And, I’ll have the tattooist typo for extra irony.
My question of atheists is why the hell can’t they spell the name of their own (non-)religion? I just did a search over Great Debates and found zillions of failed attempts by, mostly, atheists. The theists may have no sense, but at least they can spell Baptist and Jew, for Darwin’s sake!
First of all, I guess there are as many ways of reacting to a sentence as there are of defining God. My initial take on IWLN’s questions was they were not especially offensive. My initial take on GodlessSkeptic was “boy, is that an example of a mean person!” But maybe it was harmless sarcasm…
As an atheist of fairly long standing (since I was about 10, maybe), I have one additional comment about the science and religion stuff, because there’s a connection with whether there is any harm in someone’s holding certain beliefs.
Religions tend to include some beliefs about the way things work (such as, why seasons change, where the sun goes at night, how humans came to exist). For a long time, the only conflict was with other religions. But in the past few hundred years (really, longer, but it didn’t amount to much before), we have learned a whole lot about how things work that contradicts what religions have said.
So there are still a lot of religious believers who get upset with the new information and therefore they attack the process - i.e., science.
And that’s where I get upset.
Science is the best method we’ve found in the search for “objective truth”. We all benefit from its findings (especially in the area of public health) and we all suffer (ironically) from them as well (e.g., pollution, weapons of mass destruction). But the point is, when people apply the findings of science, there tend to be effective and obvious results.
Unlike when people try to apply belief in God (e.g., squelching Galileo didn’t make the sun go around the earth, and I don’t think there is any truly convincing evidence of faith healing). So far as I know, there is no technology based on religious beliefs.
Therefore, if science says things that contradict a religious belief, I tend to land on the side of science.
So when religious folks start fiddling with the science education my children get (I have two), I go ballistic (not so ballistic as GodlessSkeptic, perhaps).
And then I say there is harm in holding those religious beliefs.
But why, you might ask, should a Creationist (to pick an example) have to send their child to a private or home school? Maybe I and my cronies should send our children to private schools that teach science properly.
Frankly, sometimes I lean even further and think we should require all children to receive at least a basic appreciation of the scientific method and a familiarity with the fundamental findings of science (as currently understood). Let the parents interpret the findings as they like: as hard-and-fast facts (false), what we think we know today (true), or evil falsehoods (false).
After all, if we take a purely utilitarian and dog-eat-dog view of the world, every person who fails to appreciate science is potentially a person who hinders the advance of scientific understanding. Scientific understanding generally leads to technological and economic benefits (as well as dangers). Ergo, that is someone who potentially hinders our standing in the world economy… and you can see where that argument goes.
The simple answer is: science works. You need to know how science works in order to evaluate all sorts of claims (for instance, to decide whether they are scientific). And you need to know how science works in case you ever need to use it.
So, I think science should be taught in all public schools, without any constraints as to subject matter.
That probably doesn’t apply to you personally, IWLN, but it does explain why a lot of us get very exercised about some religious folks. And why we go to great lengths to challenge them on their home turf.
Hmm. Having searched the boards for atheist I get 45 pages returned, searching for athiest I get 25, which if one is not careful to interpret one might conclude that the word is mispelled around a third of the time. This Googlefight: atheist vs athiest suggests it is mispelled much less frequently, around one twentieth of the time.
In this thread athiest appeared twice on page one, but of the two posters responsible, one had definatly (twice), and the other had both thier and beleiver.
Page two was much better, only one athiest and that was submitted by an avowed agnostic.
Page three athiest appeared only once again, but was spelled correctly twice after in the same post, so that looks like a fingerslip rather than a misspelling.
Meanwhile in the whole of the thread atheist appeared about 200 times. So what, exactly, was your beef again?
Good point, vkowles.
Furthermore, science has at its core a “self-correcting” mechanism, and actually welcomes the chance for previously held assumptions to be proven false. Its theories are generally living documents, the last chapter of which is yet to be written. New discoveries have a chance to overturn, modify, or simply fold into older assumptions.
Scripture, on the other hand, is permanantly stuck in the past, rigidly unchanging…frozen in time. New discoveries are stubbornly rejected, or put through convoluted contortions in order to filter them through the word of the bible somehow, no matter how twisted the logic. There exists no mechanism for going back and “correcting” the theology-- no acceptable, face-saving way of saying, “Umm… that global flood thing seems pretty well refuted by every facet of geology, archeology, and the fossil record. Guess it never happened.”
Which of THOSE two systems is going to serve mankind best?
IWLN, Since you expressed an interest, and this is your thread, here is a short bio ofDr. Harry Rimmer, who died in 1952.
I tried to find some of his books in print and was not too successful. I have several of his pamphlets, but the US$130 price for the entire collection on Amazon seems excessive. You might find his books from used sources or religious bookstores. Some titles are[ul][li]Dead Men Tell Tales (caution – there are many books by different authors with this title)[]The Harmony of Science & Scripture[]Modern Science and The Genesis Record[]Evidence of Internal Inspiration[]The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science[/ul]Rimmer (and don’t confuse him with Robert Rimmer, who wrote “The Harrad Experiment,” a different theory entirely!) had one point he tried to hammer home: Science and scripture did NOT conflict, but both science and the bible need to be properly interpreted to harmonize. If there was an apparent conflict, the bible was right, and would be vindicated over time.[/li]
He was able to twist biblical references to fit where necessary. As a very engaging writer/preacher, his arguments are quite convincing. I warn anyone who reads his material – a solid knowledge in logical fallacies is necessary, or you can be misled, too.
Rimmer’s arguments have been soundly refuted, and nowadays seem hopelessly outdated and even irrelevant. Oddly, some of his anti-evolution positions turned out to be right. I.e., he argued that ALL human fossils were hoaxes, including Piltdown Man, and science came to the same conclusion, but not for the same reasons. (An interesting discussion about some of his positions is here.) What I find fascinating is his how he was able to present such a convincing argument.
Another writer of the same ilk, and more recent, is Ralph O. Muncaster. Again, to read his books, you need to be well-armed with knowledge of How We Know What Isn’t So (Glovich) or you can easily be taken in by persuasive rhetoric. Beware!
One of Muncaster’s books is A Skeptic’s Search for God. Your first impression of the title may change when you see the subtitle: “Convincing Evidence for His Existence.” Muncaster claims to have arrived at the opposite destination than my personal one using the opposite route: He grew up as a skeptic and, confonted with “conflicts” and “mysteries,” concluded that the bible was the one, true answer. The more he questioned, the more he believed. He, too, twists facts to suit his theories.
I find Muncaster’s book to be endlessly fascinating as an investigation into a certain kind of mind; one that thinks it is scientific, masquerades as scientific, but in reality, couldn’t be less scientific. If I ever had to teach a class in logical fallacies, this would be the workbook.
I’m not going to answer all of your questions. Many people did and better than I ever could.
But I think I see your reason for posting here IWLN
You’re sick and looking for comfort, right? I hope you find it in your every-day, next-door-neighbour/friend/family. No need to go looking for a god.
I wish you well.
I wanna life now.
I wanna life now.
I wanna life now.
I wanna life now. NOW!
Your handle is so versatile!
Reply to question One:
God is your invisible friend…you ask (begging) him for favors and expect them to come true…when they don’t, you see it as a fault within you…your imaginary friend can’t be wrong…it is all you, you thing.
You give up freethought and decision making powers to your invisible God friend, Of course, your prayer (begging) are a stabilizing moment where the answer comes from you to you. Since they are from you, your decisions are yours and are not necessarily the correct decisions…and then, you fail…so failure is within you…not God. Hey! He wins again!
You go through this over and over…it is called a “sucker play” and you are the sucker.
Getting through life effectively involves educating yourself in what the REAL world has to offer, not what the Christian Press 9and the Bible of course) offers as evidence of the real world. You have to remember that ALL Christianity and organized religion has an agenda…you are last on their list for favors but first to be asked…Religion seeks POWER (Control of your political power) Power in the form of position and property, Money andSocial position…these all come BEFORE you. 3. If you’ve brought up evolution at all in the previous sentence, when you got to the origin of man part, how is it explained that there are no true remains of mixed species (part way through some transition), or are there? I don’t think evolution as I know of it disproves or proves a creator, but I’m sure my information on it has had a religious slant.
4. When you look into your children’s eyes, does it ever cross your mind that they’re just going to be dust in a few decades. Does all of that lost brightness, joy, potential, just gone, seem sad or just matter of fact or doesn’t it cross your mind?
5. Not really going to go here, just barely. Doesn’t there being no life after this one make abortion even more horrible, since this little person’s one chance for life is being snuffed. Or does it matter?
6. Does an atheist ever wish God were true, provable?
7. When you’re in the depths of sorrow or pain, with no one to pray to or hold you up; what do you do?
8. I realize there are a lot of people out here hedging their bets and saying they believe in God and it has about the same meaning as I believe in eating right. For the people you’ve come across who truly do seem to believe, do you see any difference? More at peace? Happier? Or just more irritating?
9. Have you ever understood why a lot of “believers” talk so weird (almost a Christian version of baby talk) when they’re discussing religion. Okay, I threw that one in for me. Irritates the hell out of me when someone takes on that weird “do you know Jesus” voice. I’ve always wondered why they do it, when it is so likely to clear a room in under a minute.
10. When I’ve heard so many universe theories and explanations about time, space and everything having different rules than we understand; why when we say you can’t really apply man’s laws of nature to God does it seem to irritate the non-believer. When so much about the universe is unexplainable, why do you think God should have to be proven or rationalized?
11. Do you ever look around at the beauty of nature, how complex even the function of our bodies are and think, how could this be some unplanned event?
12. Do you think non-believers tend to be more pessimistic? Don’t get your panties into a bundle over that one. I just mean since I believe I have something really awesome to look forward to; I have some of that I get to go to Disneyland feeling. Ceasing to exist just doesn’t have the same ring to it?
Okay, I’m going to stop for now. I realize some of these should be their own topic, so I’m just looking for the condensed version. Remember I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes. Just want to know what you think. Respectfully (really), IWLN **
[/QUOTE]
Reply to question One:
God is your invisible friend…you ask (begging) him for favors and expect them to come true…when they don’t, you see it as a fault within you…your imaginary friend can’t be wrong…it is all you, you thing.
You give up freethought and decision making powers to your invisible God friend, Of course, your prayer (begging) are a stabilizing moment where the answer comes from you to you. Since they are from you, your decisions are yours and are not necessarily the correct decisions…and then, you fail…so failure is within you…not God. Hey! He wins again!
You go through this over and over…it is called a “sucker play” and you are the sucker.
Getting through life effectively involves educating yourself in what the REAL world has to offer, not what the Christian Press 9and the Bible of course) offers as evidence of the real world. You have to remember that ALL Christianity and organized religion has an agenda…you are last on their list for favors but first to be asked…Religion seeks POWER (Control of your political power) Power in the form of position and property, Money andSocial position…these all come BEFORE you. 3. If you’ve brought up evolution at all in the previous sentence, when you got to the origin of man part, how is it explained that there are no true remains of mixed species (part way through some transition), or are there? I don’t think evolution as I know of it disproves or proves a creator, but I’m sure my information on it has had a religious slant.
4. When you look into your children’s eyes, does it ever cross your mind that they’re just going to be dust in a few decades. Does all of that lost brightness, joy, potential, just gone, seem sad or just matter of fact or doesn’t it cross your mind?
5. Not really going to go here, just barely. Doesn’t there being no life after this one make abortion even more horrible, since this little person’s one chance for life is being snuffed. Or does it matter?
6. Does an atheist ever wish God were true, provable?
7. When you’re in the depths of sorrow or pain, with no one to pray to or hold you up; what do you do?
8. I realize there are a lot of people out here hedging their bets and saying they believe in God and it has about the same meaning as I believe in eating right. For the people you’ve come across who truly do seem to believe, do you see any difference? More at peace? Happier? Or just more irritating?
9. Have you ever understood why a lot of “believers” talk so weird (almost a Christian version of baby talk) when they’re discussing religion. Okay, I threw that one in for me. Irritates the hell out of me when someone takes on that weird “do you know Jesus” voice. I’ve always wondered why they do it, when it is so likely to clear a room in under a minute.
10. When I’ve heard so many universe theories and explanations about time, space and everything having different rules than we understand; why when we say you can’t really apply man’s laws of nature to God does it seem to irritate the non-believer. When so much about the universe is unexplainable, why do you think God should have to be proven or rationalized?
11. Do you ever look around at the beauty of nature, how complex even the function of our bodies are and think, how could this be some unplanned event?
12. Do you think non-believers tend to be more pessimistic? Don’t get your panties into a bundle over that one. I just mean since I believe I have something really awesome to look forward to; I have some of that I get to go to Disneyland feeling. Ceasing to exist just doesn’t have the same ring to it?
Okay, I’m going to stop for now. I realize some of these should be their own topic, so I’m just looking for the condensed version. Remember I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes. Just want to know what you think. Respectfully (really), IWLN **
[/QUOTE]
Dear Gum, Your explanation just doesn’t stick.
I was impressively healthy and took it for granted for 4 decades. Yep, I’m old. I actually felt like getting sick was in part useful to get my attention and make me more empathetic(not saying God struck me down, I’m not that weird). My original user name was IWL(Iwannalife), added the now recently when I was kind of talking to myself, but hoping some kind deity would take a hint. I said"All right already, I’ve learned enough". The voice in my head said, “Duh, what about patience?” I crack me up sometimes. Anyway, I have a wonderful family, dear friends and lots to be grateful for. Not hedging my bets. This life is kind of like high school, it can be a blast, you can learn as much as you want and it can be excruciating at times. I get it.
Anyone, on a different note, but one of my original questions, I was on an 11 hour car trip yesterday and today and talked to step-daughter for hours about what she’s learning in college about evolution. She is a science major. She still maintains there is no link to firmly put us in the evolutionary chain. Are they not teaching this in college, is it still a gray area? I’ve been reading on it, but it’s tough reading. Why are there so many opinions on something that either should be fact or ? Keep in mind this is not some sort of make or break issue for me, I’m just confused at the different opinions.
Musicat, Thanks for the references. Don’t know if I want to spend that much, if it’s hooey, but I’ll look around. Anyone who feels the need to twist Bible verses to fit probably has alot of doubts himself? Yah, my user name is versatile and I can make up new things for it to mean if I get bored. Thanks again. Used to go by Idolem(name backwards), but sounded like some sort of pagan. Can’t have that now, can I.
Thanks again.
Owlafaye, Not real big on organized religion in part for some of what you’ve said. Also, to be honest; All my prayers have been answered, so far. Would like my health back, but it’s so far down the list of important causes, I haven’t asked yet. Getting through life effectively is something that I feel I have done. I have few regrets, although there are a few times I do wish someone else would have taken over my decision making process. God isn’t invisible to me and I feel him in ways that are impossible to explain. Haven’t managed to hook up with Caspar yet though. IWLN
That was a nice response - now I feel bad about giving you so much flak about the tone of your questions.:o My apologies.
blowero, Thanks, I’m tough though, I can take it. Probably one of the biggest “rules” in my life is that I try to respect all people and their beliefs, even though I don’t believe “their ways”, we all have the right to our own conclusions. You don’t know me though and I do realize it’s really hard to tell if someone is sincere or being a polite ass. Have to admit I laughed my butt off on the “spelling of Atheist vs. Athiest posts”. It was in the heading of the thread though so most of you had a “cheat sheet” on how to spell it. 
When someone does that in a post, it’s usually because they are offended by what was said earlier. I know because I did it(razzed them on their spelling) in the “believers being typically anti-abortion” thread. I was ticked over a “believers” limited view(you can’t even imagine how many words for limited view I came up with that weren’t that nice) of "fundies, Catholics, Muslims, etc. I later apologized. If spelling counted, there’s a lot of people here in big trouble.
So while I have you here, I have one more question and if I say it wrong, no, when I say it wrong; there is no bad intent. So many people have brought up science, proven facts and that they only believe what is proven. By the way, this is not an “atheist vs. believer” question. Long-held scientific facts have been proven to be incorrect many times in history and I’m sure this will continue to happen. It just takes one little part of an equation to blow a “proven” theory away. Two hundred years from now we could find out we’re wrong about carbon dating, etc. Why does there seem to be such strong faith in science? Especially when, as most of us aren’t scientists, we read up a little on what was explained and decide to believe it. When something once believed is proven to be wrong, we don’t lose faith in all of science, just that scientist or theory. Do we (universal we) really only believe what is proven? I’m all for fact, but what about intuitive feeling/thoughts, “gut feeling”. Are they never counted in any equation. Isn’t that how scientists start out? Do you ever trust your feelings on anything, without having the proven facts? I am not talking about God, just in general. Facts mean nothing on their own. It’s how we feel about them that makes their affect in our lives. So doesn’t it all boil down to feelings, not facts. I do have a picture of a pink unicorn in my bedroom.
IWLN
I suspect that many believers figure the same thing about us evil atheists. One of the main reasons I participate at all in these discussions is to try to dispel that misconception. In my experience, those whose lack of religious belief is based on neglect or disinterest rarely call themselves atheists, and those who call themselves atheists are pretty likely to have given the matter serious thought. (Incidentally, I seem to find roughly equal numbers of Christians from both groups–those who are lazy and disinterested, and those who give the matter serious thought.)
The bit about rebellion is a bit different–I have known a number of rebellious atheists. I think it’s a stage that passes pretty quickly, and not all atheists go through it, but I’ll still admit that it exists.
And I guess there are those who think that atheism is “the easy way out.” Others would say that Christianity is an easy way out, since someone bigger and stronger pays for all my sins and takes care of me forever, while atheism, implying that I alone am responsible for my actions, would be the harder way, at least for those with a conscience. I would just say that accepting the label “atheist” is not the easiest way out, in view of public opinion of atheism, especially in the US. Still, it’s proven easier for me than to go on pretending to believe, which is what I had been doing for a long time before finally admitting to being an atheist. Pretending to believe not only became difficult, it became impossible.
Which leads me to my last point: I notice you’ve placed “chose” in quotation marks. I for one do not choose my beliefs, and I maintain that no one does. The level of conviction and certainty that I refer to when I use the word “belief” is not something that can be chosen. I can no more choose to believe in God than you can choose to believe in leprechauns or Invisible Pink Unicorns. I finally chose to stop trying to believe, but the incredulity I have toward religion is entirely spontaneous, not chosen. Of course that isn’t the topic here.
Anyway, interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.
IWLN-- The fact that science CAN be proven wrong is one of its biggest strengths. It is always seeking to freshen itself, bring itself up to date; take advantage of the latest technologies or discoveries to better and better explain how the world around us works. The various disciplines under the umbrella of “science” are getting more and more accurate and reliable, not less.
Again, the bible is frozen in time, stuck with its 2000-year old explanations, explanations which can’t be challenged, because it would threaten the legitimicy of the whole religion. There exists no mechanism to go back and “correct the record” in theology, you’re just stuck with what it says throughout time.
Do you honestly question which one of those two systems is going to serve humankind better in a search for the truth? You seem to be questioning the value of knowing something absolutely rather than taking it on faith.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: would you drop an anvil over your foot? After all-- science, hindered by all of its fuzzy “gray areas”, has merely postulated a theory of gravity. It may really be the answer; it may not. On the other hand, maybe God will reach down and stop the anvil before it crushes your foot. You DO have faith… right?
You don’t only believe what has been proven, do you?
I think you have a very common misunderstanding about science. Scientists often start off with feelings (hunches, intuition) but you don’t publish them. If you feel something should be so, you create an experiment that can confirm it, and, more importantly, disprove it. And, you have to be open to your hunch being wrong. For instance, if you develop a spiffy new algorithm, you might want to test it against a random selection, as well as against other, known algorithms. In science there is nothing wrong with guessing incorrectly - what is wrong is not trying to prove yourself incorrect, or hanging on to a disproven hypothesis. That’s why the cold fusion guys were in such disrepute - they did not check to see if there were other explanations. That is why creationists are not scientists: though their hypothesis has been disproven six ways from Sunday, they refuse to let go.
We should never believe in a scientific theory - we should rather accept it to a level comensurate with the evidence available. It is hard for laymen to understand the level of evidence for various things. Evolution in the large is pretty much a sure thing, however the details of human evolution are still open. (But not the fact that we share a common ancestor with the apes.)
I wonder what your step-daughter has learned in school. We have plenty of links, though we may not know for sure if these links are direct ancestors or great uncles. We have lots of genetic information showing that we are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas. I wonder if the teaching is bad, or if she is not accepting the evidence she has been given.
Errr… perhaps because science, unlike religion, tends to produce verifiable results? A theory states that if I do X, Y will occur. I do X and Y occurs. Voila! Conversely, I do X and Y fails to occur (or perhaps Z occurs instead). Hmmmm… time for a new theory!
With religion, though, when things don’t go as expected we are left to reinterpret the scriptures and explain why X and Y don’t really mean X and Y in a literal sense. No, they are simply metaphorical, but indicative of a deeper “truth” that may or may not be clear to those who dilligently seek God’s will on the subject. Either that, or you simply didn’t pray hard enough for Y to happen, I guess. God, you see, is infallible; when things don’t work out the way he promised, it’s all your fault.
No, science is not perfect, and theories come and go over time. But the scientific method has a pretty good track record which far outshines anything “God” has ever predicted.
Barry
I think you phrased the question very well; got a few days for the answer? I wish you had been around awhile back, because we had a whole thread on this that went on for pages and pages. I see that a couple people beat me to the punch, but at the risk of being redundant, the short answer is: The fact that scientific findings can be proven wrong at any time is its greatest strength! It is precisely this rigor with which we examine scientific findings that allows us to have confidence (not faith) in that which has withstood the process. But it’s ALL provisional. That’s the beauty of the method - nothing is ever declared to be absolute fact - we only gain more and more likelihood that a given proposition is true, until the evidence is so overwhelming that it becomes extremely unlikely that it could be false. But it never becomes impossible for a proposition to be false, and that is the strength of the method.
Now contrast this with a method in which all beliefs are dogmatically adhered to, and can never be disproven. Had we done things that way, knowledge would have been “stuck” in the earliest stages of our development as a species. We’d most likely still be hunter/gatherers living in caves.
As for my “gut feelings”, of course I use them in my everyday life; who doesn’t? But I think there are limits to what my “gut” can know. I don’t think my gut is qualified to divine the nature of the universe as a whole; my personal experience is too limited. My gut can’t perform objective experiments on time dilation, or calculate the rate of expansion of the universe, or observe the similarities between the DNA of apes and humans, or perform experiments in quantum mechanics. You’re absolutely correct that I am putting a certain amount of trust in my belief that these things were actually done by scientists, and that it’s not some sort of elaborate deception. But to me, this is a completely different sort of trust than that required to believe a proposition that is completely devoid of objective evidence. I do not subscribe to the notion that “We can’t ever know anything 100%, so we might as well just believe anything we feel like.”
MrO, Can’t disagree at all that there are many “believers” who are there really for the same reasons I used to ascribe to “evil” Atheists(sorry, I enjoyed that part, but you gotta be a lot “badder” to qualify for evil status). The main purpose of this thread was that it seemed to me that not believing in God would change your outlook on many of life’s issues and morals. Overall it really doesn’t seem to. And admittedly there’s that underlying question of me just not getting why you don’t get it. That’s the part that I’m sure came through as offensive to some, without intent. In reverse I understand that you don’t know how I could think what I do. I agree, sounds wacko, but it’s impossible for me not to believe. I do believe that I am 100% responsible for my actions though, not looking for a bail out. Being a “believer” doesn’t give me a free ticket and someone to take care of me forever. I’m still of the opinion “He” would have created a bunch of zombies for that. Leaving all these open, unexplained details in our life has made us all have to think. Pretending to believe to go with the flow would be the worst kind of life. Accepting the “label” of a “believer” or Christian isn’t easy either, when I don’t agree with many of those precepts either. I personally don’t need a “label” or to be part of a group, but if you don’t pick your own label, someone is always trying to give you one. I’m going to stick to Wacko right now. At least it’s one I don’t have to qualify every time I admit to it. IWLN