Dogmatic Atheism

1.  I have no reason to believe that those things exist, as they have not revealed themselves to me.

2.  I do not follow an organised religion.

3.  Nothing is 'made up.'  In fact, there is very little to my 'religion.'  

It is simply: there is a rational being that exists outside the Universe which is capable of interacting with this one.

Other than that, there is nothing else about my 'religion.'

Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.

What decisions Ubuntu?

The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?

I don't know, what would be the difference?

1.  I have no reason to believe that those things exist, as they have not revealed themselves to me.

Has God revealed himself to you in any other way than showing you to your keys as bombs drop on school children?

Quote

Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.

What decisions Ubuntu?

Well here's an example: if you really do believe in an afterlife, and that the mind transcends the body, having tons of babies which you can't support and killing them so they can enjoy the afterlife is perfectly justifiable. Also with complex ethical issues, a person living on after they die may sway you one way when perhaps you should have selected the other one.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?

I don't know, what would be the difference?

Nothing.

Quote from: "Astantia"

1.  I have no reason to believe that those things exist, as they have not revealed themselves to me.

Has God revealed himself to you in any other way than showing you to your keys as bombs drop on school children?

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote

Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.

What decisions Ubuntu?

Well here's an example: if you really do believe in an afterlife, and that the mind transcends the body, having tons of babies which you can't support and killing them so they can enjoy the afterlife is perfectly justifiable. Also with complex ethical issues, a person living on after they die may sway you one way when perhaps you should have selected the other one.

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?

I don't know, what would be the difference?

Nothing.

1. I'm not sure.  Perhaps.  But then again, it could have been me that found my car keys, couldn't it?  I think it is more of a general feeling that God exists, not a defineable moment of revelation.  It's just always been there.

2. Well, what religion tells you to have tons of babies and then to kill them all?  What would be the moral justification for killing?  To experience a heaven?  Ubuntu, you are making an extreme example, that nobody who is without serious mental defect would do.

3. What complex ethical issues?

4. I'm not sure I understand, could you speak plainly?

1. Describe this feeling to me. Why do you take feelings as being evidence?

2. If you truly believe in an afterlife where the mind exists, you should go ahead, make lots of babies, and kill them once their mind develops. That way you can save money but create more consciousnesses that can enjoy transcending physicality.

3. Let's say you had to decide whether someone would die or go under a sever amount of pain. If you believe they will survive their own death anyways, it would be more ethical to kill them so they can continue a painless existence. But if life is the only shot you got, then it would be ethical to give them the pain along with the few precious years of existence we are so lucky to have.

4. Is that in reference to the human immunodeficiency and faith viruses or the subject above?

1. Describe this feeling to me. Why do you take feelings as being evidence?

2. If you truly believe in an afterlife where the mind exists, you should go ahead, make lots of babies, and kill them once their mind develops. That way you can save money but create more consciousnesses that can enjoy transcending physicality.

3. Let's say you had to decide whether someone would die or go under a sever amount of pain. If you believe they will survive their own death anyways, it would be more ethical to kill them so they can continue a painless existence. But if life is the only shot you got, then it would be ethical to give them the pain along with the few precious years of existence we are so lucky to have.

4. Is that in reference to the human immunodeficiency and faith viruses or the subject above?

1.  It is a feeling of security and hope that always returns to me, regardless of my circumstances.  It is the feeling that I am right. It is the feeling that there is a being greater than any man.

1(a.) Now 2.  Why wouldn't you take feelings into consideration?  They are an aspect of our existance, aren't they?

2. But if I kill them, then wouldn't I have ended their life, and thus, there chance to reach a higher potential as human beings?

3.  The only person who should be making those decisions are those who would suffer.  A few extra years of suffering really isn't a few extra years of life, even if there is nothing after life, I would rather die than live for another 8 years in agony.

4.  The faith virus.

1. Please describe in more detail... times... circumstances comparisons... etc. Some people have disorders where they are paranoid all the time. Should they believe they are being hunted by aliens even though it contradicts the evidence and logical thinking?

1.(a.) Feelings are well explained by science and have shown to relate to immediate physical observations, and often have nothing to do with metaphysical "vibrations."

2. But without you, they wouldn't have been born in the first place. With an afterlife, sending minds into the next plane of being could be considered humanitarian work. A conscious mind is better than no mind after all.

3. It's not always possible. If you knew an unmarried 30-year-old with no family or close friends would suffer agony in a coma for a full week, but make a recovery, would it be more ethical to euthanise him so he can pass onto the next phase of existence or to let him suffer but live his brief life?

4. The God Delusion ---> The Virus of Faith

Astantia, Sam Harris argues against pragmatism in his book The End of Faith.  I suggest you read it.

I'm curious, Knight.  When I first came to this forum, you seemed to be somewhat devout in your faith--has this changed recently?  I don't want to assume anything, but it sounds like you might not be quite as much of a believer anymore?

I never was a 'believer' (at least I never argued for it on here).  I'm not an atheist either.  I'm agnostic.  However, I have argued against other atheists on here (Ubuntu, Erasmus, beast, etc.) in defense of agnosticism over atheism, I believe.

Just added curiosity, but after reading The God Delusion, especially the "Poverty of Agnosticism" section, do you still have those same beliefs about agnosticism?

Yeah, just curious and stuff.  It really interests me what kind of effect those books might have on people.

I haven't read The God Delusion yet but I'm eagerly awaiting it to come in the mail.  I'll be reading Letter to a Christian Nation before Delusion.

If Dawkins argues that we should be atheists in regards to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, I might concur.  I'm agnostic in regards to whether or not there exists any such supernatural entity (despite having no evidence to even be agnostic).  Interesting topic.

He touches on both subjects, actually.  Agnosticism regarding personal gods, and regarding a more...  Deistic god, I guess would be the phrasing for it.

I think it is more of a general feeling that God exists, not a defineable moment of revelation.  It's just always been there.

I hate to go against the flow of my original post here, but - "a general feeling"? Are you saying that you basically believe in God purely on a hunch?

Would you believe me if I told you "the Earth is Round... I just have a feeling it is. Trust me"?

Would you believe me if I told you "the Earth is Round... I just have a feeling it is. Trust me"?

Hell no!  The people who say "Trust me" are always the kind of people that you definitely shouldn't.

Dogplatter, I don't trust you.

God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.

God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.

Probably because you can't spell.

God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.

Evidence? That is to say, why shouldn't I think you are deliberately trying to trick me? And how to I know you aren't honestly mistaken? How do you know God exists?

Ubuntu, I know you were wondering about Atheist Universe.  Here is the author's homepage, on which it seems he has put the audio book for download:  http://www.davidmills.net/

I think it is more of a general feeling that God exists, not a defineable moment of revelation.  It's just always been there.

I hate to go against the flow of my original post here, but - "a general feeling"? Are you saying that you basically believe in God purely on a hunch?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Would you believe me if I told you "the Earth is Round... I just have a feeling it is. Trust me"?

Am I telling you to trust me?  I do not care if you are Atheist or Theist.  However, I will not be told that being a Theist is stupid, as science has not disproven God.

I will not be told that being a Theist is stupid, as science has not disproven God.

Don't expect to see science disprove the existence of a god (though scientists might be able to disprove the existence of the character God in the Bible--that's another story).  Keep your mind open and evaluate the arguments.

Quote from: "Sanirius"

God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.

Evidence? That is to say, why shouldn't I think you are deliberately trying to trick me? And how to I know you aren't honestly mistaken? How do you know God exists?

No proof of it of course. So I can't prove anything.
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.

Quote from: "Astantia"

I will not be told that being a Theist is stupid, as science has not disproven God.

Don't expect to see science disprove the existence of a god (though scientists might be able to disprove the existence of the character God in the Bible--that's another story).  Keep your mind open and evaluate the arguments.

As I have said before, God is real, some of the things people say about it are lies.

But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.

That's a horrible analogy.  I suggest you take some time and look into evolution (read The Blind Watchmaker or something).

As I have said before, God is real, some of the things people say about it are lies.

When you say "God is real," I'm thinking that you're making a claim about the existence of the Biblical god (whom we refer to as capital-G-God).  If you're not making an assertion about this god, then either say "Some god exists" or "______ exists" (depending on the name you attribute your god).  In the meantime I'll assert "the celestial teapot exists and it is orbiting Mars as we speak."

Quote from: "Sanirius"

But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.

That's a horrible analogy.  I suggest you take some time and look into evolution (read The Blind Watchmaker or something).

Quote from: "Astantia"

As I have said before, God is real, some of the things people say about it are lies.

When you say "God is real," I'm thinking that you're making a claim about the existence of the Biblical god (whom we refer to as capital-G-God).  If you're not making an assertion about this god, then either say "Some god exists" or "______ exists" (depending on the name you attribute your god).  In the meantime I'll assert "the celestial teapot exists and it is orbiting Mars as we speak."

Well, all I know is that it is a supernatural rational being.  SO,I guess I can call it Essarbee.  That's my God's name, how about that?

That's fine, I guess there really is no way to disprove the celestial teapot.  I guess eventually, we will get conclusive results about it, however.

Were you the one claiming that god (Essarbee) exists simply because you feel that it exists?

I feel like you know you've created an idol.  That's fine.  But just keep in mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Were you the one claiming that god (Essarbee) exists simply because you feel that it exists?

I feel like you know you've created an idol.  That's fine.  But just keep in mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Of course it can.  But not by me.  It is an unproveable being.  I cannot convince you of it's existence, but neither can you convince me of it's non-existance.

No proof of it of course. So I can't prove anything.
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.

My lunch is a turkey sandwich. Just as well could our universe be a turkey sandwich.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Quote from: "Sanirius"

God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.

Evidence? That is to say, why shouldn't I think you are deliberately trying to trick me? And how to I know you aren't honestly mistaken? How do you know God exists?

No proof of it of course. So I can't prove anything.
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.

It's completely illogical to draw a conclusion without any evidence to back up that conclusion.  It could be that the universe is designed, but there is absolutely no evidence of that, and in fact science explains the universe in much more specific terms that do not require any kind of intelligent designer at all.

Interestingly the term "Intelligent Design" only appeared in 1987 after the US supreme court ruled that Creationism was a religious belief and could not be taught in public schools (thank god America was founded by atheists).

Of course it can. But not by me. It is an unproveable being. I cannot convince you of it's existence, but neither can you convince me of it's non-existance.

Just because it's unprovable, it doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence and say what is most likely.  Evidence for the existence of any gods: nothing.  So why would we make the conclusion that gods exist?  Clearly it is illogical to believe something without any evidence to back it up.

beast, I'm going to caution you to not dismiss the beliefs of theists so quickly.

 

It could be that the universe is designed, but there is absolutely no evidence of that

Keep in mind that you don't mean "there's no evidence to suggest that," as there surely is.  There are 'objective facts' about the universe that can be interpreted a number of ways, and can thus be used as evidence for a number of positions (including ID).  However, the situation is not whether or not there's any evidence backing up an Intelligent Designer, it's whether or not we have a better explanation.

Evidence for the existence of any gods: nothing.

Once again, there is evidence for the existence of a god, but the evidence might be better explained by another means.  For example, I take it as evidence for the existence of a god that I used to carry out intra-mental conversations with such a character.  These conversations were very real, don't get me wrong.  However, I now am no longer sure that my intra-mental conversations best suggest an actual conversation with a god.  Instead, perhaps, a better explanation is that I was simply fooling myself into thinking the conversation was mutual, whereas I was simply answering all of my own questions (praying/talking to myself).  Perceived 'miracles' are the same way.  They can be evidence of a god, even if they're better explained another way.  So that's just something to keep in mind.  We're not arguing that people don't have evidence to suggest that their god is correct, we're appealing to a principle called the 'inference to the best explanation' (IBE).

i dont belive in any of your silly gods thor lord of the lightning is the real 1

Keep in mind that you don't mean "there's no evidence to suggest that," as there surely is.  There are 'objective facts' about the universe that can be interpreted a number of ways, and can thus be used as evidence for a number of positions (including ID).  However, the situation is not whether or not there's any evidence backing up an Intelligent Designer, it's whether or not we have a better explanation.

"Objective Facts" is an oxymoron. If a fact is objective, it is not a fact.

...a whole bunch of philosophical bullshit...

If you honestly think the voices in your head are proof of a god, I suggest you get a CAT scan.