Ask an atheist

[Skwink]

Fun biology fact: sperm do not respond well to higher temperatures.

Yep, 7th grade health class. They would evolve around it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

They would evolve around it.

Tell me about the selective pressures that would drive this "inevitable" evolution.

 

[SG-17]

Tell me about the selective pressures that would drive this "inevitable" evolution.

Here is the odd part. Anyone's whose "parts" get too damaged won't be able to procreate and pass on their genes, only those smart enough to avoid damaging their goods. The ones who are smart enough to avoid damage won't have any need to develop biological protection, especially because they were smart enough to make their own protection.

 

[Skwink]

Here is the odd part. Anyone's whose "parts" get too damaged won't be able to procreate and pass on their genes, only those smart enough to avoid damaging their goods. The ones who are smart enough to avoid damage won't have any need to develop biological protection, especially because they were smart enough to make their own protection.

FYI: most people don't just let themselves get hit in the groin.

 

[Gangor]

Do you consider Athiesm a faith? If not, why not?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Thanks for repeating what SG-17 said, Skwink.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well then it should grow a shell or something.

It (evolution) maybe out of man hands right now. But who knows in the future man may try for a conscious evolution?

 

[Cheetah]

Do you consider Athiesm a faith? If not, why not?

Do you consider atheism a religion? I do, but my teacher insists it's a philosophy.

Do you consider bald to be a hair color?

(No)

I love echos...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Pascal's Wager is quite obviously foolish.

He suggests that there either is or is not a God, and so therefore the consequences of not believing in God if there is one are too horrible to ignore if God is real, so the safe bet is to believe in God.

I could counter that any number of different ways.

There is a Great Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in the sky, who is insanely jealous and hates all other gods. Every day I worship the wrong god, the Great Fire-Breathing Leprechaun adds a billion years to my punishment, which is being forced to watch the Teletubbies. Sounds ridiculous? So is the argument that I must pretend to believe (yes, pretend, because I don't seriously believe) in God so that I won't be sent to his personal Nazi death camp for all eternity.

It's an argument from absurd consequences, which is EXACTLY what Pascal's wager is. Frankly, Pascal's Wager makes sense only if you don't think about it for more than a second or two. One bad argument is defeated by another, but how about a more plausible argument?

To believe that there is a being which will burn you forever simply if you don't believe in this being, and if you don't believe in this being, you don't believe he/she/it will burn you forever, means there is a false choice.

• A believer will already believe in this being, therefore they have nothing to lose, but may be compelled to continue to believe out of fear of consequences.
• A non-believer doesn't buy the threat anyway, and cannot be forced to believe in something.

I cannot choose to believe in something I don't. I either do or I do not. So threatening me with Hell is rather stupid, because you'd have to override logic and free will in order to make the threat reach me. If that's the case, God would have to undo some of the decisions he's made when 'creating' me.

The only reason why there is even mention of hell is to keep the faithful from doubting, and the purpose for that is so that the church can continue to make money by tithing the faithful. It's simply a money-generating device.

If God is all-powerful, and God is absolutely good, and I am his creation, why did he make me atheist? Why did he give me the free will to examine the evidence or lack thereof and allow me to make up my own mind?

I'm not born with a belief in God. And, belief in God does not naturally follow, or else every tribe on Earth would believe in God. In fact, there are many tribes which don't believe in this particular god or any gods, really. Why would God damn them all to hell simply because he didn't allow them to know about him?

Seems rather arbitrary and spiteful for a supremely wise being.

All the arguments one makes to scare people into believing in God only work when people ignore critical thinking and common sense. Further, I don't believe a perfect being would incinerate his creations for all eternity. That sounds exactly like something ancient men would say in order to get more people to believe what they believed. And it worked on ancient men, who couldn't think properly. Now, the reason why people believe is because they're taught to at a young age, most of the time, when they accept whatever an authority figure says as the truth. And anyone who questions that truth is questioning their personal authority figure, and so they are emotionally defensive and find it insulting. Not only does the opinion become so ingrained, and not only does the fear of challenging that opinion become so overpowering, but I can't even respectfully disagree and say why without it being a personal attack on your mother, father, kindly old grandmother, or pastor.

Of course one might feel defensive. People have difficulty openly discussing religion, even among the religious, it's like politics. Don't discuss religion or politics in the work place. Don't criticize someone's religion or political views if you want to be their friend. They often take it personally. It's not like science, you can talk about science because science is an evolving mechanism which changes as new data comes in. People are familiar with what they used to be taught as being possibly wrong, and accepting new ideas. There's a tradition of being un-traditional. And ideas are considered fair game in science.

Religion, on the other hand, is not open for debate, because it involves belief; beliefs are often so deeply rooted and personal that they cannot withstand criticism without provoking an emotional response. Further, many of these beliefs are attached to fear; don't you dare think about not believing in God, or you'll burn in hell. So, avoid thinking about it.

There's a fear of actually examining one's own beliefs and criticizing them, because of a fear of consequences. That doesn't sound like free will to me, or even honest belief. It sounds more like people have been frightened into thinking a certain way and are frightened of thinking any other way. That doesn't sound like freedom. It doesn't sound like an honest, loving belief in a higher being. It sounds more like how a person who is beaten every day would 'respect' the person who beats them.

It's damaging, in my opinion, to not only be afraid to be tortured by someone, someone who cannot be stopped, cannot be reasoned with, and will get you when you're dead and helpless, but not only this, this person is imaginary, and I can prove it.

The god you imagine is different from the god that others imagine. Some think he sits on a golden throne with a flowing beard with angels singing, others think he takes a different form. Some think hell is a metaphor for being distant from God, others think it is a literal place of burning, and even then, the ideas of heaven and hell and angels are not the same from person to person. We each imagine these things differently, and we have to imagine them, because we've never personally seen any of it. And that's within a religion, and there are thousands of those.

This fear paralyzes people, and removes some ability to rationally question God, and yes, questioning God is considered evil by certain folks. I don't know about you all, but whenever I am told not to question an authority figure, the reason is, that authority figure is afraid of what might happen if I question them.

God should not be afraid of my questions.

Organized religion, and members thereof, may have reason to be fearful of my questions. They have something to lose if I question them; Money and power.

God, on the other hand, should be a being without fear. Jealously, in fact, does not become a being as powerful as God, with billions of followers and billions more that are dead. It does not make sense to me that God would allow free will, and suggest that I can choose to believe or not believe in him, and then turn around and say No, I was not allowed to choose not to believe in him, and the consequences are to be punished forever and ever.

That sounds like man-made fearmongering to me. Only man could come up with such implausible threats, and only man would believe them.



Getting back to Pascal's Wager, it's a bad enough argument as it is, but when the only source of 'information' about God is people in ancient times wandering the deserts with the sun baking their brains, many of whom hold contradictory accounts, and many of whom we do not believe, how do you choose which 'revelation' to believe in?

What is simply the most popular? Or how about the one that is most popular in your location?

Seems quite arbitrary to me. If you were born in the middle east, you'd be a Muslim, not a Christian, most likely. The reason is societal pressure, parental authority, and cultural norms.

Pascal's Wager breaks down at the slightest examination. It's wrong, and it was even recognized as such by his peers at the time. It's just horrendous logic. It's an attempt by an otherwise brilliant man to reason people into faith, but the reasoning he used was far from brilliant.

Wow, that's a meaty post. I'm short on time, so I PROMISE I'll do my best to respond better later, but a few points jump out at me.

Hell is real, but the fire is (Probably) a metaphor. Since God cannot live in the precense of sin, as it is contrary to his nature, man can only stay in one other place, and that is Hell, the place where God is not (I do not know the answer to the inevitable question of why these people cannot simply be annihilated. That's something I just have to trust God on.)

I have experienced God for myself, so my belief is not limited to parents. Also, how do you account to so many converts to Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christianity, yet few (Whiskey Lord, you are an exception, not a rule) turn away from it, especially after truly believing.

It is true that a literal fire seems like something man would invent, hence why I think its a metaphor. That said, John simply couldn't understand what being eternally separated from God looked like, so he used "Fire and brimstone," as a metaphor.

Free will is a pretty controversial thing. Any way you look at it though, Hell does not exist for unbelievers, contrary to popular belief. Hell exists for Sinners. However, if we sin (We all have) we CANNOT be in God's precense. But Christ's Blood, and our belief in the Sacrifice, can get us there, since Christ died to pay for our crimes against God.

I personally believe in Free Will. I believe we have a choice to believe or not. However, it is not an "Open Choice." The right choice IS to believe, and choosing not to believe has eternal consequences (I don't know what happens to those who CANNOT believe, due to having never heard.)

I really don't know what to say to those who are logically convinced God does not exist. If you could at least get yourself to believe God existed, and then sincerely prayed to him to reveal himself to you, I think he would do so.

I'll address this concept more later, I'm out of time. But one last parting comment, I DO agree with you on Pascal's Wager. Saying you believe when you really don't won't get you anywhere.

 

[Leoreth]

So your saying the universe is God? Since God basically caused himself to self exist and yet every cosmology has the universe starting, so therefore it had a beginning and therefore it had a cause.

No. I'm saying that there is no reason to assume that the universe needs a beginning, while God doesn't need one. Or put differently, any reasoning for how God came into being could also be applied to the universe as a whole. "God created the universe" is only postponing the question of the cause, and the resulting question is often answered in a non-sensical way, or a way that defies the scrutiny previously applied to the cause of the universe (and yes, "God caused himself to exist" is one of those. That's not how causality works). That's one of the major reasons why I don't buy most religions' cosmological aspect.

@Askthepizzaguy:
What a great post, never thought you would go such lengths to answer this question!

@Domination:
While I understand your desire to counter atheist statements in this thread, could you please stick to the topic and ask questions instead of making assertions about your own beliefs?

 

[Skwink]

Thanks for repeating what SG-17 said, Skwink.

You can't be smart enough to avoid it, it just happens.

 

[LucyDuke]

Aren't we like more than 50% of this forum?

Why are there so many evangelistic atheists? I mean it's by far most common on the internet, why do some many try to push their non-belief onto others?

With religious evangelism, at least there is a reason behind it [god(s)], but if you don't believe in a god, why do you need to convince others not to believe?

Same reason you'd argue with someone that insisted the earth was flat. They're wrong.

(I don't start the conversation anymore.)

We can guess at what was happening just after the Big Bang, but we don't know what was happening prior to the Big Bang.

Nothing was happening prior to the big bang, there was no prior to the big bang.

So your saying the universe is God? Since God basically caused himself to self exist and yet every cosmology has the universe starting, so therefore it had a beginning and therefore it had a cause.

No, atheists are not saying the universe is god. Atheists are saying there is no god.

why do so many Atheists act like elitists towards other people's beliefs?

Probably the same reason so many other types of people do.

How would you counter Pascal's Wager?

I can't decide to believe something if it's unconvincing. Pascal's Wager could be logically bulletproof but sincere beliefs aren't chosen.

Do you consider atheism a religion? I do, but my teacher insists it's a philosophy.

Do you consider Athiesm a faith? If not, why not?

It's not a religion. It's not a faith. I wouldn't even call it a philosophy. It's just not believing in gods. Is not believing in fairies a religion or a faith or a philosophy? No, it's just not believing in something.

 

[JollyRoger]

radiometric dating=pseudoscience, I will put my faith in the one text agreed on by people for thousands of years while other religious texts of the time have gone extinct.

That has spawned three major surviving sects that have warred with each other, to varying degrees, to this very day? That kind of agreement?

Fun biology fact: sperm do not respond well to higher temperatures.

I thought the hotter the girl, the more responsive.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Aren't we like more than 50% of this forum?

More than 50% of OTs regular posters maybe. But 99% of people on here don't even reveal religious affiliation.

Same reason you'd argue with someone that insisted the earth was flat. They're wrong.

(I don't start the conversation anymore.)

Are you suggesting belief in God is as dumb as believing the world is flat?

 

[Leoreth]

Are you suggesting belief in God is as dumb as believing the world is flat?

I hope not, that'd be stupid. I take his answer as "when you think someone is wrong, you argue with them". So really the same reason religious people try to convince atheists.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I hope not, that'd be stupid. I take his answer as "when you think someone is wrong, you argue with them". So really the same reason religious people try to convince atheists.

I have seen some atheists literally do that on here. I'm not saying Lucyduke is doing that, but some people on here have.

Second of all, I have no problem with an atheist sticking up for their view once its brought up or whatever. What I do have a problem with is atheists actively proselyting, putting up pro-atheist banners, whatever. I'm not saying its evil or should be banned, but it IS stupid, since, if atheism is correct, religious people aren't losing anything by being religious. However, convincing people could still cause pain in the family.

Religious people in general proselytize because they feel people have something to gain by joining said religion...

 

[timtofly]

I hope not, that'd be stupid. I take his answer as "when you think someone is wrong, you argue with them". So really the same reason religious people try to convince atheists.

Are there still people in this forum who believe the world is flat, or is that a non sequitur that others are accused of using?

 

[Ajidica]

What I do have a problem with is atheists actively proselyting, putting up pro-atheist banners, whatever.

By that same logic I assume you have a problem with fundies actively proselytizing, putting up pro-thiest banners, and so on. I'm not saying it is evil or should be banned, but it IS stupid, since, your view of my eternal damnation is based on believing in your religion and why should your beliefs appply to me?

 

[GhostWriter16]

By that same logic I assume you have a problem with fundies actively proselytizing, putting up pro-thiest banners, and so on. I'm not saying it is evil or should be banned, but it IS stupid, since, your view of my eternal damnation is based on believing in your religion and why should your beliefs appply to me?

This is the point <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< .

You are still over here

 

[Sveon]

(I don't know what happens to those who CANNOT believe, due to having never heard.)

Maybe we get a well-deserved rest from nonsensical religious peoples angst, fears and lunacy?

BTW. Pray tell me how can anyone in this world with thousands of branches of faiths be so infernaly blinkered and self-righteous to belive that their little church is the right one?
Any form of divinity would surely squirm with embarrassment.