Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
atheism (i think) entails complete disbelief in the idea that there is an answer that cannot be comprehended that is in fact greater then us. So, are you actually an atheist, or just a religious skeptic?

I have never heard that atheism presumes there are incomprehensible answers and that's not a position I take in any way. There are distinct modes of atheism though; one being "strong" atheism which is the positive assertion that there is no god(s), the other being "soft" atheism which is non-theism based on a lack of evidence supporting religions. I would fall more so into the latter camp.

I believe I am an atheist because I am a religious skeptic. However, should we today discover indisputable, objective evidence of a deity, soul, afterlife, etc. such things would no longer become matters of belief but a solid, reliable fact of science. As of now though I see no reason to hold beliefs in such unproven and unsupported things.

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


Im an atheist yet believe in ufo's, when i say ufo's i mean seemingly intelligently controlled craft or objects that defy any known technology in terms of speed, acceleration and maneuverability. I can't however say if they are alien or terrestrial in nature, but it is far more likely that they are terrestrial as there is no evidence that aliens exist but we do know that humans and black projects do. There is no evidence for a god but plenty of good evidence for ufo's, so it's not really a good comparison to make.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Solomons]

reply to post by Solomons


Thats pretty subjective. You could just as easily say there is no known credible evidence for the existence of aliens or UFO's. There is a lot of people who have had experiences with UFO's, but there are also large number of people who have religious experiences all the time.

I have never seen any evidence that has convinced me of UFO's. A lot of really nice, seemingly convincing stories told by people who claim to be credible, but nothing tangible. Now, it is much easier for a religious person to take existence as proof of pre-existence (or god, or whatever). You are looking for evidence of UFO's, and hold beliefs based on this evidence (no matter how trivial). The same goes for people who hold religious beliefs. I could easily argue all day for or against the existence of god, but not so for the existence of UFOs or aliens.

I dont think its such a bad comparison. Neither can be proven beyond a doubt, and both have a following and individuals who swear by their experiences with both. For UFOs i would say it is more based in faith, faith in the people who claim to have experience, and faith in the people who make those dumb videos. For belief in god, sure there is faith, but there is also a (seemingly infinite) body of evidence.

if you wanted to hold religious beliefs, you could do so more easily then holding UFO beliefs. But you choose to ground your beliefs in internet culture, and your evidence in the text and images that present themselves to you in digi-land. Personally, i dont think the internet is a good basis for anything, and choose to hold religious beliefs based on my own critical thought on the nature of the universe. That seems much more logical to me

[edit on 15-7-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Feel free to ask anything.

Three questions:

Did you have parents who were religious bigots?

Were you beaten by those parents?

Did that spark waves of hatred for a lifelong mission of being anti-something?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by lucid eyes]

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Three questions:

Did you have parents who were religious bigots?

Were you beaten by those parents?

Did that spark waves of hatred for a lifelong mission of being anti-something?

No,
no,
and no.

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


Someone could say there is no evidence for ufo's, but then i could just show them many cases with all the evidence...can people do the same with God? no...because all that is required is faith, not evidence. You really need to do some more research on the subject, 99% of the time those who say UFO's are silly with no evidence to back them up simply haven't done the research.

“Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that unknown flying objects are nonsense.” Former CIA Director, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, public statement, 1960.

Anyway, we are taking the OP's thread a bit off topic, sorry drummer.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check that page out spacey.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Solomons]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Were your parents religious?

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Were your parents religious?

My mother was raised catholic yet has been a Buddhist for several decades now. My father attended churches as was necessary by social pressures but expressed many atheistic thoughts behind closed doors. Both tried involving me with churches as a child.

Have you read any of C.S. Lewis' apologetic works, and if so, do you find them difficult to argue with?

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Have you read any of C.S. Lewis' apologetic works, and if so, do you find them difficult to argue with?

I've read some of Lewis and found his arguments remarkably unconvincing. I haven't found any apologist that was particularly difficult to argue with.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Both tried involving me with churches as a child.

Yeah its pretty common that atheists have religious parents who either tried to force their children to accept religion or combined religion with beatings, shame and punishment.

These are children that have experienced Religion as Restriction and Violence rather than Love and Kindness.

reply to post by Solomons


I;ve seen all the evidence and conjecture. I am, after all, a member of ATS (long term). But where you say "evidence" i dont see it. You gave me a quote, likely drawn from this site. For that to be evidence you would have to source it, then source it again, then verify the source. and all this assumes you trust the CIA (which im going to assume you dont, because then your belief in UFO's would have already been verified if it were true.

The fact that you dont see evidence for god means that your not looking for it. Sure, its easy to find random quotes on the internet that support the UFO phenomenon, but you can just as easily find real-life examples of religious evidence. Ill say the same thing you said to me, if you dont believe in god then you havent put enough research/thought into it.

Its easy to say that the idea of god is stupid because duhhh theres no guy floating in the sky judging me and deciding my fate, thats just dumb. But then, how do you explain existence? undetermined.

now, how do you explain the existence of UFO's? undetermined.

they could easily be one and the same. Maybe "god" creates images of UFO's, and thats why theres no hard evidence besides grainy videos and quotes of military officials saying that aliens exist. For all you know these people could be planted/paid to keep your delusions going.

Now, as for the existence of life, the universe, and everything... that a little harder to explain away. The proof is right there, and you just refuse to recognize it. And if you ask me, that proof is much more tangible then crappy videos and relying on the conjecture of self-proclaimed airforce officials and old bobby lazar. Ill trust the universe before i trust those creeps.

So, i guess its your definition of evidence that im having trouble with, and for good reason. Show me some good evidence and i might reconsider.

edit: that link had a great compilation of UFO evidence. And i know, its all very convincing. I believe in UFO's too, and i believe in many of those stories. That doesn't discount the abundance of evidence that supports religious thinking.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Both tried involving me with churches as a child.

Yeah its pretty common that atheists have religious parents who either tried to force their children to accept religion or combined religion with beatings, shame and punishment.

These are children that have experienced Religion as Restriction and Violence rather than Love and Kindness.

I have met people with those kinds of experiences yet most of the ones I know are not atheists at all. However, most of the atheists I know were raised with loving parents and were treated kindly in childhood. The atheism was more a result of the parents teaching their children critical thinking skills.

As a former Atheist, I don't really have questions so much so that I got a discussion I would like to bring up. And forgive me if you touched on this in the thread already; I was too assed to check the thread out.

Many atheists follow science with a dogmatic view that makes them no better than religious counterparts. As an atheist, are you particularly open to other forms of gaining knowledge?

What I mean is, science isn't perfect. It isn't really anything other than an effective way of gaining knowledge following certain procedures that were created for objective testing.

It has it's share of presumptions and in the end while science grants us data to use, it doesn't actually give us answers; the data still needs to be examined and applied to our current knowledge, and this isn't a part of science.

As an atheist, are you particularly against gaining knowledge any other way? For example, esoteric methods of gaining knowledge. Meditation, etc. Does something need to be scientifically provable for you to believe in it?

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Many atheists follow science with a dogmatic view that makes them no better than religious counterparts. As an atheist, are you particularly open to other forms of gaining knowledge?

What I mean is, science isn't perfect. It isn't really anything other than an effective way of gaining knowledge following certain procedures that were created for objective testing.

Well, experience is another way of gaining knowledge, so of course I'm open to other forms. Agreed, science is not perfect and I can't say I know of anyone who would claim otherwise.

As an atheist, are you particularly against gaining knowledge any other way? For example, esoteric methods of gaining knowledge. Meditation, etc.

Presumably meditation could be a form of self-critical analysis and perhaps there's knowledge there to be gained. If you mean the acquisition of knowledge in the realm of metaphysics I would personally avoid it. Metaphysicians have hypotheses but no lab in which to experiment with and confirm them.

Does something need to be scientifically provable for you to believe in it?

If something is scientifically provable it no longer inhabits the realm of belief.

I find that most atheist base their non-belief in a higher power on traditional religious based thinking. They can't seem to think out-of-the-box when it comes to a higher power in the universe. Since most of agree on this forum, that religions portray God as being that believes in reward and punishment of your actions...it's pretty silly that an all omni-potent force can be "offended" by our actions and get mad at us. I guess this illogical concept sends some people to being atheists (those people that can't think out of the box of traditionalism) and other people to a spiritual quest that excludes religions (out of the box thinkers). This is my own observation and I'm always so shocked how atheists can't fathom any concept of God other than the traditional concept, thereby they have to become an atheist.

Science supports that all things in the universe are made of energy and energy cannot be killed. In the simplest of terms everything was formed from the "big bang", which was energy subdividing itself...or God subdividing himself. Yes...a divine intelligent ENERGY. This energy is all connecting in the universe and many call it the universal consciousness. String theory in quantum physics supports that mere observation alters reality. Physicists are also researching the idea of multi-universes in different dimensions. String theory supports 10 dimensions plus time. So, if you are a science based person, do you reject the studies and possibilities of multi-dimensions? It would require you to believe that we can be two places at once (if not more) as quantum physics has shown in particle studies.

Being an atheists means the vessel that houses your energy (soul) dies and nothing is left. However, where there is no vessel (human form) since it is only in a 3D dimension...what part of you (or other living beings) lives on in a non-3D world in the other dimensions? Do you think physicists are wasting their time and money studying these things? I would have to say if your answer is "yes", then you would have had the same answer centuries ago when asked "Is the world flat?".

You state that anyone that equates quantum physics to consciousness or spirituality isn't studying quantum physics. Do you know nothing of string theory? Have you read any of these books?

Physics of the Soul by Dr. Goswami

The Spiritual Universe: One Physicist's Vision of Spirit, Soul, Matter & Self by Fred Wolf

God is Not Dead:What Quantum Physics Tells us About Our Origins.

The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientists Case for the Existence of the Soul

The Way from Science to Soul, Integrating Physics, the Brain, and the Spiritual Journey

Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

--A remarkable and readable presentation of the basic mysteries of science, our universe, and human life. Critically important problems in our understanding are interestingly discussed with perception, depth, and careful objectivity."--Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, inventor of the laser, and Templeton Prize recipient


These are just a few books by physicists studying the quantum world and how it ties to the Soul and a higher source in the universe..which many would call God. At some point...don't be too surprised if our scientist prove their is an "intelligent energy"...which means they have found God.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Have you read any of C.S. Lewis' apologetic works, and if so, do you find them difficult to argue with?

I've read some of Lewis and found his arguments remarkably unconvincing. I haven't found any apologist that was particularly difficult to argue with.

Could you please define 'some'?
I am curious as to what you have read that you find remarkably unconvincing.
Thanks.

Originally posted by ptmckiou
So, if you are a science based person, do you reject the studies and possibilities of multi-dimensions?

Sure I'm open to those notions. I'm still waiting for an experiment in string theory though.

Being an atheists means the vessel that houses your energy (soul) dies and nothing is left.

Atheism is a non-belief in entities. But I'll admit there is nothing in the observable universe indicating that any life form can survive death.

Do you think physicists are wasting their time and money studying these things?

Experimenting with hypotheses is never a waste of time.

You state that anyone that equates quantum physics to consciousness or spirituality isn't studying quantum physics. Do you know nothing of string theory? Have you read any of these books?

What I said was that those claiming to understand quantum physics certainly doesn't. Yes, I am indeed aware of string theory.

These are just a few books by physicists studying the quantum world and how it ties to the Soul and a higher source in the universe..which many would call God. At some point...don't be too surprised if our scientist prove their is an "intelligent energy"...which means they have found God.

Such books are a typical fad employed by charlatans who exploit the mysteries of quantum physics to usher in any manner of metaphysical and pseudoscientific new age nonsense they choose to dream up. To date there remains no evidence of souls or gods and those who blind others with science to pass off these concepts are frauds. New age ideology/theology is just as abhorrent as ancient theologies.

Originally posted by Romans 10:9

Could you please define 'some'?
I am curious as to what you have read that you find remarkably unconvincing.
Thanks.

With all due respect I have no interest in indulging Lewis' arguments and listing my objections. This is roughly akin to me describing all the potential mates I rejected before I chose my wife and explaining the purpose for rejecting the others.

However, if there's some apologetic point you find particularly irrefutable I'd have no problem providing my opinion on it.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


This is a typical atheist response and I hazard to point out an incorrect one as well. Firstly black is not a colour, it's a tone, the absence of colour. This is no doubt in line with your absence of god (light) and a fixation on general negativity and all things morbid.

It is however, somewhat slimming.