Why I'm an atheist.

[REVxERIK]

Well, apparently my little story has failed to attract any interest in discussion...

Maybe if I changed it to a couple line entry that said something intentionally derogatory and provocative I could generate more traffic... hmmm...

it is your belief and you've provided legitimate reasoning. not much to discuss.

So, then...your reasoning for the three previous pages of discussion would be what, exact.y?

There's always more to discuss.

you make a great point. my bad, i'm sort of silly sometimes.

 

[gcomeau]

... So, an atheist I remain.

So have you talked to any believers about some of the Gifts of the Spirit? In particular, have you ever witnessed anyone speaking in tongues and talked to the person afterward?

Has gcomeau respond to my post (above)? I don't see it in thread mode, but I do know that when multi-quoting it sometimes doesn't show up directly underneath my original post.

No, I had not, sorry. I had actually started typing a reply to it, changed my mind about how I wqas saying what I was saying and decided to take another shot at writing it later, then forgot all about it and took the weekend off from posting since I was getting tired of having an argument that amounted to me having to tell Si modo to read the dictionary in my later posts... (Side note: Coloradomtnman, that site you linked must have been *really* stretching to try to come up with a synonym for "unverifiable". You just pointed out the words don't have the same meaning but then proceeded to say that they are synonyms. Synonyms are words with effectively the same meaning.)

Anyway xsited... In answer to your question, I have had plenty of discussions with believers about "gifts of the spirit" and such, but no I have never personally spoken to anyone who claimed to have spoken in tongues. I have however seen videos and linguistic analysis of the phenomena and the "tongue" they appear to be speaking in is "gibberish" whatever they want to claim about it being some kind if indecipherable "holy language". No offense, but frankly and extending the benefit of the doubt that it's a legitimate experience and not pure fakery, it looks a lot more like some kind of induced fit or seizure than anything els.

 

[gcomeau]

you are not discussing, only giving your opinion and making snide comments about other's beliefs. As soon as the old standby argument comparing God to Santa and the Easter Bunny comes out, it wrecks your wanting to debate premise.

It wasn't an argument, it was an illustration.

And frankly, if you take exception to one completely unverifiable supernatural object of belief being contrasted with another completely unverifiable supernatural object of belief just because you want to take one of them seriously and can't take the other seriously so you don't like where the illustration leads, tough luck. It's a perfectly legitimate comparison.

 

[BigBarry]

Anyone who claims to be an atheist is an asshole. You have no more proof that god will never one day be found scientifically then religious people who claim to be absolutely sure that an invisible ghost exists.
The only possible title anyone who's not an asshole should have is agnostic: there has so far been no proof of god, so as of now there is no god, but I leave to door open if someone does find one/some for real.

 

[gcomeau]

Anyone who claims to be an atheist is an asshole. You have no more proof that god will never one day be found scientifically then religious people who claim to be absolutely sure that an invisible ghost exists.
The only possible title anyone who's not an asshole should have is agnostic: there has so far been no proof of god, so as of now there is no god, but I leave to door open if someone does find one/some for real.

1. Learn what atheism means.

2. Learn what agnosticism means.

When you're done, then we can talk.

(Hint: Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism or theism and more than vegetarianism is an alternative to atheism or theism.)

 

[BigBarry]

To me (I know lots of people have different defs):

Atheism: god is not possible.

Agnoticism: god is not (at present) and is probably not at all, but we leave the door open slightly in case someone does find real proof of god.

There, does that help?

 

[gcomeau]

To me (I know lots of people have different defs):

Atheism: god is not possible.

Agnoticism: god is not (at present) and is probably not at all, but we leave the door open slightly in case someone does find real proof of god.

There, does that help?

It helps illustrate the problem. Allow me to provide accurate definitions.

theism: belief a deity exists.

atheism: no belief a deity exists.

agnosticism: belief that absolute knowledge of whether a deity does or does not exist is unattainable due to the nature of the concept of deity as described.

You can be an agnostic if you want. But whether you are or not, you're still either a theist (you do believe god exists) or an atheist (you don't).

 

[Newby]

Or, there is a third possibility: I compartmentalize, as I said from the start. It seems that is rather a foreign concept to some.

Yes. I don't compartmentalize certain aspects of my life from logic. ....

I call bullshit.

I'd like him to explain how he applies logic to something that has no empirical data or evidence?

 

[gcomeau]

Yes. I don't compartmentalize certain aspects of my life from logic. ....

I call bullshit.

I'd like him to explain how he applies logic to something that has no empirical data or evidence?

I'll give you a hint. What process did you just employ to reach the conclusion that that something you were just talking about was lacking in any empirical data or evidence?

 

[Newby]

I call bullshit.

I'd like him to explain how he applies logic to something that has no empirical data or evidence?

I'll give you a hint. What process did you just employ to reach the conclusion that that something you were just talking about was lacking in any empirical data or evidence?

Why don't you just answer the question, or can't you?

 

[BigBarry]

To me (I know lots of people have different defs):

Atheism: god is not possible.

Agnoticism: god is not (at present) and is probably not at all, but we leave the door open slightly in case someone does find real proof of god.

There, does that help?

It helps illustrate the problem. Allow me to provide accurate definitions.

theism: belief a deity exists.

atheism: no belief a deity exists.

agnosticism: belief that absolute knowledge of whether a deity does or does not exist is unattainable due to the nature of the concept of deity as described.

You can be an agnostic if you want. But whether you are or not, you're still either a theist (you do believe god exists) or an atheist (you don't).

So what do you call someone who doesn't believe a god has ever been proven but leaves the door open in case of the (unlikely) event that someone does come up with empirical proof of god?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why don't you just answer the question, or can't you?

Oh, Newby, you just love calling me out don't you?

I tell you what, give me an example of what you mean by something for which there is no empirical data or physical evidence that is part of life and I'll tell you how I personally apply logic and/or how logic can or is applied to it.

For example, love. All higher order mammals require love to survive, at least survive the first part of life. Because of evolution most animals are born not very developed, especially primates. Human beings take about 25 years to fully develop both physically and mentally. If it weren't for your parents love, you wouldn't fully develop or, if we were still hunter/gatherers, survive. Offspring, among human beings, have a better chance at survival if they have two parents.

If those two parents don't love eachother, the offspring doesn't have a healthy example of what a loving relationship with a mate is. Having a loving partner has logical positive characteristics: rent is cheaper, utilities are cheaper, tasks can be shared i.e. one does the cooking and the other cleans (or if the wage to cost of living was like it was 30 to 40 years ago before Reagan let corporatism run rampant - one partner could work while the other ran the household and raised the offspring).

If you think of human beings as having evolved into pack, or tribal, animals, the tribe would care for it's own which also allows for team work - a simple equation of small economics. More people working together = more efficiency.

If your partner is treating you badly, abusing you, or leeching off of you, the logical and practical decision is to strike out alone and, hopefully, find another partner who is supportive and willing to share the load and the rewards.

Now, you can riposte with, "Well, I don't love my partner for those real world reasons." but, in some ways, you do. That's how evolution works. We evolved to love, and the reason we did is because love helps us to survive. Those human beings that didn't love were less likely to survive, and those of our offspring who know how to love will have a better chance at survival and at having offspring who survive.

Because human beings learn, evolution isn't just biological. We can evolve at will, to a certain degree i.e. warm clothing, fire, and warm shelter in winter. Then we can migrate to cooler climes in the summer (if you're wealthy or lucky these days) as hunter/gatherers did in millenia past and go where the food is. In a way, technology has evolved because of the human capacity to evolve at will.

I saw a program where a physical anthropologist discussed that human beings evolved the ability to appreciate natural beauty (like sunsets and mountains and wildflowers - not just big boobs or tight abs and pecs - like mine *flex*) and her reasonsing was utterly logical and made perfect sense. I'm not saying she's right, and she could be wrong, but, at the same time, she might be right.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

To me (I know lots of people have different defs):

Atheism: god is not possible.

Agnoticism: god is not (at present) and is probably not at all, but we leave the door open slightly in case someone does find real proof of god.

There, does that help?

It helps illustrate the problem. Allow me to provide accurate definitions.

theism: belief a deity exists.

atheism: no belief a deity exists.

agnosticism: belief that absolute knowledge of whether a deity does or does not exist is unattainable due to the nature of the concept of deity as described.

You can be an agnostic if you want. But whether you are or not, you're still either a theist (you do believe god exists) or an atheist (you don't).

So what do you call someone who doesn't believe a god has ever been proven but leaves the door open in case of the (unlikely) event that someone does come up with empirical proof of god?

a non-dogmatic atheist? That's me. I'm a non-dogmatic atheist with agnostic tendencies.

Simple enough...

 

[gcomeau]

I'd like him to explain how he applies logic to something that has no empirical data or evidence?

I'll give you a hint. What process did you just employ to reach the conclusion that that something you were just talking about was lacking in any empirical data or evidence?

Why don't you just answer the question, or can't you?

I just did answer it.

Evaluating whether or not an idea/claim/hypothesis is supported by empirical data or evidence IS APPLYING LOGICAL ANALYSIS TO IT. In order for you to even say that an idea is unsupported by evidence or empirical data you have to logically analyze it FIRST. And claiming you can't logically analyze it because you logically analyzed it and determined it couldn't be logically analyzed would be pretty freaking stupid wouldn't it?

 

[gcomeau]

So what do you call someone who doesn't believe a god has ever been proven but leaves the door open in case of the (unlikely) event that someone does come up with empirical proof of god?

I have no idea, you provided insufficient information. Does this person believe this unproven god exists or don't they?

If they do they're a theist. If they don't they're an atheist.

(And no, there isn't a third rational answer to that question. Before you say "yes there is! 'I don't know'" think through what you'd be claiming not to know. It is not "I don't know if god exists". You would be saying you didn't know if you believed god exists. Or, in other words, that you didn't know the content of your own thoughts. If you don't know that, you know nothing, and you should probably be consulting a psychologist or something.)

 

[Newby]

Why don't you just answer the question, or can't you?

Oh, Newby, you just love calling me out don't you?

I tell you what, give me an example of what you mean by something for which there is no empirical data or physical evidence that is part of life and I'll tell you how I personally apply logic and/or how logic can or is applied to it.

For example, love. All higher order mammals require love to survive, at least survive the first part of life. Because of evolution most animals are born not very developed, especially primates. Human beings take about 25 years to fully develop both physically and mentally. If it weren't for your parents love, you wouldn't fully develop or, if we were still hunter/gatherers, survive. Offspring, among human beings, have a better chance at survival if they have two parents.

If those two parents don't love eachother, the offspring doesn't have a healthy example of what a loving relationship with a mate is. Having a loving partner has logical positive characteristics: rent is cheaper, utilities are cheaper, tasks can be shared i.e. one does the cooking and the other cleans (or if the wage to cost of living was like it was 30 to 40 years ago before Reagan let corporatism run rampant - one partner could work while the other ran the household and raised the offspring).

If you think of human beings as having evolved into pack, or tribal, animals, the tribe would care for it's own which also allows for team work - a simple equation of small economics. More people working together = more efficiency.

If your partner is treating you badly, abusing you, or leeching off of you, the logical and practical decision is to strike out alone and, hopefully, find another partner who is supportive and willing to share the load and the rewards.

Now, you can riposte with, "Well, I don't love my partner for those real world reasons." but, in some ways, you do. That's how evolution works. We evolved to love, and the reason we did is because love helps us to survive. Those human beings that didn't love were less likely to survive, and those of our offspring who know how to love will have a better chance at survival and at having offspring who survive.

Because human beings learn, evolution isn't just biological. We can evolve at will, to a certain degree i.e. warm clothing, fire, and warm shelter in winter. Then we can migrate to cooler climes in the summer (if you're wealthy or lucky these days) as hunter/gatherers did in millenia past and go where the food is. In a way, technology has evolved because of the human capacity to evolve at will.

I saw a program where a physical anthropologist discussed that human beings evolved the ability to appreciate natural beauty (like sunsets and mountains and wildflowers - not just big boobs or tight abs and pecs - like mine *flex*) and her reasonsing was utterly logical and made perfect sense. I'm not saying she's right, and she could be wrong, but, at the same time, she might be right.

Wow, way to completely dodge the question. And I wasn't calling you out.

By the way, have you ever heard of 'instinct'?

 

[Newby]

I'll give you a hint. What process did you just employ to reach the conclusion that that something you were just talking about was lacking in any empirical data or evidence?

Why don't you just answer the question, or can't you?

I just did answer it.

Evaluating whether or not an idea/claim/hypothesis is supported by empirical data or evidence IS APPLYING LOGICAL ANALYSIS TO IT. In order for you to even say that an idea is unsupported by evidence or empirical data you have to logically analyze it FIRST. And claiming you can't logically analyze it because you logically analyzed it and determined it couldn't be logically analyzed would be pretty freaking stupid wouldn't it?

You're just playing games on where the logic is applied. If there is no empirical data or evidence to analyze on a topic, then you can not apply logic to the topic, other than to say there isn't any emirical data or evidence. Humans have applied their human logic to all sorts of things without having all of the information available and have made glaringly inaccurate claims all throughout history. It's nice to see that you have 'faith' that the human mind is capable of understanding everything there is to understand about the universe and our existance to make such proclamations. You simply put your faith in human logic and then announce yourself superior. It's sort of amusing.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Wow, way to completely dodge the question. And I wasn't calling you out.

By the way, have you ever heard of 'instinct'?

What do you mean? I though I was answering your question. Perhaps you can clarify what your question was for me, please?

You were too!

Who says instinct isn't logical?

 

[Newby]

Wow, way to completely dodge the question. And I wasn't calling you out.

By the way, have you ever heard of 'instinct'?

What do you mean? I though I was answering your question. Perhaps you can clarify what your question was for me, please?

You were too!

Who says instinct isn't logical?

Well, you went on this whole lecture about 'love', whenever i would attribute much of what you said was 'love' to just pure animal instinct. Do you think animals are capable of love? Besides, we're off topic.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Well, you went on this whole lecture about 'love', whenever i would attribute much of what you said was 'love' to just pure animal instinct. Do you think animals are capable of love? Besides, we're off topic.

I thought you wanted me to show you how I applied logic to something for which there isn't any empirical data or physical evidence. I used love as that "something".

So, then, what do you think instinct is? And don't just say, "unlearned inherited knowledge", but think about where that unlearned knowledge comes from and how it has developed and how is applies to survival. Its perfectly logical in an evolutionary sense.

I absolutely think animals are capable of love. Not all of them, but cats, dogs, primates, elephants, whales, dolphins, wolves, cheetahs, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Not snakes, though. Snakes don't love. Or spiders. Did you know that elephants cry? And that some primates laugh?

This isn't really off topic. gcomeau stated in his op that belief in God, essentially, is irrational. It isn't a belief backed by empirical data, evidence, it isn't logical, and because of that, its ultimately harmful to human civilization. Those might not be his words exactly, but its at least implied. I happen to agree. I studied anthrpology at CU Boulder and the foundations of religion in early civlization and its development through the millenia only support that conclusion. It stratifies society, causes strife between the different types, is used as a social control mechanism, and tends to repress social and technological advancement. It doesn't align well with physical reality.