A few things atheists are not...

[Brighten04]

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.

You have not answered my question. OK, let me try again using your words, how do you know what is detrimental and what is beneficial?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You have not answered my question. OK, let me try again using your words, how do you know what is detrimental and what is beneficial.

I'll hazard a guess; like nearly everybody I know he likely guesses what seems good or bad according to experience, whim, and various brain functions - many of which precipitate a decision before one's conscious and deliberative cognitive processes can kick in - which happen subconsciously. He guesses is the short and succinct answer

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, if you take the Bible at face value, then there are some rather horrific things attributed to God there. It is only natural to point these out when God is put forth as an absolute giver of morality and complete righteousness.

I have often said that if the Bible is true, and I someday find myself facing eternal torture for the crime of not believing something without evidence, then I will go to that damnation knowing I am morally superior to that which damns me. Of course, after some 180 billion years of burning, I may begin to feel this is a small comfort.

 

[MarkFL]

You have not answered my question. OK, let me try again using your words, how do you know what is detrimental and what is beneficial?

Detrimental is harmful or negatively affects another, while beneficial positively affects another. It's not always so cut and dried though...suppose my child is drowning, but there is another child drowning as well. If I save my child the other will perish. Naturally I will save my own child at the detriment of the other.

But the bottom line here is that there is no need for a belief in a god to know what is the right thing to do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, if you take the Bible at face value, then there are some rather horrific things attributed to God there. It is only natural to point these out when God is put forth as an absolute giver of morality and complete righteousness.

I have often said that if the Bible is true, and I someday find myself facing eternal torture for the crime of not believing something without evidence, then I will go to that damnation knowing I am morally superior to that which damns me. Of course, after some 180 billion years of burning, I may begin to feel this is a small comfort.

I am not sure why anybody would take the bible (as a whole) at face value. That would be like taking a library at face value and leads to the same kinds of absurdities as reading a poem as if it were news or a play as if it were biography. The bible is made up of 73 books many are poetry, many are prose stories but not history, some are history but quite eccentric history from a modern point of view because they are history with a religious lesson as their main theme, and some are mixtures of several literary forms but almost none fit our modern day categories exactly so reading them at face value does not work well and does not do them justice.

 

[seekingsolace]

Yes, if you take the Bible at face value, then there are some rather horrific things attributed to God there. It is only natural to point these out when God is put forth as an absolute giver of morality and complete righteousness.

I have often said that if the Bible is true, and I someday find myself facing eternal torture for the crime of not believing something without evidence, then I will go to that damnation knowing I am morally superior to that which damns me. Of course, after some 180 billion years of burning, I may begin to feel this is a small comfort.

Do you not view that as hate? Moral superiority over an eternal unfathomable being because our demands weren't met?

Kind of brings to mind: Rev 16:11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.

 

[Lamb]

Detrimental is harmful or negatively affects another, while beneficial positively affects another. It's not always so cut and dried though...suppose my child is drowning, but there is another child drowning as well. If I save my child the other will perish. Naturally I will save my own child at the detriment of the other.

But the bottom line here is that there is no need for a belief in a god to know what is the right thing to do.

Knowing what the right thing to do is not the purpose of the Bible.

 

[MarkFL]

Knowing what the right thing to do is not the purpose of the Bible.

The question was without a belief in God, how do I know the difference between good and evil, which to me is kind of a silly question...but I was trying to answer it.

 

[tango]

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.

Logically speaking that makes sense although I've come across a few people who alternate between "there is no God" and "why did God let this happen?".

 

[MarkFL]

Logically speaking that makes sense although I've come across a few people who alternate between "there is no God" and "why did God let this happen?".

The argument I have seen more often is "If there is a god, then why would such and such be allowed to happen?" That's really not an argument an atheist should be making...it's not on the atheist to demonstrate there are no gods unless they have stated as much. The gnostic atheist has a burden of proof, whereas the agnostic atheist does not, as i know you are well aware.

Any claim of knowledge requires evidence. And as Christopher Hitchens once said, "Any claim made without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence as well."

 

[popsthebuilder]

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.

That's called your conscience. It's imbued into all of us through the Spirit which was given by God. Of course I guess being an atheist you think the mind is just part of the brain and we only think because of chemical reactions in the brain. However if you do some studying you'll see that emotions lead to chemical reactions and vice versa chemical reactions do not necessarily only make emotions but emotions make chemical reactions which make further emotions which make more developed thought.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The argument I have seen more often is "If there is a god, then why would such and such be allowed to happen?" That's really not an argument an atheist should be making...it's not on the atheist to demonstrate there are no gods unless they have stated as much. The gnostic atheist has a burden of proof, whereas the agnostic atheist does not, as i know you are well aware.

Any claim of knowledge requires evidence. And as Christopher Hitchens once said, "Any claim made without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence as well."

Religion has been around way before science the burden of proof lies on the scientist. If one cannot prove something one way or another then how can the burden of proof lie on one or the other?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

By the way I have absolutely no problem with scientists. I have a problem with atheists assuming that science in itself proves that there is no God when it does no such thing in any way.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

My conscience is simply part of my sentience which is a function of my brain alone. A conscience is something which was selected for in our evolutionary past, because groups of hominids who cooperated and treated each other altruistically were more successful.

Mind (consciousness) is a wonderful emergent property of the brain. Of course the mind is not fully understood, but this is no reason for me to then claim something supernatural must be at work. This just means more science needs to be done.

 

[MarkFL]

By the way I have absolutely no problem with scientists. I have a problem with atheists assuming that science in itself proves that there is no God when it does no such thing in any way.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Science can only deal with those things for which there is evidence, that are testable and tangible.

 

[psalms 91]

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Science can only deal with those things for which there is evidence, that are testable and tangible.

And therein lies the problem as it takes spiritual to judge spiritual, science will never be able to do that

 

[Alithis]

Hello all,

I was raised Baptist, but after much study and inner-reflection realized I am an atheist at about the age of 16. So, as an atheist, I wanted to dispel some popular notions about atheists.

Atheists are not:

• Stating any position on the existence of the supernatural (either for or against), because there is no compelling evidence to do so. An atheist does not believe in any God or gods, but does not make the claim that there are none. This is an outdated misconception.
• Haters of God - we simply do not find sufficient reason to believe in God, or anything on faith alone. We cannot hate that in which we do not believe.
• Sad or depressed about not believing in life after death - I consider myself very fortunate to be alive, that all of the events necessary for my existence took place, and only want to make the best of the life that is mine.
• Inherently amoral - we do not feel that since we do not believe in God this gives us free license to behave any way we want. Treating others the right way is something that should be done simply because it is the right thing to do.
• Naturally smarter than anyone else - I get really irritated at other atheists who come off like those who choose to have faith are somehow less intelligent than them, because it is simply not true and gives others a bad impression of atheists as a whole.
• Worshipers of science - Science does not, nor will it ever, have all the answers, but what makes science so important is that it is an ever increasing and self-correcting system aimed at finding the truth about the natural world. Science, by its very definition, has nothing to say about the existence of God. Science is not, nor could it ever be, a replacement for God.

Those are just a few off the top of my head, but please feel free to give your honest thoughts on atheism, and I will try to address them

you missed out "honest"

 

[popsthebuilder]

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Science can only deal with those things for which there is evidence, that are testable and tangible.

Tell that to the atheists.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Science can only deal with those things for which there is evidence, that are testable and tangible.

Tell that to the atheists.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I reckon he means things that are measurable and observable. Of course that leaves one wondering what written testimony to words said and events happening is for the sciences? One cannot verify what is said or done in history because only a few events leave any kind of physical evidence behind them. For example, if I testify that my nephew said "I am in Queensland" how can the sciences verify that he ever said it?

 

[MarkFL]

And therein lies the problem as it takes spiritual to judge spiritual, science will never be able to do that

Science has as its goal to get to the truth. When there is no evidence for something, why would science get involved at all? That would only serve to weaken science.