A few things atheists are not...

[MarkFL]

Baptist... No wonder you're a atheist now! lol


JFN����

LOL! I think that only hastened the process somewhat.

 

[80sChild]

LOL! I think that only hastened the process somewhat.

I use to be Baptist too.


JFN

 

[tango]

But then we run into Occam's razor...what then created the creator? And what then created the creator's creator, and so on...if something as complex as the universe requires a creator, then surely this creator would be much more complex that its creation and even more so requires a creator, and so forth.

I'm not sure that Occam's razor does complicate this issue.

If for the sake of this we define a deity as something eternal and uncreated, then either deities exist or they don't exist. If they exist there is no requirement to figure what created them because they are eternal and are, almost by definition, uncreated. In the absence of some kind of deity we've got a pile of questions about how nothing became something. If originally there was something, that something is outside of time by definition. If originally there was nothing we have to figure how nothing became something for the process to continue from there. Until we can figure how nothing became something anything further down the chain makes no progress whatsoever to determining how it all started.

Issues of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms aside, the best evolution can do is explain something based on an assumption. Essentially it says "if we can assume that a non-living thing became a living thing, we can see how things may have developed from there". The belief that something non-living came to life by itself isn't so different from the belief that God breathed life into Adam as claimed in Gen 2:7.

I would choose to allow science to continue the ongoing investigation of cosmology to eventually (hopefully) explain the origin of the universe rather than simply saying, it must have had a supernatural cause. Following the ongoing investigation requires no faith. Throwing in the towel and saying science doesn't satisfactorily explain it therefore we must invoke the supernatural does require faith.

I don't dispute it requires faith to believe in a deity and I'm not interested in throwing in the towel, it just seems that every time science answers a question it throws up dozens more. Perhaps some day science will answer the questions, although right now I'd say it takes just as much faith to believe that as it does to believe in a deity that created it all.

 

[MarkFL]

I'm not sure that Occam's razor does complicate this issue.

If for the sake of this we define a deity as something eternal and uncreated, then either deities exist or they don't exist. If they exist there is no requirement to figure what created them because they are eternal and are, almost by definition, uncreated. In the absence of some kind of deity we've got a pile of questions about how nothing became something. If originally there was something, that something is outside of time by definition. If originally there was nothing we have to figure how nothing became something for the process to continue from there. Until we can figure how nothing became something anything further down the chain makes no progress whatsoever to determining how it all started.

I don't see how we are allowed to require one thing be created while letting another be immune from this requirement. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the creator exists outside of spacetime and the causal order.

Yes, we both have the issue of something coming from nothing. Rather than invoking a supernatural process whereby the universe is spoken into existence (or otherwise magically willed into being), I think it is better to let the investigation continue and to admit at this point we just don't yet know.

Issues of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms aside, the best evolution can do is explain something based on an assumption. Essentially it says "if we can assume that a non-living thing became a living thing, we can see how things may have developed from there". The belief that something non-living came to life by itself isn't so different from the belief that God breathed life into Adam as claimed in Gen 2:7.

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins. The process of transition from non-living organic matter to life I am sure is a complicated process, but I am also confident it will be explainable at some point as a natural process. But if not, that will still be no reason for me to say well, I guess it must be magic.

I don't dispute it requires faith to believe in a deity and I'm not interested in throwing in the towel, it just seems that every time science answers a question it throws up dozens more. Perhaps some day science will answer the questions, although right now I'd say it takes just as much faith to believe that as it does to believe in a deity that created it all.

That's the beauty of science...it leads us to asking questions we previously were too ignorant to even ask. I don't think science will ever answer everything, much in the same way that we will never discover all of mathematics.

 

[tango]

I don't see how we are allowed to require one thing be created while letting another be immune from this requirement. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the creator exists outside of spacetime and the causal order.

We need to come to a decision whether such an entity or entities can exist or not. Essentially the question is between "In the beginning, God" or "In the beginning, not-God".

Yes, we both have the issue of something coming from nothing. Rather than invoking a supernatural process whereby the universe is spoken into existence (or otherwise magically willed into being), I think it is better to let the investigation continue and to admit at this point we just don't yet know.

I don't have a problem with looking at what science might come up with to explain it. In the meantime I'm satisfied with my statement of belief "God did it", and presumably you're happy with your statement of belief "Science will understand it eventually".

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins. The process of transition from non-living organic matter to life I am sure is a complicated process, but I am also confident it will be explainable at some point as a natural process. But if not, that will still be no reason for me to say well, I guess it must be magic.

I'd make a slight nitpick there and say that evolution seeks to explain the diversity of life

That aside, I agree that evolution seeks to explain how and why there are so many different living things rather than how they came to be living things in the first place. It's just one piece of the jigsaw of trying to explain, in the absence of a deity, how nothing because the universe with the variety of life we see around us (and, presumably, the variety of life that may exist undiscovered elsewhere in the universe).

That's the beauty of science...it leads us to asking questions we previously were too ignorant to even ask. I don't think science will ever answer everything, much in the same way that we will never discover all of mathematics.

Can't deny that one. Although the idea that we'll never discover all of mathematics might strike fear into the heart of a generation of teenagers struggling with their homework

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, evolution does not fully explain every little detail, but the evidence is quite compelling that it is on the right path. Much like quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot be correct because they are incompatible, but it is obvious some flavor of each will be found the GUT (Grand Unified Theory).

 

[charis en excelcis]

I have found that there are many different personality types of people and that is reflected among atheists.
1. The practical atheist. Not a major issue of their world view, they simply live there lives as if there is no God.
2. The philosophical atheist. this one has given a lot of thought to their atheism.
3. The obnoxious atheist. Not really concerned with the development of their world view, but enjoys pulling the strings of non-atheists.
4. The bully atheist. Not only doesn't believe in God, but thinks no one ought to.
5. MarkFL and friends. Atheists who befriend and hang with atheist and non atheist alike.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Neither Prof. Dawkins nor I hate God, just as I do not hate Zeus or Thor. I just find that there is no compelling reason to believe in the supernatural. It takes faith to believe in something for which there is no compelling evidence, and I happen to be someone who is incapable of that. I simply cannot hate that in which I do not believe.

How is hate defined?

They evidence their hate for God by attributing to God all sorts of wickedness. They also evidence it by the ridicule and mockery they advocate ought to be used when discussing what they think are ridiculous theological ideas, and they also evidence it in their persistent fundamentalist hermeneutic when they interpret holy scripture and then laugh at their interpretations as if they were what the holy scripture teaches.

 

[MarkFL]

No atheist will attribute wickedness (or anything else for that matter) to God...an atheist simply does not believe in God on lack of compelling evidence. One cannot attribute anything to that in which there is no belief.

 

[popsthebuilder]

No atheist will attribute wickedness (or anything else for that matter) to God...an atheist simply does not believe in God on lack of compelling evidence. One cannot attribute anything to that in which there is no belief.

That is simply not true. Many atheists are indeed that way due to a misguided view of God and God's vigilance is seen as sadistic and needless as is the rest of the world's pain which can be seen as God's work to them. Atheists take pride in ridiculing, belittling, and manipulating everything under God and of God. This isn't all of them, but the general bully effect is multiplied with a more heavy concentration. Don't know where you hang out on line with atheists but try the thinking atheist if you doubt me. Actually they have calmed down some in the last couple of months.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Lamb]

That is simply not true. Many atheists are indeed that way due to a misguided view of God and God's vigilance is seen as sadistic and needless as is the rest of the world's pain which can be seen as God's work to them. Atheists take pride in ridiculing, belittling, and manipulating everything under God and of God. This isn't all of them, but the general bully effect is multiplied with a more heavy concentration. Don't know where you hang out on line with atheists but try the thinking atheist if you doubt me. Actually they have calmed down some in the last couple of months.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Not all atheists can be lumped into that group of " ridiculing, belittling, and manipulating everything under God and of God". I have all kinds of atheist friends. Some attack God. Some attack Christians. Some prefer not to comment

 

[popsthebuilder]

Not all atheists can be lumped into that group of " ridiculing, belittling, and manipulating everything under God and of God". I have all kinds of atheist friends. Some attack God. Some attack Christians. Some prefer not to comment

Agreed, as stated in initial post.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

That is simply not true. Many atheists are indeed that way due to a misguided view of God and God's vigilance is seen as sadistic and needless as is the rest of the world's pain which can be seen as God's work to them. Atheists take pride in ridiculing, belittling, and manipulating everything under God and of God. This isn't all of them, but the general bully effect is multiplied with a more heavy concentration. Don't know where you hang out on line with atheists but try the thinking atheist if you doubt me. Actually they have calmed down some in the last couple of months.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Anyone who attributes anything to a god is not an atheist by definition. I actually don't hang out online with atheists, except for those with whom I am already associated and who just happen to be atheists.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Anyone who attributes anything to a god is not an atheist by definition. I actually don't hang out online with atheists, except for those with whom I am already associated and who just happen to be atheists.

I'm quite aware of literal meanings and definitions. That doesn't stop hate mongers from hating or being mongers of said hate and hypocrisy.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

I'm quite aware of literal meanings and definitions. That doesn't stop hate mongers from hating or being mongers of said hate and hypocrisy.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Yes, some people on all sides of a view are going to behave in a less than desirable way. I eventually just ignore the unreasonable. As long as a religious person does not put forth their beliefs to me as fact, I am fine with them and their views.

 

[Brighten04]

I have a few questions.
1) do atheists believe there is Satan?
2)how do atheists determine what is good and what is evil, or what is right and what is wrong, or do you not determine it at all?
I have another question but I want to know the answer to the above before I ask it.

 

[MarkFL]

I have a few questions.
1) do atheists believe there is Satan?
2)how do atheists determine what is good and what is evil, or what is right and what is wrong, or do you not determine it at all?
I have another question but I want to know the answer to the above before I ask it.

1.) No...Satan is a supernatural being and so falls into the same category as a god.

2.) Good and evil are concepts that pre-date religion by a large margin. It can be shown that the other great apes have a sense of altruism and of fairness and of what is a behavior that is beneficial to the group as a whole. As Christopher Hitchens has said, to put forth the notion that without God we are incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil is to denigrate humanity at a fundamental level.

 

[Brighten04]

1.) No...Satan is a supernatural being and so falls into the same category as a god.

2.) Good and evil are concepts that pre-date religion by a large margin. It can be shown that the other great apes have a sense of altruism and of fairness and of what is a behavior that is beneficial to the group as a whole. As Christopher Hitchens has said, to put forth the notion that without God we are incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil is to denigrate humanity at a fundamental level.

So, HOWdo you determine/know the difference?

 

[MarkFL]

So, HOWdo you determine/know the difference?

I can project into the future to see that a certain action (or lack of action) will either be detrimental to others or beneficial (or at least neutral). It is common sense, at least as far as that which is instantly recognized by any person of reasonable intelligence regardless of culture.

If my buddy is under his car changing the oil, and I notice the jack is not set correctly, I can see a possible future in which the car falls off the jack, injuring or even killing my buddy. So, I know the right thing to do is to tell him to get out from under the car and reset the jack properly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No atheist will attribute wickedness (or anything else for that matter) to God...an atheist simply does not believe in God on lack of compelling evidence. One cannot attribute anything to that in which there is no belief.

One would think what you say would be true, yet Richard Dawkins spends some time and effort in his book denigrating a God who is fictional. It isn't all that common for atheists to be as rabid as the now deceased Christopher Hitchens, the still living Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, and the deceased Douglas Adams. And even though I got many a laugh out of Mr Adam's work it is nevertheless rather odd of grown men to get as worked up as they did in their written works about a God who is fictional.

Mind you, my best friend is an atheist. I rather like the atheists I know.