An experiment in Atheism

[SnakeLord]

As opposed to using human judgement as a guide to life?

If you're proposing that 'human judgement' is somehow worse than an ancient manuscript that you yourself stated was 'written for a specific time and people' when it comes to how to live life, then I'd have to strongly disagree, and so would you given your earlier statements. If everyone decided to use those texts as a guide to life then there'd be a lot more dead folk than there currently are - most killed by stones.

Could you please tell me the verse in Deuteronomy where that occurs?

21:18

The woman is most likely crazy. If there is evidence to suggest interference by God, then a second look should be taken at the issue. But if there is no evidence, you can do nothing but assume she is insane.

So you are hereby telling me that any person claiming to have been spoken to by a god that happens to have no evidence for the claim is insane? Noted.

Just because a person claims God talked to them is no reason for a theist to accept that claim.

Weird that. So many god claims and the theist can't understand why the atheist doesn't just 'buy it'. When it comes to the crunch of the matter though even the theist is an unbeliever.

Wouldn't you? If God, the Almighty perveyor of the universe, told someone to do this, no one in their right mind would disobey him.

No, I wouldn't. What if I had just gone "insane"? What if this god wasn't the god I thought it was but was in fact some evil twisted tyrant trying to get me to do his evil? What if this god was testing me to see whether I would commit heinous acts or whether I had the ability to think for myself? What if it was actually an alien force trying to get me kill off the only thing that could prevent them from taking over the world? There's the problem. You'd go out there with your bazooka never considering the other possibilities.

I would certainly do whatever God told me to. Of course all this goes against His teachings, so I can't imagine that He would.

1) A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them

2) anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

3) If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

I could continue, but hopefully the point was made. You simply cannot sit there and tell me that god never taught people to do such things - damn, he commanded it. He made clear how he detested things like homosexuality, women wearing mens clothing, etc etc etc and.. it is also biblically true that 'god never changes his mind'. If he found it detestable then and ordered commands for people to be killed, it stands to reason that he still would.

You cannot lump all Gods or religions into one category because of their very distinct differences.

You're missing the point. Be it zeus, apollo, abellio, tiamat, marduk etc etc it is completely inconsequential. I lack a belief in any of them and therefore according to you have no 'backing to be moral'. You are wrong absolutely regardless to which god it is you happen to believe in.

You laugh at the possibility of change in worldview?

No. If anything I was laughing [?] at the statement that you were an atheist when it seems more apparent to state given your statements that you were simply going through a rebellious phase as most 12 year olds do.

So, as an atheist with that viewpoint, you are not commiting a moral act by saving her, but a selfish one.

Both.

Curious: Why have people like this survived the process of evolution?

Those that jump off the cliff and end up as a big splat on the ground do not generally get time after to reproduce. Those that land on both feet generally do.

The person, the atheist, who lacks a belief in an entity who knows their actions and wants them to obey His commandments, will be more likely to commit crimes they could get away with.

What is of course quite well evidenced however is that the theist will commit as many crimes as the atheist but will justify his actions either way. gods stop nothing at the end of the day. Maybe for the average theist, but then the law works for the average atheist just as well. The outcome of an action doesn't have to be eternal for it to not be a good thing to do.

But you cannot hide from the face of eternity. This is what religious people believe. They have an extra check on their natural inclinations.

With all due respect, but you can get forgiveness for your 'sins' on your deathbed after having been a paedophile all your life. An atheist however that commits a serious crime will spend his one and only life stuck behind bars with no sex, (well..), beer, beaches, holidays, kids, etc etc.

When it comes to "life part I", (this life), this is all the atheist has. He can choose to be bad - but it will most likely ruin that one life.

Christians I've known in my own life - not the ones that just claim to be Christian, but follow Christ's teachings, what is described in the Bible(as "actions speak louder than words," you know - because there ARE people who claim to be Christians that don't ACT Christian) are the kindest and most open people that I've ever met.

I remember reading an article about the tsunami and a bunch of christian missionaries that refused to give aid unless the survivers converted. I think about all those abortion clinics, all those serial killers, (they themselves might not have been overtly religious but you'll find that their parents were devout christians and were a massive factor in their childs future.. 'job'), etc etc etc.

Of course we could point out both sides. You'll find bad people and good people of both the theist and atheist variety. The issue is that when you find a bad theist you say "well he wasn't a christian because he didn't act christian" and thus try and remove any connection between yourselves. That's why I took the whole "you weren't an atheist" stand, and you seem to have issue with it. Perhaps now you see the inherent problem with "he wasn't a real (tm) christian"?

The thing I observe is that christians look upon themselves as morally superior. Why, your post absolutely stinks of it and yet it is complete nonsense.

Atheism = Lack of belief in God(and therefore purpose for existence). Purpose = reason(for living), some destination to work towards. The destination of existence in the atheist worldview is death, nothing more. All the pain, suffering, beauty, and love percieved were just illusions, lacking any purpose in the end. We're a flicker in the darkness, just the universe batting it's eye.

Theists tend to think this, but they're wrong. Ultimately yes, we die and rot - but that doesn't negate purpose. Purpose doesn't only exist if you're going to meander on for eternity.

People that believe their lives or actions have no ultimate purpose place less value on their own lives than people who do, and therefore place less value on the lives of others. It's logical to look at life in this way when you are an atheist. These are the facts of a worldview that believes the only reason we're here is to fulfill a few very mechanical desires and then snuff it.

Everyone has purpose in their life. You're trying to downplay it because their purpose doesn't tie in with yours. That's rude. What I find is that those who believe they're going to a life part II where their sole purpose is to obey and serve a god, and spend life part I also under the belief that their sole purpose is to obey and serve this same god place little value on the lives of others. I can provide an example too..

I love my children more than anyone or anything in the universe. No ifs, no buts.

Do you love your children more than god? Equal to god? Less than god?

(Most theists here would espouse the latter). Who places less value on the lives of others?

To the theist, not one human can compare to the love of an invisible guy in the sky. To me, an atheist, no invisible guy in the sky can ever compare to my love for another human.

See, the atheist cares about others, the theist cares about god - and when he's helping humans it's so he can look good in front of that god and to show that god that he loves him. It's not about the person, it's about the god. With atheists there is no god.

I'm not saying all atheists are like this, but when an atheist person truly delves into what their worldview really means, this is the result. Non-purpose. Non-value. Pretty depressing stuff

1) We die and rot, sure. That doesn't negate purpose.

2) It might be 'depressing', but that doesn't mean one should make-believe an alternative.

I would again request that you would give me the verse in which this happens

Gen 38

I honestly can't stand that 'do as I say, not as I do' crap. This being espouses things as 'sins', as wrong and yet is a billion times more guilty of committing those sins than any human in the history of the cosmos. The best a theist can muster is to say that "god made us, owns us and can therefore do as he pleases", but don't seem to realise that this is not an argument to those actions being right. Before you come along and then say; "well, that's the OT god, jesus isn't like that", let me say that according to christians they still are the one and same being and that jesus through all that apparent love, was the one who introduced eternal writhing and gnashing of teeth in a pit of fire.

It's worthless me telling the wife how much I love her while then ultimately saying I'll set her on fire if she doesn't kiss my nuts.

which worldview would lead the man to sparing his co-worker's life: the one in which he believes that humanity is not ultimately valuable and that there is no God who cares about his behavior, or the one in which he does believe that humans are ultimately valuable and that God is actively invested in his behavior? The latter would seem to be the more logically conclusion.

Well, first we need to actually come to an agreement concerning worldviews, because "humanity is not ultimately valuable" isn't your typically atheist worldview. They all die, yes.. That doesn't mean they're not valuable. On the reverse of that you say with regards to theists "humanity is ultimately valuable" which surely isn't true. The only thing that is ultimately valuable is god. If you don't kill him it's because you don't want to burn, if you do kill him you'll find a way to get forgiveness sometime later. And it's not even a hassle for the guy they killed, he'll come back to life on a cloud with a free harp.

So before we reach conclusions, logical or otherwise, let's reach agreement on a valid worldview.

Would you consider the woman immoral if she killed the pedophile a decade later, after the person had completely changed his ways and became a good person who contributed to his society?

No.

What reason would that pedophile have to change his sexual fetishes if it were not for religion?

You'll find that the snip works better than god. (Out of interest, nowhere in the bible does god ever say it is wrong to sleep with children. He says it's wrong to sleep with people of the same sex, your parents and animals, but not one word about sleeping with children). As it's not in the bible and that is the theists 'guide to life' I'm sure they'll find their actions justified, (one only needs to look at many priests to show that point).

God, however, loves this man. He hates his actions, but loves the man. He shows him forgiveness and acceptance if he would accept and follow the ways of Christ.

Great, that makes it all better for the victim and their family.

Being "moral" is not "doing what is most advantageous for yourself." Morality is an exercise in clarifying the distinctions between right and wrong. When you're making decisions based on your subjective views of what is most advantageous for you, this can hardly be construed as moral.

I don't see how you can argue it. As you have pointed out, a theist is moral because he knows a god is watching. Therefore when he refrains from doing wrong it is in his best interest, (saves him burning). You listen to your god because it is most advantageous for you. You don't listen to god because it's going to help someone else, but that it offers you a place in heaven.

Following the teachings of God is not like following a recipe, there is gray area in the guidelines for the behavior of man.

Of course. It's that area that causes so many problems in the world.

A person who emphatically loves other people would not intentionally cause other people suffering

In the earlier example of the guy with the cocaine addiction your actions did intentionally cause suffering because of that love - (although we would state it was ultimately for the best).

Here's the thing as explained earlier though. These people come lower on the list than they do with atheists. With an atheist there is just people. With a theist there is a god that always ranks above every single human in existence, including ones own children - and from what I have seen, at the end of the day the theist wont care less about these people:

How many campaigns or protests do you think god will get from heavens inhabitants that eternal burning is unjust and unfair? When you're sitting in heaven with your diet pepsi will you be in turmoil because half your family are in hell or will you be happy? If it's the former then heaven itself can't be all that good because to me it would still be torture, (knowing people I love are burning). If it's the latter, my point. How many protests are there now? How many church gatherings, or people praying at home actually ask this god to remove hell? How many theists in the history of mankind have actually stood up and asked god not to burn people but to find a less painful method of punishment? Your god has decided to eternally burn people that do not conform to his will. I see very few theists that actually have a problem with that.

If I believed in this deity it would be the first thing on my agenda:

"Look god, James R [eg] isn't a bad guy at all. He's been nice his whole life, helps the poor etc and yet you're going to burn him forever and ever because what.. he lacked a belief in you? No offence god, but that's some immoral sick shit right there. I would at least advise adopting a human method. You see god, a mass murderer gets the electric chair, but we can't do the same to someone that didn't pay his TV license. You have no such method.. they've done wrong, they burn forever, regardless to the crime. Fix it."

We actually have no idea what that statement means. To assume we know that he "does not change" would mean we presume to understand something of his eternal nature, which is impossible.

1) God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind (Num 23)

2) He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (Sam 15)

etc.

The Bible actually shows many, many instances where God "changes," - his mind, his tone, whatever.

You would perhaps argue that god is omniscient? In saying, he can't ever change because he already knows what he is going to do. That's the problem with omniscience. However, I wasn't talking about god changing his tone or his socks or whatever, but that his laws would not change - and jesus did indeed say all the laws were to be followed. (not one dot, not one stroke).

that a person who believes that the only reason humanity exists is to proliferate the species and do whatever is most advantageous for the themselves has virtually zero basis for behaving morally

Again you're only moral because your second life depends on it. That is you also doing that which is most advantageous for yourself. That is the way of humans. Now just replace heaven/hell and whatnot with prison etc and you have exactly the same thing - people doing what is most advantageous for themselves.

Jesus tells us to be kind to one another, to love one another

... or face eternal burning.

His complete and total love for us is motivation to behave accordingly

His complete and total love that might ultimately send you to an eternal lake of fire is motivation for you to behave accordingly.

If everyone behaved how Christ wishes us to behave, do you think there would be any more hate, poverty, or cruelty in the world?

Absolutely. It was his purpose after all..

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (matt 10)

Sorry, that's somehow going to remove hatred? His purpose for being here was to make me hate my father, my mother, my own children. They are going to be my enemies and I love them the most, what to say of some guy on the other side of the planet?

If everyone behaved as an ATHEIST is supposed to behave...they'd do whatever's best for them. And whatever's best for the individual varies greatly. Some people consider what's best for them to murder another human being, some people think it's best to be cruel to weaker people in order to seem stronger. Some assuredly even think it's best to treat others fairly. But nothing will be a strong, justified conviction, because life's about doing what's best for yourself.

As I keep saying, everyone does.. atheists and theists.

But my point is that the human who has a basis for believing that love is not just as a robotic flurry of feel-good chemicals in the brain, but an objective truth and existing force in the universe, will value his life and the lives of others more than a person who is absent these beliefs.

Why? Chemicals aren't powerful? And let's look at what jesus has to say on the matter:

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.."

Your own children, your own flesh and blood rank second place. In the atheist realm they come first. Valuing the lives of others is more pertinent with atheists because there will always be a human that ranks first place. That is not true of theists... no human will ever rank first place.

Apparently I am not worthy because I love my own children too much. Fair enough.

If you're a Christian, Jesus'. It's pretty hard to misconstrue His message of love and acceptance.

... until you get to the eternal burning bit that is, the gnashing of teeth bit, the hate your own family bit, the not being worthy of him because you love your children more bit, etc etc - and that's after all the mass human killing bit done by daddy.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

What exactly do you mean by "...LACK a belief in gods"?

I don't think "lack" was my word, but rather was referring to an earlier comment by somebody else.

But "lack a belief in gods" means no more than "not have a belief in gods", I imagine. You might want to ask the original poster, if this is concerning you.

What would be classed as good evidence?

A "miracle" of some sort, witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses (including non-religious people), perhaps. God telling us something we don't already know, perhaps. Can't you think of anything?

Then atheists believe God is not real, hence, God does not exist.
Why not just state the truth, instead of dancing around it?

Nobody has made the argument that because atheists don't believe in God, God doesn't exist. If anything, you have it the wrong way round. It should go: God doesn't exist; therefore atheists don't believe in him. Much more rational, that way.

Life is all the more valuable when it is a one-shot proposition.

Do you have any evidence to validate this statement?

No. It's a claim, with as much evidence as the claim that life is more valuable when there's an afterlife.

If there is no afterlife, you must make the most of the life you have.

You could also say; if there is afterlife, then you make the most of this life to secure a good one.

Yes, you could say that. So, we have a stalemate on this matter. Which was my original point.

No, for the same reason. Life becomes all the more valuable. Compare the Muslim suicide bomber who wants to die so that he gets to see God as soon as possible. There is no equivalent for the atheist.

cheap shot.

There is also no equivilent for the scientologist, the mormon, the jainist, the buddhist, etc...
If Muslims everywhere, both rich and poor, became suicide bombers, your statement may have substance. But the fact is, there is always a political scenario in which muslims are being oppressed by the west, so the reason becomes political not religious.

But Muslim suicide bombers tell us why they are blowing themselves up. There are plenty of videos left by them. Yes, they have political motives, but without religion they wouldn't be doing it. They are quite explicit about what they hope to obtain by their deaths.

Is atheism the opposite of theism?

Only in the most superficial sense. Belief in supernatural beings is a continuum, not a dichotomy.

If you want to be simplistic, though, you can define:

theist: one who believes in one or more supernatural beings.
atheist: one who does not believe in supernatural beings.

If yes then what is so hard about defining atheism?

I don't think it's hard. Do you?

 

[GeoffP]

A "miracle" of some sort, witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses (including non-religious people), perhaps. God telling us something we don't already know, perhaps.

A question: how would we individually reverify such claims, though, in the currently available instances? Certainly Jesus raising the dead and walking on water and the loaves and fishes thing and so forth could be called "witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses" and if the Gospels were correct, even by presumably hostile ones at times. But there's no video, no audio, and the thousands didn't leave their own records? I think the issue is unverifiable.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

What would be classed as good evidence?

A "miracle" of some sort, witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses (including non-religious people), perhaps. God telling us something we don't already know, perhaps.

How would a "miracle" witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses
be better evidence than one reliable witness, or sciptures?

How could you deduce that God or gods exist from such an event?

God tells us (through) scripture that there is an afterlife.
Does that qualify as God telling us something we don't know?

Can't you think of anything?

To try and think of something that constitutes evidence for God, signifies a lack of understanding (imo).

Nobody has made the argument that because atheists don't believe in God, God doesn't exist.

you said,

Thus, atheists do not believe in gods, any more than they believe in Santa Claus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's another way of saying God doesn't exist, unless atheists believe Santa may exist.

If anything, you have it the wrong way round. It should go: God doesn't exist; therefore atheists don't believe in him. Much more rational, that way.

Then why don't atheists just admit they believe God doesn't exist?
Why the song and dance?

Yes, they have political motives, but without religion they wouldn't be doing it. They are quite explicit about what they hope to obtain by their deaths.

It could also be argued that, without the political strategy of the west, they wouldn't be doing it. If suicide bombings were really a way to get to heaven, wouldn't every muslim be a suicide bomber?
Or do you thinking they all have the potential due to their religion?

theist: one who believes in one or more supernatural beings.
atheist: one who does not believe in supernatural beings.

Or;

theist; one who believes in God
atheist; one who does not believe in God.

I would say that is the proper, simpler definition
as "supernatural beings" could mean anything.

think it's hard. Do you?

Not at all.
But atheists seem to think it hard for theists.

Jan.

 

[S.A.M.]

theist; one who believes in God
atheist; one who does not believe in God.

I would say that is the proper, simpler definition
as "supernatural beings" could mean anything.

Yup, that is it.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

How would a "miracle" witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses
be better evidence than one reliable witness, or sciptures?

.

If I may answer that one? In science there is something called distrubution of repeated measurements. The more repeated the measurements the more closer to a bellcurve form you have - the more reliable the mean becomes. Therefor the more confident you can be that a hypothesis(your miracle for example) is null or stastistically significant.

One measurement or one persons perception of an event is meaningless!

 

[Jan Ardena]

If I may answer that one? In science there is something called distrubution of repeated measurements. The more repeated the measurements the more closer to a bellcurve form you have - the more reliable the mean becomes. Therefor the more confident you can be that a hypothesis(your miracle for example) is null or stastistically significant.

One measurement or one persons perception of an event is meaningless!

But it doesn't mean its not true.
How could "distrubution of repeated measurements" determine whether it is true or not?
If it can determine truth, then only one testimony is needed.

Jan.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

But it doesn't mean its not true.
How could "distrubution of repeated measurements" determine whether it is true or not?
If it can determine truth, then only one testimony is needed.

Jan.

I just gave an explanation as to why the greater the number the greater the precision. I never proposed to give you the brain to make you think with.

 

[S.A.M.]

If I may answer that one? In science there is something called distrubution of repeated measurements. The more repeated the measurements the more closer to a bellcurve form you have - the more reliable the mean becomes. Therefor the more confident you can be that a hypothesis(your miracle for example) is null or stastistically significant.

One measurement or one persons perception of an event is meaningless!

Correlation is not causation.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Correlation is not causation.

Not necessarily, no. But there are standards to determine when probability is high enough that correlation can be accepted as being linked no coincidental.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not necessarily, no. But there are standards to determine high probability that correlation can be accepted as being linked.

The standards (if you mean precision, repeatability, reproducibility, accuracy) are only useful indicators of the certainty of measurement of known parameters under certain very well defined conditions using known standardised tools. They say nothing about causation or the veracity of the relationship or the constant conjoining of disparate elements. The problem of causation has been well elucidated in Humes work, as has the problem of induction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_problem_of_causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_problem_of_induction

edit: if you mean probability, that is in fact the level of probability of the correlation being constantly conjoined.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

The problem of causation has been well elucidated in Humes work, as has the problem of induction.

Who????

Wikipedia is not what I would call a reliable source, so I wont bother to look at it if you dont mind.

 

[S.A.M.]

Who????

Wikipedia is not what I would call a reliable source, so I wont bother to look at it if you dont mind.

No problem, please refer to these:

http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Huma...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183665657&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Enquiry-Conce...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183665657&sr=8-3

After all, nothing on the internet is sacrosanct, not that it is in books either.

Of course, you could always read the links from wiki and use your own brain to make up your mind.

The brain, I am afraid, I cannot supply you with.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

No problem, please refer to these:

http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Huma...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183665657&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Enquiry-Conce...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183665657&sr=8-3

After all, nothing on the internet is sacrosanct, not that it is in books either.

Of course, you could always read the links from wiki and use your own brain to make up your mind.

The brain, I am afraid, I cannot supply you with.

OK I see, a philosopher.

Where did I say I had belief that correlation between A and B is indisputably due to a link between A and B?

 

[S.A.M.]

OK I see, a phylosopher.

Where did I say I had belief that correlation between A and B is indisputably due to a link between A and B?

You said this:

If I may answer that one? In science there is something called distrubution of repeated measurements. The more repeated the measurements the more closer to a bellcurve form you have - the more reliable the mean becomes. Therefor the more confident you can be that a hypothesis(your miracle for example) is null or stastistically significant.

One measurement or one persons perception of an event is meaningless!

All I'm saying is that results!=inference, merely data. The interpretation is simply a matter of greater faith in the certainty of measuring known parameters, not the veracity of a relationship.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

I repeat: Where did I say I had belief that correlation between A and B is indisputably due to a link between A and B?

 

[S.A.M.]

I repeat: Where did I say I had belief that correlation between A and B is indisputably due to a link between A and B?

You inferred meaningfulness from repeated measurements, did you not? When you declared perception of a single event by a single person to be meaningless? (Btw, I believe that there are exceptions to this rule too, in science for non recurring events)

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

You inferred meaningfulness from repeated measurements, did you not? When you declared perception of a single event by a single person to be meaningless?

Indeed I did, but I didn't infer indisputably.

(Btw, I believe that there are exceptions to this rule too, in science for non recurring events)

Not where I come from, measurements are either repeat throught a sample of a population or the same measurement is repeated over and over again for a single observation(such as the signature of a hydrogen atom) under controlled conditions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Indeed I did, but I didn't infer indisputably.

You didn't not infer it either, but glad to clear that up.

Not where I come from, measurements are either repeat throught a sample of a population or the same measurement is repeated over and over again for a single observation(such as the signature of a hydrogen atom) under controlled conditions.

Thats not my problem.

All "causal" events are non-recurring btw, you merely assume they are similar (ie represent the same effect) and use fancy stuff like standard deviation and standard error to draw inferences .

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

All "causal" events are non-recurring btw, you merely assume they are similar (ie represent the same effect)

I assume nothing of the sort. No measuring device is 100% accurate, no condition can be precisely repeated, and quantum laws have a habit of making things never the exact same twice.
:shrug: These are all your assumptions so you can wrongly say: if something cannot be totally black and white, one can assume that anything can be merited as the answer. Like we dont know 100% that a bird outside the window stays up by pushing down the air, so we may as well say the combined people in all the world think it up there.