jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (415 posts)

Calling All Atheists

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Here is a place for Atheists to discuss their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, with others of like mind. If God-believers want to counter them, they may, but it is mostly for Atheists.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What beliefs?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I fixed it for you.
        So, why do you not believe in God?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What are you doing here Kathryn?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I did mention that God-believers may counter.  Also, I am curious as to why you do not believe in God. I can't believe you never saw any thing (in your whole entire life) that ONLY the existence of God could explain. How about the perfect order of the earth with its cycles and elements.  If the moon were not situated exactly where it is, the earth would not be where it is.. etc.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, the earth is but one of potentially billions of planets capable of containing life in just our own galaxy.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You believe that????
                based on what?
                (This is very revealing!)

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  telescopes.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I did not know that telescopes have enabled astronomers to locate other solar systems, (containing blue, green and gold planets rotating around main sequence stars,) like our own!

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Perfect order.  As in earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, etc.?

              The moon's location has little to do with the placement of the earth, and is moving away in any case.

              The things you mention are not the determining factor of anything but an imagined concept that the earth was created for modern man.  It was different in the past (snowball) and will be different in the future.  Man adapted to it, not the other way around.

              Nor have I ever seen anything that is impossible.  Have you?  And if so, what?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It seems impossible to me that
                                                                        I Am.

                How can anyone explain the origin of one's own consciousness?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It seems impossible.  Yes, I can see that belief being common, but until evidence is presented that you are impossible it is only belief with no indication of actual truth (don't forget, you're on the atheist thread, now).  Do you have evidence or even logical reasoning to support the statement that is impossible for you to exist?

                  Can you define consciousness?  I ask because it seems likely it would be like arguing God - everyone's definition is likely different.  With a concrete definition we could theorize about possible origins, although as no one was there to measure and check it could never be an absolute.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Right.
                    How can anyone explain our consciousness and self-awarness outside of the existence of God?
                    It is logical for me to come to the conclusion that We are what He is!

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Through evolution, of course. Just some more relevant information that changes beliefs into understandings.

                3. donotfear profile image92
                  donotfearposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good Question!

              2. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How about the human body?  A friend of mine who is a surgical nurse talked about the beauty of the inside of the body.  She talked about how well placed and organized everything is.  She commented on the colors and the beauty.

                1. JMcFarland profile image93
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What about the body?  It starts falling apart the moment its born.  Everything can go wrong.  It's practically indefensible against many common parasites, viruses and disease.  Every time a new vaccine is discovered, a dozen new ones take its place.  A perfect design that you would expect to find from a conscious designer would not have our eyes see everything upside-down.  It would not have organs that have practically no use.  The human body is much less equipped to deal with survival than many other animal species are.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good Try, Diane! smile

                3. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ever wonder why we have lower back pain? Evolution is the cause. God could have done a better job.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    This just in:
                    1. God would have done a better job in creating a better body than evolution did.
                    2. The fact that the process of evolution created an inferior body in so many ways proves there is no God.
                    3. God is supposed to create perfection.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can only assume you're asking if I believe in the god that you believe? Or, are you referring to any of the other multitude of gods throughout history? Zeus? Thor? Mithra?

          Why don't you believe in the other gods, why did you pick one out of all the others to believe considering none of them have ever been shown to exist?

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Surely you believe in something?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A Troubled Man is to be believed.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Belief is not required. You can have opinions based on fact, but they are not belief unless you make them belief. That's not a good idea.

          Do we need to believe in facts? No. They are facts. No belief required. Just acceptance if they are proven facts. Do you need to have belief about things you can not know are true or are just speculative? No. Why would you invest belief in speculation?

          Seeing as fact or speculation are the only two categories of ideas that exist, there is no reason to believe anything. And it is better you don't. That way when new evidence comes in you don't suffer because you invested faith or belief in it and it turned out to be baseless.

          Something is or is not true. No amount of belief that it is will make it true if it is not. No amount of faith will make it untrue if it is true. 

          Belief is useless and can be detrimental. Faith is the rejection of logic.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image82
            A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Amen.

        3. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Like what, for example?

          I understand that believers can only operate from a system of beliefs, which is why they are incapable of dealing with or agreeing with reality.

    2. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We are all of the same flesh. God is not a burly bearded creature sitting upon a marble and gold throne (how uncomfortable). We only can find one attribute that all share. Not hate, not desire for violence; but for all the world Love is found in reasonable degree. It is omnipotent. It is always with us, it was before us and will be after us. Our bible teaches us that God is Love. If you feel and know Love, regardless of atheist proclamations, you know God.
      God is not an intellectual debate. He has almost nothing to do with such matters which are good and fruitful for man. He does not reside in the intellect, He resides in Love. Truth is a human attribution to a state of being. How foolish to attribute it to a God. God is here in this forum. But not to dictate but to Love. Proofers are only half brain dead, the problem is that half which is dead is also that half which is Love and not science and not proof. If you do not know Love then you cannot understand me.  If you cannot understand Love then you are incapable or understanding God.
      No one here can speak in Love and refute me. If you refute me you refute Love.
      Answer me and say I am wrong, and your words will show the absence of Love and your notion will fall by the wayside.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The highly probable fact is that love is an attempt to make what is outside of ourselves part of ourselves.  Does God love us in this way?
        Is there proof?
        Please say yes!?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As God's very existence cannot be proven, it should be obvious that his love for us cannot, either.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh. sad
            This just in:
            1. God's existence cannot be proven, so therefore, love from God is impossible.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Now, now. Take solace in the fact that Vishnu loves you.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                smile

            2. Ericdierker profile image80
              Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Is testimony truth or does science completely negate eye witness proof of a truth? Are scum breeding in a pet-re dish more proof than a mans word?
              Scientific proof has been raised by atheist to about the standard of legal proof? Wow 2ooo years of jurisprudence is overturned by fifty years of pop science that will be gone tomorrow. How foolish you non- scientist are. Legal proof is long standing and with merit above the publish or perish lack of integrity of academia. Scientific proof is a spoof on proof.
              In the realm of legal proof: God exists and love exists because people say it does and that is proof.
              Not one of those atheist speaking here has even a degree of Bachelor of Science. You do not know science. You spit verbage and anger and declare it truth. But you lack formal training in scientific logic and legal proof of existence. Earn it or burn it.
              This gathering is amateurism at best.  Who here has a doctorate of what you speak. You are wannabees.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Its okay, Eric,
                They can help us!
                They help us pinpoint and filter out our own surmises! 
                Also, they help us stay on our toes about current facts! (it does take double checking, some of these might be out-dated.)

              2. Zelkiiro profile image84
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because 2000+ years of believing the Earth is flat totally means the Earth is flat, am I right?

      2. A Thousand Words profile image82
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        LoL. I read "I'm right, and if you disagree with me, then you can't understand why I'm right, and it only further proves that I'm right." Yea, no one can disagree with someone with such a circular view point.

        You're using a word with many meanings as though:
        1. It only has one meaning
        2. We all define it the same way, and thus understand what you mean by it.

        Are we supposed to take your word for this idea that Love is definable in such a manner and that there is an unprovable being that equates to it? Why? If you are a Christian or of Christian origin, from what I've read in the Bible (I've read it in its entirety and am a former Christian), why should I beliee your statement is true? (Let's reference the OT. The NT isn't all that good of a definition of this "love," either, but I like examples in the OT that people seem to like to skim over because it's easier than facing outright biblical "facts" contradicting such a notion.)

    3. alexabda profile image60
      alexabdaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If I believe in Zeus, but do not in the bible bullshitter, am I an atheist?

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No

      2. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nope.  I think you'd be a pagan.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    So far :
    One or more atheists do actually have beliefs. According to my observations here and Elsewhere they are the following:
    1. Miracles are the same as magic.
    2. Earth-like planets orbiting around main sequence stars are common occurrences throughout the universe.
    3. Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tornados are proof of an imperfect world.
    4. The moon's location has little to do with the placement of the earth.
    5. The moon is moving away from the earth.
    6. Humans have adapted to earth and not the other way around.
    7. Astronomers have located other earth-like planets in space through the use of telescopes.

    This is an excellent start. Thank You all for your contributions. I hope there will be more!  I, for one, am all eyes!

    1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
      PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1.  Correct.  Miracles (in the bliblical sense) are a form of divine magic.
      2.  Nobody knows exactly how many Earth-like planets there are, or how common life is in the universe, but there's no harm in speculating, in fact it can be fun.
      3.  Earthquakes etc. show that the world is an active, ever-changing place.  To place your faith in holy books that can never change or evolve to reflect our changing world, and understanding of it, is almost certainly a mistake.
      4.  and 5.  The location of the Moon in general is related to the location of the Earth - not the other way around.
      6.  All animals adapt to their environment.  The Victorian scientist, Charles Darwin demonstrated this over a hundred years ago.  Since then, there has been a wealth of evidence to support his theory and zero fatal contradictions.  The concept of a "creator" is redundant.
      7.  Correct.  Astronomers have discovered Earth-like planets using information garnered with telescopes - not sure why that would be controversial!

      I would call these, statements of fact, rather than beliefs.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I would agree that beliefs are based on facts. I am not countering anything here.

        1. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          not all beliefs are based on facts.  Religious beliefs are not based on facts, and they have no proof to back them up except the same old stories that have been presented for centuries - and which all come up short.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is not true, understanding is based on facts, beliefs are based on faith.

        3. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, they are not Kathryn!   If a fact can be proven then the need for a belief is negated.  Your beliefs are designed to satisfy your needs for some kind of certainty, in the absence of facts.

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Kathryn, atheists believe in whatever nonsense scientists tell them. It's kinda funny, actually.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They are attempting to use their minds. Nothing wrong with that. Actually, considering the way this thread is going, it would be nice if the OP would followsuit.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And you believe everything anyone tells you. I could tell you today that I predicted the winning lottery numbers and as long as I say the numbers came from God you'd believe me. Without question.

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, can we conclude you don't believe anything scientists say? Like, the earth is spherical and not flat and the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way round? Still don't believe in gravity?

        1. Raitu Disong profile image60
          Raitu Disongposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The funny thing is that the scientist who are still struggling to find answers for their questions are trying to tell the world the things they themselves are not sure of.   .. The earth is spherical, the earth revolves around the sun.. yes they are true... They are created by God,.. we know only in parts, so the scientists and all those skeptics should not be so bold as to question the existence of God, who is above everything.  God bless you

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for this post, Raitu Disong. God bless you too.

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And that my friends is just the kind of thinking that lead to the middle ages.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's ridiculous. Belief in God does not prohibit curiosity which leads to research. The attitude displayed in your post is more in line with the Middle Ages than his post. You rule something out with no regard for the fact that all data is not in. Which is rather strange, considering that you claim to have had an experience with an unknown force. The more enlightened view is simply to wait for more evidence, accept nothing at face value, and continue to attempt to put the pieces together. And not belittle a thought by your first reaction to it.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My post had nothing to do with his belief in any God or Gods. He states scientists and others should not be so bold as to question the God.

                "They are created by God,.. we know only in parts, so the scientists and all those skeptics should not be so bold as to question the existence of God,"

                I personally don't care what he believes, but telling others not to look for themselves is what was happening in the middle ages.

                You see Emile it's not me telling him what to think it's him telling us what to think. And you jump down my throat?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't get the same thing from his post. What I saw was that there are things we know and things we don't. Science doesn't question the existence of God.

                  Nor was his post telling you what to think. It was sharing what he thinks and you jumped down his throat for having a thought which contradicts one of yours.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But of course you were wrong. He clearly stated people should not question the existence of God and he referenced scientists specifically. I merely suggested that was the kind of thinking that was going during the middle ages. Galileo was not allowed to suggest that the earth was not the centre of everything in the universe because the bible stated it was.

                    Thank you very much but I'm allowed to question the existence of God and the bible. I didn't tell him he should, but he's telling me I'm not allowed.

                    I'm not sure why you didn't ask him why he thinks nobody should question God's existence? I think it should be your right to do so.

                  2. Raitu Disong profile image60
                    Raitu Disongposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I was just giving a reply to the troubled man's question!.  And I am not telling you to stop questioning the existence of God, which is your freedom... Only truth will stand... let's wait and see bro.

          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And yet, everything we all take for advantage each and every day, you included, is based on what science and scientists have discovered.

             

            And yet, it was the scientist who discovered those things, much to the detriment and anguish of the religious believer who embraced the myths and superstitions of a flat earth and geocentric universe. If created by god, why didn't your scriptures tell us that?



            LOL. The only reason we know things is because we question it, hence we question the existence of YOUR god and the many other gods purported to exist and purported to be "above everything"

            1. Raitu Disong profile image60
              Raitu Disongposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not all the Christian philosophers agreed that the earth is flat. It was the views of some early church fathers who misinterpreted the Bible. From the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread. I have written a hub God vs. Science. Check it out, It actually talks about the relationship between God and science , though the title says God Vs. science just to attract readers.
              And it is our right to question everything, , keep it up..you will find answers for all your questions, ... but let us be careful not to conclude so easily before receiving all the answers....

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But, that's exactly what you were doing, hence my response,

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Other than number 3, which is not something anyone would say, the rest are understandings, not beliefs.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    This Just In:
    1. The belief in God is Silly.
    2. It is beyond reason to believe that a "cosmic power" would "micromanage" our lives.
    3. God-believers haven't put in the time to think realistically.
    4. Religious beliefs are not based on facts.
    5. Not all beliefs are based on facts.
    6. Consciousness is the flow of electrons along the nerve pathways in our brain.
    7. It is unacceptable to explain God with circular logic.
    8. One cannot explain the existence of God without actual concrete evidence.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Opinions mixed with fact. Telling someone facts is not giving them your belief. Giving an opinion is not the same as giving out facts, it is a speculation based on facts which you may or may not give greater or lesser probability of being true,

      If you are telling us these things are beliefs then you are mistaken. People can turn them into beliefs, and some do. But intrinsically they are not. They are recognition of fact or they are points of logic.

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nothing is as we precieve it to be.    You and me.
        We and everything we previeve to be are just a a mist in a moment of time,

        Then tomorrow happens!      and we begin again in our thinking that we know what is, ...               with all certainty!??

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Certainty is in high demand and there is precious little of it. Which is exactly why belief is irrelevant.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Correction: Atheists have agreements as to facts. Not beliefs.
    Thanks for clarifying.

    1. johndnathan profile image89
      johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      True .  Atheists generally lack belief in a god or gods, because there is not sufficient evidence proving the existence of such god or gods.  This isn't to make an assertion of "There is no god!", but instead it is the statement "Due to lack of evidence I have concluded there is no god, however I would be willing to change my statement given appropriate evidence proving the existence of a god or gods."

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    What are the facts concerning the  o r i g i n s  of:
    love
    joy
    consciousness
    morality
    free will
    (that all humans exhibit and contain within their beings.)

    1. JMcFarland profile image93
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      e v o l u t i o n

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Is this answer provable?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, since we see it in the behavior of other species, it's at least a bit more provable than a snake and a tree.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ...from an old ancient book.  A book which wasn't even written down until centuries later. In fact, the original words were passed down in song.
            So, I have heard.

        2. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          absolutely

        3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution is a model based on facts. Are all the facts in? No. But evolution's specific tenets like natural selection have been proven time and time again.

          Neuroscience is proving that morality is built in to us. A demand for fair play is prevalent in primates as well as humans, and it extends ever beyond the primate world.

          Love is an easy one. I've written a hub about it outlining it in detail. But suffice it to say that love is the act of making something part of self, and it extends to skills and things as well.

          Joy is produced as a reward for a need fulfilled. We have many needs, both biological and mental. They come from inside and out and are presented to us even though we don't want them, like a phone bill.

          Relief and joy denote fulfillment of a desire or need, and negative feelings either denote a need unfulfilled. We would not eat if we never felt hunger. If we never ate we would die. The organisms that have a warning system to tell them when it is time to replenish their energy are the ones who survive. Natural selection again.

          Consciousness is a complex one, but it is basically a more complex model of basic awareness. All animals need a rudimentary awareness just so they don't keep banging their heads against the same rock, and are able to navigate to where food is.

          Again, I have written extensively on this subject and all of your examples.

          Free will is a misnomer. It does not exist. Will exists in abundance but it is a manifestation of conditioning, both genetic and environmental. You may choose something because you like it better than something else, but you do not choose your likes or dislikes. You like ice cream or you do not. You do not choose to like ice cream. 

          There is nothing free about will.

          What I have described to you comes from science as well as logical philosophical principals. based on the science.

          Does that prove that what I have said is all fact? No. Should you invest belief in it? No. It just means that is all has a high probability of being true based on the current model and the evidence that created it.

          Evolution itself, however, is considered to be fact, and with good reason.

        4. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Is your God provable?

          1. Suzy Crumcakes profile image59
            Suzy Crumcakesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Go ahead.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    This just in:
    1. Evolution can provide proof of the origins of our free will, love, joy, consciousness and morality.
    2. The behavior of other species proves the origins of our free will, love, morality, and consciousness.
    3. The bible cannot prove the origins of our free will, love, consciousness, joy and morality.
    4. The reality of evolution is based on facts.

    It is highly probable that:
    1.  Mankind does not have free will.
    2. Natural selection produced desires for relief and is not to be confused with joy.
    3. Love comes from the attempt to make something outside oneself... a part of oneself.
    4. Consciousness is basic awareness needed for survival.
    5. Morality is built-in according to the recent discoveries of neuroscientists.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I like this side of you Kathryn. It's interesting.

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would say it a bit differently.

      1 man kind has a lot of will which is a manifestation of conditioning, Therefore there is nothing free about it.

      2 joy is an indicator of fulfillment as are other positive emotions.

      3 is fine for a one line point.

      4 consciousness is a more complex and evolved form of rudimentary awareness. .
      5 and five is fine, though these are not the first such studies that show this result.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for clarifying.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    (Thanks, Radman.)

    Yep!  If there is a God, He has some explaining to do!
    And we need some proof now!

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Okay, so what ABOUT the dinosaurs... they have identical bones and bone structures to ours (just different proportions)!!!!
    Didn't the dinosaurs   c o m p l e t e l y  die out before all of mankind's evolutionary ancestors came upon the scene??? (I always though so. Now, I have to look this up.)

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps you should stop talking at this point, you've been doing so well.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No.  The meteor in the Yucatan Peninsula killed 99+% of all life at the time, but some did survive.  No large dino's, though.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        (Sorry, Radman)
        So, are we descended from that small percentage? ... some little dinosaur hanging on for dear life in some crevice in a deep underground cave?
        I can believe that. Oops, I mean, accept that highly probable fact.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, by the time dino's died out there were already some small mammals around, and I believe it was one of those that gave rise eventually to the hominids. 

          I'm not positive that has been established, though.  Maybe it was a slug, covered in slime that protected it from the heat of the asteroid collision. smile

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Slugs never had bones, but you are quite right... wooly mammoths, sabertooth tigers, etc. Were there cave men?  maybe some of them actually  did survive in a dark underground caves!

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What, don't want a slug for a Grandma?  They could have developed them, after all.

              Somewhere back down the line we had an ancestor with no bones, after all.  Nor heart, brain or fingernails, either.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Dinos did not have our exact bone structure, Some had a bird's bone structure, hollow bones. Others were reptiles and had their bone structure.

      We evolved from mammals, not dinos. But one of our ancestors would have run away from dinos and probably they would have been eaten by them.

      We thrived after the demise of the dino, At least or ancestors did.

      Extrapolating backward you have to go back to the primordial soup concept. We would have had a single celled ancestor back there. One of the mutations that survived out of millions that did not.

      We may even be able to go back to before DNA to RNA world for our ancestor.  . 

      And just to be clear, we did not evolve from apes. We evolved from  a common ancestor of apes that was not human and not ape. Though you could say we are a species of ape.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We are indeed classified as one of the (6?) Great Apes.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, scientists have discovered:
        1. Life began when on the earth molecules occurred and there were short strands of RNA in the prebiotic world.
        2. Short polymers of rib nucleotides produced in a lab
        show sequences of copied pairs.
        3. RNA is catalyst of all our modern cells and molecules must all compete for monomers to prevail.
        4. Scientists have admitted they aren't sure whether or not meteorites brought these single cell or multi cell organisms to earth.
        5. So, yea, there is a possibility we are all aliens.

        1. Ericdierker profile image80
          Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          this is a wonderful discussion. To find so many, so happy, joyous and free!

        2. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can see why we have all taken to the Cell Phone so readily!

          Has anyone here got God's phone number?   Or just his Facebook page?  Can't really Twitter God, it would be impolite.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    This just in:
    1. Hominids evolved from small spineless, boneless creatures that had no hearts, brains or even fingernails(!)
    2. Slugs do not have bones, hearts or brains, but could be part of our lineage.
    3. It's okay to call a slug Grandma.
    4. Our bones were not like dinosaur bones, (even though when you go to a natural history museum they look JUST LIKE OURS,) as they were actually hollow, like bird bones, or reptile like.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      lol  You should collect all of these jewels of wisdom in this thread.  It would make a great hub, or even a Texas textbook!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think so too.
        Are you glad our roots go back to outer space way before slugs?
        I am.
        Actually,  accepting that potentially probable fact is quite freeing for some reason! Gosh maybe we are from God after all!
        How does it happen that the stars which surround us, outside and way way way beyond our solar system are churning hydrogen into helium????  I say they are proof of God!
        Who can refute that??????

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No need, you made the claim you should be able to prove your statement.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Careful, there - you're slipping back into theology think.  No one said we came from space - just that we may have.  An interesting thought, and maybe something to think about and investigate, but little else.

          All starts churn H into He - it's what makes it a star rather than a planet.  More theology think, though - when you make the claim it is God then the onus of proof is on you, not someone else to disprove the statement.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you keep saying this just in? These things can't news to your ears.

    3. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And a paper mache bone looks the same as a calcium bone. Does that mean we're made of paper mache?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sure.  At least until you cut it open, look for blood or marrow channels, check for ligament attachments, look for growth plates or healed breaks or check calcium levels. 

        But isn't that the basic difference between theology and science?  One accepts because it likes the implied results, one tries hard to disprove and only accepts when it can't.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    This just in:
    1. God is hydrogen churning into helium and He is very busy.
    So, Athiests don't worry about God. He is nowhere near.
    At all.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh yes, and add this to your list: Evolution is not about origin itself. So the evolution argument Christians have starts from a false premise. Evolution is what happens after the process of biology has started.

      The argument should be about life from lifeless chemicals, which had to have occurred at some point if there is no god. It is an old argument called abiogenesis.

      So even if a god started it, evolution is how it progressed. That's pretty much a certainty.

      So Christians need to be fighting against abiogenesis, not evolution.

  11. peeples profile image91
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    You know what always strikes me as odd about these anti atheist forums? The fact that it is assumed in so many posts that atheist all believe evolution is 100% fact. Did it ever occur to y'all that some of us might not give a crap how we got here? Why are so many obsessed with how we got here? If people spent nearly as much time worrying about how to fix the world's problems we just might not have any problems left. Really just seems weird to me that so many are fixated on how we got here.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's because it's the only argument they got.

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not all of us, my friend

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Okay what else then?

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Some of us don't even have an argument for it to be honest. Some of us actually see both science and the Bible as equally unreliable at some points because they are subject to man's interpretation. As a result, there are no arguments to make. We just live the best life we can because it is good and let the rest sort itself out one way or the other

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Some of us do just that. By "us" I meant you and I, but 2 seconds ago my dog went nuts because the witnesses knock at my door. Just know. I was going to have a chat with them, but my dog was going nuts and I don't like leaving the door open on a cold day.

              A few months ago I had the misfortune of going to a funeral of a friend who's mother had become a Witness and sat there and watched the witnesses lie about the dead.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Please don't get me started on Witnesses

  12. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
    PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago

    @peeples Many theists perceive the theory of evolution and the big bang as weaknesses of the scientific absolutism that most non-believers hold (as seen by theists).

    Science acknowledges that it doesn't know everything, and also that knowledge is always a work in progress, so an explanation can and should be modified when new evidence is presented.  Those are some of its biggest strengths in my opinion, rather than weaknesses.

    I personally am fascinated with evolution and origins of the universe, but I agree with "peeples" that it's certainly not a prerequisite for atheism.  I approach it from a scientific perspective myself, but others may take another angle.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely. Atheists are not all interested in science or origin or anything else. They just do not believe there is a god. Atheism doesn't tell you what some one does believe, if anything at all, it just tells people one specific thing the person does not believe.

      I also agree with your comments on science. It makes models of the facts at hand. The models themselves do not have to perfectly match reality as long as they correctly predict behavior. The model is a tool, not an absolute factual explanation.

      BB is a model, and perhaps the best there is right now. But there is no need to claim it is fact in and of itself.

      The problem is that most people, atheist and Christian alike, don't really understand science to the extent that they perhaps should. Particularly when they are arguing for or against it.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Seriously, don't you Atheists WISH you could prove the existence of G O D ??
    I actually think that science PROVES the existence of God!
    After all, electromagnetic energy is invisible. Maybe He is somehow related to energy!

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have proven that god exists:
      http://slartyobrian.hubpages.com/hub/A- … l-Argument

      If you want to call it energy then that's fine by me.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I appreciated your article.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That would depend on what God is.  I most certainly don't want to prove that the cruel, vicious and immoral God of Christianity is out there, but finding a benevolent or uncaring God that created the universe might be a good thing.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        as in, reality versus concept?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          ?? We know the concept exists already.  The reality is what is questionable.

          Or do you refer the the Christian concept of what God is/does/wants, etc. as opposed to the reality of those things?

          1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
            PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Vonnegut's "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent"?  wink

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The reality of God
            versus the concepts that people believe about God...
            ... which are based on insufficient information, leading to filling in the blanks and surmising.

    3. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting, there is thought to be something called dark energy. It's called dark energy because it can't be seen and it's only indication is that it's expanding the universe and it's thought it will eventually rip the entire universe apart at the sub-atomic level. Could that be your God?

    4. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is the question we should be asking believers.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A Troubled Manposted 5 hours ago

        "   Kathryn L Hill wrote:

            Seriously, don't you Atheists WISH you could prove the existence of G O D ??

        That is the question we should be asking believers."

        I have no wish to trouble myself with conjecture and beliefs such as Kathryn proposes.   It's all irrelevant and a waste of time.   Argue, argue, argue.
        There is work to do in this world, here and now.   All manner of tasks which each of us can turn our energies to, according to our individual talents and skills. 
        The "god" factor is a red herring.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Would it be possible for Atheists to end up helping God-believers find their God, (rather than the other way around.)
    Sorry, if this is a little mindboggling for all concerned.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would imagine that that's the only way God will ever be found.  Believers don't need to prove His existence, and aren't interested in trying.  One day a non-believer may stumble on something that leads to a direct and profitable search for God, mostly because they're the only ones that would be willing to search and fail.

      1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
        PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I would certainly be more than willing to entertain the idea of a god existing, were there to be any new evidence uncovered. 

        However, as things stand, if you forced me to adopt a religion, I would choose polytheism over monotheism.  Why?  Because polytheism accepts difference and variety more readily than monotheism.  The one God, one holy book model seems intrinsically narrower and more proscriptive to me.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          (Is this what you mean?)
          Can a God be only masculine???
          Impossible!
          If not, can you explain with examples.
          Or is it self-explanatory?
          PS believing in God does not    r e q u i r e   adopting a particular religion. One might be inclined to   c h o o s e   a religion based on what it offers.
          A mon avis.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree. Surely some Atheists are keeping a lookout for proof on some level! Secretly, some of them may really want proof!
      No?
      Similarly, some believers may also want concrete proof!
      We may all be on the same page more than we know!

      or not. smile

      1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
        PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That might well be true in the US, which has a 200 year history steeped in religious belief.  In the UK, where I am from (and most of the rest of the developed world, I would speculate) religion is viewed more neutrally.  I personally think that the likelihood of the Christian God existing is equal to that of a Norse god, such as Thor existing.  I accept the possibility of both, because it is theoretically possible - where there is no proof of something, there is a theoretical possibility - but I personally don't wish for a god to exist.  I suspect that if the current trend of Americans being less religious continues, there will be less of a secret desire for gods, as well as an overt one.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's called SETI.  The problem, if it's successful, will be in deciding what a God is.  What attributes it has, and whether or not it created the universe.

        If we find something how will we know if it's a God or not?

      3. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think wilderness brings up a valid point. My observation has been that believers, given the option between concrete proof and their preconceived notions, will always opt for preconceived notions. If a scientist stumbled upon anything that explained the phenomenon of belief across all faiths most faiths would scream heresy and blasphemy. Nothing could make them believe they are not above others.

      4. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely, we await the proof of God in the same way we await the proof of unicorns and leprechauns, not to mention invisible purple dragons.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Each time a believer opens their mouths to talk about their gods, they manage to only serve the non-believers.

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Yes, we are traditionally steeped in religious belief because a democratic republic requires morality.
          I really do not know if morality is neurologically built in as mentioned previously in this forum.  I think morality has to be learned and absorbed from the environment one is raised in. Take terrorists: They believe the morality they are taught to the point of suicide! Maybe not all. But, there is proof of SOME believing the "morality" they were taught...
    -unless environment overrides the natural sense of morality which is built in, (through evolution.)

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Morals are evolved, they are not taught by religions.

    2. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A democratic republic that initially supported slavery, misogyny and genocide.  Great teachings from the bible.  Get real.


         

      I could say something similar for the KKK....a "wholesome" Christian organization.

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I second this emotion totally.

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    And Yes, Belief in God is a very deeply entrenched tradition here. I would say most in US would like proof of what we are pretty much required to believe!

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    I just reviewed a book I own titled, The Holy Science, by Sri Yukteswar. It seems that proof of God is the inner life (love) of our own consciousnesses.  Keeping in touch with what is within us, and avoiding doing anything that puts us out of touch with it, is the true basis of morality.  Focus, concentration and continual awareness of love comes from a calm state of mind.
         I would say, it is human nature to look on the outside of oneself for God, but the best proof is inside.
         He states that following enlightened masters such as Jesus, who are constantly in touch with the love within them, will help us stay tuned inward where the perception of love (as reality feedback... somewhere beyond the ego) produces calmness, joy and bliss.
    So, I was just joking about God being in the stars, far away.
    The opposite is true.
    How can I prove what I am saying here?
    Just read Jesus' words. Focus on all that he says with an open mind and without preconceived dogmatic notions.
    Jesus had Christ Consciousness which we can all have.
    It's within us.
    I am very thankful to all for your insights and contributions here.

    1. Jane51 profile image82
      Jane51posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Kathryn have just discovered this conversation and have been reading with great interest. My conclusion is I would rather live my life believing that there is a God and being wrong than living my life without God and discovering that I have to meet him when I die. How futile my life would be to live without any hope for the next life and only living and existing and not able to give others hope.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Jane51, I can respect your views in that regard, because that fits with your needs.   

        My needs, on the other hand, do not depend on having a "hope for something in the next life."   Merely taking the time to consider such a possibility, let alone making an effort to change my life according to that hope, is a waste of time for me.
        This life I have now is the only one I am concerned with.  When I am dead I no longer exist except in the minds of those who knew me.

      2. JMcFarland profile image93
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        this post is called "pascal's wager" and Pascal's dear favorite wager has been thoroughly and completely debunked more times than I can count - it's a patent appeal to emotion - and it doesn't hold water.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It obviously holds water for her.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It only shows she may be morally/ethically immature.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't consider that to be a fair analysis.  Pascal's wager is ludicrous, by my thinking. But that doesn't mean anything, except to me.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Have you ever read Kohlberb's stages of moral development?

                http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Koh … opment.htm

                I know a few adults who are stuck in stage 2 or 3.
                His 5th observation is the most interesting to me as I've seen it at play. I've
                5. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN BEING TO BE PHYSICALLY MATURE BUT NOT MORALLY MATURE

                STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE:  Might Makes Right
                STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE:  The Egoist
                STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL (TRIBAL) CONFORMITY:  Good Boy/Good Girl
                STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER (SOCIETAL CONFORMITY): The Good Citizen
                STAGE 4 ½: The Cynic
                STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT: The Philosopher/King
                STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES:  The Prophet/Messiah

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Nice article. But, I do agree with  B. Charles Baileys' critique in that the model does not consider content of reasoning, only the process. To trivialize another person's view by claiming they are morally immature is dismissing them without taking into account the content of their reasoning. Which, by my calculations, falls into stage 4.5.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not another persons view that is being trivialized, it's like any other IQ section. We all have strengths and weaknesses and most have been developed. For example some have the potential of being  exceptional at math, but if one only had grade three math they will not be able to comprehend collage level math.

        2. Jane51 profile image82
          Jane51posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What is wrong with appealing to emotion? and yes it does hold water for me!

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I get that, your saying this is something you need to survive and you don't care whether it's valid or not. It's not easy to let go of life after death. I know.

          2. johndnathan profile image89
            johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This argument only works if there are only two options for belief systems (belief and disbelief in the Christian God).  However, since there are thousands of religions with thousands of different gods this does put a damper on the argument.  By these statistics you're more likely than not to choose the wrong deity.

      3. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can understand this way of thinking, The thing about it is that it would appear that you are living your life in fear.  This statement implies that you are living the Bible and living a lot of the principles of living a good and moral life contained therein more out of fear of what would happen to you if you die and don't live that life. How about living a life that is good and moral BECAUSE it is good and moral? If you can live that type of life the best way that you possibly can and try to correct as many errors you make, then you have nothing to worry about because God (If one exists out of respect to my atheist friends) asks that we live by the example that Christ (same disclaimer) set out in his life, which is spreading the word (without judgment), helping everyone that needs and wants help, living within the laws set out by man.. etc

        1. Jane51 profile image82
          Jane51posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would argue that to live a life without God is a life of fear. I think that this fear comes across in many of the posts here. Why do you believe you are in the world? Good works and living an upright life are good but not going to make you  right in the eyes of God. If you believe what the bible says he wants you as a person to totally depend on him your creator. Havn't met anyone yet who was sorry they made this decision in life. Of course this is a problem to many on here who dont actually believe there is a God. I believe in the Genisis account of creation and havn't come across anything else that would explain the world around me.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you then believe in Genesis word for word, in that it took 6 days from the beginning of time to the creation of Adam and Eve?

          2. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, Nice to meet you.. I put my belief and dependence totally on God as I was indoctrinated into the system, and things got more difficult for me. I was only mostly taught that God shall supply all my needs according to his riches, But I wasn't taught one basic fundamental principle.. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. Which means we are not supposed to depend TOTALLY on God to give us what we want and need. We have to put in some work on our own. A lot of believers sit home praying to God for healing(faith), but don't take their behinds to the doctor (work) to see what is wrong with them and to get treatment and wonder why they aren't getting better (dead). Or people that are believing in God (faith) for wealth, but will not go to work, school, or pay a lot of their debts (work) and wonder why they stay broke (dead).. A lot of believers rely on God for so much stuff that he has empowered us to do for ourselves.. Sorry, we aren't supposed to solely rely on God for everything.. Else we totally negate some principles..


            Tell you what.. This is testable.,. Pray to God to pay your rent and all of your bills for 6 months, then clear out your bank account, quit your job, and sit home doing nothing. Let me know if your rent and bills get paid..

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're right, but you may have walked right into this one because she can simply say that she prayed to God and he told her not to quite her job or that she doesn't need to work because her husband supplies all the money she needs.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Which of course would prove both my point and yours..

            2. Jane51 profile image82
              Jane51posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nice to meet you too Deepes. I agree with you about works and yes good works will usually follow after a persons conversion. We do fail as believers but thankfully God doesnt fail us. I dont expect God to sort out my problems. Sometimes I can see him working in my life and usually it is to teach me not to try and live life my own way but Gods way. But yes we have our bit to do as well and many of us including myself can be just downright lazy!

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I was just saying you made the comment that the bible teaches that we are to depend on God totally. I was simply reminding you that That is not totally correct. We have been empowered to do things that a lot of Christians are taught to take to God. This has lent itself to a very unhealthy dependence on God as well as providing the impression That God wants us to be totally weak, simple minded, and blindly and unquestionably dependent on him, and that is simply not true. God (If he exists out of respect to my atheist friends) wants us to believe in him and live certain guidelines that are stated in the Bible (most notably following Christ's example). The rest of it is just to live our lives. To have us blindly and totally dependent on him for everything fundamentally takes away the concept and idea of free will. If we are to depend on him for everything then that means that we don't have to do anything for ourselves, which takes away and negates quite a few scriptures.

              2. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Add this indoctrinated principle of total dependence on him along with the lack of sufficient evidence is what is making a valid case for atheism. Believers are taught to blindly follow the book without reading it for themselves and gaining an understanding of the information for themselves.

                1. Jane51 profile image82
                  Jane51posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The word trust is what I mean for a person who first believes. After that I do agree with much of what you say. Now I had better go and make food for my family or they will be complaining that I spend too much time on Hb!

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The issue with trust when dealing with most believers is that indoctrination involves trusting what man say without seeking all of the information for themselves and understanding the word for themselves

              3. getitrite profile image79
                getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So I guess the starving children are failing as believers.....not God.  Thanks for clearing that up.

  18. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I would argue that saying all members of [a group] are [some negative thing] is bigotry.

    1. Jane51 profile image82
      Jane51posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      With respect I didn't say all about anyone and am just stating why I believe there is a God which is what is being discussed.

  19. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    I apologies to anyone who was confused because of my spelling error of the word "college". Wuzup Jones was very ernest to point out my very stupid error. I will do my best to never allow this travesty to happen again, but unfortunately dyslexia is a constant problem for me and I can't promise perfection.

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It happens to us all

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're very kind, Wuzup Jones, not so much.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Radman, without the automatic spell check feature built into HP  n o n e  of us would be spelling with 100% accuracy! If you did not catch the red dotted line, oh well. I think its funny... Collage math! Might make a great work of art worth millions! well thousands, well hundreds... you never know!
      - also, I still spell atheist - athiest.

  20. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    My question is this: Is morality actually built into human nature, as Slarty O'Brian stated? (which developed through evolution according to neuroscientists?) If so, how does one explain those in prison and those who are not moral.

    For instance, I can recall very clearly an incident that occurred when I was about four years old. I consciously lied to my mother to get what I wanted. I told her that I would not open the bottle of red fingernail polish, if she left it on the windowsill at naptime. I very carefully lied to get what I wanted: to open that bottle and put that red finger nail polish on, (which I did as soon as she closed the door.) But, after carefully painting it on every finger of my left hand and letting it dry (as the babysitter had done,) I realized what I had done and only felt remorse because I knew my mother would come unglued! (It was the 50's)

    Based on what I have witnessed as a substitute teacher and my own experiences as a child, and my own children and other children in general in various settings, I find it hard to accept that morality is naturally built in. I have the understanding that morals are absorbed through parents and the environment and that they must be modeled, taught and reinforced constantly and consistently.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But you KNEW it was wrong to lie, even at a very young age. You chose to go against your own sense of morality. That suggests to me morality is a built in feature, not an aquired one.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I did not think it was wrong at all. I did it to get what I wanted. I used it as a tool with no remorse. (until afterwards... I knew she would be angry to see it on my fingers!  I'll never forget trying to scratch off the polish with my teeth with all of my might! lol.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this
    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think morals are not built in. But, we do have inborn traits such as empathy which help guide the development of morals. Any look at children denied human contact during developmental stages refutes any theory that morals are built in.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Religiously indoctrinated. Their morals went out the window.



      Morals are evolved traits, not really "absorbed" by parents. Religions don't teach or promote morals, they promote lying and deception.

      1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
        PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, some, if not most of our deepest morality is biologically evolved, I suspect.  I certainly disagree with Kathryn that the USA is "steeped in religious belief because a democratic republic requires morality".

        Our repulsion at violence against children, and our loyalty to people perceived as being part of our family or tribal group runs very deep, I would say.  It is so widespread, in fact, that I would say that there is very likely a genetic component, that makes it common to all humanity.

        Religion and morality were once perceived to be one and the same.  But I would argue that somewhere like modern Sweden is just as moral, or more moral than religious countries, such as the USA, despite having a large proportion of nonbelievers.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A human child (0-6) raised in a chicken coop with chickens will behave exactly as a chicken and develop, (through the absorption process of the developing psyche during the second embryonic stage, from birth to 6 years,) the same morals as a chicken. (Actual case) And a boy raised as a wolf will have the morals of the wolf pack he was raised with. Wherever a child is placed these are the morals he will absorb. If a child is raised with gang members and taught how to use a gun from toddler stage on, he will become a gang member - no question. (They have great morals don't they and have wonderful lives, as well. They certainly don't need the wisdom of some religious fanatic like Jesus.)
        BTW Children do naturally believe in God and have a propensity to love him if this is encouraged by the parents or adults in charge. But it must be brought out or it will not develop.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Old Testament basically boils down to: "Here are some laws, Moses said they're legit, blah blah blah. By the way, would you like to hear about a badass Jewish ninja who eviscerated some fat-ass Assyrian king? Because that's awesome. Oh, and you gotta hear about how King Jehoram's bowels fell out!"

          And then the New Testament is basically: "Four guys tell us about the story of Jesus. And then Paul leaps in and tells you you're a dirty scumbag. And then John gets high and sees four-faced monsters."

          1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
            PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "A human child raised in a chicken coop with chickens will behave exactly as a chicken and have the same morals as a chicken. And a boy raised as a wolf  will have the morals of the wolf pack he was raised with."

            There is absolutely no evidence for this in real life.  The Tarzan stories were a work of fiction.

            Morality varies with social groupings, for sure.  But there are fundamentals which are peculiar to humans. 

            While I have a great respect for our feathered friends, I personally don't believe that chickens have morals.

            1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
              PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you believe that chickens get their morality from religion?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                yes. -cause they go to Sunday school and roosters constantly praise God. What do you think they are cockle doodle doing about every AM?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Chickens are nasty little creature that would be wiped out of existence if they weren't so yummy.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                - you must be hungry.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7754827_f248.jpg

                "Chickens are nasty little creature"   ????

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, so that's how I look at them so as to not feel guilty while I eat the nasty little creatures.

            3. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They have a Pecking Order!   By that they can teach so much about ourselves, don't you think?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                - so, you're saying we have the same morals as chickens... how did that happen????
                And yeah, I think their pretty cute too, Jonny. I just don't think I would want to call one, "Mom."

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Zelkiro, why are you focusing on the badness of the bible? Do you really want to start counter arguments about that? If so, lets go!

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What're ya talkin' about? I said most of the Old Testament is badass. What more do you want?

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Any book that describes how and when to mutilate the male sex organ is certainly badass.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Please give us a quote in context, Radman. If you are talking about circumcision, it was for the purpose of health.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No it was not for the purpose of health. It clearly states that it should be done as a mark of Gods chosen people. Taking off a part of a person's body without their consent for no reason what's so ever is mutilation.

                  2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Even today that is not accepted!   So - another Red Herring.  (Not talking about the colour or the shape of it, of course!)

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How chauvinistic. Forget the women raped, cut into pieces and sent to the tribes, slavery, child sacrifice and death by bears. Just don't touch the male organ and it is OK?  Sheesh.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes very chauvinistic.
                    (I am now wondering about the color and shape of a Red Herring. Iv'e never seen one or anything that looks like one... or have I? ) Picture, Jonny?

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I never said to not touch the male organ. I would never say such a vile thing. lol

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If you're not talking about the badness of the bible, never mind. sorry ...jumping to conclusions.  (I was not reading carefully. Its funny.)

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is entirely false.

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with this.. Children do not naturally believe in God. A specific belief (or non belief) is instilled in them from birth through their formative years and usually stuck in there unless and until they start questioning enough to where they will seek information for themselves

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Unfortunately, they usually don't question the beliefs and wind up accepting them instead, hence they become indoctrinated.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I can agree with this in relation to a lot of people

            2. Ericdierker profile image80
              Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Easy with that -- I think they do come by it naturally. At least my four did.

              Now their beliefs are totally varied in a harmony of differences.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your came by it naturally? You didn't open your mouth at all?

                Do you hear yourself at all?

              2. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ok.. A few questions on this one..

                1) when they were born, were you attending church and did you take them with you?
                2)while they were growing up, did you read the bible to them or pray over them?
                3) did they attend sunday school?
                4) did you have them say grace over every meal?

                If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then it was not natural. The only way to know that they came by it on their own would have been to raise them without any bibles in the house, kept locked away from the rest of the world, with no mention of God whatsoever.

                I mean no disrespect and forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I have read a lot of your posts and God is such a big part of your life I would find it difficult to believe that this is what you did.

                1. Ericdierker profile image80
                  Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  1. No
                  2. Not over them, for them.
                  3. Not a one
                  4. Rub a dub dub 3 men in a tub, yeah grub!

                  You are wrong in your premise. There are trees in the yard, waves in the ocean--- because they are about does not mean they came about unnaturally. I am an animal, if my children learn from me like a bird of prey learns from it's mother, does not make the idea of preying unnatural. (note use of "prey" was intentional, for the phonetic double meaning)
                  A native American praying over the deer he just preyed upon is so natural.
                  Stars are natural. Beauty is natural, bees and flowers are natural. It is natural to think and ask; "where did they come from"? I think you do that; because there is differing answer does not make it unnatural. Believe me when your climbing harness snags and leaves you dangling 200 ft in the air it is natural to hope for divine intervention.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, I was just asking those questions. If your children learn from you, they pick up a lot of your habits. I never mentioned anything about what is natural or unnatural. Differing answers are natural because A lot of people think differently...

                    Having a strong dislike for heights ensures that I will never be 200 feet in the air so no need for divine intervention in that instance.

                  2. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Also, If you prayed for them within their earshot then their minds can retain that information as well

  21. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
    PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago

    I have a pet theory that those people who regularly employ the Caps Lock in forums have an IQ significantly lower than that of people who don't.  I lack solid empirical evidence for this hypothesis, however.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The story about the child raised in a chicken coop was an actual case. Her mother had to work day after day out in the field where she lived. The child  pecked at the ground and folded her arms like a hen. If chickens don't have morals, then neither did she. I mean a conscious understanding of them. How could she?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don't be ridiculous.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          - not much of a reply, there. At least try to answer the question of how she could have morals without them being taught.  I would actually be relieved to hear that maybe some children would resist their early indoctrination into the gang life style or terrorist life style. (If so, their story would make a good book or screen play.)
          Why am I the only one discussing this?  Everyone knows that the terrorists are brought up on radical moral precepts and learn that their mission in life is to destroy the "blue eyed devils" mentioned in the Koran.

          If it is true that morals are naturally inherent within the human.... and that a human is all about love from the moment it is born... then we need to be able to enable the child to keep this natural propensity.  But, in the face of temptations, without a conscious understanding...how can temptations be resisted? Perhaps through logic... but morals are based on logic. It is a matter of bringing understanding to the child's conscious mind.

          Is there anything wrong with the ten commandments????  Is there anything not helpful about following them? do people really figure these boundaries out on their own? Or set examples of them for their children if they are not religious?  -maybe they do.. I would like to told otherwise. Ive just never seen it.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You didn't look at the link I posted did you?

          2. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes there is something terribly wrong with the ten commandments.

            The first commandment is promoting psychotic delusion.  Commanding someone  "not have any gods before" an imaginary deity is psychotic and immoral. 

            Second commandment is also psychotic, as it says that there are to be no craven images....Craven images of what?    This is called deception, which is dishonest...which is immoral. 

            Three--What is so moral about not taking the name of an imaginary character in vain?  Useless! 

            Four--If there is no evidence for any of these gods, then there is no evidence of a Sabbath, therefore another useless commandment. 

            Five--Why should one be compelled to honor parents if the parents are abusive, unloving people who have tried in every way they can to destroy their children?

            The only commandments of any value are 6...7...8...and 9.   And there is no need to get these morals from the bible, as they predate the bible.  That is apparent, because man survived thousands of years before these holy books were written.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever floats your boat.

              1. getitrite profile image79
                getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What happened to your zeal?  You asserted your question with such confidence, now you are just being succinct, evasive and dismissive.  Is it because you have been exposed?  Seems like typical delusional behavior.  How absurd.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      BTW
      CAPS LOCK indicates emotion. Emotion  c a n  take away intelligence at the moment. It can also be used to emphasize something one feels passionate about and that something might be actually based on what makes a lot of sense.

    3. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not stuck CAPS LOCK, that is more akin to cussing because we lack appropriate expression. Maybe they are not less intelligent just less literate.

  22. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Others are discussing free will versus "deterministic will" or conditioned/programmed will... Elsewhere. That is pertinent to the discussion of the need for the conscious setting of boundaries in childhood.
    It is a fact that we do have free will. We do not have instincts built in as the animals do. Therefore parents have a tremendous job in raising their children.
    Q. What precepts do atheists use to raise their children.  They are probably based on common sense...  just as religious-based precepts are!

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Precepts such as:
      1) it is necessary to kneel on the floor every night and talk to yourself.

      2) It is necessary to hide the beauty inherent in God's greatest creation; the human body.

      3) The priesthood must be kept well greased, with frequent cash payments in return for teaching how to repress gays and others that disagree with your precepts.

      are not generally considered "common sense".

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        -where are these things stated in the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments actually give practical guidance for living a harmonious more problem free life!  I am surprised by your negative interpretation, wilderness! Try a more positive (and realistic) one:

                    The Ten Commandments as interpreted by Kathryn L Hill:

        1.)  There is only One "Father" who made ( and sustains) all of creation.
        2.) You do not need to pray to a graven image or anything weird and superstitious like that.
        3.)  Respect and revere the name and true nature of Father, Creator, God.
        4.)  Take a day to rest and reflect on spiritual realities . (I 'm sure you are allowed stand naked in front of a mirror to fulfill this one, if you wanted to. Or perhaps you could spend the day admiring the many nudes in paintings worth millions of dollars on the walls in any art museum.)
        5.)  Honor your parents who love you and want the best for you and have the wisdom to guide you. Or tried the best they could.
        6.)  Do not murder anyone (unless it must be done to defend one's own life or country.
        7.)  Don't commit adultery. This is so hurtful. Love is something so precious. Try to cultivate true love especially after romantic love has dwindled.
        8.)  Do not take what does not belong to you. How dare you!
        9.)  Do not lie and create harmful illusions which are ultimately self-oriented.
        10.) Do not desire what others have. Be happy with your own.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They are not taught to children of religious parents, then?  Only the ten commandments?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Can you restate the question? These are actually commonsense AND religious precepts. Atheists and God-Believers of all religions can agree with these precepts.
            Even you, wilderness!
            Right?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No question, just a statement of fact - that many of the precepts taught by religious (and others, to be sure) are not common sense in any way shape or form.

              #1 - #4 come from mythological antiquity and are no more common sense than teaching that Thor causes thunder.  Note as well that #4 does not say to reflect on spiritual "realities"; it says to worship a make believe creature while allowing your farm animals to go hungry.

              #5 Indeed, honor your parents but only if they deserve it.  Parents that abuse their children, knowing they do so, need not be honored.  Common sense.

              #10 is only partially realistic or useful; we do not get ahead if we never want more than we have.  It's fine to want your neighbors TV as long as that want is turned into earning a similar one rather than stealing his.

              Sure, there is an overlap on common sense precepts taught to children, but only about half of the religious ones can be considered that way.  The other half comes from imagination, mythology and belief; none of which are common sense.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I see. Thank You for explaining. This is a place for the views of atheists, after all. I already countered. I have no more to say.

                Well,  I do have one more thing to say... and that is this:
                The ten Commandments should include one more Rule.

                11. Do not take anything which will affect the sound mind...
                                                                        E V E R

                This commandment, if followed, would have the effect of drastically cutting down all abuse, crime, disease, and homelessness.
                99% of homelessness comes from substance abuse. I would say all mental problems come from tampering with the brain with substances of one type or another. (I also believe, from what I have observed, that damage is passed down to offspring.)

                Mothers and fathers could be better parents if they would STAY the F
                                                                  S O B E R!

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not sure you caught my post to you the other day concerning the different ways of thinking between atheists and believers.  This short discussion is indicative of that; to the faithful numbers 1 through 4 are only common sense but to the atheist they are only make believe - suitable for fairy tales and little more. 

                  The only other thing I would add is that "common sense" is one of the least common things in the world.  For the most part "common sense" means either that it's been done that way forever or "because I want it".  Seldom is it actually the result of a rational train of though and reason, examining all available evidence.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    'common" refers that which is
                    common or
                    true for all...
                    based on human nature.

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I would disagree on the last two; in a few ways. I know people who were abused as children. They are not at peace until they make peace with the past. They are torn until they forgive. Honoring parents is something we need. It doesn't mean they didn't do wrong. But hating them for past actions hurts us more than it hurts them.

                And I would submit that coveting is more intense thandesire.  Working toward something is not coveting it. Coveting is as detrimental to mental health as is harboring animosity for years over past hurts.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Forgiving does not include honoring, or so I see it.  One earns honor; it not something automatically given.

                  To me, "coveting" has strong overtones of theft, or at least the desire for theft, and in that regard it belongs in the list.  However, if it is taken as a strong desire for something, well, it will take most people half their life (if not far more) to actually own a house, and there is nothing wrong with a strong enough desire to produce that kind of effort.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It comes down to state of mind.  If you would see the Ten Commandments in a positive light they could help you.
                    How do atheists maintain happiness? are they natually loving and kind and this gives them great joy?

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I would honor a dignitary, or a politician, with a seat at my table, or being courteous during a conversation. Whether I liked their country or their policies. They didn't earn my respect, but out of consideration for the office held. Parents should hope to be given the same consideration.

                    Coveting does not appear to have to do with the things available for sale at the Wall Mart.  I think the wording refers to wives and oxen. Whether you intend to steal it or not, it would most likely result in animosity toward the one in possession of the item, dreams of what life would be like if you owned the item or were married to the woman. It would be very bad, emotionally, for the individual who found themselves without their heart's desire and would poison the happiness of those around. I know people who have pined for another. They were miserable, their family were miserable and the one all of it was wasted on loved every minute of the attention.

                2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good points, Emile.  I would not have thought of them that way.  Thank you.

      2. Ericdierker profile image80
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness you are right on all three of those.

  23. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Question ONE:
    What principles do Atheists use to guide their free wills / lives?
    A. Trial and error?
    B. Love, ( including human decency and empathy?)
    C. Logic?
    D. Superior wisdom?
    E. High IQ?
    F. Intuition?
    G. Evolutionary tendencies similar to instincts?
    H. Conditionings from parents born it the first part of the century?
    I. Having no beliefs.
    J. By comprehension and focus on Facts alone?
    K. Laws
    L. Looking out for ones own Good

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Human decency, supported by empathy and societal guidelines.

      1. 60
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wasn't Stalin an atheist? DoH

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Weren't Vlad the Impaler, William the Conqueror, and Adolf Hitler all Catholic, therefore, by definition, Christian?

          D'oh!

          1. 60
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Uh so? I never asserted that Christians were ruled by "Human decency, supported by empathy and societal guidelines."

            You did!

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, your answer is B.
        -and what are societal guidelines based on?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The ubiquitous notion that wanton killing of people is always a bad idea, maybe?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            bad for what?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Bad for community, bad for business, bad for keeping the streets clean and not littered with rotting corpses, etc.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, looking out for one's own good... letter L.
                That explains alot.
                I like this answer.
                Thanks, Zelkiiro

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I doubt keeping the community's interests in mind counts as self-interest...

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    why not?
                    it is actually!
                    and what is wrong with that?

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure it does. If the community does well so do the individuals.

    2. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They do not. Atheists do not have a big picture mentality. They bounce from truth to truth, compartmentalizing everything so that theory is left to die, and overall morals left for philosophers. There is no moral imperative to follow any of the constructs you laid out.

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Question TWO
    Atheists look out for their own good. Determining their  "own good" requires...

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I guess it would determine on what they want out of life. 

      What they won't do, however, is decide they want an impossible eternal life, invent a God to tell them how to get it and then ignore the directions of said God.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I give you complete leeway to leave God out of the equation and in fact require it. but YOU, An atheist, bring Him back in!...Forget about God for a minute, would you!
        All you can do is guess??? don't say "they"... are you not an atheist? (unless you are not) ...where is Radman...!

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, you see, we don't have a handy-dandy little book that tells us how to think and act exactly like everyone else. We have to actually use our brains and think about it!

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Q. How do Atheists determine their own Good? 
    A. They think... they tune into themselves, their own thinking and logical deductions as to what makes them happy, for lack of a better word.

    Thank You, Zelkiiro! Has this ever presented a problem... or do you know all there is to know about what makes you happy.
    have you ever had to say, "I thought it was a good idea at the time?"

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      um, being a moral person has nothing to do with being happy. A psychopath can be happy.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, you are not happy? you are like Eeyore?
        Okay a better word might be self-fulfilled
        Able to survive with hope and goodwill.
        PS  I never once mentioned the word "moral" since question ONE.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My moniker has 2 'i's, just so you know. It was my deliberate choice, and dammit, it doesn't look right otherwise!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        oh, yeah... I forgot. sorry.

  26. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Question 3
    Are Athiests afraid to NOT follow their own wills?
    Like Zelkiiro mentioned... the alternative is to follow everyone else... 


    I suddenly have great compassion for Atheists.
    (After all, I used to be one too. But, I was not smart enough to be an Atheist.  I did not have the intelligence or information required and I suffered in the school of hard knocks. Finally in desperation, I prayed to God, saying "HELP ME!"... and He did. As though he was working behind the scenes "He" brought me to mentors who provided the concrete information I needed to correct my mistakes and live a happy life. Through them, I learned the importance of boundaries and the understanding of the basis for them. They are mostly based on "holy" science.
    just sharin.)

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I doubt that very much.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can almost hear the sound of your voice.   It sounds like Eeyore's.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually I sound and look more like Elvis. Or at least I've been told. Is a bald Elvis still Elvis.
          http://www.kingaloha.com

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Question 4
    Are Athiests happy, content or fulfilled as a result of their self determined self-guided wills?
    A. Yes.

    But, I don't know what is the matter with the Eeyores amounst us. sad
    Maybe you are a Capricorn too, Radman?

  28. peeples profile image91
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    Kathryn, I'll admit I am a bit ignorant when it comes to these forums. I don't really know who many of the trolls here are except a couple you just can't miss so I will just come out and ask. What's your point here? Boredom, laughs, enlightenment, annoying trolls, being a troll, or something else?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, I am absolutely addicted!  One is not being a troll when one is simply manning one's own forum thread. If you are not entertained, then you should find something else to read.  I do it to learn... (I have learned alot here) and teach what I know based on basic truths that I am aware of.  Also, I am a substitute teacher with NOT enough Work! (when I really need it! )
      Also like Radman, I am practicing my writing and keyboarding skills. If kids had this opportunity they would really benefit. This could be used in home schooling, for sure!
      Do you not like this thread, peeples?
      The real and true bottom line is that I am curious as to why some people are atheists. It is an interesting phenomenon to me. I looked at a tree one day and said, Yep, something designed that tree. Then I applied it to myself. It is what is  b e h i n d  evolution that interests me: the metaphysical.
      But, if you have had enough I will stop.
      Goodbye.

      1. peeples profile image91
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for the honest answer. I was genuinely curious.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In the spirit of Kathryn,

        This just in,
        Atheism is a phenomenon.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A lot of people view it that way

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A most excellent question. I've been wondering the same thing.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        C YA. I will take my ego and
        e  go!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, don't do that, Kathryn.

          "It is an interesting phenomenon to me. I looked at a tree one day and said, Yep, something designed that tree"

          To me, a most fascinating statement, one I've often heard but have never been able to understand.  The thinking of the believer is beyond me - I simply do not understand how otherwise rational people can make such a statement. 

          The desire to understand is also why I'm here, not to argue theology and not even to debate.  Just to understand.  To be honest, I read your statements like the one above, but I still have no idea of the rationalization behind them.  I still need to learn.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "It is an interesting phenomenon to me. I looked at a tree one day and said, Yep, something designed that tree"

            I too find this fascinating and have no problem with it.  However, no way can I equate this with a "god" that somehow can infiltrate my life and spank me for doing something wrong.  That is human imagination designed to control me.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              *excuse the capital locks and centering

                                                                   *ME EITHER!*

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did I misread your intended meaning?  The tree wasn't instrumental, or a large part anyway, of your believing?  Not necessarily as an actual cause, just a big part of the process?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I am starting to think that the lack of belief in invisible spirit is a mind set. Maybe even hard wired into some people.... through evolution of course. Perhaps atheists are forerunners of the new race which absolutely do not need God in their lives sensing that they themselves are already gods...
                  (as Jesus says we are! )
                  But, I have no problem, (at my current stage of evolution,) accepting that an omnipresent spiritual force created everything that exists. After all, what have you produced that started with very quiet, invisible, internal, mental imaging???? Probably many things... and daily for some people...well,  MOST people! Even Jonny has to first quietly mentally and invisibly formulate his wonderfully snide comments.smile
                  Q. Why couldn't God have thought of all that exists, including trees, first... and then set forth to create it?
                  The difference is that he made everything out of what he is...light or energy! Ask Einstein! I think he was actually looking for an equation/formula to  mathematically define God! Did I hear that somewhere?
                  or not.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do think it is a mind set, though perhaps not in the way you intend.  Very logical, analytical minds seem to have a very hard time with God.  There is nothing to support the belief.  Minds that think primarily with their creative (emotional?) side have a much easier time as they don't need support.

                    It can come from genes, environment or both, but wherever it comes from it is a definite difference.

                    A.  He could. 

                    Without evidence, it becomes a matter of probability and of reason to think so.  God requires formulating another universe, complete with a single intelligent creature.  Omnipotent, omniscient, outside time and with reason to create our universe and the minute, insignificant creatures called human.  It also brings forth the analytical question of who created God.

                    Or, according to the best physicist minds in the world, there is no need for God to create the universe.  It could have happened without any cause at all.  While that concept is outside my experience entirely, I accept it as I trust those experts to know what they speak of, or at least think they know.

                    Analytically, then, which is more probable?  An entirely natural phenomenon at least semi understood or that other universe with it's single, eternal creature that loves it's pitiful creations?  I'll put my money on nature; I can do nothing else.

                    The creative mind puts their money on God, but the reason for doing so is beyond me.  No amount of analyzing can come up with that answer and that is the only way to consistently come to correct, real and true conclusions.

                  2. marbegay profile image60
                    marbegayposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And who created the gods?

  29. marbegay profile image60
    marbegayposted 3 years ago

    Kathryn I admire your courage to share your atheism! Not to long ago I left Mormonism and because I was such a believer (i.e. LDS the only true church on earth) I couldn't believe in other churches. It didn't take me long to convert from agnostic to atheistic.
    I love his story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SYwkoH_yc

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      is there part 2?
      I will look.
      Thank you very much for sharing. I was an atheist for a short time in my 20's. But it gave me the space I needed to figure things out according to my own thinking and understanding. I know you understand! smile

  30. Raitu Disong profile image60
    Raitu Disongposted 3 years ago

    You are welcome Kat!

 
working