Ask The Atheist Guy

In My Humble Opinion
61

Well, that’s interesting. If I were presented with incontrovertable evidence that ghosts existed, it would be very interesting. But it would depend on what sort of thing ghosts were.

Are they some sort of “recording”? Or are they some extra-material component of human consciousness that somehow can be separated from the material part? Or maybe they are really aliens, or holograms, or something we don’t understand.

It all comes down to, are these proven ghosts actually proof of life after death? Are they proof of life after death for everyone, or just the ones that become ghosts?

If the ghost prove that there is some sort of extra-material component to human consciousness, what relation does it have to the brain? What sort of stuff is it? If ghosts exist, they will be amenable to scientific investigation.

But, there mere existance of an extra-material component to human consciousness does not prove that God exists, or that the said component has some sort of existance after death. Perhaps the “soul” is completely natural, and is an expression of hitherto unknown natural laws. Maybe other things have “souls” too…animals, plants, rocks, planets. Perhaps there are “souls” that have no association with normal matter…spirits, angels, or demons. And perhaps such non-material entities had some relation to the beginning of life on earth, or the formation of the universe.

But that would be a matter for scientific investigation, not an uncritical leap of faith.

62

Certainly most godless heathens I know accept various labels, especially since those labels may emphasize different things. I myself would unreservedly accept any of a number of terms, including atheist, freethinker, or secular humanist. This is hardly unique to us infidels. One person may be a monotheist, a Christian, a Protestant, an evangelical, and a premillennialist.

Of course there is evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you silly person, you. Where do you think missing socks go? What do you think makes rainbows?

But… But… If there’s no Santa Claus, who put those presents under the tree when I was a little boy? If there’s no Tooth Fairy, where did that loose change under my pillow come from, and where did my teeth go?

Just because someone asserts that there is evidence for something does not mean that there is good evidence for it, or that we are not free to reject the conclusion drawn from that evidence if we feel there is a better explanation. We may even reject the existence of the “evidence” itself. (“But how could reindeer fly if there is no Santa Claus?”)

63

I was just trying to give further examples that different atheists can have different opinions on a given subject. I really liked Lemur866’s answer.

What I find particularly attractive about this answer is that “fundies” sometimes accuse science of being a dogma, and by saying that science cannot explain what took place before the universe existed we take that argument away from them.

65

Because of course, we all remember every second spent sleeping every night, right? Tell me - where do we go when we’re K.O.? I mean for the 6 to 7 hours we don’t spend dreaming… Nowhere. Nothing happens. Pitch black.

So why is it so hard to believe that’s what will happen when we die? Strictly nothing!

Here’s another one: who were we before we were born? What memory do we have of the womb? None. So why is it so hard to believe that what was will be again?

Fear - that’s why. Man is so fearful of the unknown, of his own precious existence actually ending, that he’ll come up with anything to fall back on.

Personnally, I’d love to think I’ll be floating in the puffy clouds of paradise. But honestly, sleeping isn’t all that bad, all things considered. No pain, no fear, just quiet, calm, oblivion. Eternal rest.

That’s good enough for me. And I don’t have to fight Holy wars to prove my point! Ah, the pragmatism of it all!

66

GBA, “In God We Trust” in courtrooms and on money, “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, these are just facts of life. Most people believe in God! I don’t let it bother me. Sometimes people can be hypocritical; separation of church & state and opening Congressional sessions with a prayer seem incompatible, but we’re human! I don’t feel demonized by GBA, but as was stated by some others, I don’t really volunteer my atheism. Some people get highly offended by it, but here in diverse NYC it’s less of a problem.

P.S. It’s times like these that I’m glad I’m an atheist. I feel liberated from religious dogma. I don’t have to listen to some preacher (well-meaning) try and explain how God can let innocent people be butchered whether at the WTC or the death camps of Auschwitz.

67

I suppose some people see it that way. It doesn’t bug me too much. Hey, I think God Bless America is a really nice song. I usually focus more on the intent of the people choosing to do stuff like that. That is, are they just practicing a tradition that doesn’t really affect anything, or are they going to try to inject religion into state policy? Are they just expressing their love for America (singing GBA) or trying to overtly religionize an institution (posting the Ten Commandments in a school)?

So, it’s really a judgment call for me. I don’t care about stuff like “In God We Trust” on dollar bills, but I do care very much about the First Amendment. Inherrant in the right to practice religion freely is the right not to practice it, and that is what I focus on protecting.

68

I don’t have a problem with God Bless America. I don’t have a problem when people pray, or say grace, or invite me to church or meeting. When everyone else prays I just bow my head and think good thoughts, or whatever strikes my fancy. When people say grace I bow my head and think good thoughts. When I go to church with church-going friends and family I do the same. When people sing songs with “God” in them, I sing along happily. I wouldn’t have a problem singing a song about Santa Claus. I don’t want to compare God to Santa exactly, just to point out that I have no problem with mentioning God or singing songs about God. Singing a song about God isn’t a betrayal of atheism, since there is nothing to betray.

Given the current climate in the United States I have no fear or aversion to widespread religious sentiment. We are not on the verge of a theocracy, we are not experiencing religious intolerance.

69

Something I wrote once relating to why I consider myself agnostic…

My agnosticism stems from my lack of knowledge/empirical experience concerning what we usually consider Life’s Big Questions. I simply lack the knowledge and/or experience to answer LBQ’s, and I am unable to take the “leap of faith” necesary to attribute everything I don’t understand to a deity. I don’t know for certain whether God exists or not, but my suspicion is that our modern religions are simply relics of ancient societies. I don’t see how our societal religious beliefs are any different (save in content) than the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks. It appears to me that opposing beliefs and the wars and intellectual conflicts between them caused enough religious attrition through the ages that all that we are left with is monotheism.

Anyways, we modernists laugh at the polytheistic Ancient religions, saying that their religious views were based on primitive attempts to explain things they didn’t understand…

…well, what we have now is no different. As we understand more, through science and reasoning, I think that as a society our dependence on religion will wane. Not to nothing, for there will always be those who find the idea of a supernatural being overseeing the world comforting. As for your faith and what to do with it? I say place it in yourself and the rest of humanity.

So that’s what I feel at this point in life. My opinions are not immutable on this subject and I always welcome the opportunity to learn from others. As a group, I couldn’t ask for a beeter breeding ground of ideas and discussion than the SDMB.

70

Which ones? The same kind of evidences some tribe had 10000 years ago that the ancestor’s spirits were roaming around? Or the same kind people have about ET abductions?

The only difference is that nobody actually believes in the pink unicorn. But there is no other differences. And there is no difference with the belief in fairies that some rare people actually have. The fact that you’re familiar with a belief (God) and that another seems weird to you (fairies) makes absolutely no difference. It only proves that you can’t observe your belief objectively and that you attributes it some “special” quality (differenciating it from other beliefs) it doesn’t have.

You’re argument is sefl contradictory and it’s obvious (though once again your belief prevents you from noticing it’s obvious). From nothing can come nothing? Then, from what comes god? How it is you can’t imagine an universe without beginning and you can at the same time imagine a being without beginning? What’s the difference ? Absolutely none. But you’re accustomed to the concept of a god without beginning, and not to the concept of an universe without beginning.

Something funny, here : some years ago, I was reading "Meeting with Rama ", a SF book by Clarke, in which the main characters go exploring an ET spaceship. One of them is a pious catholic and ask for a meeting with the Pope about this issue. They have a long debate, and more or less the Pope states that if there is an ET sentient life, then probably Jesus is their savior too and probably came to them also in some form or another. I found this chapter was quite fun. But perhaps 2 or 3 weeks later (it was when the NASA said they had found a possible evidence of life in a martian meteor), I read in a newspaper that there has actually been such a debate in Rome amongst theologians, with similar arguments. And with apparently similar conclusions. If there is an ET life, there must have been an original sin in this specie too (or the OS is metaphoric and valid for all sentient specie) and Jesus would have come to them to in some form or another. Tell me that the RCC lacks imagination!

71

You fool. When everyone else has their head bowed and their eyes closed, that’t the time to check out the wimmens! (Course, I guess that could fit under “Think[ing] good thoughts”!)

72

It’s such a pretty song that I can’t get too upset by it. The “In God We Trust” on the money ticks me off whenever I notice it, but what’s to be done?

–Cliffy

73

It bugs me slightly – on the one hand, there’s the whole suggestion that “God” is responsible for protecting the country. On the other hand, it is a nifty song with a tune you can hum. :slight_smile: I split the difference and usually ignore it, though I personally use “united we stand” for the current air of moodiness.

There is no evidence whatsoever for an Invisible Pink Unicorn whereas there is some evidence for a god.
[/QUOTE]

Y’know, I read this five times already, and I still can’t believe you can say this with a straight face…

74

rjung, you need to familiarise yourself with the traditional proofs for the existence of god most of which are detailed in the field of study entitled “Natural Theology”.

These proofs are independent of faith.

Whether or not you are convinced by them is immaterial but the statement you made in your last post shows that you are not even aware of them.

If you are not aware of both sides of an argument then how can you make any kind of rational judgement about it?

There is some independent evidence for the existence of god based on observations of the Universe and so on. There is no evidence at all for unicorns, invisible pink ones or otherwise.

Missing socks and rainbows can be explained by perfectly natural phenomena understandable by science. We do not need to invent invisible unicorns to explain them. Occams Razor is applicable here.

The existence of god has no connection (except in the human mind) to heaven, hell, angels or anything else. We are talking purely about the existence of God. Forget all the associated paraphenalia.

Likewise the fact that different peoples have worshipped different gods or that the Romans worshipped many gods is irrelevant to this subject.

I am not trying to prove the validity any particular god. Im not even trying to prove the validity of the One God.

Im trying to point out that there are questions that cannot be answered by science at the moment.

Since we don’t know the answers to these questions then we have to speculate.

But we should not engage in fantastical speculation (such as considering the existence of unicorns). We should only engage in speculative ideas for which there is actually some independent corroborative evidence.

If you do this then you have to come to the conclusion that God is at least one of the options on the table.

My personal position is that I can see that there is some evidence but that that evidence is inconclusive. Therefore the proper position to take is that of the agnostic, unless one is willing to rely on faith and become a believer.

Some of the posters to this thread appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that there is as little evidence for God as there is for Unicorns.

If you believe this then you are wrong and I suggest you study the subject further before you talk about it.

Sorry Atheist Guy, I know you didn’t want to turn this into a debate but I had to reply to some of the points made earlier.

75

May I ask a stupid question? Let’s say – strictly hypotetically speaking – you’ve reached the lowest point of your life (not that I hope you have, nor wish that you will). What do you do then?

You know what I mean… You get to a point where everything’s gone wrong, maybe you don’t have a penny left to your name, and nobody needs you or cares about you, and those who know you wish you didn’t exist (again not that I wish this ever happened to you). Well, I’m a specialist in these, and the only way out I can find is through religion (a heavily customized religion of my own actually). And I’ve seen many other people gravitate to religion to get out of similar situations.

So I’m curious, what do atheists do? What do you guys cling to during the rough times? What stops you from saying “screw this life, it doesn’t make a difference anyway?”

76

I can imagine saying, “Screw this life. It doesn’t make a difference anyway!”

Of course, seeing as tho I’m pretty darned certain that this life actually exists, and that it may well be - if not probably/definitely is - the only one I’ll get, I can imagine trying to put the pieces back together and seeing if I can salvage anything out of it.

But if I were reasonably certain that all my continued existence would result in was pain for myself and others, I could well imagine taking myself out. I’d treat myself to a really good meal first, tho, even if I had to steal it.

Hell, I like to think of myself as a pretty decent guy. I’m not mean to small children or animals, etc. And if I should happen to wake up in paradise, well that would be pretty okay.

But to paraphrase a famous author whose name I forget, I find it quite enough, thank you, to work on one life at a time.

77

Ahem… So can many of the things theists claim are evidence for God.

I think perhaps you are missing the point about the IPU, and maybe this could also clear up some of your problems regarding the whole atheists v. agnostics things.

The IPU wasn’t really invented to critique the general notion of an intelligent entity which caused the Universe to exist. The same is true of comparisons between God and Santa Claus. The IPU/Santa Claus comparison is aimed at specific conceptions of the hypothetical intelligent entity which caused the Universe to exist. We aren’t usually talking about Zeus here, either. Many people think there are major problems with traditional Western conceptions of God; throw in a literal acceptance of the Bible, and you really compound the problem. I think most atheists are much more agnostic about the more abstract question, “Does the Universe have a creator of some kind?” It’s only when you throw in the Holy Trinity; the dual natures of Christ; omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and free will; and Noah’s Ark that people start talking about Santa Claus and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. With regard to the question, “Did the Universe come into being as the result of intelligent action?” I would say I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that the answer to that is “yes”, but I can’t say that I know the answer at all. With respect to that question, I would probably call myself an “atheistic agnostic”–in the absence of evidence, I have no belief in such an entity or entities. I would point out that, logically speaking, saying “yes” doesn’t get you anywhere as far as the basic question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”–who or what created the creator(s)? But what appears to be the most simple explanation is not always the correct one–Occam’s Razor says we should prefer the simplest explanation which fits all the facts–there may be other facts out there we don’t yet know. (This is why I am not an agnostic in the “the question is forever unanswerable” sense.)

One thing to consider: The question “Did the Universe come into being as the result of intelligent action?” is often mixed up with a number of other questions with which it is not necessarily connected. Answering “yes” to that question does not automatically answer yes to any of the following:
[list=1]
[li]Does human consciousness survive death?[/li][li]Does the creator (or creators) of the Universe exist now?[/li][li]Does the creator (or creators) of the Universe still interact with his (its, her, their) creation?[/li]li Did the creator (or creators) of the Universe give humans a moral or ethical code they should follow?/li If the creator (or creators) of the Universe did have a moral or ethical code which he, she, it, or they want humans to follow, should we do so?
[li]Should humans “worship” the creator (or creators) of the Universe?[/li][/list=1]
Note also that the answer to question 1 on that list is not necessarily “no” if the answer to the original question is “no”. On the other hand, the rest of the list can’t really be addressed until we’ve answered the original question in the affirmative.

78

MEBuckner:

Ahem…

I am specifically referring to those things which cannot be explained by science such as: What caused the Universe to exist? Why is there something rather than nothing etc…
I understand perfectly the notion of the IPU. It is as you describe. I am concerned with the more abstract question of “Does the Universe have an creator?” I am not interested in the myriad different definitions of that Creator that exist in the world since they are all obviously false.

We could discover ETs tomorrow and that would pretty much blow every single major religion out of the water. Unless God sent the equivalent of Jesus to every planet in the Universe silmultaneously.

Forget the Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the angels, the saints, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I’m just talking about the existence of God.

Therefore you seem to agree with me that the IPU is not relevant to this discussion.

I agree that the questions you raise are side issues and they have nothing to do with the basic question of the existence of God.

The question of the existence of God comes a priori to the other questions. The other questions are more along the lines of “Once we have made the decision that we believe there’s a God, what should we do? Should we worship? Should we follow a moral code? What happens when we die?”.

To me, it seems agnostics already hold the ground that atheists are trying to claim.

Forget about weak/strong agnostics and weak/strong atheists. There are only three positions to hold:

  1. You believe there is a God

  2. You believe there isn’t a God

  3. There isn’t enough evidence in at the moment to form a valid judgement either way.

  4. is believer, 2. is atheist, 3. is agnostic.

I really hate it when I see people unilaterally decide to abandon dictionary definitions because “they don’t like them”.

We need dictionaries in order to have a common understanding of what we are talking about.

79

xanakis said:

If that’s so, then why doesn’t the fact the JC didn’t show himself in Australia or North America have the same effect?

xanakis also said:

Please give us some explicit examples of that evidence. I’ve never heard anything that I’d consider valid evidence of a deity so this should be interesting.

80

But once again, you must make that choice with respect to each definition of God. I have no trouble choosing option 2 with respect to God as defined by Biblical literalists, or even with respect to God as defined by Christian theology in general. Since the majority of the people I meet define God in Christian terms, it’s more accurate for me to emphasize that I am an “atheist” (with respect to the Christian God) than to say I am an “atheistic agnostic” (with respect to some other possible creator). (I am also an atheist with respect to Zeus, although frankly my reasons for rejecting Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, et al. are probably less well thought out than my reasons for rejecting the various flavors of Judeo-Christian God.)

“God (definition 1.a.) – A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.” (Emphasis added.)

81

Ask the Agnostic

Every response is “I don’t know.”

I used to be agnostic but I came to the understanding that I need to believe in something other than moral relativism. That is, I have to believe that there are some things that ARE right or wrong, whether or not I believe, or others believe, that they are. That Hitler wouldn’t not have been morally just if he convinced everyone that he was. That there is “Rightness” with the capital letter.

Once I accept that, then some form of absoluteness is implicit. That to me is “God”. Not something that I can understand, or that makes sense to my limited mind. A bacterium doesn’t understand me; I should understand God?