Ask an atheist!

[Maxwell511]

Can we just stick with this point and the last first, cos we are sort of going all over the place, we can get back to the others later if you wish but I think it would help the discussion if it was more focused.

If God's attributes are necessary to His Being, then by definition, they are not created. I still fail to see why God must create Himself.

For example:
1. A necessary attribute of God is omniscience, i.e. to possess infinite knowledge.
2. A necessary condition of omnisicence is the existance of knowledge.
3 God is the source of all knowledge.
4 A being cannot create the conditions necessary for their own existance.
5 A God that has omniscience as a necessary attribute and is the source of all knowledge cannot exist.

What point do you have a problem with?

You are begging the question and being arbitrary. You have no justification for the inductive principle or logical absolutes without using circular reasoning or question begging and ultimately, being arbitrary. This is the true definition of blind faith. Why even bother to reason with me since you no have justification for reasoning?

It is not blind faith to believe something is true, if it is plainly true. As I said earlier in the thread, the only knowledge a person can truely know is that they exist, truth exists and logic exists. I have no more blind faith in the existance of logic and truth than I have in the existance of myself.

I may not be able to account for any of those three things at any real fundamental level but that does not make any of them untrue.

I do not need to justify my existance in order to exist and I don't have to justify reason in order to reason. Also I don't think that it is possible to produce a logically consistant reason for reason. For example I don't think it is possible to reason why A cannot be not A.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Can we just stick with this point and the last first, cos we are sort of going all over the place, we can get back to the others later if you wish but I think it would help the discussion if it was more focused.

I agree.

For example:
1. A necessary attribute of God is omniscience, i.e. to possess infinite knowledge.
2. A necessary condition of omnisicence is the existance of knowledge.
3 God is the source of all knowledge.
4 A being cannot create the conditions necessary for their own existance.
5 A God that has omniscience as a necessary attribute and is the source of all knowledge cannot exist.

What point do you have a problem with?

How you arrived at (5). If (2) is true then it seems you are suggesting knowledge exists outside of a mind. It seems (2) should read, "A necessary condition of omniscience is a mind". Omniscience = Knowledge; it's not seperate from it.

We can come back to this topic another time so we don't go all over the place.

It is not blind faith to believe something is true, if it is plainly true.

Maybe I can illustrate my point better this way:

God is plainly true.

As I said earlier in the thread, the only knowledge a person can truely know is that they exist, truth exists and logic exists.

Appearantly you also know the proposition "the only knowledge a person can truely know is that they exist, truth exists and logic exists" and from what I've seen through the thread, there are several more propositions you seem to know. So it seems that you also know that induction exists and you know how to use logic and you know how to form sentences/use language and you know some truths and are probably capable of discovering more truths.

You're statement here, at first glance at least, is inconsistent.

I may not be able to account for any of those three things at any real fundamental level but that does not make any of them untrue.

I absolutely agree with you here. That's why I think the athiest outlook is unlivable. Sounds like a good idea, but you can't really live that way when you get down to the core. You are most definately correct that not being able to account for them doesn't make them untrue; actually it shows unbelief in God to be irrational.

I do not need to justify my existance in order to exist and I don't have to justify reason in order to reason.

You're right, you don't have to, you can always beg the question.

Also I don't think that it is possible to produce a logically consistant reason for reason. For example I don't think it is possible to reason why A cannot be not A.

Sure it's possible to give a justification for the use of reason, and your example here isn't a good illustration of your point since it only shows that you can't give a reason to violate logic.

 

[Maxwell511]

How you arrived at (5). If (2) is true then it seems you are suggesting knowledge exists outside of a mind. It seems (2) should read, "A necessary condition of omniscience is a mind". Omniscience = Knowledge; it's not seperate from it.

Things that we are knowledgeable about can and do exist outside of the mind. I have knowledge about the colour of my cat for example. In a way knowledge does exist outside of the mind. There are things that I don't, or anyone else, have knowledge of that does not mean that that knowledge about them does not exist. Now if God has infinite knowledge which includes knowledge of things that exist other than him, for example your hair colour, then the existence of your hair is a necessary condition for the existence of the knowledge that God has about it. If God is also the creator of your hair, that is where the problem comes in.

Maybe I can illustrate my point better this way:

God is plainly true.

I don't think so.

Appearantly you also know the proposition "the only knowledge a person can truely know is that they exist, truth exists and logic exists" and from what I've seen through the thread, there are several more propositions you seem to know.

I'll concede that.

So it seems that you also know that induction exists and you know how to use logic and you know how to form sentences/use language and you know some truths and are probably capable of discovering more truths.

I cannot prove induction to be true. Which is what separates knowledge about your own existence and knowledge about the existence of other beings.

You're statement here, at first glance at least, is inconsistent.

Maybe I should have made it more clear about what I meant by defining by what can be proved from pure deduction and what is based on induction. There is a limited amount of things that you have prove as true from deduction that is not dependent on at least some axioms gained from induction. My list may not be exhaustive.

I absolutely agree with you here. That's why I think the athiest outlook is unlivable. Sounds like a good idea, but you can't really live that way when you get down to the core. You are most definately correct that not being able to account for them doesn't make them untrue; actually it shows unbelief in God to be irrational.

I live fine. Why is it irrational? If you are saying that it is irrational to believe in things that are plainly true without accounting for their existence, and if as you say the exist of God is plainly true, then wouldn't believing in God also be irrational if you cannot account for he existance?

You're right, you don't have to, you can always beg the question.

If be beg the question you mean "raise the question", I can, but I believe that it is impossible to find any logical answer to it. So what is the point?

Sure it's possible to give a justification for the use of reason

What is it? I am sure people can give justifications but I wouldn't think they are consistent.

 

[Cloudz]

I really don't have anything to ask you. Wishing you a good life though.

 

[andross77]

i would like to know how an atheist answers "the moral question"? like how do you know what's right and wrong? do you define it? or does society define it? and if society defines it, society is made up of individuals, so your morals would have to change with whoever is in leadership. looking forward to your answer. i asked it in another thread and the atheist just left and never answered.

 

[Allegory]

Dear atheist,

Is it true that you are a godless killing machine bent on eating babies and stealing the souls of children? Are garlic or crosses effective deterrents? And how do you feel about communism?

 

[andross77]

Dear atheist,

Is it true that you are a godless killing machine bent on eating babies and stealing the souls of children? Are garlic or crosses effective deterrents? And how do you feel about communism?

even though your comment was made in sarcasm i don't think "godless killing machine" would be far off from describing an atheist in power. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao and their tens of millions of murders (men, women and children) and then tell me what the logical outcome of atheism in a society looks like?

 

[Allegory]

even though your comment was made in sarcasm i don't think "godless killing machine" would be far off from describing an atheist in power. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao and their tens of millions of murders (men, women and children) and then tell me what the logical outcome of atheism in a society looks like?

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Something like that perhaps.

 

[Catholicism]

Is there a question you've been wanting to ask an atheist? Well, I'm one so you could ask me if you want. I'll try to provide an answer that you would hear from many atheists instead of just me. Ask me here or send me a private message.

Why do I do this? Well, there are many gross misunderstandings about atheism and atheists. I just want as many as possible to know what it's really all about.
Like... Do atheists drink the blood of puppies?
The answer is of course: only on Tuesdays

Very well then, here is a curious question for you.

What is a good person?

 

[andross77]

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Something like that perhaps.

i guess you can color EVERY issue 2 different ways. Are you a politician? Saying that the problems in America are due to it's religiousity and reluctance to accept Evolution as fact is reaching, reaching really far. To say that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao decided what was right and wrong for themselves and as a result killed 10's of millions of men, women and children during their atheistic/communist regimes, is fact.

Again, people can be "bad atheists" or "bad Christians". Look at the leaders of the respective worldviews and their main authoritative literature (during all time periods) and you will find a better answer to which is more beneficial to mankind, life, creation and finding Truth.

 

[Allegory]

i guess you can color EVERY issue 2 different ways. Are you a politician? Saying that the problems in America are due to it's religiousity and reluctance to accept Evolution as fact is reaching, reaching really far. To say that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao decided what was right and wrong for themselves and as a result killed 10's of millions of men, women and children during their atheistic/communist regimes, is fact.

Again, people can be "bad atheists" or "bad Christians". Look at the leaders of the respective worldviews and their main authoritative literature (during all time periods) and you will find a better answer to which is more beneficial to mankind, life, creation and finding Truth.

I disagree with the article in that causation can be found through that study, but it seems to be an interesting correlation. To say "look at hitler, stalin, mussolini and mao" is a bit one sided too. What about the crusades, the dark ages, the current round of islamic terrorism? What about the perpetual war in the middle east? What about the Roman empire? The Inquisition?

Both sides are guilty of killing millions, to say that an atheist society would be any more murderous than a religious society is nothing short of offensive. The difference, you will find, is that these "atheists" who have been tyrants were tyrants for themselves, not for atheism. Generally religion was banned to bolster the authority of the dictator. Would these empires have been less murderous had the men in charge been more religious? I doubt it. They'd have just killed "for God."

 

[andross77]

I disagree with the article in that causation can be found through that study, but it seems to be an interesting correlation. To say "look at hitler, stalin, mussolini and mao" is a bit one sided too. What about the crusades, the dark ages, the current round of islamic terrorism? What about the perpetual war in the middle east? What about the Roman empire? The Inquisition?

Both sides are guilty of killing millions, to say that an atheist society would be any more murderous than a religious society is nothing short of offensive. The difference, you will find, is that these "atheists" who have been tyrants were tyrants for themselves, not for atheism. Generally religion was banned to bolster the authority of the dictator. Would these empires have been less murderous had the men in charge been more religious? I doubt it. They'd have just killed "for God."

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. There is NO comparison in number of deaths by the atheist/communist regimes mentioned and Christianity or Islam. No comparison. Conservative estimates put the number of murders as a result of communist/atheist societies at sixty million. Compare this to approximately thirty thousand murders in the Spanish Inquisition and between one and five million in the Crusades. Even if one were to say that Christians were responsible for all the deaths caused in Europe amongst the hundreds of wars (and this, while certainly an exaggeration, is not too far-fetched, for the Catholic Church was directly involved in the majority of European wars), and the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War, at the median of the estimates given, it would turn out to be around 1/4 of the deaths caused by just Communism. Add, for example, the deaths caused by Nazism and Fascism in Germany and Italy, respectively. Or, perhaps, the number of deaths caused by abortion between 1920 and 2000, estimated by the same site to be between 500 and 850 million. You get totals far exceeding anything Christianity or any other religion has ever done.

And don't compare apples with oranges. I am not arguing for a "religious" society versus an "atheistic" society. I am arguing for a Christian society versus an atheistic society. And if you had those 2 separate societys, run by True Christians/Atheists, following True Christian/Atheist principles, there would be a VAST difference in the outcome of the 2 societies. The Christian one would be characterized by love and service (just like their Leader, Jesus Christ) and the atheist society would be characterized by survival of the fittest, crime and chaos (just like their leaders, hitler, stalin, mussolini and mao).

If you want to talk of a "religious society", i'm not interested in the discussion. I have no interest or care for a religious society as it is worthless. But if you want to talk of a Christianity society, i am game.

And then again if you are going to talk about "christian societies" by referencing the crusades or corrupt popes then again you are mistaken b/c they were NOT following Scripture and the example of Jesus.

 

[Allegory]

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. There is NO comparison in number of deaths by the atheist/communist regimes mentioned and Christianity or Islam. No comparison.

And don't compare apples with oranges. I am not arguing for a "religious" society versus an "atheistic" society. I am arguing for a Christian society versus an atheistic society. And if you had those 2 separate societys, run by True Christians/Atheists, following True Christian/Atheist principles, there would be a VAST difference in the outcome of the 2 societies. The Christian one would be characterized by love and service (just like their Leader, Jesus Christ) and the atheist society would be characterized by survival of the fittest, crime and chaos (just like their leaders, hitler, stalin, mussolini and mao).

If you want to talk of a "religious society", i'm not interested in the discussion. I have no interest or care for a religious society as it is worthless. But if you want to talk of a Christianity society, i am game.

And then again if you are going to talk about "christian societies" by referencing the crusades or corrupt popes then again you are mistaken b/c they were NOT following Scripture and the example of Jesus.

Wait wait wait...How do "corrupt popes" represent Christianity less than dictators represent atheism?

For that matter, what are atheist principles? I don't think you even know what atheism is. It sounds to me like you've just been told that it's this horrible thing by your church and you've taken that at face value.

I'm not the one that brought this up, I just made a sarcastic post and you started calling atheists evil people incapable of any sort of moral action. This is a completely false assumption and I really am astonished that anyone would truthfully believe that. I think you're probably just trolling me.

 

[Allegory]

Anyway to say that particular tyrants were atheist and therefore atheist society would fail is a horrible, horrible way to make a point. These people were tyrants and were not killing people for their belief. They were killing people for control. The churches were often banned, like I said, because the dictator would see it as a threat to his power, not because he disagreed in the existence of God. If you are Kim Jong Il and you want to be seen as God, how can you allow the church into your country and maintain that position? You can't. If you are a dictator you want to be seen as God by your people, infallible. So other Gods must be eliminated.

This isn't an atheist ideology. In fact, there really is no atheist ideology. Atheism just represents a person's disbelief in gods. So to say an "atheist society" is really to say "a secular society". People can believe in God if they want, but it's not up to the state to make that choice.


And that's the way it should be. Not the politicians, not you, not me, not even God himself should be able to tell people they have to believe.

 

[andross77]

Wait wait wait...How do "corrupt popes" represent Christianity less than dictators represent atheism?

For that matter, what are atheist principles? I don't think you even know what atheism is. It sounds to me like you've just been told that it's this horrible thing by your church and you've taken that at face value.

I'm not the one that brought this up, I just made a sarcastic post and you started calling atheists evil people incapable of any sort of moral action. This is a completely false assumption and I really am astonished that anyone would truthfully believe that. I think you're probably just trolling me.

Many things wrong with your post. First, i'm a protestant so i don't believe the pope is my representation for Christ or the Faith. Second, i never called atheists evil people in general. I named 4 well-known, powerful people that ruled atheist/communist societies and used atheist principles to guide them on their bloody rampage.

I do understand what atheism is. It's a denial of god(s). Most of you are "soft" atheists, aka wimps, which i would call instead agnostics. "Strong" atheists are those that say they know 100% that there is no god(s). That is a laughable stance just in it's absense of reason, logic and intellect, but soft even soft atheism is ultimately incapable of providing a solid morality system. Go check out the back and forth between me and an atheist about morality. He had to duck out b/c he had no answer for a very simple question.

I'm not trolling you, but my point still stands that an atheists morals are either non-existant (admittedly very rare) or completely subjective (depends on how they feel or what society they are in). Those world leaders i mentioned used this to their advantage, pointed to a certain scapegoat or just decided to "flex their muscles" and went about on their rampages.

No one is denying people have misguidedly done evil things in the name of Christianity. But again, look at the numbers and it is much greater with atheism. Plus, if you look at the "Rulebook" for Christianity and it's Leader, you will find ZERO justification for those evil actions.

What atheistic book of morality is there for me to inspect? And if there is one, does it just grab "the golden rule" and say "do what's best for society" and live within your civil rights? Because that isn't very concrete and if one atheist says to another atheist he thinks something is ok, the other has no grounds to object on.

just some ramblings. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

 

[andross77]

Anyway to say that particular tyrants were atheist and therefore atheist society would fail is a horrible, horrible way to make a point. These people were tyrants and were not killing people for their belief. They were killing people for control. The churches were often banned, like I said, because the dictator would see it as a threat to his power, not because he disagreed in the existence of God. If you are Kim Jong Il and you want to be seen as God, how can you allow the church into your country and maintain that position? You can't. If you are a dictator you want to be seen as God by your people, infallible. So other Gods must be eliminated.

This isn't an atheist ideology. In fact, there really is no atheist ideology. Atheism just represents a person's disbelief in gods. So to say an "atheist society" is really to say "a secular society". People can believe in God if they want, but it's not up to the state to make that choice.


And that's the way it should be. Not the politicians, not you, not me, not even God himself should be able to tell people they have to believe.

Agreed that these people were tyrants. But what kind of tyrants? Atheist/Communist tyrants. That means something. They were not church-going Christians. They did not read their bibles and pray and feed the poor and live well below their means, etc, etc.

You said yourself, "there really is no atheistic ideology". So that means, if an atheist comes to power, they can make it really however they want. This is why you have "no morals". This is why atheistic society would/does/will eventually always fail. B/c you have no STANDARD. Christians do have an "idealistic society". It's one that follows God's commands and is led by Him. This kingdom won't happen until the earth is destroyed and a new heaven and new earth are created and God is ruling among his believers for all eternity. So in the meantime we have less than ideal, but still very good governments, like democracy.

You have agreed with what i've been trying to say so i don't need to say much else. If more atheists would really think hard about the moral question and try and answer it, i think we would have a lot less atheists that think they are choosing the "intellectual religion" and lot more leaving that worldview that is incomplete and unsustainable.

 

[Allegory]

Look, you are completely misunderstanding everything.

Many things wrong with your post. First, i'm a protestant so i don't believe the pope is my representation for Christ or the Faith. Second, i never called atheists evil people in general. I named 4 well-known, powerful people that ruled atheist/communist societies and used atheist principles to guide them on their bloody rampage.

THERE ARE NO ATHEIST PRINCIPLES. THERE. ARE. NONE. PEOPLE DON'T RULE "IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM". IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

I do understand what atheism is. It's a denial of god(s). Most of you are "soft" atheists, aka wimps, which i would call instead agnostics. "Strong" atheists are those that say they know 100% that there is no god(s). That is a laughable stance just in it's absense of reason, logic and intellect, but soft even soft atheism is ultimately incapable of providing a solid morality system. Go check out the back and forth between me and an atheist about morality. He had to duck out b/c he had no answer for a very simple question.

This is honestly the stupidest thing I've ever read.

I'm not trolling you, but my point still stands that an atheists morals are either non-existant (admittedly very rare) or completely subjective (depends on how they feel or what society they are in). Those world leaders i mentioned used this to their advantage, pointed to a certain scapegoat or just decided to "flex their muscles" and went about on their rampages.

Where are you getting your information on atheists? Atheists are just regular people who don't happen to believe in god. You have to understand that we are a social species, and behaving in an anti-social manner is seen as something that would work as a disadvantage to an individual biologically speaking.

No one is denying people have misguidedly done evil things in the name of Christianity. But again, look at the numbers and it is much greater with atheism. Plus, if you look at the "Rulebook" for Christianity and it's Leader, you will find ZERO justification for those evil actions.

They don't do these things in the name of atheism. They're not running around killing people because they feel that people are believing in the wrong god. They are killing people because they are evil men. It doesn't matter if they are atheist, or christian, or hindu, or buddhist, or muslim, or scientologists. If these men wanted to rule with an iron fist, they would do it regardless of whether or not they believed in God.

What atheistic book of morality is there for me to inspect? And if there is one, does it just grab "the golden rule" and say "do what's best for society" and live within your civil rights? Because that isn't very concrete and if one atheist says to another atheist he thinks something is ok, the other has no grounds to object on.

just some ramblings. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

Again, atheism isn't a system of beliefs or morals or anything. It's not a religion, and you shouldn't expect it to tell people how to be good. There are other systems for morality that exist, rule of law and "the golden rule" are enough for most people I think. Most first-world countries are secular and none have descended into an orgy of death and rape and "sin" or whatever else.

Agreed that these people were tyrants. But what kind of tyrants? Atheist/Communist tyrants. That means something. They were not church-going Christians. They did not read their bibles and pray and feed the poor and live well below their means, etc, etc.

Again, it doesn't matter if they were atheist or not. They were killing because they were evil, not because they were atheist.

You said yourself, "there really is no atheistic ideology". So that means, if an atheist comes to power, they can make it really however they want. This is why you have "no morals". This is why atheistic society would/does/will eventually always fail. B/c you have no STANDARD. Christians do have an "idealistic society". It's one that follows God's commands and is led by Him. This kingdom won't happen until the earth is destroyed and a new heaven and new earth are created and God is ruling among his believers for all eternity. So in the meantime we have less than ideal, but still very good governments, like democracy.

You have agreed with what i've been trying to say so i don't need to say much else. If more atheists would really think hard about the moral question and try and answer it, i think we would have a lot less atheists that think they are choosing the "intellectual religion" and lot more leaving that worldview that is incomplete and unsustainable.

It's not a religion. Could you please pull your head out of your ass before you try to discuss atheism again? I don't understand how you're living in Chicago with these misguided ideas about how you would expect atheists to act. If you're not really willing to discuss them without being downright insulting I'm done.

 

[Allegory]

(deleted)

 

[alex872]

Like... Do atheists drink the blood of puppies?
The answer is of course: only on Tuesdays

Why on Tuesdays? Is this the sacred day in atheism?

 

[SnapCount]

I've got a question. How do atheists live their lives knowing that nothing is permanent? Despite what you could accomplish, the loving relationships you could build, none of that can be held unto.