Are you an atheist?

[Vassago]

Same here! It is in my late twenty, early 30's. I don't vote party, I don't vote race, I don't vote popularity. I vote issues. unfortunately some times on issues there is tweltyde and tweltydum.

Story of the last few Presidential elections with the two major parties. :banghead:

I actually vote based on how much I believe they will help lead the country in a new direction. A better one. Let's face it. We are not the greatest country in the world by a longshot...

I personally love this video. I've fact-checked the statistics and he's pretty accurate. I know it's a fiction show, but man is it ever truthful sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFRmVFn7WM

 

[Bladerunner]

Story of the last few Presidential elections with the two major parties. :banghead:

I actually vote based on how much I believe they will help lead the country in a new direction. A better one. Let's face it. We are not the greatest country in the world by a longshot...

I personally love this video. I've fact-checked the statistics and he's pretty accurate. I know it's a fiction show, but man is it ever truthful sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFRmVFn7WM

saw the video----did not see that coming!


have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[youyiyang]

@youyiyang
Thank you very much for this.
No. I am not interested especially in Buddhism. I am interested into knowledge. So, if you append something to my knowledge I am very gratefully. And I am very interested in the Chines culture (as well as in a Japan's culture).
For example, I never explained for myself the kamikazes or seppuku practice. Are this motivated by religion or by society ? Fore sure we can find in our culture/religion some crazy people that think that will be in the sky, near to our Lord if they kill himself. But, as I said, they are crazy peoples. In your culture, as far as I know, is a matter of honor.

From what you say, I like Buddha.
Not because he was (or seems to was) an atheist. But because he teach everyone to be a good people. More, because he teach everyone that his own actions will be the cause of the future results.

In any of the Christians religion you can "buy", somehow, the God's love.
That seems to be impossible in a Buddhism way.

Is me who should ask you to forgive my luck of English.
I can develop a subject related to the computers, but is very hard for me to talk about anything else.
So, if something sound as an offense for you (or for your culture), please to be sure that wasn't my intention.

hi, Mihail
No, your English is good and I can understand your meaning. You have not offended to our culture indeed but are curious about Chinese culture or Japanese culture.
The kamikazes or seppuku practice you mentioned above especially exists in Japan. Chinese rarely do these practices. Maybe you see these in WWII movie that Japanese soldiers did these actions in desperate moment or after obvious evidence that they were defeated. The reason was they were showing their loyalty to their Japanese Emperor. Japanese Emperor has supreme power in Japanese culture since the Emperor is the god of the nation. More over, China and Japan are two nations have deep Feudalism. There is a saying in China that if the emperor wants the chancellor to die so this chancellor has to die, even the son has to die if the father orders him to die.
Also, these two practices imply something about Chinese proverb that one sacrifices himself for justice. This culture may not often been seen in Europe but in China this is very honorable if he has no choice but to do this in that moment. So, some brave Chinese pilots drive their battle airplanes to hit the Japanese vessels in the WWII.

 

[Vassago]

I'm not sure about China, but Japan's culture has changed drastically since WWII. I'm not so sure this kamikaze culture exists today. They certainly don't have a powerful Emperor anymore, as his tasks are duties are very limited in official government duties outside Shinto responsibilities. The Prime Minister who is chosen by the House of Representatives is head of state. The Emperor exists as mainly a representative of the people from a ceremonial standpoint.

 

[Galaxiom]

Japan's post war constitution was written by western powers. Removing political power from the Emperor was a central premise.

Many people still think the Emperor should have been tried for war crimes and executed.

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm not sure about China, but Japan's culture has changed drastically since WWII. I'm not so sure this kamikaze culture exists today. They certainly don't have a powerful Emperor anymore, as his tasks are duties are very limited in official government duties outside Shinto responsibilities. The Prime Minister who is chosen by the House of Representatives is head of state. The Emperor exists as mainly a representative of the people from a ceremonial standpoint.

Much like the royals of UK

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Japan's post war constitution was written by western powers. Removing political power from the Emperor was a central premise.

Many people still think the Emperor should have been tried for war crimes and executed.

Had we kill the Emperor, there would have been no peace. The way they did it has provided almost 70 years without a war. Of course China is pushing things and before long there will be some kind of a skirmish between China and Japan in that area. All because China feels that the USA presence is not to be feared anymore. Just like the liberals want it... let the world go to hell and we will keep to ourselves. Obama has already let them take some off-shore land (around the Philippines) from us without a word. What is next.

Have a nice Day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Libre]

God​

Marc Friedlander​

I've vacillated from feeling that there must be some higher intelligence that governs, or at least initiated all this - to being pretty sure that physics and evolution could account for everything we see.
I'm not of a spiritual bent, usually. I'm a believer in the scientific method and tend to see things rather pragmatically. But when you open your eyes, and look at the world - all the people, with their human traits and amazing abilities - the rivers and streams, the forests and oceans, and all the life forms in their myriad complexity from a flea to an elephant to a human being - and then cast your eyes skyward to the heavens and consider the vastness of the universe - all the stars and galaxies perfectly organized is such a way that it can all exist even for a fraction of a second, let alone eternity - you have to ask yourself this question: could ALL of THIS be here simply by chance? Could you empty a bucket of sand from the top of a building, and by pure chance wind up with the grains of sand standing one atop the other in a vertical column, to form a tower of sand one grain wide and 1,000,000,000 grains high?
To ask me to accept that the universe is here by chance and physics alone is to ask me to accept the tower of sand theory, a billion trillion times over. God - or something like Him/Her/It (that we might as well call God) - must surely exist.

 

[Old Man Devin]

The scientist's view:

you have to ask yourself this question: could ALL of THIS be here simply by chance?

Yes. Why couldn't it? Plenty of time has passed to allow our universe to develop as it has. It is all predictable. Crazy stuff can happen by chance given long enough.

Could you empty a bucket of sand from the top of a building, and by pure chance wind up with the grains of sand standing one atop the other in a vertical line, to form a tower of sand one grain wide and 1,000,000,000 grains high?

Yes. But to have a good chance of it happening, you have to do it a lots of times, which in your analogy, would be Multiverse theory i.e. there are inifinte universes, we are in the one that happens allows us to exist, making it seem as if the universe were created with our existence in mind, but really it is just random.

 

[Libre]

Old Man Devlin-
I want to tell you that most of my life I believed as you do, that random chance could account for anything.
It's not like I saw an apparition of Moses or a burning bush or anything of the sort.
It just occurred to me that the tower of sand theory is not only implausible, it is impossible. Whether there is one universe or an infinite number, randomness that results in organization is rare enough, and when you compound the probabilites over and over again millions and trillions of times, the word IMPOSSIBLE starts to rear large - at least in my mind.
Anyway, I am a ***** about my philosophies.
Today I believe in God.
Tomorrow, who knows?

 

[Bladerunner]

To Galaxiom and Old Man Devin:

As atheist how do you two account for the 'universal and timeless phenomenon of man's relationship with God' Evolution?

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[David R]

To Galaxiom and Old Man Devin:

As atheist how do you two account for the 'universal and timeless phenomenon of man's relationship with God' Evolution?

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Libre, the problem is that if you look at the explanation of God as shown in the Bible, you have to consider the impossibility of THAT being, too. So if you believe in the Biblical God, you are simply choosing your favorite impossibility. If you pick a non-Biblical god, that opens up an industrial-sized can of worms, too.

If you wish to believe in any god, go right ahead. Just understand that you are compounding complications when you do so. As to the probability of some particular structure existing, you need to understand that claiming the improbability of something that exists is (sorry to say) kind of dumb. If it exists, it was probable enough to have come into existence. If it doesn't exist, it was not probable enough.

Saying after the fact that "structure X is improbable, yet it exists, therefore God must exist to have created X" is to ignore the strictest rule of logic - relevance. What has the existence of X to do with God? If you cannot show strict logic on why X exists in science, I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that you won't be able to do so in theology, either, without stretching your argument to the breaking point.

Then of course there is Carl Sagan's line about whether we are alone in the universe and whether God made it that way... I'm probably paraphrasing, but "If we are alone in the universe, what a terrible waste of space."

Then, of course, there is the "perfectly organized" phrase you tossed into the mix. But there is no evidence of such perfect organization. I have to expressly deny one of your premises that you used to reach your conclusion. With no disrespect intended, I must say that if you think that anything about the universe is perfectly organized, you don't understand astrophysics.

 

[nanscombe]

To Galaxiom and Old Man Devin:

As atheist how do you two account for the 'universal and timeless phenomenon of man's relationship with God' Evolution?

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

The Earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old.
Homo Sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years.
So what was God doing for the other 4,499,800,000 years?

 

[Libre]

On an iPhone from my dentist's waiting room:
First the issue of the Biblical God.
I was careful not to invoke the bearded old man who floats on a cloud, with a huge scorecard and pencil with no eraser.
There is the concept of God, and there is religious doctrine that attempts to explain Him and create a list of rules that one must adhere to, in order to worship their God in the prescribed way.
I reject ALL that.
Then there is the genetic God, who opens up an "industrial sized can of worms".
That's the one I'm starting to open my mind to. I don't insist. I'm just saying, between that concept and an infinite series of random events resulting in an organized world - or universe (and I truly don't have an appreciable knowledge of astrophysics - do you?), my preference is for the former.
Today.

"The Earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old.
Homo Sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years.
So what was God doing for the other 4,499,800,000 years?"

I have an answer to that.
What's billions of years to God?
You plant an acorn and see an oak tree years later.
All part of the overall plan.

 

[dan-cat]

To ask me to accept that the universe is here by chance and physics alone is to ask me to accept the tower of sand theory, a billion trillion times over. God - or something like Him/Her/It (that we might as well call God) - must surely exist.

You may find this podcast interesting.

Specifically at 15:20

 

[Bladerunner]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

David R.

That still does not explain the 'timeless phenomenon of man's relationship with God', It just shows a method to get there and nothing more. Our brains seem to be very close to the same everywhere---reckon we are clones from some 'alien mad scientist'?? lol

Your article said: "They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum – and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God."

Not much of an answer: so I take it you do not have one for that question. Here is another question that as an Atheist you should be able to answer.

If not from God---2. Why is there anything and how did it come into existence?

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[dan-cat]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

The discovery that beliefs you hold are only mechanisms to help you survive. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Galaxiom]

Could you empty a bucket of sand from the top of a building, and by pure chance wind up with the grains of sand standing one atop the other in a vertical column, to form a tower of sand one grain wide and 1,000,000,000 grains high?

That is not a valid comparison with the nature of reality.

 

[Galaxiom]

If not from God---2. Why is there anything and how did it come into existence?

The development of the Universe from the first pixel of pure energy is well and truly explained by modern Physics. A few very simple rules run the whole show without the slightest need for any higher consciousness to guide anything at all.

Exactly how that first pixel formed is not known but physicists are working on it and there are many hypotheses. There really isn't much left for a god to do.

The God hypothesis runs into trouble immediately because it starts with the proposition that the most complex thing in the Universe was here first. There is no satisfactory explanation for the origin of that complex entity.

Moreover the idea of the existence of a creator is driven solely by the claim that there is such complexity in the Universe that something must have ordered it. God is obviously complex yet the creationists offer no explanation of how such complexity could arise spontaneously.

Adding God to any explanation generates far more difficult questions than it answers.

Modern cosmology begins with a simple burst of pure radiation from which all complexity develops according to the laws of physics.

What makes ore sense? Simple beginnings from which complexity develops or starting out with incredible complexity for which there is no explanation.

It is a no-brainer for anyone capable of rational analysis and the answer is not "God did it".