Ask An Atheist Anything

reply to post by adjensen


I think we are seeing the same thing in two different ways. I see my approach as a necessity as it filters out 'tainted' data, and you see it as a hindrance because I may over filter due to stricter requirements for proof and my understanding of what is valid data.

I hope you can see the difficulty that I have with using a viewpoint that requires the acceptance of a hypothesis to be valid to prove that hypothesis. For instance, I could note that something of mine moved from where I last left it. I cannot use that to prove that there exists a poltergeist in my apartment because I have not yet established the existence of the poltergeist as true, but once I have done so I can use it as nice supporting evidence.

I hope that makes sense; it sounded better in my head.

Originally posted by jenmckin

My other observation is that most (and I say most...not all) atheists I've encountered are unfathomably arrogant. It has seemed to me that they feel...superior? (I guess that's as good a term as any) because they do not believe in a higher force in the universe. Even though I make it a point to never judge regarding religious preference, the atheists in my circle are confrontational and superior...like they feel they must be a little smarter than the rest of us.

Really?
It's been my experience up here on ATS that the christians are the unfathomably arrogant ones.
In fact, I have never, and will never choose someone up here as my "foe".
I currently have 4 foes, and they are all staunch christians.
Kind of ironic that people who claim that they are so compassionate and tolerant have decided that I am their enemy.
I'm not an atheist, but I've known many.
They tend to be excellent debaters and quite skilled at defending their point of view.


Okay...now...to the OP...
I admire your stance and what you're trying to do here in this thread.
I guess my question to you would be...is there any possibility that a talented orator could make you question your personal belief system and convince you to take a different side?

reply to post by Matthew Dark


Not the OP, but for me it is a matter of what the data is, not who presents it. I don't believe in deities because of the lack of proof, but if someone would give me proof I could be persuaded. Good presentation of it would help but is not needed.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.

Answer this:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Not only is your flow of logic flawed, but you can not provide any empirical evidence to prove it.
You're making it sound like someone sat down and purposefully wrote our coding. That's simply not the case. And you can't prove otherwise. You can believe it, which is totally fine. But you can't prove it.

reply to post by C09JayLT


That makes sense.
I believe in power that we can not currently understand.
I don't believe in a personification of godhood, though.
If anything, I believe that we have all of the power of the universe within ourselves, that we can become gods in our own right.
I chose to align myself with a belief system that best suits my disposition and outlook of the world.
I admire that the op is taking the time to clear up misconceptions.
Perhaps some of us should do that for Satanism.

Originally posted by C09JayLT
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think we are seeing the same thing in two different ways. I see my approach as a necessity as it filters out 'tainted' data, and you see it as a hindrance because I may over filter due to stricter requirements for proof and my understanding of what is valid data.

I hope you can see the difficulty that I have with using a viewpoint that requires the acceptance of a hypothesis to be valid to prove that hypothesis. For instance, I could note that something of mine moved from where I last left it. I cannot use that to prove that there exists a poltergeist in my apartment because I have not yet established the existence of the poltergeist as true, but once I have done so I can use it as nice supporting evidence.

I hope that makes sense; it sounded better in my head.

Well, that is confusing, yes, lol.

If what you are saying is "in order to prove God exists, one must start with the premise that God can exist", I think that's a fair statement. It makes more sense than believing that one can prove that God exists, starting with the notion that he does not exist.

In your poltergeist example, I don't think that you need to believe that ghosts exist in order to include them as a potential reason for your item moving. But if you believe that they do not exist, that you have evaluated the concept of ghosts and dismissed it as invalid, you will not include them in your reasoning about the movement of the item.

If it was, in fact, a ghost that did it, your dismissal of their existence will lead you to a conclusion other than the true one.

Originally posted by Lurch
...or a giant pink, invisible hippopotamus from the plant Venus sitting in the clouds watching over us? Or do you disbelieve the existence of these "deities"?

Oh! You mean Ricky?
Yeah, I talk to him all the time.
I didn't know I was supposed to be worshiping him though.

Originally posted by slane69

So according to your beliefs, those cultures who killed, tortured, and sometimes ate their enemies were doing good as long as they saw it as such? Arguably from an ecological standpoint the Polynesian tribes who practiced cannibalism were making use of scarce resources and behaving in a good manner, from a certain point of view but was it moral? Without a higher moral authority potentially all is acceptable and good. What are your thoughts on this?

"Morality" is based solely on the point of view of a culture.
No more, no less.
Unfortunately, many cultures that have had a differing set of morals were decisively wiped out by cultures that viewed themselves as "morally superior".
Morals are determined by humans, not some god.
The humans may claim that they are speaking on their gods behalf, but it is still created, implemented and enforced by humans.
If morals were created and enforced by a god, then, by virtue of the nature of omnipotence, the penalty would be immediate.
That, or there would be no need for enforcement at all because, if humans were created in the christian gods image, they would be perfect and entirely above baser behaviors that would go against their morality.

[note: edited to expand content. go me.]

[edit on 7/17/10 by Matthew Dark]

reply to post by Matthew Dark


Atheism to me is nothing more than a state of self acknowledgement and plain and simple being.
With the question's presented so far, there has yet to be an understanding of the "Where did life start?" acceptances and ideologies.
You can get life from a rotting piece of meat, life is mysterious, but it seems to have begot itself started by way of biological and possible alien influences i.e. Panspermia. This ideology makes more sense to me than some creator spawning life on our planet. It's more tangible the deities for sure.
Even though you aren't the OP of this thread, your doing pretty good explaining atheism and it's acceptance amongst the known free world!!!

reply to post by Allred5923


Thanx, pal.
I respect atheism for a lot of reasons.
I'm all about self-acknowledgment, so I feel a kinship with many of the atheists I've met.
I think you're doing a great job of articulating your point of view as well.
Respect.

reply to post by adjensen


Yes... and no. I think I was trying to send two messages. First was what you brought up about having to see something as possible before seeing evidence for it. The other point I was getting at was that what you consider proof changes with what you believe. Something mysteriously moves and I don't believe in ghosts, then I don't see it as proof that poultergeists exist, but if I do believe in poultergeists then I may see it as proof. In other word, the type of proof needed to go from not beleiving to beleiving is different than the type of proof needed for sustainment of the belief. Does that make better sense?

Originally posted by 547000
So basically, if God only wanted to show himself in personal ways, you would never believe, because you would discount your own personal experience as madness or hallucination?

I have no idea what "show himself in personal ways" means. I have a feeling though that if something spun down out of the supernatural and presented itself it would likely scare the hell out of me. If nobody else saw I'd most certainly contemplate my sanity.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by C09JayLT
In other word, the type of proof needed to go from not beleiving to beleiving is different than the type of proof needed for sustainment of the belief. Does that make better sense?

Absolutely, and I agree 100%. The evidence needed to go from convicted non-belief to belief is probably the hardest to come by, in fact.

Ah...and here we go...

Originally posted by Proudconservative

thats hogwash. nazi and communist societys are secular in nature.

And the Inquisition and Salem witch trials were non-secular in nature.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
All too often I see remarks lodged against atheists in general. Very rarely do I find anyone asking an atheist for opinions and facts about their non-beliefs.

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs. This can only help, as an overwhelming majority of negative comments about atheists and atheism are tragically incorrect.

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.

If atheist don't believe in God then why do you guys believe this is the year 2010? Aren't dates based on when Christ died? Should it be the year 4.5 Billion or so to you guys?

Isn't atheism a religion? A group of people who believe in something. In this case, nothing?

Originally posted by Come Clean
Isn't atheism a religion? A group of people who believe in something. In this case, nothing?

No. A religion implies a tradition, community and set of beliefs, and while this could be applied to atheism, atheism also lacks a worship aspect. There is no theology to support atheism, another critical aspect of religion.

Atheists do not believe in "nothing", they simply do not believe in a deity.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by 547000
So basically, if God only wanted to show himself in personal ways, you would never believe, because you would discount your own personal experience as madness or hallucination?

I have no idea what "show himself in personal ways" means. I have a feeling though that if something spun down out of the supernatural and presented itself it would likely scare the hell out of me. If nobody else saw I'd most certainly contemplate my sanity.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

It scared me too for a while, then after a while I felt wrapped in a cocoon of love, a love that was unconditional. Months after that, many weird things still happened, and finally it toned down. But anyways, I prayed for it and it happened, so if you prayed and it happened would you change your views or just say "not real" despite praying to God to show you personal evidence? It really seems bizarre to me. It's like praying for subjective proof and once you get it soon afterward saying it can't be real because prayer doesn't work or it's not objective proof. You asked for subjective proof and you actually get it and it's still not enough to change your mind.

Anyway, this is the last time I'll ask for clarification. I still can't comprehend it. If God, after prayer for subjective evidence, in your room when you're alone, himself said "I am real, son, but for reasons of my own I will not give objective proof to humans" and appeared in your face and left a small mark in your hand or leg so you'll never forget, you'd still not believe it? That's basically what I'm trying to ask.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by 547000]

Originally posted by Come Clean
Isn't atheism a religion? A group of people who believe in something. In this case, nothing?

Then why are there not religions for NOT beleving in evolution, or NOT believing in santa claus, or NOT believing in fairies. or NOT believing in the invisible spagetti monster at the edge of the solar system?

You are the one's with the belief, we are the ones without the belief because we see a lack of evidence.

We don't believe in things we can't prove. END, thats not a religion.

If you can't see God and you don't know he exists, you can certainly guess that he's in the part of understanding that we don't know or can't see but that would be stupid.

Occam's razor, get rid of unessissary assumptions, Again this has been posted before and traditionaldrummer as responded with the answer.

Ask a new question, repeatition is tiresome.