Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

Then we agree. That’s pretty much what we’ve been saying, although I refrain from making any assertions about any realms outside of our universe, since we don’t currently have any evidence for them.
Okay, but I’m still rooting for other worlds.

Are you referring to the heat energy stored in our bodies? The only “destination” heat has is to radiate to surrounding matter.
I should have winked on that one, but I’d just head about a guy who weighed people during their death and they all immediately lost 26 or 27 ounces at the time of death. His theory was that the soul weighed that amount. I’m still working on why a soul would have to have weight. Okay, I’d agree to using the Razor there. My bets with evaporation or ?

Why are you trying to goad me into belittling you? Does it make you feel like a martyr? I try to respect everyone’s beliefs. Don’t know if I’m always successful, but I try. I don’t shy away from explaining why I believe differently than you, but I don’t see the point at laughing at other people.
No goad intended. I am not near good enough to be a martyr. What, you can tease me about drinking, but I can’t tease you about laughing at me. I used a smiley face, indicated in (cheerful tone). IMHO you watched Monday night football and had some left over aggression. I’m sorry if I offended you.

As I expected. I’ve read enough of these types of threads to be able to predict some of the responses. You have to realize though, that your claim that there’s more to your belief than feelings/emotions doesn’t carry a lot of weight if you refuse to divulge what the “more” is.
This is not a “believer” sensitive forum. No reflection on you or many of the people here, but I really wouldn’t put a toddler in a room full of rotweilers either.

But I wouldn’t consider an orgasm as evidence of any supernatural beings existing, either.
I wouldn’t either, but it is a tough one to explain. I should have used something like trying to explain stars to a blind person or…

But I’m not TRYING to disprove or deny God. I’m simply saying there’s not enough evidence to convince me that God exists.
I know you’re not. I’m still a little confused though. An Atheist denies the existence of God. That is different than lacks belief in God because of no evidence. Isn’t it? I’ve heard everything from "I hope there is one to I hope there isn’t. This isn’t debate or challenge, just a question.

Since you looked up “strawman” earlier, you hopefully understand when I tell you that you have created one. I do not believe that bad things prove the non-existence of God. Again, I simply don’t see enough evidence to justify believing. You are imagining a level playing field where IWLN says “Good things prove God”, and Blowero says “Bad things prove not-God”. This is a blatant mischaracterization. I know you don’t like to lose an argument, but you’re just playing a silly child’s game, kind of like this:

This is not a child’s game. It is a genuine, I still don’t quite get it. First quote below is mine, then your response. Mind you, I don’t believe either indicate proof. Why are good things just silly co-incidences and bad a logical argument? Why isn’t this a level playing field?

Many non-believers have used all of the tragic events to at least validate their certainty that there is no God.

]

No, that’s not selection bias; that’s a logical argument. Believers say God is all-good and all-powerful, and non-believers point out that if God has the power to prevent evil AND is all-good, then He logically could not allow bad things to happen. It is an argument specifically against the Judeo-Christian God who is presumed to be omnipotent and all-loving. They’re not ignoring good things, they are saying that any preventable evil in the world is an argument against the existence of that particular god with those characteristics. It’s not a good argument against an evil, spiteful God, or a weak God, but then nobody I know of actually believes in either of those kinds of gods.

Not really. There weren’t a lot of atheists 2000 years ago. Most people believed in gods; but they didn’t necessarily believe in the same god. And you haven’t answered the question - Isn’t it more likely that those are made-up or elaborated stories? Do you believe all the things Zeus and Apollo did in those stories? Why not?
I believe that most of the ancient beliefs in God or gods were that cultures way of expressing their belief in the same God that is believed in today. I believe that most religions are just different expressions of the same God. So a Zeus or Apollo story is their version of creation stories, etc. This is a personal opinion only.

Exactly; if God wants us to know Him, why would He set up a system specifically designed to allow us not to know Him?
God’s version of Finding Nemo? I don’t know. I think we know him when it’s time to know him. IMHO

Have I mentioned that you have a habit of saying you didn’t mean to imply something, yet continuing to imply that very thing? This should be on the Top 10 list of theist misconceptions. Thinking logically and rationally does not mean being devoid of emotions. This isn’t a Star Trek episode. Love is an emotion - it is neither rational nor irrational. Same goes for wonder, happiness, joy, empathy, etc. You do not have to believe in God to be able to love. They are 2 completely different things.
I used the parallel of being open to love with my husband as an example of being open to God. I was not talking about love with a mate. I was talking about open to loving God and felt like this could conflict with the need to be rational about God’s existence. When did we start talking about the atheist’s love life? Please don’t. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Wow, are you ever not getting Occam’s Razor. It says “don’t unneccessarily multiply entities”. It does NOT tell us how to enter into relationships. Geez, I sure hope this is just your weird sense of humor again, and that you aren’t really misunderstanding it this severely.
I forgot Mr. Winky again, didn’t I?

As has already been said - not so open that your brain falls out.
Still there. But keep checking.

But you seem to think I am closed-minded. I assure you that is not the case. If we find incontrovertible evidence of God tomorrow, I’ll be the first to celebrate. I used to think that time was immutable, but when I found out about the overwhelming evidence that it is not, I was fascinated and excited, just like you said. But sorry, the evidence for God just isn’t there.
You asked what it means “being open to God”. I explained. I make no assumption on your state of openness. I was giving an example. Are you asking trick questions?

It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It is a logical fallacy. If you say that God-believers don’t kill, and I give examples of God-believers who killed, and you say “Well, they’re not true God-believers”, you are committing an error in reasoning. It’s simply not open to interpretation.
There was a bate and switch involved there IMHO. I thought we were originally discussing people who kill in the name of God. Can someone who believes in God kill. Of course. We’re all fallible.

**Are you kidding? Christians have entire books about it. They must have think tanks that sit around all day just thinking up disingenous arguments against evolution and cosmology. And the real irony is, even if they were somehow successful in disproving any scientific theories, it STILL wouldn’t prove God. **
I still don’t understand religions problem with science. If I needed help stating my beliefs, I’d go to God, not the library.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
I’d just head about a guy who weighed people during their death and they all immediately lost 26 or 27 ounces at the time of death.

I’ve heard this claimed many times and never seen a reputable cite. Not even a disreputable one. Do you have a cite?

[Algorithm]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
I’m trying to picture strolling down the street and I just happened to have a bomb in my hand? Sorry. I would try and stop him. My intent would be to stop him and I would hope not to harm him, but yes would pick the children. Police run into this all the time. This is different than willfully committing murder.

I didn’t equate that to murder. I am saying that your intent would be to harm the guilty person to save the innocent people. If you were to fire a gun at a burglar threatening your children in your own home, do you pull the trigger and think “well, I hope I don’t hurt the burglar.” If the only way to protect an innocent life or lives is to harm a guilty person, you would willfully and knowingly harm that guilty person. How can your intent, then, be to not harm the guilty person?

What I was trying to say is someone who claims to be murdering in the name of God is lying or delusional.

Oh, really? What about this:

I would never call anyone a liar, because I don’t know if it’s a deliberate deceit, if they’re self-serving and have fooled themselves or what their reasoning is.

You wouldn’t call anyone a liar because you don’t know what their reasoning is. But you’ve just said somebody who murders in the name of God is lying. So, it seems you would call someone a liar, regardless of whether or not you know what their reasoning is.

I don’t agree with that. Their intent is to make a huge statement.

How do you know what their intent is?

What they are really doing does nothing to save the lives of innocents.

Intent and result are two different things.

If the bombers were really so noble and intent on saving innocents, they would kidnap the women and force them to have the children. No more rational than bombs, but too time consuming.

That would be an acceptable course of action as a Christian, then? Kidnapping children in abortion clinics and forcing them to have children?

No God still wants us to obey the laws.

But God has a moral code which is independent of law? What happens if a law conflicts with God’s moral code?

I’m not sure where the idea comes from that there can never be a change in God’s will though.

Neither am I.

So are you admitting that some Christians who knowingly commit murder really do believe God exists?
Of course.

So, this:

The “Christians” that are opposing gay marriages or bombing abortion clinics do not believe in God

was wrong?

[IWLN]

ALGORITHM
Okay. I painted myself into that corner and now I’m all wet. So let me re-clarify this. Originally we were talking about murder and then hate that were in the name of God. That is a whole different issue than all of the scenarios that came later. Someone who hates or commits crime in the name of God is lying, no doubt about it. The intent is to lie. I would not call anyone a liar, even though I can have an opinion. Their reasoning is only known to them and God. I usually let him handle the law enforcement. Not my call. Maybe they have a brain tumor or a chemical imbalance, rabies?

In came all the scenarios which were completely different than the above. These were about protecting someone from a killer. No relation to the crimes in the name of God. If you are protecting someone from a killer, your honest intent would be to protect. If you had to harm someone to do it, it would be regrettable, but the intent would still be protection. And I’m one of those people who would actually try to shoot without killing, which isn’t particularly a good idea.

Then to the bombing of abortion clinics. The people who do this make no secret of what their intent is. They typically announce it to the world. Their intent is to stop abortion at all costs according to them. No, I’m thinking kidnapping wouldn’t make my to do list either. Obeying the law would.
by Algorithm

But God has a moral code which is independent of law? What happens if a law conflicts with God’s moral code?

Obey the law and work to change it through legal channels.
by me

So, this:

The “Christians” that are opposing gay marriages or bombing abortion clinics do not believe in God

by Algorithm

was wrong?

No, I don’t believe so. There’s a difference between an active campaign of hate, that is masquarading as “commanded by God” and a person sinning. Remember this is my opinion only. IWLN

[Voyager]

You know, IWLN, I think your problem is that you are more moral than God. I’m quite serious. How do you judge morality from the Bible? It seems you reject those things God is shown doing that you cannot abide. But why do you do this? Is there a standard of morality higher than the Bible? Do you assume that God is bound by human moral consistency? If God makes the rules, then whatever he does is moral, by definition. If there is a higher standard of morality, then he isn’t God by most definitions.

It seems that the only resolution to this paradox is to acknowledge that the moral codes in the Bible were those accepted at a certain time and place, and our moral codes now are more advanced (or at least it seems that way to us.) You are at least more moral than the authors of the Bible. An alternative, which does not seem very useful to me, is to say that there is THE moral code hidden somewhere in the Bible, but we get no help in digging it out.

I just think that if some deity came up to you and said that he wanted to drown a billion people, you’d give him a good whack on the head.

BTW, here is a link on homepathy
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html

The bottom line is that while there have been some studies that seem to indicate a benefit, none seem to be reproducible. If homeopathy is done right, there is not one atom left of the active ingredient left in the solution. Now this is a good application of Occam’s Razor - is it more likely that many of our laws of physics and chemistry are wrong, or that some homepathy supporters botched some experiments?

[IWLN]

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Priceguy *
**I’ve heard this claimed many times and never seen a reputable cite. Not even a disreputable one. Do you have a cite? **
[/QUOTE]

Not a reputable one. You do realize I was amused over this, I hope? My daughter told me about it and I guess it was 3/4 of an ounce or something, not 26. I didn’t go look for myself until you asked. We had fun with it though. IWLN

Was the Weight of a Human Soul Determined to Be 21 Grams?

[blowero]

O.K., I see my name here - can I stop watching TV and post now?

*Originally posted by IWLN *
Okay, but I’m still rooting for other worlds.

It’s an intriguing idea, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

I should have winked on that one, but I’d just head about a guy who weighed people during their death and they all immediately lost 26 or 27 ounces at the time of death. His theory was that the soul weighed that amount. I’m still working on why a soul would have to have weight.

Huh - just saw that one on snopes.com. It’s 21 grams not ounces, and the methodology was highly suspect.

Was the Weight of a Human Soul Determined to Be 21 Grams?

What to make of all this? MacDougall’s results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more.

I also question the ethics of a man who would use dying hospital patients as subjects in an experiment. That’s probably why it’s never been repeated.

This is not a “believer” sensitive forum. No reflection on you or many of the people here, but I really wouldn’t put a toddler in a room full of rotweilers either.

Forgive us - someone brought a raw steak to last week’s Atheist meeting and we got pretty excited. I guess I’ll just have to assume the smiley and that you don’t really have a martyr complex.

I wouldn’t either, but it is a tough one to explain. I should have used something like trying to explain stars to a blind person or…

I knew what you meant; I just dispute that it’s evidence for any supernatural entity. I know people have feelings, and that I may or may not have experienced the same feelings as any other particular person, but it doesn’t prove anything outside of the fact that humans have feelings.

But I’m not TRYING to disprove or deny God. I’m simply saying there’s not enough evidence to convince me that God exists.
I know you’re not. I’m still a little confused though. An Atheist denies the existence of God.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

No. An atheist lacks belief in God. We call a person who believes God cannot exist a strong atheist. Not all atheists are strong atheists. If you define an atheist as one who “denies the possibility of existence of any gods”, then don’t call me an atheist.

[Sorry, I got excited. Must be that Rottweiler instinct]

That is different than lacks belief in God because of no evidence. Isn’t it? I’ve heard everything from "I hope there is one to I hope there isn’t. This isn’t debate or challenge, just a question.

For myself, I feel that if there really were a benevolent God who were personally interested in my well-being, I would be overjoyed. Unfortunately, I see no evidence for that, and wishing for things does not make them true.

As for the “I hope there isn’t” thing, I think a lot of atheists have examined what has been said about the Judeo-Christian God, and noted all the biblical inconsitencies and portrayals of outright evil committed by God, and come to the conclusion that if such a God were to exist, they would want no part of Him. I don’t really see the point of such a line of reasoning; I only offer it as conjecture on what you thought you heard.

It’s really a moot point. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I don’t see that the concept of God has been defined in any meaningful way. I probably wouldn’t even give it a second thought, except that people constantly talk about it. (I can’t even hand someone a dollar bill without being reminded about people’s God-concept.) So to ask me if I deny God, and if I hope He exists is sort of like my asking you if you deny Eivxmqdfi, and if you hope Eivxmqdfi exists. What would your answer be?

This is not a child’s game. It is a genuine, I still don’t quite get it. First quote below is mine, then your response. Mind you, I don’t believe either indicate proof. Why are good things just silly co-incidences and bad a logical argument? Why isn’t this a level playing field?

But I went to great pains to make it clear that it was only an argument against a specific concept of God. It only works if you are defining God as a being who can’t allow evil. It’s a logical argument for the following reason:

If you state that A has property P that necessarily causes result R, and I show that R does not exist, we must conclude that A with property P also does not exist.

Fire necessarily creates heat.
There is no heat.
Therfore, there is no fire.

Having said that, I don’t consider it a particularly strong argument against God. For one thing, it doesn’t disprove all conceivable concepts of God. It’s certainly not my only reason for lacking belief in God. I’d say lack of evidence is much higher on my list.

Contrast your argument, which doesn’t hold up at all:

God is good.
Some good things have happened to me.
Therefore God exists.

It ignores that fact that good things might very well happen without God. Consider:

The sun creates light.
I see light.
Therefore, it is coming from the sun.

Doesn’t follow - it could be coming from a light bulb.

I believe that most of the ancient beliefs in God or gods were that cultures way of expressing their belief in the same God that is believed in today. I believe that most religions are just different expressions of the same God. So a Zeus or Apollo story is their version of creation stories, etc. This is a personal opinion only.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, then. In my opinion, given humans’ penchant for making up stories, and given the extaordinary claims made in stories of gods, it seems likely that they are made-up stories.

God’s version of Finding Nemo? I don’t know. I think we know him when it’s time to know him. IMHO

Sorry, you haven’t convinced me.

I used the parallel of being open to love with my husband as an example of being open to God. I was not talking about love with a mate. I was talking about open to loving God and felt like this could conflict with the need to be rational about God’s existence. When did we start talking about the atheist’s love life? Please don’t. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh, please. I’m talking about love, not sex. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Loving God is simply not a prerequisite to loving people. Perhaps the two are inextricably intertwined in your mind, but that doesn’t mean they are inseperable for everyone.

You asked what it means “being open to God”. I explained. I make no assumption on your state of openness. I was giving an example. Are you asking trick questions?

I understand. But I’m saying I am open to knowledge in that way, yet no gods have imparted any information to me.

I still don’t understand religions problem with science. If I needed help stating my beliefs, I’d go to God, not the library.

Good for you. Now tell those pesky Fundamentalists.

[blowero]

Damn! You stole my thunder on the snopes.com cite.

[Algernon]

Forgive this bystander from butting in again. While I’m not keeping score, I also believe fair is fair. I gave some kudos to IWLN for coolness under fire. I now want to give blowero kudos for that last post. Nicely done.

I’ll try not to interrupt any more.
(Hmmmm. An aside… is complimenting the work of others considered “drive by posting”? I suppose it is technically since I’m not adding anything to the discussion. Perhaps a better attribution would be “cheering from the sidelines.” Which I know is frowned upon. But, metaphorically, it seems rude to not applaud a fine performance. Ah well. Life is full of dilemmas. And I can’t please everyone anyway.)

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by Voyager *

You know, IWLN, I think your problem is that you are more moral than God. I’m quite serious. How do you judge morality from the Bible? It seems you reject those things God is shown doing that you cannot abide. But why do you do this? Is there a standard of morality higher than the Bible? Do you assume that God is bound by human moral consistency? If God makes the rules, then whatever he does is moral, by definition. If there is a higher standard of morality, then he isn’t God by most definitions.
Thanks for pointing out what my problem is. I would have missed it. Seriously, what you have to realize is the Bible is a combination of history, divine message and symbolism. If it puts your mind at rest, I’ll tell you that I don’t plan to write a book on Melodi’s “Completely Accurate Bible Interpretation.” If you accept that the Bible is at least in part history, you should be able to guess that someone back then killing in the name of God is no more likely to be telling the truth than today. That people who interpreted it didn’t like gay people, etc. Yes, there is a higher standard of morality than the Bible, if you’re getting it from every event described. Even though I believe that God inspired a standard of morality, the rules have to do with our physical world. God doesn’t have rules, he makes them. Many have to do with health, mental and physical. I’ll be accused of witnessing if I go further.
It seems that the only resolution to this paradox is to acknowledge that the moral codes in the Bible were those accepted at a certain time and place, and our moral codes now are more advanced (or at least it seems that way to us.) You are at least more moral than the authors of the Bible. An alternative, which does not seem very useful to me, is to say that there is THE moral code hidden somewhere in the Bible, but we get no help in digging it out.
Someone who feels God’s love has an easier time distinguishing between history, prejudice and laws made for the good of man(sorry, I slipped a witness). If I had to draw a parallel, it would be to look at what sounds like it could come from a loving parent. I’m not sure our moral codes are more advanced generally, but that’s another topic. The authors of the Bible were reporting things as they saw them. Not only does their standard leak into it, but also the later interpretations can be affected by the interpreter. For example(I can’t cite this, it was too long ago), someone translated several verses from Hebrew for me on what seemed in the new Bible versions to be homosexuality. IMHO I would have interpreted them to mean, don’t have sex with animals, not men with men. But I wasn’t looking for something to validate an attitude of my own. That doesn’t mean I don’t do it too though.

I just think that if some deity came up to you and said that he wanted to drown a billion people, you’d give him a good whack on the head.
Depends on which people. Seriously again, I might have a tough time thinking he was from my side, especially if he had a head to whack. It would be in direct conflict to the loving God I’ve felt. We’ll hope it doesn’t happen. I might have to drive that bus over him.
**BTW, here is a link on homepathy
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html

The bottom line is that while there have been some studies that seem to indicate a benefit, none seem to be reproducible. If homeopathy is done right, there is not one atom left of the active ingredient left in the solution. Now this is a good application of Occam’s Razor - is it more likely that many of our laws of physics and chemistry are wrong, or that some homepathy supporters botched some experiments? **
I wasn’t defending homeopathy as a whole. I’m sure it is a wide open field for fraud. It has actually helped me twice, once years ago, when traditional medicine didn’t. You would not believe it of me, I prefer hard cold facts when it comes to medicine, but am not opposed to alternatives if necessary. IWLN

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Algernon *
(Hmmmm. An aside… is complimenting the work of others considered “drive by posting”?

As far as I’m concerned, feel free to compliment me any time you want.

And I agree that IWLN has been quite graceful under fire, and even though we obviously disagree and will never change our minds, I’ve enjoyed exchanging views.

[blowero]

Hmmm…before IWLN pounces on my last sentence, I should add that there’s a certain amount of hyperbole there. I could conceivably change my mind, but it would take some convincing evidence to do so.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

O.K., I see my name here - can I stop watching TV and post now?
Okay, but I’m still behind two or three of your posts. I am more than happy to bypass the razor. Pascal’s Wager I’ll discuss though. I’m not saying it’s sooo important it would be behoove(what a strange word) one to believe. I’m saying it’s sooo important, it would behoove one to take a wait and see attitude as opposed to forming a strong opinion of no existance.

It’s an intriguing idea, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
No. And it would bring up who gets to be God’s favorite race on a much bigger scale.
Huh - just saw that one on snopes.com. It’s 21 grams not ounces, and the methodology was highly suspect.
I also question the ethics of a man who would use dying hospital patients as subjects in an experiment. That’s probably why it’s never been repeated.
I was repelled, but people will volunteer for anything. I’m kind of opposed to being weighed now, much less later.
Forgive us - someone brought a raw steak to last week’s Atheist meeting and we got pretty excited. I guess I’ll just have to assume the smiley and that you don’t really have a martyr complex.
From historical accounts, being a martyr could be quite painful. I hope to pass on that one. You get meat at your meetings. We get a stale wafer and the opportunity to share DNA via the communal goblet of wine. We suck. I didn’t mean anything near as bad as it sounded about the canine. But when the ratio is 150:1 and the nature of debate is you’re waiting for that other person to “stumble”, I’m not going to put into words something that sounds lame even to myself. Some things just don’t translate well.
I knew what you meant; I just dispute that it’s evidence for any supernatural entity. I know people have feelings, and that I may or may not have experienced the same feelings as any other particular person, but it doesn’t prove anything outside of the fact that humans have feelings.
That’s fair.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

No. An atheist lacks belief in God. We call a person who believes God cannot exist a strong atheist. Not all atheists are strong atheists. If you define an atheist as one who “denies the possibility of existence of any gods”, then don’t call me an atheist.
Okay, but I threw away my old dictionary which said you were wicked and goddless, got a new one that said that you deny the existance of God. Darn fundi’s must have wrote it. Makes sense. I think there are multiple degrees of belief within any belief.
[Sorry, I got excited. Must be that Rottweiler instinct]
I didn’t mean to stir you up, I even gave a no debate, just question disclaimer.
For myself, I feel that if there really were a benevolent God who were personally interested in my well-being, I would be overjoyed. Unfortunately, I see no evidence for that, and wishing for things does not make them true.
I respect that.
As for the “I hope there isn’t” thing, I think a lot of atheists have examined what has been said about the Judeo-Christian God, and noted all the biblical inconsitencies and portrayals of outright evil committed by God, and come to the conclusion that if such a God were to exist, they would want no part of Him. I don’t really see the point of such a line of reasoning; I only offer it as conjecture on what you thought you heard.
I can understand that. Even though I view the Bible differently, I would not be thrilled with an evil God.
It’s really a moot point. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I don’t see that the concept of God has been defined in any meaningful way. I probably wouldn’t even give it a second thought, except that people constantly talk about it. (I can’t even hand someone a dollar bill without being reminded about people’s God-concept.) So to ask me if I deny God, and if I hope He exists is sort of like my asking you if you deny Eivxmqdfi, and if you hope Eivxmqdfi exists. What would your answer be?
I’d have to wait and see.
But I went to great pains to make it clear that it was only an argument against a specific concept of God. It only works if you are defining God as a being who can’t allow evil. It’s a logical argument for the following reason:
I was originally referring to a much broader version of this argument, but either way, I agree, none of it proves anything.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, then. In my opinion, given humans’ penchant for making up stories, and given the extaordinary claims made in stories of gods, it seems likely that they are made-up stories.
But why since what appears to be very early on has man made up these stories? Optimism, hard wiring, desperation?
Sorry, you haven’t convinced me.
Just a theory anyway. No insider information.
Oh, please. I’m talking about love, not sex. Get your mind out of the gutter.
I didn’t say sex, you did. But okay. I seldom get to use the eek face.
Loving God is simply not a prerequisite to loving people. Perhaps the two are inextricably intertwined in your mind, but that doesn’t mean they are inseperable for everyone.
It was a parallel, not a if, then. They are not intertwined, just somewhat similar.
I understand. But I’m saying I am open to knowledge in that way, yet no gods have imparted any information to me.
Yah, God doesn’t understand my timetable either.
**Good for you. Now tell those pesky Fundamentalists. **
I’ve tried, God knows I’ve tried. It always gets me in trouble and then they pray for me. I hate it when that happens. I have to go wash that smug, self-righteous stuff off everytime. They are not open. IWLN

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *
**As far as I’m concerned, feel free to compliment me any time you want.
And I agree that IWLN has been quite graceful under fire, and even though we obviously disagree and will never change our minds, I’ve enjoyed exchanging views. **

Just when I was getting ready to pounce and you had to ruin it. I agree though. But it would be safter to say, we will not change each other’s minds. I doubt there’s a lot of convert by internet stories. IWLN

ALGERNON, Better a drive by pat on the back than a drive by shooting.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *

Again: How convenient for you.
And for you. Saves you the hassle of disputing everything I say.

No, I’m not, as I’ve explained to you before. You really have to start reading my posts.
You seem to have a hard time putting all the points together. I’m not interested in going in circles or hunting up old posts, so I’ll just respond to the one’s we haven’t beat to death or that I have something to say that I haven’t repeated before.

Amazing. I made up this nurse as an example of a person who made a good but irrational decision, and now you know her better than I do! You know her reasons beyond a doubt, even though she’s entirely my imaginary construct. How do you do it?
Besides, this is totally irrelevant (boy, am I getting tired of using those words). She was just an example of an irrational action that I did not find destructive or worthless.
It’s amazing to me if I make a comment on your analogy then somehow I have erred. I’m sorry, I didn’t know they were your own private nurses. How many times have you picked apart my comparisons. This is ridiculous, yet hilarious at the same time.

I haven’t seen you trying to communicate on this. You’ve just said that they don’t have the same beliefs as you do, which I never contested. I would like you to explain the difference between the basis for those beliefs, not the differences between the beliefs themselves. I can see those on my own.
I have, don’t you read my posts? My basis is God, theirs is hate. If we’re still talking about the bombers, etc.

Why? Of all the concepts I could pull out of a hat, why is God special? Why would Occam’s Razor apply to faeries or leprechauns or Invisible Pink Unicorns, but not to God?
Because he’s not a concept, he’s real. To you he’s a concept, so use whatever you want.

In what way is the question “Why hold up the source as some sort of validation?” an opinion?
Well because it came from me? It seemed true in my opinion. How did a “demonstrably false statement”(your words) suddenly become an accusation. Why would you assume I was attacking you rather than I was in error. I don’t think we can take what people say on this forum as a personal attack. What’s the point? When you make ugly comparisons, I just realize you have no reference point for my belief.

You’re saying it’s not?
Don’t you read my posts? I agreed it was wrong to refer to the source at all in reference to the importance of principle.

It’s not a feeling. It’s pure logic. If you don’t agree, tell me why.
Your pure logic doesn’t exist as long as you have memory of life experience.

Kindly show me where I did that, or admit to being a liar. Twice.
Do you believe name calling is a rational part of debate?
That was a plural “you”. I was debating the assumption of a correct answer versus let’s wait and not make a mistake on this. Whether you agree with my thought process or not, you have to stop making this about you and your perception of being attacked. I am not familiar with all of these “intelligent” processes that are probably going to determine the best answer. Let me ask questions without your ego being involved or ignore my posts.

Would you say Santa Claus doesn’t exist? The Easter Bunny? The Midgard Serpent? Great A’Tuin? I believe you would. But you don’t know, do you?
Since I don’t know the last two, I’ll pass on them. The idea of the first two exist, but we don’t pray to them either. Are you still mad because of the Santa thing.

Correct. People kill for reasons, most of them irrational, many of them religious.
Religion continues to be the excuse, hate is the reason. You do understand that God and religion aren’t interchangeable?

Another reverse argument from authority. Amazing how you rack these up. Totally irrelevant, of course, as you have been told.
And another way for you to avoid commenting on the statement. You can compare my beliefs to radical groups, but I am not supposed to make my point that way?

Pure reason needs no interpretation.
No such thing. Impossible for man to be consistently objective. Could you use the razor on pure reason and maybe that will explain it to me better.

Explain why.
No way to administer an acceptable worldwide standard.

Then you should be able to explain how.
I can and have to people close to me. It would mean nothing to you.

No they’re not. People make it difficult to change them. It’s not a natural law.
Define natural law? Yes, laws are hard to change because we listen to the loudest voices instead of the majority.

Sprung from religion.
Sprung from fear.

First of all, it is up to the proponents of homeopathic medicine to show it works, not the other way around. It’s always that way. Doesn’t matter to me. If it worked on me, it is a valid option.

Impossible to show statistics for something that hasn’t happened yet, but it does follow logically. For example, we agree that it is irrational (most of the time) to kill. If people were rational, there’d be much fewer killings. See?
If there is no logical plan for this, then it is no different than me saying I’m going to go visit Mars. I agree if people were more rational, more loving, less selfish, etc. there would be fewer killings. Being more or less rational has nothing to do with belief in God. Church attendance and involvement has actually decreased over the last century or two. Can’t cite although I have heard statistics on this. Murders haven’t decreased that I know of. At least it doesn’t seem like it.

You don’t think the world has changed much? Since when, exactly? I for one think that women voting (anyone voting, really), abolition of slavery in much of the world, democracy in much of the world and so on are pretty strong indicators that things are going the right way.
Generally in morals and principles, not much. We made slavery illegal, but didn’t find a way to remove the bigotry. Women got the vote, but typically are still paid less than a man for the same job. There seems to be more violence although I don’t have statistics for that. I could go on and on. I don’t think of the world in a negative way though. The people that can are doing the best they can. The people that are immoral aren’t looking to change.

Nope. Wouldn’t work. People would get all pissed and start secret churches and plot to overthrow the government and stuff. We’ll just have to do this slowly and get rid of religion like we got rid of belief in elves and leprechauns.
So an important part of this plan is to get rid of what people want. What we were guaranteed when this country started. But you’re going to have to do it secretly, so people won’t notice?

**So because you think I’m unlikely to succeed, there’s something wrong with the concept? And the answer to your question is this: One day at a time. **
The concept is just a fairy tale without a plan and the ability to implement it. But I don’t think there’s any harm in having a dream. Dreams don’t have to be rational. IWLN

[blowero]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
I’m not saying it’s sooo important it would be behoove(what a strange word) one to believe. I’m saying it’s sooo important, it would behoove one to take a wait and see attitude as opposed to forming a strong opinion of no existance.

But I really don’t have a “strong opinion of no existence”. I have the same opinion on God that I have on Leprechauns, Gremlins, and The Grinch who stole Christmas, i.e. there’s no evidence that they’re real. Remember that you started this thread specifically to ask questions of atheists. Were someone to start a thread asking “Is the Grinch real?”, I might very well jump in and explain why there’s no Grinch evidence. It’s not like I go around every waking moment thinking about “not God”. There’s really much more to life than that (like wasting time on the internet.;))

I do have a wait and see attitude; I’ve waited and so far haven’t seen anything.

We get a stale wafer and the opportunity to share DNA via the communal goblet of wine.

And it’s not even good wine.

Okay, but I threw away my old dictionary which said you were wicked and goddless, got a new one that said that you deny the existance of God. Darn fundi’s must have wrote it. Makes sense. I think there are multiple degrees of belief within any belief.

Well that’s a major point of contention. Most atheists consider the word to mean simply “without God-belief”, but we generally don’t get to write the dictionaries. I like the definition in my Oxford American Dictionary: “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.” It’s wonderfully concise, yet unambiguous. It’s also inclusive of both the strong and weak types of atheism. A person who denies God still fits the definition, as does a person who simply lacks belief in God.

Seems like we lose no matter what we say. A lot of people seem to insist on branding all atheists as rabid God-haters. When people ask me what is my religion, I have tried simply saying I’m not religious, but that doesn’t work either, because they often immediately follow-up with “Are you a [gasp] Atheist?” It’s like some people think you have to believe in something; I’ve even heard people say as much. Go figure.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

But I really don’t have a “strong opinion of no existence”. I have the same opinion on God that I have on Leprechauns, Gremlins, and The Grinch who stole Christmas, i.e. there’s no evidence that they’re real. Remember that you started this thread specifically to ask questions of atheists. Were someone to start a thread asking “Is the Grinch real?”, I might very well jump in and explain why there’s no Grinch evidence. It’s not like I go around every waking moment thinking about “not God”. There’s really much more to life than that (like wasting time on the internet.;))
Notice that I said "behoove one and not behoove you. Got tired of saying not necessarily you, plural, etc. I really have a problem with being lumped in with “religions” in general so I “try” not to do it to other people. I can’t do the all or none approach on any religion.
I do have a wait and see attitude; I’ve waited and so far haven’t seen anything.
I think we find out what we need to know when it’s time for us to know. That’s another way I’ve gotten myself in trouble in various churches. Their insistence that you have to know before you die. My argument. I ask them if God created us, does he know us, does he realize that he’s difficult for many people to know, does he love us, etc. Then I ask if since he knows us and is all powerful, don’t they trust this loving God to have made plans for every circumstance, shouldn’t they give him more credit than they do. Is anything beyond him? My theory that maybe the people who need him the most, find him first usually clears the room. And then, again they pray for me.

And it’s not even good wine.
I’ve never tasted it. People have told me they have never gotten sick from this, while they’re coughing a lung up. I worked in the healthcare field and saw too many bacteria videos. I believe in God and bacteria. I pass on it and just let them go ahead and pray for me.

Well that’s a major point of contention. Most atheists consider the word to mean simply “without God-belief”, but we generally don’t get to write the dictionaries. I like the definition in my Oxford American Dictionary: “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.” It’s wonderfully concise, yet unambiguous. It’s also inclusive of both the strong and weak types of atheism. A person who denies God still fits the definition, as does a person who simply lacks belief in God.
It’s a step up from wicked.

**Seems like we lose no matter what we say. A lot of people seem to insist on branding all atheists as rabid God-haters. When people ask me what is my religion, I have tried simply saying I’m not religious, but that doesn’t work either, because they often immediately follow-up with “Are you a [gasp] Atheist?” It’s like some people think you have to believe in something; I’ve even heard people say as much. Go figure. **
I would probably tell them the jury’s still out or you can use the same one I do. It’s appropriate for “believers” and “non-believers”. “Same as Gods”. If you don’t believe in God, it’s just like saying “Same as Nothing”. I don’t have a problem with witnessing(obviously), but I try not to without an invite. IWLN

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
It’s amazing to me if I make a comment on your analogy then somehow I have erred. I’m sorry, I didn’t know they were your own private nurses.

I’m starting to believe you’re insincere in this debate. I gave you an example of a good action with an irrational cause, to answer your question. That’s all it was. What a real Christian nurse, or rather a nurse you’d accept as Christian, would do is besides the point.

Let’s try again. Nurse A is an Atheist and goes to Africa to help sick children because she wants them to get better. Nurse B is a Snyervalian, worshipper of the great God Snyerv. She believes that Snyerv commands her to help sick children even though she doesn’t care about them, so she too goes to Africa to help sick children. The second action, provided they do an equally good job, is equally good as the first, even though it has an irrational base. OK?

I have, don’t you read my posts? My basis is God, theirs is hate.

Circular logic. They believe just as strongly as you do, have as few doubts as you do, know with as much certainty as you do. You’re not close to demonstrating a difference.

Because he’s not a concept, he’s real.

Prove it then. Or show even a hint of evidence.

Why would you assume I was attacking you rather than I was in error.

Because I couldn’t believe you’d be so far in error after I spent several posts explaining to you that I emphatically did not care about William of Occam. Take it as a compliment.

I don’t think we can take what people say on this forum as a personal attack.

I said nothing about a personal attack. I just said you lied about me. If I were to say “you’re an Atheist”, that would be a lie. You’d be right to call me on that.

Your pure logic doesn’t exist as long as you have memory of life experience.

Irrelevant. Explain why it’s not logical to assume nonexistence until evidence points otherwise.

That was a plural “you”. I was debating the assumption of a correct answer versus let’s wait and not make a mistake on this. Whether you agree with my thought process or not, you have to stop making this about you and your perception of being attacked. I am not familiar with all of these “intelligent” processes that are probably going to determine the best answer. Let me ask questions without your ego being involved or ignore my posts.

My ego? You asked me why I said God didn’t exist. I never have. What does that have to with my ego?

Since I don’t know the last two, I’ll pass on them. The idea of the first two exist, but we don’t pray to them either. Are you still mad because of the Santa thing.

What Santa thing? Please answer my question. Do you say Santa Claus doesn’t exist?

Religion continues to be the excuse, hate is the reason.

Pure opinion. Why do these people hate? Rational reasons?

You do understand that God and religion aren’t interchangeable?

Elaborate.

And another way for you to avoid commenting on the statement. You can compare my beliefs to radical groups, but I am not supposed to make my point that way?

Here’s my comment: Yes, Marx did talk about the good of the group. So do I. So?

No such thing. Impossible for man to be consistently objective.

So because perfect success is unlikely we shouldn’t even try?

Could you use the razor on pure reason and maybe that will explain it to me better.

I don’t understand this, sorry.

No way to administer an acceptable worldwide standard.

Says who? Why would this be impossible? Besides, who says we need it?

I can and have to people close to me. It would mean nothing to you.

Try me. Please.

Define natural law?

Let’s see… a situation that exists independently of the meddling of living creatures? A basic fact of existence as we know it? They’re pretty close to what I mean.

Sprung from fear.

And why do people fear gays?

Doesn’t matter to me. If it worked on me, it is a valid option.

Do you believe in controlled studies? Do you think untested medicines should be available for sale?

If there is no logical plan for this, then it is no different than me saying I’m going to go visit Mars.

I’m talking about the way I want the world to be. I’m not laying out a plan for world conquest.

I agree if people were more rational, more loving, less selfish, etc. there would be fewer killings. Being more or less rational has nothing to do with belief in God.

Yes it does. Belief in God is irrational.

Church attendance and involvement has actually decreased over the last century or two. Can’t cite although I have heard statistics on this. Murders haven’t decreased that I know of. At least it doesn’t seem like it.

Decreased church attendance and involvement doesn’t indicate increased rationality directly. If people ditch Christianity and join the Shirley MacLaine crowd, that’s not a good development. I’d rather see them in a liberal church.

**We made slavery illegal, but didn’t find a way to remove the bigotry. **

Go back two hundred years and try to find ten white guys who’ll happily have a black guy as a colleague. Then go back to now and do the same. When was it easier, do you think?

Bigotry exists, but the bigots are fewer. Dying off, one by one.

Women got the vote, but typically are still paid less than a man for the same job.

They can have the same job today. They are paid. Huge improvement. And it’s getting better.

There seems to be more violence although I don’t have statistics for that.

It’s not a linear development, it goes up and down. Cite.

So an important part of this plan is to get rid of what people want. What we were guaranteed when this country started. But you’re going to have to do it secretly, so people won’t notice?

Nope. I’m not pushing anyone, forcing anyone, inhibiting anyone’s religious freedom. It’s no conspiracy. Religion will just slowly become outdated and uninteresting, just like belief in elves and leprechauns.

The concept is just a fairy tale without a plan and the ability to implement it.

Rationals spreading the word. It’s the only way the world has progressed so far; it’s the only way it’ll keep progressing.

[Algernon]

I’m temporarily coming out of bystander mode here to ask a clarifying question to Priceguy. You make this statement:

Belief in God is irrational.

Can you explain what you mean here in more detail? (and please, I beg you not to simply quote Merriam-Webster as your response).

I should disclose why I’m asking for clarification. I completely agree that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. As a consequence I view the belief in God as illogical. In other words, there is no logical “proof” that God exists. Therefore it is illogical.

However I don’t see how one can come to the conclusion that it is irrational. Irrational (in the non-mathmatical sense) to me means that there is absolutely no basis at all for reaching a particular conclusion. Many people (not all) who believe in God do so for very specific reasons. Some of those reasons are actually experiential in nature. A direct consequence of something that happened to them. Why do you call this irrational?

[Dunderman]

Algernon: English is my second language, so I may use some words incorrectly on occasion. Maybe I should have used the word “illogical” instead.

However, reading your explanation of the word “irrational” makes me think I used the right word. I am indeed saying there is no basis at all for reaching the conclusion that God exists. Any experiences and so on can be explained better without introducing God. I have so far not heard of a supposedly religious experience that couldn’t.

I may well misunderstand the nuances of difference between “illogical” and “irrational”. If so, I apologize. Substitute “illogical” for “irrational” in that sentence. Or maybe simply “not rational” is closer to my intent.