Ask an Atheist [CLOSED]

[Eaten By Cheese]

Deus Vivit

I must say thank you Cheese, you answered alot of my questions and I didnt have to ask them. biggrin

Ooh, you're welcome! Glad to have done so. mrgreen Thanks so much for taking the time to say this! 3nodding

 

[Eaten By Cheese]

Tangled Up In Blue

CCubed

If you're still accepting questions, what are your thoughts on the logical fallacy within atheism? Atheism is the belief in nothing, yet if you believe in nothing, you don't believe and thus can't believe. Yet, it maintains the belief that you believe in nothing. What are your thoughts?

I think you're confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God specifically; nihilism is the assertion that there are no objective truths in general. Some atheists are also nihilists to be sure, but atheism is not intrinsically nihilistic.

True. I myself am not nihilistic, but I am able to say that atheism and nihilism are two different beliefs--as has been explained.

 

[CCubed]

Eaten By Cheese

Tangled Up In Blue

CCubed

If you're still accepting questions, what are your thoughts on the logical fallacy within atheism? Atheism is the belief in nothing, yet if you believe in nothing, you don't believe and thus can't believe. Yet, it maintains the belief that you believe in nothing. What are your thoughts?

I think you're confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God specifically; nihilism is the assertion that there are no objective truths in general. Some atheists are also nihilists to be sure, but atheism is not intrinsically nihilistic.

True. I myself am not nihilistic, but I am able to say that atheism and nihilism are two different beliefs--as has been explained.

Hmm. Nevermind then.  

[Redem]

CCubed

If you're still accepting questions, what are your thoughts on the logical fallacy within atheism? Atheism is the belief in nothing, yet if you believe in nothing, you don't believe and thus can't believe. Yet, it maintains the belief that you believe in nothing. What are your thoughts?

Apart from the objections already noted, nihilism itself isn't a logical fallacy. You don't believe in nothing, you simply don't believe in anything. That slight difference removes any apparent contradiction in the idea.  

[CCubed]

Redem

CCubed

If you're still accepting questions, what are your thoughts on the logical fallacy within atheism? Atheism is the belief in nothing, yet if you believe in nothing, you don't believe and thus can't believe. Yet, it maintains the belief that you believe in nothing. What are your thoughts?

Apart from the objections already noted, nihilism itself isn't a logical fallacy. You don't believe in nothing, you simply don't believe in anything. That slight difference removes any apparent contradiction in the idea.

It remains a contradiction. You don't believe in anything yet you believe in the belief of not believing in anything. Logical Fallacy. If you were to say "Nothing is belief worthy" or some variation of that, then it would no longer remain a logical fallacy.  

[Eaten By Cheese]

1)Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?
I do. Evidence points toward it, and makes it the most likely possibility in the creation of all things. I'm not saying it's definitely what happened, but that it's what seems to be true, and until/unless it is contradicted, I'll continue to believe in it.

2)Do you believe that there is no greater power/ greater being?
Once again, I believe it is more likely that there is none, and I'm going to stick to believing there is probably none until/unless I'm contradicted with something that is enough to change my mind or make it the more likely possiblity. I'm not going to pretend to know why we're here on Earth, or even if there's a reason, but I do believe that we need to live as best we can, and focus on life as opposed to death--the same as theists do because, in religion, don't heaven's gates open to those who lived their lives well? I believe in the power of me, and the power of others. I don't believe there is a greater being watching over us, no.

3)Do you believe in life after death?
Personally, I have no clue. Some people say one thing is likely, some say another. There is no evidence to prove anything, or even show that something might be true or not true. So I'm just going to wait and see what happens. No one on this world can know until they die, and neither can I.

4)Have you ever believed in Christ, in the past?
I've tried to, but I think that my 'belief' was more of a want to believe in something, and was never really a true belief. I tried to convince myself of this, but to no avail. I do believe Christ may have been a real person, but not that he was the incarnation of God or a prophet.

 

[nightshade213126]

1)Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?
I do. Evidence points toward it, and makes it the most likely possibility in the creation of all things. I'm not saying it's definitely what happened, but that it's what seems to be true, and until/unless it is contradicted, I'll continue to believe in it.

What evidence are you referring to? If you are talking about the evidence for the big bang theory then that is not proof. A theory in itself cannot be proven. So hence you are taking it on faith that the scientists who came up with this theory is right. It is the same as the theory of evolution. It also has not been proven beyond a resonable doubt.
While these theories may be proof of one scenario you cannot rule out, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were not caused by a divine hand for a divine purpose. I personally believe that science and faith work hand in hand and many more scientists are coming to believe the same. I believe that the universe and evolution are the hands of God at work.

Take for instance a simple mathematical formula. 1+1=2 That has been proven beyond a resonable doubt. take 1+(-)1=0 that has also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you take anything away from these equations then the formula breaks down into chaos. The same is true with the universe. It is held together by a delicate balance of gravity, radiation, dark matter, anti matter, etc. if you take one part of the universal equation away everything falls into chaos and everything simply ceases to exist. Looking at the universe this way how can you prove it is being held together by blind chance? You can't. And for athiests and nihilists to believe that there is no possibility of the divine is the height of human arrogance. You say that it is more likely to be true that there is no higher power at work. When I look at it scientifically I can find nothing further from the truth. What are the scientific odds that one planet out of 9 (or eight since they down graded Pluto) only one has the correct orbit, the correct distance from the Sun, the correct mixture of Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, and other elements to support life? Can you say without a doubt or beyond a resonable doubt that there WAS NOT a divine hand on this planet?
Christ teaches us that we will not argue people into the kingdom so I know that this is an exercise in futility. Again to argue that there is no possibilty of a higher being has no basis in fact. You are taking it on faith that there is no higher being. And I know you may come back with the argument that if there were a higher power why doesn't he prove it to you. My question is why would he want to if you are so dead set on there being no God. Why should he prove himself to you if you are so single minded that you would just chalk it up to delusions.
And Christ's existence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and I will email that to you at a later date if you are willing to look at it with an open mind.  

[Eaten By Cheese]

(Before I reply, I'd like to appologize for my long absence. I've been dealing with several important things, but now that they are mostly calming down, I hope to be able to answer questions more regularly.)

nightshade213126

1)Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?
I do. Evidence points toward it, and makes it the most likely possibility in the creation of all things. I'm not saying it's definitely what happened, but that it's what seems to be true, and until/unless it is contradicted, I'll continue to believe in it.

What evidence are you referring to? If you are talking about the evidence for the big bang theory then that is not proof. A theory in itself cannot be proven. So hence you are taking it on faith that the scientists who came up with this theory is right. It is the same as the theory of evolution. It also has not been proven beyond a resonable doubt.
While these theories may be proof of one scenario you cannot rule out, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were not caused by a divine hand for a divine purpose. I personally believe that science and faith work hand in hand and many more scientists are coming to believe the same. I believe that the universe and evolution are the hands of God at work.

I did not say the evidence completely proved it; just that it pointed towards it, making it the most reasonable choice. Furthermore, you say I am 'taking faith in scientists' when I believe this evidence, but are you not taking faith in priests? Scientific evidence can be proved; God cannot.

The evidence of which I speak is long, but I found it was best summarized here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

I agree that this theory cannot be proven. However, if we follow logic, it leads us closest to this theory.

You say you believe science and faith work hand in hand. Yet you discredit evolution and the Big Bang because they contradict what is believed about God's actions. It seems that you believe that science and God work hand-in-hand, but you do not believe in the scientific elements of certain things such as the Big Bang. How, then, do you believe they work hand-in-hand?

nightshade213126

Take for instance a simple mathematical formula. 1+1=2 That has been proven beyond a resonable doubt. take 1+(-)1=0 that has also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you take anything away from these equations then the formula breaks down into chaos. The same is true with the universe. It is held together by a delicate balance of gravity, radiation, dark matter, anti matter, etc. if you take one part of the universal equation away everything falls into chaos and everything simply ceases to exist. Looking at the universe this way how can you prove it is being held together by blind chance? You can't. And for athiests and nihilists to believe that there is no possibility of the divine is the height of human arrogance. You say that it is more likely to be true that there is no higher power at work. When I look at it scientifically I can find nothing further from the truth. What are the scientific odds that one planet out of 9 (or eight since they down graded Pluto) only one has the correct orbit, the correct distance from the Sun, the correct mixture of Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, and other elements to support life? Can you say without a doubt or beyond a resonable doubt that there WAS NOT a divine hand on this planet?

I am well aware that the universe is not held together by blind chance. There are many factors at work. Also, though it may be balanced, it does not prove the existence of God. Where is the link between the two? Balance of universe=God? This seems to be simply a belief in God because of unsatisfaction with the withstanding proof. If you discredit this proof, you want something to give you a reason as to why we're here, and you are told there is a God. Therefore, you believe in God. Have you ever been skeptical? It is best to be open-minded.

I cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no divine intervention. However, reasonable doubt also says that if there is no evidence to prove X, and there is evidence to prove Y, then Y is the most likely choice.

However, you have a right to believe in whatever you want. I'm only trying to express my point of view. =]

nightshade213126

Christ teaches us that we will not argue people into the kingdom so I know that this is an exercise in futility. Again to argue that there is no possibilty of a higher being has no basis in fact. You are taking it on faith that there is no higher being. And I know you may come back with the argument that if there were a higher power why doesn't he prove it to you. My question is why would he want to if you are so dead set on there being no God. Why should he prove himself to you if you are so single minded that you would just chalk it up to delusions.
And Christ's existence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and I will email that to you at a later date if you are willing to look at it with an open mind.

Christ? Have you seen this Christ, has he told you personally? There is no proof that there is a Christ, or that this is what he said.

Futility? Few things are futile. However, I have found that it is human nature for a person who argues about their belief to believe even more strongly about it. Open-minded discussion may have productive results; debate will not.

Also, you are taking it on blind faith that what Christ, a man supposedly fathered by a diety, is true. Yet blind faith is something you say I should not exercise.

I would not ask God to prove himself to me. Also, I am not dead set on there being no God. If reasonable doubt overbears my current belief, that there is no God, then I will reconsider. Nothing is set in stone, and it is only when someone assumes that it is that conflict arises.

I will always hold an open mind, and am interested in seeing this evidence. However, my email contains my last name, which for privacy's sake, I would like to remain confidential. Would it be possible for you to send it through a pm?

 

[divineseraph]

I will say on a similar backing, that the delicacy and sheer chance it takes to have the universe exist is evidence. Not proof, but not entirely ignorable.

Atoms just happen to exist and work to make up matter. They don't have to. Atoms don't benefit in any way from clumping together into sensible matter. This sensible matter is not only capable of being, but reacting with other matters to create different types of matter. They are capable of igniting, of giving off heat and light, again for no logical reason, as they themselves are non-living and thus have no reason or motivation to burn.

this brings me to light. Light could have been any other wave frequency, like sound or plasma or whatever. But, by some happening of chance, this type of photon can be detected and translated, not only into shapes but into colors. Which makes me wonder- Why, when we look around, do we not just see a blurr of color? Light is everywhere, in beams and waves. Yet we only see it when it is reflected oof an object. Whatever property of light causes this is definitely a lucky one.

Then we have life. A chemical reaction unlike any other. This chemical reaction actually TRIES to recreate itself. A fire cannot will to exist, but animals? Why would the individual atoms which make up every person and every cell care? It is to no benefit to them wether they make Jesus or a rock. It is quite a strange happening that this chemical reaction actually tries to continue existing, but it is even more strange that several types of this develop conciousness. They can observe themselves and nature, make language and art. Quite strange, considering that matter doesn't even need to exist in the first place. And this is ignoring the even more specific details, such as hydrogen bonds (which are quite conveniently helpful for creating life).

It seems to me that existence is just a little to convenient. This is not proof or evidence, since this in no way directly correlated to God. However, I feel that the sheer chance involved in existence is worth noting.  

[Kralegna]

I'm not sure if your going to this thread again, but I'll post this anyway. I'm sorry if someone already asked these, but I'm to lazy to read everything in here(maybe I'll read all of it later). I have two main questions, both are very philosophical in nature(I'm a philosopher, so I know all the main questions and arguments), so nether of these can really be answered completely. I'll give you some background as to why I'm asking these questions, so you can answer them more effectively and more completely.

The first has to do mainly with what your perspective is personally, I already have a personal answer; but I would just like to see another side to it. I have been an agnostic and atheist in the past, at that time I was searching every possible belief(science based ones too) to uncover the truth. At the end though, I thought it was hopeless, nothing seemed to be true(not even logic based ones like the Big Bang theory, or atheistic ones). I was very scared of everything, and the rest of my outer life was already in chaos. I thought about suicide many, many times, but I never ever wanted to do it. The reason was that I thought that I would disappear forever and never live again. Many other things happened, but I won't get into it... My question is

What does it feel like to "know" for sure that you're going to just cease to exist at all after death? Is it filled with hopelessness or have you found a meaning of life to follow despite knowing it won't matter in the end?

My second question is a reaction to your previous answer in earlier posts. It has to do with free will, as the ability to chose an answer that is something out of reality; this includes, your physical mind or brain (conscious, sub-conscious, etc...) your bodies hormones and genes(DNA, RNA, etc..), your "heart's" desires(emotions, feelings wants, dislikes, etc), and the surrounding environment(upbringing, culture, history, ideologies, etc..). It was about the one where you stated that you cannot chose to believe or not to believe. My question is

What are your reasons for thinking that we cannot chose what to believe in? Is in it because you believe that everything is predetermined at the start of the universe, or just that free will doesn't exist(thus we have no soul) and we cannot control our minds into changing our believes...... or is it both of these?  

[Stardust Drifter]

Ineresting. Well why bring up a discussion? ^^; I mean some people may try to change you. Actually what I find funny.

Is that people don't belive in God because they don't see him. Yet...they belive in aliens...xP lol but you don't see aliens. And then they give because they expect 'some holy power' to grant their wish..xP

But that's just me. I'm a christian, a Prodestant to be exact. I won't change, but I will fight for my faith.

but I'm not here to smash you. I just don't really see a point. ^^; I mean Athiests rely on facts to back up their points of view. ^^; so they really don't understand..xP  

[Incarcerated_love]

How do you define morals?  

[Tarrou]

Incarcerated_love

How do you define morals?

Broadly, I try to live by the Golden Rule ('treat others as you would like to be treated' or 'love your neighbor as yourself'). In more specific cases, I also favor utilitarian and Rawlsian ethics, depending on the situation. In terms of how I prefer to live my life, I'm an Epicurean.  

[Eaten By Cheese]

divineseraph

I will say on a similar backing, that the delicacy and sheer chance it takes to have the universe exist is evidence. Not proof, but not entirely ignorable.

Atoms just happen to exist and work to make up matter. They don't have to. Atoms don't benefit in any way from clumping together into sensible matter. This sensible matter is not only capable of being, but reacting with other matters to create different types of matter. They are capable of igniting, of giving off heat and light, again for no logical reason, as they themselves are non-living and thus have no reason or motivation to burn.

this brings me to light. Light could have been any other wave frequency, like sound or plasma or whatever. But, by some happening of chance, this type of photon can be detected and translated, not only into shapes but into colors. Which makes me wonder- Why, when we look around, do we not just see a blurr of color? Light is everywhere, in beams and waves. Yet we only see it when it is reflected oof an object. Whatever property of light causes this is definitely a lucky one.

Then we have life. A chemical reaction unlike any other. This chemical reaction actually TRIES to recreate itself. A fire cannot will to exist, but animals? Why would the individual atoms which make up every person and every cell care? It is to no benefit to them wether they make Jesus or a rock. It is quite a strange happening that this chemical reaction actually tries to continue existing, but it is even more strange that several types of this develop conciousness. They can observe themselves and nature, make language and art. Quite strange, considering that matter doesn't even need to exist in the first place. And this is ignoring the even more specific details, such as hydrogen bonds (which are quite conveniently helpful for creating life).

It seems to me that existence is just a little to convenient. This is not proof or evidence, since this in no way directly correlated to God. However, I feel that the sheer chance involved in existence is worth noting.

Basically, you're saying that since so many things rely on chance, there must be a divine power assisting things to fall into place in a delicate balance. However, there is no evidence to prove that this divine power is directly corrolated to these balances. 'If there is no reason for this chance to suddenly happen, then God must be the reason' is a faulty statement. It's saying that X exists but there is no evidence for why X exists, so therefore Y must be the evidence. The stament is contradictory.

My dad went to a seminar several years ago. Each person was given a coin, a piece of paper, and a pen. They were told to write on one side of the paper what combination of sides they expected the coin to land on if they dropped it a number of times. Then they were asked to actually drop the coin a number of times and on the other side fo the paper record the combination of sides the coin actually landed on. The man giving the seminar was actually able to accurately guess which side of the paper was the side with the real combinations, and which was the side with what the person guessed would be the combinations. For the side with the guesses, the combination looked mostly like (h=heads, t=tails) h-t-h-h-t-h-t-t-h, with almost no large combinations of just one side of the coin, while the side of the paper with the actual combinations was more likely to have h-t-h-h-h-h-t-t-h-t, with combinations such as four heads in a row. The point of the seminar was to show that seemingly unlikely chances happen much more often than people would expect.