I'm and atheist, here to be debated.

[Thorolf]

Thorolf,
"God's existence is not contingent on whether or not we believe,"

Based on the fact that humans have created thousands of gods throughout the ages I think it's very likely that we create our gods, not the other way around.

You are welcome to your opinion.

[Thorolf]

"Basically, if it were hypothetically possible for God to die, I think He could die and we would still love.


I am not sure about that one, I hear what you are saying but I just can't wrap my head around it."

I come close to agreeing with Thor's statement. Humans are capable of love no matter what their concepts are or are not of God. Christians are no more likely to act with love than non-Christians. I realize this is totally opinion and can't be proven. But I think a large group of Christians is just as likely to have a certain percentage of liars, cheats, wife beaters, child abusers and so on as any other group of basically law abiding citizens.

While I appreciate the agreement (and I think I'm right from a Christian perspective, regardless the non-theistic view. From the Christian perspective, we are made in the image of God, and God is Love, so simply by being human we have the capacity for love), I do disagree with the last sentence -

I think it may be accurate to say that a certain percentage may have a predisposition toward those things, but I think it is also accurate and logical to note that, by virtue of being Christian, at least some percentage of those with a predisposition toward abuse, lying, cheating, etc... would abstain from those activities.

FWIW.

[jacknky]

"by virtue of being Christian, at least some percentage of those with a predisposition toward abuse, lying, cheating, etc... would abstain from those activities."

I acknowleged I had no way of proving that. I also think that in any given society those who have a disposition to follow the rules of that society and not step out of bounds are more likely to follow the religion(s) of that society. I again see no evidence that Christians have cornered the market on love and compassion. My little UU Fellowship is mostly atheists, agnostics and other forms of heathens but we do good deeds just like Christians do. We have loving folks in about the same percentage as the Baptist church I used to attend.

[Adrian1197]

"by virtue of being Christian, at least some percentage of those with a predisposition toward abuse, lying, cheating, etc... would abstain from those activities."

I acknowleged I had no way of proving that. I also think that in any given society those who have a disposition to follow the rules of that society and not step out of bounds are more likely to follow the religion(s) of that society. I again see no evidence that Christians have cornered the market on love and compassion. My little UU Fellowship is mostly atheists, agnostics and other forms of heathens but we do good deeds just like Christians do. We have loving folks in about the same percentage as the Baptist church I used to attend.

Gentleness, self-sacrifice and generosity are the exclusive possession of no one race or religion. --Gandhi

[WorldWarrior]

Thorolf says--

" There are unlimited questions that science seeks to address that it has absolutely no reasonable hope of answering."

Actually that's not tue.

There are many ways to answer those Qs and science is utilizing many new techniques to study and resolve questiions that at one time were thought to be unanswerable.


The gender of a child--for example. It's now knowable without the child being born or dying.

[jacknky]

" There are unlimited questions that science seeks to address that it has absolutely no reasonable hope of answering."

Actually science has a lot better chance to answer the basic questions than religion. "God created the Universe" is not an answer because then the question must be asked "Then who created God?" Theists constantly look for cracks in science with their default position being that if science can't explain it then it must be God. That really makes no sense when examined.

[Thorolf]

" There are unlimited questions that science seeks to address that it has absolutely no reasonable hope of answering."

Actually science has a lot better chance to answer the basic questions than religion. "God created the Universe" is not an answer because then the question must be asked "Then who created God?" Theists constantly look for cracks in science with their default position being that if science can't explain it then it must be God. That really makes no sense when examined.

Actually, science has no better chance of answering the basic questions. Religion ALREADY ANSWERED them. Are those answers correct? Who knows? Maybe they are, but good luck getting a follower of science to admit that. Instead, you're more likely to get a "I don't know what did it, but I can sure tell you it wasn't <enter Religion's answer here>."

Science seeks to find a different answer. Maybe it will be right... maybe not. That's the thing with theories... they're not REALLY answers. They are more like proposed answers. Attempts to answer. And as my college biology professor taught, they can NEVER be "proven" correct - they can only be proven incorrect.

And science seeks to answer much more than the "basic" questions. As I said, there are unlimited questions that science will not be able to answer. Well, I take it back... some of the questions will be able to be answered if someone manages to build a functioning time machine....

That's not to say that science can't answer ANY questions... just that there are a ton it will never be able to.

[metis]

I think it's more dealing with what is going to be used in an attempt to find at least some of the answers.  Controlled experiments or scientific observations, for examples, are certainly not the same as using the scriptures of a particular religious tradition.  Where science typically falls short is when we get into more philosophical concepts. 

[Acumen]

I think it's more dealing with what is going to be used in an attempt to find at least some of the answers.  Controlled experiments or scientific observations, for examples, are certainly not the same as using the scriptures of a particular religious tradition.  Where science typically falls short is when we get into more philosophical concepts. 

Agreed.

[SquirleyWurley]

An atheist who believes in absolutes, cannot by definition be much of an atheist.  I am not sure what you consider a "true believer" and what they consider to be relative.

When it comes to the way people behave and also when it concerns what people waffle on when speaking on moral issues, there are believers are apparently relativistic on such questions as whether or not torture is a human right worth respecting, while there are atheists who are very consistently against torture.  This is the sort of thing I mean.

Regardless of what a believer may SAY about their morality, they may in fact BE less consistent, more pragmatic, more variable in different contexts on certain questions of ethics.

I said: Human beings are aware, we have a memory, we can pick out goals, issues to try to deal with better, and so we need to be able to identify different sorts of abstractions for the sake of practical evaluations and goal-directed creative activity.

See now how does an atheist know these things to be true? I need to to explain to me how an atheist can believe in absolutes.

Forget the absolute part, and deal with what is in italics, then.

As for knowledge, people either come across some sort of knowledge or not, and can account for it or not.  Being a believer just adds some allegations, a story, which is beside the point and proves nothing.

See but this is where I come in and show you that an atheist who does not believe in the supernatural is denying their very own existence and in fact is the one who is not using reason and living in blind faith.

So maybe this atheist is willing to admit that there is mystery to consciousness, to awareness, to creativity, to life, to many aspects of existence?  I can even mystify it a bit without claiming knowledge about some supernatural being or realm.  And I can even feel mystified and awed by it without believing it is other than natural.  You just seem to FEEL differently.

Well ok, you may have some different feelings on the matter.  Such feelings don't prove your point.

  The very fact that we exist proves the supernatural because it proves beyond a doubt that something has always existed and that something is call eternity.  Eternity by definition cannot be a natural phenomenon and therefore must be supernatural.  For an atheist to deny this fact is not logical and a denial of common sense.

You are trying to win an argument through definition.  You can't just assert a definition as true and then conclude what you want to conclude, to suit your fancy.

[jacknky]

Thorolf,
"Actually, science has no better chance of answering the basic questions. Religion ALREADY ANSWERED them."

No, religions have postulated thousands of answers. take your pick but none of them are a real answer.

If God created the Universe then who created God? I've never had a Christian address that question except to say it was supernatural, which of course is no real answer.

Many Christians seem to want to denigrate science for not having all the answers when ignoring the fact that the supernatural is no real answer either.

[Thorolf]

You have no idea what the real answers are, so it's entirely possible that one of them may be right on target.

As for the "who created God" question - why does anybody have to have created God? Because you can't perceive existence outside of a linear timeline?

There are physicists today who believe that our linear concept of time is shallow and a poor descriptor of the universe.

And I don't know anybody who denigrates science for not having all the answers. That's more of an excuse by those looking for more reasons to criticize Christians... it sounds good, and is quite effectively prejudicial, even though it isn't based in reality.

[jacknky]

"You have no idea what the real answers are, so it's entirely possible that one of them may be right on target."

So that's the scientific case for ID... it MIGHT be true.
-------------------------------------------
"As for the "who created God" question - why does anybody have to have created God? Because you can't perceive existence outside of a linear timeline?

There are physicists today who believe that our linear concept of time is shallow and a poor descriptor of the universe."

Uh, I believe it is the Christians who postulate that God created the Universe. I'm only using the same logic to ask a similar question: If God created the Universe who created God?
--------------------------------------------
"And I don't know anybody who denigrates science for not having all the answers. That's more of an excuse by those looking for more reasons to criticize Christians... it sounds good, and is quite effectively prejudicial, even though it isn't based in reality."

With all due respect I think you're being a little disingeneous here. ID proponents offer absolutely no positive evidence to scientifically test any theory associated with ID. That's because it can't be done. All they can do is point to individual instances of incomplete scientific information and extrapolate that since science can't explain A or B then we should look at ID as an equal theory because life is too complex.

[Thorolf]

"You have no idea what the real answers are, so it's entirely possible that one of them may be right on target."

So that's the scientific case for ID... it MIGHT be true.

I wasn't talking about ID at all.

-------------------------------------------
"As for the "who created God" question - why does anybody have to have created God? Because you can't perceive existence outside of a linear timeline?

There are physicists today who believe that our linear concept of time is shallow and a poor descriptor of the universe."

Uh, I believe it is the Christians who postulate that God created the Universe. I'm only using the same logic to ask a similar question: If God created the Universe who created God?

And I will repeat myself... why does anybody have to have created God?

--------------------------------------------
"And I don't know anybody who denigrates science for not having all the answers. That's more of an excuse by those looking for more reasons to criticize Christians... it sounds good, and is quite effectively prejudicial, even though it isn't based in reality."

With all due respect I think you're being a little disingeneous here. ID proponents offer absolutely no positive evidence to scientifically test any theory associated with ID. That's because it can't be done. All they can do is point to individual instances of incomplete scientific information and extrapolate that since science can't explain A or B then we should look at ID as an equal theory because life is too complex.

Still not talking about ID... and your response says absolutely nothing to the point I made to which you are, ostensibly, responding.

[jacknky]

"and your response says absolutely nothing to the point I made to which you are, ostensibly, responding."

LOL.

I tried to respond. There was nothing to respond to except generalities.

[VLinvictus]

On the one hand, it's a fair question. If the answer to "Where did the universe come from?" is "God created it," it is fair to ask "Where did God come from?"

On the other hand, it's a game of definitions. If you define God as "the uncreated creator" (or "unmoved mover") then you've got everything all neatly sewn up.

I much prefer Anselm of Canterbury's ontological proof -- largely because you generally have to be drunk for it to make sense.

[metis]

Why would it be necessary to assume that a deity created our cosmos since there's always the hypothetical possibility that energy/matter might have existed back into infinity?

[jacknky]

Why don't we all just admit that these musings are intellectual machinations that may have little to do with reality?

[VLinvictus]

Why don't we all just admit that these musings are intellectual machinations that may have little to do with reality?

Ah, now we get to another fun topic: how can we possibly know what "reality" is if it must be filtered through our finite and fallible senses and processed by our finite and fallible brains?

Everything we (think we) know about "reality" could, essentially, be an intellectual machination.

[VLinvictus]

Why would it be necessary to assume that a deity created our cosmos since there's always the hypothetical possibility that energy/matter might have existed back into infinity?

Now that's just crazy talk

But you're right. If one is going to posit the existence of an eternal and uncreated divine creator, then it is possible to apply those attributes to the cosmos itself and claim that it is itself eternal and uncreated.

Or, now this is really out there, one could question why there necessarily needs to be a distinction between "creator" and "creation" at all...