Atheism vs. Theism

[Toki]

The flying spaghetti monster isn't logic. It is an insult. There are people who try to describe genuine experiences. Whether or not you believe them doesn't matter. Don't try to pass off something you know is false because we aren't trying to decieve you.

 

Don't think I don't know why you are here. You seem to think religious people are really unconverted athiests. I'm not trying to convert you, but you are trying to convert me as well as others to athiesm.

 

Can you actually convert someone to atheism? I thought it had to be a willful decision. And who are you to say Pastafarianism is any more ridiculous than a guy with beard who sits on top of cloud and spanks you whenever you do naughty things?

[FleshNBones]

Can you actually convert someone to atheism? I thought it had to be a willful decision. And who are you to say Pastafarianism is any more ridiculous than a guy with beard who sits on top of cloud and spanks you whenever you do naughty things?

I don't care if you believe in the tooth fairy. I am not trying to sway you away from that either.

 

For you information, judgment comes after death.

[FleshNBones]

oh and do you also believe that masturbation is an evil sin?

If masturbation is your one and only goal in life, then yank away.

There are people in this world who hold themselves to a higher standard.

[FleshNBones]

One more thing.

Conversion is voluntary.

Coercion, and brainwashing are involuntary.

[Vertex]

The flying spaghetti monster isn't logic. It is an insult. There are people who try to describe genuine experiences. Whether or not you believe them doesn't matter. Don't try to pass off something you know is false because we aren't trying to decieve you.

 

Don't think I don't know why you are here. You seem to think religious people are really unconverted athiests. I'm not trying to convert you, but you are trying to convert me as well as others to athiesm.

 

Absolutely not -- I could just as easily say my experience with the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real and no less "genuine" an experience. You may say "you know it's false," but then why not say that any other "God" follows the same suit? You are right though, it isn't logical. I wonder why the ancient Greeks used to have "experiences" with Zeus?

 

I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism. I am, again, asking if anyone understands science well and yet still chooses to believe in a God despite all the evidence against the case.

[627]

If masturbation is your one and only goal in life, then yank away.

There are people in this world who hold themselves to a higher standard.

no sex and no masturbation is simply aimless torture

higher standarts? by denying basic instincts

you could probably live with 3 meals a month, that does not make it a good idea

 

religion it's not voluntary when its dictated to you when you're a baby

and how many of you stuck to the belief they were raised with?

it's just a cycle repeating itself

I might be wrong with my atheism but at least I chose it

[FleshNBones]

I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism. I am, again, asking if anyone understands science well and yet still chooses to believe in a God despite all the evidence against the case.

I haven't seen evidence, but I have seen extreme cynicism.

 

Calling it silly is hardly a proof.

 

As far as science goes, I don't think anything other than evolution was put forward. It makes me wonder if the athiests know any of the other sciences. Personally, I always found nuclear type forces more interesting than dusting some old fossils.

[FleshNBones]

no sex and no masturbation is simply aimless torture

higher standarts? by denying basic instincts

you could probably live with 3 meals a month, that does not make it a good idea

With nothing to live for, you might as well yank away.

religion it's not voluntary when its dictated to you when you're a baby

and how many of you stuck to the belief they were raised with?

it's just a cycle repeating itself

I might be wrong with my atheism but at least I chose it

I hear the same thing about Democrats and Republicans. I have heard complaints that Democrats don't want Republicans raising their children to become Republicans themselves. But I never heard of a Democrat raising his kids to become Republicans.

 

Here is a ridiculous idea to go with your criticism. Teach your kids Christianity, require them to go to church, and have them pray every day so that they can grow up to become authentic athiests. With your logic, you can only become authentic anything through conversion.

[Toki]

I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism. I am, again, asking if anyone understands science well and yet still chooses to believe in a God despite all the evidence against the case.

 

I do. I don't believe in a Christian God, or a god of any religion in particular. It's so much bigger, and vast than I think anyone can comprehend; even Astronomers and Astrophysicists know that there is absolutely zero possibility for us to know what all the Universe has to hold.

 

I've given a thorough look at pretty much every religion, and honestly, Atheism is probably the closest to the mark in terms of accuracy. Because it cuts out the bull**** dogma that has penetrated virtually every facet of society. You have to do this, you have to do that, you don't have to do or believe in anything if you don't want to. Religion is comfort, whose to blame them in wanting some kind of solace from hardship and despair?

 

Likewise, just as Atheism has, it can show an ugly face. I think as long as there are questions, from both sides of the religious argument then everybody is going to be fine. Science is beautiful in that it can answer the "How" questions, Religion can be beautiful in that it answers the "Why" questions, unfortunately both sides too often step out of their own boundaries, and then they both hold each other in contempt. Who are Scientists to tell you "Why the Universe was formed?" or "Why is there life?" Just as Who are Priests to tell you "How was the Universe formed?" and "How is life possible?".

 

It works great, for me, anyways to keep both sides within their respective boundaries. And to deeply respect the work that has been done by both sides, Religion is Art, Science is Math and humanity would be in quite a sad state, although not necessarily any worse off than it already is, if one had to exist without the other.

 

My two cents anyways.

[Vertex]

I do. I don't believe in a Christian God, or a god of any religion in particular. It's so much bigger, and vast than I think anyone can comprehend; even Astronomers and Astrophysicists know that there is absolutely zero possibility for us to know what all the Universe has to hold.

 

I've given a thorough look at pretty much every religion, and honestly, Atheism is probably the closest to the mark in terms of accuracy. Because it cuts out the bull**** dogma that has penetrated virtually every facet of society. You have to do this, you have to do that, you don't have to do or believe in anything if you don't want to. Religion is comfort, whose to blame them in wanting some kind of solace from hardship and despair?

 

Likewise, just as Atheism has, it can show an ugly face. I think as long as there are questions, from both sides of the religious argument then everybody is going to be fine. Science is beautiful in that it can answer the "How" questions, Religion can be beautiful in that it answers the "Why" questions, unfortunately both sides too often step out of their own boundaries, and then they both hold each other in contempt. Who are Scientists to tell you "Why the Universe was formed?" or "Why is there life?" Just as Who are Priests to tell you "How was the Universe formed?" and "How is life possible?".

 

It works great, for me, anyways to keep both sides within their respective boundaries. And to deeply respect the work that has been done by both sides, Religion is Art, Science is Math and humanity would be in quite a sad state, although not necessarily any worse off than it already is, if one had to exist without the other.

 

My two cents anyways.

 

Thing is, from a scientific standpoint, asking "why are we here?" is a bit of a dead question. The universe existed for billions of years without us and got along just fine. The fact that certain processes kickstarted life and, over time, led to that life evolving into humans today doesn't mean there was some sort of reason or purpose behind it. We find solace and "meaning" in things because we've evolved with those faculties. Even patterns we notice is the result of how our brains have been equipped -- likewise with how it is built for things like language.

 

My point is that religion can indeed offer solace, but I can't see any argument in light of the evidence that would indicate it's anything more than a psychological appeasement function. It's like dropping an apple and then asking "What is the meaning of this apple dropping?" It dropped because you dropped it. There is no objective "meaning" behind it. It's just that science points to the notion that our existence -- our life here -- is that simple concept blown up into an extreme level of complexity through gradual changes over time.

 

That being said, I think all science can do is answer "how" and the "why" is irrelevant. Where do you see a God fitting into the whole picture?

[quankanne]

you really feel the "why" is irrelevant? After all you've gone through to point out the beauty of science answering questions? This kinda blows my mind, V ~ I guess I always thought someone questing for knowledge would want to know more, including "why" ...

 

however, based on earlier conversation about man being a scientific machine (retrieved from a very foggy brain right now), I suppose I get how one would want to just leave it at that. Though i honestly believe that at some point man suddenly becomes aware of his existence in life and questions his purpose, and asks "why am i here," and goes on that quest to give meaning to his life that he can accept.

 

but that's just me ... who needs to go back and read everything I've missed on this thread once we get paper to bed tomorrow!

[Toki]

Thing is, from a scientific standpoint, asking "why are we here?" is a bit of a dead question. The universe existed for billions of years without us and got along just fine. The fact that certain processes kickstarted life and, over time, led to that life evolving into humans today doesn't mean there was some sort of reason or purpose behind it. We find solace and "meaning" in things because we've evolved with those faculties. Even patterns we notice is the result of how our brains have been equipped -- likewise with how it is built for things like language.

 

My point is that religion can indeed offer solace, but I can't see any argument in light of the evidence that would indicate it's anything more than a psychological appeasement function. It's like dropping an apple and then asking "What is the meaning of this apple dropping?" It dropped because you dropped it. There is no objective "meaning" behind it. It's just that science points to the notion that our existence -- our life here -- is that simple concept blown up into an extreme level of complexity through gradual changes over time.

 

That being said, I think all science can do is answer "how" and the "why" is irrelevant. Where do you see a God fitting into the whole picture?

 

Yes, from a Scientific view point you're exactly spot on. And if I were to respond with a scientific answer, they wouldn't disagree. Just as if I were to respond with a Religious answer it would come from an emotional, and therefore prone to misinterpretation, part of the brain. I don't consider the big religious questions such as "why are we here" any more dead, than the Laws of Physics, which from time to time seemingly contradicts itself, until it's further explored and the scientist says "ah, we made a mistake here."

 

Logic isn't bulletproof, and I mean that in the most sincere of ways . It could be very much an emotional receptor looking to make meaning out of things, that may not have meaning at all. If I saw an apple dropping I would say "ah, an apple dropped... well, that's gravity... as Sir Isaac Newton would say....blah, blah, blah..." People love a good story, most are either about love and tragedy, which not ironically is reflected in nearly every religious book in the world, but at the end of the day, they're just stories. Possibly with a inkling of truth behind them. As a Human Being, we haven't changed much in the last thirty odd thousand years of our existence, we've certainly gotten better at making tools, as well as making sense out of things that previously did not make sense at all, but we still think the same as we always have. Objectively, and subjectively. Objectively, we have nothing to argue about. Subjectively, the possibilities are as endless as the imagination is willing to go, and being a right brain dominant person, this is where I often turn to after the nuts and bolts have been thoroughly checked and put into place.

 

Despite believing in the possibility of a god, I reject every religious article in existence. They're as concrete in evidence as my own imagination, and ultimately unfulfilled self aggrandizing prophecies. I leave the possibility of a god to it's own devices, and better myself in the meantime, and perhaps the sole reason why I won't abandon the notion entirely, is science is as boring without a god, as religion is as blind without science. I like my god, as real or as fake as he is.

[Vertex]

you really feel the "why" is irrelevant? After all you've gone through to point out the beauty of science answering questions? This kinda blows my mind, V ~ I guess I always thought someone questing for knowledge would want to know more, including "why" ...

 

however, based on earlier conversation about man being a scientific machine (retrieved from a very foggy brain right now), I suppose I get how one would want to just leave it at that. Though i honestly believe that at some point man suddenly becomes aware of his existence in life and questions his purpose, and asks "why am i here," and goes on that quest to give meaning to his life that he can accept.

 

but that's just me ... who needs to go back and read everything I've missed on this thread once we get paper to bed tomorrow!

 

Of course I find science beautiful -- as a human. It doesn't mean it has any objective MEANING. "Meaning" is merely a human construct open to interpretation -- the "why" is not important in the quest for truth with respect to how we came about. All science does is answer the "how." We can certainly ask "why" to appease our quest for "meaning," but it's important to keep in mind that meaning is merely what we define. Again, what is the meaning behind the action of me dropping an apple? What about the meaning behind how many times I blink in a day? We'd say these things obviously have no meaning -- they're simply actions and events. But what about the "meaning" of a friendship? Of life? Once we get into more abstract concepts, we realize that we are merely moving from the obviously irrelevant to the psychologically satisfying. And none of it has anything to do with scientific truth. That is what I mean when I say "the why doesn't matter" with respect to truth.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Vertex

[NoIDidn't]

Apparently atheists have their own bibles too. They must, they keep referencing this Flying Spaghetti Monster that some author came up with in a book. And they've even got their own saviors - Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

 

Its really hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who starts it off insulting you. First, you aren't intelligent enough to even have the conversation, yet, they keep asking you questions they don't think you can comprehend....

 

Second, they discount all of your reasons "why" because they feel that everything can be answered by science.

 

I am with johan, still waiting for an original thought from the atheists. Say something that wasn't covered in these books. When was the moment you decided to be an atheist?

 

The more I read from atheists, I am becoming convinced that they are likely disaffected theists - mostly Catholic.

[Vertex]

Yes, from a Scientific view point you're exactly spot on. And if I were to respond with a scientific answer, they wouldn't disagree. Just as if I were to respond with a Religious answer it would come from an emotional, and therefore prone to misinterpretation, part of the brain. I don't consider the big religious questions such as "why are we here" any more dead, than the Laws of Physics, which from time to time seemingly contradicts itself, until it's further explored and the scientist says "ah, we made a mistake here."

 

Logic isn't bulletproof, and I mean that in the most sincere of ways . It could be very much an emotional receptor looking to make meaning out of things, that may not have meaning at all. If I saw an apple dropping I would say "ah, an apple dropped... well, that's gravity... as Sir Isaac Newton would say....blah, blah, blah..." People love a good story, most are either about love and tragedy, which not ironically is reflected in nearly every religious book in the world, but at the end of the day, they're just stories. Possibly with a inkling of truth behind them. As a Human Being, we haven't changed much in the last thirty odd thousand years of our existence, we've certainly gotten better at making tools, as well as making sense out of things that previously did not make sense at all, but we still think the same as we always have. Objectively, and subjectively. Objectively, we have nothing to argue about. Subjectively, the possibilities are as endless as the imagination is willing to go, and being a right brain dominant person, this is where I often turn to after the nuts and bolts have been thoroughly checked and put into place.

 

Despite believing in the possibility of a god, I reject every religious article in existence. They're as concrete in evidence as my own imagination, and ultimately unfulfilled self aggrandizing prophecies. I leave the possibility of a god to it's own devices, and better myself in the meantime, and perhaps the sole reason why I won't abandon the notion entirely, is science is as boring without a god, as religion is as blind without science. I like my god, as real or as fake as he is.

 

Very insightful post -- thanks for your thoughts This is precisely the type of answer I was asking about in my OP. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

[Vertex]

Apparently atheists have their own bibles too. They must, they keep referencing this Flying Spaghetti Monster that some author came up with in a book. And they've even got their own saviors - Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

 

Its really hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who starts it off insulting you. First, you aren't intelligent enough to even have the conversation, yet, they keep asking you questions they don't think you can comprehend....

 

Second, they discount all of your reasons "why" because they feel that everything can be answered by science.

 

I am with johan, still waiting for an original thought from the atheists. Say something that wasn't covered in these books. When was the moment you decided to be an atheist?

 

The more I read from atheists, I am becoming convinced that they are likely disaffected theists - mostly Catholic.

 

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is just a well-known example of a logical construct. It's no more imaginary or real than any other God you may believe in. It just happens to be made into a rather humorous construct in order to illustrate a logical point: Why might you instantly denounce the FSM as a God, and if so, what might this logically say about whatever God you believe in?

 

As Dawkins says, we're all atheist with respect to the Gods you don't believe in. I'm sure you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor... "some of us just take it one God further."

 

By the way, the only insults that have been thrown around in this thread did not come from any atheist, but rather TheLoneSock, who is a believer in God. Nobody is arguing that anyone is too "unintelligent" to have such a debate, although I should have probably reworded my original post. By "not understanding" I really meant "ignorant of." There's a lot of scientific knowledge accumulated so far, and not everyone really knows what's been discovered, especially concerning quantum mechanics, which does provide a lot of insight into events such as the Big Bang. It's easy, for instance, to believe the Earth is flat unless you're told/proven otherwise.

 

As for the "why," I do not feel this is debatable on any logical or objective level. Anything we attach a "why" to IS purely a human construct. If it weren't, there would be objective meaning, which I think we can agree is a somewhat silly definition. Meaning is a personally-defined thing, and that is not what science aims to uncover on a fundamental level.

 

I decided to be an atheist when I was in 12th grade, when my father had died (I was Christian up until middle school, and then apathetic afterward). It made me really think about the notion of truth in absence of emotional interference. Just because something gives us comfort, even in times of intense emotional impact, does not make it true. Understanding the intricacies and elegance of evolution (along with the countless examples of proof) also made it obvious to me that we were not created at all.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Vertex

[NoIDidn't]

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is just a well-known example of a logical construct. It's no more imaginary or real than any other God you may believe in. It just happens to be made into a rather humorous construct in order to illustrate a logical point: Why might you instantly denounce the FSM as a God, and if so, what might this logically say about whatever God you believe in?

 

Its insulting, far from logical. To equate one's belief in god to some made up fictional thing is insulting and does not foster intelligent debate.

 

As Dawkins says, we're all atheist with respect to the Gods you don't believe in. I'm sure you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor... "some of us just take it one God further."

 

Not choosing to worship another "god" doesn't make one atheistic towards them. I totally understand your bringing up these "gods", though. It goes right along with the fact that you feel that my belief is based on a "myth" as well.

 

By "not understanding" I really meant "ignorant of."

Then by definition you are just as ignorant of why others have chosen to believe in a god.

 

As for the "why," I do not feel this is debatable on any logical or objective level. Anything we attach a "why" to IS purely a human construct. If it weren't, there would be objective meaning, which I think we can agree is a somewhat silly definition. Meaning is a personally-defined thing, and that is not what science aims to uncover on a fundamental level.

 

Then why do you ask people to debate their personally-defined belief in a god? Even god is a human construct. We that believe, believe him/her/it to be similar to us - just more powerful.

 

I decided to be an atheist when I was in 12th grade, when my father had died (I was Christian up until middle school, and then apathetic afterward). It made me really think about the notion of truth in absence of emotional interference. Just because something gives us comfort, even in times of intense emotional impact, does not make it true. Understanding the intricacies and elegance of evolution (along with the countless examples of proof) also made it obvious to me that we were not created at all.

 

 

I'm sorry for the loss of your father. It sounds like it was a very emotional time for you and the final straw in your disbelief. It adds to my belief of how the most vocal atheists got to be that way.

 

This will sound insensitive and I don't mean it to sound that way given what you have shared. It seems to me like the atheist side wants to say that their experience is more real than the theist side. But both are based on emotional (maybe even traumatic) experiences. It just doesn't seem fair or logical to say that one is more valid than another.

[Vertex]

Its insulting' date=' far from logical. To equate one's belief in god to some made up fictional thing is insulting and does not foster intelligent debate.[/quote']

 

It's no logically different. If you believe in a God, this is no functionally different from believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't disprove the FSM, much like you can't disprove any other God. This is the entire point behind the FSM's construct. It isn't meant to be insulting, but rather an extreme example to reveal some commonplace errors in logic because so many people are quick to shoot it down without realizing what they're actually doing.

 

Not choosing to worship another "god" doesn't make one atheistic towards them. I totally understand your bringing up these "gods"' date=' though. It goes right along with the fact that you feel that my belief is based on a "myth" as well.[/quote']

 

Sure it does -- you are, by definition, atheist towards Gods you don't believe in. If faith is enough to declare that one incorporeal being is real, then it must be enough for them all, no? If you had grown up in a different country or time period, you'd be believing in a much different God.

 

Then by definition you are just as ignorant of why others have chosen to believe in a god.

 

I'm not ignorant of their reasons, I just think that they're incorrect/misinformed/taught from an early age that there is a God/whatever the reason may be. People make the mistake that somehow emotion or morality has a place in universal truth when these things are purely human constructs.

 

Then why do you ask people to debate their personally-defined belief in a god? Even god is a human construct. We that believe' date=' believe him/her/it to be similar to us - just more powerful.[/quote']

 

I can still ask questions as a human wanting to know the "why" behind another human's reasoning. This is still perfectly valid. I am just saying that asking "why" to questions that don't pertain to human matters is ultimately useless and will never result in ANY concrete answer because it isn't possible to do so. I agree that God is a human construct, as is belief -- I am just saying that there's no reason to believe in a "more powerful being" when evidence suggests otherwise. I apologize if this explanation doesn't make sense. Asking "why" is a human appeasement -- it is not a pathway to truth.

 

I'm sorry for the loss of your father. It sounds like it was a very emotional time for you and the final straw in your disbelief. It adds to my belief of how the most vocal atheists got to be that way.

 

I don't deny that emotion has a great influence over transitions we go through in life. What matters is how we react to those situations.

 

This will sound insensitive and I don't mean it to sound that way given what you have shared. It seems to me like the atheist side wants to say that their experience is more real than the theist side. But both are based on emotional (maybe even traumatic) experiences. It just doesn't seem fair or logical to say that one is more valid than another.

 

The difference is that I *removed* emotion from the equation, which IS the logical thing to do regarding truth and science. It's not like I had a traumatic experience and suddenly saw God or had a "connection." It all started with the question "Whatever my father is -- whatever makes up his being -- where is he right now?" It's always comforting to think that they're in an afterlife somewhere, but there's no reason to believe in that.

 

Let me ask you: If I break my computer, does it go to computer heaven?

Edited November 3, 2009 by Vertex

[NoIDidn't]

It's no logically different. If you believe in a God, this is no functionally different from believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't disprove the FSM, much like you can't disprove any other God. This is the entire point behind the FSM's construct. It isn't meant to be insulting, but rather an extreme example to reveal some commonplace errors in logic because so many people are quick to shoot it down without realizing what they're actually doing.

 

I am telling you that it is insulting. At this point you need to recognize that using it is insulting. There is nothing logical to continuing to use the insult as an explanation. This is a major part of the disconnect that I find with atheists. This is like trying to understand homosexuals while calling them all faggots (sorry mods).

 

 

Sure it does -- you are, by definition, atheist towards Gods you don't believe in. If faith is enough to declare that one incorporeal being is real, then it must be enough for them all, no? If you had grown up in a different country or time period, you'd be believing in a much different God.

 

You aren't making any sense. Atheism does not believe that god exists. You can't say that I am atheist towards other gods just because I don't believe in them. I simply don't believe in them, whether they exist or not is not my concern.

 

 

 

I'm not ignorant of their reasons, I just think that they're incorrect/misinformed/taught from an early age that there is a God/whatever the reason may be. People make the mistake that somehow emotion or morality has a place in universal truth when these things are purely human constructs.

 

The above is proof of your ignorance of their reasons. You make the mistake of thinking that everyone thinks like you and when they don't you tell them that they are misinformed. Did it ever occur to you that this is a major turn off in conversation?

 

 

 

I can still ask questions as a human wanting to know the "why" behind another human's reasoning. This is still perfectly valid. I am just saying that asking "why" to questions that don't pertain to human matters is ultimately useless and will never result in ANY concrete answer because it isn't possible to do so. I agree that God is a human construct, as is belief -- I am just saying that there's no reason to believe in a "more powerful being" when evidence suggests otherwise. I apologize if this explanation doesn't make sense. Asking "why" is a human appeasement -- it is not a pathway to truth.

 

LOL. Yeah, you lost me on this one. Can you try it again?

 

The difference is that I *removed* emotion from the equation, which IS the logical thing to do regarding truth and science. It's not like I had a traumatic experience and suddenly saw God or had a "connection." It all started with the question "Whatever my father is -- whatever makes up his being -- where is he right now?" It's always comforting to think that they're in an afterlife somewhere, but there's no reason to believe in that.

 

Let me ask you: If I break my computer, does it go to computer heaven?

 

So, you feel that removing emotion from the equation makes your experience more valid than one that allows a place for the emotion?

 

From where I sit, you are only saying that you don't believe and therefore anyone that does is misinformed simply because they do believe. That a choice you made while still a child is more valid than the choice I made while still a child. I don't believe that you are misinformed for not believing. It is a choice. Just as I have the free will to believe, you have the free will to not believe.

 

I will admit that there are some that believe because they were told to, and they think nothing beyond that. But to treat all believers in that way is a grave mistake on your part. Belief in God for me is deeply personal. I came to my conclusions by living and having many different experiences and attaching meanings to those experiences. A spiritual experience need not be emotional and vice versa.

 

I'll answer your question with a question: is the computer alive to you, or are you only asking the question from the position that it was created?

 

Everything created is not alive. I believe that God created the Universe, but asteroids are not alive. Rocks are not alive. Do rocks die if they are destroyed? What happens to a rock once it is destroyed?

 

Believe it or not, I believe that atheists ask very good and thought provoking questions of believers. That we don't agree on the answers, though, shouldn't be an occasion to tell the other side that they aren't logical. Belief isn't meant to be logical. Its a do it or don't do it proposition from its outset.

[Vertex]

I am telling you that it is insulting. At this point you need to recognize that using it is insulting. There is nothing logical to continuing to use the insult as an explanation. This is a major part of the disconnect that I find with atheists. This is like trying to understand homosexuals while calling them all faggots (sorry mods).

 

Then all I can say is that you are misunderstanding the point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- I could just as easily believe in a teapot with wings, or a god named Rama who governs the cosmos, or a magical chimera, or a large spherical orb, etc. The point is that you can insert ANYTHING in for what a "God" is and be unable to disprove/prove it any more rigorously than any other God. The FSM might be interpreted as insulting because it makes light of a God that many take seriously, sure. However, I ask you then -- why do you take "God" seriously? You can't disprove the FSM. If you're choosing to believe something purely because it isn't "silly," you're imposing a human construct in place of truth. Religious faith doesn't require logic, so this makes sense that this would be this way.

 

 

 

 

You aren't making any sense. Atheism does not believe that god exists. You can't say that I am atheist towards other gods just because I don't believe in them. I simply don't believe in them' date=' whether they exist or not is not my concern.[/quote']

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

If you do not believe in a given God, you do not believe they exist, and are therefore atheist towards that God.

 

The above is proof of your ignorance of their reasons. You make the mistake of thinking that everyone thinks like you and when they don't you tell them that they are misinformed. Did it ever occur to you that this is a major turn off in conversation?

 

Sure, but it's just as much a turn-off to bring up perfectly legitimate scientific evidence/reasoning only to have it ignored or misconstrued. When I say "many people are uninformed," this isn't to imply they are stupid, but simply uninformed. It isn't so much that "people don't think like me" but rather "people aren't taking the evidence into account." If you can honestly say you understand all the evidence and still believe in God, that's one thing. But it's another thing to simply disregard evidence as presented and ignore any argument that may directly clash with a preconceived notion or belief.

 

 

LOL. Yeah' date=' you lost me on this one. Can you try it again?[/quote']

 

What I mean is that, for instance, gravity is gravity regardless of what we think, feel, or do. If our planet were wiped out tomorrow, everything else in the universe would still carry on the same way. If I ask "why" something falls, I can explain it with gravity, but this "why" has different implications depending on what you're asking. I can ask "why" something happens the way it does and explain the answer in terms of a "how things work" sense, but asking "why are we here/what is the purpose of our existence?" is asking things that imply "meaning" or some sort of significance that transcends the physical. Any sort of "meaning" we come up with is purely human-derived. If everything is governed by physics/etc, then there is no "why" or "meaning." Things simply work the way they do because that's how they work. Again, if I drop an apple, asking what the "meaning" is is useless -- it dropped because it was dropped. There isn't anything special about it. Likewise, as physical creatures, there is nothing special about humans in an objective sense. Subjectively, humans are very meaningful to us. We form relationships with them, communicate, interact, think about them, etc -- but all of these constructs of meaning are simply human constructs (and are, consequently, derived from how we've evolved).

 

So' date=' you feel that removing emotion from the equation makes your experience more valid than one that allows a place for the emotion? [/quote']

 

If the quest is truth, then absolutely. Emotion is a personal thing, and what's personal for me doesn't make it true for everyone. Science is true for everyone, and science does not change because of our emotions. The afterlife isn't going to exist just because we want it to. It may be depressing to think of dying and just not existing anymore, but again, the emotion doesn't make it true.

 

From where I sit' date=' you are only saying that you don't believe and therefore anyone that does is misinformed simply because they do believe. That a choice you made while still a child is more valid than the choice I made while still a child. I don't believe that you are misinformed for not believing. It is a choice. Just as I have the free will to believe, you have the free will to not believe. [/quote']

 

Sure, we have the right to believe whatever we want. When I say someone is "misinformed," I mainly refer to scientific knowledge. It would be like if you said "Lightning strikes because God is angry" -- I would say you are misinformed because you are unaware of how lightning actually works in the scientific sense. It's just that nowadays, the concepts are a bit harder to grasp that lightning because of how fast we're accumulating new knowledge.

 

I will admit that there are some that believe because they were told to' date=' and they think nothing beyond that. But to treat all believers in that way is a grave mistake on your part. Belief in God for me is deeply personal. I came to my conclusions by living and having many different experiences and attaching meanings to those experiences. A spiritual experience need not be emotional and vice versa.[/quote']

 

Again, meaning is not a construct of truth.

 

I'll answer your question with a question: is the computer alive to you, or are you only asking the question from the position that it was created?

 

Everything created is not alive. I believe that God created the Universe, but asteroids are not alive. Rocks are not alive. Do rocks die if they are destroyed? What happens to a rock once it is destroyed?

 

Alright, so what defines whether or not something is alive in the first place? On a biological level, we can explain this perfectly. However, you'll notice those explanations are all entirely physical in nature. A rock isn't alive simply because it lacks the physical components necessary for it to BE alive. A dead human is no different -- if we burn it, it's ash. All physical. So, given that we're all physical, why make an assumption that destroying something (which is really just rearranging its physical matter) suddenly means there's an internal "essence" of that matter that goes to some kind of heaven? What about bugs? Bacteria? Are there heavens for those live entities? We may feel that, as humans, there is a heaven, but I would say there's a HEAVY bias as a result of our ability to attach meaning to things. Again, as I mentioned earlier, an afterlife is satisfying to humans, but it doesn't make ANY of it true. The entire structure underlying God/the afterlife/etc is a huge series of assumptions without any proof whatsoever, but lots of proof against it. It confuses me that anyone with an actual understanding of the science/physics behind it all would put their faith in such a low-probability event that looks more and more bleak as time goes on.

 

 

Believe it or not' date=' I believe that atheists ask very good and thought provoking questions of believers. That we don't agree on the answers, though, shouldn't be an occasion to tell the other side that they aren't logical. Belief isn't meant to be logical. Its a do it or don't do it proposition from its outset.[/quote']

 

I think this is the fundamental difference. An atheist requires logic/proof/evidence for truth, but a theist is satisfied with personal truth in absence of proof. Either way, though, there is no denying science.

[627]

Apparently atheists have their own bibles too. They must, they keep referencing this Flying Spaghetti Monster that some author came up with in a book. And they've even got their own saviors - Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

not really

I do not mention the flying spaghetti monster, I understand it is an insult to compare a dumb ...whatever it is supposed to be to a concept that people worship and take seriously

and I don't think disrespecting people's beliefes aid in getting my point through

of course some others view it differently

 

and dawkins really does not teach us something we don't already know, I was an atheist before I knew who dawkins was, I still have not read anything from him, but what is he going to say? probably the same things we are currently saying

 

plus the whole idea of atheism is not putting our faith in some book or teaching or person, being an atheist and following dawkins(if he has teachings) would be like contradicting ourselves

 

With nothing to live for, you might as well yank away.

and right, you are living for something far far superior

being a slave to a master that does not consider you worthy of seing him or any direct link to him

to be a sheep in the herd?

yeah I'd rather yank away all my life

I was hoping you'd actualy give me an intelligent answer though, rather than to degrade the debate to such terms and ideas

[NoIDidn't]

I wish you peace on whatever journey you are on. You haven't made much sense to me, but I imagine I don't make much sense to you either.

 

Its always interesting to speak with atheists.

 

I have to wonder why atheists spend so much time trying to debate about something they don't believe in.

 

Science is a tool. Religion is a tool. They can and should exist peacefully together.

 

Enjoy your day, Vertex, I'll be back to this thread later.

[Vertex]

I wish you peace on whatever journey you are on. You haven't made much sense to me, but I imagine I don't make much sense to you either.

 

Its always interesting to speak with atheists.

 

I have to wonder why atheists spend so much time trying to debate about something they don't believe in.

 

Science is a tool. Religion is a tool. They can and should exist peacefully together.

 

Enjoy your day, Vertex, I'll be back to this thread later.

 

I understand what you're saying -- but what didn't you understand about what I said? I'll try to clarify. What doesn't make sense?

[627]

personnaly what I am trying to debate is that, you shouldn't sacrifice the only life you have, depriving yourself of joys and missing out on things believing in heaven, because it is very highly unlikely

 

that's all

[NoIDidn't]

not really

I do not mention the flying spaghetti monster, I understand it is an insult to compare a dumb ...whatever it is supposed to be to a concept that people worship and take seriously

and I don't think disrespecting people's beliefes aid in getting my point through

of course some others view it differently

 

and dawkins really does not teach us something we don't already know, I was an atheist before I knew who dawkins was, I still have not read anything from him, but what is he going to say? probably the same things we are currently saying

 

plus the whole idea of atheism is not putting our faith in some book or teaching or person, being an atheist and following dawkins(if he has teachings) would be like contradicting ourselves

 

 

and right, you are living for something far far superior

being a slave to a master that does not consider you worthy of seing him or any direct link to him

to be a sheep in the herd?

yeah I'd rather yank away all my life

I was hoping you'd actualy give me an intelligent answer though, rather than to degrade the debate to such terms and ideas

 

Hey, not including whoever said that "yank away" statement makes it look like I said it and I did not.

 

Other than that, I have no issues with what you posted to what I actually did say. And I found your answers refreshing instead of the usual "well, I only say it because its true/valid/blah blah blah" that is usually given as an answer.

 

I agree, it seems a huge contradiction to basically parrot what well-known atheist authors publish but berate believers for doing the same with their holy books. Atheism doesn't need a book IMO. It shouldn't need validation - either you believe or you don't.