I'm and atheist, here to be debated.

[jacknky]

I'm a non-theist because the world I live in is a natural world, not a supernatural one. I don't see the supernatural.

I remember after my ex-wife's mother died my ex-wife was walking up the stairs at home and felt something on her leg. She said "That's my mother.". I probably would have identified the feeling as a breeze or something natural. I think we have to have a predilection to believe in miracles to see miracles. I also realize that theists would say that there are none so blind as they who will not see. I guess I'm guilty of not seeing miracles.

[Acumen]

I'm a non-theist because the world I live in is a natural world, not a supernatural one.

To be fair, you are viewing the world through the lenses of naturalism while making naturalistic presuppositions about all events.  The more we learn about this great planet, the more we realize what we don't really know.  A realization of our limited understanding should always serve as a caution to what we think we know and what we think cannot be possible.

I also realize that theists would say that there are none so blind as they who will not see. I guess I'm guilty of not seeing miracles.

That's because miracles are difficult to see.  Our minds are logical by nature, so they tend to organize events into neat little categories of thought, which in turn are put there through conceptual explanations.  Explanations seek an order or a cause, and will seek out the most probable order or cause.  By nature then, there will be a tendency to rule out the supernatural because the human mind seeks a sense of control over nature, even if it involves just understanding it.  A mind sympathetic to supernaturalism will still have a tendency to order events in a naturalistic way, but will view odd or seemingly purposeful oddities as supernatural occurrences. 

[jacknky]

"To be fair, you are viewing the world through the lenses of naturalism while making naturalistic presuppositions about all events.  The more we learn about this great planet, the more we realize what we don't really know.  A realization of our limited understanding should always serve as a caution to what we think we know and what we think cannot be possible."

I don't really know what you mean by the "lens of naturalism". If by that you mean our rationality and view of the world can be distorted or fooled then of course it can. We humans, like our science, are constantly reviewing and revising our responses to our world based on what works. But simply because humans have limitations isn't an indication that gods exist. It's an indication that we are human beings.

It's interesting that theists hold the findings of reason and science to the highest standards possible ("limited understanding", as you say) but when it comes to the existence of God there are no standards. Human beings are limited, therefore, God exists. Do you see that one doesn't follow the other?

"That's because miracles are difficult to see.  Our minds are logical by nature, so they tend to organize events into neat little categories of thought, which in turn are put there through conceptual explanations.  Explanations seek an order or a cause, and will seek out the most probable order or cause.  By nature then, there will be a tendency to rule out the supernatural because the human mind seeks a sense of control over nature, even if it involves just understanding it.  A mind sympathetic to supernaturalism will still have a tendency to order events in a naturalistic way, but will view odd or seemingly purposeful oddities as supernatural occurrences."

Yes, our minds are logical and yet studies have shown that most humans are born with a predilection or genetic predisposition to believe in the supernatural.  Twin studies indicate that genetic factors account for 50% of the "religiosity" of an individual.

Another study indicates that when our left hemisphere temporal lobe, which is associated with our sense of self, becomes disassociated from the right for whatever reason we sense supernatural beings. When the two systems, left and right brain, become uncordinated  the left hemisphere interpretes the uncoordinated activity  as "another self" or a "sensed presence"- interpreted by some as angels, demons, ghosts, or even God. When the amygdala is involved in the transient events emotional factors significantly enhance the (spiritual) experience.

So yes, we are logical and yet we are also programmed to see miracles as our brain's natural response. I have read of other rational explanations for the religious experience which offer at least as much an exzplanation for "miracles" as the explanation that God exists.

I totally get that what I'm saying will have absolutely no effect on you, nor should it. Intellectual "reasons" will always fall short of what we experience.

[Acumen]

"To be fair, you are viewing the world through the lenses of naturalism while making naturalistic presuppositions about all events.  The more we learn about this great planet, the more we realize what we don't really know.  A realization of our limited understanding should always serve as a caution to what we think we know and what we think cannot be possible."

I don't really know what you mean by the "lens of naturalism". If by that you mean our rationality and view of the world can be distorted or fooled then of course it can. We humans, like our science, are constantly reviewing and revising our responses to our world based on what works. But simply because humans have limitations isn't an indication that gods exist. It's an indication that we are human beings.

By "lens of naturalism," I mean viewing the world with presuppositions that all events much occur within natural law and that all events can be accurately explained via naturalistic processes.  And although it is reassuring that science, by its very nature, updates itself periodically, it doesn't address the issue of naturalistic presuppositions that we all make from time to time.

Also, I agree that an acknowledgment of our limitations does not serve as evidence that God exists, but rather it was meant as a precautionary tool in an attempt to maintain neutrality when making judgments about the world.

It's interesting that theists hold the findings of reason and science to the highest standards possible ("limited understanding", as you say) but when it comes to the existence of God there are no standards. Human beings are limited, therefore, God exists. Do you see that one doesn't follow the other?

Of course I see it.  I would never maintain that our limitedness is a proof that God exists.  However, I take exception to your statement that theists operate using no rules or standards.  In order to put forth a strong, sound argument, we must operate by the same rules of logic and reason as the naturalist or atheist.

What type of "non-theist" are you?  I'm not sure if you had the chance to read some of Allthegoodnamesweretaken's posts on atheism, but he was quite careful not to make positive assertions about the non-existence of God.  His position was he didn't believe in God because there didn't seem to be a good reason to.  The problem I have with this point of view it that is supposes that "lack of evidence" is actually evidence against something.  In my opinion, "Allthegood" should properly be an agnostic.

Yes, our minds are logical and yet studies have shown that most humans are born with a predilection or genetic predisposition to believe in the supernatural.  Twin studies indicate that genetic factors account for 50% of the "religiosity" of an individual.

I'm not sure how something like that can be proven through studies.  I distinctly remember twin studies being performed concerning the nature of homosexuality as evidence there is a genetic predisposition to the lifestyle.  With identical twins, studies have shown that there was a high percent of likelihood if one twin was gay, then so the other would be.  The only problem is that identical twins are conceived with identical genes.  If one twin is gay, then there should nothing less than a 100% probability of the other twin being gay, if it were strictly a matter of genetics.  Given that there wasn't a 100% correlation, there is no way of determining the role genes play in beliefs or behaviors of individuals.  Do I think some gays have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality?  Yes, I think there is a factor, but I also see an environmental factor.  The same holds with a predisposition for religiosity.

Another study indicates that when our left hemisphere temporal lobe, which is associated with our sense of self, becomes disassociated from the right for whatever reason we sense supernatural beings. When the two systems, left and right brain, become uncordinated  the left hemisphere interpretes the uncoordinated activity  as "another self" or a "sensed presence"- interpreted by some as angels, demons, ghosts, or even God. When the amygdala is involved in the transient events emotional factors significantly enhance the (spiritual) experience.

How do we know that the separation of the hemispheres is what causes the sense of the supernatural, and not the other way around?  It would seem to be just as likely that sensing the supernatural may very well cause the separation of the hemispheres.  Could this study be another exercise in the naturalistic presuppositions I was referring to earlier? 

[jacknky]

"I take exception to your statement that theists operate using no rules or standards.  In order to put forth a strong, sound argument, we must operate by the same rules of logic and reason as the naturalist or atheist."

How can that be? I ask that sincerely wanting to know. In my world when people die they are dead. That's what my experience teaches me. In the theistic world they are not dead. What logic or reason teaches you that people are not dead after they die?

"What type of "non-theist" are you?"

Good question. It reminds me of the Irish joke: "Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" My thoughts vary from day to day. When I'm talking to a hard core Evangelical who is sure I'm going to rot in Hell I tend to be more hard-core. When I'm talking to a reasonable person such as yourself I tend to soften my stance. I tend to be more agnostic than atheistic but, as a baby Buddhist I strive to really not get too into the question at all. To be brief, the Buddha taught that questions about the nature of the gods are unanswerable questions and it's a bit of a waste of time to give those questions too much energy. The Buddha was all about reducing suffering on this world and that seems reasonable to me.

"I'm not sure how something like that can be proven through studies."

I agree. They do offer alternative explanations to "God's will" though.

I'm done for the day. Peace...

[Acumen]

How can that be? I ask that sincerely wanting to know. In my world when people die they are dead. That's what my experience teaches me. In the theistic world they are not dead. What logic or reason teaches you that people are not dead after they die?

I believe they are dead.

Good question. It reminds me of the Irish joke: "Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" My thoughts vary from day to day. When I'm talking to a hard core Evangelical who is sure I'm going to rot in Hell I tend to be more hard-core. When I'm talking to a reasonable person such as yourself I tend to soften my stance.

Hehe, you must not follow my political posts on Bnet.  :-)

I tend to be more agnostic than atheistic but, as a baby Buddhist I strive to really not get too into the question at all. To be brief, the Buddha taught that questions about the nature of the gods are unanswerable questions and it's a bit of a waste of time to give those questions too much energy. The Buddha was all about reducing suffering on this world and that seems reasonable to me.

Well, in all fairness, what does Buddha know about the Judeo-Christian God?

I'm done for the day. Peace...

Seeya around.

[jacknky]

"Hehe, you must not follow my political posts on Bnet.  :-)

You know, I believe that's where I heard that joke. I remember your handle from B'net.

"Well, in all fairness, what does Buddha know about the Judeo-Christian God?"

It seems to me that theistic religions are pretty much the same. Only the details are different. Certainly his statement about unknowable questions still applies unless one is looking through theistic colored glasses.

Peace...

[Faithfulee]

-Acumen
[/quote]

I'm not one to disabuse some one of their beliefs.  I would say that if you feel you have reason to believe in God, you shouldn't give up on him just because he hasn't answered you in the way you want him too.  A persons reasons for believing or not believing are much more complex than can be covered in any single issue discussion.  We probably don't even realize all of them ourselves, and need to explore the topics to do so.  If there is a god, as you believe in, this may be a case similar to the old story about the guy in a flood praying for god to save him as he sends the boats and helicopters past.

Hypothetically speaking, of course. 

 

all
[/quote]

And I won't disabuse you on your athiesm.

I will only witness to a belief in a supreme being that is in control of the universe, posessing power and intelligence that we have yet to understand, and probably never will.

My religious background has given me an appreciation of the universe and because I beieve that the supreme being has given us this universe for us to live in,  I thank God every morning and many times during the day.
My Christian background and learning has given me even greater appreciation and gives me direction in how I can participate, enjoy, and contriute.  In sum,  I am live a greatful life, filled with joy and satisfaction for me my family and friends.

I would hope that you too have that attitude on life.  If you don't perhaps you might seek a "deity" that helps you answer questions that ordinary intelligence has not yet equipped you to answer

God Bless

[jacknky]

fathfully,

You are very well spoken in your belief. Good for you.

"...perhaps you might seek a "deity" that helps you answer questions that ordinary intelligence has not yet equipped you to answer."

Maybe another way is to stop asking questions for which there are no answers.

This reminds me of the joke of the guy who goes to the doctor and say his arm hurts evertime he raises it. The doctor says" Well, stop raising your arm."

[Faithfulee]

fathfully,

You are very well spoken in your belief. Good for you.

"...perhaps you might seek a "deity" that helps you answer questions that ordinary intelligence has not yet equipped you to answer."

Maybe another way is to stop asking questions for which there are no answers.

This reminds me of the joke of the guy who goes to the doctor and say his arm hurts evertime he raises it. The doctor says" Well, stop raising your arm."

I seek answers in many places including my faith and the knowedge that humankind has accumulated and recorded in many many places including the internet.  I seek the answers to questions that will help me enrich my life.

I dont hurt a bit, even at my age.

I respect your athiesm, but for me Christianity is just fine.  I don't need to debate athiesm because I am satisfied with my faith and there is no need for me to challange it.

The best case for "atheism" is to show what Islam compels their followers to do in the name of God.  There you have a case where the Muslum "theos"  is a real threat to humankind. 

Fitna is back if you want a peek the danger of Islamic views of God.

[Acumen]

Maybe another way is to stop asking questions for which there are no answers.

I have a problem with this.  It would seem to me that this is anti-learning and anti-progress.  What would the scientific community think if leading scientists took this approach?  Hey, we just need to stop asking questions concerning the natural order of things to which there are just no scientific answers?  Wouldn't such a position claim a priori knowledge that these questions are unanswerable?

[jacknky]

"I don't need to debate athiesm because I am satisfied with my faith and there is no need for me to challange it."

I understand what you're saying. I prefer to use the term "non-theist" for myself because I consider that more neutral.

I think I get on these boards because it's a good way to challenge myself and to clarify my values by the need to respond to others. I also learn from what others say. I appreciate the fact that we are able to exchange ideas on these boards without personally attacking each other. That helps me learn to (mostly) tone my rhetoric down, a hard lesson for me to learn.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"I have a problem with this.  It would seem to me that this is anti-learning and anti-progress."

But probably Biblical. Do you want me to quote you a few verses that appear to be anti-reason?

[Faithfulee]

"I don't need to debate athiesm because I am satisfied with my faith and there is no need for me to challange it."

I understand what you're saying. I prefer to use the term "non-theist" for myself because I consider that more neutral.

I think I get on these boards because it's a good way to challenge myself and to clarify my values by the need to respond to others. I also learn from what others say. I appreciate the fact that we are able to exchange ideas on these boards (most of the time) without personally attacking each other. I even learn from the fact that when I attack one of you guys it's because I feel attacked myself. That helps me learn to (mostly) tone my rhetoric down, a hard lesson for me to learn.

I might also be called a non-theist.  I studied under Bishop Spong and have come a long way from the "God in Heaven" belief of the God that I worship.  I too am open minded and the apparant contradictions between my Episcopa background and my current associateion with Baptist and Methodist Church's only challanges me to deeper thought.  What I do know is that there is something "special" about everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian. 

I think I get a better concept of God from the ways these people act, than I get from what I read in the Bible. My wife and I share this prayer "May we live God's love in our relationship and may that love be reflected in our marriage."

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"I have a problem with this.  It would seem to me that this is anti-learning and anti-progress.  What would the scientific community think if leading scientists took this approach?  Hey, we just need to stop asking questions concerning the natural order of things to which there are just no scientific answers?  Wouldn't such a position claim a priori knowledge that these questions are unanswerable?"

Not really. Science investigates questions for which there are reasonable expectations of finding answers. The nature of the gods isn't one of those questions. We (myself more than many) waste a lot of energy trying to discern the nature of the unknowable when it would be much simpler to learn about the knowable. The Universe is infinite and wondrous. That really is enough.

[Thorolf]

Not really. Science investigates questions for which there are reasonable expectations of finding answers. The nature of the gods isn't one of those questions. We (myself more than many) waste a lot of energy trying to discern the nature of the unknowable when it would be much simpler to learn about the knowable. The Universe is infinite and wondrous. That really is enough.

I hardly think Science is so exclusive. Would you label quantum mechanics, string theory, or brane theory to be "religion" because we really don't have a reasonable expectation of finding answers to the questions we have? How about questions about how the universe started? Can we possible answer the question of "was there a big bang" or "how did it happen" or "what exploded in the first place?" There are unlimited questions that science seeks to address that it has absolutely no reasonable hope of answering.

That's why it's "theoretical" science.

But the questions are still posed, regardless the fact that we can't really know the answers, because very smart and creative people can try to theorize as to a possibility, and other smart and creative people can discuss the veracity of the theory. At least, as long as it doesn't allow for the possibility of an intelligent creator! lol!

While us laypeople can blindly ooh and aah over how much smarter and more creative these people are than us - so of course they must be right.

[jacknky]

"Why do you suppose that the supernatural (if it is real) is not knowable?"

Well, I don't KNOW that it isn't. I just have never seen or heard of any evidence that it is knowable.

I think we're both getting tired. Our posts are getting much shorter.

[jacknky]

"My posts are short because I choose to stay focused on one point at a time instead of getting lost in many words."

Good plan.

[SquirleyWurley]

Hello everybody.  I'm glad the tone is good here, friendly discussion.  We can all try to keep it that way.

I don't believe there's a god, isn't that all atheism means?  Hard atheism is saying there is no god.  Yes, that's my belief, there is no god.

We tell stories, we make things up.  I love a good story.  It's good to know when stories are just stories.  Good fiction can teach a lot, but someone can get good and bad things from fiction.  I like some stories better than others.  I'm not into the Bible, as far as stories go.  There was a time when I was into it.  Some of our stories have some basis in something that happened.  Some stories are more or less accurate.  Some stories are told in a way to illuminate some point or draw out the nuances of some issue more than for accuracy.

That's where religion comes from, that's where folkwisdom comes from, that's where art comes from -- that sort of thing is a huge part of what our creative and proble-solving brains do, and how they function.

Some god(s), some aspects of descriptions of god(s) are like square circles -- don't exist.

Some god(s), some aspects of descriptions of god(s) are over-vague -- the believers don't even show any sign that they know what they believe and they admit it's a mystery -- I believe them, they don't know what they are talking about in that case.  I get that way on things, too.

Some religious/metaphysical subjects are just so implausible or weird that I have every reason to reject it given there's no solid evidence and the implausibility or weirdness justifies disbelief without SERIOUS amounts of evidence.

And I'll repeat, my stance makes a lot of sense because hey, we're story tellers.  We just have to own up to that, and make better use of our stories.

[Acumen]

I like your perspective.  I disagree with it, but I like it.

I think that when atheists or academia take a look at religion, they see a system of myth -- a system designed to give people answers to philosophical questions.  And this makes sense because a lot of religion appears to exist for that reason.

However, the problem I have with this conception is that it essentially works backward.  They don't assume a God, so they presume He isn't a factor and then they go on from there.  Since God isn't a factor, then religion that postulates a God must do so for some significant reason.  But why would humans postulate a being that doesn't exist -- what is the fixation?  Well, it must be what Freud was talking about.  We need a larger than life father figure, someone who is our symbol of protection, providence, and our very existence.

I think this way of explaining religion is interesting, but backward.