until some time after I and many others who try to do so are dead.

Yes, I am sure that every scientist will simultaneously drop their test tube in one glorious moment of religious epiphany where they will gather together to shout with one thunderous voice an almighty, "GODDIDIT".

Yes, but you are the one who wrought that. Think individual, not group. Also, humans do not need groups to survive, especially not in the masses we have now. Nature is actually falling apart because of our 'success'. Taking the life of a human (which is merely an advanced primate, right?) if that person is somehow unable to defend themselves abates the likelihood of those genes resurfacing in the species. Simply, we do not need ALL the individuals in the group. Re-read it and think about it, only this time, actually look at your own argument critically, holding that 'survival of the fittest' is true.

Of course we don't need small groups to survive now, the support structure is there where the whole world would simulate a "group"...I thought it was obvious that were talking about evolutionary history, not modern day. The only thing that I would point out is that there are of course groups (like lions) that kill off the weak...but there are other groups (like hippos and many others) that protect their weak...but this must mean that animals must have souls right? since they display signs of morality?

I, as a Christian, and many other Christians, do not have a problem with that idea. What bothers us is that atheists are the ones who go over the line saying that they have proof and we don't, and that we need to change and be nothing-worshippers like them. And [sigh] actually, there are plenty of philosophical reasons for believing, but I think that would be way over your head. We'll just leave it at this basicity for now.

Thank you for thinking that I am incapable of understanding your arguments, you think very highly of yourself It's not that we "have proof and you don't"...nothing is proven...but we do have an abunance of evidence and science on our side. You have...well...faith. And in what sense do you mean philosophical evidence? Do you mean as in predisposed to believe in a higher power or that there are benefits to belief? i hope you don't mean the latter because that is an exceptionally weak argument.

Then you would still be very wrong. Would it be news to you that people kill eachother for money very frequently? Or power? Or to actually try and PREVENT war? Sometimes out of hate, even. Sociological fact shows, we know that humans and human institutions in general have all, in some way or another, erred against fellow human beings, for various reasons. Religion was often only minutely involved, if not at all.

Precisely, we humans are capable of inflicting unspeakable harm on eachother...this shows that we are....wait for it...ANIMALS. Some of us are good animals, some not so much...religion provides an excuse for good animals to be bad animals. Minutely if not at all? Tell me you're not serious.

Only two other options, and they aren't popular with metaphysical naturalists, which I assumed you were.

only 2 other options huh? wow, news to me. There is nothing metaphysical about my beliefs either. I don't presume to know exactly what you believe, I would appreciate it if you could extend me the same courtesy.

Perhaps I should elaborate. Human beings have similar moral codes. That does NOT, however, mean that they act strictly according to those laws. And what exactly are you saying, that you believe we can divine evil-doing through 'natural and astronomical events'? Don't tell me your a horroscope advocate.

No I didnt say or even hint that we can predict natural or astronomical events....not even close. I said that human supremecy is precluded by them...this means that we exist as long as a major natural or astronomical disaster doesn't wipe us out. There is nothing divine about it. You should really read what I type instead of reading what you want to.

And see, this is where I get especially frustrated. Atheists are responsible for almost no advance in human history. Science was actually established by God-fearing men, almost every law that you can think of. Even the process of science was not invented by atheists. Philosophers have often come to conclusions that there are or is a god/goddess/s/es, and if you study the history of the subject you'll see this. There haven't been a whole lot of prominent atheists outside of politics and philosophy that have done very much of anything worthy of history, in fact. Even America, the foundation point of atheist societies, was not created or improved through very much effort of atheists. So, you can see, that God is by no means a hindrance and that we have indeed, prospered and advanced under God. This does not mean that atheists are useless, or that you cannot be an atheist - it simply means that Christians aren't half-bad either, euphemistically speaking.

This doesn't even merit a proper response. Google Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, etc. This post shows that you have no idea what you're talking about...there are so many things wrong here that I won't bother to even point them out.

No, you invent a whole load of explanations that are hardly intelligable to many human beings, instead. Its gotten to the point where the Razor actually favors monistic theism.

The fact that you misspelled intelligible says it better than anything I could say in response to that.

Edited October 19, 2007 by cwcrenshaw

[Grungekid]

He's not benevolent because he (supposedly) put in this position in the first place.

Put whom in what position? He didn't put us in this position, cw, we chose it. I have already told you this. The only way you can argue that he is not benevolent from this point is by saying that He should not have given us free will if He knew this would happen, which is probably not a very strong position to take.

I'm not going to debate about what you "actually believe" because frankly, I don't care. Everyone seems to have thier own a la carte version of religion nowdays so trying decipher which particular interpretation you follow is impossible. Of course you can use theology to justify your belief if you like...like I said, you're the expert on your God....I'm just pointing out that using theology as an argument for your side is to assume that I also find it a credible structure from which to base an argument....which is definitely not the case. Like me trying to base an argument for leprechauns on leprechaunology.

Well, that's great, but you're on a Christian website, and you're being asked about your views, and they clearly aren't proving anything, cw. You made a bad analogy in that leprauchans have already been widely discredited, and Christianity hasn't. As I have said before, you haven't even proven anything in favor of Christianity being completely false. You said it yourself, truth is perception, did you not? Why are you now revoking that for: 'fundamental atheism is the only truth and all other ways are harmful'? It is obvious that you and I have not reached a conclusion by any means, and that we are both taking our positions out of faith, so why are you becoming so self-assured, as you consistently blame Christians?

Precisely, but what you fail to realize is that this is an incident of birth. If you were born, say, in Pakistan...you would have been raised Muslim, witness the Koran "working" in people's lives, and reject the Bible because your holy book tells you to. I can't completely discredit any holy book sir, but I think they do a good enough job of that on their own.

Ah, but you see, I can draw from other's experiences. I know many ex-muslim converts, underground pastors, and even ex-citizens who have told me what it was like there. Their reports aren't positive. I also know for a fact that Muhammed called for evangelism with the sword, and I don't believe that a benevolent being would call for this.

Yes, I am sure that every scientist will simultaneously drop their test tube in one glorious moment of religious epiphany where they will gather together to shout with one thunderous voice an almighty, "GODDIDIT".

To be knowledgable is to be scoffed at.

Thank you for thinking that I am incapable of understanding your arguments, you think very highly of yourself It's not that we "have proof and you don't"...nothing is proven...but we do have an abunance of evidence and science on our side. You have...well...faith. And in what sense do you mean philosophical evidence? Do you mean as in predisposed to believe in a higher power or that there are benefits to belief? i hope you don't mean the latter because that is an exceptionally weak argument.

I don't think you can understand my arguments because you have already left us going in circles, not really reading into my side as it is. I'm sorry, but I had a very rough time yesterday and I sometimes lose patience with people who do not even seem to be paying attention to any of the statements I have made.

I would like to note something: you do not have science on your side. Science cannot prove that there is a God, or that there isn't simply because of the fact that it is merely an observation of the physical world which will only reveal truths about that part of reallity. Noone can see or hear the thoughts in your mind, and though we can read EEM's and CAT's, they do not reveal those thoughts. Yet do we deny that they have a real influence on you, or any of the others that have them? There are other parts to reallity, and I garauntee that they cannot easilly be divined through natural science.

Precisely, we humans are capable of inflicting unspeakable harm on eachother...this shows that we are....wait for it...ANIMALS. Some of us are good animals, some not so much...religion provides an excuse for good animals to be bad animals. Minutely if not at all? Tell me you're not serious.

See, you did it again, cw, you made a huge generalization that goes against what we had agreed earlier. The mere fact that non-religious can do evil shows us that it isn't limited to religions like you seem to be saying in that second-to-last sentence. You even agreed that humans kill eachother for other reasons, and if that is true, maybe we should just abolish anything that people might use as an excuse, if religion is so terrible for having been used in such a case. Further, you can't even seem to prove that point that religions have ONLY had such a negative effect, when in fact religion has had a very positive effect on cultures throughout the world.

And, yes, I'm serious. Religion had very little to do with the battles across Early Mesopotamia, Alexander's conquests, or the conquests of Rome, the majority of the wars from the nineteenth century onward, the Communist genocides conducted in Japan, China, and Russia, and may not have even had a very large place in other conflicts like the Crusades, simply because it was religious LEADERS conducting those wars. Many of them seem to actually have theologically questionable views. Really, every major conflict has had a menagerie of other important factors that contributed to the problem: politics, racial hate, land, resources... even history itself.

only 2 other options huh? wow, news to me. There is nothing metaphysical about my beliefs either. I don't presume to know exactly what you believe, I would appreciate it if you could extend me the same courtesy.

But I DO know what you believe: you believe that all is visible in the physical world is all that is real. There isn't much more to it than that, is there? Unless I am wrong and you have some kind of creed that you follow or that you really turn out to be a neopagan or something, I don't see where I am going wrong in these estimations.

This doesn't even merit a proper response. Google Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, etc. This post shows that you have no idea what you're talking about...there are so many things wrong here that I won't bother to even point them out.

Albert Einstein was NOT an atheist, are you crazy? Thomas Jefferson used God as a reason for America's independance in the Declaration. And you are implying that Google is the most truthful resource? You're a very frustrating person to debate with, mr. cwcrenshaw, but perhaps more unsettling is the fact that you are one of the most respectful and accepting atheists I have met.

The fact that you misspelled intelligible says it better than anything I could say in response to that.

You forgot to capitalize an 'i' earlier. I suppose it has nothing to do with a simple typo and that I need not listen or even pursue an argument with you.

I am sorry I made a mistake, but how do you even begin to reason that that doubtlessly justifies digression from even so much as trying to continue to support your own views ? It really is quite minor, you know.

EDIT- I would like to talk to you more about the social evolution of humans, but my post had too many quotations in it, so I will have to study and save it for another post.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Grungekid

[cwcrenshaw]

Yes there are quite a bit of individual issues going on at once here, so I will only address those that need further commentary. I feel most are going nowhere however and we could go round and round until we're blue in the face.

Ah, but you see, I can draw from other's experiences. I know many ex-muslim converts, underground pastors, and even ex-citizens who have told me what it was like there. Their reports aren't positive. I also know for a fact that Muhammed called for evangelism with the sword, and I don't believe that a benevolent being would call for this.

While I agree that Islam is a far less civil religion that Christianity, I was merely using it an opposing religion to your own to make a point. The point is that other people of other religions believe just as strongly as you do that they are the ones that are right, and that their God is the one true God. The most fundamental proof that God is man made not the other way around is the simple observation of the number of Gods that have been created through the years. You are claiming that 99.999% of the Gods ever worshipped do not exist...I am simply claiming that 100% do not exist for precisely the same reasons that the other 99% don't.

To be knowledgable is to be scoffed at.

Yes, I quite agree...I have been scoffed at more than once for my views. It is, however, helpful to realize that this is not a two way street...to be scoffed at does not automatically make one knowledgable. Whether you are right or you are wrong, there will always be someone scoffing.

I would like to note something: you do not have science on your side. Science cannot prove that there is a God, or that there isn't simply because of the fact that it is merely an observation of the physical world which will only reveal truths about that part of reallity. ...

You're right, you can't prove or disprove anything that you cannot directly measure. However, this does not automatically make it a 50/50 probability. You can make anykind of claim in the world but it means nothing without verifiable evidence...this is where science and faith part ways. You will no doubt disagree with me very much about on this, but from what science CAN measure...there is no indication that a creator need be part of the equation. That is my opinion though.

See, you did it again, cw, you made a huge generalization that goes against what we had agreed earlier. The mere fact that non-religious can do evil shows us that it isn't limited to religions like you seem to be saying in that second-to-last sentence. You even agreed that humans kill eachother for other reasons, and if that is true, maybe we should just abolish anything that people might use as an excuse, if religion is so terrible for having been used in such a case. Further, you can't even seem to prove that point that religions have ONLY had such a negative effect, when in fact religion has had a very positive effect on cultures throughout the world.

I think we have a misunderstanding that keeps tripping up the conversation here. I am not saying that evil is limited to religious people...or that good is limited to religious people. I am simply saying that people will be good or bad regardless of religion...but that there are certain acts of evil that could only be carried out under the guise of religion. Certainly you could claim that there are acts of good that have been done in the name of relgion, but you would have to show that these could not have been done by a non-religious person in order to fully claim them for religion.

Albert Einstein was NOT an atheist, are you crazy? Thomas Jefferson used God as a reason for America's independance in the Declaration. And you are implying that Google is the most truthful resource? You're a very frustrating person to debate with, mr. cwcrenshaw, but perhaps more unsettling is the fact that you are one of the most respectful and accepting atheists I have met.

First of all, thank you for the compliment. I have found the members of this board to be suprisingly accepting and civil as well.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was technically a diest, but certainly not a Christian. Admittedly, It is difficult to find historical figures willing to call themselves an Atheist. It would be mistake to think that this must mean that they weren't however, as it was quite dangerous to proclaim such a stance without fear of death or exile through certain parts of history. It is certainly understandable that Jefferson would not call himself an Atheist because this would have meant the end of his political career. Only recently has a politician (Senator Pete Stark) finally admitted to be an Atheist.

You forgot to capitalize an 'i' earlier. I suppose it has nothing to do with a simple typo and that I need not listen or even pursue an argument with you.

I am sorry I made a mistake, but how do you even begin to reason that that doubtlessly justifies digression from even so much as trying to continue to support your own views ? It really is quite minor, you know.

Of course, it was only an attempt at a joke. I found what was written to be so disagreeable that I figured it was better than being completely rude.

Edited October 22, 2007 by cwcrenshaw

[cwcrenshaw]

no Christian, but certainly no atheist, either, and alot smarter than you or I

To get technical, he is best described as a Pantheist. Not to get too entirely off-track, but Dawkins commented about this:

The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion that he was a theist. So, was he a deist, like Voltaire and Diderot? Or a pantheist, like Spinoza, whose philosophy he admired: 'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings'?

Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.

- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

[Hunterpoet]

There is order to the Cosmos my friend. So much so that we humans can't begin to explain what the dark matter is that is holding it all together. The Word of God explains that the stars that we see even the constellations and awesome vast expanse were Created for the enjoyment of mankind. For the marking of the times and of the seasons.

I agree there is "order" in the universe. The way objects of smaller mass orbit objects of greater mass is exactly what we would expect to see due to gravity. There is order in the respect that things are bound by the laws of the nature (gravity, strong force, weak force, etc)....this is a far cry from saying that the universe has "order" due to a supreme being controlling every event. On your second point, I would have to strongly disagree with you that the universe was created for the enjoyment of mankind. When you look at the size of the universe compared to size of our planet (or galaxy for that matter)...we don't even register...we are microscopic at best. The constellations are not shapes or patterns, they are only how we see a few distant stars from one particular (and might I add, insignificant) point in space. If we were to be in another position in space, the stars we see might actually look to spell out something or draw a picture...but this too would be mere coincidence. To say that the universe was created with us in mind is...well....a little conceited at best.

If there are no inhabitants out there, how is the destruction incompassionate and merciless?

Maybe those aren't the best words to use....the point is, if the universe was created by God then it would be perfect and not the malevolent and violent void that it is...

.How are we to know what is "perfect" when we do not have anything to compare to...we have no other universe to look at that is perfect, so the perfect universe you speak of exist in your mind and how are we ,or you for that matter, to know that it is perfect and that it would work properly.

Would you agree that sending One's only Son to die for you, the Greatest thing of value, worth, and Love to God is Merciful?

No, I don't see how sending someone to die is merciful. That's all I will say about that.