Hello from a nontheist

[Catherineanne]

We are chemistry, everything else is details. I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat.

Why thank you.

'How often does a person get a compliment like that?'

Topol.

 

[razeontherock]

I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat.

Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns.

You might consider reading the forum rules, specifically "blasphemy." Just a word to the wise ...

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

You might consider reading the forum rules, specifically "blasphemy." Just a word to the wise ...

I will keep that in mind, thanks. I'm sorry my feelings conflict with yours.

My feelings remain the same and if you have questions for me, I will try and respectfully retort.

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

The question to ask, as with any scientific study, is this; what evidence do I need to convince me?

See thats just it. Science has nothing to do with being convinced at all. Fact makes science. Laws are set in place, I dont have to convince you that gravity is working on you right now. To be science it has to be not only reproduced but predictable, If i mix two things together and it blows up in my face I have something, but its not enough. I have to get bob to try it as well. Bob tries it and it also blows up. Now me and bob are smart A#$es and have bill do it, as we sit back and watch, sure enough it blows up in his face. This is science. Now how can someone honestly come to the conclusion that what they read in the bible is true, nothing from it has every been historically documented outside of it.

Ok time for a new set of quetions.

Also if it wasn't the first religion you were told as a child, would it be the one that you followed?

We are all born atheists, I am a non-theist. We are taught to be religious. Our parents teach us there is a god and we trust them because they are our keepers, our protectors and our teachers. Our faith develops in religion because of a faith in our parents to teach us right from wrong. However when you base this faith on the unsubstantiated claims of a book that has so many authors and translations that it should look like Swiss cheese, then that is where the faith ends.

If religion is about faith, why spend the time trying to explain it by science?

what role does faith play in your political life?

If the Universe where created by an intelligent being, then it would raise the question of how that intelligent being came into existence. Anything on this?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We are chemistry, everything else is details.

Have you ever questioned this statement? I disagree because I believe in a mind-body duality. I agree that our physical bodies are just chemistry, but I think consciousness is poorly explained and defined by science.

Think of it this way. At this moment, I am a collection of material atoms and molecules. All the atoms in my body are configured in a specific way. If you went out and gathered the same fundamental elements and molecules together and put them into the configuration that is physically identical to the piece of meat that I am at this moment, would that configuration of atoms be conscious? Would that configuration of atoms have all the exact same memories as me?

If all we are is a configuration of atoms, then logic tells me that this identical configuration of atoms should have the same memories as me, the same personality as me, the same behaviours and the exact same knowledge as me. This configuration is an identical material replica of me. If this replica didn't have the same memories and conscious experience as me then that would imply that the material atoms do not suffice in explaining consciousness.

Its just a thought experiment but I find it an interesting one.

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Have you ever questioned this statement? I disagree because I believe in a mind-body duality. I agree that our physical bodies are just chemistry, but I think consciousness is poorly explained and defined by science.

Think of it this way. At this moment, I am a collection of material atoms and molecules. All the atoms in my body are configured in a specific way. If you went out and gathered the same fundamental elements and molecules together and put them into the configuration that is physically identical to the piece of meat that I am at this moment, would that configuration of atoms be conscious? Would that configuration of atoms have all the exact same memories as me?

If all we are is a configuration of atoms, then logic tells me that this identical configuration of atoms should have the same memories as me, the same personality as me, the same behaviors(fix) and the exact same knowledge as me. This configuration is an identical material replica of me. If this replica didn't have the same memories and conscious experience as me then that would imply that the material atoms do not suffice in explaining consciousness.

Its just a thought experiment but I find it an interesting one.

A better question is would you really want to find that out? Don't you hold the exact chemical makeup which is you personal? I feel with the ever fading grey area of science we will know soon enough. In 2008, Dr Joe Tsien literally wiped memory from a rat due to a block on PKMzeta. Now do we want to find out if a soul exists? I am not totally opposed to the idea that the energy that our body makes might have its own sort of identity. As far as evolution goes, I believe that we hold the paint brush. Natural selection works as such, the most adapted for the environment will survive. This presents a problem for humans, we no longer need to adapt. We make the environment adapt to our needs.

The only thing we can carry out on is Neoevolution, the systematic perfection of the human body. Gene selection, eugenics will soon replace random gene mutation and non random natural selection. Are we ready for Neoevolution? Will god play a factor in it according to a religious standpoint?

EDIT: IMO we have already started this. The medical field is pretty much just that. Natural selection is crude. Its cold with the best intention. Evolution doesn't have any specific goal to obtain. The point of our existence is to carry genes to the next generation. Now when we are living to the limits that modern science allows, I think we pose a real problem for our planet. Jonas Salk put it best "If all the insects on earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on earth would disappear. If all humans disappeared, within 50 years all species would flourish as never before."

Something my parents always told me was this, "god gave us the ability to make this things such as cars, guns, hospitals to help us. He gave us the ingredients sort of speak and we put them together." So if we come up with the ability to create human life from cloning or what have you, is it wrong? God gave us the science and the tools to make it happen.

Saying that god didn't do it, satan made it happen... wait wait hold on this doesnt work. Its a paradox, God gave us free will RIGHT? This hosts a problem for me, god is an all knowing being. When he made you he knew what you would be doing 40 years down the road... How does one posses freewill when their future was always predestined in the first place?

Take my observations however you like. If you really take the time to reach outside of the box and LOOK, its an amazing life, I am so proud that I was a random occurrence in this crazy world. The time I have is wonderful. I live life to the fullest. I have one life and I think its a great way of looking at it. It might seem short and pointless but if you do it just right, one life is enough.

Thanks

 

[abysmul]

Fact makes science. Laws are set in place, I dont have to convince you that gravity is working on you right now.

Many of us pray that you come to know the Creator of those laws, and accept Him fully into your life.

 

[Catherineanne]

See thats just it. Science has nothing to do with being convinced at all. Fact makes science.

I am afraid I disagree. Evidence leads to the formulation of conclusions. Facts are not the same thing at all.

In order to reach any conclusion, you have to formulate a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it. If after ten years you have failed to disprove it, and colleagues around the world have also failed to disprove it, you may conclude that you have discerned a 'fact'. Actually, you haven't. All you have discerned is a hypothesis which has not yet been disproven, and which may or may not be correct.

At that point most scientists will probably assume that it is correct, and work accordingly, but this still does not equate to having a fact.

Laws are set in place, I dont have to convince you that gravity is working on you right now. To be science it has to be not only reproduced but predictable, If i mix two things together and it blows up in my face I have something, but its not enough. I have to get bob to try it as well. Bob tries it and it also blows up. Now me and bob are smart A#$es and have bill do it, as we sit back and watch, sure enough it blows up in his face. This is science. Now how can someone honestly come to the conclusion that what they read in the bible is true, nothing from it has every been historically documented outside of it.

My faith is not based on the inerrancy of the Bible, but on the inerrancy of God. Different thing entirely.

Ok time for a new set of quetions.

Also if it wasn't the first religion you were told as a child, would it be the one that you followed?

How can I answer that?

We are all born atheists, I am a non-theist. We are taught to be religious.

I am sorry but that is just twaddle. Atheism is a statement of belief in relation to God. Nobody is born able to articulate, or even conceive, the thought that God does not exist. Babies are born in a state of not knowing, but they are most certainly not born as atheists. That is just plain silly.

Our parents teach us there is a god and we trust them because they are our keepers, our protectors and our teachers. Our faith develops in religion because of a faith in our parents to teach us right from wrong. However when you base this faith on the unsubstantiated claims of a book that has so many authors and translations that it should look like Swiss cheese, then that is where the faith ends.

For someone who claims affinity to science, you rely on anecdote a lot.

If religion is about faith, why spend the time trying to explain it by science?

I don't. I leave science to do what it does, and I leave faith to do what it does. The two are not incompatible in any way.

Faith is not just about believing without evidence. Do you honestly think so little of theists that you think we can believe something for thirty or forty or fifty or more years with no evidence whatever? That is just bizarre.

what role does faith play in your political life?

Not a great deal, to be honest. I vote for the people I think best for the job; their faith has nothing to do with that.

If the Universe where created by an intelligent being, then it would raise the question of how that intelligent being came into existence. Anything on this?

Time, as any scientist will happily tell you, began at the Big Bang. Therefore there is nothing that science can say about 'before', because you cannot have before outside time. Try asking a scientist what happened an hour or ten hours or a year before the Big Bang and he will have nothing to say;the question is meaningless.

God is outside time, aka eternal. He created time alongside everything else, but he is not answerable to it or subordinate to it. How did he come into existence? He didn't; he is eternal. Coming into existence necessarily denotes a time before, then a time of beginning, and a time of continuation, all of which are applicable to those of us in creation, but not applicable to the Eternal, who is not in creation. There is no time before God, because God created time.

 

[Biker Angel]

If religion is about faith, why spend the time trying to explain it by science?

Exactly right! So why then do atheists, humanists, non-theists etc. come here with their so called logical talking points to discredit faith and God and try to prove evolution or other science based notions of why we exist?

I believe it is b/c God is calling you to Him in a special way that Christians can communicate with you on your level and plant the seeds of faith and belief in you and then God will water those seeds.

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

I am afraid I disagree. Evidence leads to the formulation of conclusions. Facts are not the same thing at all.

In order to reach any conclusion, you have to formulate a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it. If after ten years you have failed to disprove it, and colleagues around the world have also failed to disprove it, you may conclude that you have discerned a 'fact'. Actually, you haven't. All you have discerned is a hypothesis which has not yet been disproven, and which may or may not be correct.

At that point most scientists will probably assume that it is correct, and work accordingly, but this still does not equate to having a fact.



My faith is not based on the inerrancy of the Bible, but on the inerrancy of God. Different thing entirely.



How can I answer that?



I am sorry but that is just twaddle. Atheism is a statement of belief in relation to God. Nobody is born able to articulate, or even conceive, the thought that God does not exist. Babies are born in a state of not knowing, but they are most certainly not born as atheists. That is just plain silly.



For someone who claims affinity to science, you rely on anecdote a lot.



I don't. I leave science to do what it does, and I leave faith to do what it does. The two are not incompatible in any way.

Faith is not just about believing without evidence. Do you honestly think so little of theists that you think we can believe something for thirty or fourty or fifty or more years with no evidence whatever? That is just bizarre.



Not a great deal, to be honest. I vote for the people I think best for the job; their faith has nothing to do with that.



Time, as any scientist will happily tell you, began at the Big Bang. Therefore there is nothing that science can say about 'before', because you cannot have before outside time. Try asking a scientist what happened an hour or ten hours or a year before the Big Bang and he will have nothing to say;the question is meaningless.

God is outside time, aka eternal. He created time alongside everything else, but he is not answerable to it or subordinate to it. How did he come into existence? He didn't; he is eternal. Coming into existence necessarily denotes a time before, then a time of beginning, and a time of continuation, all of which are applicable to those of us in creation, but not applicable to the Eternal, who is not in creation. There is no time before God, because God created time.

Honestly after reading all of this I am convinced that you... Nevermind.

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Exactly right! So why then do atheists, humanists, non-theists etc. come here with their so called logical talking points to discredit faith and God and try to prove evolution or other science based notions of why we exist?

I believe it is b/c God is calling you to Him in a special way that Christians can communicate with you on your level and plant the seeds of faith and belief in you and then God will water those seeds.

No you have no idea how much I despise religion. Our entire human species is being held back right now, waiting.

Also want to point out for the last person before. Atheism is not a form of believe, it is a non belief... If I never learn about astronomy... I am an anti astronomer.

You can point to any individual Christian or atheist and try to label the rest like them, but it's more of an "as a whole" mentality. Religion in general holds us back in so many ways (science, medicine, racial, social, sexual, historical), that many times we paint the religious with a broad stroke of ignorance.

The majority of religious people I know are good people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Unfortunately, the world isn't simple. One word: voting. The world is a dangerous place if you take these "harmless" delusions and make them into policy. The more religious a candidate, the more I fear the effects of disease, global warming, etc. It's hard to feel comfortable if part of your President's foreign policy is to listen to God. Especially considering we atheists believe he's not real. I mean...damn...it makes some of us a bit concerned for our advancement as a species. Surely you can understand that?

But yes, as an individual thing, I have no problem with somebody using a lie to cope with life. Although I may think it a shame to essentially close your eyes to science, biology, etc., I respect the right of people to survive this world however they can find peace.

 

[lucaspa]

I have a simple question. Why do we need god to be good? What drives someone to faith?

Those are 2 questions.

Christianity says, even with God, we are not always "good". We still sin. However, there is an old question: "Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?"

If you go with the first option, you have the ultimate in relativistic morals. So most theists opt for the second option. But that option means that "good" is independent of God. Not only can non-Christians figure out what "good" is, they can act "good" sometimes. Very few people sin with every action or thought.

Now the second question. In history, some people have been "driven" to faith. I would say Charlemagne "drove" the Saxons to Christianity. Lenin and Stalin "drove" the people of the Soviet Union to atheism. But that is relatively rare. People choose faith based on the evidence. Simple as that.

 

[elman]

No you have no idea how much I hate religion. Our entire human species is being held back right now, waiting.

Also want to point out for the last person before. Atheism is not a form of believe, it is a non belief... If I never learn about astronomy... I am an anti astronomer.

Most of the scientific advancment throughout history was done by people who are religious. It is not a fact but a warped view of reality that sees the entire human species being held back by religion. I grant there have been acts of cruelty and hatred in the name of religion but ignoring all the beneficial actions done by men and women in the name of religion, is simply chosing ignorance. Atheism is a belief there is no Creator, no ultimate meaning to human existence. It is not a proven fact there is no Creator and it is not a proven fact that we exist for no reason at all, and that our existence is ultimately meaningless. My inability to prove the existence of a Creator does not prove a Creator does not exist.

 

[lucaspa]

No you have no idea how much I hate religion. Our entire human species is being held back right now, waiting.

Hating religion is different than the existence of God or the validity of Christianity. Yet you seem to be confusing the two.

As to the "entire human species is being held back" because of religion, my response is "Male cow feces". Or, if you prefer, "atheist mythology". For one thing, modern science would not exist if not for Christianity. Not only did Christianity provide the 5 essential assumptions about the nature of the universe, but for most of history it provided employment for people so they could do science.

Atheism is not a form of believe, it is a non belief... If I never learn about astronomy... I am an anti astronomer.

Sorry, that doesn't work. Nice self-deception, but we have grown used to that in atheists. Look at your self-deception that religion is "holding back" the human species! Look at where Russia could be today if it wasn't for atheism!

Atheism is the belief that deity does not exist. Atheists themselves define it as such:
"Atheism -- the belief that there are no gods." Douglas A. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course, pg 19.
"Therefore, from a scientific or philosophical position, theism and atheism are both indefensible positions as statements about the universe." [emphasis in original]
"But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. It is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "There is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." Michael Shermer How We Believe pp 8-9.

If you use a bit of critical thinking, you will find that very soon atheism must make positive statements of belief. Now, since you do know about religion, one of those statements of belief is that all those accounts of God intervening in human history recorded in the Bible are false. You must believe those are false.

Welcome to a faith.

 

[lucaspa]

One word: voting. The world is a dangerous place if you take these "harmless" delusions and make them into policy. The more religious a candidate, the more I fear the effects of disease, global warming, etc. It's hard to feel comfortable if part of your President's foreign policy is to listen to God. Especially considering we atheists believe he's not real. I mean...damn...it makes some of us a bit concerned for our advancement as a species. Surely you can understand that?

"It's hard to feel comfortable if part of your President's foreign polity is to deny God. Especially considering we theist believe He's real. I mean ... damn ... it makes some of us a bit concerned for our advancement as a species. Surely you can understand that."

1. You are making the mistake that ALL theists are Fundamentalists. Yes, Fundies have pretty much taken over the Republican Party in the US. Yes, the Fundies deny global warming, HIV, etc. But Fundies are not the ONLY theists. If you look at www.umc.org you will find that this religion is proud at helping stamp out malaria. This denomination also accepts human-caused global warming. And there are other denominations who agree. Who was in the forefront of civil rights? Atheists? Not on your life! It was Christians.

Let's look back on Presidents. Abraham Lincoln believed in God. Didn't do too badly in foreign policy, or domestic policy, for that matter, did he? Woodrow Wilson believed in God; it was one of his motivations for founding the League of Nations. That didn't work out too well, but partly that was because nations who were more atheistic sabotaged it.

We can also look at the track record when atheists get into power. Not too bad in Denmark. But the Soviet Union? Cambodia? China? A new book out says atheist China starved 45 million of its own people to death -- deliberately. Perhaps a government composed of people who believe in "love your neighbor as yourself" would not have done that.

But yes, as an individual thing, I have no problem with somebody using a lie to cope with life.

I agree. The lie of atheism does seem to help some people cope with life.

Although I may think it a shame to essentially close your eyes to science, biology, etc.,

Another atheist myth. Go here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp And consider this:

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
The Clergy Letter Project

In all the court cases to get evolution into public school science classes and keep creationism out of those classes, the people bringing suit for evolution have all been theists. NEVER an atheist.

So, if atheists have such "respect for science and biology", just where were they?

 

[lucaspa]

Lets try this, I am a nonbeliever and want to convert to christianity. I need some real deep answers to help me understand. Seeing that I come from a very heavy scientific background.

Do you think science mandates atheism?

 

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Most of the scientific advancment throughout history was done by people who are religious.

O is this so? name a few.

 

[lucaspa]

The insane don't have total control over their minds, this can be shown by science.

But they have some control.

In all honesty I feel the real background of religions is the every burning question "where did this all come from?" We as humans have a insatiable appetite to learn and to understand. My biggest problem with religion is this, science and religion cannot both fit into one world. With one requiring blind faith and the other being fact based only they are to rugged for one another.

ROFL!

1. The real background of religion is experience of deity. For instance, the Hebrews knew Yahweh by His intervention in the Exodus. Yahweh created Israel. Only later (in the Babylonian Conquest) did they extend the concept to Yahweh creating the universe (Genesis 1). Even then, the primary reason was not to answer "where did we come from" but to refute the Babylonian gods.

2. If you understand science, you should realize that "God created" is one of only 2 places where direct action of God is a hypothesis for "where did all this [the universe] come from?"

3. Science and religion have always fit into the world. Science conflicts with Fundamentalism, but not theism. Christians have always held the belief that God has 2 books, and that we should read both of them:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Your pop-quiz question is: what very famous science book is that quotation in? Hint: think mid-19th century.

 

[lucaspa]

O is this so? name a few.

Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

The vast majority of scientists in Europe have been theists. At least half of all evolutionary biologists have been theists:

"Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox." Stephen Jay Gould "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," 1992

BTW, Darwin was an agnostic after he wrote Origin of Species. When he wrote the book, as he stated, he was a theist.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Also want to point out for the last person before. Atheism is not a form of believe, it is a non belief... If I never learn about astronomy... I am an anti astronomer.

Do you actually think you're an anti-astronomer because you never learned about astronomy?

The prefix "anti" is usually defined as "opposed to; against". You can't be against something you have no knowledge of.

The prefix "a" (like in atheism) is usually defined as "without". So atheism is "without theism".

Saying I'm an a-astronomer because I am without knowledge of astronomy perhaps is true but is a really strange way of using the English language.

As far as babies go, I'm not sure whether they have any innate knowledge of God.