Atheism and Self-Esteem

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DocBrown
This topic of evolution vs creation breeds them.

I'll say. Christians finding out that the whole creation story they've been told is a fairy tale is probably the #1 cause for leaving the faith.

 

[OneLargeToe]

Okay, from a purely non-spiritual perspective, why is it a "good" thing to avoid overpopulation, given that the eventual fate of all mankind and all other life is to become frozen dust, with even the distant memory that life once existed lost for eternity? In other words, if life is a fleeting speck in the history of the universe, what difference does it make if life is eliminated sooner or later, whether by nuclear war, overpopulation, or just the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Where's the objective "good" here?

There you go again: You're putting human concepts on a natural process.  Nature doesn't "know" that everything will become "frozen dust".   As it's been explained on these boards numerous times before, nature just plugs along the best it can with what it's got.  There's no objective or goal. 

But, as far as overpopulation goes, obviously it's "bad" because there are limited resources.

 

[blader]

This is where you’re quite mistaken. The things done by Naturalists are seen as permissible by Naturalism (since all moral judgments are subjective, and so right and wrong really don’t exist, thus everything is equally acceptable). Why was the Holocaust wrong? According to Naturalism, it was natural selection taking its course through survival of the fittest (The Strong, Nazis, wiping out the weak, Jews). Whenever murder takes place, it should be seen as just as okay as when you see it happen in the animal kingdom. With this in mind, I see no reason why you should be the least bit concerned about atrocities at all.

"How does an atheist account for the existence of objective moral values?" I often hear. "If you don't believe in God, then what is your basis for morality?"

We atheists find our basis for morality, of course, in nature. Where else would we look?

Most atheists think moral values are real, but that does not mean they are "objective." They can't be. A value is not a "thing"--it is a function of a mind (which is itself a function). To be objective is to exist independently of a mind. So, an "objective value" is an oxymoron: the existence in the mind of something that is independent of the mind.

Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that "Morality" exists in the universe, a cosmic object waiting to be discovered. The word "morality" is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist.

Morality is simply the avoidance of unnecessary harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Organisms suffer as they bump into their environment, and as rational animals, we humans have some choice about how this happens. If we minimize pain and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. If we don't, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions.
Source: http://www.ffrf.org/articles/goodness.html

From Dan Barker, a Pastor turned atheist.

If the only thing that's stopping you from killing, stealing, raping, and genocide is faith in your religion, then there's something definitely wrong with you.

Not only that, but Islam permits a Muslim to do these things (In fact, it promotes it by making Jihad the only sure-fire way to get into Heaven). It is acceptable under Islam. You cannot say this for Christianity. There is a fine difference.

What if I were to take some quotes from the Bible where God killed babies, made war, and practiced genocide? Surely you would accuse me of "taking quotes out of context." I can very well say it for Christianity, but you would be able to defend it. Same goes for Islam. There might be troublesome passages in the Qu'ran, but I'm sure there's big old Muslim encyclopedias devoted to explaining away "troublesome passages" just as there is for the Bible.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well if this isn't a serious scientific discussion I don't know is. Move over Freud!

 

In any case I don't see how knowing that you're a depraved creature, that if left to your own devices would rape,pillage and eat babies would help your self-esteem. Nor would knowing that you cannot do this because there is a God "This Big" out there who will punish you forever for the slightest screw up helps either. Especially when you find out this God is basically in charge because he's the biggest man on the block. Basically then the message is: God is the strongest so God is right. And if God gets mad at you for, whatever reason, probably doing all the raping and murdering you as a human being love to do, God will send you to be tortured forever. In this case it is only by denying your own sick,twisted,disgusting nature and becoming God's good slave that you will avoid an eternity of torture.

 

Well shucks if that don't raise a man's self-esteem I don't know what will.

 

 

What nonsense. If I have to choose between that belief and the one that has me "eating crackers and swining from a tree", I'll swing from the freakin' tree.

 

[blader]

Need I say more about the condescending tone of the general atheist? Thank you for vindicating me. I rest my case.

How would you feel if I used some of your posts to make a case for the condescending tone of the "general Christian?" He's no more of a "general atheist" than Hitler was a "general Christian."

Jihad is a holy war to defend Islam.

Wrong. Holy War is actually a phrase coined by the Europeans during the Crusades. There is no direct translation of the word Jihad in modern english. The closest translation would be an inner striving or struggle.

"The word Jihad means striving. In its primary sense it is an inner thing, within self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard. Since Islam is not confined to the boundaries of the individual but extends to the welfare of society and humanity in general, an individual cannot keep improving himself/herself in isolation from what happens in their community or in the world at large, hence the Quranic injunction to the Islamic nation to take as a duty "to enjoin good and forbid evil." (3:104) It is a duty which is not exclusive to Muslims but applies to the human race who are, according to the Quran, God's vicegerent on earth. Muslims, however, cannot shirk it even if others do. The means to fulfil it are varied, and in our modern world encompass all legal, diplomatic, arbitrative, economic, and political instruments. But Islam does not exclude the use of force to curb evil, if there is no other workable alternative. A forerunner of the collective security principle and collective intervention to stop aggression, at least in theory, as manifested in the United Nations Charter, is the Quranic reference "..make peace between them (the two fighting groups), but if one of the two persists in aggression against the other, fight the aggressors until they revert to God's commandment." (49:9)"
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/jargon/jihad1.htm

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Jedi

You’re misunderstanding the situation again. God is love, but God is also just. He will not force an atheist into Heaven against his will, nor will he allow him into Heaven if he doesn’t deserve it. That’s why Christ came – to pay humanity’s debt of sin, and allowing humanity a choice, in spite of their own actions, on whether or not they wish to be with God for all eternity. It’s merely a matter of whether or not you accept the way out that’s been provided. If you don’t accept the way out, how does that make God unloving or unjust?

Because no one that I know would knowingly choose hell over heaven. If God exists, he simply has not provided more evidence for his existence as the Christian God than any other religion. If everyone knew God exists, then I couldn't see why anyone would want to choose hell. As it stands, the question isn't about choosing heaven over hell, but simply being convinced that God even exists!

You say that it's so simple, you either choose to accept heaven or reject it, therefore God is loving and just. That's not the situation here. If the Christian God has provided evidence for his existence, then I can't see why anyone would knowingly choose hell. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I wouldn't.

I speak from personal experience in reading post after post from atheists, and it never fails that the familiar condescending tone comes out sooner or later. Not all atheists are like this, but the vast majority of those I’ve discussed topics like this with are. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. If the general tones of atheists are condescending, then it’s only reasonable to conclude that’s what they feel inside as well.

Simply replace "atheists" with "Christians" and that is my response.

Haha, well noted, Blader. I’ll try to keep an extra eye on my wording. Thanks.

I'm just saying we can't judge how a person feels by these bulletin board postings. If say, we were to all meet at a cafe and have a chat, we'd find everyone to be really nice people. But tempers and egos tend to flare easier on the internet.

Anyway, these fields you mentioned are science, but they are also the type of science called Origin Science (not Operation Science, which is what people seem to usually think of when the term “science” is used). But I’d hardly cite them as examples of concrete evidence of supporting evolution via blind chance from some sort of primordial soup.

No, but I'm citing them as examples that refute your condemnation of evolution as merely "naturalistic philosophy" and not science. It is every bit as scientific as any of the mentioned fields.

Evolution, in the truest sense of the word, does not (you’re quite right). However, it’s when people say that “science” says that man merely evolved through blind chance, time, and natural forces from a single-celled organism (which happened to assemble itself together by chance) that I’m speaking about. That’s the definition of “evolution” I’m arguing against (which is, as I said, nothing more than naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science).

Well, then, we are in agreement. If someone says that about evolution, then it definitely is not scientific, but merely naturalistic philosophy. But the scientific theory of evolution is very much scientific.

Intel processors don’t directly affect how you look at yourself or lower your value as a person (saying you’re nothing more than a natural accident – a product of blind chance, time, and natural forces with no meaning, no purpose, whose whole existence will end at the moment of death).

Your glass is half empty, mine is half full.

 

[Praxiteles]

And still it continues!

Excuse me, Jedi, but an anti-atheism thread is not relevant in the E/C forum.

In anticipation of the response I expect to get from you (and you've probably heard this countless times before!) but the ToE does not equal atheism. From my reading of your posts, it seems to me that you equate an acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism. This is a mistake.

Cheers,
Prax

 

[fieldsofwind]

I can not stop anyone from saying that God is unjust... just look at how things work etc...

I can't explain everything in this world... don't need to. Those that are looking for proof... you aren't going to get any.... I believe, even though I do not see.

I am a sinner, but God has reconciled me through the blood of Him who took the nature of a man to be my sacrifice... the Son of God.

That shows me how much God hates sin... I do not question, or try to understand His justice... I simply believe Him... and you know what... I can not explain the love that I possess within my being for this voice that speaks to me... that tells me to stand unwavering.

Those that look to hell as being unjust... God says that He seeks to draw all men to Himself... and I believe that. He will not force you, and He will not come out of the clouds... What love or faith is there when you have no logical choice but to believe??? Hell is separation from God, (and I deserve it but for the grace of my LORD)... because the Father cannot be in the presence of sin. (which is why He took the nature of man... making Himself nothing to become that sin in His sacrifice) No man is with an excuse... Look to the heavens... see His works... He says that if you ask you will recieve... He will go to those who ask for Him.

I do not care what others will say in responce... people can debate God all they want... I believe... on faith alone... without seeing, I still know

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by OneLargeToe
There you go again: You're putting human concepts on a natural process.  Nature doesn't "know" that everything will become "frozen dust".  

Does that mean you don't, either?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by OneLargeToe
But, as far as overpopulation goes, obviously it's "bad" because there are limited resources.

Why is it bad because there are limited resources?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
I can not stop anyone from saying that God is unjust... just look at how things work etc...

I can't explain everything in this world... don't need to. Those that are looking for proof... you aren't going to get any.... I believe, even though I do not see.

I am a sinner, but God has reconciled me through the blood of Him who took the nature of a man to be my sacrifice... the Son of God.

That shows me how much God hates sin... I do not question, or try to understand His justice... I simply believe Him... and you know what... I can not explain the love that I possess within my being for this voice that speaks to me... that tells me to stand unwavering.

Those that look to hell as being unjust... God says that He seeks to draw all men to Himself... and I believe that. He will not force you, and He will not come out of the clouds... What love or faith is there when you have no logical choice but to believe??? Hell is separation from God, (and I deserve it but for the grace of my LORD)... because the Father cannot be in the presence of sin. (which is why He took the nature of man... making Himself nothing to become that sin in His sacrifice) No man is with an excuse... Look to the heavens... see His works... He says that if you ask you will recieve... He will go to those who ask for Him.

I do not care what others will say in responce... people can debate God all they want... I believe... on faith alone... without seeing, I still know

Well if you don't care then why are you trying to proof that evolution isn't real.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

seesaw-

There will come a point in time (far, far in the future) when the usuable energy will be consumed and getting from one remaining source to another will require more energy than each source has. Therefore, humanity's existence in this Universe is limited although we could possibly side step this problem by creating or discovering another universe.

This of course assumes that the Universe is a closed system. If there is some external source of energy, it would be possible to live indefinitely. However, I haven't seen any evidence for this, yet.

 

[OneLargeToe]

Why is it bad because there are limited resources?

Because the mice would run out of cheese and that's very bad.

Does that mean you don't, either?

Sadly, my magic eight-ball doesn't say.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
seesaw-

There will come a point in time (far, far in the future) when the usuable energy will be consumed and getting from one remaining source to another will require more energy than each source has. Therefore, humanity's existence in this Universe is limited although we could possibly side step this problem by creating or discovering another universe.

This of course assumes that the Universe is a closed system. If there is some external source of energy, it would be possible to live indefinitely. However, I haven't seen any evidence for this, yet.

Yes you are right something will happen but it will not be the universe that runs out of energy it will be our sun, and it will distory the earth. But just cause a sun dies doens't mean the universe will. Suns are being made every day in the universe. The universe has alot of energry to last all time.

But you probably know this already.

i havn't seen any evidence either, but there is so much energy in the universe that we can see, And lots more in energy we can't, like dark matter.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by seesaw
Yes you are right something will happen but it will not be the universe that runs out of energy it will be our sun, and it will distory the earth. But just cause a sun dies doens't mean the universe will. Suns are being made every day in the universe. The universe has alot of energry to last all time.

That's not the current thinking amongst cosmologists, seesaw.  As the universe expands, it will cool down.  In the long term, it will suffer from what is known as "heat death", and this is estimated to take place in around 14 billion years.

Suns may be being "made every day" currently, but that state of affairs is only possible while ever there is sufficient energy.  The energy of this universe is, however, finite.

You can read up on this on heaps of web sites.  Just do a google on "heat death".

Cheers,

Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
That's not the current thinking amongst cosmologists, seesaw.  As the universe expands, it will cool down.  In the long term, it will suffer from what is known as "heat death", and this is estimated to take place in around 14 billion years.

Suns may be being "made every day" currently, but that state of affairs is only possible while ever there is sufficient energy.  The energy of this universe is, however, finite.

You can read up on this on heaps of web sites.  Just do a google on "heat death".

Cheers,

Prax

Well ok since the universe is speeding up and yes it is expanding, if it was slowing down it would be cooling down but its not.

read this.

http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/papers/hstpressrelease198.html

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by seesaw
Well ok since the universe is speeding up and yes it is expanding, if it was slowing down it would be cooling down but its not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  If you're saying that the fact that the universe is accelerating means that stars will continue to form at current rates, you'd be mistaken.

read this.

http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/papers/hstpressrelease198.html

I did.  What is does say is that the universe will expand forever - this I already understand to be the current thinking, and is not in dispute.

What it does not say (and what you seem to think is says) is that stars will continue to form.  Heat death will result from this expansion and acceleration.  Sure, the universe will continue to expand forever.  But it will be a dark, cold place.  

Cheers,

Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  If you're saying that the fact that the universe is accelerating means that stars will continue to form at current rates, you'd be mistaken.



I did.  What is does say is that the universe will expand forever - this I already understand to be the current thinking, and is not in dispute.

What it does not say (and what you seem to think is says) is that stars will continue to form.  Heat death will result from this expansion and acceleration.  Sure, the universe will continue to expand forever.  But it will be a dark, cold place.  

Cheers,

Prax

yeah it will be dark in some places as the galaxies move away from each other, even our own galaxy will move into another galaxy, i wish i could live to see it, it will be the most beautiful thing that anyone will ever see. From earth it will be the best light show ever.

But anyway by the time that the galaxies move to far away i believe the human race will have a way to goto those galaxies. Maybe worms, or working the space so we can travel through it to other galaxies.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Heat death will result from this expansion and acceleration.  Sure, the universe will continue to expand forever.  But it will be a dark, cold place.  

It seems I have made an error here.   Well, hey, it happens from time to time... 

If you go to this page it gives a good definition of heat death and cold death, which is the term I should have used.

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Praxiteles]

No, seesaw, it will not just be dark in "some places". The entire universe will cool down. Please do some reading on this.

As the universe ages, entropy will take effect. This will result in heat death.

As it expands, the process of expansion will lead to cold death.

Either way that you look at it, at some point in the future there will be no light and no heat in the universe. It will be cold, non-luminous matter and space-time expanding forever.

Cheers,
Prax