Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

This sums it up for me pretty well.

From Greek philosopher Epicurius:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

The standard type answer to that (and similar) is "we can't be expected to know how the mind of God works" The "born again" evolutionists have " science does not have the answer yet etc." Although I think the faith required to believe in some type of superior being or beings is less than the faith required for Atheism. Of the different variations or takes on "religion" I think the atheist has the biggest leap of faith.

 

[Libre]

Snake oil works as a cure for any disease - as long as you believe that it works.

If you ask the snake oil salesman how it works he'll tell you he doesn't know, he just knows that it works. But in order for it to work, you have to believe that it works.

If you ask a pharmacist, a medical doctor, or a chemist how it works, they'll tell you they can find no reason that it should work.

If you find someone who has been healed and who swears by it, and ask how it works, they will tell you they can't provide an explanation, they only know it works.

If you try it and it doesn't work, and you go back to the snake oil salesman and tell him that it doesn't work, he'll tell you that you have to give it more time, and then he'll sell you another bottle.

If you give it more time and take another bottle and it still doesn't work, you go back to the salesman and this time he'll tell you that it didn't work because you don't really believe it works.
"Accept that it works in your heart - and it is guaranteed to work".
Then he'll sell you another bottle.

This all sounds a lot to me like the "standard type answer" to the Epicurean dilemma.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Mike375, incorrect, thank you for playing.

There is no faith involved in atheism, simply the understanding that magic doesn't really exist.

Hell, I'm not even an atheist and I know that.

 

[Frothingslosh]

For those Bible literalists among us, here's a short Easter quiz. Please provide the correct answer for each, as well as explaining how each option is actually saying the same thing as the others.

1. Who first came to the tomb on Sunday morning?
a. one woman (John 20:1)
b. two women (Matt. 28:1)
c. three women (Mark 16:1)
d. more than three women (Luke 23:55-56; 24:1,10)

2. She (they) came
a. while it was still dark (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
b. after the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)

3. The woman (women) came to the tomb
a. to anoint the body of Jesus with spices (Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1)
b. just to look at it (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)

4. The women had obtained the spices
a. on Friday before sunset (Luke 23:54-56; 24:1)
a. after sunset on Saturday (Mark 16:1)

5. The first visitor(s) was/were greeted by
a. an angel (Matt. 28:2-5)
b. a young man (Mark 16:5)
c. two men (Luke 24:4)
d. no one (John 20:1-2)

6. The greeter(s)
a. was sitting on the stone outside the tomb (Matt 28:2)
b. was sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)
c. were standing inside the tomb (Luke 24:3-4)

7. After finding the tomb empty, the woman/women
a. ran to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:7-8; Mark 16:10; Luke 24:9; John 20:2)
b. ran away and said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8)

8. The risen Jesus first appeared to
a. Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:14; Mark 16:9)
b. Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:13,15,18)
c. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1,9)
d. Cephas (Peter) alone (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Luke 24:34)

9. Jesus first appeared
a. somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:8-9)
b. Just outside the tomb (John 20:11-14)
c. in Galilee - some 80 miles (130 Km) north of Jerusalem (Mark 16:6-7)
d. on the road to Emmaus - Miles (11 Km) west of Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-15)
e. we are not told where (Mark 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:4-5)

10. The disciples were to see Jesus first
a. in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7,10,16)
b. in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19; Acts 1:4)

11. the disciples were told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee
a. by the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus himself after the resurrection (Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:7)
b. by Jesus himself, before the crucifiction (Mark 26:32)

12. The risen Jesus
a. wanted to be touched (John 20:27)
b. did not want to be touched (John 20:17)
c. did not mind being touched (Matt. 28:9-10)

13. Jesus ascended to Heaven
a. the same day that he was resurrected (Mark 16:9,19; Luke 24:13,28-36,50-51)
b. forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
c. we are not told that he ascended to Heaven at all (Matt. 28:10, 16-20; John 21:25; the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8)

14. The disciples received the Holy Spirit
a. 50 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
b. in the evening of the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19-22)

15. The risen Jesus
a. was recognized by those who saw him (Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9-10)
b. was not always recognizable (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:14-15)

16. The risen Jesus
a. was physical (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:41-43; John 20:27)
b. was not physical (Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:19,26; 1 Cor. 15:5-8)

17. The risen Jesus was seen by the disciples
a. presumably only once (Matt. 28:16-17)
b. first by two of them, later by all eleven (Mark 16:12-14; Luke 24:13-15,33,36-51)
c. three times (John 20:19,26; 21:1,14)
d. many times (Acts 1:3)

18. When Jesus appeared to the disciples
a. there were eleven of them (Matt. 28:16-17; Luke 24:33,36)
b. twelve of them (1 Cor. 15:5)

 

[Mike375]

Mike375, incorrect, thank you for playing.

There is no faith involved in atheism, simply the understanding that magic doesn't really exist.

Hell, I'm not even an atheist and I know that.

Proof for no God or gods etc. does not exist. Thus atheism is a faith. A lack of belief in God or gods requires faith, that is, a belief or view that can't be verified by facts.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike375, we can argue the fine points all day, but in the end analysis, this isn't like a quantum probability function. Either God exists or does not exist. Atheism merely says that the starting point is that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does. Religion says that the starting point is that God exists because there is no proof that He does not. (I'm trying to keep this simple, but I think this is a fair summation with limited intent.)

OK, so ... here is the crux (pardon that pun) of the dilemma. Atheism can be proven wrong by producing a god. Religion, on the other hand, to be refuted requires proof of a negative assertion, which is not possible in simple logic. It is something that has been known for millennia when elementary assertoric logic was first devised. (Or, if you are of a religious style, when logic was first divined.)

Atheism, however, is not a faith in a deity. It is simply saying that until/unless you can produce your deity, I don't have to accept your argument. Where we usually come into the big disagreement is that in Biblical times, God was ALWAYS exerting direct intervention, showing Himself before many, performing large-scale miracles that affected the Red Sea or the entire basin of the Upper Nile River or the destruction of two cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) or a world-wide flood or many other whiz-bang effects. Now... all we hear is crickets chirping. We see challenges to the Biblical God's power in the threat of ISIS taking over the world (if they could).

Atheists are essentially the ultimate skeptics. Give us evidence that we can comprehend. If you give us nothing but mysticism and redirection of attention and tales of events that patently cannot be true without having left more evidence, what do you EXPECT us to believe?

There is that old saying, "There are none so blind as those that will not see." However, it cuts both ways when those who claim their beliefs will not see the many causes - all of them quite legitimate - for our skepticism. To you, we are blind. To US, you see illusions, delusions, and confusions.

In the final argument, Mike, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to believe as you wish. I think I would be satisfied if your side of the aisle could just acknowledge that we who do NOT believe have at least some legitimacy to our doubts.

 

[Mike375]

Mike375, we can argue the fine points all day, but in the end analysis, this isn't like a quantum probability function. Either God exists or does not exist. Atheism merely says that the starting point is that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does. Religion says that the starting point is that God exists because there is no proof that He does not. (I'm trying to keep this simple, but I think this is a fair summation with limited intent.)

As I said both positions require faith, that is, taking a position that is not backed by facts. You obviously agree with this.

Atheism is a "religion". It is a religion because people define themselves by it and in many cases take the cause to "religious" like levels. One only has to look at the number and length of many of the posts on this huge thread from those pushing the atheism barrow to see it is "religious" in nature.

All the posts supporting atheism have one thing in common with the postings supporting God or gods or an outside force etc. and of course that is neither side can back any of their views with facts.

However, both sides have "faith" that their views are correct.....it can only be faith since there are no facts.

Actually the title of thread should not be Are you and atheist but what does your faith cause you to believe or not believe.

 

[Galaxiom]

As I said both positions require faith, that is, taking a position that is not backed by facts.

Under your definition, absolutely everything we know about everything would have to be a faith since we cannot know of all unobserved possibilities. The word faith then becomes meaningless.

You must then also have only faith that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, T. Rexs still alive on Earth. It is a ridiculous position.

You must claim that it is faith that Gravitation is proportional to the product of the masses and the inverse square of their separation because we have not observed every possible situation. Your position is absurd (like those you put forward in the Evolution thread).

In fact as far as the denial of the God of the Old and New Testaments, the atheist position is backed by facts. Any objective assessment of these books will demonstrate that they are definitely not the work of an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness. Hence the existence of that God as described by the only "evidence" offered by the believers. Likewise the Quran.

So that takes care of the gods of the vast majority of believers on this planet. Hence on the basis of these observations, the odds are that other gods are also imagine by their followers and don't exist.

 

[Mike375]

Under your definition, absolutely everything we know about everything would have to be a faith since we cannot know of all unobserved possibilities. The word faith then becomes meaningless.

You must then also have only faith that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, T. Rexs still alive on Earth. It is a ridiculous position.

You must claim that it is faith that Gravitation is proportional to the product of the masses and the inverse square of their separation because we have not observed every possible situation. Your position is absurd (like those you put forward in the Evolution thread).

In fact as far as the denial of the God of the Old and New Testaments, the atheist position is backed by facts. Any objective assessment of these books will demonstrate that they are definitely not the work of an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness. Hence the existence of that God as described by the only "evidence" offered by the believers. Likewise the Quran.

So that takes care of the gods of the vast majority of believers on this planet. Hence on the basis of these observations, the odds are that other gods are also imagine by their followers and don't exist.

Not so. Firstly I guess there is some cut off point where faith takes over.

For example, any reasonable person would accept that there are is no T Rex living today. The size of the animal is such that it is highly likely it would have been observed. Secondly, there would be more than one as if there was only one then its presence on earth would be for a limited time. Even if these T Rex were not directly observed then such things as the remains of their prey would be an indicator.

You are also tied to "God" as opposed to gods or other superior beings. That is understandable as an atheist is simple the opposite side of the same coin as the theist.

Surely you are not suggesting that in the whole universe there are not other life forms that are above us and from a technology point of view. Of course accepting that opens a new road or direction

 

[Galaxiom]

Surely you are not suggesting that in the whole universe there are not other life forms that are above us and from a technology point of view. Of course accepting that opens a new road or direction

Indeed I should be surprised if I were to find it were not so.

However that does not make them gods, just products of their environment like us.

By "gods" I assume you mean, at the least, some kind of being that exists above the laws of nature. Beings who can with their will or some such means, overcome the normal functioning of our universe. Parting seas and the like which are clearly not plausible by any natural means.

The postulate by the average theist is that such a god is responsible for the very creation of our universe and the intricate details of everything in it.

Perhaps at this point, for those current readers possibly unfamiliar with your prior postings, you could clarify exactly what you personally mean by a "god".

 

[Galaxiom]

For example, any reasonable person would accept that there are is no T Rex living today. The size of the animal is such that it is highly likely it would have been observed. Secondly, there would be more than one as if there was only one then its presence on earth would be for a limited time. Even if these T Rex were not directly observed then such things as the remains of their prey would be an indicator.

Yet you still have no absolute proof because none is possible. Under your terms you accept, by faith, that the continued existence of T Rex is implausible.

Similarly the atheist accepts that the notion of a god is implausible. Reproducible scientific evidence, as is technically able to be achieved to date, for the current pinnacles of scientific theory hold that every aspect of the observed universe can be derived from the single pixel of amorphous energy that we know as The Big Bang.

There is no place and no need within this Universe for such gods to exist. Yes they could exist beyond but by invoking them we reach a conundrum. From where did these beings arise? Surely if we presume complexity can only be created by the even more complex, then we are pursuing a blind alley in trying to explain our existence.

The theory of self driven development from amorphous pure energy through clear, concise and well understood interactions carries a lot more credibility. Personally I find it inspiring that life very probably grew from the interactions between minerals where alkaline and acid environments met

We are indeed "of this Earth". Please hold that thought as you contemplate our future.

 

[Mike375]

We are indeed "of this Earth". Please hold that thought as you contemplate our future.

We are of this universe. As you appear to be a scientist why restrict yourself. Are you saying we live in this room and so will only seek answers that can be supplied from this room?

I will reply on my "other gods etc." tomorrow as getting ready for bed

 

[Galaxiom]

We are of this universe. As you appear to be a scientist why restrict yourself.

Because there is no need to look beyond the planet to discover where we came from. It is a long way from anywhere else and introducing concepts such as panspermia only moves the challenge of abiogenesis to a new location.

My money is on abiogenesis developing from the reaction that occurs where alkaline ocean floor hydrothermal vents discharge through Olivine. The reaction that forms the mineral Serpentine is the same as the most basic energy reaction in all life forms on the planet.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You know, by Mike375's logic, purple dancing unicorns who fart glitter and piss Budweiser must exist because no one has ever proven that they don't.

The knots True Believers (tm) tie themselves into in order to convince themselves that atheists are just like them never fail to amuse the hell out of me.

 

[Alc]

You know, by Mike375's logic, purple dancing unicorns who fart glitter and piss Budweiser must exist because no one has ever proven that they don't.

The knots True Believers (tm) tie themselves into in order to convince themselves that atheists are just like them never fail to amuse the hell out of me.

If the only way you feel you can win an argument is by changing the definition of the words you're arguing about, surely you must know you're not doing well? Atheism is a religion like not playing football is a sport.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike:

As I said both positions require faith, that is, taking a position that is not backed by facts.

There is a difference. Atheists have these little mind-tools called logic and extrapolation. They have the scientific method that allows us to build AND TEST models of reality. The problem is that religion is inherently NOT testable.

Surely you are not suggesting that in the whole universe there are not other life forms that are above us and from a technology point of view. Of course accepting that opens a new road or direction

The new direction continues with this question: If such beings exist (and I'm not going to deny that possibility), would they be aghast at our primitive viewpoint if we called them "gods" ??? Or would they be more like Capt. Picard in the ST:TNG episode where the primitive Vulcan-like people thought he was the "Overseer" ?

Galaxiom's comment:

The theory of self driven development from amorphous pure energy through clear, concise and well understood interactions carries a lot more credibility. Personally I find it inspiring that life very probably grew from the interactions between minerals where alkaline and acid environments met

Look into the work of the late Alan Turing, who did more than just design computer algorithms. It maybe counts as a lesser-known work but Turing came up with a theorem that explains a natural reason WHY things progress from simple to complex based solely on natural considerations (no deity involved.)

We are of this universe. As you appear to be a scientist why restrict yourself. Are you saying we live in this room and so will only seek answers that can be supplied from this room?

Quite the contrary. The space exploration program, though very slow these days, is an example of finding ways to see out of the room called Earth. Once we have other technology, we might step outside the Solar system. After that, who knows. But the point is that we don't start from being bound to the ground 200 years ago and immediately jump out to the Universe. We have to go through the work of Montgolfier (balloon travel), the Wright Brothers (airplanes), Robert Goddard and Werner Von Braun (rocketry) to make those steps along the way. Yes, we will get out of the room someday. Just not today.

Frothy: Where can I get one of those unicorns? I can put up with the glitter if I can only get a renewable source of Budweiser.

 

[Mike375]

You know, by Mike375's logic, purple dancing unicorns who fart glitter and piss Budweiser must exist because no one has ever proven that they don't.

The knots True Believers (tm) tie themselves into in order to convince themselves that atheists are just like them never fail to amuse the hell out of me.

Using your logic then God or gods must exist because no one has ever proved they don't exist.

For me the leap of faith to believe superior beings exist is a smaller leap of faith than believing we are alone and are the superior beings.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Who ever said I believed we're alone, Fermi Paradox notwithstanding? I simply pointed out that lack of negative proof of God doesn't prove his existence any more than lack of negative proof of my magical unicorn proves IT exists, which is EXACTLY the line of logic that you used earlier.

Most scientists would agree that since we know the chance of life evolving in the universe is non-zero, we know that the number of stars in the universe is insanely, unbelievably high, and we know that planets are common features of star systems, that there for the LIKELIHOOD of there being no other intelligent life anywhere else in the universe approaches zero.

Most scientists also agree that assuming aliens are God is ludicrous.

About time this board had a Scientologist joining this thread, though.

 

[Mike375]

Most scientists also agree that assuming aliens are God is ludicrous.

Consider for a moment it's a nice hot sunny day. The little lizards and insects are out and about. Millions of years of instinct tell them it will be like this for a week or so.

Then you decide to mow the lawn and water the garden. From their point of view you are super natural. Such a thing would fit deism in the sense that you stuffing up their day was not your intention. Of course there are many times whereby we deliberately demonstrate our super natural power to animals such as farming, going shooting etc. and etc.

 

[Mike375]

Most scientists also agree that assuming aliens are God is ludicrous.

In the early 1800s all the explosive scientists would have agreed that it would have taken 100s of tons of black powder to shift a small mountain or a cliff.

Imagine trying to explain to them about the hydrogen bomb.

The expression "Most scientists also agree" and similar statements all have one thing in common and that is with the passage of time the error rate proves to be close enough to 100%