Questions about my version of atheism

[whereismynotecard]

You missed it a little and did not stumble over the truth. Keep walking and you will. It will wake you up. You present no premise for existence as an atheist. No premise to logic. Don't you get it? God left you evidence to his existence. All atheist have this one mistake in common.
GadFly

That's kind of rude...

 

[DarkSun]

Around about where I live, almost all belief systems are accepted to a degree. Atheism is probably accepted to the highest degree. I'm finding it hard to understand why there's such a big deal about all of this.

 

[DarkSun]

I would not ask an atheist to explain many things. Nor, would I require God to explain very much either, as I am not able to conceive of 1/2 of the things I observe. You have only speculated as to why you do not believe in God. You have provided no evidence there is a God or not a God. If I was neutral on the matter, I see nothing to make me choose God or not.

What do you attribute the creation of the universe? Was it a none intelligent power that created the universe? The definition of God is the eternal one. He was not created. God simply is, which could be a problem for an atheist. There is more evidence that God is than there is that God is not. For example, you see a logical progression in religion. To reason on a logical progression is to recognize the eternal rules of logic. There are eternal rules and self evident truths. Where did they come from? Watch out, there might be a God!

I guarantee you there is a higher power than science, who use say has taken over.Your own logic is trying to inform you of God. Listen to it! Science would be non-existent without logic which came from the most basic premise of all, the Absolute Truth, which is God. Until you can explain God, it would be wise for you to not try to out think God. I look forward to you reply.

*Sighs.*

I agree with you, but the way you've argued it is flawed... Belief in God is a testament to faith, and not necessarily logic.

The way I see it, this universe is far too arcane to have come about at random. I believe its creation was attributable to some higher power, far beyond our understanding. That belief may or may not be logical, but it's my own.

Besides, WhereIsMyNoteCard had a point. The way you phrased that was uncalled for. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, and neither you nor I have the right to claim that ours are superior.

 

[Magic Man]

What do you dogs look like? Apart from your concept of them, I mean. What do they sound like, apart from your concept of their sound? What do they feel like, apart from your concept of how they feel?

As I said, I can't see the versions that are not my concept, so I don't know, but I have reason to believe they're there.

 

[Troublemane]

Heya mball, great thread.

I'd ask something, do you believe there are laws of nature that apply everywhere in the universe? Or do you believe that the laws of physics we observe locally may only apply to this region of spacetime?

 

[Magic Man]

I would not ask an atheist to explain many things. Nor, would I require God to explain very much either, as I am not able to conceive of 1/2 of the things I observe. You have only speculated as to why you do not believe in God. You have provided no evidence there is a God or not a God. If I was neutral on the matter, I see nothing to make me choose God or not.

What do you attribute the creation of the universe? Was it a none intelligent power that created the universe? The definition of God is the eternal one. He was not created. God simply is, which could be a problem for an atheist. There is more evidence that God is than there is that God is not. For example, you see a logical progression in religion. To reason on a logical progression is to recognize the eternal rules of logic. There are eternal rules and self evident truths. Where did they come from? Watch out, there might be a God!

I guarantee you there is a higher power than science, who use say has taken over.Your own logic is trying to inform you of God. Listen to it! Science would be non-existent without logic which came from the most basic premise of all, the Absolute Truth, which is God. Until you can explain God, it would be wise for you to not try to out think God. I look forward to you reply.
The Gadfly:sleep:

OK, first off, this thread is not meant to convert anyone, or as some would say "deconvert". It is merely to express my views on my lack of any real religion. If you believe in something, I'm happy for you, and don't really want you to stop believing, just educate you on another perspective, if you want to be educated. It seems to me that you don't want to be educated, but just want to argue. I will answer your questions anyway, as you are exactly the kind of person this thread was meant for, but please leave your attitude at the door fromnow on, or don't come back. That's all I ask, is to have some repect.

Now, to address your points: I'm not saying you should ask me to explain the universe to you. My point is to explain another perspective to you, one which you might not currently understand. You can take it or leave it, but at least you'll understand it a little better before you discard it, I hope.

Yes, I have only speculated why I do not believe in God, which is exactly the piont of the thread, as has been stated many times now. I have given some proof, which I see as evidence that God doesn't exist. That's why it's my view. You can refute that evidence, but I have still provided some, albeit little at this point, evidence.

I attribute the creation of the universe to the primal forces of it, at this point. As I said, I don't have all of the answers. I believe that what we know about the beginning of the universe does not point to a higher intelligent power. It seems just as reasonable to me that the things that happened were just random chance. I believe in the Big Bang, and what started it? I don't know, but until I have evidence that it was a hgigher intelligent power, I'll wait for science to come up with an answer.

So, because there are eternal things (assuming there are), there must be an eternal God? That is faulty logic.

Science is not a power, but a means to educate ourselves in a consistent fashion.

I don't believe there is any such thing as an absolute truth, but it sounds like, if that's your definition, you believe in a different God than the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews.

No one can completely explain God, or else he wouldn't be God. If their criterion for talking about something was complete understanding of it, there is not much humans would be allowed to talk about it.

 

[Magic Man]

Don't you think there is something beyond what we can not perceive? Now, what's that?

As I said, there is no reason for me to believe that there is anything beyond what we can perceive.

I would much rather you asked questions to educate yourself on atheism, rather than just go for an argument. I put this in the "debate" section, because inevitably there will be some debate, but the whole idea is to inform, not so much argue.

 

[Magic Man]

*Sighs.*

I agree with you, but the way you've argued it is flawed... Belief in God is a testament to faith, and not necessarily logic.

The way I see it, this universe is far too arcane to have come about at random. I believe its creation was attributable to some higher power, far beyond our understanding. That belief may or may not be logical, but it's my own.

Besides, WhereIsMyNoteCard had a point. The way you phrased that was uncalled for. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, and neither you nor I have the right to claim that ours are superior.

Thank you for this response. I agree with everything you said. I can understand the idea that it must take something more than what we're seeing to create what we're seeing, but I just don't attribute it to an intelligent power. I have no problem with the way you see it, though.

You are absolutely correct that faith is the key which Gadfly is missing. It doesn't always make logical sense, but to most theists, that's not the point. Theism, many times, is tripped up by logic, where atheism thrives on it. That's not to say that theism is wrong, it just takes a different approach than logic. It's not that atheists don't have faith, it's just that we tend to put our faith in only those things which we can perceive, which is our evidence. I figure that anything that cannot be perceived cannot be reliable evidence.

I think Storm has it right in that she says she knows that to some people the existence of a God seems illogical, but, since she takes that part as a given due to personal experience, she at least wants her explanation of it to make logical sense. It's hard to argue with that way of thinking. And feel free to correct me there, Storm, and I apologize if I misspoke for you, but that's how I understand your assessment of it.

 

[nocturn321]

I do know what it's like to not believe in God. Throughout high school I was a very thoughtful person. I read extensively. I didn't believe in God. I don't think I even thought about God once. I had been Roman Catholic as a boy; consequently, I had some religious knowledge. However, I rejected it and shelved. I did not think about the possibility of again until I read 'War and Peace' by Tolstoy. Somewhere in the middle of the novel, Tolstoy made one of his many philosophical 'asides' in which he discussed the teleologically argument for the existence of God - the argument of cause and effect. I could not escape it. Once I picked up the bible and began reading the Gospel of Luke, I was caught by God.

 

[Magic Man]

Heya mball, great thread.

I'd ask something, do you believe there are laws of nature that apply everywhere in the universe? Or do you believe that the laws of physics we observe locally may only apply to this region of spacetime?

I've never erally thought about it, honestly, but I would think that the laws of physics would apply everywhere. If I had to guess, that's what I'd say, but, really I rely more on science for that info than anything. There is always relativity, too, which could affect how the laws act in different sections. I'll stop now, though, before I make myself sound any dumber.

 

[Scott C.]

I am an atheist, and I've seen some misconceptions lately about atheism in general. I can't speak for every atheist, but I can speak to questions about my version of atheism. If you have any questions regarding how at least one atheist sees things, here's a chance to ask. I will try my best to get to all questions in a timely manner, but, of course, I can't promise anything.

As an atheist, do you believe in absolute right and wrong? Do you believe in free will? Do you believe in conscience? If so, where do they come from? Do you believe that human behavior is all biologically based, meaning that people must act the way they act, because we are programmed by nature to do so?

 

[Magic Man]

As an atheist, do you believe in absolute right and wrong?

Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or right. We do what we do. There are things that are less productive than others. I think that there is no inherent goal in life, but our human nature makes us want to be happy, and so I think it's more productive for everybody to work towards the happiness of the entire race, and planet, for that matter. Essentially, I believe right and wrong are subjective human values placed on things.

Do you believe in free will?

In a sense, yes. I don't believe that the future is set, or that it exists yet, and so I think what we choose how it unfolds. The term "free will", though, to me implies religion, specifically Christianity. Maybe it's just me, but I can' help thinking of that when I hear the term. I don't believe it's specific to humans either. I think an animal can choose not to eat. It will die, but that's its choice. My dog can choose not to come when called. I believe he, in a way, weighs the consequences of each action and does what he thinks is best.

Do you believe in conscience?

I believe in conscience as a manmade thing. As we create our own moral codes, or are taught them by others, our conscience forms. That's why conscience is subjective. Some people's conscience will let them do almost anything without feling guilty, while others' won't let them bump into someone without saying "excuse me". So, as there is no absolute right or wrong, there is no absolute conscience, just a human concept.

If so, where do they come from?

See above.

Do you believe that human behavior is all biologically based, meaning that people must act the way they act, because we are programmed by nature to do so?

Yes. I think the idea of many religions is to break away from that, and become more than human, and that is why it's so hard to do, because it's just the way we're made.

Thanks for the questions! I hope that gives you a better picture, and if anything is unclear, or you have more questions, please let me know.

 

[Troublemane]

I've never erally thought about it, honestly, but I would think that the laws of physics would apply everywhere. If I had to guess, that's what I'd say, but, really I rely more on science for that info than anything. There is always relativity, too, which could affect how the laws act in different sections.

Yes but even relativity is universal. One of its two primary principles is that natural law applies everywhere--there is no preferred frame of reference in the universe.

...Im just seeing if I can cajole you into saying there's a universal something, that applies everywhere, then the logical progression of questions would follow:--"Ah so if there is some kind of natural law that applies to all the universe, isnt THAT a kind of omnipotence? Just the laws of physics themselves, not positing a God behind them. Just laws of nature that cannot be broken, only utilized by application of scientifically discovered principles. Dont they count as a kind of omnipotence by the universe?"

After that I'd progressively try and get you to question the nature of determinism, and stuff. Itd be all fun, but I figured you'd see what I was doing after the second post so I just summed it up for ya. LOL--did the readers digest version.:angel2:

 

[Troublemane]

Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or right. We do what we do. There are things that are less productive than others. I think that there is no inherent goal in life, but our human nature makes us want to be happy, and so I think it's more productive for everybody to work towards the happiness of the entire race, and planet, for that matter. Essentially, I believe right and wrong are subjective human values placed on things.

As do I. I think that some people believe in an external ideal of God to remove all responsibility from themselves, or to justify anything---like demanding tithes from poor people when the preacher makes a mint already, or to justify suicide bombing. That should not be the goal of any religious/ethical belief. I think people should see that reality is what you make of it---it can be wonderful or terrible, but the choice is still ours.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes but even relativity is universal. One of its two primary principles is that natural law applies everywhere--there is no preferred frame of reference in the universe.

...Im just seeing if I can cajole you into saying there's a universal something, that applies everywhere, then the logical progression of questions would follow:--"Ah so if there is some kind of natural law that applies to all the universe, isnt THAT a kind of omnipotence? Just the laws of physics themselves, not positing a God behind them. Just laws of nature that cannot be broken, only utilized by application of scientifically discovered principles. Dont they count as a kind of omnipotence by the universe?"

After that I'd progressively try and get you to question the nature of determinism, and stuff. Itd be all fun, but I figured you'd see what I was doing after the second post so I just summed it up for ya. LOL--did the readers digest version.:angel2:

Yeah, I figured it was something along those lines.

All I can say is that, even if there is a universal law, I wouldn't classify that as omnipotence, as it would not be able to do everything. I think that's a different take on omnipotence than the "normal" one, or at least the one I go by.

I see God as an intelligent being, who may not even be omnipotent. Many views of the concept have him being omnipotent and omniscient and the like, but even taking those out, I think God still has to be a being more than we can understand. We can understand the laws of physics to an ever-increasing degree, and we hope to someday understand it fully. Physical laws are then something apart from the concept I consider to be God.

Also, I guess my main point is that I don't presume to have all of the answers. The things I do take for granted or believe in, though, are based on evidence, whether that means scientific or logical. And, as yet, I have neither absolute scientific nor absolute logical evidence to believe in God.

 

[Magic Man]

As do I. I think that some people believe in an external ideal of God to remove all responsibility from themselves, or to justify anything---like demanding tithes from poor people when the preacher makes a mint already, or to justify suicide bombing. That should not be the goal of any religious/ethical belief. I think people should see that reality is what you make of it---it can be wonderful or terrible, but the choice is still ours.

I agree. The problem with a thread like this is trying to convey so many ideas in such a short space. If any other atheists want to chime in, or anyone else at all, feel free. I may not say something clearly or fully, so feel free to help.

 

[Willamena]

That's kind of rude...

Knowing the truth absolutely always is.

 

[Willamena]

As I said, I can't see the versions that are not my concept, so I don't know, but I have reason to believe they're there.

I submit that what you said ealier was correct --that if I were look at your dogs, I would see the same dogs you see, hear the same barks you hear. I would submit that what they look like apart from your perception is identical to what they look like from your point of view. Your perception is correct.

To imagine anything else is... to imagine. (Not implying a bad thing in any way.)

*glances at his sig*

 

[Magic Man]

I submit that what you said ealier was correct --that if I were look at your dogs, I would see the same dogs you see, hear the same barks you hear. I would submit that what they look like apart from your perception is identical to what they look like from your point of view. Your perception is correct.

To imagine anything else is... to imagine. (Not implying a bad thing in any way.)

*glances at his sig*

Wait a minute, did you just agree with me? That's impossible! I must be reading that wrong.

 

[Willamena]

Wait a minute, did you just agree with me? That's impossible! I must be reading that wrong.

No... so far you've supplied "right" answers, and do you know how hard it is to continue a discussion when all parties agree? lol

Of course, we could always debate agreeance. In what I said, what in particular do you agree with?