Ask the Atheist

[451ffan]

Ryal, thanks for your contribution! Always welcome with me. Feel free to offer up more bits on knowledge, please.

Beanieboy, to get to your next questions: "
Since you have left religion, what has been the reaction of your parents/relatives or friends?

What have you felt and thought in the process of moving from Protatholic to Atheist?"

To the first, I am lucky to have a pair of understanding parents. Not everyone who "comes out" is so lucky...I still celebrate "Christmas," even though it is predominantly a consumeristic goldmine for the most part.

What have I felt in response to being an Atheist? I had some questions...it is certainly a new feeling to be free of religion (don't take that the wrong way, please)...but I had to do it as a matter of conscience. I never felt right praying with friends...I never felt right in church, I was constantly doubting my own faith, which should be steadfast, if I was devout. I prayed and prayed and prayed...my girlfriend never came back. She was a Mormon, maybe that's why.

I sincerely tried faith...the doubt was too overwhelming. The process was a journey of discovery, but ultimately, like most atheists, I am happier for the process, despite its many bumps along the way.

Thanks again for the two good questions!

-MSB

​

 

[451ffan]

"Do atheists believe that there is nothing after death or do they believe that there is more to the human make-up than just the material realm?"

Mick,

One movie that got me thinking was "What the Bleep? Do We Know"...I know, strange title, strange.

I suppose that there could be something after death...after all, time is theorized to become "fuzzy" at the moment of death, from our own perceptions. I do not believe in an afterlife, but one could nevertheless exist...either through a supernatural source (which I sincerely doubt), or a materialistic source. The secondly is vapidly more probable, but still uncertain.

In the end, nothingness is nothing to fear...we may just cease to exist, which in a way is good, because we don't have any more work, pain, and problems to think of! We just "are" nonexistant. I do not fear death in the least.

-MSB

PS Thank you for that question!

 

[451ffan]

"I'm going to have to dispute you on that, because I have seen all four combinations, and they are nearly equally strong:"

You are free to speculate...but I hold fast to my beliefs. I base them off of two sources, personal experience and the book by Doug. Rushkoff that I just got done reading, "Coercion: Why We Listen to What "They" Say"

Thank you for your question...I like the company of Christians. They are some of the more cultured and amiable people that I have met in my journey through life.

-MSB

 

[Isaiah 53]

I do have a question:

Can you show me one society, throughout all of history, that was naturally atheist? And if not, why do you suppose that is?

PAX

 

[Tynan]

I'm going to have to dispute you on that, because I have seen all four combinations, and they are nearly equally strong:

Parents religious; offspring religious
Parents religious; offspring non-religious
Parents non-religious; offspring religious
Parents non-religious; offspring non-religious

Hence, while parental influence is important, I wouldn't say that's the determining factor of the offspring's faith/religion. For example, I am Category 1, but my parents are Category 3, while my housemate is Category 2 and many are Category 4.

A determining factor in ones faith is parental choice, this is an uncontroversial fact.

 

[Tynan]

Do atheists believe that there is nothing after death or do they believe that there is more to the human make-up than just the material realm?

When you die, you lose consciousness and your body breaks down and decays.

There is nothing more to the human make-up other than the material.

 

[Tynan]

I know this is umping in on someone else's thread but I hope you don;t mind if I look at these questions.

Hi mattseanbachman,

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. If God doesn't exist, where did everything come from?

This is a very profound question that has vexed many minds far far greater than mine for centuries, so don't expect the answer in this thread (or indeed ever!)

Perhaps matter did not come from anywhere, it may be the nature of reality for matter to exist, it may be that matter simply cannot not exist.

If we presume a starting point of nothingness, a void, then go looking for the agent or cause that filled it with matter - we must not forget that our staring point of nothingness is a presumption.

Imagine some hypothetical objects, both incorporeal, floating in the void of nothingness, one asks the other "how did it get like this - which supernatural agent made the universe empty" they similarly are presuming a starting point.

It is equally valid to ask.

If God does exist where did everything came from ?

If God does exist where did God come from ?

If the answer to the latter question is the standard answer of "God is eternal - he has always existed" we have then established that the notion of an entity existing eternally is valid and can then apply it to the universe.

The universe may be eternal.

The universe may need no cause, it may be uncaused.

The universe may not be subject to the same laws of physics as we are.

2. If science can explain everything, can they make a universe?

Science does not claim to be able to explain everything, this is a mistaken view of science.

3. What is the meaning of life if there is no God?

I do not think life has a meaning any more than a flower or chicken has a meaning.

5. Can you prove God doesn't exist?

Thanks!

Of course not.

I also cannot prove Odin, Zeus, fairies, goblins, Moloch, Allah, Thor, the magic invisible eye at the center of the universe, Ganesh, Shiva or Hera do not exist.

Does not being able to prove something does not exist add anything to the discussion ?

Does not being able to prove the that god does not exist add to the credibility that he does exist ?

 

[Tynan]

I do have a question:

Can you show me one society, throughout all of history, that was naturally atheist? And if not, why do you suppose that is?

PAX

There may be some ancient tribal society somewhere that did not worship a tree or mountain or thunder, but I am not sure I can dig one up right now (excuse the archaeology pun!).

But your point remains, even if we can dig one up they are extremely rare, vanishingly so.

Religion serves many many purposes, it really is very useful at keeping people and societies together, it gives people comfort in difficult times, it alleviates loneliness for even the most isolated, it raises money for the local charity, it bonds armies, gives them the moral authority to bomb and kill the enemy, it gives people a moral code by which to live by, it has delivered some pretty good architecture around Europe, it is an exceptionally good tool to control people.

But these kinds of questions are largely trivial when put against the more important "but is what it is based on true" ?

My belief is that, no it is just folklore and myth, but that does not negate its effects on society.

If by asking "why is religion so prevalent, so widespread" I first would have to point out that when the theist ring-fences all religion to his own in order to add credibility to his argument - that many of these religions not only disagree with your views but would happily put your to death for holding them.

I also do not know (although perhaps they may be out there) of any societies 'throughout all of history" that did not have violence, rape, bigamy, pedophilia, murder, war, disease and numerous other unpleasent facets, what does this say ? Does it say that the incidence of something mean that something is 'right' or 'good'.

I personally think religion is a human trait much like crying in children is a human trait, it serves a purpose.

 

[Tynan]

why do you think religion transcends cultures and time periods?

gracias

It is very useful to both society and the individual.

Why do you think dancing transcends cultures and time periods?

Why do you think rape transcends cultures and time periods?

Why do you think XXXX** transcends cultures and time periods?
insert one of the almost endless activities, both good and bad that transcend cultures and time periods

Does something trancending cultures and time periods mean anything, does it make that thing more valid?

Does it make rape more valid ?

Does it make biting ones fingernails more valid ?

 

[Isaiah 53]

There may be some ancient tribal society somewhere that did not worship a tree or mountain or thunder, but I am not sure I can dig one up right now (excuse the archaeology pun!).

But your point remains, even if we can dig one up they are extremely rare, vanishingly so.

Religion serves many many purposes, it really is very useful at keeping people and societies together, it gives people comfort in difficult times, it alleviates loneliness for even the most isolated, it raises money for the local charity, it bonds armies, gives them the moral authority to bomb and kill the enemy, it gives people a moral code by which to live by, it has delivered some pretty good architecture around Europe, it is an exceptionally good tool to control people.

But these kinds of questions are largely trivial when put against the more important "but is what it is based on true" ?

My belief is that, no it is just folklore and myth, but that does not negate its effects on society.

If by asking "why is religion so prevalent, so widespread" I first would have to point out that when the theist ring-fences all religion to his own in order to add credibility to his argument - that many of these religions not only disagree with your views but would happily put your to death for holding them.

I also do not know (although perhaps they may be out there) of any societies 'throughout all of history" that did not have violence, rape, bigamy, pedophilia, murder, war, disease and numerous other unpleasent facets, what does this say ? Does it say that the incidence of something mean that something is 'right' or 'good'.

I personally think religion is a human trait much like crying in children is a human trait, it serves a purpose.

Why would a belief in a higher power be a human trait? Why would this belief be so engrained on the human species that virtually, if not all, cultures held to some sort of belief.

The fact that many would disagree with me, or even kill me does not negate this fact. The fact that human sexual urge, or its propensity towards violence can be seen throughout all human history does not negate this fact.

Anger is a natural human drive/instinct, Sexual gratification is a natural human drive/instinct and for some reason a belief in a superior being/beings is a natural human drive/instinct.

My question is why?

I am not debating the right vs. wrong aspect of religion, I only want to know why it is that from the beginning of time, in all places, human beings strive to worship something greater them themselves...naturally.

PAX

 

[Tynan]

Why would a belief in a higher power be a human trait? Why would this belief be so engrained on the human species that virtually, if not all, cultures held to some sort of belief.

Hi Isaiah,

Like I pointed out above, belief in a 'higher' power serves numerous purposes - from comforting those who have lost a child from disease - to explaining thunder to those who live in stormy climes, it gives hope to slaves that a better life is to come and grants a sense of morality to the slave master that he is acting in the spirit of the bible, it justifies barbarous acts and sets up charities.

It really is the Swiss armay knife of human social issues.

The fact that many would disagree with me, or even kill me does not negate this fact.

My point was that often religious people argue their point from an angle that seems to suggest a union or harmony across all religion, pooling their numbers and then arguing from a platform of numerical superiority, numerical proof even !

The worshippers of the African mountain gods, the worshippers of the Roman gods and the worshippers of the ancient Chinese gods, those of Yahweh, Thor, Allah and Odin are all lined up as the point is made "look we are all the same, you must be wrong"

My point is that, that it is false company, you cannot claim all religion as proof of your own, especially as many of those religions are so diametrically opposed to you that not only do they think you are mad, they would happily kill you for your beliefs.

The fact that human sexual urge, or its propensity towards violence can be seen throughout all human history does not negate this fact.

You have suggested religion is prevalent throughout humanities history.

I have agreed with you.

I have also pointed out that many other things are prevelant throughout humanities history, violence, trading, prostitution, dancing, farming, hunting, story telling and so on.

My pointing this out does not negate religions prevalence.

Anger is a natural human drive/instinct, Sexual gratification is a natural human drive/instinct and for some reason a belief in a superior being/beings is a natural human drive/instinct.

My question is why?

I am not debating the right vs. wrong aspect of religion, I only want to know why it is that from the beginning of time, in all places, human beings strive to worship something greater them themselves...naturally.

PAX

My answer is that religion serves both the individual and society in numerous ways, it is a very good tool to help people live ther lifes, you may as well ask why friendship or empathy is seen in all societies throught mans history.


________________________________________________

Signature: i(until I can afford a signature I must cut and paste into each post !! C'mon where are those blessings!!)

A man is starving and in need of shelter.

Theist This man has is paying the price for Adams eating of the apple, he is burdened with sin, perhaps he is even infested with demons, I will settle on my knees and pray for his 'soul', God will hear this prayer and send help.

Atheist Design a vending machine that contains items such as hot drinks, blankets and food and which uses tokens instead of money. The tokens would be available from the majority of stores and people could give the tokens to the homeless safe in the knowledge that their gift wouldn't be spent on drugs or alcohol.

 

[Isaiah 53]

My answer is that religion serves both the individual and society in numerous ways, it is a very good tool to help people live ther lifes, you may as well ask why friendship or empathy is seen in all societies throught mans history.

Religion does serve this purpose, but why would religion transcend all cultures? This is the driving point of my question. The American Indians, who were cut off from the Japanese were both worshiping a deity in some form. Not because it comforted them, or because the leaders of their respective societies decided it would keep the commoners in line, but because it is a part of the human make-up. That is my point.

Human beings naturally seek out a superior force, to be atheist is unnatural.

I of course believe that this is because God has engrained in the human person a natural desire to seek Him out however that may work itself out.

I am not trying to advocate the Christian God in this discussion, I am only advocating a supreme being.

PAX

 

[Tynan]

Religion does serve this purpose, but why would religion transcend all cultures?

because all cultures are human - and all humans share certain needs, the needs served by religion.

This is the driving point of my question. The American Indians, who were cut off from the Japanese were both worshiping a deity in some form.Not because it comforted them,...

Well Isaiah I think people are attracted to religion because they find comfort there.

We will simply have to disagree on this point.

...or because the leaders of their respective societies decided it would keep the commoners in line...

I think the notion of religion as a tool of social control is a valid idea, of course no leader, tyrant or benign friendly councilor will simply decide one day "I know I will control them with religion". I think the control element comes after the religion has been long established - along with realisation that these people (all people from all religions) simply will not sway from their supernatural beliefs regardless of what is asked of them - it is then a small step to ask of them that which is said to be in the name of that religion.

but because it is a part of the human make-up. That is my point.

Yes I agree religion is commonplace because it is part of the human make-up, I am pointing out why I believe it is part of the human make-up.

It is because it offers much to the individual and society, it offers much without needing to be verified, checked or proved.

This lack of evidence means the most amazing things can be achieved. Reincarnation (in in most religions heaven) miracles, cures, devine justice, eternal life, angelic protection and so on.

Those more banal techniques for looking at the world, such as simple obsevation, empirical evidence, shared expeience fall short in this department, they cannot produce observable miracles nor glowing angels.

Religion has its place, other techniques stuggle to compete, it is humankind's answer to the difficult questions that have no real answer, it helps us sleep at night and handle our limited mortality.

Human beings naturally seek out a superior force, to be atheist is unnatural.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps athesists are uncommon, contrary to the normal course of nature, but of course as I am sure you are aware this says nothing about the credibility of their views.

The lack of completely atheist societies says nothing about whether a god exists or not, and which god that might or might not be, it does not confirm Islam, nor prove Hinduism wrong, nor does it negate the views held by those in Kurdistan waiting for the Peacock Angel to return to fight evil and cleanse the world, Chrsitians waiting for the return of Jesus Christ to fight evil and cleanse the world or those in Iran waiting for the return of the twelfth Imam, Mahdi to... you guessed it....fight evil and cleanse the world (and so on and so on).

It says atheists are in a minority, nothing else, not that they are right or that they are wrong.

A point that is central to this conversation and seems to be something you are perhaps predicating your argument on is: that which is popular is valid.

I do not agree with the 'majority are right' view, or the 'everyone is doing it so it must be good/right' view.

That which is popular is popular, nothing else.

I of course believe that this is because God has engrained in the human person a natural desire to seek Him out however that may work itself out.

Did the Christian god (the one I persume you follow) ingrain on the people of central African the natural desire to sarfice children to the ocean to stop the tides ?

Why did he not just make himself visible, why the child sacrifice ?

Or did he just ingrain his wishes a little poorly ?

But how could he ? He is omnipotent, he is omniscient, he is omnipresent, he must have engrained perfectly, he must have engrained clearly and with exacting purpose, he must have wanted the children wrapped in cane leaves an drowned.

I am not trying to advocate the Christian God in this discussion, I am only advocating a supreme being.

PAX

And is your advocacy: The majority of societies hold some supernatural beliefs therefore the god I believe in exists ?

 

[451ffan]

"Can you show me one society, throughout all of history, that was naturally atheist? And if not, why do you suppose that is?"

Hmm...I am not sure what you mean by "naturally atheist"...do you mean "predominantly atheist"? It's important to distinguish this, because if you are asking me when there has been a society that is wholly irreligious, that has probably never happened.

Society's very definition is a collection of peoples, and thus, as there is undoubtedly a collection of shorter and taller people in society, there is too also a segment of society that is "more religious" than the rest.

So "no," there has never been a society that has not seen at least a bit of theism...but on the other hand, atheism was practiced during the days of Aristotle, Socrates, etc. before the advent of the Christian conception of monotheism, and they were likewise just as hateful of differing viewpoints as today's culture can be.

I hope this helps,
MSB

 

[451ffan]

Isiah 53,

"Human beings naturally seek out a superior force, to be atheist is unnatural. "

This may be so, but it is likewise also true that some people are geneticially possessive of traits that are unfavorable to religion as well. Also, simply because there are genes in our being that make seeking a higher power some kind of decent priority, this doesn't mean that such a higher power exists! Should we believe in god, if one does not exist, simply because we have genes that have some sort of aspiration to find something like god? Heck no! You have to follow the truth, no matter where it leads. I hope this helps, feel free to ask some more questions!

-MSB

 

[Trish1947]

When you die, you lose consciousness and your body breaks down and decays.

There is nothing more to the human make-up other than the material.

Can you pinpoint that part of humanity that is animated? What we call life? If it no longer is animating the body..who is to say it just didn't go back to the One that gave it? The body seems pretty well equipped to perform very well in all aspects of it's environment, sort of like a tent, that allows it to work quite well in it's environment. If we're to assume what we call life, or sentientcy, animation, is produced or lost by a beating or not beating heart, then the heart, a material part in the body is able to produce the unseen. There's still that invisable component that we call life that isn't material, or can be seen, that is said to be produced or lost by the material.

 

[451ffan]

"Can you pinpoint that part of humanity that is animated? What we call life? If it no longer is animating the body..who is to say it just didn't go back to the One that gave it? The body seems pretty well equipped to perform very well in all aspects of it's environment, sort of like a tent, that allows it to work quite well in it's environment. If we're to assume what we call life, or sentientcy, animation, is produced or lost by a beating or not beating heart, then the heart, a material part in the body is able to produce the unseen. There's still that invisable component that we call life that isn't material, or can be seen, that some say is able to be produced or lost by the material."

The "soul," if you will, is nothing more than the conglomeration of lots of neurons and glian cells (which support the neurons). If it is true that there is an immaterial entity encased within the material brain, how does it stand to reason that whenever a part of the brain is damaged, the result is immediate, and the effects upon the "immaterial" "soul" is felt?

As for what Tyran is talking about, he did not ask questions of me, and I have not reviewed his many posts as of yet.

Thanks!
-MSB

 

[Trish1947]

"Can you pinpoint that part of humanity that is animated? What we call life? If it no longer is animating the body..who is to say it just didn't go back to the One that gave it? The body seems pretty well equipped to perform very well in all aspects of it's environment, sort of like a tent, that allows it to work quite well in it's environment. If we're to assume what we call life, or sentientcy, animation, is produced or lost by a beating or not beating heart, then the heart, a material part in the body is able to produce the unseen. There's still that invisable component that we call life that isn't material, or can be seen, that some say is able to be produced or lost by the material."

The "soul," if you will, is nothing more than the conglomeration of lots of neurons and glian cells (which support the neurons). If it is true that there is an immaterial entity encased within the material brain, how does it stand to reason that whenever a part of the brain is damaged, the result is immediate, and the effects upon the "immaterial" "soul" is felt?

As for what Tyran is talking about, he did not ask questions of me, and I have not reviewed his many posts as of yet.

Thanks!
-MSB

But is the soul affected? Or can be? Sure the physical effect is immediate, but no one can say with all assurance that the unseen part has been affected. Who says that when a person dies, or is damaged in the body, that the soul suffers from it's affects?
But also I don't see the soul as a bunch of fireing neutrons in the brain. So we do disagree on that part.

 

[451ffan]

Hmm...can anyone know assuredly that the soul exists? We know more and more every day about the neuronal-cognitive abilities that allow for consciousness. I put "soul" in quotations previously to highlight that I was utilizing your definition of the "self."

The fact that if I took a saw to my left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex of my brain, and thus, for illustration, lost all ability to do math, is, to myself, proof positive that there is no soul in the picture at all. And if it is there, what is it doing? My conscious mind has been, since the sawing, irrevokably changed, and the soul, if it exists, hasn't even entered into the picture.

If you ask me, if the soul exists, it's not doing anything. But I also believe that there is no soul, only the "self" which arises through consciousness (being the result of the interworking, numerous neuronal networks).

Thanks!
-MSB

 

[Tynan]

Can you pinpoint that part of humanity that is animated? What we call life? If it no longer is animating the body..who is to say it just didn't go back to the One that gave it?
The body seems pretty well equipped to perform very well in all aspects of it's environment, sort of like a tent, that allows it to work quite well in it's environment. If we're to assume what we call life, or sentientcy, animation, is produced or lost by a beating or not beating heart, then the heart, a material part in the body is able to produce the unseen. There's still that invisable component that we call life that isn't material, or can be seen, that is said to be produced or lost by the material.

This 'invisible component' simply does not exist.



I hope that answers your question.