Open Thread: Questions for Atheists

Your favourite Standard Question (or statement) from a Believer?

The “Atheists have killed more than Christians / Hitler was a Christian” option will not be accepted here.

Nothing: Something to Believe In by Nica Lali

To Macht:
Hemant’s book of course! (link on the upper right, I get no kick backs

To Richard:
My favorite question because it is such a non sequitur is, “So you don’t believe in anything?” (My standard reply is, “I believe in the truth, and I also believe that science, evidence and rational thought are the best ways to get as close to the truth as possible. We might never get there, and we might be wrong about a lot of things we think are true now, but I’m OK with that!”)

to Devin: I’m an atheist because the evidence of the universe led to atheism. It was a traumatic discovery after 40+ years of believing in a loving, benevolent god.

I didn’t turn to atheism because I wanted to “sin” or because I had a bad experience in church, or because I “rebelled” against god’s authority. I loved my church and my religion. My view of god was comforting and wonderful.

The evidence just doesn’t support the theory.

Devin said,

December 16, 2007 at 10:29 pm

As an Atheist, what is the one thing you would like Christians to understand about you?

I don’t have a God concept, so I can’t be angry with something that doesn’t exist or something I have no concept of. The closest thing I’ve ever conceived of a god is an extremely strong emotion that caused me to feel as one with everything, but that is only a chemical reation in the brain- totally lobe. So, it has nothing to do with anything, except finding the answers to my questions via studying the human condition- psychology and myth/religious exploration.

Where can I find an atheist book, website, magazine, etc. that doesn’t mock or attack or deride religious people or beliefs, but only puts forth a positive vision of what it is to be an atheist?

While not an athiest book, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos has deepened my appreciation of life and the universe.

Being an atheist only means a lack of belief in a deity, so I’m not sure that I can really answer your question. I don’t think I’ve ever read something that espouses a positive vision for an atheist in particular.

My vision is to be a better human being. Towards that goal, I do things such as read philosophy, volunteer in educational settings, maintain positive relationships, remain active in my community, continually learn, be a productive member of society, maintain a fit mind and body, and so forth.

I find many universal truths in Buddhist philosophies and wonder in the universe as revealed by science. I enjoy simple pleasures, such as hiking and stargazing. I begin each day by asking myself, “What is my purpose today?” And at the end of the day, I reflect on what I’ve done.

wondering if Atheists believe that we have souls?

For the most part, I think not, although I could be wrong. I personally don’t think so.

That actually bothered me when I read the book when it first came out, that it had too much of a sappy sort of spirituality. It was only the second book that won me over.

If Pullman has ever explained why he stuck souls in those books, I would appreciate a link to the explanation.

As an Atheist, what is the one thing you would like Christians to understand about you?

Philosophically and theologically, Atheists do good things because doing good things is good. Theists do good things to please God.

Practically speaking, Theists also sometimes do good things just because doing good things is good. Therefore, sometimes theists operate like Atheists. Atheists just don’t operate with the “pleasing god” motivation. Atheists give higher value to the intrinsic goodness of an activity. Theists split their motivation (of doing good things) between “intrinsic goodness” and the “pleasing God” motivation.

It should also be noted that both groups can also do good things for less noble reasons
1. pleasing other people
2. self-serving reasons
Both groups occasionally also do bad things.

To Macht: There’s a Yahoo Group called atheism2008 that is very positive. The moderator is an author collecting opinions for a book he’s writing. He’s asks questions to atheists about various things each week and we do our best to answer. He welcomes non-atheists who want to read our responses in order to learn more about us.

You might want to skip over the first couple of posts until you get to his first question. A couple of people didn’t quite grasp his concept in the beginning.

Ok, so I’ve just seen the Golden Compass and was wondering if Atheists believe that we have souls?

Your question seems to be founded on two misconceptions: one, that atheists have an overarching belief system. Naturally, most atheists don’t believe in souls, but belief or non-belief in souls isn’t inherent to atheism. This has already been explained better above, so I’ll move on. Second, you seem to be implying that there need be some connection between the supernatural elements that are real in a fantasy story, and the supernatural elements that the author believes to be real in the real world. Did Tolkien believe in elves?

Happynat: When you put it that way, it is interesting. However, what I actually mean is that I do not find things like discussing the Blood of Christ or Jesus’ Love with a missionary in a street corner interesting, or explaining for the tenth time that I don’t know where the universe came from or what if anything happens after death, you don’t either, and I am not worried about it in the slightest.

The fact that I am commenting here shows that I do occasionally take an passing interest in religion (and other topics), but if you come up to me at a random time of the day and introduce religion to the conversation there will be a greater than 90% probability that I really won’t feel like it right now.

wondering if Atheists believe that we have souls?

Since I believe this is it- that we make earth heaven or hell or both then a soul is only metaphor- ie I feel it in the very depths of my soul. This is not the same supernatural concept of a soul, but only metaphor for an indescribably strong feeling. It is a talent that many humanistic writers develop and in my own writing I confuse both religious and non-religious alike- unless they know me. A really good writer will cause you to wonder what they believe, if they are speaking metaphorically or if they really mean what they said.

Prime example is when I described, in a paper, childhood feelings of awe and wonder as god. No, that was not the god of the religious, but a child confusing what is purely emotional- an intense emotion at that- as god. If one reads further, I end up passing these off as emotions at least once if not twice.

It can be confusing, the author of the Golden Compass does indeed label himself as a Humanist, he just doesn’t advertise it. He also admits to using words metaphorically too, which can be very confusing to some.

Where can I find an atheist book, website, magazine, etc. that doesnâ??t mock or attack or deride religious people or beliefs, but only puts forth a positive vision of what it is to be an atheist?

Honestly, the book meant for theists that best addresses the concerns of non-believers, I think, would have to be Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It is short, to the point, and while not containing a positive argument for theism, it is overtly polite and is not mocking, or condescending to its intended audience. Sure, most of the people who bought the book were probably atheists who passed it on to religious fence-sitters or family members, but the point of the book is a call to action for believers to critically examine with logic and reason WHY they believe what they believe.

If a chemist wrote a 70 page essay called Letter to the Pharmaceutical Industry it would be silly and equally irrational to conclude that the author was mocking or attacking any individual taking prescription drugs.

Critical Discourse and skepticism exist in almost every facet of Western Civilization, (you don’t buy a car without kicking the tires, you don’t make a major purchase without checking out Consumer Reports, you don’t send your kid off to college without looking into it at least a little, etc)
and if believers are offended because some now feel that religion is not special in its exemption from examination, that a critique of what they believe about the nature of reality is taboo, then they need to re-examine their worldview.

As far as Atheists’ Positive Worldview, there’s no set dogma. We come together because of our lack of belief, and the steady encroachment or stigma on our right to live without belief.

Sometimes, when colleagues or relatives ask me how I know so much about a certain topic, I remind them that I READ. I take all the ideas in, I read everything I can get my hands on. Good ideas, bad ideas, and I judge ideas based on the merits of their own reason and arguments. I don’t know about other atheists, but there are no subjects that are off limits to me, or immune to criticism to me (except maybe the 1st amendment).
As an atheist, or a freethinker, I will never boycott a movie, or burn a book, or protest a play or work of art because it contradicts my worldview in a public forum. So yes, while Harris and Dawkins address religious claims without being conciliatory, they do not go out of their way to offend.

/rant

Nick

Just a follow-up to my question. Not really another question, just a clarification in response to the “rant” above. First, notice I said “a” positive vision, not “the” positive vision. Second, I am not “offended” by atheists who mock or attack or argue against religious people or beliefs, I am just looking for those who don’t since they are much, much more difficult to find than those who do. Third, surely there has to be a better example than Harris’ book. (God help the atheists if there isn’t.)

Macht:

First off, I’m about to give a light, flippant answer to your considered statement here… hopefully to make a point. Apologies in advance.

… I am not “offended” by atheists who mock or attack or argue against religious people or beliefs, I am just looking for those who don’t since they are much, much more difficult to find than those who do.

Hey, Macht, where can I find in the Christian Bible, a prophet, sage or indeed Savior who doesn’t mock or attack or deride Jewish or other religious people’s beliefs or practices, but only puts forth a positive vision of what it is to be a Christian?

Good question, eh?

To answer your question directly, yes Hemant’s book, absolutely. As far as other inspirational literature, maybe atheists need to write some more. I find “Letting Go of God” by Julia Sweeney to be uplifting, positive and inspirational, but it does include some loving humor directed at her own Catholic upbringing.

Second, I am not “offended” by atheists who mock or attack or argue against religious people or beliefs, I am just looking for those who don’t since they are much, much more difficult to find than those who do.

“Atheists who do not mock or attack religious people” – that’s probably doable.

“Atheists who do not mock or attack or argue against religious beliefs” – Let us know if you find such a site, it would be interesting to see what it looks like. I can’t image what they would be discussing that makes it an atheist site, if they aren’t rejecting religious beliefs. What you are looking for seems pretty much a contradiction in terms.

Are you sure you aren’t really looking for secularists instead? They could fit that description.

Arlen said,

December 17, 2007 at 1:40 pm

How different do you believe atheists and theists are, really?

That’s a really vague question. In part, because as Claire stated, there are differences in types of people. However, even within both groups there are differences. First off, are you asking between Humanists and Progressive Xians? Even then you’d have to break down Humanists, because they all think differently. An atheist that does not ascribe to any other label v. a Baptist? or an agnostic v. a Jehovah Witness? It’s really difficult to say.

I can get along quite well with some Progressive Christians and sometimes very well with Liberal Christians. The only difference is they believe in a supernatural being and I don’t, but the humanistic values are pretty much the same.

On the other hand, I have to work really hard to get along with a fundie or avoid them. Either way, I have to bite my tongue sometimes and it can be quite difficult at times. There is a big difference- in values and beliefs.

Sure, Mriana, I know they can if they want, and do sometimes, I just thought Macht’s odds of finding what he was looking for would be better with secularists. He was looking for a site full of positive and not-anti-religion atheists. Then again, he may well believe in miracles….

I guess I just think of secularists and humanists as more tactful, but that might be a misconception on my part.

I’ll talk about this more in detail on the friendly christian website in a few days.
http://www.friendlychristian.com

Disclaimer: I come in peace with this/these topic(s). If you are part of the Rational Response Squad, I mean no harm but I do have my thoughts.

But I wonder about certain outlets that some atheists use to response to Christian fundamentalism. Like the Rational Response Squad and their Blasphemy Challenge. I mean does one really need to insult an entire group of people and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to embrace their atheism? Why can’t these people simply accept their beliefs and not “sink” to certain people’s level with assumptions and accusations? I just seems as if these people are judging the very people that they say judge everyone else.

I believe all we are is contained in our brain and when that stops so do we.

Rob, that fits with what I have seen and read. There is nothing about who a person is, nothing at all, that can’t be changed by brain injury or disease. I don’t see any way that fits in with a soul, or at least not with a soul that has memory, personality, and/or identity.

I mean does one really need to insult an entire group of people and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to embrace their atheism?

I didn’t agree with the Blasphemy Challenge and spoke up against it at the time. I didn’t take part. I spoke against it. I’ve spoken against a number of the RRS’s stunts.

But as often we have to remind ourselves when talking about Christians, they’re only human, and some of them aren’t always polite. That’s no reason to beat up on the polite ones.

You ask a similar question as Macht did above, and so I’ll similarly turn it around on you:

Did Jesus really need to insult an entire group of Pharisees and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to promote Christianity?

Anyone looking for a person who “only ever sets a positive example and never says anything bad about the other guy, ever, ever, ever…”

Well, even Jesus didn’t live up to that one!

I’m no religious scholar but I find the subject fascinating and spend a lot more time than most of the religious people I know reading a wide variety of information on the subject.

I spend more than my far share of time studying religious texts and mythology too.

I think many religious people really don’t want to know the truth about the history of their religion and go out of their way to remain ignorant.

Nope, they don’t. If they knew some would either deny it to themselves or go nuts. It is just rewritten myths- Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc etc They won’t believe you if you try to tell them either.

Oh and to Rob, why do you believe that many religious people really don’t want to know the truth about their religion?

1. Do you have any intention of trying to understand the opposing views and why they believe what they believe, or do you only wish to discredit them?

Many of us have grown up religious and know those answers. Some wish to discredit those beliefs because they did so themselves and feel it is beneficial for others to do so.

2. What exactly is the difference between pure atheism and Humanism? Is there a difference?

Atheism is just the one belief that there are no deities. Humanism is a system of beliefs that people can base their lives off of (making it a religion).

The association that Humanism has with atheism is that humanistic beliefs (with or without knowledge of the belief system) are often naturally adopted once a person becomes an atheist.

Also, you don’t have to be an atheist to be a Humanist.

3. Why is it necessary to label the absence of belief? If you believe in nothing, does nothing need to be labeled?

The atheists that choose to identify themselves as such do believe in something, that we must band together to overcome oppression against us. Identifying ourselves as a group makes it possible:

1) For the religious to recognize we exist.
2) For the religious to recognize that there are a substantial number of us.
3) For the religious to understand that being non-religious should not be grounds for poorer treatment (see the rules regarding Conscientious Objection as an example)
4) Meet other atheists and share our stories/philosophies/etc.
5) All sorts of other benefits that result from banding together.

4. There are a broad spectrum of atheists and theists alike. I’ve noticed there are some grey areas where the opposite sides overlap. Do you think it’s possible to gradually increase this area and eventually do away with the labels? Or is that too idealistic?

People will always have such a variance in philosophies and beliefs that what you said may never happen. It isn’t a good thing either, because I think it’s healthy for a society to hold such a variety of views (as long as they don’t harm people in the name of those views)

5. Going off of #4, do you think us moderate/liberal Christians would be more effective in the fundie circle than here? Maybe we should become members of a fundie church? It’s a very scary thought…

In what way?

If you mean politically, you would be more effective of you collaborated with atheists than fundies. The fundies already have legions of other similarly obsessed people to get power from.

Liberal/Moderate Christians siding with, at the very least, the secularist movement, would have a huge impact on policy because there are so many Christians in that area of the political spectrum.

I wish you moderates would join our cause, because fundamentalism would be a lot worse for you (and all other non-fundamentalists) than secularism in government.

And please, for your health and ours, don’t join a fundamentalist church. I know you weren’t being serious, but most attacks on secularism and atheists come from fundies. We can’t take our chances.

Oh and to Rob, why do you believe that many religious people really don’t want to know the truth about their religion?

Personal experience kwright5. Lots of conversations with friends that stop in anger the minute I ask a difficult question that points out a discrepancy in their belief. Conversations with my wife who is a devoted Methodist (for the record I love her dearly and we have a great marriage despite our deep religious differences). She freely admits that she does not want to think hard and critically about her religion- to her it just feels good and that is what is important. My wife knows for example that there never were three wise men following a guiding star but at last count I see 6 little nativity scenes proudly displayed in our home. My wife really avoids any situation that would force her to logically question her faith. It is something we just cant talk about.

Another example is the Mormon faith I was raised in. The Pearl of Great Price written by J.Smith states that God’s throne is on the planet Kolob (!). The Mormons I know really get uncomfortable and change the subject quickly when you bring this and some of the other truly bizarre Mormon factoids up. They just don’t want to know the real factual history behind Joseph Smith and will come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories to debunk the facts.

Probably the best example is a long conversation I had with my wife’s pastor over a sandwich in a local park last year. I would consider him to be an good hearted and intelligent person (Ivy league educated), at least in his ability to articulate himself. We were meeting so that I could express some of my concerns about my child’s involvement in my wife’s church and I had a really enjoyable conversation. What hit me though is an admission he made that my wife seconded – he said he was “Very simple minded”. He didn’t mean stupid, he just meant that he didn’t think about things in too much detail or too critically. He just accepted the doctrine of the church and had no burning desire to challenge it. To me that is an unthinkable way to live.

But I wonder about certain outlets that some atheists use to response to Christian fundamentalism. Like the Rational Response Squad and their Blasphemy Challenge. I mean does one really need to insult an entire group of people and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to embrace their atheism? Why can’t these people simply accept their beliefs and not “sink” to certain people’s level with assumptions and accusations? I just seems as if these people are judging the very people that they say judge everyone else.

I participated in the Blasphemy Challenge, and I honestly don’t feel bad about it at all. The reason behind it is frustration. We’re not saints, we’re just people. And sometimes we get really, really frustrated and just can’t take it any more. Is that a good thing? Who knows. But I can tell you that making the video felt good. It was like standing on my roof and screaming at the top of my lungs that I was sick and tired of people trying to save a thing (a soul) that I don’t even believe in, and I wanted them to stop it and get out of my life, because it’s my life and none of their business.

I really couldn’t say how a Christian would feel about me declaring that I don’t believe in any gods, and that I deny the holy spirit. But I know how I feel every time I hear a politician talking about using their religion in their decisions, every time I’m exposed to one more person wanting to curtail my rights and shame me as a woman because of a religious dogma. And I get really, really upset and really frustrated about it, and scared. I guess it’s a way to take a stand – an immature way, perhaps, but a way nonetheless – that not everyone believes in the same thing that Christians do, and not everyone wants to, and we have a voice and a face.

So I guess the question is one I’d turn back on the Christians (and I know, not all of you are like this – I have a great many Christian friends who are just lovely and wonderful and accepting, but it doesn’t make me feel much better when a man that doesn’t even know me looks me in the eye and tells me I deserve to suffer eternally) and say why can’t you just accept that we don’t believe this, that we’ll never believe this, and we don’t want to?

Atheists get insulted and belittled as a group all the time. After a while, some of us just run out of other cheeks to turn.

Tolga and Mriana,

By question #4, I meant should the liberal Christains be talking to the fundamentalists to get them to have a more open mind rather than continuing to defend ourselves to atheists about their preconceptions about Christians? It seems to me that most atheists already have open minds about most things. It’s the religious who are close-minded. But they are not bad people. They are not (at least not the ones that I know) dangerous people. I was wondering if we, the open-minded Christians, should be wreaking havoc in their churches to help them think out of the religious box. Do you think they would kick us out?

Linda said;

“Humanism” is a word. “Secularism” is a word. “Christianity” is a word. But “Atheism” is a non-word. It’s a word that indicates that something is missing.

I have to disagree on this, Linda. It’s a good word, and part of what it means for me is “no”. It means, stop assuming I believe what you believe. It means, stop trying to force a religion on me. It means, I know where I stand, so back off and leave me be.

Sometimes “no” can be a very positive word.

By question #4, I meant should the liberal Christains be talking to the fundamentalists to get them to have a more open mind rather than continuing to defend ourselves to atheists about their preconceptions about Christians?

Since I don’t know what you should do, I can only tell you what I’d want you to do.

I think that if you feel you want to open people’s minds a bit, then you should try it. I see already that you at least are trying to understand our point of view. If you are willing to talk to the fundamentalists about us, at least help them understand our positions. I’d rather them see us as lost then as baby killers.

It seems to me that most atheists already have open minds about most things. It’s the religious who are close-minded. But they are not bad people. They are not (at least not the ones that I know) dangerous people.

Religious people aren’t bad or dangerous on their own. The problem is their susceptibility to religious authority and the voting power they grant them. The fundies do what they think is right according to their churches, and the moderates don’t want to be caught on the other side. I know a guy that will only vote Republican because his church leaders tell him to.

Religion is government is dangerous, and as long as the moderates still sway in the direction of the fundamentalists in their political views, they will keep helping the fundies get power. The people aren’t dangerous, but their beliefs have much potential to be.

I was wondering if we, the open-minded Christians, should be wreaking havoc in their churches to help them think out of the religious box. Do you think they would kick us out?

Like I said, understanding and tolerance are the goals. Their religious convictions may be too tough to get them to think anything more regarding the issue. I think that if they understand what secularism is, why it’s important, and why all humans must have the same humanistic rights, their actual understanding of atheism will also increase.

As for being kicked out:

If a system that’s supposed to be accepting of believers and that claims to be the link to the all-lovingness of the deity you believe in kicks you out of their church for extending love and understanding to outsiders… why would you want to stay?

Here’s my attempt to answer Linda’s questions:

1. Do you have any intention of trying to understand the opposing views and why they believe what they believe, or do you only wish to discredit them?

To discredit something I have to understand it first. I think religion is an interesting topic and I do want to understand it.

2. What exactly is the difference between pure atheism and Humanism? Is there a difference?

I keep harping on capitalization but you got it right in your question. Atheism is just disagreement. I can capitalize Humanism because it’s a positive philosophy on how to live life. Some self-described “Atheists” might disagree with me, but what can I do? I’m not their pope. To me capitalizing “atheism” and calling it a world view is almost as silly as capitalizing “theism” and calling it a world view. I’ll have to disagree here with Tolga, since I think the more useful definition of atheism is “lack of belief in any deity”. Actually this broader definition does include those strong atheists who truly have a positive belief in no gods because they still lack a belief that any exist.

3. Why is it necessary to label the absence of belief? If you believe in nothing, does nothing need to be labeled?

It’s only necessary in our current social context. We wouldn’t need to describe the donut hole if there was no donut. I always say if the naturalistic world view was dominant then the minority of theists would be called “anaturalists”. Maybe someday the need for atheists will disappear, just like we don’t see many abolitionists in this country anymore.

4. There are a broad spectrum of atheists and theists alike. I’ve noticed there are some grey areas where the opposite sides overlap. Do you think it’s possible to gradually increase this area and eventually do away with the labels? Or is that too idealistic?

It’s possible. I wouldn’t bet on that outcome though.

5. Going off of #4, do you think us moderate/liberal Christians would be more effective in the fundie circle than here? Maybe we should become members of a fundie church? It’s a very scary thought…

Everyone on the Internet would be more effective if they were out doing something instead of ranting on various blogs. I often feel guilty about that. There are many areas of the world that need improvement, but it seems that most of us can’t get beyond complaining about it to each other. Everyone is so caught up in the machine of daily life that the idea of going out and becoming an activist of some kind seems impossible and overwhelming. I guess knowing and being concerned about the problems of the world is better than complete ignorance, but the lack of action is something I worry about. Is the Internet really helping people communicate and organize, or is it just another distraction?

I mean does one really need to insult an entire group of people and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to embrace their atheism?

Maybe not, but I thought the Blasphemy Challenge was hilarious. Popping the unthinking mass of the religious in the nose was one of the best ways to wake them up, to make them take notice that hey, there are a bunch of people who aren’t in agreement with the march of Christianity over all other beliefs. Controversy works.

Besides, your silly beliefs are not off-limits to criticism. Not any more. There’s nothing special about Jebus or Yahweh that we can’t speak up against them. I know you people got in to some kind of power and started thinking you were above reproach, but it comes to this: Your god is a fiction, made up whole-cloth to make Bronze-Age goatherds less afraid of the dark.

Stogoe said:

Maybe not, but I thought the Blasphemy Challenge was hilarious. Popping the unthinking mass of the religious in the nose was one of the best ways to wake them up, to make them take notice that hey, there are a bunch of people who aren’t in agreement with the march of Christianity over all other beliefs. Controversy works.

kwrigh5:

I still do not understand why a person could have simply stated as high as the sky “I’m an atheist and I want to stay that way.” To me, this is just as effective because you are completely honest but it does not go into the core of the religion of Christianity.

As stogoe implies, a video saying “I’m an atheist and I want to stay that way” wouldn’t have gotten national news coverage.

As someone who personally didn’t like or want to do “The Blasphemy Challenge” I nevertheless concede that it, and other polemical broadsides, have brought atheists out of the shadows in this country.

You may be aware of the CNN Paula Zahn story about atheists where they had a panel of “experts” none of whom were atheists, and they proceeded to say that atheists should “shut up” and saying atheists “inspire hatred”. The panel DIDN’T even have one atheist on it. Can you imagine a panel on black people in America, and then you go to an all-white panel and they say that black people should just “shut up”? How do they do such a stupid thing? Go to that link and watch the video. Realize that atheists have had to push even to get included on CNN panels ABOUT ATHEISM. Yes, we’re silenced… but only if we let outselves be.

As the bumpersticker says “well-behaved women seldom make history.”

I’m sorry if the words “I deny the holy spirit” are offensive to you. But I’m offended by the idea that there is such an thing as blasphemy. I’m offended by the idea of eternal damnation. I’m offended by the idea of an unforgivable sin. I’m offended by a lot of the ideas in Christianity… slavery, the subjegation of women, the sacrificing of humans and their foreskins, the stoning of homosexuals for acts of loving and caring.

These horrors are not isolated to time periods thousands of years ago. These ideas continue to harm our world today.

Sometimes we need to speak up and say that.

To Katsu,
I appreciate your honesty as well. I understand that frustration
However, I still do not understand why a person could have simply stated as high as the sky “I’m an atheist and I want to stay that way.” To me, this is just as effective because you are completely honest but it does not go into the core of the religion of Christianity. I mean I am curious. What did your Christian friends say about you taking the Blasphemy Challenge?

Because it doesn’t do any good when we do. To our friends, sometimes, to our families, maybe, it will make a difference. Because those are people that love us, and will eventually come to terms with the fact that they must accept who we are if they want to remain a part of our lives. Or not. My grandmother still doesn’t know I’m an atheist, and I let her keep believing that some day I will turn to the church because it makes her happy and I don’t have it in my heart to let her die believing that her granddaughter is going to spend an eternity separated from the love of her non-existent deity. I also do this because my grandmother doesn’t actively try to convert me. The aunt I have that sends us presents from Focus on the Family gets a much less polite treatment.

But to strangers? To the people that run this country, that try to manipulate the schools, try to push their beliefs on us? It doesn’t make a difference. They don’t care that we’re happy the way we are. When people are LYING to teenagers about abortion and condoms, it’s not because they have an interest in letting us be what we want to be and live our own lives. It’s because they think they’re right, we’re wrong, and they’re going to save our souls whether we believe in them [souls] or not.

And no doubt, a video on the internet isn’t going to change that opinion. But it will remind people that some of us are strongly opposed to their beliefs and are not willing to be quiet about it. Because silence implies consent. And sometimes it seems that not beating someone over the head with a difference in opinion implies consent as well. Christians are the majority in America, and it’s so very easy to forget that other people think and live differently without the reminder. And maybe a reminder sticks better when it’s passionate and frustrated.

Also, I would point out that while there is no set of core beliefs for atheists beyond the lack of belief in a deity, I think we all also believe we are good, moral people. And being constantly, loudly told by certain sectors of the American majority that we all must be immoral murderers in waiting (and then Hitler!) is an insult to our very core as well.

I think it’s a valid point that it’s better to rise above the bad behavior of one’s opponent. But as I said before, we’re only human. And we’re hoping that since being polite didn’t make our point, being strident will. I know to me, a lot of it feels like I’m saying, “Look, I know this is your deeply held belief, but I think it’s crap and definitively want no part of it.” Which is pretty much what Christians say to us when they say we’re going to rot in hell for not believing in god. It also seemed to me not necessarily an attack, but a way to show how strong our convictions are. We believe so strongly that the Christian god is not there that we will stand up and publicly make the finishing move that – if by some chance we are wrong and god does exist – is our spiritual execution warrant. I think some people, judging from the videos, hoped that it would encourage the people who watched them to question their deeply held beliefs by seeing that other people can have equally strong convictions. We’re asked to question our own beliefs all the time. Seems only fair.

But mind you, this is also a lot of post hoc reasoning on my part, looking back on it and seeing what could have been, what ways it might go. At the time, I was just frustrated and happy for the chance to let the world know about it.

As for my Christian friends… I don’t know if I actually ever told any of them about it. I certainly haven’t concealed it. I can’t recall if I posted about it in my LJ or not, though they’ve all had to suffer through my occasionally ranting about how I don’t understand how a rational human being could value a wad of cells in my uterus more than a contributing member of society such as myself, or how a supposedly intelligent person could look at the Grand Canyon and say the flood did it. But they’re also not the ones that I get angry and frustrated at, and they know it. We’re all pretty live and let live.

My Baptist friend once told me, “You know, you’re going to burn for all eternity. But I still love you and think you’re cool.” Maybe part of respecting differences is respecting the fact that she thinks I’m hell-bound and I think she’s following a fairy tale, and we both know how the other person feels and can be at peace with that. Because we’re not trying to run each other’s lives.

And in my opinion, that’s what’s going to see us through this, if anything. I can’t respect my Christian friends’ beliefs. Because I think they’re crap, and I can’t understand why an otherwise rational human being would believe such things. (Same with pretty much every other religion I’ve ever encountered.) And I’m sure they feel the same way about me. I think the key is being able to accept that it’s another one of those things, like a pot habit or a love of ugly shirts, where if it’s not hurting anyone else, just let it go and love them anyway. Honestly, I think the entire problem is encapsulated by people trying to coerce others into behaving how they think they should instead of just accepting that if it harms no others a person should get to make their own decisions. Most of us don’t like someone else telling us how to live our lives, and that’s what makes us angry.

Maybe other atheists get mad about the philosphical questions, the silliness of it all, but I really don’t as long as people aren’t trying to run the country with it, or lie to kids about it, and that’s where I’m coming from. I just wish people could live and let live, and understand that it’s okay if other people think you’re full of crap sometimes, because the spiritual journey isn’t a popularity contest anyway.

Woo, yay, I am rambling. And that’s more about me than anyone in the world ever wanted to know.

As an aside, I’m studying for my Shakespeare final, and doing my workup of The Merchant of Venice. And this just struck me as perhaps relevant to this discussion, though not necessarily the point I am trying to make:

He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
(3.1.54-73)

Just found this thread… Thank you, Linda, for giving me something to do this afternoon. I will answer your questions as honestly and as politely as I can.

1. Do you have any intention of trying to understand the opposing views and why they believe what they believe, or do you only wish to discredit them?

I have studied enough religion to reject it, and enough psychology to understand why some people accept it. It is my firm belief, based on the experiences of the many people I have met who have carefully examined (and in almost all cases rejected) their religious beliefs, that the truth, or as much of it as we can uncover through careful study, is a more positive force than blind obedience to dogma. So I will certainly encourage, whenever I have the chance, everyone to carefully consider their beliefs, about religion and everything else, to see if there is something they have missed.

2. What exactly is the difference between pure atheism and Humanism? Is there a difference?

One of my favorite quotes, and I don’t know who said it originally, is “Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.” An atheist (small “a”) is simply someone who does not have a god in their life. This same person may also be a non-smoker, not a football fan, and not drive a Toyota, and all of those labels are equally useless, because they are all examples of what that person is not.

Humanism, on the other hand, is indeed a belief system, based on the simple fact that we’re all in this together, so we’d better make the best of it and help each other out. It really has nothing to do with a person’s religion, other than the fact that humanists won’t place the desires of an unprovable, invisible, and by all tests nonexistent entity ahead of the desires of the actual flesh-and-blood person in front of them.

3. Why is it necessary to label the absence of belief? If you believe in nothing, does nothing need to be labeled?

Well, like I said above, it isn’t necessary, really. But please understand that saying that I “believe in nothing” is extremely insulting. I do not believe in any deities, true, but I believe in the love of my family and friends, and I believe in the majesty of the world all around us, and I believe that Fender guitars are superior to Gibson, among other things.

There is a term for those who really do “believe in nothing:” Nihilists. I’ve met a few. Believe me, they’re not humanists.

4. There are a broad spectrum of atheists and theists alike. I’ve noticed there are some grey areas where the opposite sides overlap. Do you think it’s possible to gradually increase this area and eventually do away with the labels? Or is that too idealistic?

Certainly. On a day-to-day basis, a person’s religion is about as important as the color of their underpants, and equally nobody’s business. We would happily ignore the whole thing, if the theists would stop trying to impose their beliefs on us. Religion is a big deal because the religious make it a big deal. We make noise because we have to.

5. Going off of #4, do you think us moderate/liberal Christians would be more effective in the fundie circle than here? Maybe we should become members of a fundie church? It’s a very scary thought…

If you mean, should you be doing more to make them tone down the craziness a bit, then maybe so. But we know, and recognize, the difference. Just stop voting for the crazies, and we’ll be happy.

Oh, and in answer to the question above concerning reading material, Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World is the best argument for science, science education, critical thinking, and humanism that I have ever read, and it has none of the invective that turns people off to Harris and Hitchens. I highly recommend it.

Noble(?!?) said:

Science is a Christians best weapon, it totally destroys evolution and atheistic theories while at the same time it validates core Christian beliefs.

By science I presume you mean pig-headedness, or stupidity, or willful blindness? Because you clearly don’t mean what the rest of the world means by science.

Please do you self and everyone else a favor, buy a dictionary, get an education, and get your head out of your ass bible.

Oh, and by the way, this is a thread for questions from people who want to learn, not preach their idiocy, jerk. If you really have a legitimate question and want real answers, feel free to repost and ask nicely, and you’ll most likely get a nice response. I’m not holding my breath, though…

No, I’m not always nice.

Fucking trolls…..

Science is a Christians best weapon, it totally destroys evolution and atheistic theories while at the same time it validates core Christian beliefs.

…crack is bad for you. You know that, right?

Generally, from what I have seen on this blog, it’s considered more polite and productive to criticize the beliefs rather than the believer. It’s viewed as ruder to say “you’re an idiot to believe that” than to say “that’s a stupid belief”, on the grounds that people have feelings but ideas don’t. Some would say that it isn’t necessary to say either, but seriously, sometimes there’s just no really kind way to put it.

So, since what you propose is pretty much the inverse of what is considered courteous here, so could you expand on why you think this is better?

Because to me it is interpretation of the law. Some have taken Christianity to do horrible acts. Some have used to do great things. When you mock the core of Christianity, you mock both the people doing good along with the bad. When you mock the individuals themselves who are doing bad, you exclude the ones who have used their faith to do great things.

Noble said:

Some Christians groups have recently begun to study and question on a more deeper level why people claim to be evolutionists/atheists, some results have pointed to poor emotional and psychological conditions, there is also evidence of low self esteem due to a lack of any exceptional physical attributes. Anger and hatred also seem to be motivating factors which is sometimes caused by what they perceive to be unanswered prayer and also because of the poor behaviour of some that profess to be Christians, unfortunately this often leads to a negative judgement and a rejection of the Lord.

Where do you get your study subjects? Are you sure? Because that does not at all describe the atheists that I’ve been talking to. Actually, it seems to more closely describe many of the Christians that I know.
Hmm… I don’t get it.

Are you upset only by the mocking (as in the blasphemy challenge) or is the criticizing also something you find unacceptable?

I guess it’s the hypocrisy of people saying they are “enlightened” or “above pettiness” but then contributed to trivial mockery.

Also, I know this isn’t going to go away. I never expect it too. All I want is to offer a different side and bring a different perspective

kwrigh5 said:

I guess it’s the hypocrisy of people saying they are “enlightened” or “above pettiness” but then contributed to trivial mockery.

Maybe part of the problem is the ‘trivial’, then, rather than the mockery. I think a lot of the people who did that didn’t consider it trivial at all. Of the videos I saw, they mostly seemed like personal declarations of independence.

I’m not sure what appeared petty to you about that, and I’m not sure why you would think atheists have declared themselves to be above it. I’m not. What piece am I missing here?

Mriana said:

What he is saying is psychologically bogus.

Did you notice the one line in his diatribe, about “there is also evidence of low self esteem due to a lack of any exceptional physical attributes”. Yes, it’s either the “atheists are ugly” or the “atheists have small penises” offensive tactic, take your pick. I think he pretty thoroughly discredited himself.

kwrigh5, I think I’m beginning to see. You think these people deliberately did something you find childishly offensive. Frankly, I don’t know what that was. They are atheists, like me, so maybe the line you think they crossed, they didn’t even see. What exactly was it they did that you find to be that bad? I don’t have the background to know what specifically disturbed you, and they might not have either.

Claire said,

December 18, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Mriana said:

What he is saying is psychologically bogus.

Did you notice the one line in his diatribe, about “there is also evidence of low self esteem due to a lack of any exceptional physical attributes”. Yes, it’s either the “atheists are ugly” or the “atheists have small penises” offensive tactic, take your pick. I think he pretty thoroughly discredited himself.

Missed that one. That could be an insult to little women like myself, but I’m a proud little woman. 4′ 11″ isn’t all bad. I can attract those tall men he tried to slam just by asking “Is there a tall man in the room?” They all come running to assist cute little old me. So who has the low self-esteem? No one in this room except the TROLL! He must be REALLY little.

kwrigh5 said:

See if a person is secure enough in their belief in atheism, then they would not resort to making fun of another’s beliefs.

Where to start….. apparently, you haven’t been here long enough to figure out what offends us, either, so I guess that’s mutual.

We don’t have a “belief in atheism”, atheism is not a religion. We pretty much don’t believe in religions, it would be really stupid for an atheist to have one.

To say that atheists are mocking someone else’s beliefs because they are insecure is to assign motives to us out of ignorance. We are skeptics – finding fault with things that don’t make sense, and doing what (to you) seems to be mocking them, is just who we are. Not every one of us, but most.

For me the line is crossed when people go against aspects of the belief system rather than the individual.

I don’t agree with atheism but that does not mean I should go around and belittle an atheist’s morals and intelligence.

You are switching sides here – first you are saying that we shouldn’t belittle religion, then in the second quote you speak of not belittling individuals. It seems to me that you are saying everything is off limits.

You will find atheists that are going to belittle your religion on this site a lot more often than you will find ones who belittle you. Most often they aren’t trying to deliberately offend you, it’s just that the holy spirit (or most any other religious concept) that you value so highly, means nothing to them, or to me.

Although, there will be some who are intentionally offensive on occasion (myself included, although not at the moment) about various beliefs. That’s not being childish; it’s completely legitimate to treat a religious belief like any other idea, including questioning it, making fun of it, and even tearing it to pieces, and even if it happens to be a belief that some nice people hold dear.

Religious beliefs don’t command automatic respect just because they are religious beliefs, and it’s a very dangerous thing to maintain they should. It can end up with, say, people dying over cartoons of Mohammed, because they were ‘disrespectful’.

I have copied and pasted many of the question on this entry to the Friendly Christian forum. I’ve almost certainly missed a few but please feel free to add them there if I have. I hope people will continue the debate there as it’s getting difficult to keep track of the questions and answers over here.

Linda, thanks for your kind and encouraging remarks.

Where to start….. apparently, you haven’t been here long enough to figure out what offends us, either, so I guess that’s mutual.

We don’t have a “belief in atheism”, atheism is not a religion. We pretty much don’t believe in religions, it would be really stupid for an atheist to have one.

Ok I am quite aware that atheism is not a religion. When I meant belief, I meant more of a certainity. I should have just said “secure in their atheism”.

You are switching sides here – first you are saying that we shouldn’t belittle religion, then in the second quote you speak of not belittling individuals. It seems to me that you are saying everything is off limits.

First off, I didn’t mean to switch sides. What I was originally getting at was you look at the individual. I guess for my example I should have said “I don’t agree with atheism but I am not going to belittle atheism (and its moral implications) as a whole because a group of people decide that anyone who isn’t an atheist doesn’t have the ability to be moral.) My apologies for the confusion. Also, I don’t believe that everything needs to be off-limits. I am fine if you disagree with what I believe and you say that you don’t get the whole concept or parts of it. It’s good to ask and question. But I always think that it is hypocritical when certain people say they are enlightended and above judgment and then they judge everyone around them. Not question. Judge.

You will find atheists that are going to belittle your religion on this site a lot more often than you will find ones who belittle you. Most often they aren’t trying to deliberately offend you, it’s just that the holy spirit (or most any other religious concept) that you value so highly, means nothing to them, or to me.

When they mock the holy spirit, they mock me. They mock a part of who I am. Sure I don’t mind intellgenit questions but making fun of it is another story for me.

Although, there will be some who are intentionally offensive on occasion (myself included, although not at the moment) about various beliefs. That’s not being childish; it’s completely legitimate to treat a religious belief like any other idea, including questioning it, making fun of it, and even tearing it to pieces, and even if it happens to be a belief that some nice people hold dear.

Again, I have to disagree. You can question an idea without making fun of it.

Religious beliefs don’t command automatic respect just because they are religious beliefs, and it’s a very dangerous thing to maintain they should. It can end up with, say, people dying over cartoons of Mohammed, because they were ‘disrespectful’

I say that you can pick apart an idea without going the “extra mile” and mocking it. I don’t mean that you have to agree with my beliefs or understand them. But if you mock them, then you insult people who have done nothing to you. You can say you don’t believe in something or it doesn’t make sense to you without taking it to the extreme. For example, there is a big difference btw “I don’t buy the resurrection story” and “Holy Jesus on a popsicle stick”. One demonstrates your opinion. The other one is just in bad taste.

That sounds like something a fundamentalist Muslim would say. Not allowing critical discussion (and parody) of a groups beliefs is dangerous in a relatively free society.

I don’t mind criticism. I don’t mind disagreement. I guess I just thought that if certain atheists who say that religious people (particularly Christians) are judgmental of others and they say that their beliefs are bumkus and then they turn around and mock Christianity, then to me that is hypocritical.

As for your example, I must admit that if I had a kid and she said what you said, I would have acted the same way. A little contractionary from the previous statement I know.

I just thought that if certain atheists who say that religious people (particularly Christians) are judgmental of others and they say that their beliefs are bumkus and then they turn around and mock Christianity, then to me that is hypocritical.

kwrigh5 – I think I agree with you here. If your going to dish it out you need to be willing to take it with a smile.

Question for atheists and theists alike: does Noble actually believe that what he’s saying is potentially effective, or is he just a troll?

Evolutionists tended to lie and use deceitfully crafted arguments.

Please give an example.

Why do evolutionists/atheists have so much indignation towards the Lord’s Saints and towards His Word yet at the same time are very accepting of religions other than their own.

I don’t. Maybe some Americans do because they were raised in a Christian culture and feel some resentment for various reasons. Can you give an example of an atheist rejecting Christianity but accepting another religion?

Christianity in it’s purest form has never been a religion, it’s all about love!

Oh, in that case I have no complaints. Please send a memo to the majority of Christians in American who haven’t heard. I look forward to your true and pure Christianity becoming the dominant meme.

I guess that’s why it’s not very surprising that you guys along with all the other religions are slowly merging into a force that will someday control this earth for a few short years.

Evidence? I don’t see Dawkins teaming up with Islamic radicals anytime soon.

Are there any atheists on this forum that have ever prayed? Be honest!!!!!!

Sure. I’ve also meditated, practiced seeing auras, and looked for UFOs. So what? (BTW, I didn’t see any auras or flying saucers…) What’s the point of this question?

I’m assuming you are not a troll, since I always like to assume the best in people. Are you going to engage in a real dialog with people here or just type out a long list of baseless assertions? Will you actually read our comments and answer our questions? Here are some additional points and questions:

Please define “religion”. Why is evolution a religion and Christianity not a religion?

I don’t “believe in” evolution, anymore than I “believe in” the theory of gravity. I accept both theories based on evidence. (Am I now a gravityist? Or maybe Newtonist?) Please remember nothing is ever proven in science.

There are plenty of religious scientists who accept the theory of evolution, and believe it or not, I have met atheists who don’t accept it. (Go watch some of Ken Miller’s videos on YouTube.)

I am hopeful that your reply will be filled with great examples and supporting evidence, and no more “atheists/evolutionists are such and such and so and so” assertions.

kwrigh5 said:

I guess I just thought that if certain atheists who say that religious people (particularly Christians) are judgmental of others and they say that their beliefs are bumkus and then they turn around and mock Christianity, then to me that is hypocritical.

Actually, that is the least of my quarrels with religious people. They can judge me or anyone else until they are blue in the face, and I don’t care – as long as they don’t try to put it into law or discriminate against them. So, I guess that means I’m free to mock without hypocrisy, next time I’m in the mood…

When they mock the holy spirit, they mock me. They mock a part of who I am. Sure I don’t mind intelligent questions but making fun of it is another story for me.

While I don’t agree with that, I can respect it, and I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.

Still, it is part of the price we pay for living in a free society, that the right of free speech extends to everyone regardless of how they intend to use it, and it’s better than the alternative.

@Macht

Third, surely there has to be a better example than Harris’ book. (God help the atheists if there isn’t.)

Check out Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier.

and we do not express blind faith in the natural process of how species originated

I have this theory, and Richard Dawkins pretty much says the same thing at the end of his two part doco DVD The Root of All Evil:

Christians adhere to blind faith, Atheists adhere to blind luck.

So which is worse?

If Pullman has ever explained why he stuck souls in those books, I would appreciate a link to the explanation.

Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy (beginning w/ The Golden Compass) is a critique on religion (specifically Christianity). One is most interesting about the world that Pullman created in order make this critique is that he made all the things that Christians believe in actually exist. So there is no doubt that people have souls and that there is a higher power. And yet given that this is true, the Church (Magisterium) is still portrayed as the enemy because they are so obsessed with policing their dogma that they ignore anything that contradicts their narrow view of the world. It gets more specific than that but I don’t want to give anything away. The basic point is that even if we did have souls and we discovered the world was created, there is still no reason to adhere to strict religious dogma that is not rational.

I don’t think “fair enough.”

First off, I don’t think evolution relies on “luck”. I don’t think “luck” is a precise enough term, as it means different things to different people. It’s absolutely not a scientific or mathematical term. One might as well say that evolution relies on “pluck” or “effort”. So it’s a useless term. When Dawkins says at the end of his video “we are the lucky ones”, he is doing nothing more than expressing wonder at the sheer number of possibilities that the natural world is capable of producing.

There is an aspect of evolution that is partially random, but natural selection is absolutely nonrandom.

“…it’s only through luck (and not a creator god) that we evolved into humans.”

I wouldn’t say that at all. Who’s to say that we are “lucky” that we are humans?!? There may be a very good number of better things that might be here on earth if we humans weren’t here. I imagine being a sentient Tyrannosaurus might be WAY luckier! Perhaps some other self-aware creature running this planet might be kinder to the other life-forms. Perhaps something closer in tempement to the peaceful gorillas than the violent chimpanzees.

But also, are THOSE the only two options, either a creator God or luck? That’s it?

You haven’t thought about this deeply enough, I’m afraid. There are an infinite number of other possible scenarios.

Then you’d probably do better to argue with someone who holds that view, rather than try to jump on a rebuttal to the troll named Nobel, who claimed we adhere to a “religion” of evolution by a leap of faith greater than that required to believe Jesus was the son of God.

It was Nobel who first brought the idea of faith to this thread, and accused atheists of it, and a blind form at that. Rather than rely on him to be a starter pistol, ask the questions YOU’D like to get answered. Most folks on “friendly atheist” aren’t here to scrap or pick fights. Here’s an opportunity to gain some insight on what other people think and feel.

Just ask your questions. We’ll respond. If you didn’t like Katsu’s response to Nobel, you could just tell her.

literaghost said,

December 20, 2007 at 10:37 am

My question for atheists:

Does anyone know a good way to get a Jesus fish off of a car (preferably without damaging the paint job)?

Hey, no one ever specified the type of questions this thread was for…why not some practical advice?

- Miz L.

I never thought about it. I never had a fish emblem on my car before either. If you didn’t care about the paint job, I’d say, just rip that sucker right off! However, that has it’s problems too because the outline is still there, BUT you can solve that problem by replacing it with an Evolve fish from evolvefish.com . EVOLVE IT! Points the same direction is the same shape, but has feet and all. I’m very resoureful when I need to be.

I had an interesting discussion with a few people at work yesterday over lunch, we talked about evolution, the question of what do evolutionists/atheists think about cannibalism was raised and if they believe it to be wrong. Evolution/atheism preaches that all living organisms evolved from a single living organism. As we munched away on our sandwiches and fruit we realised that if evolution/atheism was correct we we eating our relatives, I’m related to wheat, lettuce and bananas! We share the same ancestry!

This is what I know about evolution and it’s core beliefs as it’s taught in schools and so called scientific text books, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Billions of years ago something went bang, it was a really big bang! They’re not quite sure what went bang or where the thing that went bang came from or even how the thing that went bang came into being, it just miraculously, mysteriously, magically against all known scientific laws appeared. Nonetheless this thing that appeared out of nothing went bang. Out of the bang a big rock was formed that today we call earth. Now this rock was hot, very hot, fiery hot! Then miraculously, magically, mysteriously, against all known scientific laws it started to rain on that fiery rock. It rained for a few billion years on that rock and the rock eventually cooled down. The rock was now covered with a murky cocktail of soup like liquid which miraculously, magically, mysteriously, against all known scientific laws, gave birth to a living organism which in turn birthed all known living organisms that have ever existed. We descended from a rock! Apart from all of that a whole heap of technically sounding and deceitfully crafted mumbo jumbo has also been added in order to try and convert people to this belief.

Honestly, the amount of blind faith needed to believe this religious nonsense is unimaginable! In fact I believe it is totally impossible to truly believe in evolution. I am lead to this verses of scripture, “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools.” And, “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather that the creator.”

I just finished reading the following in the local newspaper, “scientists estimate that they could fill a 1000 volume encyclopedia with the coded instructions in the DNA of a single human cell, if those instruction could be translated into English.” This world is truly a wonder don’t you think?

In reply to Noble’s previous post, I wrote, “I am hopeful that your reply will be filled with great examples and supporting evidence…”. Obviously I was wrong in assuming the best in people, you really are a troll.

Here’s my new futile reply: your post isn’t anything more than an appeal to ridicule and the standard straw man fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

“Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent’s argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:

* If Einstein’s theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That’s crazy!”

Noble, in the interest of saving time, I’m going to conduct our entire discussion from this point to its conclusion, in this comment.

You: Baseless assertions, science is faith, evolution is a lie, logical fallacy, logical fallacy.

Me: Respectful, thought-out reply with supporting evidence. Offer to supply more evidence.

You: Repetition of baseless assertions, science is faith, evolution is a lie, logical fallacy, showcasing of misunderstanding of simple concepts such as the formation of the Earth.

Me: Slightly less respectful but still thoughtful reply. More evidence in answer to baseless assertions.

You: Repetition of baseless assertions, science is faith, evolution is a lie, logical fallacy, banana.

Me: Annoyed reply, some evidence, insult regarding your intellect, honesty, and ability to listen. Banana joke.

You: Repetition of baseless assertions, science is faith, evolution is a lie, logical fallacy, peanut butter, Hitler.

Me: Query regarding the marital status of your parents when you were conceived.

You: More relentless godbotting.

Me: *bashes own brains out with keyboard*

Fin.

Epilogue:

I’m related to wheat, lettuce and bananas! We share the same ancestry!

I’m thinking you’re more of a nut, really.

Katsu, why bother being respectful to the troll? He’s rude to us.

So I should skip right to the bit about his parentage? ^^

Billions of years ago something went bang, it was a really big bang! They’re not quite sure what went bang or where the thing that went bang came from or even how the thing that went bang came into being, it just miraculously, mysteriously, magically against all known scientific laws appeared. Nonetheless this thing that appeared out of nothing went bang. Out of the bang a big rock was formed that today we call earth. Now this rock was hot, very hot, fiery hot! Then miraculously, magically, mysteriously, against all known scientific laws it started to rain on that fiery rock.

My question for you athiests is how does nothing get hot and explode against all scientific laws?

Katsu, such a masterly summary! And damn funny. I’m guessing anime fan….

Katsu, such a masterly summary! And damn funny. I’m guessing anime fan….

Hm, weird, my first attempt at a comment imploded!

But anyway, thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week, make sure to tip your waitress. *bows*

And yes, anime fan. ^_~ Really, I’m part of all sorts of terrible geekery.

Claire said,

December 20, 2007 at 4:58 pm

we should ignore him like we do wild deer who cross our paths.

Actually, those I will brake for…

I would do too, but wild animal didn’t seem right.

Richard, that sounds good, but I’ll be surprised if he’ll be considerate and at least read your post. He hasn’t read anyone’s yet.

Claire – You are asking why someone with an obvious mental impairment is making insane posts? There is no point in arguing with the mentally ill, if you do it long enough no one will be able to tell which of you is really insane.

I’ve thought about one of the discussions on here for a bit, so I think I’ll revive with my two-cents something that was buried with “Noble”‘s trolling:

kwrigh5 said,
December 19, 2007 at 11:01 am

When they mock the holy spirit, they mock me. They mock a part of who I am. Sure I don’t mind intellgenit questions but making fun of it is another story for me.

The entire “mocking/criticizing beliefs (vs. the believers)” argument reminds me of my days running and participating in various writing groups. The most common problem less-mature writers had – that is, those not used to having their writing peer-reviewed – was separating their work from themselves when their works were critiqued. It’s understandable (and it’s something you’ll hear all over) – when you put so much effort, creative and otherwise, into making something, it becomes a part of you. It becomes your “baby.” And when you take your “baby” out into the world, and someone criticizes it, it hurts – whether or not they’re trying to make the criticism hurt.

But when what’s being criticized are ideas – whether in writing, religions, government, or whatever – those who got the most out of it were those who could take the criticism with open ears. In the context of the writing group, often the less-mature writers I mentioned would respond to something like “there’s a gaping plot hole on page 25″ or “this character’s too obviously a deus ex machina” as if they were personal insults (“I can’t believe you’d say that! I thought you were my friend!”). But they are their friends, and that’s why they’d give honest criticism – because they respected the writer’s intellect, and wanted to help improve their work.

Now, this isn’t to say that all critiques are devoid of any mean-spiritedness (is that a word?). But you can’t even discern those that might have merit from those made out of malice if you don’t listen to what they say first. Being hurt may be a natural reaction – but, like scratching a rash, it may not be the most healthy one. And it’s hardly a legitimate reason to silence the critics (or to ask them to silence themselves, for that matter).

– Miz L. [Vodoun queen, reviving topics from their graves to walk among the living and eat their braaaaaiiiins!]

Mriana,

Richard, that sounds good, but I’ll be surprised if he’ll be considerate and at least read your post. He hasn’t read anyone’s yet.

Ah well at least you read it, so I’m happy.

Lauren, you are getting confused in the sequence of events and the amount of time involved. Keep in mind that a billion is a thousand millions. The evidence we have so far suggests that the universe in its present form was initially in a single point and then space, time and all matter expanded rapidly from that point about 14 billion years ago. What was going on “before” that moment scientists don’t know YET, and the concept of “before” is a little difficult because apparently time as we presently understand it also started at that moment. It’s difficult to grasp, I know. From that expanding realm matter and stars condensed, taking hundreds of millions or even billions of years. Stars were formed, ran their course and cooled or exploded. New ones continue to form, and we can see it happening.

The sun is a relative newcomer, having condensed from a cloud of mostly hydrogen gas and dust of heavier elements only a little more than 5 billion years ago. The Earth and the other planets in our Solar system also condensed from this same cloud swirling kind of like a huge whirlpool or a hurricane. When the Earth condensed into a sphere it was still very hot but was basically the distance from the sun that it is today. For almost another billion years the Earth was lifeless until conditions were right for life to begin, about 4.5 billion years ago. Scientists don’t pretend to know exactly how this began YET, but they simply keep following the evidence that they find. Eventually we may be able to create life from inanimate matter, once we understand the conditions on Earth so long ago, which were not at all as they are today.

The complex structures that we call life were probably far simpler at first. They did not simply come together all at once randomly as you put it, but followed a sequence of small steps and stages dictated by natural laws.

Lauren, I agree with you that life is amazing, and we should cherish and nurture it. If you wish to learn more about evolution from the people who really understand it, there are several resources, but stay away from websites run by creationists because they will only distort and omit things in order to discredit the theory. Learn from real experts and then you can argue effectively about the parts that you don’t agree with. Here is one of several resources:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Aw Claire, I’m sorry. Don’t hold back just because big mouth me blunders in ahead of you. You never know how just your turn of a phrase about the same idea may jump out at someone and make the difference of understanding. I always look forward to your comments because you always live up to the meaning of your name, “clear.”

Maybe three sentences would be better. I’m reminded of the scene in the wacky 1980 comedy “Airplane” when Robert Stack, faced with an escalating emergency asks the total fruitcake in the control tower, “How did all this happen?” The fruitcake replies, “Well, first the Earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came, but they got fat and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came with their Mercedes Benzes…”

Does anyone have any insight as to why Noble, or pests like him in general, do this? Why post and repost with no intent to have any dialog? It would be easier not to be rude if I had any idea why…

Think about it this way. Pretend for a moment that there is something to you that seems an obvious truth, because it was told to you from birth and you know nothing else. This is a truth that required no evidence, no argument, it’s just the way the world is. So if you’re looking at something like that, you probably do just think that repeating it over and over will get through to people that it’s a universal truth. Because you don’t know how to argue, and further don’t see the point in debate because there is nothing to debate. It just *is*.

That said, I don’t think that attitude is anything to be proud of, and it’s quite possibly the most annoying thing I’ve ever encountered in my life. It’d be like if we taught science using the, “Because I said so,” method.

“How come the speed of light is 3×10^8 m/s?”

“Because that’s the speed of light.”

“But why?”

“Because that’s the speed of light.”

“But isn’t there some math or something to back it up?”

“BECAUSE I SAID SO.”

* * *

So… that said, I can understand the origin of the attitude. That doesn’t make it any less frustrating and annoying. Just because you know how a brick wall got built or why it’s there doesn’t make it any more pleasant to beat your head against.

Katsu said:

So if you’re looking at something like that, you probably do just think that repeating it over and over will get through to people that it’s a universal truth.

Don’t they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Not that I really buy that, seems more like a definition of stupid married to stubborn, except that occasionally it does work. That’s how they learned it. Sigh…..

Thanks for the insight!

Ignorance of the basic “geography” of the universe is very very common. Early this year a survey said 20% of Americans think that the sun orbits the Earth. I bet an even higher percentage doesn’t even know that stars are other suns. (I base this guess on the number of people I have met who didn’t know.)

Most people just aren’t interested. Their lives are caught up in that thin two dimensional surface of our biosphere. It’s no surprise really, since that is where the human brain evolved.

It’s my feeling that people should be interested, and it’s the fault of our education system that they are not. The bread and circuses of our media outlets and the false sense of wonder provided by our superstitions keep most people in a trance. Then again, contemplative scientists and philosophers don’t make good consumers.

” I really hope that some of the points I raised previously can be the catalyst for some interesting and constructive discussions,”

Why does this phrase, and indeed the entire content of this post lead me to think that the poster has a one-way connection to the internet?

I really hope that some of the points I raised previously can be the catalyst for some interesting and constructive discussions

Why would it? You aren’t discussing anything with us.

especially the question of cannibalism and what atheists think about the subject.

Communion isn’t cannibalistic? Crucifixion isn’t barbarism? Couldn’t prove it by me.

Once again, you obviously have not read anybody’s posts in this thread nor did you follow the link Richard gave you to read.

Lauren, I don’t get your questions…

You say “evolution theory” then talk about space and time…

“Evolution theory” is not a blanket term that you can apply to ideas that encompass cosmology, physics, the origin of the universe, etc. Evolution is not even about the beginning of life on earth. It can only describe why life has many forms. It is an explaination of life’s diversity, and ONLY that. It cannot describe what happened before life. It cannot describe why volcanoes erupt. It cannot describe how radio waves work. It is the central organizing principle undergirding the science of biology.

It says nothing about how the universe formed. It is not the answer to all questions.

Do athiests believe that time and space have always existed?

Some might, some might not. Many might think the question as phrased doesn’t make much sense. By a certain definition, time has “always” existed, if “always” means “at all times”. In order to have at all times, time has to exist. Therefore time has always existed, from that point of view.

Someone mentioned “mother nature”, do you guys consider that to be part of evolution or do you consider it an intelligent force or something that is actually in control in some way?

I don’t know any atheists who consider an intelligent force might be controlling evolution, if that is your question.

And also, do all atheists agree on the same theory? Or do different atheists believe different things?

I think there’s some diversity.

Okkkayyy I think I am getting this, so athiests focus just on science and that’s all? So the theory of evolution is seperate to that somehow? So an atheist is just someone who is against the theory of creation and is that the end of it?

So is an athiests beliefs system just based on 1. there is no God and 2. you are free to do anything

Forgive me if I am wrong, I am genuinely trying to understand.

Lauren, I think I see your confusion. Atheism is not a belief system. Rather it is a lack of belief in any God. Now because we lack belief in a supernatural entity we are left with rational thought and scientific knowledge to make decisions.

Your assumption that we are free to do anything assumes that morality is divinely granted or enforced. It isn’t. I believe (and the evidence supports it) that morals developed from our ancestors need to protect members of the group. Humans aren’t equipped with fangs and claws like other animals and so cooperate in order to be successful. Cooperation is enhanced by sharing and suffers when one member works against the group (by killing another member, stealing, etc) and so we are encouraged to work towards the group’s objectives. Simultaneously the group works to suppress behaviour that goes against the group.

I hope that helps.

Okkkayyy I think I am getting this, so athiests focus just on science and that’s all?

No! We focus on love, humanity, charity, art, science, family, friends… all the stuff of life! We just don’t worship a god, or we’re unconvinced of the existence of any gods.

So the theory of evolution is seperate to that somehow?

The theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity or a theory of economics. They explain certain aspects of the physical world… nothing more. There were atheists long before Darwin.

So an atheist is just someone who is against the theory of creation and is that the end of it?

No, an atheist is just someone who doesn’t think there are gods, or is unconvinced of their existence. It should go without saying that if one doesn’t think there’s a god, then they don’t believe in miracles as well, including the Biblical creation account(s).

So is an athiests beliefs system just based on 1. there is no God and 2. you are free to do anything

No. I usually put it this way:

An atheist’s belief system is based on one day, a long time ago, someone got up in the front of the tribe and said “I know the will of GOD, and God tells me that all of you must do what I, I mean God, tell you to do!”

Well, on that day someone in the back row shook his head and said “I don’t buy it.” That person was the first atheist.

I don’t believe “there is no God”. I say “I have not seen evidence sufficient to convince me that an interactive God exists.”

I don’t believe I am free to do anything. I believe I am free to think for myself, and I am free to believe as I will, and I am as free as my brothers and sisters will let me be, to find my own destiny, so long as I fight for their freedom as well.

Lauren,

Here’s my attempt at breaking it down for you:

To be an atheist means that you don’t believe in any gods. This has no implications for anything else in your worldview. Many atheists are true skeptics, but there are atheists who believe in astrology, homeopathy and other things that science has shown has no foundation in reality.

Similarly, atheists may have different beliefs/opinions on where morals come from. But very few people actually believe that we are free to do anything we please. Humans are moral creatures – exactly where those morals come from might be debated, but there’s no question that it takes some amount of brain damage to act entirely amorally!

Personally I am a Humanist. Humanism is an atheistic worldview. You can read more about it on for instance wikipedia if you look for Secular Humanism.

As for evolution and science, please remember that “theory” does not mean “belief” or “guess”. A scientific theory is so much more than that. And, by using that definition of theory, you also need to understand that there is no theory of creation. The only scientific theories we have today of how the world came to be and how life has developed are those described by physics, chemistry and biology – not the bible. The bible is not scientific and there is no “theory” there, only a myth.

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life has developed on earth. It does not describe how it began, only how it has gone from one or a few forms to many diverse forms. Evolution is defined as changes in allele frequencies in a population over generations. This is technical jargon for the fact that in every generation, different proportions of a population will carry a specific gene. For instance, in one generation 60% of a population of bugs might carry a gene for being green, but in the next generation only 50% carry that gene. That is evolution. Natural selection is one of the forces of evolution and can be summarised like this:

1. In every population of organisms, there is variation. (Some bugs are green, some bugs are brown, some are red.)
2. The variation is heritable. (If you two green bugs mate, their offspring will probably be green too.)
3. In every generation, some individuals will be more successful at reproducing than others.
4. Which individuals survive and reproduce is not random, some will reproduce more than others. The individuals with the most favourable variations in their respective environments will have more offspring than other individuals: They have been naturally selected. (In a population of bugs that live on green leaves, green bugs are less likely to be eaten by birds, and hence they will have more offspring than brown bugs.)

This has been amply demonstrated both in the lab and in nature. Given long enough time-spans, and keep in mind that life has been around for about 2.7 billion years, new species will develop.

First, Lauren, I gotta ask – why that question? It’s the same question that christians always ask. I plugged it into google and got 155,000 hits, and it makes me wonder if somewhere out there there isn’t a handbook that says “when you meet an atheist, ask him this”.

So, why do christians ask this question? What insight will an answer bring you, and what will you do with that answer?

From what I have seen, christianity prides itself on not needing evidence, since that’s what faith is for. So why ask about evidence?

Maybe you have been hanging around christians for too long? haha I asked the question as I’m trying to get an insight as to what “the other side” thinks/believes. I’m not naive enough to think I can convert an unbeliever, I’m just honestly interested. Perhaps I should try google first.

I agree with Claire… we get that question here at least once a week.

I’ll try and answer, though, Lauren:

What would it take for you as an atheist to believe in a God?

Just a feeling in my heart that it was true.

Or what would you as an atheist consider to be absolute proof? Proof that would be enough to completely change your belief system (or lack thereof)?

Here’s something I wrote, awhile back on this question:

There are lots of signs which would have no possible other explaination.

That’s what would make them signs in the first place. Stuff with other possible explainations utterly fail as signs.

A dude walking on water, if examinable and repeatable just isn’t possible under any other explaination.

Spontaneous amputee healing, as David explained. Or words written in the stars that say “I am that I am”.

A star hovering motionless over bethlehem.

Animals talking.

Angels appearing.

Etc,etc.

The fact that none of this stuff ever happens, but we are supposed to believe it did, to save our eternal souls, tells me that either the Christian definition of God is so off-base as to be nonexistent in that form, or God is one incredibly manipulative guy to have sent Cecil B. DeMille type special effects in the old days when people were more credulous, and stopped it down to a trickle here in our modern world.

What kind of God demands faith and belief in the frankly unbelievable special effects extravaganzas of the past? Especially when he births us into a world where these miracles are long, long gone, if they ever existed (and we conveniently have no photos or videos).

Just last week when this topic came up, a poster named Bruce wrote:

Actually, I’m kind of tired of the whole “What would make you believe in God” meme. If there truly is a god and this god is as all knowing as it is claimed then this god should know exactly what it would take for me to believe. And since god knows this and is all powerful, then god can easily make it so. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet means either god doesn’t care to make me a believer or god doesn’t exist. I’ll let you be the judge of that one.

Like I said, all I’d need would be a feeling in my heart that it was true.

And yes, I’ve tried prayer. I’ve done everything I can be expected in good conscience to do to seek God. I’ve humbly and beseechingly asked for whatever grace can be afforded me to come into my life. I’ve stilled my mind, quieted my doubts, and whispered the question into the darkness.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Some Christians have told me I didn’t do it right and am still damned. Some have told me that I’m probably saved, and I just didn’t feel it. I shrug.

Lauren, you still haven’t answered me – of all the things you could ask to get an insight, why that particular question?

I guess I just know that anything I have to bring to the table wouldn’t be enough for an athiest to question his or her beliefs. So you kind of just have the urge to ask what would be proof… out of curiousity I guess.

Siamang, I don’t believe that God can do anything when a person doesn’t believe in him. So just praying for a moment in hope for an answer isn’t enough. I don’t know why.

You will all think I’m deluded (but hey.. you think all Christians are anyway! hehe) but I did ask God why he hides himself from people as I thought it was unfair and he said it was because the question isn’t about whether or not he exists, the question is ‘Will you follow me? ‘ and the question would be the same even if Jesus stood before each person and asked it, and the answer would be the same also.

Lauren said:

I guess I just know that anything I have to bring to the table wouldn’t be enough for an athiest to question his or her beliefs.

Don’t take this personally, but that’s pretty much true. You (or anyone else) could tell me things and make persuasive arguments for hours, but none of that is evidence.

The thing is, most hard-core believers just aren’t good at things like evidence, logic, and proof. The ones that do understand those things generally admit that they don’t really apply to religion. That’s why that question makes me suspicious. Evidence will never make anyone believe in a god, it would only convince them of the existence of one.

The other problem is that it’s disingenous – it’s the wrong question, and you knew that. You said it yourself, Lauren, it’s not about whether a god exists, it’s about following one. So why did you ask the wrong question?

The last reason is it’s a bad question is that the asker already knows the most likely answer. So, ask yourself – what would it take to convince you that Zeus or Hera exists? Or Shiva, or Vishnu? Whatever your answer is, that’s probably about what it would take for anyone.

I don’t mean to imply by this that you were being dishonest. It’s just that asking the right question is really important. If you don’t do that, then there’s really no point in the answer.

Siamang,

Do you know I’m a writer who blogs for a Christian ministry?

That is news to me… I didn’t know. Fascinating, puzzling, and… intriguing. Do they know? (If you talked about it before, I must have missed it.)

Guys, I think the best thing to keep in mind regarding Noble is that wise phrase: don’t feed the trolls. They thrive on the attention they get from running conversations off into the ditch. Just ignore him/her/it.

Max said,

In order to believe that God exists AND follow the doctrines of a religion — which is what believers really want when they argue for God’s existence,

I’m a believer, and I don’t want that. To me, the Spirit of Jesus is freedom — Freedom from the bondage of religious law. When Jesus asked me to follow him, I began to feel freedom. Although the old habits still remain, because they are ingrained in my brain, I am becoming more and more free each day. When someone becomes a true believer (I don’t mean the go-through-the-motions Christians), then the spiritual battle begins. The true battle is within oneself…the process of metamorphosis. I’ve always thought this transformation was that of becoming a good Christian (as defined by religion). That’s what they teach, and most remain in that constant state of struggle.

But now I believe with every cell in my body that the transformation is that of breaking free… Free to be oneself without any fear… freedom to express oneself fully… freedom to be unique, abnormal. Freedom from religion…

That is who Jesus Christ is to me. I know who and what I am in Christ. So I call myself a Christian. But I don’t completely belong in the Christian camp. I love to come here to think freely with you, because oftentimes, I think you guys are closer to the real truth than the Christians are; but I don’t really belong here either. I am a half breed, and I am alone. A while back, a guy named Hugo came and ranted for a while. He called himself an atheist. and a Christian. No one knew what the heck he was talking about. But I did. It’s a lonely place.

I thought this was an open thread titled “questions for atheists”! It seems impossible discussing anything with atheists, the responses I’ve had to my posts have been replete with insults, bullying, distortions, dishonesty, ridicule and deceitfully crafted comments. I have even had my parentage questioned! Your behaviour at times is totally disgusting! Just grow up! Intellectual jousting is fun, a bit like playing chess, but sometimes you guys need to bite the bullet, show some maturity and discuss topics openly and honestly without deceit, malice and craftiness. It appears that when certain truths are put forward you immediately go into denial. Nobody believes the old “we atheists are just poor innocent victims of those big mean Christians” crap. Are they loving you to death? It is doubtless that some of you two footed critters possess a whole lot of potential, stop wasting it on fables and intellectual bullshit! Now, dishonesty and craftiness can lead to illnesses of the central nervous system just as unforgiveness can lead to certain forms of cancers, so have fun but keep these thing in mind.

Have a very merry day and a happy new tomorrow!

Noble said,

December 22, 2007 at 10:51 am

I thought this was an open thread titled “questions for atheists”! It seems impossible discussing anything with atheists, the responses I’ve had to my posts have been replete with insults, bullying, distortions, dishonesty, ridicule and deceitfully crafted comments.

That’s your perception. From our end you have been doing what you accuse us of doing. It seems to me your projecting. The conversation has been one way and needless to say, you haven’t asked any questions or read our responses.

Tim:

It seems antiintellectual to argue the truth or falsity of Christianity by attacking its adherents.

I agree here. Personally, I don’t think it’s so much anti-intellectual as it is not helpful.

Truth is, there are jerks on both sides of the theist/nontheist fence. There are good people on both sides of the fence as well. Neither side has a monopoly on morality, compassion, etc. Similarly, neither has a monopoly on bad behavior.

OTOH, you might note that farther up in this exchange someone else told us that they’d rather we attack the actions of some Christians rather than deal directly with the core elements of the faith. *shrugging*

From what I’ve seen, sometimes we discuss people’s actions here and sometimes we discuss ideas here. Which we do really depends on the topic we’re discussing. Sometimes the actions of some Christians do merit comment.

Mriana and Linda, thankyou! I gambled on getting a response that would justify my last post and you guys delivered! That was fun! I think I could get really good at this. I must admit that it wasn’t much of a gamble though, the odds were heavily stacked in my favour.

For anyone here that is feeling a little frustrated getting reasonable and honest answers out of atheists do a google search on ‘creation versus evolution’. There are lots of really good sites that provide honest and scientifically accurate answers about questions you may have about atheistic/evolution/enlightenment religions. Many sites use creation believing scientists from all the differing branches of science. I was pleasantly surprised with just how many creation believing scientists there are throughout the world including many eminent scientist. Don’t be mislead by atheists when they claim that science confirms their faith, they’re not telling the truth!

Some sites I found were as follows: drdino.com (lots of articles and videos), ucg.org.au (interesting quotes from experts), gennet.org, icr.org, biblicalgeology.net, anointed-one.net, answersincreation.org and pathlights.com.

Noble, you’re a sick fella; I’ll pray for you.

Linda, you’re framing people the wrong way if you think you’re alone. If you’re alone, we’re all alone. I choose to see the connections; we’re all one big fucked-up family. Happy holidays family!

gambled on getting a response that would justify my last post

I thought gambling was a sin.

Deliberately baiting and provoking a desired negative response from others may not be a sin, but it’s certainly not the mark of a mature intelligence.

I agree Richard and Lauren I was not joking when I asked which god, I had a purpose behind that and not devious either.

Therefore if there is a god, and I see no reason to believe that there is one, then god isn’t the god that any religion says it is.

HoverFrog, I am inclined to agree with you. Thus why I say I don’t believe in the god of religion- any religion.

Forgive me if this isn’t true but I have only your typed phrases to go on and the written word is often limiting and I may be reading more into what you’ve said than you meant. The key thing that you have to understand about atheists is that most of us have looked at religion and found it wanting. We have examined it and rejected it as lacking in basic reason and sense.

Thus why I asked for clarification. I was not being fictious or devious with my clarification, but even then, depending on the answer, I would have had to clarify my position in a way that would hopefully communicate.

Noble,

If you have something to say, and if you think that you have some truth to share, please do so with some respect and without accusations and judgments. And speak from your heart, not your head. You think you can go head to head with these people? They probably are out of your league, I’m afraid. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your condescending tone is starting to bore me. Exorcise the troll-ness out of you! Heal thyself!

Noble, is that you? What are you doing goofing around on the computer? I thought I told you to go out and love your neighbor as yourself 2000 years ago! Get off you butt and do it! And while you’re at it, clean up this place! It’s a mess! You ought to be old enough by now to take care of your planet without me having to remind you every 5 minutes!

I agree that Pascal was a smart guy, but the god-shaped hole concept just seems the flip-side of the “religion is a crutch” argument used by atheists. I also think that some people, esp. fundamentalists, do use god/religion as a drug, to avoid having to really think or examine their lives. This is not true of all religious people of course and I admire those whose spiritual practices lead to greater self-awareness and consideration for those around them.

Tim, I wonder why you have chosen not to respond or even acknowledge the very thoughtful responses Allison gave to your previous questions?

tim

Thank God, finally, a believer that actually can discuss things fairly and openly!

When studying vacuums, he made the analogy that each of us (the way we are designed) has a “god-shaped” vacuum within, that can only be filled by our relationship with god. If not by god, then we find “substitutes” of worship such as money, material things, power, sex, drugs, food, other addictions, etc.

I agree with that statement completely. My questions to you are:

1. How would you describe this “relationship” with god?

2. Do you believe it only exists in Christianity?

3. I would describe the “worship” that you mentioned as allowing something outside of ourselves to have power over us. So when religion has power over us (i.e. guilt and shame from ‘sins’, trying to please God with good deeds, etc.), we are worshipping religion. In your opinion, can God exist without religion?

4. And if so, what does that God look like?

Someone mentioned Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. A lot of creationists have pulled away from their old poster boy Behe because in his latest book he suggest that the “intelligent designer” mutated malaria to be more deadly. Not exactly the work of a benevolent creator, but Behe takes the standard position that such seemingly evil actions are actually good in the overall mysterious plan.

Back to the thread topic, Tim wrote: “I think the Christian worldview holds up quite nicely with solid evidence—not absolute certainty, for sure, but holds up with the preponderance of evidence.”

That claim touches on the key issue here. The debate between atheists and theists often takes place before the background idea that theists believe things on faith, and faith is belief without evidence. I think this assumption is not quite right, because of course the believer has their own evidence. They might consider the Bible to be evidence, or a personal experience, and so on.

So the real question here is what do we consider to be good evidence? It is easy to say, “My [insert belief] is based on good evidence”. But how will you demonstrate the evidence is good?

Regarding Tim’s other question on the mystery of the mind, there are many mysteries that science hasn’t solved and might never solve. What is called the “hard problem” in consciousness or questions on the origins of the universe. However the “answers” that religious claims provide are not really answers. Where did the universe come from? Saying that “X” created it doesn’t satisfy me. What is “X”? Why isn’t it “Y”? Or is it something we can’t even imagine? And although I can entertain the idea that a “creative force” possibly started it all, how can I jump from that to any particular god of human religion which have many specific characteristics? If you could possibly prove to me that a god created the universe, why shouldn’t I then believe that god is actually Brahman?

To questions like these many theists mischaracterize atheists saying we have faith in the Big Bang or some other materialistic theory of the origin of the universe. But most atheists I have talked with are very comfortable saying “I don’t know.” The irony of science is that the more we learn, the deeper and more mysterious the unknown parts become.

NYCatheist said:

The irony of science is that the more we learn, the deeper and more mysterious the unknown parts become.

Yes. and I would say the same for theology. and philosophy. and life in general…

Claire said:

On the other side, though, are the people without holes. I’m one of them, and I know a lot of others. We just live our lives happily and healthily without subsituting ” money, material things, power, sex, drugs, food, other addictions, etc.” as you put it. And no god. No religion. We don’t feel the need, we don’t have that hole.

Wow, Claire. That’s wonderful. I envy you.

How do you explain us?

I would explain you as young. Or maybe it’s another side of humanity that I’m not at all familiar with. Enjoy it while you have it.

You and Mriana are insinuating that all Christian scientists are criminals!

No, I insinuated animals, not criminals. You are in fact an animal- we all are.

tim said,

December 23, 2007 at 10:10 am

Blaise Pascal was a bright mind

Except his wager was extremely flawed.

Just a quick response, if I may: Christianity does answer the BIG questions: 1) Where we came from and what our purpose is. 2)What went wrong with the whole scenario) 3)What the fix is. 4)Where we go from here.

I disagree. It does not. Christianity answers nothing and the Bible is full of stories. We are the one’s who answer the first, we have to figure out via science what went wrong and then we have to fix it and decide where we go from here. No religious text can tell us that.

BTW, this is ask an atheist thread, isn’t it? I haven’t confused the two have I?

I don’t think naturalism comes up short at all. If you can feel at one with yourself, others, and your environment, then the rest is easy, but you have to take care of your environment and yourself too. Then again, I’ve always had a passion for nature and everything/one within it.

Jeff, one of the biggest problems with Behe’s arguments for irreducible complexity, whatever conclusions he felt that led to, were that he failed to provide any instances where evolution could not be explained as the mechanism behind the outcome. wikipedia will give you ideas of where to look for refutements if you’re interested…

Linda, yes i think you are misunderstanding, as your question (or rather, the reasons behind you asking it) presumes the existence of a god. i do not believe in a god, i have seen no reason to suspect there may be a god, and i find the idea that i may have a hole for a non-existent deity a little…silly.

this does not mean that i am automatically a complete and fulfilled person, and for those atheists that consider themselves to be such, that does not mean that they have any less of an inquiring mind, or believe themselves to have all knowledge. at a guess, i would presume many atheists would consider having an open and inquistive nature to be part of their, well…nature. BUT, for atheists, there’s no way we’d presume that seeking answers and ‘truth’ would in any way lead to a god.

i actually thought you put it better here –

If you are completely fulfilled and satisfied in and of yourselves already, then why… why do you waste your time looking, asking, discussing, and trying to understand others? Or are you?

like i said, i wouldn’t consider myself either as ‘completely fulfilled and satisfied’ or as having a god-hole. however…i enjoy debate, i find religions (and all the related stuff) endlessly fascinating, i study religions so getting different perspectives is useful, i wish to understand some of my real life theistic friends/family better, i appreciate the fact that explaining myself out loud helps clarify some of my own opinions, i like learning, i think it’s wrong to knock something you know nothing about…etc, etc.

and, yes, i don’t have much of a social life!

Linda, i’m currently hoping i’m misunderstanding you…

Wow, Claire. That’s wonderful. I envy you.

“How do you explain us?

I would explain you as young.

To me, there’s a big difference between not believing in a god and thinking that you are god.

hmm…

Linda,

I think terms such as “fulfilled” and “complete” hark back to a Platonian ideal that doesn’t really exist. To even consider such a “perfect” existence pre-supposes some kind of perfect divine higher plane or level above the imperfect world. I agree with others that your world-view already assumes a God (or a supernatural ideal). That is why it is sometimes hard for you to understand atheists who don’t assume a God. But I commend you for trying. I’m also trying to understand the religious mind and value your friendship.

For myself, I don’t think the human mind is even capable of completely understanding the natural world…. but I also think that there is a LOT more that we can understand (naturalistically) so I am inquisitive. Learning and exploring is fun and I hope to continue learning and exploring until the day I die. After that, I don’t suppose I will be doing much of anything at all.

And Linda, shame on you for skipping church today

ash said,
Jeff, one of the biggest problems with Behe’s arguments for irreducible complexity, whatever conclusions he felt that led to, were that he failed to provide any instances where evolution could not be explained as the mechanism behind the outcome. wikipedia will give you ideas of where to look for refutements if you’re interested…

I’m be sure to check out the appropriate pages on Wikipedia. I have read Dawkins’ (and others) counter arguments to Behe. I wasn’t implying that I thought Behe’s arguments were convincing. Just that Behe had a right to criticize evolution as part of science’s methodology of self-criticism.

Noble, you said:

Richard Wade deliberately lied in an earlier post when he wrote that “new stars are continuing to form and we can see it happening”. You and I know that’s not true and so does Richard Wade!

I am reluctant to respond to you because your comments are getting increasingly abusive and have not yet expressed a genuine interest in respectful dialogue. Calling anyone who brings you information that you did not know a “liar” is not any way to learn something new and not any way to treat people.

In an earlier comment you complained that this thread is supposed to be for asking atheists questions but in your seven comments you have not yet uttered a genuine information-seeking question. So far, all your sentences ending with a question mark have been rhetorical questions, disguised statements mostly to the effect that we are liars.

Notice that several people here are engaged in an on-going conversation with another Christian, Lauren. She is asking honestly curious, information-seeking questions. Whenever her questions are based on misconceptions, people here are politely and respectfully helping to clear those misconceptions up before going on to address the questions themselves. Lauren is probably not in any danger of losing her faith in the essence of her religion. She is only going to lose her misconceptions about a couple of concepts in science, and some stereotypes about atheists. I commend her open-hearted and open-minded approach.

You are not getting that kind respectful response because so far your tone has been superior and preachy. Your attitude seems to reflect a desire to provoke others into insulting you, in fact one of your comments actually said so. If that is so, why you would want to do that is not clear. Perhaps you simply want to confirm your prejudice about us, but I don’t pretend to know your motives. I am trying hard not to fall for that provocation and instead to offer you some suggestions about how you might be able to engage in a respectful dialogue.

Regarding the formation of new stars, I am providing some links to sites about this. I don’t think all the people at NASA, JPL, Caltech, Harvard and Cambridge are “liars,” so give them a chance to show you what they have found. The software on this site limits me to how many “live” links I can post but Googling phrases like “stellar birth” or “observe young stars” will give you dozens of references. If you won’t look at them then maybe at least others here can enjoy them.

Astronomers are observing stellar birth in every direction except one: straight down. Lift your eyes up and you will see an amazing universe that is still constantly unfolding.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/pia09411.html

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-22/release.shtml

Richard, nice response. You have such patience. And beautiful photos on the NASA site.

Linda said:

I would explain you as young. Or maybe it’s another side of humanity that I’m not at all familiar with. Enjoy it while you have it.

I’m in my fifties. I do try to preserve my child-like sense of wonder, though. Sometimes I’m told that going place with me is like going with a six-year old, so I guess it’s working.

I think you may just not have met any of us, or maybe not recognized us when you did, because your description is a little wide of the mark.

the fact that we are searching for truth. … a better understanding of why things/people are the way they are. If you are completely fulfilled and satisfied in and of yourselves already, then why… why do you waste your time looking, asking, discussing, and trying to understand others?

That makes it sound like we are monsters of complacency, and really, we aren’t (and I know you didn’t mean to insult anyone, Linda, no need to apologize at all). I just don’t feel like there is anything missing in myself that needs completed from outside. At the same time, I don’t have any illusion that I’m particularly amazing or important in the grand scheme of things. And that’s ok – I’m important to me, and my friends and family, and the world has its own concerns. Casting that in the light of either humilty or pride misses the point.

It also doesn’t mean I’m not interested in anything outside myself. I KNOW me, all the amazing new things of interest are out there. The world is fascinating – complicated things are always fascinating, nature and the natural world are amazing, and people are about as complicated as it gets. Not only in themselves, but in the things they create with their minds and their hands. How could I NOT be interested?

Could that be the difference between theists and atheists? The presence of the hole?

I have always thought it was part of it for the ones that seem to be natural non-believers. From junior high on, I noticed that there were people who seemed to always be looking for something (or had already found it), and people who just …. didn’t feel the need.

The latter category were not a homogenous bunch, don’t get me wrong. There were some people who were so self-centered or shallow, so dull or stupid, that the rest of the world didn’t really seem to matter to them. Can you tell I didn’t much like those people?

Then there were those like me, who found the universe endlessly fascinating and other people most intriguing, but… I’m not sure if I can explain this very well, Linda, but I’m going to try. I don’t know that there is or isn’t a universal truth, or if there is an answer to any of the big questions. I just know that I don’t need to know them to be happy. The world is enough for me.

I hope that helps, Linda.

Allison said:

“”Tim, I didn’t see anyone answering you so I thought I’d take a stab at it.

Under this definition, atheism and agnosticism themselves would still not be considered religions as they are not belief systems. A belief system requires more than one belief to be involved. Atheism simply means that one does not believe a deity exists. Agnosticism simply means that the person believes the existence or non-existence of a deity is not knowable. However, there are religions that do not involve a belief in God. Some kinds of Buddhism have no God-concept, for example. There’s naturalistic pantheism http://pantheism.net/, which would also be considered a religion. There are groups that call themselves humanistic religions — for example, the American Ethical Union http://aeu.org/ . Some atheists and agnostics have found a nice home in the Unitarian church http://uua.org/ .

So it is possible to be religious and still be an atheist or agnostic. It’s also possible to not have thought out a full belief system and still be an atheist or agnostic. I hope that helps rather than simply being confusing!”"

Thank you for your response, Allison.

I think a synonym for the the broader definition of religion is the term “worldview”, that is the basic core presuppositions about existence, purpose, important definitions, etc. one has about life. Another way of saying it is one’s “map” of life. When one says, for example, there is no god; that is quite a truth claim about existence and origins and therefore by this definition would be a religion. If one says god’s existence in not knowable that is also a giant truth claim about what god is like and therefore a religion as well by Webster’s definition. I’m not sure this is all very useful but I thought quite interesting.

Allison also said:

“”Truth is, there are jerks on both sides of the theist/nontheist fence. There are good people on both sides of the fence as well. Neither side has a monopoly on morality, compassion, etc. Similarly, neither has a monopoly on bad behavior.”"

I agree, if one refers to “both sides” here; neither has a monopoly on virtue or vice nor brilliance and ignorance.

Allison further said:

“”From what I’ve seen, sometimes we discuss people’s actions here and sometimes we discuss ideas here. Which we do really depends on the topic we’re discussing. Sometimes the actions of some Christians do merit comment.”"

Point well made, but often I hear the behaviors of Christians as an argument against the existence of God and the veracity of Christ. The most important thing about a belief is whether it is a true belief or not, wouldn’t you agree?

monkeymind said,

December 23, 2007 at 10:33 am

“”I agree that Pascal was a smart guy, but the god-shaped hole concept just seems the flip-side of the “religion is a crutch” argument used by atheists. I also think that some people, esp. fundamentalists, do use god/religion as a drug, to avoid having to really think or examine their lives. This is not true of all religious people of course and I admire those whose spiritual practices lead to greater self-awareness and consideration for those around them.

Tim, I wonder why you have chosen not to respond or even acknowledge the very thoughtful responses Allison gave to your previous questions?”"

Thanks for your comments. I’m not quite sure I understand the flip-side point. Could you further explain? It is certainly true that religion can be used to comfort oneself. Perhaps, atheism could as well, if one has been abused by previous religious or church experiences. In either case, that fact that one is comforted by his or her beliefs, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the belief. I appreciate your comments about thinking and examination of one’s life. Regarding Allison’s comments; I was also impressed with her thoughtfulness and also the kindness in the way she worded the responses. Sometimes I am a better question asker than answerer. I am glad that this seems like a good place for discussion of important things.

Linda said,

December 23, 2007 at 11:11 am

“”tim

Thank God, finally, a believer that actually can discuss things fairly and openly!

When studying vacuums, he made the analogy that each of us (the way we are designed) has a “god-shaped” vacuum within, that can only be filled by our relationship with god. If not by god, then we find “substitutes” of worship such as money, material things, power, sex, drugs, food, other addictions, etc.

I agree with that statement completely. My questions to you are:

1. How would you describe this “relationship” with god?

2. Do you believe it only exists in Christianity?

3. I would describe the “worship” that you mentioned as allowing something outside of ourselves to have power over us. So when religion has power over us (i.e. guilt and shame from ’sins’, trying to please God with good deeds, etc.), we are worshipping religion. In your opinion, can God exist without religion?

4. And if so, what does that God look like?”"

Those are wonderful questions and in many ways beyond my abilities and understandings, but will give a bit of of a stab at them.

1. This is probably the most difficult of the questions, since the word “relationship” is so comprehensive. To start with God is already relating to each of us no matter what we believe. Our own relationships, caring and loving others, are totally dependent upon His nature as a being in loving relationships Himself, and each of knowing that loving others is so important. Our inherent knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and ugliness that is in each of us, exists because He is relating to us at our core of being every moment, whether we acknowledge Him or not. He wants to relate to us on a conscious level as well and this is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. Usually when I am most selfish and self-centered and unwilling to take myself off the pedestal is when I shut Him out. It is also the times I am most likely to be unloving and unkind to myself as well as others. So, this part of the relationship is the most difficult to live by from my side of it, because I shut Him out so often. When I don’t shut Him out, I must say it is generally an overwhelming sense of being loved and at peace. This answer is very incomplete, but will most-likely bore everyone if I keep going.

2. No, but Christ is real and is who he said he was.

3. There are several parts to the question; so several answers. We most often worship the “self”, so “worship” certainly can be from within. If God exists, He obviously would be THE AUTHORITY, wouldn’t you agree? I do believe that religion as an institution can be over-controlling, and sometimes religious leaders may put themselves in the center of worship rather the God. This does not apply to all, by any means. God is God, religions are organizations of people and have all the attributes of any man-made organization or institution. God’s existence is independent of anything including His creation.

4. I don’t know. Probably has no physical characteristics in general, but was incarnate in Christ, but that was a self-limitation and not representative of overall physical appearance. He seems to be a non-material, non-physical being; so physical description eludes me. Also, He is without gender, but I use the word “He” to describe Him because lack of appropriate pronoun. There may be other reasons to use the word He, now that I think about it, however.

Claire said:

“”On the other side, though, are the people without holes. I’m one of them, and I know a lot of others. We just live our lives happily and healthily without subsituting ” money, material things, power, sex, drugs, food, other addictions, etc.” as you put it. And no god. No religion. We don’t feel the need, we don’t have that hole. How do you explain us?

And if those other things seem to fill the hole, even temporarily, maybe we need to look at how religion is similar to those things.”"

Claire,
I wouldn’t try to explain, I would simply say you must have a wonderful life and my only thought is to enjoy it. It was Pascal’s analogy and not mine.

The last part of your comment suggests that perhaps religion is another one the things that we “substitute” for our inner holes Pascal speaks of and not THE thing that can ONLY fill the holes. Well, this goes back to religion as an opiate of the people or is for people who need some sort of “fix” to get by. This line of thinking does not lead to truth about the existence and nature of God. So what if God wants to make us feel comforted or not?? Maybe that’s part of who He is.

Karen: I am not overwhelmed by Pascal’s wager, either. But in so many ways he was truly brilliant.

Linda’s question:

Is it true that you feel fulfilled and complete in and of yourselves? That you are not searching for something… knowledge… truth… whatever… answers bigger than what you can find in yourselves?

I’m constantly searching for an intermediate-level explanation of advanced physics. Does that count?

The way I interpret it, when people talk about a God-shaped hole, they are talking about a need for some sort of spiritual experience. Some scientists, including Richard Dawkins, like to say that this need is fulfilled by their study of the universe. If you said they were filling a God-shaped hole with science, they could easily respond that you are filling a science-shaped hole with God.

But that’s not how I feel. I don’t feel the need for any sort of spirituality, not even in the sense that Dawkins uses. I think the universe is merely extremely interesting, not awesome. It lacks a heavy emotional quality, and that’s fine with me.

On topic: see this webcomic

I’ve got to share this magical moment with someone! I was just outside (7:20 Pacific time) and a big round full moon is right next to a bright Mars just to the right of the moon! My neighbor was softly playing “Christmas Time is Here,” that lovely lullaby from “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and the sense of wonder at the universe combined with the sublime beauty of a man-created piece of music was a moment I will cherish in my memory all my life. What a simple thing: some planetary geometry and a sweet song to produce so exquisite an experience.

GO OUTSIDE RIGHT NOW! If the sky is clear and the moon is still up and see a rare sight, music or not. That bright starlike object just to the right of the moon is Mars, much much farther away.

I SAW IT! I SAW IT! I SAW IT!! (I always say things three times when I’m excited!) Thank you, Richard Wade! It was beatiful. I wish I had a telescope.

Richard Wade said:

“”Tim, you ask really good questions and two of them I would like to respond to. The first one Mriana answered a little but I would like to address the premise behind it. The second is one I don’t think anyone here has responded to yet.

The first question was number two in your series of four “big questions”:

2)What went wrong with the whole scenario

What’s wrong? What makes people assume something is “wrong?” That the world is a dangerous place from natural hazards? Yeah it is. What were you expecting? From where comes the assumption that it is not supposed to be dangerous? That people can sometimes be horrible to each other? Yeah, and sometimes they can be wonderful too. What were you expecting? From where comes the assumption that we were originally all supposed to be wonderful? The question “What went wrong” is based on a fantasy about the world and people and then comparing that fantasy to the way things actually are. That fantasy is a man made concept that has no more basis in reality than any other fantasy.

Would making people safer from natural hazards be a worthwhile goal? Sure! Study how nature works and learn to predict and prevent hazards. Support your local scientist. Would finding ways to coax more wonderful behavior out of people and minimizing horrible behavior be a good goal? Sure! Study how people grow and develop, how they interact, make note of what actually works and forget all the “shoulds” like “they should do this for this reason,” and gradually come up with new ways that work better than the old ways.

Letting go of the idea that there is somewhere a lost “way it was supposed to be” will free us from the futile and fruitless quest for a remedy from some mysterious thing outside of ourselves. Want things to be better? Work together with others who have the same goals even though they may have different beliefs.
_____

Tim, the second question you asked that I don’t think got any response yet was:

Question: One satisfying argument for god’s existence, is the argument from the Mind. When one observes the capacities, properties and capabilities of the mind, naturalism comes up quite inadequate when positing possible explanations.

This sounds like other arguments I have heard that I’d call argument from amazement or argument from incomprehensibility. The mind is amazing. When we find it amazing we are using our minds to find mind amazing. The fact that we cannot yet comprehend the intricacies of our own minds does not at all require the conclusion that “Therefore mind must have been created by a supreme being with a mind far beyond ours.” There is no logical step between the emotional appreciation and the conclusion. Just because someone finds something beyond their present comprehension does not require that God had to do it.

We will always find the universe astonishing and incomprehensible, regardless how much we learn. That’s great. We should use our astonishment to spur us toward finding more answers to our questions, not use our astonishment AS the answer to our questions.”"

Wade:

Thanks for the complement about questions; and I would like to respond.

The question of what is wrong is certainly not of my origin. Since recorded history all cultures and individuals have an inner sense about good and bad, right and wrong. Certainly natural disasters, events and the natural dangers that are present are one form of misfortune. Individuals as agents, making choices for whatever reasons that harm others is another form of evil, if you will. The question of what went wrong, is not fantasy but an accurate description of reality. Even in your arguments of “neutrality” of such events you are choosing safety of people over not caring and you are using “wonderful” behavior instead of good behavior. You seem to be smuggling morality in the back door by using different words to mean good. If all events are neutral, why pick safety of others or wonderful behavior over not wonderful behavior or harm to others. What is your reference point, or is it strictly arbitrary and up to you? Your comments about events and behaviors that should be minimized or eliminated does not follow logically from your premise that there isn’t such a thing as good and bad. It is a nonsequitur. By the way, I love science. It seems, however, that scientists generally make poor philosophers.

As far as your second rebuttal let me say this: I am most interested in the capacities of the mind; and yes they are amazing. However, let’s not get carried away in emotional bliss, here. The capacities of the mind eludes naturalistic explanations, not my words but those of many research psychologists. The “problem of consciousness” is no longer studied in any major brain research centers at present because scientists can’t even grasp a way to define the issue. With our current understanding of the physical universe, and subscribing to the worldview of naturalism, there are many, many inadequate implications and deductions about the mind that one must accept if he is a consistent and coherent naturalist. Your response suggests a “God of the gaps” mind set on my part for my view. This is not the case. My conclusions that the capacities of the mind cannot be based on naturalism are based on evidence and logic. Your implicit conclusion that science will someday understand the “intricacies” of mind, is what I call “science of the gaps”–same error in thinking as “god of the gaps” mentality.

tim, i responded to this before, but you may have missed it –

what do you think of the most recent edition of “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” defining religion as any “strongly held belief system”.

ash said, December 20, 2007 at 11:54 am

it’s a useless definition, way too inclusive. by this definition, sports teams, political systems and clear preference in comedic styles are all religious in nature.

that being said, there is a known and acknowledged problem with defining what a religion is, and most western dictionaries go too far in the other direction – i.e. definitions that cater only for commonly western/abrahamic religions, and exclude those such as buddhism. from a scholarly viewpoint, i was recommended Ninian Smart’s 7 dimensional model as a useful foundation.

if you’re going to keep using this definition, as here –

. When one says, for example, there is no god; that is quite a truth claim about existence and origins and therefore by this definition would be a religion. If one says god’s existence in not knowable that is also a giant truth claim about what god is like and therefore a religion as well by Webster’s definition.

you’re going to have to explain how Revlon or X-men, for example, aren’t in themselves religions/religious experiences. “I’m not sure this is all very useful but I thought quite interesting.”? exactly.

Since recorded history all cultures and individuals have an inner sense about good and bad, right and wrong.

well, taking aside the fact that different historical periods, cultures and individuals have had very different inner (and so, outwardly displayed) senses of good and bad, this to me speaks of evolution, of a natural development of moral sensibilities in order to protect and further the survival of the species. the context of the question “what went wrong” certainly suggests that at some point, there previously existed a utopian ideal where the concepts of good and bad either did not exist or were not relevant. i would suggest that as soon as humans existed in social groups (and i would doubt the likeliness of humans ever NOT existing in such, you’d have to go a fair way back from our common ape ancestry to find our ancestors not living in such ways) the idea of allowable and prohibited behaviour became a necessity. this is not ‘smuggling morality in the back door’, rather it is saying that moral sensibilities are evolutionarily advantageous, and have no reliance on any god concept. you could argue that i am using the premise of ‘no good and bad’, but i feel that’s more a difference in terminology, and i find it easier to use such words to communicate. if you prefer, you can replace ‘good’ and ‘bad’ with terms such as evolutionarily dis/advantageous, but understand that these days you’d have to conflate that with concepts such as socially acceptable, status affirming and legally viable. good and bad just seems easier.

The capacities of the mind eludes naturalistic explanations, not my words but those of many research psychologists. The “problem of consciousness” is no longer studied in any major brain research centers at present because scientists can’t even grasp a way to define the issue. With our current understanding of the physical universe, and subscribing to the worldview of naturalism, there are many, many inadequate implications and deductions about the mind that one must accept if he is a consistent and coherent naturalist.

ok, but you’d have to accept that ‘many’ does not mean all, and ‘at present’ does not mean never will. you might like to try Stephen Pinker – how the mind works for an up-to-date synopsis of modern understandings of mental capacity and workings. no, there is no claim to this being definitive science.

Your implicit conclusion that science will someday understand the “intricacies” of mind, is what I call “science of the gaps”–same error in thinking as “god of the gaps” mentality.

nice point, however, there is a difference in how the two work and are understood. god of the gaps is usually comprehended in several ways, the most likely being
- goddidit is an adequate explanation for anything we do not understand
- if goddidit, there is no need for further explanation; it is either irrelevant or we are not supposed to understand.
- seeking to comprehend a phenomena that may be classed under goddidit may even be blasphemous, and therefore not encouraged.

science of the gaps
- we do not know, therefore we must make effort to find out. these explanations must stand up to the scientific method to move into the realm of fact.
- previously unanswerable questions (including those with GotG answers) have been answered by science, there is a precedent in believing this is likely in future.

i’d say that god of the gaps is more likely to stifle inquiry, whereas science of the gaps demands further questions.

Tim said:

Well, this goes back to religion as an opiate of the people or is for people who need some sort of “fix” to get by. This line of thinking does not lead to truth about the existence and nature of God.

But perhaps it does lead to the truth about people and why they needed to invent god.

It’s not really valid to decide what direction the conclusion lies in and then reject an argument because it doesn’t head in the ‘right’ direction (ie. about god instead of about human nature). The way you phrased it kind of sounds that way.

My conclusions that the capacities of the mind cannot be based on naturalism are based on evidence and logic.

Ok, I’ll bite – what evidence and logic? If you don’t feel like typing all day, can you direct us to a website where we can find that?

Your implicit conclusion that science will someday understand the “intricacies” of mind, is what I call “science of the gaps”–same error in thinking as “god of the gaps” mentality.

I don’t really see the two as equivalent. In a minor way, perhaps – both are saying “we don’t understand this, but that doesn’t mean that X can’t explain it”, X standing in for either god or science, depending.

Where it stops being alike is after that. The religious version goes on to say that this gap is evidence of god, a standard argument from ignorance.
The scientifc version does not postulate that this gap proves anything at all. It just says “it’s a gap, it’s not yet explained, someday we hope to”, but does not offer that gap as proof or evidence of anything. They really aren’t equivalent.

Mike C.

Thank you for clarifying… Whew! I’m glad I’m not the only one! I was somewhat bewildered yesterday when I thought for a moment that I was the only one with the ongoing… well.. “the longing for the longing,” as C.S. Lewis put it in Surprised by Joy.

Claire said:

I’m in my fifties. I do try to preserve my child-like sense of wonder, though. Sometimes I’m told that going place with me is like going with a six-year old, so I guess it’s working.

Oh I’m so glad I’m not the only one. I’m 41 and I have fun being childlike just as my grandmother did. I learned from the best.

Richard, great response to the rest of Tim’s questions and thanks for sharing that moment you had last night. I’m in the city, so it’s virtually impossible to see any in the night sky, except maybe the moon.

MikeC, I think I said I hunger for knowledge. Unlike many people, I never stopped asking questions. I can drive people like professors, scholars, etc nuts with my incessant question asking. I have to hold myself back to so they can catch up- I guess it is my form of awe and wonder with the universe. I am content and fulfilled, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have wants and needs that always need filling- that’s life.

Maybe I have a touch of my younger son’s autism, but I don’t know what people mean when they talk about a hole in them or someone else. I know you don’t mean a literal hole, but it still makes no sense.

Then again, C. S. Lewis rarely made sense to me. Screwtape I thought was in a mental ward until the chapter that stated he wasn’t- I think that was chapter 4. I still didn’t get it even after that prof explained it to me in class. She literally had to set my questions aside until after class during her office hours. I still don’t get it. Too bizarre.

Oh no Richard you’re doing it again! Why write “I don’t think all the people at NASA, JPL, Caltech, Harvard and Cambridge are liars” when you know very well that there are many people in those institutions that don’t believe in false religious nonsense? A more honest statement would have been “some of the people”. That was very deceitful of you! You do realise that it was Christian organisations that created and nurtured the growth of most of the western world’s educational institutions. Also, you’re not bringing me “information that I did not know” you’re preaching the same old scientifically unfounded religion which I’ve heard before. Again, another crafty and deceitful comment! You and I both know that what observers see are existing stars blowing up, they have come to their natural end and what’s left is debris. They have never obsereved a new star being formed! I’m still waiting for you guys to give me some information that I don’t already know, I would genuinely love to know why atheists believe in a religion that is scientifically unfounded, is without any evidence whatsoever and that requires as much blind faith, if not more, as other weird religions do. Why do atheist believe what they believe? I’ve never actually heard or seen a satisfactory answer to that question.

I have a few wonderful quotes for you Richard and seeing that you brought up NASA I’ll begin with this one:

“Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of it’s Creator. It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the scientific classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance. Atheists all over the world have called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator. In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator.” – Dr Wernher von Braun, NASA director and “father of the American Space Program”.

“The more I study nature the more I stare amazed at the work of the Creator. A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him”.- Louis Pasteur

“The theories of evolution with which our studious youth have been deceived constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach, but each, in his speciality, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate. The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it. Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people”.- Paul Lemoine, director Paris Natural History Museum, president Geological Society of France, editor Encyclopedie Francaise.

“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily by so many scientists without a murmur of protest”.- Sir Ernst Chain, Nobel prize winner for isolating and purifying penicillin, director Rome’s International Research Centre for Chemical Microbiology, professor of biochemistry at Imperial College, University of London.

May the Lord bless you all abundantly and grant you the righteous desires of your hearts!

Noble, what the devil are you rambling about? Would you please try to communicate in a way everyone can comprehend what you are saying? There’s no dogma or religion in science. There most definitely is in religion though and it barely changes with new findings. IMHO not changing is a bad thing. It cause one to get stagnet.

Mriana,

I know that you don’t like C.S. Lewis, as you have expressed before. And you don’t have to. I just happened to be a huge fan of his, although I don’t always agree with everything he said. I love the way he thinks. And he was also a poet. We all connect and identify with different ways of thinking, that’s all. You cannot disqualify EVERYTHING he wrote, however. He did write much that makes sense to all types of people. I still love you, though, and think you’re one of the smartest women I’ve had the pleasure of knowing, who also has a big heart.

Something that Lewis wrote that you might agree with:

“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you’re looking down, you can’t see something that’s above you.”

I still love you, though, and think you’re one of the smartest women I’ve had the pleasure of knowing, who also has a big heart.

Thank you, Linda. Today I really needed that.

“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you’re looking down, you can’t see something that’s above you.”

That’s generally when they take a fall too.

Tim replied to me:

I think a synonym for the the broader definition of religion is the term “worldview”, that is the basic core presuppositions about existence, purpose, important definitions, etc. one has about life. Another way of saying it is one’s “map” of life. When one says, for example, there is no god; that is quite a truth claim about existence and origins and therefore by this definition would be a religion. If one says god’s existence in not knowable that is also a giant truth claim about what god is like and therefore a religion as well by Webster’s definition. I’m not sure this is all very useful but I thought quite interesting.

Actually, Tim, part of my point (I thought) was that atheism is not a full worldview. The statement “I don’t believe there is a God,” by itself, doesn’t give much of a map. Some atheists believe in supernatural things that aren’t gods, some believe in reincarnation, etc. There’s a big difference between, say, strains of Buddhism that do not recognize the existence of a deity and the humanist type of atheism often seen in the west. I suspect that some of the confusion stems from the fact that most of the people here in the US who call themselves atheist subscribe to the humanist worldview or something like it. Most of the time atheists who are Buddhists or something else like it will use the name of their religion rather than saying they are atheist. If, when someone asked what religion I am, I answered scientific pantheist, well, usually then I’d have to explain what it is as most people don’t recognize it.

When you make that leap to “there IS a god,” (and I grew up not believing, so you have to understand that’s a HUGE leap IMO) well, if you don’t go on to say what that god is like, then you don’t have a religion yet although it is something that will definitely affect your worldview.

We may have to agree to disagree here, I don’t know. I would consider myself a religious sort of atheist, but when I say that I mean that I subscribe to a worldview that goes beyond just saying “I don’t believe there’s a god” and gives some more definite ideas about how the world works and how I should behave.

He went on to say:

The most important thing about a belief is whether it is a true belief or not, wouldn’t you agree?

Absolute agreement there.

Mike asked:

At the very least, if you don’t feel longing for yourself, don’t you at least look at the world and long for it to be better? Don’t you at least look at all the injustice and suffering in the world and long for things to be different?

Mike, mostly I just don’t think there’s that gap that could be filled by a deity. Of course I look at the world and would like for it to be better. There are these big human constructs (yep, Linda, I think morality came from humans, it doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing!) like justice and duty. People are always going to disagree on what they are, of course.

While the longing is important, I do try to turn it into action rather than just an “I wish…..” I know there’s only so much I personally can do about it, but OTOH, you know what they say about a butterfly flapping its wings……

Mike, mostly I just don’t think there’s that gap that could be filled by a deity.

Yes, I realize that. That’s why I suggested that we take the question of whether the “hole” is “god-shaped” out of the equation. Linda was speaking about longings in general (as was I), not about what we think can or cannot fill them. I think there’s a lot of common ground to be found if we can start to agree that many of us long for similar things.

Mike wrote:

I think there’s a lot of common ground to be found if we can start to agree that many of us long for similar things.

Yep, I agree, and I think we do often spend too much time focusing on our differences rather than our similarities.

We could start with love, compassion, peace/non-violence, human dignity, anything else?

Can we add ecological sustainability (what theists like me call “Creation Care”) to the list?

And perhaps this is covered under “compassion” and “human dignity”, but I’d also add economic/trade justice too.

And community. I think our society sucks at creating truly loving, life-giving community.

And, just speaking personally, but I also long for personal transformation. I can talk a good game when it comes to all these things like “love” and “justice”, but when it comes down to actually “living it”, I fuck it up more often than not.

Mike Clawson said,

December 26, 2007 at 12:36 am

We could start with love, compassion, peace/non-violence, human dignity, anything else?

Can we add ecological sustainability (what theists like me call “Creation Care”) to the list?

And perhaps this is covered under “compassion” and “human dignity”, but I’d also add economic/trade justice too.

And community. I think our society sucks at creating truly loving, life-giving community.

Sure why not. I am often concerned about our environment too.

And, just speaking personally, but I also long for personal transformation. I can talk a good game when it comes to all these things like “love” and “justice”, but when it comes down to actually “living it”, I fuck it up more often than not.

Ooo! Mike! You naughty minister. I didn’t know you had such language in you. jk I tease ministers quite often.

Claire said,
What IS it with you Christians constantly beating yourselves up?

IMO, it all goes back to a basic fundamental Platonic belief that perfection exists in a spiritual plane (or level) and we exist in a lower corrupted plane (or level). According to Christianity, Jesus, therefore helps us to “fill the whole” and become perfect. This partly happens in this life and completely happens in the afterlife.

If you take away the fundamental belief of corruption in the here and now and perfection in a higher plane, then the specifics of religious belief seem a little silly, but fascinating nevertheless.

Linda said:

It’s not “beating ourselves up,” as you say, although I do that also on occasion, I have to admit. We cannot improve something unless we can see its flaws and admit that they are flaws.

Sorry, but that explanation doesn’t really explain what I’ve seen here and elsewhere. I also see my imperfections, I try to improve, I know what that’s about. But the way you guys phrase it (not just you but other christians as well), the words that you use, the sheer amount of it goes way beyond – that’s not humility, that’s wallowing. It’s like schadenfreude, but taking joy in your own pain and imperfections rather than someone else’s. Now that I think about it, I wonder, if Karen’s post on the other thread doesn’t explain this too.

Maybe buying in to that “original sin” derangement is also the source of this hole we’ve been discussing.

Claire,

You seem to be making many assumptions without knowing the individuals. You cannot group Christians together anymore than you can group atheists together. I happen to be the type to always analyze myself and overexplain things, but that has nothing to do with me being a Christian. I was born that way.

From what I have seen here, you have many qualities to admire, including speaking your mind without the fear of affending someone. I admire that a lot, as a matter of fact. But sometimes, you draw conclusions and make judgments unfairly.

Self-loathing? I’m afraid that does not describe me in my current state. Yes, I have been there, but that’s when I had no idea who I was. Just because I throw myself out there for all to see, warts and all, does not mean that I have self-hatred. It’s just the opposite. It’s because I have no shame that I can show you my blemishes. It was when I was wearing my “perfect” and “put together” mask that I had shame. I try not to play that game anymore. I can laugh at myself and I can cry in front of you with no shame. I can say that I’m wrong, I don’t know, I’m sorry, you’re right, thank you, and I love you with absolutely no shame.

The only frustration I have is that I cannot be as articulate as you in expressing myself. (which may explain my habit of over-explaining)

Claire,

I didn’t want to continue this ping-pong match with you, because I do respect you, but now I’m having fun. Please don’t get mad at me.

Twice now, in this thread or the linked one, you have said things that sounded insulting,

I’m sure it was more than twice, because I’m very good at inserting foot in mouth.

both times my response was “Linda, I know you didn’t mean that”, because I’m not in the habit of assuming people mean the worst.

“I know ______.” Hmm… sounds like an assumption to me.

I didn’t say you had problems with self-loathing,

Yes you did. You included me in your generalization.

You said, specifically,

“But the way you guys phrase it (not just you but other christians as well), the words that you use, the sheer amount of it goes way beyond – that’s not humility, that’s wallowing.”

I don’t want to assume, but by “you,” I thought you meant me.

I can’t think of another reason that the whole “original sin” concept should have such wide acceptance other than self-loathing. It also explains the ‘hole’ we’ve been discussing.

How do you figure that? Nothing explains the ‘hole’ that we’ve been discussing. That’s why we’re still searching for answers. Spiritually AND scientifically. You said that you are hole-less, and I said good for you and I envy you. I meant that. I wasn’t being sarcastic. But I haven’t met many people who are like that, regardless of what their religious beliefs or non-beliefs are. umm.. come to think of it, I have met none. That’s why I find you fascinating. I think I can learn much from you.

It also explains why christians like C. S. Lewis, the master of telling people that they are crap and therefore need god.

That’s not why I like C.S. Lewis. I love his writing because he’s not afraid to look at himself and be honest about what he sees. Despite all his education and his intelligence, I feel the kindness, humbleness, and gentleness in his writing. (After I look up all the big words in the dictionary, that is.) I don’t get the tone of arrogance and self-importance as I do in some of the things I read. Have you read Four Loves? Have you read Surprised by Joy? Have you read Grief Observed? Have you seen his heart? I have. That’s why I like him.

Linda – ok, first of all, how do you get the little smiley faces into your posts, I know there are times when I could use those…. I’m not mad, by the way, why would I be mad?

“I know ______.” Hmm… sounds like an assumption to me.

Nope, I had evidence. I’ve seen you misstate things and apologize before, and you seem really nice. See? Evidence!

I don’t want to assume, but by “you,” I thought you meant me.

Nope, I only accused you of wallowing, because you called yourself a loser.

How do you figure that? Nothing explains the ‘hole’ that we’ve been discussing.

Actually, it pretty much does for me. If someone doesn’t like themselves, I can see how it would feel like a hole. I can see how thinking a deity loves you unconditionally would feel like filling that hole. I’m not saying it’s absolutely the answer, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me.

I feel the kindness, humbleness, and gentleness in his writing.

Whereas I find just the opposite in the books I have read. I’ve read the Narnia books, the Perelandra books, and “Till We Have Faces”, and they are full of ‘gotchas’. By ‘gotchas’ I mean that he constantly finds fault with his characters (which is not the same as writing about a flawed character, I mean something different). Any time one of them is trying to do the right thing, trying to be decent, right around the time they are starting to feel a little like they are succeeding, then comes the whammy – they didn’t do the right thing, they didn’t do good enough, they have failed, failed, failed, but it’s ok because god forgives them – after they have been punished, of course (and there’s a whole lot of emphasis on punishing people who have already seen the error of their ways, as with Aravis in “A Horse and His Boy”). That’s not kind and it’s certainly not gentle, nor is his clear delight in the violence in the Narnia books. And “Till We Have Faces” is nothing but one giant gotcha….

An author’s characters may not always reflect the author’s views, but how he treats his characters, how he writes about them, says a lot about how he feels about people. In his books, nobody is good enough, ever, and they had better admit it really humbly or else, even if it was an honest mistake or if they didn’t do anything wrong in their own eyes, because their ideas of right and wrong just don’t matter. It’s self-loathing as the path to salvation, and it’s ugly and manipulative.

And that doesn’t even address the whole misogyny thing. Girls are fine, women are not, and a girl that wants to be a woman is beyond redemption, as Susan was. Then there’s that poor woman in the Perelandra series, I forget her name, that caught hell because she didn’t want to have kids, so as a woman, in his world, you just can’t win.

And of course, there’s the whole “death is better than life” thing, which permeates the Narnia books. There’s a positive message for the kiddies…

I can’t get through his non-fiction at all, it’s just too self-righteous and smarmy. But I did try.

Oh yes, Till We Have Faces I remember that one too and not only was I bored with it,

I actually liked this one, up until the gotcha at the end. Poor Orual – first life treats her badly, then the author does….

Can we add ecological sustainability (what theists like me call “Creation Care”) to the list?

And perhaps this is covered under “compassion” and “human dignity”, but I’d also add economic/trade justice too.

And community. I think our society sucks at creating truly loving, life-giving community.

Agreed.

Mike:

I don’t get the sense that Bono is singing about making decisions. Those things I listed are things I value, things that I like, where we have obtained very imperfect results.

Bono seems to be singing about some perpetual sense of dis-satisfaction. The song does nothing for me (I had to go and re-read the lyrics to refresh my memory.) I seem to be viewing things from a completely different perspective than Bono.

The closest I can come (I think) would have leaving my wife to go on deployment for 6 months. That was some serious dis-satisfaction and longing. But now I’m a happily married guy with a job that lets me go home EVERY NIGHT. (I love that. Going home every night rules.)

From a philosophic materialist perspective, what would I be longing for, big picture? Seeing myself as an evolved human animal of limited rationality and knowledge, I am painfully aware of how much I don’t know and can’t anticipate. I look at things from a much more limited perspective both in epistemology and action. I don’t look for an explanation of everything, I look for lessening what I see as our fundamental ignorance one difficult bit at a time. I don’t look for everything to be better, I look for enhancing those things I value one decision at a time, exerting one person’s worth of influence to make one person’s worth of difference – very little.

Going back to those things on the list – sustainability, compassion, human dignity, and community, I can’t picture an ideal.. I don’t know what a truly sustainable compassionate community that enhanced human dignity looks like – there is no picture concrete enough for me to long for. Nor does my desire for those things emotionally feel like anything I would describe as longing / desire / disconnect. I don’t know if that helps you or not.

Thanks for the explanation Ben. I suppose maybe I’m just more naturally discontent. It’s not that I don’t appreciate what I do have, but I have yet to find anything that is ultimately fulfilling, that doesn’t leave me still wanting something “more”.

I think the whole longing/discontent thing is much more a personality trait than anything having to do with whether one is religious or not. I didn’t have a major sense of existential longing or discontent as a Christian; nor do I as an atheist.

#

ash said,

—————————————————————

Tim said:

“Since recorded history all cultures and individuals have an inner sense about good and bad, right and wrong.”

well, taking aside the fact that different historical periods, cultures and individuals have had very different inner (and so, outwardly displayed) senses of good and bad, this to me speaks of evolution, of a natural development of moral sensibilities in order to protect and further the survival of the species. the context of the question “what went wrong” certainly suggests that at some point, there previously existed a utopian ideal where the concepts of good and bad either did not exist or were not relevant. i would suggest that as soon as humans existed in social groups (and i would doubt the likeliness of humans ever NOT existing in such, you’d have to go a fair way back from our common ape ancestry to find our ancestors not living in such ways) the idea of allowable and prohibited behaviour became a necessity. this is not ’smuggling morality in the back door’, rather it is saying that moral sensibilities are evolutionarily advantageous, and have no reliance on any god concept. you could argue that i am using the premise of ‘no good and bad’, but i feel that’s more a difference in terminology, and i find it easier to use such words to communicate. if you prefer, you can replace ‘good’ and ‘bad’ with terms such as evolutionarily dis/advantageous, but understand that these days you’d have to conflate that with concepts such as socially acceptable, status affirming and legally viable. good and bad just seems easier.
————————————————————–
Ash,

The evolutionary explanation of morality i.e. “monkey morality” falls way short and is inadequate in capturing the complete meaning and definition of morality. A full articulation of the reasons evolution fails is a hour discussion.

Please give me examples in history where major cultures have said that dishonesty is a virtue, torturing innocent children is the good, being a traitor is desirable, stealing is the norm. I think you will find throughout recorded histroy moral similarity between cultures and individuals is by far the norm.
—————————————————————
Ash also said that Tim said:

“The capacities of the mind eludes naturalistic explanations, not my words but those of many research psychologists. The “problem of consciousness” is no longer studied in any major brain research centers at present because scientists can’t even grasp a way to define the issue. With our current understanding of the physical universe, and subscribing to the worldview of naturalism, there are many, many inadequate implications and deductions about the mind that one must accept if he is a consistent and coherent naturalist.”

ok, but you’d have to accept that ‘many’ does not mean all, and ‘at present’ does not mean never will. you might like to try Stephen Pinker – how the mind works for an up-to-date synopsis of modern understandings of mental capacity and workings. no, there is no claim to this being definitive science.
—————————————————————

Ash, when and if science explains the mind’s capacities on nautralistic basis,then I will say I was wrong and the mind can be explained purely on cause/effect, physical laws and chemical and electric reactions. Until then science has very little to add to our understanding of such things as what a thought is, what is choice, what is intention, desires, creativity, agency, etc. etc. I would recommend J.P. Moreland’s SCALING THE SECULAR CITY and his sections on the mind.
—————————————————————-

Ash also said that Tim said:

“Your implicit conclusion that science will someday understand the “intricacies” of mind, is what I call “science of the gaps”–same error in thinking as “god of the gaps” mentality.”

nice point, however, there is a difference in how the two work and are understood. god of the gaps is usually comprehended in several ways, the most likely being
- goddidit is an adequate explanation for anything we do not understand
- if goddidit, there is no need for further explanation; it is either irrelevant or we are not supposed to understand.
- seeking to comprehend a phenomena that may be classed under goddidit may even be blasphemous, and therefore not encouraged.

science of the gaps
- we do not know, therefore we must make effort to find out. these explanations must stand up to the scientific method to move into the realm of fact.
- previously unanswerable questions (including those with GotG answers) have been answered by science, there is a precedent in believing this is likely in future.

i’d say that god of the gaps is more likely to stifle inquiry, whereas science of the gaps demands further question
—————————————————————

I agree with some of your points. The God of the gaps may seem to stifle inquiry on the one hand, but you must remember it was Newton, Corpernicus, Koepler and so one who were Christians and believed that an ordered creation by an intelligence was the only way that the natural world could be understood by Science.
Certainly many natural events that were once attributed to God have been explained by Science.

The main point I was making is this: It is an error in thinking that all knowledge and facts are based on science or the scientific method. This is a philosophical viewpoint and not a scientific fact. The notion that all that exists and the events of existence can be eventually explained by science is nonsense.

————————————————————-
Allison said,

December 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Tim replied to me:

I think a synonym for the the broader definition of religion is the term “worldview”, that is the basic core presuppositions about existence, purpose, important definitions, etc. one has about life. Another way of saying it is one’s “map” of life. When one says, for example, there is no god; that is quite a truth claim about existence and origins and therefore by this definition would be a religion. If one says god’s existence in not knowable that is also a giant truth claim about what god is like and therefore a religion as well by Webster’s definition. I’m not sure this is all very useful but I thought quite interesting.

Actually, Tim, part of my point (I thought) was that atheism is not a full worldview. The statement “I don’t believe there is a God,” by itself, doesn’t give much of a map. Some atheists believe in supernatural things that aren’t gods, some believe in reincarnation, etc. There’s a big difference between, say, strains of Buddhism that do not recognize the existence of a deity and the humanist type of atheism often seen in the west. I suspect that some of the confusion stems from the fact that most of the people here in the US who call themselves atheist subscribe to the humanist worldview or something like it. Most of the time atheists who are Buddhists or something else like it will use the name of their religion rather than saying they are atheist. If, when someone asked what religion I am, I answered scientific pantheist, well, usually then I’d have to explain what it is as most people don’t recognize it.

When you make that leap to “there IS a god,” (and I grew up not believing, so you have to understand that’s a HUGE leap IMO) well, if you don’t go on to say what that god is like, then you don’t have a religion yet although it is something that will definitely affect your worldview.

We may have to agree to disagree here, I don’t know. I would consider myself a religious sort of atheist, but when I say that I mean that I subscribe to a worldview that goes beyond just saying “I don’t believe there’s a god” and gives some more definite ideas about how the world works and how I should behave.
—————————————————————

Allison,

Thanks for your response. I think the term “worldview” or the term religion cannot be summarized in a phrase like I believe in God or I don’t believe in God. A Worldview is much more comprehensive than that. Everyone has a worldview (religion, if you will) whether we realize it or not. It is what makes a tick. Oftentimes what makes us tick is much deeper and automatic than we consciously realize. I think in assessing one’s worldview, it is most informative to do a time audit on oneself or another. That is, how do they spend their time, talents and treasures—-say, for one week. Their behaviors will most accurately tell you of their worldview. For example, I’m a Christian but I spend much of my time doing totally non Christian things. Not necessarily bad things, (although there is some of that too!) but things that to an observer would not tell them that I am a follower of Christ. I find the term worldview very satisfying because it is more inclusive than exclusive.

Your thoughts?

So longing for life and the world to be better than it currently is is signs of a mental illness?

No it is not. Humanists want the world to be better and they strive for it to be better. They also want the good life and they strive for that too.

I know of people who are admittedly mentally-ill and use their religion to get through life.

Darryl, this is true and some with Schizophrenia have religious delusions of granduer, but what Mike is talking about is NOT a mental illness.

Linda said,

December 28, 2007 at 4:21 am

How do you define mental illness, anyway?

Mental illness is an extreme of the norm. I said this to a prof when I was working my bachelors in Psychology and they agreed. If you look at the DSM-IV or even the revised one, you will see a lot of it is an extreme. I won’t got into details on how and why it’s extreme, but basically it is the extreme of the norm.

Jeez, relax people. How about taking the benign interpretation? The first two sentences refer to mental states of “normal” people. The rest of the paragraph addresses the possibility of mental illness and its place in religion. The two separate ideas belong together because they both refer to states of mind.

hi tim

The evolutionary explanation of morality i.e. “monkey morality” falls way short and is inadequate in capturing the complete meaning and definition of morality. A full articulation of the reasons evolution fails is a hour discussion.

a brief summary would be good then? like i also mentioned, i don’t consider just the evolutionary argument sufficient in itself, but you need to point out the flaws in ‘monkey morality’ (jeez, who came up with that term?!) combined with “concepts such as socially acceptable, status affirming and legally viable” for me to debate them. frankly, it’s a far better explanation than “Since recorded history all cultures and individuals have an inner sense about good and bad, right and wrong.”, and the inference that this somehow automatically leads to god-imposed morality. you do know that according to the bible, god was well up for slavery (as long as you treated them ok [!]), don’t you? seems a bit odd that there should have been such a huge moral shift if morals are imparted by an abrahamic-style deity, surely?

Please give me examples in history where major cultures have said that dishonesty is a virtue, torturing innocent children is the good, being a traitor is desirable, stealing is the norm.

dishonesty – politics (!), ‘white lies’ are also considered acceptable, and often desirable in most cultures.
torturing innocent children – until recent history in western countries, and ongoing in some third-world countries, child labour was/is viewed as anywhere from acceptable to virtuous.
being a traitor – any traitor, in any political system, is seen as virtuous from the perspective of an insider from an opposing political system. there are also examples where ‘traitors’ have improved a system and become exemplified for their behaviour.
stealing is the norm – can’t think of an example, but i also can’t think of a circumstance where widespread stealing wouldn’t go against my arguments, so i’m ok with that!

I think you will find throughout recorded histroy moral similarity between cultures and individuals is by far the norm.

similarity maybe, continuity, yes, consistency, no. evolutionary morality and the other concepts i mentioned would explain this and your statement in a way that god-based morality would not.

Ash, when and if science explains the mind’s capacities on nautralistic basis,then I will say I was wrong and the mind can be explained purely on cause/effect, physical laws and chemical and electric reactions. Until then science has very little to add to our understanding of such things as what a thought is, what is choice, what is intention, desires, creativity, agency, etc. etc. I would recommend J.P. Moreland’s SCALING THE SECULAR CITY and his sections on the mind.

cheers for the book recommendation, i shall add it to my ever expanding reading list. however, you have made claims about modern scientific understandings of the mind + brain, and i noticed that this book is 20 years old…and written by a philosopher/theologian, not a scientist. i’m not trying to suggest that science has got much farther than theorising, i’m not saying you have no good reason to feel as you do, but could you share why you feel science is inadequately equipped to ever broach the subject of mind and brain?

The main point I was making is this: It is an error in thinking that all knowledge and facts are based on science or the scientific method. This is a philosophical viewpoint and not a scientific fact. The notion that all that exists and the events of existence can be eventually explained by science is nonsense.

can you give me some examples of knowledge or facts that are not based on science or the scientific method? can something be described as fact (rather than, say, assertion) without referring to science or the scientific method? is there any evidence to suggest that ‘all that exists and the events of existence’ cannot be addressed by science and the scientific method? if something exists in a realm outside of reality and cannot be measured, examined, tested etc. in a physical manner, is there any reason or precedent to consider that such would be even remotely relevant to us?

Well… Teachers complained to my mother that I was too good when I was a kid. I’ve not intentially lied and the most I’ve ever stolen was a little (3 cents back then) chocolate football. Didn’t get caught or if they did see me, they said nothing.

Abu Ahzab a little late to the party aren’t you?

Can someone help me define atheism and who is an atheist?

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Atheists lack belief in gods.

Hope that helps.