| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Quixoticoatl nospam@invalid" |
| Date: |
19 Jun 2007 10:25:00 AM |
| Object: |
How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
People need to get this through their head: The truth proposition of
"God" does absolutely nothing for the truth propositions of any
religion, period.
If the creator of the universe hypothesis is indeed true, nothing
follows from this premise for the major monotheistic religions. That
is, even if "God" exists, that does not mean that Judaism, Christianity,
or Islam say anything meaningful about "God" at all.
Also, there no warrant for believing that the creator of the universe is
directly responsible for creating us as well. Considering the obvious
flaws in the so-called designs, we have a better warrant for thinking
some beings with much greater knowledge and ability may have created our
form of life.
One thought experiment that well demonstrates how far off the
monotheistic religions probably are is how they all ascribe "God" with a
human male gender. Billions of people believe that God swaggers around
the universe with a cosmically hefty set of cohones. Consider just how
much of the social conditions of humanity rest upon this fundamental
belief of "God the Father", then ask yourself, what about the lawful
nature of universe confirms that God is male? Or for that matter,
confirms the holy trinity, or any other supposed characteristic we
insist God has?
If the creator of the universe exists, its character does not
necessarily follow ANYTHING we believe about it.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Well, the mistake being made here is thinking that Atheism or
Agnosticism is anything but a intellectual position. In philosophy, the
study of knowledge (how do we know what we know?) is called
epistemology. Religion and Science essentially take two opposing
epistemological positions. Religion accepts revelation as the only true
knowledge, and Science holds knowledge only contingently, which seems a
much more frightening and shaky ground.
The beauty of it is, that one need not be religious nor scientific to
indulge in a spiritually satisfying life. Whatever the source, human
beings do possess spirituality. So go out there and explore it and let
it enrich your life. No one needed any explanation of where the oceans
came from before they started reaping the bounty of fish from it.
People were leading spiritually contented lives, stemming from myriad
spiritual myths, beliefs, and rituals long before any of the
monotheistic notions of God. This obsession with the source of ultimate
truth and being "certain" of things no human being may reasonably be
certain about is the real root of all evil.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D7" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:42:48 AM |
|
|
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> said:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
No.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 02:37:21 PM |
|
|
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote in
news:hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
The fact is we do not know the answer. The theories that are rolling
around are far more reasonable than "it was magicked into existence by
an invisible god who agrees that only people who look like me are going
to live forever in a paradise of my own imagination".
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
Once again, the fact is, it doesn't. The universe is as random as you
can get, just as if it's been around forever. The fact that it's
expanding is where the Big Bang theory came from. Many Christians have
jumped on the opportunity to make the claim that "god" caused the Big
Bang. So certain are they, even though it is not yet a scientific fact.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
how can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of
religion valid?
Atheist = a-theist = non god believer. Simple as that.
<snip>
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
What hope is there for what? To live a decent fulfilling live? You
don't need imaginary gods for that. To wish for a life that never ends?
It's not possible - we are animals, we age, we die. Does spirituality
really offer comfort ? I don't think it does, because I find the thought
of everlasting life to be discomforting at best. Face your fears head-
on. Try to imagine what life was like before you were alive. That's
what death must be like - just another time in the big picture when you
don't exist.
<snip>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Convicted by Earthquack
Plonked by Fester
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:34:47 AM |
|
|
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote in
news:hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid:
If you really want to know how an atheist answers the "big questions,"
why don't you simply ask the questions and let an atheist answer?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"'Just say no' has done as much for drugs and sex as 'have a nice day'
has for depression."
-Dr. E. Tyson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:41:46 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 11:34 am, Enkidu <fox_rgf...@trashmail.net> wrote:
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote innews:hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid:
If you really want to know how an atheist answers the "big questions,"
why don't you simply ask the questions and let an atheist answer?
--
But that would ruin his pat answers that have little or nothing to do
with the questions. I mean he already departs with atheists in the
first couple of lines about intelligent design being a given. He gives
the answers he wants to hear for questions he has no interest in
exploring.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 03:38:39 PM |
|
|
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote in message
news:hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid...
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
No. That idea fails right at the starting line.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 12:13:07 PM |
|
|
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote in message
news:hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid...
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
Doesn't appear to be.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 11:18:50 AM |
|
|
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
OK, if the big bang theory is correct & given the current evidence, that
would appear to be the case, then current scientfic observation shows that
the universe is expanding. So running time in reverse, there must have been
a point in the past where everything was much closer together until we have
all matter & energy at the same point in space-time. So there is most likely
to have been a moment in which the universe & everything in it was created.
If there was no space or time before this point, where does this leave your
"god" type creator of yours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
Oh, that'll be the Laws of Physics then.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
Big bang - laws of physics - no god.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Religion is not true, it's a mind control technique to control those who are
too frightened to question it. As to the hope, I only hope those infected
with religion are able to rid themselves of it, at least it will remove the
mass hatred of others based solely on their own bigoted beliefs. Atheism is
not designed to offer spiritual comfort, it's simplicity is that it does not
require a god or religion.
If you need a good look at the comfort religious hatred towards another's
ideas brings, you needn't look too far into the past......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6766569.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6767427.stm
Hmmmm, can't you just feel the love for thy fellow man?
So, not really big questions after all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 07:26:28 PM |
|
|
In article <hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid>,
Quixoticoatl <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
The best possible atheistic theory of reality would take the form
of a list of N statements, S1, S2, ..., SN, none of which follows
from the others, ie. none of which is explained, but from which
all other knowledge follows.
The best possible theistic theory would start with a statement that
God created the universe, followed by N statements saying the God
made S1 so, God made S2 so, etc. There would be no explanation
of why God created the universe or why he made it conform to the
N laws of the atheistic theory.
The atheistic theory has N unexplained premises, and all the
entities known to exist in the universe. The best possible
theistic theory has N+1 unexplained premises and an extra entity
which is usually claimed to be unobservable in principle.
The best possible theistic theory is just the atheistic theory
with some useless clutter added to it. It doesn't predict a
single observation not already predicted by the atheistic theory.
Over the millennia, humanity's greatest minds have wasted billions
of hours on religion that they could have spent improving our
understanding of the real world instead. Religion is to the
intellect what parasitic drag is to aviation.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 11:13:59 AM |
|
|
In article <hmEbWkqFXcW7IPr8nospam@invalid>, nospam@invalid
says...
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
No.
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.atheism/msg/d5ea57e809148e4c
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
Such as ....... ?
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
See above.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
Symmetry breaking.
....
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Appeal to Emotion.
....
No one needed any explanation of where the oceans
came from before they started reaping the bounty of fish from it.
And yet you see the need to pose "Big Questions".
....
This obsession with the source of ultimate
truth and being "certain" of things no human being may reasonably be
certain about is the real root of all evil.
If your deity exists then is that not an "ultimate truth"?
Regards,
Josef
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more
certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does
not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind
faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 08:36:25 PM |
|
|
On tue, 19 jun 2007 11:25:00 -0400 there was an Ancient
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
No.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
I do not concede that.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
It doesn't. Find something in this life that gives you satisfaction
and builds a better world. I don't have kids, cancer took care of
that, but I have 2 neices (with one more due in July) and many of my
friends have kids. I want their world to be more amazing than the one
I had.
After I die? I don't know. Nobody does. I'll find out (or not) when
I finally die.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 03:06:53 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 10:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
Your entire "argument" not only is fallacious and irrational, but it
stems from the unsupported premise that this is the only universe
there is. It fails.
However, if you have any positive scientific evidence for a creation,
I'll be happy to debate it with you right here.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quixoticoatl nospam@invalid" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
26 Jun 2007 02:30:51 AM |
|
|
Budikka666:
On Jun 19, 10:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
Your entire "argument" not only is fallacious and irrational, but it
stems from the unsupported premise that this is the only universe
there is. It fails.
However, if you have any positive scientific evidence for a creation,
I'll be happy to debate it with you right here.
Budikka
You know, as well as I, that no one can provide positive scientific
evidence for creation. Rationally speaking, as far as I can tell, no
one has really improved upon Thomas Aquinas' five arguments for the
existence of God. I will forego this line of inquiry though, because I
am not interested in defending the theist position, but I am advocating
being more frank about the scientific position.
Please, give me empirical, not merely rational, positive scientific
evidence of multiple-universes, or of a abiogenesis hypothesis of the
origins and life, and we can debate that. Good luck, because it is not
possible to do. Why can not admit this and move on to more important
down to earth matters?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:46:44 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 11:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
That the universe, to exist, must have organization? Not the answer
you wanted.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
"If" I concede no if. Not the answer you wanted.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Reality isn't comforting. Reality is hard, nasty, and unpleasant.
Dreams, lies, and fabrications are comforting.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:56:51 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 4:25 pm, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
People need to get this through their head: The truth proposition of
"God" does absolutely nothing for the truth propositions of any
religion, period.
If the creator of the universe hypothesis is indeed true, nothing
follows from this premise for the major monotheistic religions. That
is, even if "God" exists, that does not mean that Judaism, Christianity,
or Islam say anything meaningful about "God" at all.
Also, there no warrant for believing that the creator of the universe is
directly responsible for creating us as well. Considering the obvious
flaws in the so-called designs, we have a better warrant for thinking
some beings with much greater knowledge and ability may have created our
form of life.
One thought experiment that well demonstrates how far off the
monotheistic religions probably are is how they all ascribe "God" with a
human male gender. Billions of people believe that God swaggers around
the universe with a cosmically hefty set of cohones. Consider just how
much of the social conditions of humanity rest upon this fundamental
belief of "God the Father", then ask yourself, what about the lawful
nature of universe confirms that God is male? Or for that matter,
confirms the holy trinity, or any other supposed characteristic we
insist God has?
If the creator of the universe exists, its character does not
necessarily follow ANYTHING we believe about it.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Well, the mistake being made here is thinking that Atheism or
Agnosticism is anything but a intellectual position. In philosophy, the
study of knowledge (how do we know what we know?) is called
epistemology. Religion and Science essentially take two opposing
epistemological positions. Religion accepts revelation as the only true
knowledge, and Science holds knowledge only contingently, which seems a
much more frightening and shaky ground.
The beauty of it is, that one need not be religious nor scientific to
indulge in a spiritually satisfying life. Whatever the source, human
beings do possess spirituality. So go out there and explore it and let
it enrich your life. No one needed any explanation of where the oceans
came from before they started reaping the bounty of fish from it.
People were leading spiritually contented lives, stemming from myriad
spiritual myths, beliefs, and rituals long before any of the
monotheistic notions of God. This obsession with the source of ultimate
truth and being "certain" of things no human being may reasonably be
certain about is the real root of all evil.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/felixlin/46344843/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
24 Jun 2007 06:38:39 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 4:25 pm, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
I am an atheist, so let me show you how this atheist answers these
"big questions".
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
I don't know. There might have been a first cause. There might have
been fifty first causes.
I have no idea what they are, and neither do you.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator >how can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of >religion valid?
Because nothing has lead me to believe that the first cause might be a
god, except a few baseless suggestions by other people.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
There is the hope that we may one day find panache on other planets.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
25 Jun 2007 01:32:25 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
There might have been a first cause.
*
Balderdash. The theist notion there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical
Creator, the hypothetical First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a
special pleading for GodŽ) so it is summarily rejected as logical
fallacy and a waste of time, as Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
25 Jun 2007 02:46:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Uvadnc6V3Iyklx3bnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Iain wrote:
There might have been a first cause.
Balderdash.
Appealing to a god to refute a first cause is a bit messed up.
The theist notion there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical
Creator, the hypothetical First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a
special pleading for GodŽ)
It is the theist notion that there MUST be a first cause that has a
logical problem.
The only logical basis for Septic's objection to "might be" would be
proof of "can't be". And Septic does not have such prof.
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the
[necessity of a ] First Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a
Christian" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you MUST come to a First Cause
Notice the "MUST" in Russell's argument versus the "MIGHT" is Septic's.
To refute "MUST BE" one only needs "MIGHT NOT BE", but
to refute "MIGHT BE" one needs "MUST NOT BE".
And Septic does not have it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:57:54 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 8:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
The question makes no sense. There is no reason to think God, which
is the proper name of an ancient tribal deity, exists. The "creator"
question is a separate one, though the two are frequently conflated..
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
Even if I concede the existence of a "creator" I can still be an
atheist. Even granting it's existence there is no evidence that this
putative being has any relationship whatsoever with us. That is the
functional equivalent of no God/god.
Even conceding a "creator" the specific claims of religions need
justification. There aren't any as far as I can see.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
There isn't any. Get used to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quixoticoatl nospam@invalid" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 11:40:31 AM |
|
|
Santolina chamaecyparissus:
On Jun 19, 8:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
The question makes no sense. There is no reason to think God, which
is the proper name of an ancient tribal deity, exists. The "creator"
question is a separate one, though the two are frequently conflated..
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of
religion
valid?
Even if I concede the existence of a "creator" I can still be an
atheist. Even granting it's existence there is no evidence that this
putative being has any relationship whatsoever with us. That is the
functional equivalent of no God/god.
Even conceding a "creator" the specific claims of religions need
justification. There aren't any as far as I can see.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
There isn't any. Get used to it.
Apparently there is some confusion. My point in writing this was
exactly the response you put in #1 and #2. I agree with you. Now as
for #3, i do not believe that the universe owes us any meaning, but
human being may forge their own purpose in life. To say there is no
"hope" and that's that makes you even more arrogant and dogmatic than
religious people are. I am not talking about an afterlife here, I am
talking about reconciling one's self to one's existence and imminent
non-existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 12:15:49 PM |
|
|
"Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote in message
news:9Wcdj5Prihbsjaclnospam@invalid...
Santolina chamaecyparissus:
On Jun 19, 8:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
The question makes no sense. There is no reason to think God, which
is the proper name of an ancient tribal deity, exists. The "creator"
question is a separate one, though the two are frequently conflated..
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of
religion
valid?
Even if I concede the existence of a "creator" I can still be an
atheist. Even granting it's existence there is no evidence that this
putative being has any relationship whatsoever with us. That is the
functional equivalent of no God/god.
Even conceding a "creator" the specific claims of religions need
justification. There aren't any as far as I can see.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
There isn't any. Get used to it.
Apparently there is some confusion. My point in writing this was
exactly the response you put in #1 and #2. I agree with you. Now as
for #3, i do not believe that the universe owes us any meaning, but
human being may forge their own purpose in life. To say there is no
"hope" and that's that makes you even more arrogant and dogmatic than
religious people are. I am not talking about an afterlife here, I am
talking about reconciling one's self to one's existence and imminent
non-existence.
Now I exist and when I die, I won't. What's to reconcile?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 12:02:28 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 9:40 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Santolinachamaecyparissus:
On Jun 19, 8:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
The question makes no sense. There is no reason to think God, which
is the proper name of an ancient tribal deity, exists. The "creator"
question is a separate one, though the two are frequently conflated..
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of
religion
valid?
Even if I concede the existence of a "creator" I can still be an
atheist. Even granting it's existence there is no evidence that this
putative being has any relationship whatsoever with us. That is the
functional equivalent of no God/god.
Even conceding a "creator" the specific claims of religions need
justification. There aren't any as far as I can see.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
There isn't any. Get used to it.
Apparently there is some confusion. My point in writing this was
exactly the response you put in #1 and #2.
Yep, I know. I was just answering it the way I would answer it.
I agree with you. Now as
for #3, i do not believe that the universe owes us any meaning, but
human being may forge their own purpose in life. To say there is no
"hope" and that's that makes you even more arrogant and dogmatic than
religious people are.
In the sense that they are talking about 'hope", there is none, as far
as I can see. That individuals can forge their own meaning is
trivially true.
I am not talking about an afterlife here, I am
talking about reconciling one's self to one's existence and imminent
non-existence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 03:02:40 PM |
|
|
On tue, 19 jun 2007 12:40:31 -0400, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid>
wrote:
Santolina chamaecyparissus:
On Jun 19, 8:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
The question makes no sense. There is no reason to think God, which
is the proper name of an ancient tribal deity, exists. The "creator"
question is a separate one, though the two are frequently conflated..
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of
religion
valid?
Even if I concede the existence of a "creator" I can still be an
atheist. Even granting it's existence there is no evidence that this
putative being has any relationship whatsoever with us. That is the
functional equivalent of no God/god.
Even conceding a "creator" the specific claims of religions need
justification. There aren't any as far as I can see.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
There isn't any. Get used to it.
Apparently there is some confusion. My point in writing this was
exactly the response you put in #1 and #2. I agree with you. Now as
for #3, i do not believe that the universe owes us any meaning, but
human being may forge their own purpose in life. To say there is no
"hope" and that's that makes you even more arrogant and dogmatic than
religious people are. I am not talking about an afterlife here, I am
talking about reconciling one's self to one's existence and imminent
non-existence.
Why make a big deal out of it? I didn't exist for billions of years
before I was born, and wasn't inconvenienced in the slightest by it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 12:04:01 PM |
|
|
Quixoticoatl wrote:
To say there is no
"hope" and that's that makes you even more arrogant and dogmatic than
religious people are. I am not talking about an afterlife here, I am
talking about reconciling one's self to one's existence and imminent
non-existence.
You're alive, then you die. I don't see how "hope" fits in there
anywhere.
Just get used to it.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
24 Jun 2007 02:02:57 AM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 1:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
No, not really.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
So I am dishonest or stupid?
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
That the laws are inherent in existence.
Think about it - 4 basic forces and some laws of symmetry and a few
other properties and from that simple list everything follows.
Or a magical super being "fiddles" constantly to shape things.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
I don't.
<snip>
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
It is not atheisms job to offer hope.
You can say the problem with railwa Locomotives is that they don't
taste good.
But thats is just silly - railway locomotives are not meant to be
eaten so their "failure" to taste nice is not actually a failure at
all.
Same with atheism "failing" to give someone hope.
I see you actually support this position yourself.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
09 Jul 2007 02:04:14 PM |
|
|
On Jun 24, 3:02 am, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
No, not really.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
So I am dishonest or stupid?
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
That the laws are inherent in existence.
Think about it - 4 basic forces and some laws of symmetry and a few
other properties and from that simple list everything follows.
Or a magical super being "fiddles" constantly to shape things.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
I don't.
<snip>
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
It is not atheisms job to offer hope.
You can say the problem with railwa Locomotives is that they don't
taste good.
But thats is just silly - railway locomotives are not meant to be
eaten so their "failure" to taste nice is not actually a failure at
all.
Same with atheism "failing" to give someone hope.
I see you actually support this position yourself.
Cheers, Mark.
http://hamptonchocolates.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/media/train-jpg
Hatter
This is an Atheist giving you hope. A hope to have a nice dessert. ; )
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
24 Jun 2007 03:44:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:02:57 -0700, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1182668577.489013.141840@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 20, 1:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
No, not really.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
So I am dishonest or stupid?
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
That the laws are inherent in existence.
Think about it - 4 basic forces and some laws of symmetry and a few
other properties and from that simple list everything follows.
Or a magical super being "fiddles" constantly to shape things.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
I don't.
<snip>
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
It is not atheisms job to offer hope.
You can say the problem with railwa Locomotives is that they don't
taste good.
But thats is just silly - railway locomotives are not meant to be
eaten so their "failure" to taste nice is not actually a failure at
all.
Same with atheism "failing" to give someone hope.
Well summarised, sir.
I see you actually support this position yourself.
Cheers, Mark.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: locomotives don't taste good [was: How an "Atheist" answers the "BigQuestions"] |
25 Jun 2007 01:24:17 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
No, not really.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
So I am dishonest or stupid?
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
That the laws are inherent in existence.
Think about it - 4 basic forces and some laws of symmetry and a few
other properties and from that simple list everything follows.
Or a magical super being "fiddles" constantly to shape things.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
I don't.
<snip>
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
It is not atheisms job to offer hope.
You can say the problem with railway Locomotives is that they don't
taste good.
*
I guess you have never tasted a nice electric locomotive
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytdjhr>? I'm just guessing, since I don't
have your experience, but they are BOUND to taste a LOT better than
those nasty diesels you have been licking between the rails. 8^)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 03:38:17 PM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 3:25 am, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid> wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
No1
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
20 Jun 2007 11:27:34 AM |
|
|
On tue, 19 jun 2007 11:25:00 -0400, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid>
wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
Not according to the evidence.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
An over active imagination.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator
Which we don't.
snip irrelevance.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
For what?
.... And why is religion necessary?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Atheism, doesn't offer anything, per se, it is simply the absence of
superstitious god beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How an "Atheist" answers the "Big Questions" |
19 Jun 2007 10:53:08 AM |
|
|
On tue, 19 jun 2007 11:25:00 -0400, "Quixoticoatl" <nospam@invalid>
wrote:
Big Question #1: Is there a God/creator of the universe?
Why so you imagine this is a "big question"?
There are strong warrants for believing that the universe was created.
At the very least, any honest intellectual investigation of the
arguments concerning a universal creator will show that the idea is
perfectly reasonable.
There are zero reasons. The only people who think so are those who
believe in a creator-god as part of their religion, and rationalise
"reasons" which aren't.
Their religion thinks the question is important, and coincidentally
provides answers that are worthless outside it.
For instance, using Occam's razor, what's is the best and simplest
explanation of why the universe displays a lawful character?
Physics.
Big Question #2: If you concede the existence of universal creator how
can you be an "Atheist", and does this not make the claims of religion
valid?
What is there to "concede"?
People need to get this through their head: The truth proposition of
"God" does absolutely nothing for the truth propositions of any
religion, period.
You need to get this through your head: there is zero, zip, zilch,
nada that points to any deity in the real world outside your religion.
If the creator of the universe hypothesis is indeed true, nothing
follows from this premise for the major monotheistic religions. That
is, even if "God" exists, that does not mean that Judaism, Christianity,
or Islam say anything meaningful about "God" at all.
What "the creator of the universe hypothesis"? There is no reason to
hypothesise one. It is merely a religious belief that has no basis in
reality. And only its believers even give it a thought.
Also, there no warrant for believing that the creator of the universe is
directly responsible for creating us as well. Considering the obvious
flaws in the so-called designs, we have a better warrant for thinking
some beings with much greater knowledge and ability may have created our
form of life.
WHAT FROCKING "THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE", MORON?
One thought experiment that well demonstrates how far off the
monotheistic religions probably are is how they all ascribe "God" with a
human male gender. Billions of people believe that God swaggers around
the universe with a cosmically hefty set of cohones. Consider just how
much of the social conditions of humanity rest upon this fundamental
belief of "God the Father", then ask yourself, what about the lawful
nature of universe confirms that God is male? Or for that matter,
confirms the holy trinity, or any other supposed characteristic we
insist God has?
What's "God", moron?
If the creator of the universe exists, its character does not
necessarily follow ANYTHING we believe about it.
So prove it exists. Until then you have nothing at all to say about
it.
Big Question #3: If religion is not true, then what hope is there?
Atheism does not seem to offer any spiritual comfort at all.
Why do you imagine atheism should, moron?
Why do you idiots imagine that not believing in your pretend friend,
means any more than your own not believing in Zeus, Thor or any of the
others?
And "hope" is another of your worthless religious presumptions/ Your
religion tells you it gives you hope. But it's hope in the mythical.
Well, the mistake being made here is thinking that Atheism or
Agnosticism is anything but a intellectual position.
They're not even that. All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't
theist. Why does this cause you idiots go much difficulty?
In philosophy, the
study of knowledge (how do we know what we know?) is called
epistemology.
Who gives a *****?
Religion and Science essentially take two opposing
epistemological positions. Religion accepts revelation as the only true
knowledge, and Science holds knowledge only contingently, which seems a
much more frightening and shaky ground.
Religion is mistaken because revelation is the fantasy of believers.
Science models reality successfully and doesn't give a thought to your
straw man.
The beauty of it is, that one need not be religious nor scientific to
indulge in a spiritually satisfying life.
Meaningless gobbledygook.
Whatever the source, human
beings do possess spirituality.
What's that, moron?
So go out there and explore it and let
it enrich your life. No one needed any explanation of where the oceans
came from before they started reaping the bounty of fish from it.
People were leading spiritually contented lives, stemming from myriad
spiritual myths, beliefs, and rituals long before any of the
monotheistic notions of God. This obsession with the source of ultimate
truth and being "certain" of things no human being may reasonably be
certain about is the real root of all evil.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
