Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Are you an Atheist?
Could you -- you personally -- choose to "disbelieve"?
I would add a fourth type: the heretic. That would be similar to your pondering atheist, but I see it as someone who rejects creeds rather than someone who rejects God.
Do you observe the biblical Sabbath?
Increase your safety, perhaps, but not necessarily the safety of all. There would have been safe people regardless. You might or might not have been one of them. However, you immorally presume to flood your posterity with genes that are not tuned for survival rather than taking the moral view of allowing only the most worthy genes to survive. That will not last, as it creates a soft civilization that eventually falls to the more moral "barbarians" who wait outside.
And I would agree with Mark Twain that your "don't want to" has more to do with lack of opportunity than anything else.
Because the majority backs my view of society over theirs'.
Today, not tomorrow. And it does so largely because of the teachings of that "turn the other cheek" guy becoming prevalent through the middle ages. If not for that, the majority would still back the view that the strong should survive and the weak should take a hike. You may not be able to imagine a society that was not formed from the dust of those archaic teachings, but history is replete with them.
Explain Stephen Hawking then, or Bill Gates. Being a mindless thug, no matter how strong, is not a particularly effective way to survive in our society.
But the society was built by thugs so that the wimps could survive in it. Do you think women would have built the civilization we know today? Would they still be screaming about "women's lib" in the world of "Mad Max?"
Face it - you are basking in the afterglow of a Judeo-Christian society. But Judeo-Christian teachings are anti-evolutionary. That's why they never hold for long. They ebb and flow with the ages. The real morality is to recognize reality and align yourself with it rather than the fatally flawed attempt to thwart it taught by the Nazarene and his ilk.
Shalom.
Yes, they have. Why does that make you so angry?
Why would GOD choose to remember them when they have chose to deny him?
You did not say forgotten by God. You said forgotten forever. The implication is that no one will remember them and no one will care when they die.
AS fas as there loved ones go, they don't plan on seeing or ever hearing from them again after there physical death.
Just because they don't believe that there is awareness after death, doesn't negate the fact that their loved ones will remember them and still love them.
I never wished these things for Un-believing Atheists they have chosen it for themselves.
The horrible fate that awaits them in your mind, doesn't exist for them. They aren't asking you to worry about the state of their eternal souls, so why are you exerting so much energy in doing so and then expecting them to appreciate it when they didn't ask for it in the first place?
Yes I am. That being said, I draw most of my beliefs on how people should conduct themselves from more than the Bible. (Although selections from the Bible are included in my regular readings.) I must say I favor the Edda much more, simply because it seems to have more connection with the common man.
"I am the Lord your G-d, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery"
"
Well, I've never been to Egypt, nor have I ever been enslaved.
You're quoting from a book that dates back at least 3000 years, written to and about a bunch of nomadic sheepherders. If you wish to apply it to yourself, that's your privilege, certainly, but don't presume to apply it to others on their behalf.
I could quote to you from a Hindu scripture even older than that, but you wouldn't believe what it said, since it has nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. I won't presume to do so, however.
Please learn to accept that your belief system is just one of many. About 2/3 of the world's population has a different belief system from yours. They are as convinced of the correctness of their system as you are of yours.
No belief system is provable. Not the Hindu system, the Christian system, the Jewish system (quite different from the Christian one), or any other. Yet all are closely held as truth by their followers. Christians are no more devout than the followers of any other religion. Each believes it is correct. Each can point to its scriptures and refute whatever it is you want to say to falsify that belief system.
Which one is correct? To you, there's only one answer. For me, there is also only one answer: none of them. All, in my opinion, are constructs of the society that generated them. And there you have the source of my disbelief.
Imagine, missyme, that you are wrong, but that the Hindus are correct. It's the same thing you're demanding of me. What if you've made the wrong choice?
The thing is that there IS no wrong choice. If your religious beliefs serve your needs, then you have made the right choice. More power to you.
I appreciate your answers and respect your reasons for not explaining further. I have always been curious as to how people form their beliefs or their disbeliefs, even. I am of the personal opinion that, while our spiritual or non- spiritual foundations are formed early in life by the examples that are set for us, it is our own life experiences which round out or complete those beliefs or disbeliefs.
True atheists are pretty rare. At least in the places I have lived. Most people that I meet who think they are or claim to be usually turn out to be agnostics.
jw
They aren't asking for exceptions. They don't believe in God so why would they ask someone that they don't believe in to make exceptions for them?
" I am of the personal opinion that, while our spiritual or non- spiritual foundations are formed early in life by the examples that are set for us, it is our own life experiences which round out or complete those beliefs or disbeliefs.
"
I think that's true. However, among life experiences, I always include intellectual pursuits, not just things that happen to me. I have an extensive library of religious documents, all well-read with turned-down pages. Religion has always fascinated me, because it has had such a large impact on human history. My atheism comes from that study of religion.
You've held up very well and I must say that I admire your composure.
Washington University Professor of Sociology and Comparative Religion Rodney Stark used Church records and Census data to come up with his findings. His book, "The Churching of America" based the 17% figure on narrowly defined data of church attendance. Stark is an atheist and I find this source cited a lot on atheism websites.
"Church membership" is a very iffy proxy for belief, particularly early on in America when it was difficult for many to get to church. But "membership" is not the issue. Belief is>
> Blasphemy, in itself, is not illegal, nor should it be.
Ah, but jsut consider the utter chaos that would ensue if it were made illegal. Since so many hereabotus claim that atheism is a religion... any denigration of atheism would thus become a crime. If it becomes illegal for soemone to have a bumpersticker reading "there is no God" because it's blasphemous to Christians, it would be equally illegal to post one saying "There is a God" because it's blasphemous to atheists.
Trial lawyers would have a field day.
First and most importantly, the challenges are things to which an atheist (metaphysical naturalist) would have to have a scientifically or mathematically plausible explanation in order to defeat the claim that atheism is a religion – a rejection of God in favor of self. The challenges are not “proofs” for believers – such proofs are not necessary since believers already believe, i.e. are religious.
Secondly, orionblamblam, you’ve cut my phrasings short and have presented equally short retorts which are reactions and not "scientifically or mathematically plausible explanations".
Here’s the whole list and your responses in italics, my response follows:
Not responsive, the challenge is not a proof of God. For a metaphysical naturalist to assert his position is not a religion, he’d need to have a material explanation for there being a beginning of space/time.
Not responsive, the question goes to the force of life and not the molecular machinery, i.e. what causes the reduction of uncertainty in the molecular machine going from a before state to an after state.
In the polio virus experiment, “they used a natural enzyme to copy the DNA into RNA--the genetic material used by the virus nature created. Finally, they stuck the RNA into a special sauce filled with chemicals and bits of cellular machinery, such as protein factories called ribosomes. Almost magically, the RNA copied itself and began to make the proteins and other components of the real virus. The result: complete viruses that are just as infectious as their natural counterparts.” Developments to watch
In the first place it was structured entirely around mimicking observed nature with primarily natural ingredients.
More importantly, the experiment does not address at all how the reduction of uncertainty in the molecular machine originated – which was the point of challenge #2.
The response is neither science nor mathematics – it is the anthropic principle – a statement of faith.
The response is neither science nor mathematics – it is the anthropic principle – a statement of faith.
The response is neither science nor mathematics – it is the anthropic principle – a statement of faith.
AFAIK, Rocha and Kauffman are the main investigators to this subject and thus far, there is no plausible answer.
Not responsive to the question – why does complexity organize around function.
Again not responsive to the question at hand. Please review:
Not responsive to the question – how did qualia come into existence?
I have to admit, while I find it strange that one does not believe in God, interacting with you here on FR has debunked a lot of my own personal theories and misconceptions about such people, lol.
""Church membership" is a very iffy proxy for belief, particularly early on in America when it was difficult for many to get to church."
That's very true. Nominal Christians are in much higher numbers than are recorded in church membership records.
I remember the morning, while I was just starting USAF Basic Training, that we were asked our religious affiliations, for the purpose of making our dogtags. A few recruits had a ready answer. Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, or, in my case, atheist. Many, however, didn't know what to answer.
The drill sergeant, in his drill sergeantly way, said to the confused ones, "Are you a Catholic or a Jew?" When they answered in the negative, he told them they were Protestants, and that's what got inscribed on their dogtags.
Were those recruits Christians? Perhaps, in a nominal sort of way, but they were classified as Protestants in any case, and counted among the Christians in the USAF.
My declaration of atheism was another matter, altogether. I finally got it on my dogtags, but it was a battle, I'll tell you. I may even have set some sort of precedent back in 1965. Now, it's no problem. The military even has a symbol for atheism.
My point is that many people call themselves Christians by default, and that may well have been true back in the early day of our nation. It's impossible to say.
I know this, though: If every church in every community were absolutely full every Sunday morning, attendees would represent a small minority of the population. The rest are nominal Christians. If you ask them if they are Christians, they'll probably say yes. If you dig a little deeper, you'll discover that they are only nominal Christians, who give little thought to that name.
"Ah, but jsut consider the utter chaos that would ensue if it were made illegal. Since so many hereabotus claim that atheism is a religion... any denigration of atheism would thus become a crime."
Nah. The atheists would just shrug and go about their business, leaving the name-calling to others.
> the challenges are things to which an atheist (metaphysical naturalist) would have to have a scientifically or mathematically plausible explanation in order to defeat the claim that atheism is a religion
Step one: define "religion." Accordign to dictionary.com:
A: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Atheism is neither on of these, and not even close.
> you’ve cut my phrasings short
Of course I did. It's rude to cut and paste the whole thing back in. Anybody wants to read all of what you wrote, they can look up your post.
> For a metaphysical naturalist to assert his position is not a religion, he’d need to ...
...point out that that he does not have a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Since that cuts to the heart of your arguement, and cuts that heart out and stomps it flat, I'll leave it there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.