The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Shima,

Just a few thoughts your post stirred up...

One reason (not the only one, but perhaps a major one) that people adopt and maintain a religion is because it makes them feel better about themselves than if they did not hold that particular set of beliefs.

Holding a particular set of beliefs eliminates their need to search for meaning in life (it's provided by the religion), relieves them of the frustration of not knowing what happens in the future (religion tells them they'll get a reward if they're obedient), and it helps them deal with the ultimate fear of the unknown - the fear of self-annihilation by death (promised eternal life, nirvana, etc.).

Thus religions provide great comfort for some people. Since so much of a believer's psyche is wrapped up in their religion, they will interpret much of what they experience through the lens of their religious worldview, and will adamantly refuse to see things that are contradictory to their preconceived ideas about the universe.

For others of us who do not require such comfort, religions are much less useful. The major problem is that most humans are not yet at a stage where they can successfully cope with life without some sort of religious belief. They have gone through more life experience and have come to a realization that they can stand on their own feet without the crutch of religious belief. That is why the average atheist tends to be older, and generally better educated than the average religionist. It also explains why young atheists are much easier to convert to religion than older atheists...

....while atheists in general will post ad naseum their own words of comfort about how strong and independent they are in an effort to fool themselves. They desparately want to believe it but can't help doubting it. They are Seekers with a capital "S".

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
....while atheists in general will post ad naseum their own words of comfort about how strong and independent they are in an effort to fool themselves. They desparately want to believe it but can't help doubting it. They are Seekers with a capital "S".

Most atheists of my acquaintance are seekers after truth, not seekers after religious fables.

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Most atheists of my acquaintance are seekers after truth, not seekers after religious fables.

Atheist's definition of truth = whatever makes me feel good.

Atheists use words like "fables" to fool themselves because they can't handle the truth.

 

[shima]

Most atheists of my acquaintance are seekers after truth, not seekers after religious fables.

Precisely.

Thus religions provide great comfort for some people. Since so much of a believer's psyche is wrapped up in their religion, they will interpret much of what they experience through the lens of their religious worldview, and will adamantly refuse to see things that are contradictory to their preconceived ideas about the universe.

True, unfortunately. This is one of the reasons why science is by many people regarded as something that produces great evil.

What they don't understand is that the reality science uncovers is much more objective than their own "image" of reality. And, having the blinders of religion stripped from their heads will leave them dazzled by the bright light of science.

But give it time. Atheism, humanism and other, non-deity based religions are gaining ground.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Atheist's definition of truth = whatever makes me feel good.

Atheists use words like "fables" to fool themselves because they can't handle the truth.

Roger, you're confusing the the religionist and atheist positions again...

Atheists (at least the naturalist variety) believe that truth is verifiable reality. It's religionists who base their idea of truth on that which caters to their insecurities and their egos.

I used the word fable to mean "a story about legendary persons and exploits or a falsehood; a lie." I was desribing religious beliefs, not any form of "truth"...

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima
Reality is the world that we can see, hear, touch, smell and otherwise get information of through our senses.

Yes, that is all reality.

So, if their conscience tells them that it is "good" to rape and murder, then obviously that conscience doesn't coincide with for example my conscience.

But as I mentioned before the conscience doesn't energize people to rape. That is nonsense & absurd. The conscience brings forth a moral awareness of goodness & evil.

Or, that God supposedly left his moral law imprinted on our conscience?

Every society bears the fact that conscience is present--awareness of good & evil.

Its obviously NOT the case for sociopaths.

That is a lie. Sociopaths have a conscience but it has been suppressed.

Yes, we could be living in the Matrix and we wouldn't know it.

*sigh* Enough of the pop culture philosophy.

I ofcourse think it looks different from yours in that God doesn't exist.

That is what you claim. But general revealtion & Natural Law tells me otherwise.

Neither of us have any objective evidence whatsoever that we are correct.

Another lie. I have evidence which you have chosen to reject.

Truth: a statement, image or idea that conforms with reality. Now, since science has proven that we have evolved and that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the global flood didn't happen,

Shima, evolution is a theory & myth. Yes, there was a global flood.

As I choose science as an objective standard

What does it tell you about the meaning of life, about marriages, about moral law, about moral attributes?

Thus, The Word of God is untrue.

You have believed a lie then.

There is no measuring device in this world that will show "right" or "wrong".

Natural Law & the philosophy of language points to the absolute nature of good & evil.

Second, NONE of the worlds religions have any concrete evidence that their particular religion is true.

Another lie. The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ is the evidence.

And we have noticed that, of all the gods ever worshipped throughout human history, almost ALL of them are no longer believed in.

False gods come & go. But the triune God is from everlasting to everlasting.

 

[shima]

Zakath:
Atheists (at least the naturalist variety) believe that truth is verifiable reality. It's religionists who base their idea of truth on that which caters to their insecurities and their egos.

And ofcourse on what some guy they don't even know wrote down 4000 years ago. Or 2000 years.

Truth: an image, idea or statement that conforms to verifyable reality.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima

This "seeing" is what most people would referr to as "evidence" for their particular religion. Most religions in this world state that life does continue after you die. The appealing nature of this awnser is what promts many people to start "wishfull thinking" about a particular religion. In many cases, the religion in question has a lot of awnsers to questions, and those awnsers are also appealing. "Why is the world such a rotten place?" is one such question.

What kind of mumbo jumbo is this? Anyone reading this will be confused. Is this what atheism offers?

Because of this line of reasoning, I'm questioning everything I see.

Ok. Question your own reality while you're at.

You grumpy atheists have nothing to offer to humanity that is why atheism fails to be compelling in our day.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Freak
You grumpy atheists have nothing to offer to humanity...

Why should one want to offer anything to humanity, Freak? Human beings are notorious for their ingratitude...

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Gerald
Why should one want to offer anything to humanity, Freak? Human beings are notorious for their ingratitude...

Especially atheists...if wasn't for the believers in the world you probably won't have a decent hospital to stay out when you're really sick. I don't see many Atheistic hospitals in many places around the world.

 

[shima]

Freak:
The conscience brings forth a moral awareness of goodness & evil.

A, you mean we know goodness and evil "exist" because our conscience tells us that it does?

Every society bears the fact that conscience is present--awareness of good & evil.

I disagree. Right and wrong, perhaps. And people get taught by their parents what "right" and "wrong" means. People who do not get taught usually don't know it.

That is a lie. Sociopaths have a conscience but it has been suppressed.

Good. Please provide some scientific evidence for it. From their behavior, I'd say they don't have a conscience.

That is what you claim. But general revealtion & Natural Law tells me otherwise.

That is indeed my claim. General Revelation doesn't mean anything to me. And which "Natural Law" are you referring to? Gravity? Thermodynamics?

Another lie. I have evidence which you have chosen to reject.

I rejected it because it is not objective evidence. We don't know what a conscience is, scientifically speaking.

Shima, evolution is a theory & myth. Yes, there was a global flood.

The Theory of Evolution has a lot of scientific evidence going for it. The Global Flood has a lot of scientific evidence going against it. Since I preferr objective evidence over the biased, subjective claims of a book that has a vested interrest in distorting the truth, I therefore do not believe a Global Flood happened.

What does it tell you about the meaning of life, about marriages, about moral law, about moral attributes?

Science has nothing to say about it, which means that there are no objective awnsers to the question of the meaning of life. It does say something about moral attributes though. There is some evidence from game theory that suggest that cooperation is a result of optimizing the choises such that there is the highest chance of survival for a group.

Natural Law & the philosophy of language points to the absolute nature of good & evil.

Again, what Natural Law are you referring to? Language is not absolute because it is we humans who make the rules. Besides, there is a difference between the meaning of a word and the symbol of the word.

Another lie. The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ is the evidence.

What about the revelation of Mohammed? Or Buddha? Or Shiva? Or what about the Jews who reject that revelation?

False gods come & go. But the triune God is from everlasting to everlasting.

So, since Shiva has been around longer than God, does that mean that Shiva is more real than God?

 

[shima]

Freak: What kind of mumbo jumbo is this? Anyone reading this will be confused.

That is because you have to read the rest of my post as well. I cannot help it that you didn't get it, Freak.

Most likely, you believe that there is no difference between reality and what you think is reality.

If you are up to it, here is an experiment that will show you the difference: take some halucinogenic drugs and see what happens. Don't worry, the smurfs you will see are not really there. They exist only in your mind

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by shima
science has proven that we have evolved and that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old

Science has proven no such thing. You are articulating a religious belief - a statement of faith. True science, objective science, requires observation and experimental reproducibility. Were you or any of your false religionists present when the universe was formed?

Originally posted by shima
I choose science as an objective standard, I therefore determine that the bible stories are contradicted and therefore untrue. Thus, The Word of God is untrue. So, why would we then still conclude that God exists?

That sounds very Spock-like of you, since science is objective. Unfortunately your argument is specious because evolution is not science; it is guesswork, dressed up in scientific garb. Evolution is the only theory you have to work with, if God does not exist.

Since your assumptions are not supported by science, your conclusions are highly suspect.

I could recite the reasons why nature was not self-generated, but such arguments have been proffered ad nauseam. You might do some introspection and examine why you have such a powerful need to reject God. It is only your stubborn and rebellious heart that dissuades you from truth. God’s word is truth.

 

[shima]

Freak: You grumpy atheists have nothing to offer to humanity...

We offer what we see as the truth.

We also offer concepts such as personal responsibility , making something of your life while it lasts , learn from your mistakes, because life is too short to repeat them .

Wanna hear some more?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima
A, you mean we know goodness and evil "exist" because our conscience tells us that it does?

Yes, in part.

Good. Please provide some scientific evidence for it. From their behavior, I'd say they don't have a conscience.

Unlike you I'm not bound by science. I have been liberated. I resort to Natural Law, General Revelation, Scripture, the revealtion of Jesus Christ, science, and reason. This all leads me to the my conclusions.

General Revelation doesn't mean anything to me.

This shows how shallow you truly are.

And which "Natural Law" are you referring to? Gravity? Thermodynamics?

I'm not speaking with a very intelligent person am I?

I rejected it because it is not objective evidence. We don't know what a conscience is, scientifically speaking.

Why are you bound to science. You need to be liberated from the religion of science.

The Global Flood has a lot of scientific evidence going against it.

Scripture, reason, Natural Law, science all speak of the reality of the global flood.

Since I preferr objective evidence over the biased, subjective claims of a book that has a vested interrest in distorting the truth, I therefore do not believe a Global Flood happened.

Since I'm not bound by the religion of science---I have more sources to turn to attain truth. I think I'll reject Shima's limited view of the world/reality. I prefer reason, Scripture, Natural Law, science, etc to attain truth.

What about the revelation of Mohammed? Or Buddha? Or Shiva? Or what about the Jews who reject that revelation?

The revealtion of Jesus Christ is compelling.

So, since Shiva has been around longer than God, does that mean that Shiva is more real than God?

Huh? The triune God is eternal.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by shima
We offer what we see as the truth.

We also offer concepts such as personal responsibility , making something of your life while it lasts , learn from your mistakes, because life is too short to repeat them .

Wanna hear some more?

That's all. You wouldn't make a good spokesman for your cause. You atheistic religionists are a pathetic bunch.:down:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Freak
Especially atheists...if wasn't for the believers in the world you probably won't have a decent hospital to stay out when you're really sick.

That's interesting, because the majority of MDs with whom I have come into contact with are, at best, agnostics. They seem to be more interested in helping people, and God does not enter the equation.

I don't see many Atheistic hospitals in many places around the world.

Perhaps I should get together with my atheist buddies (we all know each other, you know...) and start one. Patients must rely on medical science and medical science alone. No calling for supernatural intervention allowed!:chuckle:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Gerald
Perhaps I should get together with my atheist buddies (we all know each other, you know...) and start one.

Atheism is so unappealing nobody would support it, let alone visit it.

Gerald, why do you insist on holding unto atheism that binds you and limits you? You're god is science and you bow before him daily. What a pitiful religion you have.:down:

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Roger, you're confusing the the religionist and atheist positions again...

Atheists (at least the naturalist variety) believe that truth is verifiable reality. It's religionists who base their idea of truth on that which caters to their insecurities and their egos.

I used the word fable to mean "a story about legendary persons and exploits or a falsehood; a lie." I was desribing religious beliefs, not any form of "truth"...

Like a glutton with acid reflux, the atheist repeats his mantra....

 

[shima]

LightSon: True science, objective science, requires observation and experimental reproducibility.

Ofcourse, while they cannot reproduce an universe inside the lab, there are nevertheless properties of this world that will allow a reasonably accurate estimate to be made. Radiometric decay, for example, is one of them. Another would be measurement of the amount of produced fusion particles in the Sun.

it is guesswork, dressed up in scientific garb.

Well, to claim that we know exactly how life formed would be a lie. Nevertheless, the underlying mechanisms have a lot of evidence going for it.

You might do some introspection and examine why you have such a powerful need to reject God.

I know why I reject the existence of God. A lot of them have to do with a lack of hard evidence. This is the same reason why I reject the existence of gods such as Shiva, Allah, or the Omnipotent Invisible Pink Unicorn.

It is only your stubborn and rebellious heart that dissuades you from truth.

I disagree. I am dissuaded from christianity because there is no hard evidence that it is true, and a lot of hard evidence that it is false.

God?s word is truth.

Some parts of Gods Word are not true, and I have scientific evidence to back it up. Now, if God is lying about those parts, how can you be sure he's not lying about other parts?