What variety of atheist are you?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2011, 01:10 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(18-08-2011 05:26 AM)James The Brit Wrote:  i really dont give a shit, i will never believe in bollocks.

unless i see a man with a beard in the clouds.

James, I think the major problem is not the unanwerable supernatural god question but the way humans have structured the definitions.
Change the definitions and god can become less remote.
I think it is far easier to deny god (as defined) than to deny supernatural phenomena per se.Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 03:55 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(21-08-2011 11:34 PM)EvilMomLady Wrote:  I think someone who declares there is no god is just as foolhardy as someone who says god is without a doubt real.

I really don't see a problem declaring that there are no unicorns. I fail to see why I should be considered foolhardy to claim that there are no gods either. You'll agree that there is no evidence for gods, and given the amount of time people have spent looking for them, if this were any other subject matter whose existence was in question, we'd all be happy saying there was no X.

Sure, there could exist some god hiding under a couch somewhere, but there could also exist, on some planet several galaxies away, a unicorn. But you don't have a problem saying unicorns don't exist, do you?

Besides, there's good reason to think that a spontaneous intelligence (the minimal requirement I have for a god. If the being came about over time from simpler processes, then I would have no reason to label it as anything other than a natural creature) is just not going to happen. Everything we know about the universe shows that complex things come from simpler things. In the beginning, if such a word is appropriate, we had nothing but the quantum vacuum, with the minutest particles popping in and out of existence. Due to some event (I believe it was expansion) these particles were preventing from annihilating as usual. And so, the particles slowly formed into the protons, neutrons, and electrons we know today. Those particles made hydrogen, which would then be turned into helium in the first stars. And on and on and on, until we get to us.

The story, as far back as we can glean, is one of gradually increasing complexity. It's just how the universe works. Now, I'm not saying that there couldn't be exceptions, or anything, but when we have no evidence for a god, and when everything we know about the universe makes a god impossible... then why is it foolhardy to say there is no god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sines's post
22-08-2011, 08:08 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(22-08-2011 01:10 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(18-08-2011 05:26 AM)James The Brit Wrote:  i really dont give a shit, i will never believe in bollocks.

unless i see a man with a beard in the clouds.

James, I think the major problem is not the unanwerable supernatural god question but the way humans have structured the definitions.
Change the definitions and god can become less remote.
I think it is far easier to deny god (as defined) than to deny supernatural phenomena per se.Dodgy
I agree.
The problem is our man-made gods. All our religions suck donkeys balls. There is no way an actual god would behave or be like the ones we made up. We know enough about the universe now to know a super intelligence would do much better than that.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 11:42 AM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(20-08-2011 11:08 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Have you looked into abiogenesis? There's plenty of evidence for at least a creator there. Btw, what do you mean by "maximize my moments"? Just having fun or more than that?

BlackEyedGhost, with all due respect, the fact we currently don't know how life originated is NOT proof of a creator. All it proves is the fact we don't know something. You are simply taking something for which we currently don't have explanation and interjecting your own hypothesis for it. I could just as easily interject some other hypothesis (example: that life, not space or time, is actually the most fundamental building block of reality, and therefore life is necessary and inevitable in any reality) and use the problem (we don't know how life started) to prove my hypothesis. See how it doesn't work?

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 01:30 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
I've known a few people who had the good fortune to grow up as atheists. To me they seem like characters from an advanced civilization out of science fiction.

Unfortunately I didn't grow up that way. Instead I grew up in a Southern Baptist environment in 1970's Tulsa, and I knew people who took stupid Hal Lindsey's end times nonsense seriously. In fact I related well to the part of Seth's talk to the atheists in Tulsa about the time in his adolescence when his cult showed him a low-budget film about the beheadings of christian converts after the rapture.

Now I consider myself a "22nd+ Century atheist." I try to imagine how enlightened people in a "Jesus who?" era of the future would view the whole god package, and I act accordingly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 02:18 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(22-08-2011 01:30 PM)advancedatheist Wrote:  beheadings of christian converts after the rapture.

I always considered the rapture a real problem in the standard 'threatening you with violence to convert' deal. I mean, the thing about hell is that you have to convert before you get proof.

But if the rapture comes, I get proof before I convert. So I can sit and wait for the proof. Sure, there'll be a price to pay, but a brutal death seems a fair risk for waiting for evidence, especially since the brutal death is immediately followed by a one-way ticket to Perpetual Orgasm Land.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 02:26 PM
 
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
Texas State Constitution Article 1 Section 4 Wrote:No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Lets just say I'm not eligiable to hold office in my home state.

On god: gods are fairy tales. Makes for great stories.

On religion: Christianity and Muslim faith can do great things with poor and sick... and then such horrible things with the mind. Why must such great acts be tainted? Eastern religions I know little about, but I see checkered pasts there too. I just don't know if those pasts are something celebrated within the religion like it is with western ones.

On ghosts, werewolves, magic, ect: Fairy tales again. I do enjoy good fairy tales though.

On aliens: Sure they exist. No, I know nothing about them. No, they are not visiting earth and did not build or help build the pyramids or other cities.

What I think of people would believe in god, gods or the supernatural: I don't understand you other than the fact that I seem to frustrate you when you speak of it.
Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2011 05:01 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(22-08-2011 08:08 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  All our religions suck donkeys balls.

I'm not so sure of that with respect to Buddhism.

(22-08-2011 01:10 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(18-08-2011 05:26 AM)James The Brit Wrote:  i really dont give a shit, i will never believe in bollocks.

unless i see a man with a beard in the clouds.

James, I think the major problem is not the unanwerable supernatural god question but the way humans have structured the definitions.
Change the definitions and god can become less remote.
I think it is far easier to deny god (as defined) than to deny supernatural phenomena per se.Dodgy

That's right. I remember some badass wicked blotter back in the day where I did see a man with a beard in the clouds.

(22-08-2011 02:26 PM)TrulyEvilBob Wrote:  
Texas State Constitution Article 1 Section 4 Wrote:No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Lets just say I'm not eligiable to hold office in my home state.

Sure you are. Acknowledging that we collectively are a Supreme Being would seem to satisfy the requirement. Biocentrism. Or even more simply, acknowledging that you are the Supreme Being would also seem to satisfy the requirement. I think you currently have a Governor who believes the latter.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 06:30 PM
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(22-08-2011 02:18 PM)Sines Wrote:  
(22-08-2011 01:30 PM)advancedatheist Wrote:  beheadings of christian converts after the rapture.

I always considered the rapture a real problem in the standard 'threatening you with violence to convert' deal. I mean, the thing about hell is that you have to convert before you get proof.

But if the rapture comes, I get proof before I convert. So I can sit and wait for the proof. Sure, there'll be a price to pay, but a brutal death seems a fair risk for waiting for evidence, especially since the brutal death is immediately followed by a one-way ticket to Perpetual Orgasm Land.

I saw this video and thought, "Hey! Every atheist's fantasy!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9DIW0r8gqA

And then I realized that I'd have more fun deprogramming, atheizing and debaptizing this chick, and then asking her in a hotel elevator to come to my room for coffee.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 09:35 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2011 09:42 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: What variety of atheist are you?
(20-08-2011 09:40 PM)Efrx86 Wrote:  
(20-08-2011 09:24 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Neither does believing in aliens, yet despite that being the most probable naturalist explanation for the origins of life on Earth you don't see many atheists believing in such things.

Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

Thanks for link...very interesting


(20-08-2011 10:03 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @Peterkin In that instance, sure there's forensics, but what about someone further back? How about Constantine or Socrates (just chose them randomly)? No forensics for their bodies. Your next argument is from a lack of proof. However, there's many archaelogical finds that uphold the credability of the Gospel accounts and things similar. After that point you just attacked me and I feel no obligation to respond. You also brought up many things I wasn't talking about.
@DeepThought I know no matter what I say people are going to think my purpose is converting people. That's honestly not the case. My purpose is to understand the other side, to bring light to things that many are ignorant of, and to give Christianity back at least some sort of good name since so many are destroying it. My personal theology says that if you love the things that Jesus was, then even if you totally reject Him in name it doesn't matter. It's about who He is, not just who people think He is. So if you see me trying to present the other side as indoctrination, then, yes, that's what I'm doing. Btw, that camel thing made me laugh. Big Grin
(20-08-2011 09:40 PM)Efrx86 Wrote:  Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?

Yup. They didn't have any sort of proof that the earth's early atmosphere was comprised of those chemicals. If you start with inert chemicals like you would find on most planets (nitrogen, carbon-dioxide, etc.), they won't react. Even if you got the aminos like in the experiment, only 20 are used in life forms, so they would need to get isolated somehow from the others. And aminos alone aren't nearly enough to have a life form.

Re "However, there's many archaelogical finds that uphold the credability of the Gospel accounts" . Really? Please tell me about them. I've never heard of any.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: