How is it possible to be an athiest?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Gitfiddle, why post in Great Debates when you’re hungover and can’t focus? Better to wait until you’re at your best, mentally speaking.

I assure you if you research it, instead of pointing out minute details out of the Bible, you’d be surprised how much worldly basis there is for religion.

You know, I HAVE researched this. And lots of other folks have as well. And decided that the “evidence” for fundamentalist Christianity is weak.

However, there’s no way we can debate the “worldly basis for religion.” That’s far too broad. If you’d like to mention, say, three specific pieces of evidence that you find especially compelling and tell us what conclusions you draw from this evidence, then we can have a productive conversation.

Let’s all just be friends on the SDMB. We’re all here for the same purpose.

Apparently not. I’m in Great Debates because I want to have, well, great debates. We can definitely do that and still be friends, or at least be civil. That we disagree with you doesn’t mean we’re being unfriendly.

One of the greatest religious thinkings of the twentieth century, C. S. Lewis, started off as an athiest, a very adament atheist that scorned religions.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. One of the other great thinkers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, started off as an atheist as well. He studied the evidence for religion and found it lacking.

The only real conclusion I think we can draw from these two biographies is that intelligent, thoughtful people can disagree on religious matters. The fact that Lewis ended up a Christian says nothing interesting about religion; it only says something interesting about Lewis.

If you believe that evidence in favor of some flavor of Christianity is especially compelling, I invite you to offer that evidence here. You’ll probably get the best responses if you stay focused on one or two pieces of evidence and if you give plenty of specific details and cites about that evidence.

Daniel

[gobear]

And yet another fundamentalist slinks out of the room after failing to convert the heathen.

I assure you if you research it, instead of pointing out minute details out of the Bible, you’d be surprised how much worldly basis there is for religion.

Name one

In fact, some of the greatest scientists are/were religious men (monks as well as common believers). The reason they always stated for their ease in coming to scientific conclusions was that they know the Creator and how her works.

A. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
B. That statement is inaccurate. Some scientists,like Isaac Newton , have been devout Christians, and others, like Roger Penrose, are atheists. Either way, how many adherents each side means nothing.

There’s historical evidence that points strongly towards religion. There are miracles that cannot be explained by science, and are well documented in medical records.

Name one. You didn’t have much luck with the Steps of Loretto.

This is not spontaneous generation (I don’t care if we were crapped out by some giant fly).

That’s a novel restatement of Creationism.

The conclusion of his studies: there was a God. He converted to Christianity. Therefore there’s obviously evidence to support religion

Argument from authority.

Those people didn’t die for the leaders you mentioned, they died for their beliefs and their religions.

Wait a sec…the same “proof” you used to justify faith in Jesus you now use to disporve faith in Koresh? :rolleyes:

I started this thread to simply hear the other side, not to ignite some religious battle.

That just shows you misjudged your audience.

My advice to you is to go away for a while, read many, many books on science, logic, and Christian apologetics, and then come back when you are better armed for a debate.

[jimpatro]

‘Bout six years ago in April my divorced was finalized. I am now single, not in a constant state of being divorced.
I go through life hardly ever giving much thought to that day on which that divorce occurred. Just as I hardly ever consider the existence of a god or gods. I do not deny the existence of any god or gods, I just have no reason to believe.
The absence of belief is a neutral position that I think is a reasonable one.
My point is, you don’t need a term for every non-belief.
I don’t believe it’s nice to throw people out of windows but that doesn’t make me an Adefenistrator.
On the other hand though…hmm…
you know all you’ve gotta do is look at a Chimpanzee or any other primate and at Homo Sapiens
and c’mon people Evolution is not just a freakin’ theory. Obvious is obvious.
Why weren’t living creatures on Earth just created as solid plastic forms.
Why a brain? Why mitochondria? DNA? Jock itch?
I think Evolution is in the details.

[Allen_Parine]

Originally posted by glee
I didn’t say you were an agnostic. So what does your post mean?

Not me specifically, but Dangerosa’s lack of faith atheist. As a lack of faith atheist myself I just wanted to butt in and speak up for myself. Or maybe I’m just an attention whore. I see Dangerosa already provided an alternative definition to yours that I’d agree with.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Bearflag70 *
Corrrect me if I am wrong, but Atheism makes an affirmative statement that God (or other supernatural being) does not exist as a possible explanation, or theory, for the existence of the universe because it cannot be proven.

That would be an anti-theist.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by grendel72 *
The “just a theory” attitude is a pet peeve of mine, a scientific theory has been proven. Just because scientists have higher standards of truth than thiests and still call something a theory doesn’t make it false.

I was tempted to post “it’s just a theory” in the Oak trees and acorns thread, after all, we have not observed the growth of every oak tree or the germination of every acorn, so we should accept the idea(that I just made up) that oak trees grow from lemming poo to be every bit as valid as the theory that says they grow from acorns, sure, my lemming poo theory has no evidence to support it(I expect to find some any time now), but you haven’t proven that every oak tree started life as an acorn, so we’re equal, aren’t we? Hmmm.

[pldennison]

All I know is I’m converting to Giant Fly Fecalism, posthaste.

[Squish]

*Originally posted by jimpatro *
I don’t believe it’s nice to throw people out of windows but that doesn’t make me an Adefenistrator.

ROTFL! Oh, good, very good!

Gives me a great new idea for our answering machine message…

[Apos]

Why is it that people seem to think that access to a dictionary makes them an expert on any matter of truth? Definitions are tools for communication, and dictionaries report common usage of definitions. Some dictionaries indeed claim that atheism is a positive belief: because this is simply because this is the view of most theists and many agnostics. Many dictionaries define god as “the creator of the universe” and other beliefs as “the belief that…” But then, many dictionaries, particularly Webster, are compiled by evangelicals.

But ask atheists, and you’ll find that almost all of them accept the weak definition for atheist: one without god beliefs.

Further, the common set of usages is philosophically untenable: it confuses knowledge (agnosticism/gnosticism) with belief (theism/atheism), makes a distinction different from almost every other metaphysical dispute, and avoids the plain derivation of the word.

—One of the greatest religious thinkings of the twentieth century, C. S. Lewis, started off as an athiest, a very adament atheist that scorned religions.—

Which is half the point: Lewis went from one extreme and unsupportable opinion to the other. Lewis wasn’t even really an atheist (as he found convieneint to claim later as a propaganda device) because he believed in god, just rejected him. This is the Christian caricature of atheism, not actual atheism, which simply involves the lack of a god belief, or at best believing that no God exists. Lewis was, for some reason, so pissed off at a God he indeed believed in, that he wanted him not to exist.

Lewis is not considered much of a philosopher. He had a fantastic gift for rhetoric, but most of his proofs fall apart under critical thought.

— He set out, in the grandiose manner of an Oxford don, to disprove religion once and for all, with real factual information. The conclusion of his studies: there was a God.—

This too, is a highly misleading account, because it leaves out entirely that it was primarily the determined efforts of his friends that led to his conversion.

Whatever the conclusion of any studies was, we have to consider the merits of those studies directly, not just what Lewis the theism-advocate thought about them.

[Mangetout]

Gitfiddle: you need to stay and face the music buddy; retreating back into cosy thoughts is intellectual death.

[Mac_Guffin]

[Darth Gitfiddle] I find your lack of faith disturbing.[/Darth Gitfiddle]

[Dangerosa]

Gitfiddle,

Consistantly applied logic isn’t your strong point, is it?

How, exactly, is the death of a 3rd century Christian martyr different than the death of a Falun Gong martyr in the 21st century? Other than the religion they are willing to die for.

How is Mr. Atta’s death for his faith (motivated, we are told, by bin Laden) different from the death of a 14th century Crusader (motivated by perhaps the call to arms of Richard the Lionheart) (and history buffs please forgive me if I’m off by a century or two, I’m not going to google up to make sure I have Richard in the right century)?

Jews seem to have a lock on dying for their faith - over centuries (we will leave the possibility of someone calling on Mr. Godwin out of this), does that make it more believable to you?

[toadspittle]

I still haven’t seen Gitfiddle address one of the earliest counters to the “watchmaker” argument, posed by Baraqiyal. Riddle me this, Gitfiddle:

• If the universe had a creator (God), then who/what created God?

• If your answer is “God needs no creator, he just is and always has been,” why is the atheist’s answer “The universe needs no creator, it just is and always has been,” unsatisfactory?

[p_cific_812]

Why does this “If there is no God, then where did the universe come from?” argument hold up anywhere at all? I’m curious. Nobody ever takes that next step back and says, “OK. Fine. God created the universe-- where did God come from?” I know that its just dumb philosophical chicken/egg abstraction, but it annoys me to no end that people point to the universe and say “Look what God did!” as a course to questioning atheists.

[p_cific_812]

OK, I should have actually read the 3 pages of posts before answering the OP because it looks like toadspittle beat me to it…

[CaptMurdock]

<satirical 70’s comic voice>

Frankly, I wouldn’t know what to believe, if it weren’t for my Lucky Astrology Mood-Watch!

</satirical 70’s comic voice>

[pulykamell]

*Originally posted by p@cific@812 *
** dumb philosophical chicken/egg abstraction, **

Actually, the egg came first.

Seriously.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
The bible doesn’t explicitly say pi equals 3, either. Bible scholars who claim it does are taking a too-literal interpretation of Second Chronicles 4:2. If a giant bathtub is ten cubits across, perfectly round and has a circumference of 30 cubits, then either pi=3 or the guy who wrote the passage (or the builder who designed the thing) just rounded off the numbers in the record. I’m guessing “Wite Out” was in short supply at the Mount of Moriah, circa 950 BCE.

First of all, IIRC, the bible is supposed to be taken literally unless there is internal indication otherwise.

Secondly, is there any other interpretation to said verse?

[Mangetout]

Can anybody actually tell me the value of pi? - please be precise and exhaustive.

[Urban_Ranger]

No, pi is a transcendental number.