Atheist here (Ask me anything)

brinny · Dec 15, 2009

Originally Posted by brinny
Dawkins has stated there is a possibility of Intelligent Design.

Skeptic90 said:
I agree, there is a possibility, but infinitely small. Same with god, santa, unicorns, superman, pokemon, etc. Just because there is a chance it doesn't mean it is. This is why we must investigate. We must find out the truth. Saying that you are certain, I say you are not. If a scientist said he found the answer, I would say I don't think you have. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

how would one get evidence with our finite abilities and with our limitations, of the existence of God? Is it possible?

nicknack28 · Dec 15, 2009

I don't see why evidence of God would have to be beyond our limits of observation. If a god exists it could always give us evidence via miraculous/supernatural phenomena. If most of the world agreed that a specific witnessed and recorded event was completely supernatural, I think most would see that as evidence of a god (and obviously it wouldn't be outside our comprehension either).

brinny · Dec 15, 2009

nicknack28 said:
I don't see why evidence of God would have to be beyond our limits of observation. If a god exists it could always give us evidence via miraculous/supernatural phenomena. If most of the world agreed that a specific witnessed and recorded event was completely supernatural, I think most would see that as evidence of a god (and obviously it wouldn't be outside our comprehension either).

I contemplate this frequently......those that believe on God, without man-level evidence, are they insane, delusional, out of touch with reality? Or is there something else at play here?

Dragons87 · Dec 15, 2009

nicknack28 said:
I don't see why evidence of God would have to be beyond our limits of observation. If a god exists it could always give us evidence via miraculous/supernatural phenomena. If most of the world agreed that a specific witnessed and recorded event was completely supernatural, I think most would see that as evidence of a god (and obviously it wouldn't be outside our comprehension either).

The facts are already out there. Only our individual interpretations and experience of the facts are different. My experience tells me that God exists, whereas your experience doesn't tell you that He exist. Our different experiences do not affect the fact that He exists; it is only whether we experience it or not.

Skeptic90 · Dec 15, 2009

brinny said:
I contemplate this frequently......those that believe on God, without man-level evidence, are they insane, delusional, out of touch with reality? Or is there something else at play here?

Well no anyone can be delusional. So no, we don't believe that christians along with the rest of the worlds believers are insane or out of touch of reality, in the most part.

Delusional as the sense a child believes in Santa. People can be normal and believe. Our point is that atheists are simply skeptics. While some take in the supernatural as fact, we simply say that we don't believe until provided with more substantial evidence. Until we make the supernatural, 'natural'.

This is one of the main things I learned in anthropology, is to think in a culturally relative way. Just because another culture does things differently, or have different beliefs I have, it doesn't mean they are 'wrong'. I guess it all comes down what standards do you live by. We live by logic and reason, and believers stand by faith.

brinny · Dec 15, 2009

Skeptic90 said:
Well no anyone can be delusional. So no, we don't believe that christians along with the rest of the worlds believers are insane or out of touch of reality, in the most part.

Delusional as the sense a child believes in Santa. People can be normal and believe. Our point is that atheists are simply skeptics. While some take in the supernatural as fact, we simply say that we don't believe until provided with more substantial evidence. Until we make the supernatural, 'natural'.

This is one of the main things I learned in anthropology, is to think in a culturally relative way. Just because another culture does things differently, or have different beliefs I have, it doesn't mean they are 'wrong'. I guess it all comes down what standards do you live by. We live by logic and reason, and believers stand by faith.

Yes. Faith. How does one define it?

Skeptic90 · Dec 15, 2009

Dragons87 said:
The facts are already out there. Only our individual interpretations and experience of the facts are different. My experience tells me that God exists, whereas your experience doesn't tell you that He exist. Our different experiences do not affect the fact that He exists; it is only whether we experience it or not.

This is the usual explanation I always here for why god exists. The most common answer that believers give me when I ask, 'how do you know god exists?' The usual response goes something like this:

"I can feel him in me, I can feel his love, and I know he exists. Just look around you, all the trees and birds. Also think about what jesus did to you. God gave his only son to save humanity. Also Christianity is the most popular religion therefore it is correct, because god let it be'.

If you ask the same question to other religions you, more or less, get the same answer. This defies logic in so many ways. First love is something we all experience. Our brain is so powerful that we can even create it out of thinks that really don't exist. I could tell a child and say that spongebob is real, and he loves you. After he believes it, but truely believes it, he will feel it.

Second ad populous, because it is popular it is correct. This is another logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe the world is flat, it doesn't mean its correct.

And finally, fallacy of complexity. Just because we don't understand it now, it doesn't mean its never going to be understood. Its like giving a 5year old astrophysics equations and tell him to solve it. He will surely say "its too hard or impossible" but just give it time and patience and one day the problem will be solved.

Skeptic90 · Dec 15, 2009

brinny said:
Yes. Faith. How does one define it?

Well faith is simply believing in something without any requirement of evidence if its real or not. It requires confidence, loyalty, and strong belief on the certain thing. As atheists we do not believe, or have faith, in a god(s), because there is no evidence for it. We instead but our faith in things we can see and feel or detect. 'Natural' things.

Dragons87 · Dec 15, 2009

Please forgive me for breaking up your post to respond. If you feel that this would break up your argument, please advise.

Skeptic90 said:
This is the usual explanation I always here for why god exists. The most common answer that believers give me when I ask, 'how do you know god exists?' The usual response goes something like this:

"I can feel him in me, I can feel his love, and I know he exists. Just look around you, all the trees and birds. Also think about what jesus did to you. God gave his only son to save humanity. Also Christianity is the most popular religion therefore it is correct, because god let it be'.

The emphasis in all of this is "me"--as in, in my experience. You may not agree with how I interpret my experience, but au fin du jour, it's my experience, not anyone else's.

Skeptic90 said:
If you ask the same question to other religions you, more or less, get the same answer. This defies logic in so many ways. First love is something we all experience. Our brain is so powerful that we can even create it out of thinks that really don't exist. I could tell a child and say that spongebob is real, and he loves you. After he believes it, but truely believes it, he will feel it.

Well, I won't judge what others experience. At least we have common ground in experiencing something.

It is slightly awkward that someone who does not experience something is trying to tell someone who does experience it how to experience the experience. Perhaps, sir, you should try to think about how to experience it before you judge other people's experience?

Skeptic90 said:
Second ad populous, because it is popular it is correct. This is another logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe the world is flat, it doesn't mean its correct.

I would never argue that, for I believe the right things are often believed by the fewest people.

However, I will concede that there must be at least two people in the world who believe to experience Christianity, because Christianity is all about love, and you can't have love all by yourself.

Skeptic90 said:
And finally, fallacy of complexity. Just because we don't understand it now, it doesn't mean its never going to be understood. Its like giving a 5year old astrophysics equations and tell him to solve it. He will surely say "its too hard or impossible" but just give it time and patience and one day the problem will be solved.

Well, I understand it. It is clear as day to me.

See? We are confronted with the same problems and issues. I believe that I already understand the key behind these problems, whereas you don't. This is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Not saying that that inherently means either of us is better or correct; just different.

To be honest, sir, I believe that you are a "typical" atheist, who believe that the Christian concept of God is just something out of human scope, or that He is an "it", in the sense that "it" doesn't do anything--it just sits there and waits to be discovered like the Boson thingy-gummy they're trying to find in Switzerland.

But that's not the Christian concept of God. To be Christian is to get to know this active God who cares about us and be human at the same time.

brinny · Dec 15, 2009

Originally Posted by brinny
Yes. Faith. How does one define it?

Skeptic90 said:
Well faith is simply believing in something without any requirement of evidence if its real or not. It requires confidence, loyalty, and strong belief on the certain thing. As atheists we do not believe, or have faith, in a god(s), because there is no evidence for it. We instead but our faith in things we can see and feel or detect. 'Natural' things.

that's in sync with how i would describe my faith. thank you. yet i did not always have faith in God. where would this confidence, loyalty, and strong belief come from?

Skeptic90 · Dec 15, 2009

"It is slightly awkward that someone who does not experience something is trying to tell someone who does experience it how to experience the experience. Perhaps, sir, you should try to think about how to experience it before you judge other people's experience?"

Well I used to be a firm catholic. I did in fact "experienced" it. I felt loved and I really felt he was beside me where ever I went. I am not trying to say how everyone feels, it is simply my experience, hence the name of this post 'ask me anything' so I am giving my perspective on things as an atheist and a former believer. I cannot speak about your or anyone elses experience, simply mine. So to answer your question, yes I have experienced 'it'.

[FONT=&quot]"However, I will concede that there must be at least two people in the world who believe to experience Christianity, because Christianity is all about love, and you can't have love all by yourself."

Well I differ in opinion. I do think you can love all by yourself. I can love myself, can't I. Also atheists are not emotionless creatures. We feel like any other person. We marry, we feel pain, we feel love. You do not to be part of a christian religion to feel it. All you need is to be alive.

"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]This is a matter of opinion, not of fact.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Not saying that that inherently means either of us is better or correct; just different.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"

Yes I agree, I believe I made this clear before. Exactly my point.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]"To be honest, sir, I believe that you are a "typical" atheist, who believe that the Christian concept of God is just something out of human scope, or that He is an "it", in the sense that "it" doesn't do anything--it just sits there and waits to be discovered.[/FONT]"

Well I am not sure if he is out of the human scope. Also it is more logical to say that god, if real, is unconscious and simply the natural laws of the universe, like I said in one of the first posts in this thing. Well also it is possible that god is living and active too, we simply don't know. I do not have any evidence to point at either way.

I am just saying according to we see today, like the problem of free will, and suffering, it is more probable that god is an unconscious god.

If you have any other questions, please ask them. I am happy to share my thoughts and opinions.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Skeptic90 · Dec 15, 2009

brinny said:
that's in sync with how i would describe my faith. thank you. yet i did not always have faith in God. where would this confidence, loyalty, and strong belief come from?

Well loyalty to god, confident that he is real, because you as a believer know he is real. I believe that takes a bit of confidence, as I once was. Then strong belief of there is a god and what you believe in. All of this combined is faith. Sure there is nothing wrong with faith. Thats why there is a conflict now between faith and reason. Its simply a matter where you stand.

nicknack28 · Dec 16, 2009

This is more on the subject of personal experience and faith than a direct question to anyone in particular. It was discussed at some length already and I'd just like to mull it over some more.

It has been brought up (I'm summarizing and interpreting at the same time) that one's religious conviction, such as that dealing with the Christian god, comes through personal experience, revelation, the influence of the Holy Spirit, etc., and cannot be achieved through simply observing evidence of this and that. I can actually respect this in a way. If someone acknowledges that their faith does not hinge upon evidence (and is aware that this isn't a generally rational way of going about things), but is dependent on personal experience alone, at least they are honest that faith cannot be reconciled with reason. They can concede that it is fundamentally irrational to believe something without evidence of it but argue that religious convictions, whether for better or for worse, must be assessed independent of reason.

This next part is what I don't understand though. If someone (aware that they are doing it) submits to subjective personal experiences rather than reason, what makes them take that next step and assign their experience to a particular god or religion? If something so profound and rapturous affects you emotionally to the point that you must deliberately abandon reason and submit to that experience's suggestion of something divine, what makes a person conclude that that experience was the influence of Holy Spirit? Or Yahweh? Or the Buddha? Or Muhammad's spirit (I have no idea what an Islamic equivalent of an influential force would be other than Allah -- approximately Yahweh).

Let me put it this way, if you were not religious at all and you one day experienced the same sort of emotional revelation/relationship with God that you do now, and it wasn't suggested to you by anyone what the cause of that experience was, how would you know that it was the influence of the god you believe in now?

The point I'm driving at is the same Skeptic made earlier. People of all religions experience something emotionally exceptional and can conclude that there actually is something divine out there. And, in the best of cases, the experiencer can even concede that in this case they actually must abandon reason (no empirical evidence of the divine) in favor of such a severe emotional influence. However, it is only because of their upbringing that they assign this divinity to Yahweh, Zeus, the Buddha, etc. If you were raised Christian you'll obviously assign this influence to the Holy Spirit. If you were raised Jewish you'll obviously assign this influence to Yahweh (and so on and so forth with all religions).

Is this not a fair assessment? If anyone has anything to add that contests this I would with true sincerity wish to pursue this topic further. I don't want to make this look like a jab-and-run post, for I'm always open to discussion.

Of course, this may be sidetracking the thread too much. If so please ignore it.

nicknack28 · Dec 16, 2009

brinny said:
Yes. Faith. How does one define it?

And just a quickie. If you're interested in a short discussion about this I created a topic a short while ago discussing exactly this. It's over in Exploring Christianity (still here in the Outreach section). It's slowed down but feel free to read and contribute.

Skeptic90 · Dec 16, 2009

nicknack28 said:
This is more on the subject of personal experience and faith than a direct question to anyone in particular. It was discussed at some length already and I'd just like to mull it over some more.

It has been brought up (I'm summarizing and interpreting at the same time) that one's religious conviction, such as that dealing with the Christian god, comes through personal experience, revelation, the influence of the Holy Spirit, etc., and cannot be achieved through simply observing evidence of this and that. I can actually respect this in a way. If someone acknowledges that their faith does not hinge upon evidence (and is aware that this isn't a generally rational way of going about things), but is dependent on personal experience alone, at least they are honest that faith cannot be reconciled with reason. They can concede that it is fundamentally irrational to believe something without evidence of it but argue that religious convictions, whether for better or for worse, must be assessed independent of reason.

This next part is what I don't understand though. If someone (aware that they are doing it) submits to subjective personal experiences rather than reason, what makes them take that next step and assign their experience to a particular god or religion? If something so profound and rapturous affects you emotionally to the point that you must deliberately abandon reason and submit to that experience's suggestion of something divine, what makes a person conclude that that experience was the influence of Holy Spirit? Or Yahweh? Or the Buddha? Or Muhammad's spirit (I have no idea what an Islamic equivalent of an influential force would be other than Allah -- approximately Yahweh).

Let me put it this way, if you were not religious at all and you one day experienced the same sort of emotional revelation/relationship with God that you do now, and it wasn't suggested to you by anyone what the cause of that experience was, how would you know that it was the influence of the god you believe in now?

The point I'm driving at is the same Skeptic made earlier. People of all religions experience something emotionally exceptional and can conclude that there actually is something divine out there. And, in the best of cases, the experiencer can even concede that in this case they actually must abandon reason (no empirical evidence of the divine) in favor of such a severe emotional influence. However, it is only because of their upbringing that they assign this divinity to Yahweh, Zeus, the Buddha, etc. If you were raised Christian you'll obviously assign this influence to the Holy Spirit. If you were raised Jewish you'll obviously assign this influence to Yahweh (and so on and so forth with all religions).

Is this not a fair assessment? If anyone has anything to add that contests this I would with true sincerity wish to pursue this topic further. I don't want to make this look like a jab-and-run post, for I'm always open to discussion.

Of course, this may be sidetracking the thread too much. If so please ignore it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I believe the reason why believers abandon reason over faith is because they are afraid of the consequences. For about 18 1/2 years I never question god because I was afraid to do so. Not afraid in the way he will send me to hell, but I am disrespecting him. Even if I try to conflict reason over faith, I would have felt 'sinful' if I ever did so. Guilt and fear.

This idea of religion is truly great. It provides the love and support everyone needs. It provides the goverment, especially back when we had theocracies and monarchies, a right to rule and easily influence people. It helps the soldiers through the horrors of war. Finally, it prevents people from defecting from their religion, with the ideas of sin, hell, heaven, and an antagonist. So there is an individual, state and international gain of religion.

So to get back to reason vs faith. Faith triumps over reason, because in the believers eyes it is rational to have faith. Word of god is more powerful than word of man in the believers opinion. Until doubt is added, this will remain consant.

I would like to hear more on why believers choose faith over reason. If I am misunderstanding something, please feel free to correct me.

nicknack28 · Dec 16, 2009

Skeptic90 said:
I would like to hear more on why believers choose faith over reason.

Me as well, assuming the believer who answers sees the two as incompatible.

I am also interested in the fundamental difference between believers that see faith as incompatible with reason but must ultimately choose faith over reason and those that, as you said, see faith as reason. What is it that makes some see it one way and some see it the other? Is it a difference in their values? Is it a difference in their understandings of what faith and reason are? Is it a difference in the strength of their emotional experiences (attributed to the divine)?

What exactly is it?

I can only echo Skeptic's words. If I am misunderstanding something, please feel free to correct me.

Dragons87 · Dec 16, 2009

I apologise for breaking up your post to respond. If you feel that that breaks up your argument, please advise.

Skeptic90 said:
Well I used to be a firm catholic. I did in fact "experienced" it. I felt loved and I really felt he was beside me where ever I went. I am not trying to say how everyone feels, it is simply my experience, hence the name of this post 'ask me anything' so I am giving my perspective on things as an atheist and a former believer. I cannot speak about your or anyone elses experience, simply mine. So to answer your question, yes I have experienced 'it'.

Well...you said "ask me", so here goes:

How did you come about experiencing "it"?

What did you actually experience?

What made you stop experiencing "it"? Presumably that's why you lapsed in the faith.

What do you think today that that "it" that you experienced was?

[FONT=&quot]

Skeptic90 said:
Well I differ in opinion. I do think you can love all by yourself. I can love myself, can't I. Also atheists are not emotionless creatures. We feel like any other person. We marry, we feel pain, we feel love. You do not to be part of a christian religion to feel it. All you need is to be alive.

[/FONT]

Yes, as human beings, we can love ourselves; I don't dispute that.

But I was talking about Christianity, and self-love is un-Christian. That's why you need to have at least two people on earth to have Christianity for real.

Skeptic90 said:
[FONT=&quot]Yes I agree, I believe I made this clear before. Exactly my point.[/FONT]

Excellent. We strive to find common ground.

Skeptic90 said:
Well I am not sure if he is out of the human scope. Also it is more logical to say that god, if real, is unconscious and simply the natural laws of the universe, like I said in one of the first posts in this thing. Well also it is possible that god is living and active too, we simply don't know. I do not have any evidence to point at either way.

Well, I do! That's why I believe.

Skeptic90 said:
I am just saying according to we see today, like the problem of free will, and suffering, it is more probable that god is an unconscious god.

Well, to me, free will is not a problem, but an attribute. It is something to be exercised, not debated. The "problem" is purely an academic one, to which I do not need to find a solution to live and prosper.

Suffering is a more thorny issue, again, not because I think it's a problem to be debated, but because it exists, not only among the poor, but among the rich, and I don't think I've done enough to help, even though, thankfully, I am living in relative peace and prosperity.

I hope that I am demonstrating that faith is something to be lived, not something to be thought about. No Christian who simply sits around talking about faith will experience the greatness of it, and no non-Christian will look at that Christian and give glory to God, because there would be literally nothing to look at.

Dragons87 · Dec 16, 2009

nicknack28 said:
Me as well, assuming the believer who answers sees the two as incompatible.

I am also interested in the fundamental difference between believers that see faith as incompatible with reason but must ultimately choose faith over reason and those that, as you said, see faith as reason. What is it that makes some see it one way and some see it the other? Is it a difference in their values? Is it a difference in their understandings of what faith and reason are? Is it a difference in the strength of their emotional experiences (attributed to the divine)?

What exactly is it?

I can only echo Skeptic's words. If I am misunderstanding something, please feel free to correct me.

I do not think that reason and faith are incompatible or mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complementary.

When I am confronted with a problem, issue, matter, question in the present, when I do not have a clear course of action for the future, reason is what I use to build at least two possible courses of action. But after coming up with these two possibilities, I need to decide which is the better course of action. No matter how strongly I build either case, in the end I would have to make a judgment call, and faith is what bridges the gap between the evidence I have (built on reason) and the choice I make.

To take a bigger example, we can look at a great historical figures. Let's take George Washington.

In 1770, he experienced the oppression of the British government on American colonialists, and thought about overthrowing the British. But in 1770 if he told others of the plan, at least some would have derided him as suicidal, unreasonable, impractical, irrational.

Surely, he couldn't have made the choice to declare Revolution based on any evidence that the Revolution would succeed--he had to take a risk, or simply, have a bit of faith--not necessarily in God, but still, some kind of belief in that what is not currently the case will become the case.

It is by that willingness to take a risk against the odds that founded the American Republic.

Reason builds on the past to help us judge the present, but faith is what allows us to grasp the future.

On the other hand, faith without any reason is blind, and means nothing.

Read what Jesus says is the cost of following Him:

'"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."' -- Luke 14:28-33

The Lord asks those who say want to follow Him to first sit down and calculate the cost. Only if they believe that the rewards are better can they take up the road of discipleship.

And we can look at how some have rationally calculated, decided that the future rewards are better than the current costs, and went ahead with it--people who have sacrificed everything they own to walk this road.

I'm not saying that that automatically makes Christianity the only faith that is right and you have to believe blah blah... I'm saying that that is what the power of faith can do, something I don't believe reason alone can make us do.

nicknack28 · Dec 16, 2009

Thanks Dragons, I appreciate the considerate response and will keep this perspective in mind.

DannyOcean · Dec 16, 2009

some good conversation in this thread.

Atheist here (Ask me anything)

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Browncoat

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

Epic Member

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Epic Member

Epic Member

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Epic Member

Epic Member

Browncoat

Browncoat

Epic Member

Browncoat

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

Browncoat

Liar and Thief

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency