Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by wavemaker

No wonder their arguments never end. They both have some truths to hold on to and they both see the flaw in the other side to pound on to.

Do you know why they will never end? Because it's like me saying "i have an invisible friend, prove me wrong" -

Inifinite regression - If god exists, who created God, who created the creator of God and so on

Logical fallacies - There are fairies and santa claus, no evidence, but claims of them being "magic" to hide the inconvenient truth that there is no evidence.

and thus and unfalsifiable and circular hypothesis.

I could carry on the circular argument claiming that i know truth when there is no apparent truth.

If god created the universe, this reality, and there is no evidence of him, he must exist outside of this reality, so how can people claim to know his wishes of you? how can you even suggest God taught you homosexuality is wrong, or women being inferior is right? Is it not odd that different religions have different rules and regulations, which one is right, how do you know?

Its not to say the people writing the bible are not poetic, do not offer some half decent philosophy and charity but that could have been done with the whole "God" concept, but the rules, the regulations that they infer to God, as if they know.

And praying, please tell me why? Why pray to be strong, when you can go and be strong, why pray for peace, when you can go out and make a change for peace? As if praying is going to manifest in this reality, as if some Cosmic overlord responds to every wish a human makes and manifests it in reality.

Sorry if i'm a little agressive, these are the reasons i see religion as dilusion of the mind, i am an Atheist, i am an Anti-Theist, we need to free future generations.

[edit on 16/7/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by 547000
But there's still a belief. Either you believe the claim is true, or believe the claim is false. Both are still beliefs, with or without evidence.

No, I simply reject the claim due to its lack merits. Making such a determination does not constitute atheism as a belief in the theological sense.

Let's clear this confusion up by definition.

belief

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

By definition, arriving at my certitude could be categorized under definition 1, as atheism being my conviction. Atheism cannot, however, be accurately described as "a belief" under definition 2.

Let's look at the antonym

disbelief

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

This also is not a belief. In terms of atheism it is simply a rejection of the proposition of the existence of deities as true. Therefore, atheism is not a theological belief nor is it as belief system.

Disbelief does not equal belief

I'm not saying "prove me wrong", I know that's impossible. But by personal experience I know God exists. All I can say is don't be so sure lest your convictions are pulled apart.

You think it's all a bunch of delusions but when you have an experience then you know despite not being able to prove it to others.

Originally posted by adjensen
The problem is that the rejection of a premise doesn't generate a new fact, aside from the fact that you have rejected the premise. Saying "I don't believe that there is a God" is much different than saying "There is no God." You can arrive at the first through your rejection, but you can't arrive at the second.

If you believe that you can validly make absolute statements based on non-absolute statements, you're implying that reality is shaped by our perception of it, not shaped by what it is, which is nonsense.

I agree with this and I believe we've discussed this already. Please note that I have made neither statement that you placed in quotations above. I simply reject the proposition of the existence of deities based on the lack of objective evidence. This constitutes disbelief, which is not, in fact, belief. If you cannot fathom atheism in any other way than as a belief, I'm fine with it. Let's move on.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
If god created the universe, this reality, and there is no evidence of him, he must exist outside of this reality, so how can people claim to know his wishes of you? how can you even suggest God taught you homosexuality is wrong, or women being inferior is right?

If we assume that a creator God exists, there are two possibilities:

1. He has nothing to do with us, never has, never will
   
2. He has some sort of interaction with us
   

You suppose the first -- he's outside of our reality and we don't, can't and won't interact with him. If that is the case, then throw out all theology, belief and faith, because it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. Leaves the door open for other supernatural beliefs, like life after death, but takes it all out of any understandable context.

The other point of view negates your point of view. Whether you agree with it or not, whether it's been misinterpreted or not, God has interacted with us and told us how we can be reconciled to him. For the Christian, love him, love others, accept Christ's sacrifice, and you're good to go.

And praying, please tell me why? Why pray to be strong, when you can go and be strong, why pray for peace, when you can go out and make a change for peace? As if praying is going to manifest in this reality, as if some Cosmic overload responds to every wish a human makes and manifests it in reality.

I don't know, why do you talk to people? Why ask your wife what she thinks you should do in a situation? Why does one bounce ideas off of other people? Prayer, for a person of faith, is simply talking to God. Sometimes you get a response, sometimes you don't, but it's a good experience. If you don't have faith, meh, probably seems pointless, but that's the case with a lot of religion, I'm sure.

Sorry if i'm a little agressive, these are the reasons i see religion as dilusion of the mind, i am an Atheist, i am an Anti-Theist, we need to free future generations.

Freed from what? If you wouldn't mind, can you go back to my first post in this thread, and respond to my questions about the motivations of atheistic zealots, who feel the need to "convert" believers, regardless of how they go about it?

reply to post by adjensen


No offence, but when one revisits history and compares:

a) The number of people who do believe asking others to believe as well

with

b) The number of people who do not believe asking others not to believe as well

Which one do you think has been overwhelmingly higher?

[edit on 16/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Anti-theists give atheists a bad name. They're always people who are angry at the hateful side of religion and decide they're going to do the exact same thing... v.v

A proper atheist is nothing but a skeptical agnostic. Unlike anti-theists, atheists just don't find a reason to go out on a limb (read: have faith) and believe in God. Anti-theists are butthurt (literally) former altar-boys and other such wounded, psychotic people.

I usually add "no offense to anyone" after saying such brutal things, but I just can't stand anti-theists. Let them take offense.

reply to post by adjensen

If we assume that a creator God exists, there are two possibilities

Occam’s razor, get rid of unnecessary ASSUMPTIONS, why would I assume that?

You suppose the first -- he's outside of our reality and we don't, can't and won't interact with him.

I haven’t seen any evidence; anyone who infers something to God has prove it or expect little credibility. Provide irrefutable evidence of God’s actions and I will soon change my mind.

Again, the epic cure:-
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

The other point of view negates your point of view. Whether you agree with it or not, whether it's been misinterpreted or not, God has interacted with us and told us how we can be reconciled to him. For the Christian, love him, love others, accept Christ's sacrifice, and you're good to go.

Love others, love a muslim? love a homosexual? or condemn them to Hell?

Funny how the religious also claim that God is on their side in times of War, or when they condone atrocities against other religions, what about the people against them, is God not on their side? Total subject to what religion you believe in. People use God for their own benefit and to warrant their actions, even if they are despicable

I don't know, why do you talk to people? Why ask your wife what she thinks you should do in a situation?

Because she is a human, she can offer her opinion, her thoughts that I might not have even contemplated. Why do people talk to other people, its called communication, and its two ways, not just the one.

Why does one bounce ideas off of other people? Prayer, for a person of faith, is simply talking to God. Sometimes you get a response, sometimes you don't, but it's a good experience. If you don't have faith, meh, probably seems pointless, but that's the case with a lot of religion, I'm sure.

Fair enough, it’s talking to nobody but yourself in my opinion, or talking to the void. Tell me you’ve heard the voice or thoughts of God, go on. I’ll tell you I’ve seen fairies floating around my house. Prove me wrong. See how that feels?

Freed from what? If you wouldn't mind, can you go back to my first post in this thread, and respond to my questions about the motivations of atheistic zealots, who feel the need to "convert" believers, regardless of how they go about it?

Freed from delusion of the mind, abolition of your OWN individuality, freedom from the fear of eternal torture if you are to not conform to these illogical moral rules, even if some of them are Good, that doesn’t mean anything, you still have miles to go before you prove religion is a Good thing for humanity.

Can I point you towards the dark ages? Can I point you towards the religious intolerance in the middle east, the fighting, the killing over believe in the metaphysical.


[edit on 16/7/10 by awake_and_aware]

traditionaldrummer, if you one day decided to try asking God for proof, because you wanted to try out that route and see what happens, and lo, behold, God reveals Himself to you, would you still disbelieve it because it's not objectively provable to other people?

"Anti-theists are butthurt (literally) former altar-boys and other such wounded, psychotic people."

This is the type of childish behavior we are seing from those attack Atheists without a logical argument or clear understanding of what it actually is.

You can be anti-abortion (and fail in logic) but i can't be anti-theism? Great attitude.

Originally posted by 547000
I'm not saying "prove me wrong", I know that's impossible. But by personal experience I know God exists. All I can say is don't be so sure lest your convictions are pulled apart.

You think it's all a bunch of delusions but when you have an experience then you know despite not being able to prove it to others.

I have had lots of experiences - - I still don't believe in a God in the religious sense of an omnipotent being.

I've had OBEs since birth. I have premonitions that come true.

Obviously I believe there is something beyond what can be seen and touched - - but NO - don't believe in any god.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by adjensen

 

No offence, but when one revisits history and compares:

a) The number of people who do believe asking others to believe as well

with

b) The number of people who do not believe asking others not to believe as well

Which one do you think has been overwhelmingly higher?

[edit on 16/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

What difference does that make? Are you saying that the motivation is that atheists view things as some sort of contest, and whoever annoys the other side the most wins?

If you go back to my post, my question is one of motivation, please read the post if you'd like to respond to it.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Again, the epic cure:-
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

Again, the epic fail. This point of view assumes that you have a full and complete understanding of good and evil, a full and complete understanding of the nature, motivations and plans of God, and a full and complete understanding of reality.

If you have those things, congratulations, judge away. Otherwise, judging God to be non-existent or evil because, in your limited view, life doesn't seem fair is arrogant, hollow and pointless.

The other point of view negates your point of view. Whether you agree with it or not, whether it's been misinterpreted or not, God has interacted with us and told us how we can be reconciled to him. For the Christian, love him, love others, accept Christ's sacrifice, and you're good to go.

Love others, love a muslim? love a homosexual? or condemn them to Hell?

Yes, I do love others, and I don't condemn anyone to hell. To do so would be just as presumptive as you judging God to be evil.

People use God for their own benefit and to warrant their actions, even if they are despicable

Believe it or not, I consider this to be deplorable, and as I've written many times before, I hope that the darkest circle of hell would be reserved for those who taken advantage of other people's faith for their own gain.

Fair enough, it’s talking to nobody but yourself in my opinion, or talking to the void. Tell me you’ve heard the voice or thoughts of God, go on. I’ll tell you I’ve seen fairies floating around my house. Prove me wrong. See how that feels?

How what feels? Why should I want to prove you wrong? If you derive benefit from thinking that there are fairies in your house, that's great.

Freed from delusion of the mind, abolition of your OWN individuality, freedom from the fear of eternal torture if you are to not conform to these illogical moral rules, even if some of them are Good, that doesn’t mean anything, you still have miles to go before you prove religion is a Good thing for humanity.

Can I point you towards the dark ages? Can I point you towards the religious intolerance in the middle east, the fighting, the killing over believe in the metaphysical.

Well, I personally consider my faith to be a positive thing in my life, so you wouldn't be freeing me from anything other than a positive aspect of it. That horrible things that have been done in the name of religion sadden me, of course, but to claim that we need to excise the faith, rather than repair the damage of misconception, seems rather narrow minded.

Originally posted by 547000
traditionaldrummer, if you one day decided to try asking God for proof, because you wanted to try out that route and see what happens, and lo, behold, God reveals Himself to you, would you still disbelieve it because it's not objectively provable to other people?

If I were to be rational about it I would have to call such a subjective experience into question. There is the chance though that if I'm in such a quest and experience such a subjective event I may not be operating from a rational standpoint at all. Either way, the subjective event has no objective reality.

Case in point: hallucinogenic substances. I have had many experiences with these when I was younger. Subsequently I had many subjective experiences that one could describe as mystical, other-worldly or perhaps even "spiritual". In no way do I feel that such experiences have any objective truth. So yes, I would need more than a revelation.

Originally posted by adjensen
This point of view assumes that you have a full and complete understanding of good and evil, a full and complete understanding of the nature, motivations and plans of God, and a full and complete understanding of reality.

Not to butt in uninvited but I feel I should point something out here. The above arguments are common because they employ the frontiers beyond human knowledge to allow the wiggle room needed for the existence of god(s). The "god of the gaps" is not necessarily a logical position to argue from as you have no positive ground on which to stand. Additionally, it forces one's deity into ever-shrinking areas of existence as human knowledge is gained.

As disbelief is a default position, it is perfectly logical to assess the lack of evidence within our own perceptions. There is no particular reason to dismiss one's disbelief strictly on limitation's of one's perceptions.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
This point of view assumes that you have a full and complete understanding of good and evil, a full and complete understanding of the nature, motivations and plans of God, and a full and complete understanding of reality.

Not to butt in uninvited but I feel I should point something out here. The above arguments are common because they employ the frontiers beyond human knowledge to allow the wiggle room needed for the existence of god(s). The "god of the gaps" is not necessarily a logical position to argue from as you have no positive ground on which to stand. Additionally, it forces one's deity into ever-shrinking areas of existence as human knowledge is gained.

As disbelief is a default position, it is perfectly logical to assess the lack of evidence within our own perceptions. There is no particular reason to dismiss one's disbelief strictly on limitation's of one's perceptions.

Yes, if you believe that there is nothing more than what we see and what we can observe, you can ignore my admonitions and use that argument to claim that God doesn't exist. Of course, if you start with the belief that there is nothing more than what we see and what we can observe, it kind of makes the argument irrelevant anyway.

reply to post by adjensen


I could state there is a teapot in another realm, or a bicycle with eyes, i can't see the other realm, but i am telling you that i know this because someone wrote it in a book, they didn't demonstrate their theories, i just read and accepted belief in the unfalsifiable.

Does it make a difference whether it makes me feel good or not? No, i still have to say why i belief in such a thing, and pointing to book, is no evidence at all.

Secondly, i couldn't claim that the teapot or bycycle have personal wishes of my life on how i should live it - if i can't proof for sure they exist in the other realm then why should i wish those beliefs on other people, or say i am more "Holy" or "righteuos" or "moral".

don't even say God exists within this realm, because that is not an argument, if God exists then he is letting the children die in africa, he is letting cancer kill people, he is letting us fire bombs on other humans (American's stating God is on their side in regards to their war) Ask if a radical muslim thinks that God is on the American's side.



[edit on 16/7/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by adjensen
Yes, if you believe that there is nothing more than what we see and what we can observe, you can ignore my admonitions and use that argument to claim that God doesn't exist. Of course, if you start with the belief that there is nothing more than what we see and what we can observe, it kind of makes the argument irrelevant anyway.

It's quite apparent that there is much more than what we see and observe. However, using limitations on our perceptions and knowledge as a basis for belief in deities provides little more than wiggle room to make the belief work, and honestly, this position has backfired on the greatest minds time and time again throughout history. Does this argument also imply that these proposed omniscient deities cannot affect the perceptions of it's own alleged creation? If the deity is beyond our perceptions, does it still demand human belief and worship?

Despite the problems with such an argument positive, objective evidence favoring the existence of one's deity is going to go a lot further than pushing said deity back beyond our perceptions.

My question to the OP is:

Do you believe Anti-Theism is an acceptable point of view? Especially when my intentions are pure freedom against a phoney theory?

It's not as if i'm being anti-human, anti-charity, anti-peace, quite the opposite.

I do not feel i am zealous, or malicious in my challenging of Theism only offering a logical point of view ( i think)

Thanks, I fully respect your polite mannor and decorum,

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

I could state there is a teapot in another realm, or a bicycle with eyes, i can't see the other realm, but i am telling you that i know this because someone wrote it in a book, they didn't demonstrate their theories, i just read and accepted belief in the unfalsifiable.

Does it make a difference whether it makes me feel good or not? No, i still have to say why i belief in such a thing, and pointing to book, is no evidence at all.

No evidence to you, of course. You demonstrate such an intolerance for faith that I'm sure it would require a Herculean display of proof for you to even turn around. The difference is that I'm not trying to convert you -- I don't really care if you have faith or not, I'm simply trying to correct your statements that misrepresent my faith.

Secondly, i couldn't claim that the teapot or bycycle have personal wishes of my life on how i should live it - if i can't proof for sure they exist in the other realm then why should i wish those beliefs on other people, or say i am more "Holy" or "righteuos" or "moral".

I've yet to say that I'm holier, more righteous or more moral than you are, that determination is God's and God's alone. As I said, you show an intolerance for God, but that doesn't make me better than you or more righteous than you. The morality question is one more of source, but I don't equate "more faith" with "more morals", because they're not the same thing.

don't even say God exists within this realm, because that is not an argument, if God exists then he is letting the children die in africa, he is letting cancer kill people, he is letting us fire bombs on other humans (American's stating God is on their side in regards to their war) Ask if a radical muslim thinks that God is on the American's side.

I don't believe that God is "on America's side" in a war.

Yes, if God exists, he is allowing these things to happen. But without a complete understanding of the aspects I listed earlier, it is arrogant, presumptive and pointless to draw any conclusion from it, other than it is what it is. If, like the OP pointed out, you dispute that there is anything more that would affect your analysis, then your argument is equally irrelevant, because you're arguing the evil nature of something you don't believe exists in the first place.