I'm an atheist. Ask me anything.

[Autodidact]

Hi,

Forgive me if you've answered this already ,

I read in some of your posts that you come from a Jewish background, as an atheist is this important to you, do you find even without God anything pleasant in the rituals I presume you were raised with?

I'm also curious in raising kids would you pass on any of your Jewish identity to them?

With my background, for many years it was important to me regardless of my lack of belief. Jews are discriminated against and sometimes endangered regardless of their religious beliefs, because it's an ethnic category as well.

Recently I've come to see "tribalism" as a big contributor to what's wrong with the world, so I am beginning to let go even of my ethnic identity as a Jew. The tendency to separate into tribes, to treat outsiders badly or fight them, to hold on to slights and old injustices and nurture them into justifications for attacking our enemies, these natural human tendencies IMO have a negative effect on the world (and incidentally the individual.) So I'm moving away from that.

My kids know we're Jewish, but other than forcing me to light candles and give them gifts once a year, it no longer has much content.

 

[bobhikes]

This question is open to any atheists wanting to answer it.

There are two enchanted doors. Both doors are magically able to speak, but one always tells the truth and one always lies.
You need to choose one of these doors to pass through... however! one door leads to the real exit and one leads to... certain doom

How would you go about figuring out which door is safe?

Because I don't believe in certain doom or talking doors it would depend on my mood.

I might just plow though ignoring both and let luck decide.

If I felt inquisitive that day I would try to figure out the problem but then I would have to decide still which door once solved.

If I was not in top form and ready for a challenge I would take the exit.
If I was in top form and ready for the challenge I would take the door with certain doom just to prove it doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This question is open to any atheists wanting to answer it.

There are two enchanted doors. Both doors are magically able to speak, but one always tells the truth and one always lies.
You need to choose one of these doors to pass through... however! one door leads to the real exit and one leads to... certain doom

How would you go about figuring out which door is safe?

Watch Labyrinth very carefully, taking notes.

 

[dust1n]

It is exactly like that. We all make decisions on what controls our lives. That controlling factor is godlike.?

That 'controlling factor' is a fraudulent ideal of some sort of 'power-of-humans' statement. We may 'will' things, but what we will is not of our will.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This question is open to any atheists wanting to answer it.

There are two enchanted doors. Both doors are magically able to speak, but one always tells the truth and one always lies.
You need to choose one of these doors to pass through... however! one door leads to the real exit and one leads to... certain doom

How would you go about figuring out which door is safe?

Ask the first door if the other door would say that his door was the exit.

If the first door says "yes," and he is telling the truth, then the other door would say his was the exit, but would be lying - the exit would be behind the first door.

If the first door says "yes," and he is lying, then the other door wouldn't say his was the exit, and would be telling the truth - the exit would be behind the first door.

If the first door says "no," and he is telling the truth, then the other door wouldn't say his was the exit, but would be lying - the exit would be be behind the second door.

If the first door says "no," and he is lying, then the other door would say his was the exit, and would be telling the truth - the exit would be behind the second door.

So, ask the first door if the other door would say that his door was the exit - if he says "yes," the exit is behind the first door - if he says "no," the exit is behind the second door.

Or, you could just waterboard both doors and hope they tell you the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

Here try and convert me am an agonistic lol. So here’s my question how can you stand up and say to the people that there is no possible way there can be a ''god''. I mean if you are 99 percent sure there is no god that would make you (in my option) an agonistic there for you should keep looking because if you are 99 percent sure would it not be worth while looking. Think of the matrix as you will the red and blue pill. If you take the red pill you live you life and you die. If you are right well your right we turn to dust. If you’re wrong well you go to hell! Burn ***** (sorry jk). Ok now if you take the blue pill **** you turn to dust (still the same). However here’s the cool thing if god is real who knows how good that could be! So Ill simplify the question what makes you personally atheious and not agonistic??

Well this is complicated. I think agnosticism means you think it is not possible to know one way or the other. If I say I'm atheist, it doesn't necessarily mean there's no possible way, only that there does not appear to be. I'm 99.99 % sure the floor will be under my feet in the morning, but I don't consider myself agnostic as to the floor.

In other words, in our everyday life, we don't require 100% certainty, and almost never get it. We use 99% certainty for everything we do, and that is the level of certainty I feel that I have about God's non-existence. I maintain we should use the same standards for religion as we do for other subjects in our lives.

For me, if you say it's not possible to know whether God exists or not, that's tantamount to saying It does not exist. Because if something exists, there would be a way to know that. This gets back to what I was saying to Storm. Undetectable is functionally equivalent to non-existent. Or, as some smart person said, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

Finally, why do people only pull out the agnostic card when talking to atheists, and never with theists?

As for the last bit, it sounds like Pascal's wager, which IMO is a sucky argument and easily repudiated. Is that basically what you're arguing?

 

[Erebus]

Ask the first door if the other door would say that his door was the exit.

If the first door says "yes," and he is telling the truth, then the other door would say his was the exit, but would be lying - the exit would be behind the first door.

If the first door says "yes," and he is lying, then the other door wouldn't say his was the exit, and would be telling the truth - the exit would be behind the first door.

If the first door says "no," and he is telling the truth, then the other door wouldn't say his was the exit, but would be lying - the exit would be be behind the second door.

If the first door says "no," and he is lying, then the other door would say his was the exit, and would be telling the truth - the exit would be behind the second door.

So, ask the first door if the other door would say that his door was the exit - if he says "yes," the exit is behind the first door - if he says "no," the exit is behind the second door.

Funnily enough that's the method Sarah tries in the labyrinth... it doesn't work

By the way... it takes two questions to work this one out.

*edit* actually your method could work, but not in one question

 

[AzraelsTear]

If you have any question about how one atheist sees morality, the world, our place in it, or anything else, this is a place to ask.

If any of the answers spark debate, so much the better.

yes, i have one, possible more.

is there anything that would make you change your mind and make you believe in a god? (i am not asking for a magical scenario, just asking if something would make you change your current view)

 

[Autodidact]

It’s also not logical to assume something dose not exists when it may. I would not mind my blue pill and red pill question being answered on this forum however

I agree with M. It makes your life too cluttered. Unless you're acting on the assumption that there may be possible fairies at the bottom of your yard and possible pots of gold under rainbows, possible Santa Claus and possible unicorns, you're applying a different standard to God than to anything else. In general, once we reach 99% or so certainty, it's prudent and ordinary to act on that.

 

[Autodidact]

every thing around you is created the pc your using , your phone your car .. every thing,but when it comes to the universe you say there is no creator i find that hard to believe .

Yes, this is the "watchmaker" argument I spoke of. It's possible that some unknowable, super-powerful being created the universe (although I doubt it.) If so, we can know nothing of It. It does not appear to interact with the universe in any way, and can be disregarded as a practical matter. Such a God bears no resemblance whatsoever to Allah. I have no objection to the possible existence of such a God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

By the way... it takes two questions to work this one out.

*edit* actually your method could work, but not in one question

I really don't see the fault in my logic. Please point it out.

 

[Autodidact]

Wow. Pretty impressive semantic game you've got going there. I suppose if you redefine enough words, any position can be logical.

However, it doesn't change the fact that there's no more evidence for your conclusion than mine.

That was my tentative conclusion, based on pure logic. (btw I don't think I redefined anything; I thought I was using accurate definitions.) Once I got there, then I began to look for evidence to confirm it or refute it. I wanted to test it out.

One of the main lines of evidence I thought would be helpful was the efficacy of intercessory prayer. I read all about the research on it. Had it turned out that intercessory prayer was effective, I would be a theist or agnostic. The fact that it is completely ineffective I take to be conclusive evidence against the existence of any God that is defined as responding to prayer, that is, to the Abrahamic God.

There is other evidence, such as the problem of evil, but that was the evidence that started me feeling that I had reached the correct conclusion.

The other thing that has really persuaded me--I don't think you would call evidence--is this. I go to these boards and debate theists. I wanted to test my conclusions, see if there was something I had missed or not thought of. Their arguments suck. They turned out to be of 4 kinds:

1. Circular reasoning.
2. Special pleading.
3. False assertions.
4. The watchmaker argument.

It seemed to me if there was a decent argument to make, some theist would make it. They have yet to do so.

So the number one thing that has led me to feel very confident in my atheism is the lousy quality of the theist arguments.

That includes their books, videos, websites, etc.

And the worst of the lot is "presuppositionalism." Have you had the misfortune to encounter it? I'm glad it's gone out of style.

 

[Autodidact]

and who put those materials in the earth ?

before we arrived from where ??

The best current thinking seems to indicate that the universe has always existed. Energy and matter move around, arrange and interchange, according to natural laws. It looks like they become planets and moons and stars and tree frogs without needing any supernatural intervention.

It's pretty clear we didn't arrive; we evolved.

 

[Caladan]

With my background, for many years it was important to me regardless of my lack of belief. Jews are discriminated against and sometimes endangered regardless of their religious beliefs, because it's an ethnic category as well.

Recently I've come to see "tribalism" as a big contributor to what's wrong with the world, so I am beginning to let go even of my ethnic identity as a Jew. The tendency to separate into tribes, to treat outsiders badly or fight them, to hold on to slights and old injustices and nurture them into justifications for attacking our enemies, these natural human tendencies IMO have a negative effect on the world (and incidentally the individual.) So I'm moving away from that.

My kids know we're Jewish, but other than forcing me to light candles and give them gifts once a year, it no longer has much content.

I'm not sure the connection between 'tribalism' and identity and heritage are necessary.
being intuned with one's heritage, its accomplishments and challanges can be amazingly relevant on many levels, also for the reason you listed, that of people being labeled Jewish, regardless of matters of faith. you might be labeled Jewish for being atheist and liberal in many cases.
for example during the third reich, 'Jewish science' was targeted because it was labeled as liberal.
so in a sense not only is there no reason 'denying it', but keeping that historical connection which gave birth to some of the greatest minds of the 20th century is not about tribalism at all (im not sure what exactly do you mean with the usage of this term), but of contermporary socio-political affairs which are highly relevant in today's international affairs, and one's place on the world stage.

 

[Erebus]

I really don't see the fault in my logic. Please point it out.

No problem

So, ask the first door if the other door would say that his door was the exit - if he says "yes," the exit is behind the first door - if he says "no," the exit is behind the second door.

I thought you had it cracked up until this point. You don't include both doors in your questioning.

There's a couple of ways of doing it. You've picked the harder way and almost cracked it, but then got confused in your conclusion.

 

[Autodidact]

YOU see this NOBODY is my biggest problem the earth is just too perfect to exist with out a creator .

In what way?

 

[Autodidact]

Is it true that atheists like to drag babies off into the bushes, just to eat their spleens?

I'm more of a kidney fan, myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Funnily enough that's the method Sarah tries in the labyrinth... it doesn't work

By the way... it takes two questions to work this one out.

*edit* actually your method could work, but not in one question

I think that method works fine, assuming that all the information about how the puzzle works is correct. However, in the movie (IIRC) it was the doors themselves that laid out the rules of the challenge, and since taking the challenge at face value implies assuming that one of the doors always lies, you're left with a paradox: if the description given by the doors is accurate, then it must be assumed that there's a definite chance that the description was inaccurate.

In the movie, she actually had no reliable information at all when she made her choice. Maybe both doors lie all the time; maybe one door always tells the truth and the other only lies part of the time.

Actually, IIRC, at some points the doors both say the same things, but the description of the situation implies that they'd always disagree. This means you can just throw that description away; you'd have nothing to go on.

 

[Autodidact]

At the monthly meetings, which is the higher priority: plotting how to sell America into slavery to Red China, or the nefarious efforts to force your "science" onto our innocent children by openly mocking great Christian men such as James Dobson, John Hagee, and the most reverend Pat Robertson?

I'm so out of the loop. The last meeting I went to was all about the homosexual agenda.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really don't see the fault in my logic. Please point it out.

I can only see one potential fault: who is it that tells you that one door always lies and one door always tells the truth? How do you know you can trust them?

Hopefully it wasn't the doors themselves, because you know that at least one of them isn't trustworthy.