Questions to the atheists

[DeepThinker]

With good reason too, considering you have no way of showing that I am wrong.

And you no way of showing your right

 

[michabo]

In giving answers to where everything comes from there are a billion answers and none can be more proven than another

I remember why I figured that the "god" option was just a rehash of the other two. It isn't an origin, it is an agent or a method. Either this god created the universe out of nothing, or created it out of something (even if that something is itself).

The other big problem is that of the excluded middle. If "god" is listed as a third alternative, then the implication is that the universe sprang from god. But god must either be something or nothing.

I'm sure that you can give me some philosophical waffle about why god is both something and nothing or neither something nor nothing, but let me preempt you. I hate talking about "something" and "nothing" as they're almost too vague to be described or defined. You can say god is spiritual and therefore doesn't qualify as something (implication being that something is physical), but then god would be nothing (nonphysical). However you define 'god', it must fit into one of the two categories. Not saying that just because god is nonphysical (and therefore "nothing" for the purposes of this question) it doesn't exist (leave that for another time ).

When you list "god", you are talking about how the universe was created, but the question is about from what the universe arose. In this instance, "god" is a non-sequitur. It simply cannot be an answer to the question.

However as our thinking is only limited to this universe it would be impossible to tell if there are anyother possibilities we have not thought of, but then I've just realised thats what the third option is for right?

The "I don't know" is really a question about agents of creation or mechanisms. It doesn't apply in this case. When answering how we think the universe came about, then it is useful.

For you to write a religious accepted book you would first have to create a religion which simple as it may sound legally requires 10,000 people to get one started

You really think that metaphysical questions can be decided by popular acclaim?

What I meant was you can prove a particular religion using its own rules so Christianity proving Christianity Hinduism proving Hinduism etc etc. In the eyes of Philosophy all are possible, and I would hazard a guess and say you could not work out how probable each one method is (including science).

Hmm...

It was you that compared science and its method to religion, remember?

The scientific method is clear, objective, and allows for unambiguous falsification. We know when one theory does not pass the test. It will never come down to a question about interpretation or opinion.

But what you've offered is entirely subjective. Two people read the bible and come to two opposing interpretations. This happens all of the time, and we have a bewildering number of different sects of all religions, and they keep fragmenting.

It seems clear to me that there is no way to decide between two metaphysical claims. Yes, we can consult texts, look deep within ourselves, pray for guidance, but this boils down to our own opinion. Deciding between two religious propositions is like deciding which ice cream flavour is superior.

It seems painfully obvious that there is no religious method, and no way of settling religious claims.

Do you disagree?

Sorry for that but I thought it important for you to have the background on me before I say that I dont belive that Christianity is the only way to view God, I belive more in the Hindu story of the Blind men and the elephant.

That's a cute story, I agree. But again, it is a metaphysical one and we have no way of telling whether all religions have any insight into the true god, should one exist. And as religions are mutually exclusive, we need to have some way of sorting out the truth from the errors.

But, from everything I've heard and everything you've said, no such method exists. The blind men can move their hands along the elephant and feel for themselves what the whole is really about, and they will learn that each of them was wrong about some things (the extent) but right about others (some local properties).

How do we as theological blind men move our hands along and learn where our errors are, and what the truth really is?

 

[Asimov]

And you no way of showing your right

You assume too much.

 

[DeepThinker]

I remember why I figured that the "god" option was just a rehash of the other two. It isn't an origin, it is an agent or a method. Either this god created the universe out of nothing, or created it out of something (even if that something is itself).

The other big problem is that of the excluded middle. If "god" is listed as a third alternative, then the implication is that the universe sprang from god. But god must either be something or nothing.

I'm sure that you can give me some philosophical waffle about why god is both something and nothing or neither something nor nothing, but let me preempt you. I hate talking about "something" and "nothing" as they're almost too vague to be described or defined. You can say god is spiritual and therefore doesn't qualify as something (implication being that something is physical), but then god would be nothing (nonphysical). However you define 'god', it must fit into one of the two categories. Not saying that just because god is nonphysical (and therefore "nothing" for the purposes of this question) it doesn't exist (leave that for another time ).

When you list "god", you are talking about how the universe was created, but the question is about from what the universe arose. In this instance, "god" is a non-sequitur. It simply cannot be an answer to the question.


The "I don't know" is really a question about agents of creation or mechanisms. It doesn't apply in this case. When answering how we think the universe came about, then it is useful.


Hmm...

It was you that compared science and its method to religion, remember?

The scientific method is clear, objective, and allows for unambiguous falsification. We know when one theory does not pass the test. It will never come down to a question about interpretation or opinion.

But what you've offered is entirely subjective. Two people read the bible and come to two opposing interpretations. This happens all of the time, and we have a bewildering number of different sects of all religions, and they keep fragmenting.

It seems clear to me that there is no way to decide between two metaphysical claims. Yes, we can consult texts, look deep within ourselves, pray for guidance, but this boils down to our own opinion. Deciding between two religious propositions is like deciding which ice cream flavour is superior.

It seems painfully obvious that there is no religious method, and no way of settling religious claims.

Do you disagree?


That's a cute story, I agree. But again, it is a metaphysical one and we have no way of telling whether all religions have any insight into the true god, should one exist. And as religions are mutually exclusive, we need to have some way of sorting out the truth from the errors.

But, from everything I've heard and everything you've said, no such method exists. The blind men can move their hands along the elephant and feel for themselves what the whole is really about, and they will learn that each of them was wrong about some things (the extent) but right about others (some local properties).

How do we as theological blind men move our hands along and learn where our errors are, and what the truth really is?

I wont bother you anymore about the something and nothing arguement if you dont like it. I agree about the God thing creating the universe out of either something or nothing, that makes perfect sense now that you've explained it a little clearer.
Science is objective and Religions are subjective I agree, (I said they were similar not the same) this just that there is no one method for deciding the truth about God it is cirtainly not as clean cut as science, but this does not mean that the information provided is useless, much of the time we can draw good parallels between religions such as God being loving etc etc, these generally are the views that I try to listen too as they seem to correspond and therefore increase the "chance" (if such a word can be used here) that this is the way that God is, but I admit that there is no universal way from sorting truth from error, the best you can do is draw paralells. It would be nice if we could have one religion, but we dont, however this could be a part of Gods plan, I could speculate but I would not like to.

In the end I do belive there is a God, but I do not belive that we will find him through religion I think it will be through science if it is possible to discover such a thing, or for that case disprove it. I am always open to suggestions, I will not ignore something because it does not fit with my ideas, I hope that I consider as much as is possible, the truth is whats important.

 

[Mumbles]

the most fact in this world is the death , all the humans will die , there is no exception
what the atheists thoughts about death ?

I don't spend much time on it - life is far more interesting.

do you fear from death ?

Depends on the method. I don't fear being dead, though.

what you feel when you see any of your close friends or relatives died?

Sad, of course. Same as for anyone else, althouhg the feeling is stronger for people I knew well.

what is your hope about the eternal life ??

Don't have any. As you said, everyone dies.

What if God exists !!

Like all other proposed gods, he doesn't, so three's no real need to worry about it. (And what's with the sudden change of subject?)

 

[DeepThinker]

Like all other proposed gods, he doesn't, so three's no real need to worry about it.

I repect your view that you do not belive that God exists, but what is it that makes you so sure?

 

[very_irreverand_Bill]

the most fact in this world is the death , all the humans will die , there is no exception
what the atheists thoughts about death ? do you fear from death ? what you feel when you see any of your close friends or relatives died ? what is your hope about the eternal life ?? What if God exists !!

I'm not athiest myself, but I am nonthiestic and Antitheistic.
NOTE: I am also deistically inclined, so I do believe in the "probability' of first cause.

Since someone oy my persuaion can be said to have a lot of views in common w/Atheists and Agnostics, I'm going to speak as a "Non-Thiest/Anti-Theist" and answer your questions from that perspective.

"the most fact in this world is the death , all the humans will die , there is no exception "

Well, THUS FAR, yeah. But who knows what evolution and technoligal advancement may yield for us in the futrue?

"do you fear from death ?"

Yes. Everyone does, anyone whom says they don't-lies and/or decieves themselves. Of course, variuos people{individuals} fear it to differing degrees.

"what you feel when you see any of your close friends or relatives died ?"

Well,I have'nt lost anyone to death yet since I abandoned Christianity,theism, and faith. But when I was Christian,theist,faithist, I did lose a few people in my family and the only oen I felt alot of sorrow at losing was my Mother{to cancer} in 2001. I was Christian, so I was deluded by a peace that my mother was no longer suffering{still feel this way,I'm glad she is'nt suffering} and also that she was w/some sky-daddy in the heavans. However, this so-called "peace" was a dterrent to me having a proper greivinf process, and as a result, shortly thereafter -when reality hit home- I was much more devestated than I would have been, I felt beterayed by God. However, I did'nt just feel that way about my moms death, but because of all the suffering that a suppoedly loving sky-daddy allows.

Now,That I am faithless, I suppose that I won'tknow for sure until I lose another loved one. However, I assume that it won't be much different for me than before{except that I'll probably grieve more appropriately, more quickly}.

" what is your hope about the eternal life ?? "

I am uncertain. I do not assume there is nothing after this life, nor that there isn't. I ponder and philosophize about it, I hope for something else, but if there is nothing else I suppose I won't care-because I will no longer be.

"What if God exists !"

What is God does exist? What if it isn't the Christian God? What if it turns out to be Allah,or perhaps Yahweh w/out the Christ part? What if it turns out to be Odin, or Vishnu, or Tiamat, or Anu, or Zeus, or The Goddess?
We could speculate endlessly, and why should Pascals Wager scare me, whenit can be applied to any beleif in any deity or myth or superstition equally. Perhap you should fear those gods, maybe they will be the true god{s}.
What if Santa Clause or the tooth fairy exists?

What if nothing exists beyond the material and currently measurable energy realm?

What's the real point in worrying about it? Why liv ein fear of one myth or another, when the one that is truth might be one opposite your own, or when there may be absolutely nothing afterwards, or when Allah or Zeus may be the true and only god and might punish you for ever or something for believin in Christ, or me for believing in nothing but likelyhood of a first cause.

It's futile and silly and not worth our energy and time, we could be dooing something for ourselves and for others that will eman something regardless of which, if any, gods is/are real or true.

In Reason:
the very irreverand Bill

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I repect your view that you do not belive that God exists, but what is it that makes you so sure?

For the same reason we are reasonably sure about Santa Claus not being real. Some of us never believed in Santa in the first place, some of us figured out Santa is not real on our own, some of had to be told, some of us continued to pay lip service to Santa after we knew he wasn’t real, and some of us even continued to believe even though we knew better. I see no difference between belief in Santa and belief in God.

LLH

 

[Mumbles]

I repect your view that you do not belive that God exists, but what is it that makes you so sure?

It's consistent with my experiences in life. I've heard of a lot of gods, and everyone who tells me I have to believe in one has their own views on what these gods do, how they do it, what they want us to do, and what they'll do to us if we do or don't comply. However, although the vast majority of gods are supposed to be obsessed with us, I can't find a single piece of evidence in favor of any god. And while I've heard several logical arguments, I haven't hear done that I find credible. So, I'm left to conclude that gods are imagined by humans.

And frankly, I don't see any reason to obsess over what, to me, is an outlandish idea. The fact that I have no reason to favor the christian god concept over a theoretical god that rewards atheists and tortures christians doesn't help matters, either. IOW, even if I were to grant the "what if", I'd simply have no idea how to react, and no means to figure out a way to do so.

 

[Telephone]

I repect your view that you do not belive that God exists, but what is it that makes you so sure?

Do we have to be 'so sure' or even 'sure'.

This very question can be levelled at those who refuse to be sold the idea that the government is being run by lizards disguised as humans, you could ask them "but what is it that makes you so sure?"

Or those who do not believe in fairies, ghosts (holy or otherwise) and flying reindeer, you also could ask them "but what is it that makes you so sure?"

Nothing makes me 'so sure' that Zeus, Allah or Yahweh are not real, it is just 'reasonable' to think they are all simply ancient myth if we employ reason and logic.

 

[xroadrunnerx]

Well, THUS FAR, yeah. But who knows what evolution and technoligal advancement may yield for us in the futrue?

Heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Regarding various other posts, If God Exists, then he IS, and being what he IS, he doesn't have to conform to laws made by our logic.

But god must either be something or nothing

Why can't he be a sort-of-nothing, or a sort-of-something-but-not-quite? Because you, yourself, cannot comprehend the idea? should God, if he exists, be within the little box of human comprehension?

 

[meebs]

the most fact in this world is the death , all the humans will die , there is no exception
what the atheists thoughts about death ? do you fear from death ? what you feel when you see any of your close friends or relatives died ? what is your hope about the eternal life ?? What if God exists !!

i cant remember if ive answered this:

what the atheists thoughts about death ? He's seems to be okay, got a lovelly horse called Binky. He like Tea (Death i mean not Binky).

Okay i'll be serious.. you mean the death as in as people stop living

do you fear from death ? You mean am i scared of Dying? no , im scared of how i die, but even then when it finally happens its over.

what you feel when you see any of your close friends or relatives died ? Sad but ok, i know we must all die at some point - though its sadder when somebody dies young or before their time

what is your hope about the eternal life ?? Nothing cos i dont think it exists, no reincarnation no... nothing.

What if God exists ! Then God exists, but i dont beleive he does, havent seen him!

What if your God didnt exist but other forms of dieties existed?

 

[xroadrunnerx]

Then God exists, but i dont beleive he does, havent seen him!

ah. Then I must not exist either. sweet.

 

[meebs]

ah. Then I must not exist either. sweet.

Unless you are actually a computer simulation of a person on the internet its highly likely you do exist. As you have written this. Or you are pretending to be the person who are writing this therefore exist in some form. There is a chance that i could find out you exist.

 

[xroadrunnerx]

Unless you are actually a computer simulation of a person on the internet its highly likely you do exist. As you have written this. Or you are pretending to be the person who are writing this therefore exist in some form. There is a chance that i could find out you exist.

There's also a high chance that you can't.

 

[meebs]

There's also a high chance that you can't.

maybe so. but you writing this could be proof enough

Unless you are the figment of anothers imagination

 

[xroadrunnerx]

maybe so. but you writing this could be proof enough

Unless you are the figment of anothers imagination

What?? Me writing this??

I was under the impression that the words were just there.

or better yet, they once were lines, then proceeded over time to curve, allign into formation to form words, that now have meaning!

 

[meebs]

What?? Me writing this??

I was under the impression that the words were just there.

or better yet, they once were lines, then proceeded over time to curve, allign into formation to form words, that now have meaning!

fine!

These words have been programmed onto a computer. To put these words here you could either be - typing onto a keyboard or speaking into a microphone dictating to a computer programme that puts the words onto the internet programme we know as CF. Either way there normally has to be a person doing this on their own computer or a programme like chrisbot

Lol im sure i could put this better!

 

[Hydra009]

Well, THUS FAR, yeah. But who knows what evolution and technoligal advancement may yield for us in the futrue?

Heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

The 2nd LoT doesn't preclude either evolution or technological advancement. This is fairly obvious, as both occur today.

The 2nd LoT is about heat energy in a closed system. Imagine a room completely enclosed from the outside word. The only source of heat is a bunsen burner remotely activated with a finite fuel supply. As the bunsen burner produces heat, the heat spreads out to the colder parts of the room, eventually attaining thermal equilibrium as all the fuel is expended.

Basically, the 2nd LoT is the reason why "heat does not spontaneously flow from cold to hot bodies" and the reason why you don't get 100% efficiency with thermodynamic machines. It also has its place in ecology - how come there's a lot less energy as you go up trophic levels? Part of the reason is an animal loses a lot of energy in the form of heat loss to the surrounding environment.

 

[xroadrunnerx]

fine!

These words have been programmed onto a computer. To put these words here you could either be - typing onto a keyboard or speaking into a microphone dictating to a computer programme that puts the words onto the internet programme we know as CF. Either way there normally has to be a person doing this on their own computer or a programme like chrisbot

Lol im sure i could put this better!

You're suggesting that these are the only 2 options??

lol, could you provide proof?