Othersider, I admit that I do not know that there is no god. I believe that there is no god. And no evolution does not preclude a creator, but Occams Razor. A creator is not necessary and merely complicates things.
ouryL, same to you. Erm, well, too late I guess. Well in 364 days then.
With all due respect this is a notion that theists too often attribute to athesits.
We fully understand that the vast majority of theists do not do harmfull things in their god’s name. But the statement “They convince people to do things they really shouldn’t be doing in their name.” Is still essetially true. The phenomenon of God (whatever it is) does indeed convince peope to do things they shouldn’t.
That idea, and the statement “all believers do bad things in god’s name” are totally different statements. So the idea that the statement “They convince people to do things they really shouldn’t be doing in their name” implies the assumption that “all people who believe in gods worship them and do in their name the types of activities we see carried out by cults” is completely false.
With the closest good basketball team to here being Gonzaga, after this weekend I can affirm that Bobby Knight is not God but indeed is the antichrist, the apostate, Baalzebub, the Lord of the Flies, the Source of All Evil. And this coming from an IU grad (not that I felt differently while I was still there).
Hey, if you’re in the B-ton area get involved with WFHB-- they used to have a show run by people in their teens which was very cool.
Do you play euchre?
What do you use to support your moral framework? In other words, what are the fundamental ideas that lead you to behave the way you do? Are these flexible or imutable?
What’s your favorite kind of cookie?
Fellow Hoosier here.
How are you so well spoken for a 15 year old? Public school? Private school? Home school? Child prodigy?
Strinka, I know you said your parents are athiests and taught you similarly, but I have found that part of that education usually includes learning something about religions.
Did you attend services anywhere on a semi-regular basis? And if so, which religions? What was your impression of the service(s)?
How much do you know about various religions, communion, the bible, etc.?
Coupla thoughts…
Given the existence of a “religious centre” in the brain which manifests apparent religious experiences when electrically stimulated, is it not therefore fair to observe that, since the visual and audial centres of the brain are capable of synthesising complex sounds and pictures under suitable conditions - even in the absence of external stimuli - it logically follows that external stimuli do not necessarily exist? “I can dream. Therefore, assuming the existence of any external ‘reality’ to account for any sights and sounds that my brain experiences is only multiplying entities needlessly, in flat defiance of Occam’s Razor.”
Given the non-existence of any God whatever, does it not logically follow that what we call “thought” is merely random electrical activity in the coincidental assembly of certain types of organic molecule, and that we cannot assume that any chain of so-called “reasoning” founded on this entirely random and meaningless activity can possibly have any validity whatever? (Obviously I am sawing off the branch on which I am sitting here, since I am attempting to use logic to demonstrate that I cannot assume that logic is valid, but this is only the other side of the coin from insisting that I really can pull myself up by my bootstraps.)
Those who believe in God aren’t necessarily deluded eejits, and those who take exception to being called such aren’t necessarily annoyed only at being found out. Just a thought. Sometimes it’s because they… checks forum … form a negative opinion of your humility and good manners. 
I see your point, and it’s a good one. I hope you also get my point that the fact that some people do things in the name of God just because their deluded selves may think it’s what He’d want, when in fact often it’s probably not, isn’t evidence that God doesn’t exist.
I know how, but I suck at it.
As to your first question: happiness is good. Unhappiness is bad. An action that causes happiness is a good action; an action that causes unhappiness is an evil action. That is immutable. However, given different contexts, the same action could cause happiness or unhappiness and hence be either good or evil, so that is kind of flexible.
I’ve never given thought to my favorite kind of cookie. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll come up with an answer later.
First, this is as text. I probably wouldn’t be anywhere near as well spoken IRL. I have more time to think about the exact wording I want to use like this. I do go to a public school, however next year I will go to a school for gifted kids. Technically it’s a public school too, but you have to apply and be accepted, so only smart kids get in. I wouldn’t say I’m a prodigy, but I am smarter than average (or at least a good test taker: 1370 on the SAT freshman year!).
I didn’t attend church services often. Only once actually. I didn’t pay much attention and it was a long time ago, so I don’t remember well, but I know that I didn’t like it. Occasionally, we read from the bible. But not the parts that people quote and say “See how great and loving God is?” We read the parts that talk about how a woman is unclean for so many weeks if she gives birth to a boy and twice that long if she gives birth to a girl.
I know a lot about Buddhism, quite a bit about Christianity, some about Judaism, a little about Islam, and almost none at all about Hinduism. Any religions I left off that list, I probably don’t know much about either.
So, are you saying that A does not necessarily equal A because just electrical activity in organic molecules reasoned it?
And yes, I agree that it is possible that this doesn’t exist. That I could be just a brain in Dr. Xmuglu’s lab. But I have no evidence to support that, whereas I do have evidence, albeit unreliable evidence, that I am, in fact, typing this right now.
I also agree that what we call ‘thought’ is merely electrical activity in complex organic molecules, however it is not random. I also don’t believe in free will. I do believe that for practical purposes we should act as if we did have free will.
I do. I can’t speak for Lobsang, but it seems to obvious to miss.
You do speak for me comrade.
I liked your link BTW, the one about the god effect.
If you had posted this in Great Debates instead of MPSIMS (which would have violated protocol, there not being any debate here) the most interesting aspect of your OP would be your Hoosierness, not your atheism. Atheists are a dime a dozen over there, but Hoosiers are rare.
I guess my number one question is, why aren’t you a Dukie?
~S&S (a nonreligious, 15 year old, male Dukie)
Yes, the bible is a strange book, indeed.
I’m surprised your parents didn’t encourage more study of religions, just so that you aren’t wondering as an adult what all the hoopla is about. Without that experience, how do you explain people with strong faiths?
And, in light of Sept. 11, are you curious about Islam, its followers and their motivations?
If possible, could you please answer me individually, instead of lumping me in with several other different questions/answers?
Seconding Large Marge here. Not only is the Bible and other scripture worth studying in order to understand religion and religious people, it also is necessary for any deep understanding of history and literature.
Plus, it is fascinating and often beautiful in its own right. Although I am neither Christian nor Jew, I have transcribed all of Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as part of my ritual of transcribing poetry (forces me to slow down, pay attention, read closely, spend time with it). And in my dark hours I often find comfort in scriptures and hymns.
I wish there were a “Bible in a year” study course that came from a scholarly faith-neutral perspective.
He’s atheist, not amoral. A better question is why aren’t you a Terp?
What’s a Dukie?
What’s a Terp?
What needs to be explained? People believe many weird things.
Not particularly.
OK, but I’ll also respond to Sample_the_Dog, because s/he is talking about the same thing. Why?
Oh? What do you mean by a deep understanding of history and literature?
Starting with the latter: It’s simply impossible to understand Literature in English without reference to the Bible. From the medieval poets to Shakespeare to Faulkner, if you don’t know your Bible, you’re going to miss half the allusions and much of the subtlety. Some key works, such as Spencer’s The Faerie Queene and Milton’s Paradise Lost simply can’t be read with any degree of skill without a grounding in Biblical iconography.
As for the former: Without knowledge of the Bible, much of Western history – by which I mean not only events, but also the historical records themselves, especially records of popular response and political propaganda – is not fully comprehensible. Even today, you can’t understand the mindset, and therefore the actions, of certain important leaders such as Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush without understanding their stance on Biblical scripture. To comprehend why our current President makes some of the hugely significant choices he does in the way that he does, for example, it is necessary to know something about modern day interpretations of prophecy, the doctrine of the “raising up of nations”, etc.
Sample_the_Dog may be correct about needing to understand parts of the Bible to understand things, but the case may be overstated. I’m an atheist (22-year-old New Yorker living in Illinois) and I haven’t read it cover to cover and don’t plan to. But through discussions here, reading parts and otherwise getting involved in debates related to the Bible I think I have a decent understanding of things. On the other hand I don’t come from an atheist background.
:dubious:I read the whole thing, and western history still doesn’t make sense to me.