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.
I fixed it for you.
So, why do you not believe in God?
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.
Sorry, the earth is but one of potentially billions of planets capable of containing life in just our own galaxy.
You believe that????
based on what?
(This is very revealing!)
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!
No one has ever proven that such a world is necessary for life to exist, either. Indeed, evidence continues to grow that vastly different conditions are possible and still support life, and that's life that is at least vaguely similar to ourselves.
If grossly different life is possible then certainly a blue, green and gold (where did gold come from?) certainly may not be necessary.
And yep, I just read on the internet that there have been planets discovered which are similar to earth in some ways. The KOI (Kepler Object of Interest) planet is the most similar. The scientists think it is mostly water, though.
It was discovered by NASA's Kepler space telescope. It exists beyond our solar system. Its radius is 1.5 that of earth. It orbits a star similar to our sun at a distance that falls within the habitable zone.
It truly is amazing how a little bit of relevant information can crush a belief and create an understanding, instead, don't you agree?
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?
It seems impossible to me that
How can anyone explain the origin of one's own consciousness?
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.
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!
OK - you won't define consciousness, so I will. Consciousness is the flow of electrons along the nerve paths in our brains. As there is no evidence of God, let alone that He has nerves or even a brain there is no reason to conclude that we are what He is.
While it is perfectly permissible to define things in terms of God to the faithful, it doesn't work in an atheist forum as there is a distinct lack of evidence as well as being a circular logic path (unacceptable).
Open any phycology book to get an explanation for consciousness. Humans are not the only animals that are self aware clearly demonstrating it's a product of the evolution of the brain. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean no one else can.
It's called evolution, you should try understanding it sometime as it will help to answer your questions.
Through evolution, of course. Just some more relevant information that changes beliefs into understandings.
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.
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.
Ever wonder why we have lower back pain? Evolution is the cause. God could have done a better job.
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.
Evolution has brought us off all fours but at a cost. Most of our weight is in our upper body and that is held up by a narrow band of disks. Lower back pain.
I guess he did the best he could with what he had. Maybe the skeletal system worked the best for dinosaurs. Even dogs and horses have problems with their hips as they get older. And hey... why DO the bones of dinosaurs look JUST LIKE OURS?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!?
As God's very existence cannot be proven, it should be obvious that his love for us cannot, either.
This just in:
1. God's existence cannot be proven, so therefore, love from God is impossible.
Now, now. Take solace in the fact that Vishnu loves you.
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.
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.)
Because 2000+ years of believing the Earth is flat totally means the Earth is flat, am I right?
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.)
If I believe in Zeus, but do not in the bible bullshitter, am I an atheist?
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. 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.
I would agree that beliefs are based on facts. I am not countering anything here.
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.
That is not true, understanding is based on facts, beliefs are based on faith.
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.
Kathryn, atheists believe in whatever nonsense scientists tell them. It's kinda funny, actually.
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.
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.
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?
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
Thanks for this post, Raitu Disong. God bless you too.
And that my friends is just the kind of thinking that lead to the middle ages.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So the guy believes the existence of God is beyond question. So what? It is his opinion. It isn't leading us to the Dark Ages. I don't care what he thinks enough to challenge him. You obviously do. That is the point. Both stands, if accepted by society, lead us into a position where we don't question. And when you close your mind to possibilities you close the door to possible answers.
Right. He's telling us to close our minds and I'm suggesting we should not and you're all over me about that?
This is very confusing. If he had said "I don't question the existence of God" I would have not commented, but he said no one should question God, specifically scientists. Science is allowed for the most part to learn as much as they can about the universe without someone claiming that science is not allowed to claim the earth is round and not the centre of the universe.
The guy didn't say that. Since you claimed in another thread that I am 'all over your posts' I'll leave you to your delusions. Have fun.
He most certainly did say that.
"scientists and all those skeptics should not be so bold as to question the existence of God,"
Here's one thing I've never understood: Why shouldn't we be so bold as to question the existence of God? If God exists as we believe, then we have been created in His image; with intellects that question, with hearts that love, with minds and bodies that appreciate and are in tune with nature. It's a terrible disservice to other believers to make them think that it is any sort of transgression to 'question' God. There is no other way to get to know someone you love than to ask them questions.
Last comment, then I'll yield the floor. Are you completely incapable of allowing another person an opinion without taking it personally?
I didn't take anything personally. I'm not sure what your argument is here anyway. Sure, he's allowed his opinion even if his opinion is that no one is to question God, but am I not allowed my opinion? Your telling me to leave him alone with his opinion, yet you're not leaving me alone with mine? What's up with that?
Was it not politics that prevented Galileo from being free to state his opinions and hypotheses openly? The politics, i.e., the public face of the church in those days, did not want interference to damage their public image.
Has "the church" changed?
This is an interesting question.! you can find the answer here http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html ..
The primary problem was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. They found Galileo to be against Aristotle’s views. The church at that time could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong. So they were ready to do anything to defend him and that was the narrow outlook of the church in those days. But now it has changed.
Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics.
And yes we have seen many reformations in the church history.
Oh yes we can question the existence of God, but what I am trying to say is that we should not say God doesn’t exist( atheist) either because we don’t have any proof that he don’t exist. This post is actually a reply to the atheist who asserts there is no God....We are on the process of discovering new things every day. We cannot ignore the possibilities… It is as simple as that.
With great respect for your point of view, Raitu Disong, but the logic of the atheist's refusal to accept the existence of a "god" is, for me, much more acceptable than the "belief in the unseen" of theists.
The physically provable things of our finite existence are no match for the improbable existence of a "being without form."
I respect you view too. I am not against atheists either. I have many good friends who are atheist.But we have learned to respect each others beliefs. I believe in God, I lost nothing, there are so many things he did for me, but it will be too long to discuss here.
And well everyone is right in his own eyes. This debate will never end. Let us hope we all will live together in peace and harmony.
You've got that entirely backwards, you shouldn't be saying God exists because you have no evidence or proof that He does.
We are not discovering gods and never have... it is as simple as that.
notice the but...So, I can question the existence of God, but I should not say God doesn't exist?
All Atheists say there is no God.
When you find something let me know, because the more we look the we learn that the bible is only a book written by ill informed men who thought the earth was flat, held up by pillars and everything evolved around it.
Each to his own! At this point I think we all agree that Atheists cannot tell anyone how to think or organize their brains/minds. Theists cannot tell anyone how to think and organize their brains/minds. (sorry to take away all the fun) I like what Jonny has been adding:
IMHO: In My Honest Opinion
AIATF: As I Accept the Facts
TWISI: The Way I See It.
MBG: My Best Guess
and if you know for sure:
IKFC: I Know For Certain
- and if anyone omits a reminder at the end, it's a GIVEN that it is just the individual's way of understanding. After all none of us are being paid to convince anyone of our way of understanding. That occupation will leave the best salesman in the world nickel-less!
You can question the existence of God. There is nothing wrong with that. There are some believers that question the existence at times. I think the point that he is making is that lack of evidence does not mean that God doesn't exist. So since there is no evidence to prove that God doesn't exist there is no way to make that assertion for sure.. Now of course (Yes I will play advocate here) The reverse is true.. Since there is no proof of the existence of God (other than personal experience, which is subject to the person experiencing the occurrence) believers should not be stating with absolute certainty that God does exist. But the reality is that some believers hold so tightly to their beliefs (or indoctrinations) that their belief has become reality
So anyone honest with themselves is agnostic, saying "I don't know". Makes sense, plus "I don't know" does not preclude a belief strong enough to set morality, actions, etc.
Not necessarily.. Although Agnosticism appears to be more objective, People that are honest with themselves can still hold to one belief or the other based on the reason they believe (or don't believe). From what I understand from some of (trying not to generalize too much) the atheists here, They don't believe because there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God. Not all of them state for certain that God is not real. They do assert that the Bible is a book full of fairy tales, myths, tyranny, and other nonsense and don't understand why anyone would serve a deity like God. They also question other religions.
On the flip side of the coin, You have some believers (again trying not to generalize too much) that believe in God solely because that's what they were taught to believe. As a result, they follow those teachings without question. Then you have others that have had personal experiences that confirm the existence of God (for themselves) and as such hold to their beliefs based on those experiences. Then you have some (like me) Whose belief is more of an optimistic belief in hopes that there is something better than this world when we pass on
But lack of evidence can only produce belief and is insufficient for actual knowledge.
Just as a subjective experience can only produce belief and is also insufficient for actual knowledge until and unless it thoroughly and objectively tested.
Either way, it is a lie to your self to declare knowledge of a subject that has not been proven or even has any real evidence to support it.
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.
That's pretty much how I understood your post. Unfortunately some see an opposing opinion as an affront to their right to an opinion. Haven't figured out why yet.
I haven't figured that out yet either. Why am I not supposed to give my opinion?
You understood what i meant EMILE!
Thank you for answering troubled man’s question
If I answered his question it was entirely by accident. I didn't read his post. My post was simply made defending your right to an opinion without having others rearrange your opinion in order to be offended.
Which is interesting in itself, since it makes one wonder at the circle of information being turned into disinformation as we each jump to conclusions as to the motivation behind our comments. I didn't see yours as harsh; or an attempt to quash dissent. It appeared to be a simple statement of belief in the source of all, without supporting any assumptions other than that God exists.
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"
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....
Other than number 3, which is not something anyone would say, the rest are understandings, not beliefs.
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.
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.
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!??
Correction: Atheists have agreements as to facts. Not beliefs.
Thanks for clarifying.
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."
What are the facts concerning the o r i g i n s of:
(that all humans exhibit and contain within their beings.)
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.
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.
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.
I like this side of you Kathryn. It's interesting.
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.
Yep! If there is a God, He has some explaining to do!
And we need some proof now!
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.)
Perhaps you should stop talking at this point, you've been doing so well.
No. The meteor in the Yucatan Peninsula killed 99+% of all life at the time, but some did survive. No large dino's, though.
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.
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.
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!
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.
We are indeed classified as one of the (6?) Great Apes.
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.
this is a wonderful discussion. To find so many, so happy, joyous and free!
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.
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.
You should collect all of these jewels of wisdom in this thread. It would make a great hub, or even a Texas textbook!
I think so too.
Are you glad our roots go back to outer space way before slugs?
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??????
No need, you made the claim you should be able to prove your statement.
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.
Why do you keep saying this just in? These things can't news to your ears.
And a paper mache bone looks the same as a calcium bone. Does that mean we're made of paper mache?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
?? 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?
Vonnegut's "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent"?
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.
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?
That is the question we should be asking believers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Is this what you mean?)
Can a God be only masculine???
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.
I disagree. Surely some Atheists are keeping a lookout for proof on some level! Secretly, some of them may really want proof!
Similarly, some believers may also want concrete proof!
We may all be on the same page more than we know!
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.
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?
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.
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.
Each time a believer opens their mouths to talk about their gods, they manage to only serve the non-believers.
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.)
Morals are evolved, they are not taught by religions.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
It only shows she may be morally/ethically immature.
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.
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
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.
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.
If you never went to fifth grade, you would not know how to spell college.
Don't let my dyslexia confuse you as to my intelligence.
But thanks for pointing out my spelling errors. I do strive for perfection, but somethings even my spell checker doesn't notice these errors. This is one of the reasons I'm here.
Collage math is difficult. Everything is jumbled. Like, all over the place and on top of each other. I don't know that many people can do collage math. I would try; but I've never seen a collage of math problems.
All kidding aside. My husband has dyslexia and he is a little self conscious about it. That error you made was one anyone might make.
But, in response to your original post. You are talking apples and oranges. Level of education or one's IQ has nothing to do with moral development. If it did, then everyone who works at blue collar, unskilled job, or had an average IQ would be emotionally like children.
The morals displayed at the higher range of his chart are developed by interaction, observation and introspection. You can have the highest level of education in the world and display a complete misunderstanding of what is morally right. You can have a high IQ and your ego stands in the way of development. Heck, I personally belief that those we perceive as more genetically gifted than a person should be are in a position to miss out on the experience needed to develop a strong moral center.
If you think education or IQ automatically puts someone in a position to be morally mature you haven't thought this through.
I think you misunderstood me because what you described is exactly my point. Sometimes even highly educated people don't need or can't go past level 2. Just like dyslexia, it's a part of intelligence, but has no reflection on the other parts.
I wouldn't attribute it to intelligence. Maybe I'm missing something in your argument.
An IQ is made up of different components and there are different kinds of IQ's. People with dyslexia will do poorly in the spelling or reading sections of a test, but may do well in other sections. The same can be said for moral development. As seen in that link I showed you, one can be highly educated and intelligent with poor moral development.
So, I don't see moral development as having a connection with IQ because it's not part of the IQ test.
This becomes even more interesting when you realize that almost every major serial killer of the 20th century had IQs over 120.
Although that seems to be in direct contradiction to my understanding of your original statement we appear to now be in agreement. Cool.
What is wrong with appealing to emotion? and yes it does hold water for me!
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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..
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
So I guess the starving children are failing as believers.....not God. Thanks for clearing that up.
I would argue that saying all members of [a group] are [some negative thing] is bigotry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here is your answer.
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episod … age=behind
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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.
Do you believe that chickens get their morality from religion?
Chickens are nasty little creature that would be wiped out of existence if they weren't so yummy.
"Chickens are nasty little creature" ????
They have a Pecking Order! By that they can teach so much about ourselves, don't you think?
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!
What're ya talkin' about? I said most of the Old Testament is badass. What more do you want?
Any book that describes how and when to mutilate the male sex organ is certainly badass.
Please give us a quote in context, Radman. If you are talking about circumcision, it was for the purpose of health.
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.
Well, it was done for the sake of health. As it is today.
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Has nothing to do with health. It's a sign of the covenant, a mark.
Thousands of surgeons in medical health in 2013 would not agree with you.
( Dont let your bias blind you in common sense matters)
Perhaps you know more about health issues than Spiritual ones.
Look at the text. If it were for health reasons evolution would have gotten rid of the foreskin a long time ago. Ask someone with foreskin if they want it removed. They all say no. Removing a part of the body without the consent of the person is a mutilation.
Where does it say anything about health?
"You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."
I see the word "sign".
-just like abstaining from certain types of foods... like animals with un (?) cloven hooves etc. Why do you even bother with matters of ancient ancient days. Come to modern times. I think that's why God sent Jesus. He knew that things needed to change. He mentioned He would never create another flood. It seems He made mistakes or did things he regretted. What father hasn't... (but , out of love for his child?) He rethought the dinosaurs didn't he?
All I can say right now is, "ouch."
I did not want to circumcise my baby boy at eight days old either, but I did. "They" said it would be better for health reasons. (Ultimately it is better for the sex life...yes?) Would you please let this go? Maybe their access to water was less and the ability to bathe was limited in those days,) Today we have a choice. We choose for practical reasons, not religious. It is not supposed to be for a "sign"
a n y m o r e.
Most of those surgeons would only perform the operation because the parent(s) are following their traditional family requirements, presuming it's for the purposes of health, and because they (the surgeons) will get paid for doing it.
By the way, are we talking about a body which your "god" has provided? Has your god made a mistake in the way "he" has provided a foreskin that gives problems in the normal course of life? Of course that is not so. With normal hygiene habits there is no enhanced risk of disease in the penis.
There are amply entries obtainable through the search engines; look them up for yourself, but try to look at those sites which do NOT back up your prejudiced ideas.
Even today that is not accepted! So - another Red Herring. (Not talking about the colour or the shape of it, of course!)
The American Society of Pediatrics seems to disagree with your assessment.
Performing circumcision on tiny baby boys is one of the most offensive things you can do...... and there is NO good reason for doing it unless there is a direct and immediate medical indication.
It borders upon micro-surgery. It is an assault upon a human being without his permission. It is painful for the little boy. It is not generally performed in countries like Italy and India, and many other countries around the world, yet do you find higher incidents of cancer etc. in those countries?
The United States of America is one country that still practices it. This does not make it right by any stroke of the imagination.
Any routine surgical procedure upon little girls would be equally objectionable.
Give me a break.
Any Nation that allows abortion should most certainly not object to parents' right to have their male child circumcised, whether they do so for religious reasons or hygiene reasons (which are pretty much the same basis anyway).
By my understanding, it isn't cancer that caused them to make a statement. It was HIV. So, although circumcised men pose a greater health risk to women, if I had to make a decision for my baby boy I would consider what I perceived to be in his best interest in the long run.
You guys have to stop projecting your personal attachments onto others and look at decisions pragmatically. The next thing we'll have to deal with is groups insisting parents who get their baby girl's ears pierced is abuse. Or not. No part of a woman is as sacred to man as the male penis. I notice commercials for enhancers flood the airways. Any drug which helps a man in the bedroom is covered by insurance. But women still can't get a copay on birth controland men still want to control our wombs.
You will believe what you want to believe. While you are doing that, to mutilate a little boy on the basis of what he might get up to in his adult life, and the risk that he might pick up a disease from his activity, is fundamentally a criminal assault.
Please read this entry in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV Look at all the doubtful findings. Look at the prejudice that has crept into the research.
An even better understanding of the wooly statistics can be obtained from this: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 … read-aids/
Then compare the HIV/AIDS statistics for the United States, where circumcision is practised extensively, with another country where it is not.
Parents getting the baby girl's ears pierced? Why would they? To satisfy the parents, of course. Nothing to do with the little girl's choice. It's just as stupid on the part of the parents as getting circumcision for the baby boy. Just as ignorant and selfish as parents loading a child's mind with spurious religious beliefs.
Try not to let your emotions cloud your judgment. And, maybe read the opinion of and reasons for that opinion? It wasn't studies made in the USA which swayed their judgment.
Either way, you are conducting yourself as do the pro lifers. Using personal opinion to attempt to sway policy in order to ram an emotional opinion into other people's living rooms. You are welcome to do with your progeny as you please. I will defend your right to make decisions on their behalf which are considered judgment calls. I won't let my beliefs lead me to call you abusive for making decisions I would not have made. When you become the person responsible for raising all the children of the world you might have the right to force your moral judgments on all of the world. When did you come to believe your beliefs trump decisions of others? This is another example of a man using something other than his head to think with.
In giving you those Links I am divorcing my opinions from emotions, and allowing you to make a wider judgment for your self. I cannot know everything for sure, nor can you. We are blessed with a wonderful Internet and World Wide Web that allows us to look wider for important information.
When it comes to making a choice for a little child, the parent needs to be vary careful when it's a matter of making an irreversible change to the child's body.
Your christian background will sway your opinion. I suspect you will find it very difficult to look outside of that christian ethic in order to find the right answers.
What Christian background? You assume, if I don't agree with you I am somehow lacking? Bravo. I'm beginning to understand why men label that as foreskin. It is just skin we are discussing. Just because it is at the forefront of your mind doesn't make it anything other than a flap of skin.
My point is I'd like to have my point the way it was intended and if I decided to change it, it would have been my decision. Do we tattoo infants? Cutting of a very sensitive part of a babies penis without anaesthetic for no good reason is a rude welcome to the world. They may not remember that pain, but it may alter them more then physically. I didn't let them touch my boys.
If the medical field were in agreement with your assessment we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we figure out how to pop a baby out who is mature enough to make its own decisions we won't need to have this conversation. When people learn to mind their own business and stop attempting to enforce their values on other parents by coercing them through guilt we won't need to have this conversation.
Of course, if this flap of skin weren't situated in close proximity to a man's favorite body part we wouldn't be having this conversation either.
So we should not balk against female circumcision because the parents and local authorities know what they are doing? If someone want to tattoo an infant we should say it's just there choice, mind your own business. Most of the time your arguments make sense, but this one is weak.
I know at least in Canada circumcision has not been part of the government funded program. In other words it's something you have to pay for and if you've ever seen one happen you wouldn't want to watch a second time.
Do you think it is government funded here? I guess if a person on Medicaid opts for it they might pay, but we don't have government agents casing the hospitals offering free circumcisions.
If you think it is a weak argument to suggest people mind their own business, ok. But, I believe in individual freedom and the rights of parents to make decisions they believe to be best, when those decisions are within the limits of our laws.
That is what this boils down to. Should your beliefs trump the freedom of others to act as they see best? No.
And if you were comparing the slicing up of female genitalia to the removal of foreskin you need to step back. That is akin to male castration. Which is not legal.
Castration? No. Both can still produce offspring and both may enjoy sex less. I'm not suggesting it's exactly the same but I'm say both are parts of the body that owners seem to like.
Are you suggesting that because female circumcision is allowed and condoned by parents in another part to the world we should stand by and let the parents mutilate their children and adopt it in our own country.?
That's a weak argument.
Ok, I'm going to have to read up on the castration thing. It was my understanding that castration ended, forever, sex for a man.
As to the other question. As much as it pains me to think of much that is allowed abroad, should we enforce our values on people who willfully abide by those laws? I see our open society (and this statement includes all of our countries which value freedom and equality) as an open invitation to join us. This country didn't begin as free by the standards we value. It began as free by the standards of others. But, we cared enough over the years to learn from our mistakes and slowly we encompassed more and more within that original dream. Not by any other means than working within our own borders to change our laws. We freely participate in the process, or we freely acquiesce to the process.
I do not advocate enforcing the values I cherish on anyone outside of these borders. Because, enforcing my values is the antithesis to everything I hold to be dear.
Agreed! mostly with what you say, but the foreskin is not "at the front of my mind," unless there is some ignorant imperative to cut it off a little child, who has no way of agreeing to it, for no good reason at all.
My focus is on that individual, the child in this case who, when he grows up to understand it, will say, "Why was I mutilated at such a young age. I cannot put back what you (my parents) have taken away from me! You have deprived me of a natural part of my body which was doing you no harm and would likely have done me no harm, either."
But then, lots of things are done by us humans because we think we know better. Myself as well, of course.
You must be joking? The only way a person would make that statement is if it was put in their head to make it. I suppose it is all right in some quarters to convince people they were mutilated; but then that would mean we would have to sue our parents for having our tonsils taken out. We'd have every right to insist we were somehow emotionally stunted by having our finger nails cut.
It is the removal of foreskin. Not castration. I realize, being a woman, you might think I am just not capable of understanding. With that possibility in mind I asked my husband's opinion on this. He is of the same mindset I am. It is a tempest in a teapot. I'm not advocating for circumsion. I am advocating that those opposed to it don't do it, but that they don't make angry emotional appeals by saying that those who chose it for their children are abusive. It is unkind, unwarranted and unfounded.
Female circumcision is unfortunately performed in certain parts of the world. Just about everyone is appalled by that because is mutilation. For some reason we think it okay to take away part of the male sex organ when the child is first born because he won't remember the pain and he won't know what he's missing.
Maybe we should ask those in the pornography industry which is preferred by females: circumcised or uncircumcised.
Perhaps some of the male stars would not be the stars they are today, had the parents had not done the deed (the good deed) when they were born.
Of course, I have no idea.
I have no response to that other than.....say what??
So, we should cut off a part of the male penis in a four day out baby without any pain relief because they may someday want to be a porn star and at that point they won't be able to bring themselves to cut the deed?
That is completely bazaar.
well, which do you prefer ? I mean The pain is short lived and the benefits are long lived, especially, perhaps, for those who perform in the porn industry.
Emile... when you watch porn, which do you prefer... the circumcised or uncircumcised Red Herring?
I would say, but I have not seen any polls, that it is in favor of the
* *circumcised* * porn star.... Maybe we should ask the gays as well?
I'll be honest. I'm not gay, but I like girl on girl porn if we watch porn. Not sure why. But I'm not overly qualified to answer your question.
Full of Red Herrings, Kathryn! Do you honestly think that a consensus of "Gays" world-wide would help to indicate whether circumcision of young boys is right or wrong?
It seems to me that all the decisions are being made by adults who base their opinions upon ignorance, local gossip and religious traditions. I bet that even discussing this subject amongst most adults is somewhat taboo! so how can any one arrive at an enlightened understanding?
Some one has likened circumcision to performing a tonsillectomy. The latter has been practised over a long period of medical history in the belief that it will help prevent Tonsillitis. In the earlier days, before antibiotics became readily available, Tonsillitis could lead to complications such as Quinsy, and other dangerous, sometimes fatal infections. So removal was an important and justifiable procedure, THEN. (Today I believe there are changes in opinion about this procedure and its benefits.)
That is very different from the practice of circumcision. Few people even question the biological purpose of that foreskin. Once again, because the subject is so taboo people cannot discuss it objectively and honestly without being embarrassed. It's put in the "too hard" basket. Open up everyone! It's not a sin to become well informed and learn the facts!
If a parent caused a baby boy or girl to have their little toe or finger, or the lobe of their ear cut off, just because it was a "family tradition," some would surely jump up and down and say the parents were criminally negligent towards that child! Why not when the body part in question is the foreskin?
(Please forgive me for being a bit late in replying to your posts, everyone. I was away and very busy of this past weekend and only got access to my computer an hour ago.)
I am a little confused.You are married to a great guy. You are not gay. Your moniker shows a fairy in a human hand.
Would you prefer to have your husband circumcised or not circumcised.
You are kind of twisted if you do not mind me saying. Is there anything you hold dear?
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.
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?
I never said to not touch the male organ. I would never say such a vile thing.
If you're not talking about the badness of the bible, never mind. sorry ...jumping to conclusions. (I was not reading carefully. Its funny.)
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
Unfortunately, they usually don't question the beliefs and wind up accepting them instead, hence they become indoctrinated.
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.
Your came by it naturally? You didn't open your mouth at all?
Do you hear yourself at all?
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.
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.
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.
Also, If you prayed for them within their earshot then their minds can retain that information as well
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.
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?
- 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.
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.
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.
Not stuck CAPS LOCK, that is more akin to cussing because we lack appropriate expression. Maybe they are not less intelligent just less literate.
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!
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".
-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.
They are not taught to children of religious parents, then? Only the ten commandments?
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
"are they natually loving and kind and this gives them great joy"
Absolutely. Do you actually believe that love and kindness can only come from believing in the bible? Perhaps you need to spend some time in countries where that book isn't found in every motel room.
well, I wasn't doubting... I was actually hoping this is the case. But if common sense is not common and the ten commandments are evil... what do you base your behaviors on ...and how can you protect yourself when some sort of 'temptation" comes along? Do atheists have temptations and are they better equipped to resist them or to follow their own better judgment? Or they are fine with the school of hard knocks.
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.
I do not. Courtesy is not honor, and while I do think most dignitary positions are worthy of being honored there are far too many occupying those positions that have earned disgust rather than honor. Hitler, for instance, would not be welcome at my table and neither would Hussein or bin Laden. They have crossed any reasonable line. Others, though I very highly dislike them and their positions, would be - Nancy Pelosi comes to mind. While I might not honor her, courtesy would be extended.
Covet - yes I agree with your view, although I would put the tenth commandment at anything owned by the neighbor, whether oxen, wife, servant, donkey or anything else. My only point is that it's OK to want similar things, just not those actually belonging to the neighbor (unless you want to honorably purchase them).
I do find it interesting that you can apparently "covet" unmarried women, though, by the ten commandments at least... Or your neighbors husband!
It should now be interpreted to mean:
For anyone (man or woman) to lust upon a man or woman by looking upon them in such a way is adultery. I guess this is not the point, but I will leave it up anyway. To covet is not the same thing as getting what you want in life. It is dwelling on that which you can't have.
(Those days were different and it was a man's world... you know that, wilderness.)
Yes, they were different, but the wife thing was only a part. The commandment pretty clearly indicates anything belonging to your neighbor. I also recognize that biblical women were mere chattel, that everything of importance was a man's job and duty. Our current teachings and precepts are a little different today, thankfully.
But...I will pay for 30 years to have a home. One I may never actually own before I die. I covet that home and think about it every time I write the check - until it's paid for I will treat it as my own even if it isn't.
Women talk too much to leave enough to the imagination for a husband to be coveted.
I'm not defending the Bible. Just pointing out that common sense advice should be accepted as common sense. Don't get me started on backward Biblical views on women.
But, I will say that Bin Ladin, Hitler and their ilk are not labeled dignitaries.
You're probably right about that. Whereas the woman merely walks by and is instantly coveted.
But two of those three were dignitaries, the top in their country, and the third top in his religious organization (like the pope) albeit without a country.
Good points, Emile. I would not have thought of them that way. Thank you.
Wilderness you are right on all three of those.
What principles do Atheists use to guide their free wills / lives?
A. Trial and error?
B. Love, ( including human decency and empathy?)
D. Superior wisdom?
E. High IQ?
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?
L. Looking out for ones own Good
Human decency, supported by empathy and societal guidelines.
Weren't Vlad the Impaler, William the Conqueror, and Adolf Hitler all Catholic, therefore, by definition, Christian?
So, your answer is B.
-and what are societal guidelines based on?
The ubiquitous notion that wanton killing of people is always a bad idea, maybe?
Bad for community, bad for business, bad for keeping the streets clean and not littered with rotting corpses, etc.
So, looking out for one's own good... letter L.
That explains alot.
I like this answer.
I doubt keeping the community's interests in mind counts as self-interest...
it is actually!
and what is wrong with that?
Sure it does. If the community does well so do the individuals.
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.
Atheists look out for their own good. Determining their "own good" requires...
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.
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...!
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?"
um, being a moral person has nothing to do with being happy. A psychopath can be happy.
My moniker has 2 'i's, just so you know. It was my deliberate choice, and dammit, it doesn't look right otherwise!
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.
I can almost hear the sound of your voice. It sounds like Eeyore's.
Are Athiests happy, content or fulfilled as a result of their self determined self-guided wills?
But, I don't know what is the matter with the Eeyores amounst us.
Maybe you are a Capricorn too, Radman?
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?
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.
Thank you for the honest answer. I was genuinely curious.
In the spirit of Kathryn,
This just in,
Atheism is a phenomenon.
A most excellent question. I've been wondering the same thing.
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.
"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.
*excuse the capital locks and centering
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?
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.
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?
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.
Yes, I think a left brained thinker has a hard time with fluid thinking. Are you mathematic? Would an equation of God seem like a better way to understand his existence? Too bad Einstein did not find it.
But, back to right brained thinking. I surmise that God designed himself a body first.... or perhaps after he invented trees.... (Human lungs are like an upside down tree). After He invented his body He tried out variations of the design starting with the fish, birds and dinosaurs...
It makes sense to me that He set forth the process of evolution statring with the creation of the tiniest element, the neutrino or the string, or whatever it was...
If I can imagine all this and there is no proof to disprove it, isn't it OK to fill in the blanks...
How can we know anything for sure? I would rather fill in the blanks, than leave them blank.
Maybe Atheists are people who don't need to fill in the blanks.
I like filling them in...with creative thinking and logical deductions
(and imaginational illusions).
But, I also want to to replace the illusions with the facts as soon as they are revealed. Thats why I am glad the Atheists are working around the clock on that!
Thanks, wilderness and all!
That's it indeed - left brain thinkers can't tolerate sloppy, irrelevant (fluid ) thinking.
Your example - it starts at the beginning, with God, and that's where it ends to the analytical mind. No reason to imagine that at all, and it makes the rest of the deduction irrelevant.
But even if God is postulated, it still isn't OK to "fill in the blanks" without reason to do so. Ignorance isn't enough reason to do that; far better that it remain blank until something beyond imagination can be used as filler.
And that's where I fail. Filling in the blanks, making up answers, using imagination to draw conclusions; call it what you will, it just isn't something that "normal" ( ) people do. It is not a road to truth that can be relied on, and no one does it in their everyday problem solving.
If your car won't start, you don't immediately head for a gas can; first you gather what data (including that the lights won't work, either) you can before doing anything else. To draw the conclusion that the car is out gas when it won't turn over just doesn't work, but that's what it looks like when you decide that God did it because you don't have (or like) any other answer.
Yes, I understand.
Other questions if you do not mind...
1. Are there more males with atheistic thinking than women with atheistic thinking?
2. Do you mind being labeled an Athiest?
3. Are Atheists more or less typical in the general population?
4. Why am I still misspelling atheist?
Understand, these are opinion only and without fact to back them. They are a general observation, accumulated over years of consideration of small details and ideas.
1) Yes, there are more male atheists. A large percentage of elderly females are religious contributing to that, and men are, in general, more analytical than women. Witness the numbers of engineers, mathematicians, scientists, etc. in the sexes.
2) Until recently, yes. In my opinion, my terminology, atheist is a dirty word. An atheist declares there is no God and that declaration is as silly as declaring that there is one. I am (was) an agnostic - I don't know if He is there or not. I've come to understand that the meaning of the word is not commonly seen to be what I understood it to be; I am now an atheist, still with the same opinion that no one in their right mind can declare that God either exists or does not exist.
3) Good question. I can only look at the majority that declares there is a God, that He wants this or that to be saved and promptly does something else. Conclusion; they do not truly believe, simply say that they do because they are brought up that way, because they fit in better, because atheist is a dirty word. Either that or they are not truly sane; take your choice.
4) Because you think "fluidly", without need for truth or reality?
Thank you for explanations. They are very helpful to me. I just remembered I wanted to elect you for president and that you are a conservative! That was before I knew you did not believe in God! It is an instinctive thing to believe in God for those who were raised with the concept of God in their lives.
Q. Were You raised with the concept of God?
Warning: Personal Story:
I suspect you were not... or perhaps the opposite. It was never really forced on me... we stopped going to church when I was 14.
I actually missed it after that for a little while, though. Then I NEVER thought about God, (in fact did NOT believe in God around age 20,) But then, I accidentally got pregnant while in college (last semester, luckily!) I didn't know what in the world to do! I was at a loss as to how to raise this kid!
In fact, I made huge mistakes relying on my own reasoning. Huge mistakes... Luckily, I met a lady who was able to iron out all my preconceived notions about children and their needs. My writing is mostly about this topic.
For the sake of my son I started to go to a church called SRF. This church has made so much sense to me. It teaches kriya yoga and meditation and comes from a line of gurus from india. Surprisingly it has led me back to the teachings of Jesus. But SRF interprets his words much differently than Christians do. Explains them on a deeper scientific level. I am not considered a Christian by Christians...Fancy that!
I think you're right - I remember someone wanting that for some strange reason.
Yes, very much so, although there's nothing instinctual about it. Children instinctively want someone to care for and love them though - is that what you refer to?
Somewhere along the line, as I began to develop logical and analytical thinking, I began to question, though. Never a good thing for a believer that actually looks for answers and is willing to be honest with themselves.
And you? Was it pounded into you skull from birth as it was mine? Or did you make a reasoned decision later in life to believe?
Whoops - something changed here - you edited or something.
Fascinating, your experience and life. From this very limited post, I might not consider you a Christian either, or possibly not even religious. That you define your experience as "supernatural" or "spiritual" does not make it so - our language is woefully inadequate here and terminology and religious jargon are often a major stumbling block in real communication between the believer and atheist.
I fully believe that our mind (and body, for that matter) are capable of far, far more than we normally ask of it or than we normally use and those abilities are often given various terms. ESP, supernatural or spiritual are some of them, but there is nothing unnatural or requiring another "dimension" or "universe" about them. They are in us, are a part of us and do not require a God to access.
You have really piqued my interest now; expect me to dog your footsteps. Unfortunately, it is already far past my bedtime and this poor mind must have rest.
Till another day, then.
"I" before "e" except after "c." But there is ALWAYS the irregular to catch you out.... and annoy you!
I think it has to with the importance of it being an "IST." Thanks Jonny!
wilderness: It is always a good thing to think for oneself and try to reason things out and as you say, be honest with themselves. A l w a y s !
I really do think that the atheists have a lot to teach the theists! LOL! Thank you for you input and insights. You have renewed my willingness to elect you president... we just need to get everyone who agrees with you to send you two dollars! (I remember really agreeing with your political views which are obviously based on your ability to think logically.) Enough flattery for one night! (not really flattery... just the facts.)
That is indeed the mystery.
how did an omnipresent force of omnipotent consciousness come to be? always has been always will be... It really is awesome that any of us have consciousnesses. and awarenesses. and exist! It just is mind boggling... and these bodies are amazing and nature is amazing the mind and brain of man is amazing and everything is so amazing! Sorry if I sound like a five year old. but, I am blown away by " life."
Can I give a gentle poke by asking why we don't just "fill in the blanks"? A third, higher, universe populated by the Gods' Gods? Designing and creating God with a directive to then create us?
It sounds most reasonable, so it must be that way, yes?
- then going on indefinitely, I mean infinitely! The God's God's God's God's God's God's God's...
No, there is the Causal realm of existence. It just IS
-It beyond the comprehension of man's limited apparatus of the brain and body / five senses. It makes sense to me that to perceive "God", Omnipotent Creative Loving Intelligence, (we should label God, *OCLI *,) one must use the sixth sense of intuition.
Good ol' Extra Sensory Perception!
One can perceive OCLI directly through direct perception. Jesus will help too because he is waiting to help you perceive through the Christ Consciousness within you. Sorry, If this offends Atheists or Christians.
But...intuition is a blending of past experience and observation to postulate a probable answer. It often works, too, just subconsciously. Of course, when wants and desires are added into the blend it usually fails - therefore intuition in this case can consist of nothing more than wants and desires (no one has experienced or observed the OCLI) and is almost certain to produce the wrong conclusion.
And of course neither you nor anyone else can perceive OCLI through direct perception - none of your 5 sense are equipped to do so. Any such perception is thus only a perceived perception (what a statement!) and does not necessarily have any connection to reality. Most of us title that phenomenon "imagination" or perhaps "hallucination" when the reality connection is clearly lost.
I have ESP. Many people at one time or another have experienced it. Dogs have it. It stands to reason that animals in general use their sense of extra sensory perception as a survival skill.
Do you not use intuition?... I love to participate ESP tests. I am very perceptive and can sense things directly very well. The indian Yogis perceive
OCLI directly. It is not an hallucination. India has much evidence and history of such phenomenon.
No, you don't, no one does. It is not possible for the brain to work that way. Sorry, for that little bite of reality.
I don't know about that. I predicted I'd win the lottery and supplied evidence that I did. Did you look at my evidence?
Technically, You didn't win the lottery.. You got enough numbers right to earn a consolation prize, but not the jackpot
You didn't really win the lottery, you won a small amount that many others won. Your prediction didn't actually come true, did it?
Because, sometimes guesswork, based on possibilities and probabilities, will be correct.
Can you honestly state you knew I was going to say that?
Hey, a winning is a winning and I produced evidence and I can do it again if I wanted to. Remember the person who stated a strangers prayer instantly healed a severed spine? Well this is nothing like that because I have actually evidence.
How many times have you made that prediction (win OR lose)? How many times were you right?
$100 says that if your number of predictions is high enough, the number of correct predictions will fit almost exactly with the random chance of winning predicted by mathematics. Predict all you want - you are merely guessing with no knowledge or ability to tell the future.
Kathryn, it's so good to hear you compare us with the other animals. Aren't we so alike! Surprise, surprise!!! We ARE animals!
Radman, you decided it was YOU who tuned into those Lottery numbers...? I called it a miracle, but it was the result of your own perceptive abilities...!
I am convinced that when people practice that ability they become better and better at it. I might even be encouraged by your experience to go win some money... for the hungry! You really had good perception that morning... I am really impressed, by the way.
I give thanks to OCLI and evolution and all our ancestors who passed down amazing traits that we somehow ended up with. Happy Saturday.
Jonny, we are all based on the same design, I think... I surmise, I guess, gasp how DARE I surmise? I am just a Renegade like that!
We are all part of nature... yes, even us divine humans! he he he.
And then where did those Gods come from? You know the ones who created God to create us?
What's interesting is that just a little bit of knowledge and understanding about the world around you would cure that problem.
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
by Claire Evans13 months ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can...
by mariexotoni13 months ago
I am an atheist surrounded by family and friends who practice Christianity.A lot of atheists say that the world would be a better place without religion.. I can understand why they say that. But, for some people- I feel...
by DaKingsKid6 years ago
think they can tell us(Christians) that How and What we believe is wrong? I know that I can admit when I am wrong, and that I don't know somethings. Have they shared in any of the experiences that a majority of US, have...
by Claire Evans7 months ago
This topic is old, I know, but I'd like to ask it anyway. Many Christians will ask an atheist, "Why are you here if you don't believe God (should it be a Christian thread)?" Some will answer,...
by Ruben Rivera5 years ago
First off I want to say I'm not against atheism and I am not religious at all. I do believe in a higher power and I do have my own beliefs on that but not following any major religion, having said that.I find that...
by Stump Parrish18 months ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.