Atheist, are you one??

[howerd]

OK retro72, thanks for bothering to respond to my request. I still see an awful lot wrong with what you say though so I'll spell out why that is.

Originally Posted by retro72

When it comes down to it we have the choices of whether we're here through purposeful design or essentially here through a set of chemical processes with no actual intelligence behind it and all that lies betwixt the two.

But we don't. Yes we have two possibilities: our existence is purposeful or it isn't (at least you didn't say 'It's all chance'! Evolution is partly chance & partly mechanistic in it's manifestation). Whatever the truth is, we believe -rightly or wrongly, what we can believe. Can you choose to believe in invisible leprechauns? If you think you can, try it: the harder you try the more you appreciate you are attempting to lie to yourself.

Even if there really is a god, telling yourself you can choose to believe this when you don't is ridiculous. That's where the 'holy' books fall down: they were written in a time when the idea of the supernatural seemed` to explain the unexplained but now we know a lot more about the universe we don't need to shrug our shoulders any more & think 'Well that's proof of god!' Today we still have a few unknown issues unresolved but to say 'God explains this' e.g. The Big Bang or the origin of life is pointless.

'God' just means 'creator' & by simply saying 'The creator' created us', is unwarranted because there's nothing reliable one can attach to 'the creator' assertion. It could potentially be anything at all but because we know minds intelligently create things we assume 'Ah yes, it was a mind!' - but how can you know it was? And how can you know something which isn't a mind can't also be responsible? You cannot.

Belief that a non-explanation is an explanation is about as primitive an idea as you can get & yet it's been passed down from generation to generation as a 'satisfying statement' for 1000s of years & because it's so ingrained into young unquestioning minds so it still persists even today.

Originally Posted by retro72

When I first started contemplating I was about 16 and it suddenly struck me how amazing it was that I was even able to contemplate such stuff. Then it went further. Not only was I able to think, I was able to move about at will and appreciate music at the same time as enjoying food and drink. Then further. Seeing the amazing world of maths through actual music and experiencing it on a new dimension. To see so much structure - and beauty in such - was enough to convince me that there's something beyond merely a 'blind' force behind both life and the evolution of it. Why would such a force instill prodigious talent in some whereby some fantastic works of art/music etc come about by way of example that are celebrated in the annuls of history today? To further the species' appreciation of aesthetics?

You found it amazing you could contemplate? Why? Only a mindful agency has such a capability! What is the alternative then? Not being contemplative? That wouldn't be like anything at all so that's clearly not an option is it?

As for an ability to move about, well that's essential for survival - you're predecessors wouldn't have got far (literally!) if that wasn't the case & therefore you would not have been born either so why assume that's particularly persuasive as an indicator of a god either?

'The amazing world of maths' is unquestionably something a god has no choice over. Could the value of pi be any different from 3.141...etc? No. That's impossible, even for a god! Therefore a god cannot be credited with all the mathematical possibilities of music & geometry in art & nature. Maths is an intrinsic language of reality because again there's no alternative (If you want to know why anything exists at all -what could the alternative be then? Nothing? There ain't no such thing otherwise it must be 'something'.)

When it comes to beauty, OK science doesn't explain that (yet -perhaps it will, I see no reason why not) but just because people claim god does explain it, doesn't mean it does. What we are told is 'God is beauty' but that's in no way an explanation of any sort. If I say 'Ghosts explain humor' do they??? Does it follow that because humor exists ghost must exist too just because I say so?

To see so much structure - and beauty in such - was enough to convince me that there's something beyond merely a 'blind' force behind both life and the evolution of it. - But you don't say why. You give the classic 'Argument from ignorance: 'I can't explain this therefore this other unexplainable claim does!' Well you can't explain a mystery by just proposing another one.

Why would such a force instill prodigious talent in some whereby some fantastic works of art/music etc come about by way of example that are celebrated in the annuls of history today? To further the species' appreciation of aesthetics? Again you present a question without providing a meaningful explanation for it. Saying 'God explains this' misses the most important word: because... You don't say this because you have nothing more than your claim: God must be responsible. Because? Because what?

Incidentally you asked how appreciation of art or beauty fit into the picture of evolution blindly manufacturing lifeforms. Well I'm not sure it does 'fit in' as a necessary attribute (as far as I know) but it doesn't need to. Such capabilities are likely to be by products of having a powerful sophisticated brain. Yes it's developed for survival but as we have developed extraordinary capabilities we have ended up with more than we strictly need. As a result we exploit this unnecessary but appealing capability not because we have to but because we can.

Scientific deduction doesn't make it possible to believe in God - it makes it possible to not believe in God.

Originally Posted by retro72

To be fair, there's the flip side. What of those who are born deformed or lack the senses that most of us take for granted? The latter was something I was convicted upon as I've no idea what it's like to be born blind or deaf, or even both yet I took my sight and hearing as a given until I thought about it.

Yes & throughout history millions of innocent babies (& animals) have been seriously disabled, deformed or retarded intellectually because that's the way god made them? Seriously? A loving god? Or blind evolution? Evolution doesn't care because it has no capability to. Does a god? - If yes, why doesn't it care enough to never let an innocent suffer? If no, why call it a god rather than a devil? Better still, call it what it is most likely to be: blind chance. That is a highly plausible 'flip side' as you put it.

Originally Posted by retro72

It's not a case of 'either or' but rather as the above. There either is a consciously designed intended purpose to life or there isn't.

That is 'either or'. There either is an intended purpose, or there isn't. To see these two option as two sides of a coin so it's a 50 / 50 split between: true / false is a flawed dichotomy. Mermaids either exist or they don't. Seeing as there's no verifiable evidence for them, does that mean it's a 50 / 50 split between them existing or not then? No. So why for a God then? There's no verifiable evidence for any sort of god either.

If you are bothered by a purposeless existence consider that human relationships are the purpose our genes have in keeping themselves going. That's not such a terrible thing is it even if it's not a conscious purpose as such. If it isn't enough purpose for you create your own. Why? Because you can, (if you want to).

Originally Posted by retro72

Well, all of the aforementioned along with personal experiences for me. I wouldn't expect that to be convincing in itself as explained before. You, me and everyone else make their own conclusions.

Sure we do. But isn't it best to have conclusions we can justify with logic & evidence or does anything go? You didn't speak of your 'personal experience'. I suspect that may be because it won't sound too convincing to me. That isn't the issue. Ask yourself why an inner conviction should be convincing to you when there's no one in the world easier to fool than yourself. I'll leave you with two questions you needn't answer for me. Answer them for yourself:

Q1. What is your dictionary definition of a delusion?

Q2. Would clues could a deluded person seek in order to appreciate they were deluded, if they decided this might be worth considering?

[comeon93]

Originally Posted by IronMan

I consider myself agnostic, but I find organized religion worthless.

I find there are plenty of atheists that are just as self-righteous and overzealous as their religious opponents, which makes them equally nauseating.

I don't understand labeling oneself agnostic when it comes to belief in god, as the word relates to knowledge. To me belief is either a yes or no question when it comes to something so deep. Either you believe in something or you don't.

If some one asks you the question, "Do you believe in god?", is your answer really, "I don't know.",?

I believe people refuse the atheist tag simply because it gets a bad rap, not because of the actual definition of the word.

Theism/atheism = belief
Gnosticism/Agnosticism = Knowledge

To be technical, so there is no question, I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe, but I don't know.

[comeon93]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

Actually, they do. It's pretty much the definition of pantheism.

That was the last belief that I held, before that too slipped away.

[howerd]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

Actually, they do. It's pretty much the definition of pantheism.

Not quite. Pantheism is more like the idea of The Force as an impersonal cosmic energy, or as Obi Wan Kenobi said:

"an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together."

But unfortunately Star Wars is fiction, science fiction not science fact.

[howerd]

Originally Posted by comeon93

If some one asks you the question, "Do you believe in god?", is your answer really, "I don't know.",?

This is what everyone misses! It's not a question of what you know it's a question of what you believe. If an agnostic person cannot say they actually believe in a god they must be an atheist albeit the weakest atheist possible. You can only have a belief in something & you cannot believe in there not being a god, only lack a belief in god therefore atheism cannot be a 'belief'.

Atheism is often dressed up as a type of belief to make it appear to be an claim just like the claim that a god exists. But strictly it's not a claim at all. It's a response to a claim about god being a reality. The response is:

"I don't believe your claim."

How is that a claim other than that of disbelief?

[howerd]

Never mind what Dawkins or Harris or Dennett have to say about God - now the Arch Bishop of Canterbury is even expressing his doubts about God. He says there are 'many reason' why he doubts! - His words not mine! Listen -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29258631

[BigTrain]

Originally Posted by howerd

Never mind what Dawkins or Harris or Dennett have to say about God - now the Arch Bishop of Canterbury is even expressing his doubts about God. He says there are 'many reason' why he doubts! - His words not mine! Listen -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29258631

There are many tares within the Christian churches, and there always have been. He is just another example of the corruption of mankind and within the churches. Human pride.
Those that have broken away from the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that Jesus Christ himself founded in the first century A.D. I'm not saying Catholics aren't corrupt either, there is a lot of corruption within the church, but it remains the most faithful denomination.

Jesus Christ is God Almighty and Lord and Savior for every human being, whether we want to believe it or not.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by howerd

Never mind what Dawkins or Harris or Dennett have to say about God - now the Arch Bishop of Canterbury is even expressing his doubts about God. He says there are 'many reason' why he doubts! - His words not mine! Listen -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29258631

And he saith vnto them, Why are yee fearefull, O yee of litle faith? Then hee arose, and rebuked the winds and the Sea, and there was a great calme.
~ Matthew 8:26

If I could do that, it would be much easier to moderate in General Discussions and News.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by howerd

Yes we have two possibilities: our existence is purposeful or it isn't

Oh, I'd suggest a third and related fourth possibilities:

3) It is purposeful, but the purpose has nothing to do with our well being, souls or happiness, and if we were told it, it would be unpleasant and/or incomprehensible. We do science experiments on primates with some level of cognition for example . . . maybe we're someone's experiment/organ farm/petri dish

4) It was purposeful, but the demiurge that created us has gone away, died, no longer cares.

One of the curiosities about existential arguments for God[s] is that they're nearly always omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. Who's to say that any of that is a given? Why is it that those who argue for a supernatural creation take as a given that the Creator is still around?

Indeed, if you believe that miracles once happened, and yet its quite clear that they don't any more (no one getting resurrected or turning water into wine on 55th street), then wouldn't the simplest explanation be "whatever had that power has left the building"?

Why do so few religions take that seemingly logical position? (Stoics, epicureans and Gnostics, each to some degree did take that view, but they're essentially gone).

[dhream]

I was in and out of church on my way to my final state (I hope) born again more times than a damn budhist before I finally decided, no, it's all bullshit made up crap and its from the Middle East! Why do religious Americans overlook that obvious 'red light'?

Also, it derailed my plans to be a (young) porn star, the guilt thing, its my lifes regret, but i did make two 'Oldje' movies last year, although they only used one in their website (a threesome with Scarlet Johns (Ukraine) and Linda Sweet (she was still 19! from the CR) damn that was fun, I should have taken my time more and let them finish me with a double bJ /HJ insted of DIY but the cameraman wanted it like that, so that was how we did it. Sorry Hijacked the post! Anyway I'm and athiest, it still sounds like something 'evil' shows you what religious conditioning is like, powerful!

We should go back to worshiping nature and the like, if anything at all...

Funny thing, the serenity prayer calms me down when i'm troubled, but yeah, that's probably just mind over matter, no 'woo' there, no god there, just me comforting me...