Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by -TruthSeeker-
How can atheists be so sure that we were not created?

I've always felt that there is more to our existence than we think...

...but i don't follow/believe any religion...I guess i'm considered agnostic.

How can atheists be so sure we are not a dream? We did not make ourselves? It was magic elves that hide and watch? How can atheists be so sure it was not all kinds of things? Well, we can't so there is really no reason to entertain each and every insane idea anyone comes up with is there? If you have some evidence of a creation, then please bring it forward. If not, assuming we were created is as good as assuming the matrix is real.

reply to post by loglady

If new undeniable proof came tommorrow that god existed, im sure all atheists would consider this and change to whatever religion it supported.

I can tell you flat out this is not the case.
At least from what they say. Most Atheists would not have a thing to do with God,
if he were giving a speech at the U.N. tomorrow.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs

I can tell you flat out this is not the case.
At least from what they say. Most Atheists would not have a thing to do with God,
if he were giving a speech at the U.N. tomorrow.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

That is insane. Can you back that kind of statement up with say...

...anything?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I know it is insane so hold that thought ok. Do you think I would just blow out a statement like that. I'll leave that open just to see what you say. It was on another thread I'll see if I can find it.
Be back.

Ok
There you go. There was another thread also that went there for a little while. I'll never find that though.

Don't try to be sly Gun have some patience man. I'm try'in to tolerate you here .

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

Atheists are all aboutreply to post by randyvs

First, I would like to know your reasoning for this. You see, Atheists are all about proof and logic, or at least the good ones. We make an objective assessment based upon the data at hand. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof needed. If god came down and proved his existance I would beleive, but until then the evidence supports disbelief in deities.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I know it is insane so hold that thought ok. Do you think I would just blow out a statement like that. I'll leave that open just to see what you say. It was on another thread I'll see if I can find it.
Be back.

Either you can back it up or not.

If you just want to play games, nevermind.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by adjensen
You say that lack of faith inspires a desire to do good here on Earth. While I commend you for that attitude, I would like to ask where you believe that desire comes from? What motivates it? When you say that you want to do the best for yourself, I understand that, but why would you want to do the best for others?

I hope I'm not talking out of my buttocks because I didn't read the rest of this post, but if you are inferring that god is the source of the desire to do good, then that would imply for those who desire to do bad, that god is the source there, as well. Then, there's the whole cliché about worshipping a deity that forces people to do bad things, then punishes them for it.

If you go the free will route, then god can't receive the attribution for being responsible for good behavior.

No, that's not what I said, sorry, and definitely not what I believe.

My question was what the atheist sees as the origin of altruism, where that desire within us to do good comes from. Consider the panhandler. If you give him money, you're going against your own best interests, because you could use the money for your own betterment. You're going against society's best interests, because you're just encouraging people to be bums. You're going against some vague "humankind" interest, because you're supporting someone who is clearly a parasite, not a contributor.

If the answer is "I'm a decent person and I have compassion for the poor", that's fine, but then the question simply becomes "where does compassion come from" and we're back to square one.

cool. why would there be a distinction between where the compassion comes from in an atheist versus a deist? again, if the source of compassion for a deist is god, then god would, it seem, also be the source for people who are not compassionate (i.e., bad). though i don't know if that's what you were inferring.

it's also debatable that giving money to people in need and/or "bums" is going against society's best interests or that those people are parasites.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by loglady

 

If new undeniable proof came tommorrow that god existed, im sure all atheists would consider this and change to whatever religion it supported.

I can tell you flat out this is not the case.
At least from what they say. Most Atheists would not have a thing to do with God,
if he were giving a speech at the U.N. tomorrow.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

incorrect, as usual. by definition, if an atheist was presented with evidence for a deity, he would become a deist. by definition! that's the point, it's not a choice. an atheist or a deist can choose not to believe in something whether there's evidence or not. this is not what atheism is. to choose not to believe in something implies it exists. atheists observe no evidence of a deity, that's it!

reply to post by randyvs


I´m an atheist, and you can be sure I´d be interested in watching a speech by God at UN (though I´d think it is far more probable that an alien named Klatoo would do it instead).

Remember, it takes only one atheist stating otherwise, and your preposterous claim is disproved.

Simple logic.

Originally posted by PrimateMarco
reply to post by randyvs

 

I´m an atheist, and you can be sure I´d be interested in watching a speech by God at UN (though I´d think it is far more probable that an alien named Klatoo would do it instead).

Remember, it takes only one atheist stating otherwise, and your preposterous claim is disproved.

Simple logic.

I'd be interested in ANY being - - from Off Planet - - addressing the UN (or even my local YMCA).

Guess - if that being claims to be God - - he'd need to prove himself (or herself).

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by juveous
- what are your views on the self?

science and philosophers still consider consciousness a hard problem. Do you believe the neuron networks in the brain are aspects causality? Or do you believe we are first causes?

If you believe the latter, wouldn't this conflict with most scientific views of the natural universe?

I could not pretend to know the answer to such a question and could only give you an opinion as someone uneducated in such areas. Sorry, I'm just not well-educated enough on this subject.

You didn't even explore the aspects of the human brain and how those theories conflict with free-will and compatibilism?

Did you just stop researching or what?

Because you should at least say, hey there is a lot of science I don't know about, I'm just used to hearing what others say and repeating it....Its just confusing if you hold a title of 99.999% assertiveness.

Not to sound like i'm ragging but, atheism is such a joke sometimes - It is just a slick version of agnosticism.

You say there is not enough evidence to convince you of theism - but in reality you just aren't sure. It is like you pride yourself in confidence by holding a stance that is easy to argue against, when in reality - you know you're not sure.

reply to post by Annee


Well that makes at least two of us: atheists interested in watching God at UN.

I must confess that I misread the poor fellow´s claim, he was smart enough to say "most" instead of "all". Mea culpa.

However, most can be quantified, and I´m pretty sure I´d still be right to I infer that atheists are a curious bunch, so his claim still sounds preposterous.

As for a being, claiming to be God, surely I´d require more than a burning bush.

reply to post by PrimateMarco


What was I supposed to remember ? Oh ya! I don't make perposterous claims. Havn't made one here either. I don't know what you mean about one atheist. I'm not the one who said all I said most now apologise.

Or don't I don't really care at all.

Hadrion

incorrect, as usual. by definition, if an atheist was presented with evidence for a deity, he would become a deist. by definition! that's the point, it's not a choice. an atheist or a deist can choose not to believe in something whether there's evidence or not. this is not what atheism is. to choose not to believe in something implies it exists. atheists observe no evidence of a deity, that's it!

Who exactly are you saying is incorrect?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by adjensen
You say that lack of faith inspires a desire to do good here on Earth. While I commend you for that attitude, I would like to ask where you believe that desire comes from? What motivates it? When you say that you want to do the best for yourself, I understand that, but why would you want to do the best for others?

I hope I'm not talking out of my buttocks because I didn't read the rest of this post, but if you are inferring that god is the source of the desire to do good, then that would imply for those who desire to do bad, that god is the source there, as well. Then, there's the whole cliché about worshipping a deity that forces people to do bad things, then punishes them for it.

If you go the free will route, then god can't receive the attribution for being responsible for good behavior.

No, that's not what I said, sorry, and definitely not what I believe.

My question was what the atheist sees as the origin of altruism, where that desire within us to do good comes from. Consider the panhandler. If you give him money, you're going against your own best interests, because you could use the money for your own betterment. You're going against society's best interests, because you're just encouraging people to be bums. You're going against some vague "humankind" interest, because you're supporting someone who is clearly a parasite, not a contributor.

If the answer is "I'm a decent person and I have compassion for the poor", that's fine, but then the question simply becomes "where does compassion come from" and we're back to square one.

cool. why would there be a distinction between where the compassion comes from in an atheist versus a deist? again, if the source of compassion for a deist is god, then god would, it seem, also be the source for people who are not compassionate (i.e., bad). though i don't know if that's what you were inferring.

Sorry, again, I'm not inferring where anything comes from. The OP said we could ask questions about what atheists believe, this is one of them. I know what I believe, but that's not the question, and I believe that your supposition about God being the source of something and the cause of its absence is a failure in logic. I could be wrong, of course, but that's another thread, perhaps.

it's also debatable that giving money to people in need and/or "bums" is going against society's best interests or that those people are parasites.

From a purely societal benefit view, encouraging non-productive people to remain so, regardless of their reasons for being noncontributing, is nonsensical and would eventually result in chaos, as those with their hands out naturally increased, while those supporting them decreased.

I'm not saying that it's not good to do, just that claiming a sense of altruism comes from wanting what's best for society is in conflict when the act really doesn't benefit society.

reply to post by PrimateMarco

are a curious bunch, so his claim still sounds preposterous.

All I was using as a reference was the one thread I link to. That isn't a claim. What would it be?

Sooooo OP! What do you think my question is?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


If you require an apology, here it is. I´ve really misread your phrase.

Mea culpa. Sorry for being enraged by your sillyness...

Does that surprise you? An atheist admiting a mistake?

Food for thought.

Originally posted by PrimateMarco
reply to post by Annee

 

Well that makes at least two of us: atheists interested in watching God at UN.

I must confess that I misread the poor fellow´s claim, he was smart enough to say "most" instead of "all". Mea culpa.

Actually - - should say "many" or "some".

There is no way to know most.

However - Randyvs is one dimensional tunnel vision preposterous - - any way you interpret it.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by Annee]

reply to post by PrimateMarco


Get out of here ! I was kidding about an apology.

But don't think for a minute I'll forget it.

Annie
Cool baby!

If you're wait'in on me you're back'in up Gun. I should ask what is it you like for short is Gun ok? Or do you have preference or.... help me out here will ya?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by PrimateMarco

 

What was I supposed to remember ? Oh ya! I don't make perposterous claims. Havn't made one here either.

Still waiting for you to back up your preposterous claim, Randy. What is taking so long?

reply to post by Annee


True, I guess. Bear in mind that English is my second language.

But one could argue that any percentage above 50% in a poll would qualify as "most", wouldn´t it?

And I don´t think that less than 50% of atheists would want to to miss a speech by God, at the UN (or at your YMCA).

What really enraged me is that attitude of qualifying atheists with broad derogatory statements. But that is implicit.

And I wonder, among such interesting and provoking lines of thought, what made me fall for that silly troll bait?