The Humanist Symposium: Inaugural Edition
Adam, at Daylight Atheism blog, invited me to contribute to this great new carnival. I mulled over what I had recently posted and saw that I was too caustic and not uplifting enough to be considered. (*sigh*)
He raises the bar, by asking us to take this to the next level — showing the world what atheism really is about. Instead of standing in the witness box, defending ourselves against the RaptureRight’s lies, scurrillous distortions and distractions, we must stand tall and proud, and go about the business of being the only promise for the future — and in the process, showing up christians as merely Bronze Age throwbacks and obstructionists. Instead of being “an anchor in one’s life”, their religion becomes our “society’s deadweight”, the albatross, the millstone around our necks…
Coming to atheism takes many forms: the painful climb out of the abyss, the “spontaneous” realization (during a service, while reading a book, during a dream), the rejection of parental indoctrination — or the lucky, life-long, non-belief because a parent didn’t believe either. There are, of course, many other paths and always a story to tell about it. It’s one of my joys to read these stories!
It seems to be a great mystery to the brainwashed that we atheists come to this understanding without a structural framework. Or an atheist-study-group. Or being recruited to it. No matter how many times we explain it to them, they fail to understand (often deliberately) that it comes from critical thinking, and we know that that is stifled early in their lives.
And we are equally mystified at their cognitive dissonance! How could a theosophy based on love, as it purports to be, be so full of hate? Of course, the answer is that it is a business: BigChurch! In order to carve out a fiefdom (some huge!), one must: draw lines that lead to exclusion; establish language, rituals and symbols that identifies one to kindred; and collect the $$$ tribute. It helps if one’s “voice” has “legs” (read: travels) through the use of media technology; conversely, technology must be the “enemy” — and one needs many enemies! And one also needs “friends in high places” — not in heaven but in government! To them, the next logical step is to take over government…
See? This is what I’m talking about — no matter how temperate and logical I try to be, I fail!
So, having removed myself from Adam’s consideration, I selected the best posts (by my yardstick) from three of my favorite new atheist blogs and sent them to him. I’m proud to say that two are listed (and sad that the third didn’t make it — but this is a new carnival and there’s another chance coming up soon!).
Please drop by his post, link and leave a few comments. Everyone will be better for it…
I came to atheism about the age of five…and my parents and whole family were VERY devout, VERY xian. I dropped my guard a couple of times, paid for it, and had to wait until my teenage years until I could start escaping.
Most people believe in “order” and need a heirarchy to funtion in…or they think they do. They need to know that they’re “forgiven” for the sneak shitties they pull every day, or that in the end they will be winners, not just given a wood overcoat, a dirt blanket, and oblivion.
Most of what I see isn’t much different than the taboos set up in any society, the blankets are armor against the night monsters, step on a crack sort of thing.
I’ve noticed that most people don’t let their religion get in the way of getting or doing what they want.
I’ve noticed that most people don’t let their religion get in the way of getting or doing what they want.
That is not fair. Some honestly believe it and are good people, and are miserable because of it. For instance, the gay teenager who hates himself for being gay and tries very hard not to have “evil thoughts”, even considering suicide. Or the gay adult that does not allow himself to be with the person he loves and instead marries a woman.
But I will stop that there given how this post was supposed to be about the positive contributions of humanism, rather than the bad ones of religion. Naomi, I sympathize. I have been lately trying to make the switch from just attacking the evils of religion to also explaining the virtues of humanism. It is not easy, but it is worth it.
Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests.
Xians disagree with this because humans can’t do anything without imaginary friend jeebus. Even if you do good things and aren’t an xian it’s because of jeebus. We’re not allowed to do good I guess, lol!
Is there anything we can do to change their minds? What do we do?
I still go to an xian church only to change peoples minds about jeebus and give them an alternative viewpoint to all this nutbaggery, but I don’t why I even bother, it just pisses them off, some even get sraight up combative. I used to be an xian and even though I’ve grown out of it and am now an atheist, I was so wrapped up in the community that I still can’t bring myself to leave. Now I just feel lonely, a community full of hot girls that won’t date me because I’m not an xian.
All life on the planet earth tries to operate in a state of equilibrium. When life gets out of balance one life form may grow exponentially at the expense of the others around it. Think kudzu or cancer cells.
Humanism knows that what is moral is what keeps life in balance. Religions believe that what is moral is what keeps them in undisputed power, the results of those ethics be damned here on earth-rewards are doled out in heaven.
I know that my personal beliefs on this matter garner nothing but snorts of derision from christians. Nonetheless, in my worldview, homosexuality and abortion and birth control are GOOD for the human species because they limit out of control exponential population growth.
I once got into an online debate with a christian when I said that if pharmacists don’t want to dispense birth control because it violates their personal beliefs, ecologists should become gas jockeys and refuse to fill up SUV’s and Hummers because it violates their personal beliefs. Same thing. The christian was outraged that I would compare a silly thing like gas to a serious thing like a bundle of rapidly dividing cells.
In 100 years our children’s children will be grateful for those of us who today consider their standard of living. They won’t care a whit whether homosexuals married or how many abortions were performed. They will care about the state of the earth.
Zipi, here’s what I know from experience, I’m HERE, it’s NOW, and that’s life. I should treat you kindly, respect you, help you if you need it because you are a human being, and until you show yourself undeserving of such consideration it’s your due. If your moral code or belief in the supernatural doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg, sit under your fig tree at peace and unafraid, at least where I’m concerned.
Why should I deal with you this way? Why should I not? I’ve been told that without the sanction of some extranormal being I can’t possibly do good in the world, there has to be coercion through fear. Without religion, I’m told, what’s to stop you from doing anything, killing, even? Well, I’ve done that, and most of these people who don’t think I can have a valid moral code and worry about my lack of a moral ‘brake’ think what I did was just fine. Turns out it’s the circumstance and what sanctioned authority wants. To actually act in such a way to someone who did me personal dirt would be unthinkable mainly because it would be PERSONAL.
I know a very nice young man, a local doctor who is from Pakistan, a devout Moslem, and he loves beer. Koran doesn’t mention beer, so, he’s OK with it. Booze is manufactured in dry counties, and in my younger days in the south among the baptists, tobacco was just fine. Again, no biblical stricture against it, plus it was a wealth producer.
I’m always surprised by how many people who insist on absolutes mange to do the “yes, but” routine squirming like six year olds doing a “wee wee dance”.
Criminologists (generally said) gravitate toward one of three major “schools of thought”: Classical, Positivist, or Chicago. Religion, like our penal system, really has a “Classical” inclination. Classical being the school of thought that says: people weigh risk-rewards-punishment and act accordingly. That is: a criminal is a criminal because there is more in it to be criminal (after the weighting of all factors). The scale has to be tipped by a “punishment” else we’d all be criminal.
Here is my point: religion (Classical in its thinking) says we’d find more value in being bad naturally and therefore need an offsetting “penal” consequence like a Hell, or a lack of Heaven, or a lack of Religious Community, in order to be good.
Humanism may also be Classical in nature, but it attacks the “problem” from a more uplifting perspective. Humanism says that we’d mostly likely gravitate toward being good because there is MUCH more value in being good… plain and simple. So while the scale religion sees needs a counterbalance of punishment … Humanism recognizes that there is CONSIDERABLE utility and reward in doing good… and most sane people want those rewards and that is enough to tip the scale toward doing good.
PS – one thing religion does to ensure we all look like we are prone to evil is it ups the ante on what is “bad”… so just about anything that is a joy is bad. Its like making the general speed limit on a desert highway 20 MPH…. like who wouldn’t “break the law” and be by definition a “risky and bad” driver.
ConcernedJoe — I have to ask: What’s the Chicago-School-of-Thought on this? I was so entertained by the other two (and also illuminated — thank you!) that I almost forgot you mentioned it.
Give over, now! I must know — and I’ll bet I’m not the only one!
Sarge, in case it was not clear, we are on the same page.
Maybe a bit OT, but you have reported on drug laws before so I think you will be interested in this report at alternet.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/50948/
A respected Canadian researcher denied entry to America the free.
“When Feldmar said he was psychologist, the official typed his name into his Internet search engine. Before long the customs guard was engrossed in an article Feldmar had published in the spring 2001 issue of the journal Janus Head. The article concerned an acid trip Feldmar had taken in London, Ontario, and another in London, England, almost forty years ago. It also alluded to the fact that he had used hallucinogenics as a “path” to understanding self and that in certain cases, he reflected, it could “be preferable to psychiatry.” Everything seemed to collapse around him, as a quiet day crossing the border began to turn into a nightmare.”
Hi Naomi (and others)…. Chicago School of thought (called such because starting research centered in Chicago) says crimimal activity stems from environmental conditions.. it is sometimes called the Ecological School as it seeks to do its research in the true untouched environment of its subjects. An example.. social conditions have a lot to do with making criminal .. a more recent example of a “theory” stemming from the school is that criminals get that way by association (its a learned behavior with mentors so to speak).. others more recent and very popular in the 80’s are the situational theories that basically say crime occurs because there are opportunities, victims, and lack of protectors. It is an “up the police force theory” and “make those gated communities theory.”
Most everything is a blend of all schools in reality… but basically I think religions have at their core a classical school of thought.. humanisn maybe does too but much in a much more positive and uplifting way.
PS good people — they should not allow older people with fat fingers and minds that go faster than fingers by keyboards without oversight… I know my grammar and spelling is BAAAD… sorry and forgive me.
Sorry I misunderstood, Zippi. As a musician and conductor of a small group, I really value being on the same page, last Saturday we had one of those moments when we were not. Our baritone player said, “You speak four languages and the best you can come up with is ‘AAAAAK!?’” Well, it seemed the most appropriare at the moment.
I have a cousin who is gay and finds himself in exactly the bind you mentioned.
My experience among the southern baptists (latest was last Sunday evening) showed me that some things never change. There is an entity among them which is called the “inner church” which probably causes more difficulties than anything else. I’d forgotten about the breed, but became, unfortunatly, reacquinted with them.
I know I mentioned it before, but as a teenager I was part of a group that travelled occasionally and performed. At one church the minister had just really blasted things that normal people regard as fun, especially the dread and fell custom of dancing. We started playing, and lo! they got up and danced! Ah, but callow youth that I was, I didn’t realise they weren’t dancing at all! It’s dancing if you cross one leg in front of the other, THEN the alleged being which supposedly runs the universe notices and you are condemned. They stopped short of that so they were safe.
ConcernedJoe, thanks! And don’t worry about spelling and grammar so much. We only grade and “degrade” the fundies — atheists get a free pass…
Turnabout’s fair play.
[I tried this much earlier on May 1st…had a computer crash…anyway…for what it’s worth!]
ConcernedJoe…
your comment about the Chicago “Classical” School of thought, reminded me of my Ethics class back at De Paul U. in about 1962. I had a non cleric Philosophy Prof. who was much more of an independent thinker…in comparison…who also really encouraged the students to actually “think out” the basic line of Ethical logic regarding the subject. I’m bringing this up here, only to mention the basic text, which was Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
[I’m side-stepping the “virtuous” (too religious sounding?) shtick a bit here…maybe the down to earth, more materialistic, “Happiness Seeking” motive might fit our more contemporary motivation?]
Aristotle’s fundamental argument is that everyone basically makes a choice under the guise of choosing the alternative which “appears”, at THAT choice moment, to be the “Good”. Of course, as it turns out, circumstances are relative…meaning that, in any instance, something which might be “dogmatically” considered to be the wrong choice in one’s personal morality, will appear to the chooser as the “Good”, albeit temporarily. In other words…it’s seen as having an advantage…”It’ll make me happy”?…over the other alternatives. This theory does explain why anyone can ’seem’ to contradict their programmed Religious “From on High” morality in any given circumstance; in spite of the threat of punishment. Of course, they usually rationalize away that threat, by simultaneosly thinking…they won’t get caught!
[Hmmm…Maybe it’s a ‘hard-wired’ aspect of our consciouness…?]
At the time I took the class, I was an agnostic; and Aristotle’s apparent “relativity of perception” approach appealed to me as a somewhat stark contrast to the Catholic Christian…erm…”Morality from On High”concept.
Everyday experience shows that people very often contradict their claimed religious morality; and then make excuses like:
“I don’t know WHAT came over me…maybe…”The Devil made me do it?”
For anyone not familiar with that Aristotle “Classic”, I recommend it as one of his best works.
I always suspected that my Ethics Professor was a sort of ‘closet’ Spinoza type thinker; perhaps a bit of a rebel-like “Anti-Thomist” (Thomas Aquinas) critic…which was kind of “anathema” at any Catholic University of the time period…and probably still is!
[If I recall, I got an A in that course…one of the few, in my somehat lazy-leaning, booze imbibing, often procrastinating…school days!] Hey…I was just looking for happiness!
Now, after all that…
“I think I’m goin’ for a walk!…I feel happy!”…What’s that?…”Bring out your what?”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvB7j9n-II
Thanks for the lesson ChuckA.
I am NOT picking on you ChuckA — just scared I wasn’t clear … so to be clear let me explain the Chicago School of Thought is a “separate” school; the two other “separate” schools being “Classical” (you related an earlier form), and the “Positivist” which tends to favor biology as a predictor. I am not clear sometimes so I wanted to be sure I did not confuse others.
Again thanks for your bit to education us… appreciated.
Hey, ConcernedJoe…a boomerang thanks to you for YOUR sharing…and clarification.
Whenever I get into any of my personal ‘nostalgic’ linked shtick, I always hesitate even posting it; it’s like my inner cynicism towards a LOT of things, especially these days, proffers something like:
“Why are you dragging this stuff up (out of your ass?)…it’s so questionably relevant…and perhaps completely outdated!”
Yeah…sometimes I feel like taking a long vacation from commenting…but then “addiction” kicks in and…
you know the rest.
Hmmm…time for me to stop yapping, I guess…
OH, OK!…one more item…considering the daily barrage of Iraq news…
Aaaah…How ’bout: “IMPEACH CHIMPY…and his quail hunting, fuckhead VP?…plus (any other suggestions?)…
Like maybe…A whole other “kettle of fish”?…If you can ’swallow’ that…
watch out for those harder to see bone(head)s. (Clears throat!)
“Yappity, yappity, yap!” Say what?
Why would a non-atheist reading this series choose your view over the religeous view? Some critisism of the religious believer and lots of phylosophy on personal conduct, morals, thinking, and the like but no concrete reason why you believe the way you do.
What? You’ve read one post and made up your mind about us? Atheism is only about philosophy, personal conduct, morals and thinking.! And keeping the religionistas in their place: church. As was said on another atheist’s blog, “Your bigotry, your bible, your fairy tale. Keep it out of my life and off my laws.”
And since we have none of the dogma that religion has, we don’t need to sound like each other. Atheists come to this site and know what’s what; they don’t have to start from scratch; or learn a new language or new code-words; we have no rituals, no costumes, no unspiritual leader. Atheism is the unbelief — so simple, even a fundamentalist can catch on!
However, the fundamentalist can only pretend to be an atheist for so long. Then the life-long conditioning kicks in and we are treated to the ever-popular, “jeebus loves you! you’ll burn in hell!” They just can’t seem to control themselves.
Are you, perchance, a fundamentalist or an evangelical, too?
You make a good point that atheists speaking to atheists don’t need to lay a foundation for each other. All the same, I would have expected a pillar of the belief system to surface here and there in a conversation of this length with so many participants. Not finding one I was intrigued so simply asked the question to see what would come of it.
Your response has a lot of opinion and emotion but still no foundation to your belief unless your reference to “unbelief” is your belief. This seems contradictory and very short sighted so I hope there is something more factual and concrete to this view.
Nope! That’s it: unbelief! It’s a very simple thing to do. Refuse to believe in fairy tales and sky daddies and urban legends and miracles and heaven/hell afterlife! Give all that up and you’ll be an atheist, too! The only thing you’ll need to keep is that old golden-rule thing; it’s about the only thing that keeps us from creating mayhem. And it really is too bad it predates jeebus and actually comes much older religions, particularly ancient India and China…
Seriously, the disconnect between atheists and religiosos continues to be that xians think that everything has to be set in writing, carved in stone or set to sacred music. They insist on codifying everything! We atheists are in agreement about most things without any dogma. It’s really amazing, when you think about it…
Oh, and by the way, you’ll save a ton of money if you become an atheist. You won’t be enriching pastors and building mega-churches. And you get to help out anyone you want. Personally, if they don’t go to prison, I’d like to see Falwell, Dobson and Robertson living in a three-bedroom ranch house, with one Honda in the garage…
Lee, atheism is the default state before you make up gods and religion. There are no core believes, except that we do not accept any magic, myth, or superstition. That’ it. Atheists may include the most philantropists and the most evil of people, socialists and libertarians, feminists and chauvinists male. We do not have any common dogma. You will not find any rules to which we must adhere. You did not see a pillar to our belief system because there is not more than the lack of belief in superstition and myth.
What rational thinkers and skeptics have in common (which is a bit more restrictive than merely atheists) is that we require you (and ourselves) to explain and justify your statements and your moral codes. X is good because my Holy Book says so is not a valid argument. We also require statements about history and science to be back up by evidence.
Nothing is sacred and everything must be subject to scrutiny and prove its value.
Is that a more satisfactory answer?
Zipi, Great answer. Couple thoughts.
I would anticipate the default belief system to be the predominant system. Since atheism is a minority belief I’d tend to see it more as a learned or enlightened sytem.
I think your second sentence would be stronger if you stop after stating “There are no core beliefs.” This is because all belief systems are built on a foundation of faith with regard to how things began. Only one of the following can be true: there is an inteligent initiator or the universe exists eternally or without cause. Belief in an eternal or causless univers is a core belief. Similarly, if you are not sure how the universe came to be that too would be an equally reasonable core belief.
About dogma, stating you have no dogma while stating you accept no myth, magic, or superstion is not consistant. Dogma is fine and every belief system has it, it is actually essential. Without dogma one can only say “I think this” or “I think that.” To say “I believe” is to be dogmatic. Your answer is very positive and you sound sure of yourself, don’t be intimidated away from being dogmatic.
Concerning the statement, “Nothing is sacred and everything must be subject to scrutiny” implies atheism is open to all arguments. This again seems inconsistant with the pre-emptive denunciation of beliefs deemed magical, mythical, or superstitious. This is just more reason to cut the second sentence of the first paragraph short.
Lastly, I would expand the very last point to read, “prove its value to the truth.” We all intensely desire to belive in the truth, belief in anything else is at best a waste of time and at worst detrimental to us.
I appreciate you taking time to help explain your beliefs.
Lee, First of all, you do not seem to understand that atheism is not a belief system, it is a rejection of beliefs in gods and supernatural beings.
A= without
theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods.
I hope you will now refrain from insisting that atheism is a belief system.
All religions are learned systems programmed into a person’s brain and most allow little room for questioning. When a person follows a religion that involves belief in invisible sky daddies, that is not a belief based on evidence, education and “enlightenment” but on wishful thinking and superstition…in other words, faith.
I disagree. This would be a result of examination of the evidence. Unlike god botherers, atheists do not simply write how the universe came to be as goddidit. We are continually researching, exploring and examining evidence. We don’t firmly stand by “oh well, we will never know” and leave it at that firmly and forever in an “unshakable faith” while not even bothering to try to find answers to things we do not know or understand. We keep seeking, exploring and learning and are open-minded to new evidence. However, god botherers’ claims of the supernatural come with zero evidence and zero desire to find out that they might just be wrong. For the superstitious, it’s all based on feelings and wishful thinking.
NO it is NOT fine, and every religious belief system has it to keep people brainwashed. There is no such thing as “atheist dogma”. I agree that when those in power wish to keep the sheeple in line, whether using religion or any other type of propaganda, dogma is essential to keeping their subjects from going astray…by force if necessary.
As we have stated many times, there has been absolutely no evidence to support the any supernatural and magical claims except ancients texts written by superstitious people who understood little about the world and universe. Atheists have been waiting for this “evidence” for centuries. No evidence has been provided for the existence of god thus far, and for most everything that happens an explanation can be found. For things that we don’t quite understand or know yet, does not default to goddidit….it simply means we have not found the answers yet, and may never find out the answers and explanations for many things
God botherers are not interested in any other truth but what they wish it to be without considering any other possibilities. That would be a threat to the fantasy they wish to cling to.
Hey Stardust,
From your comment it seems a-theists have beliefs about many things:
Our “beliefs” are grounded in reality and scientific EVIDENCE. One newly acquired belief of mine is that you are an antagonistic troll.
- There is no invisible sky daddy
No evidence has ever been presented which would prove otherwise.
- The universe was not created by god
Again, no evidence to the contrary has ever been provided.
- What can be known about the universe will eventually be known
- Some things about the universe may never be known.
These are statements of fact, not a set of beliefs.
I’m not the one insisting atheism is a belief system, you are by listing the things you believe.
Call it what you want, but at least we are thinkers. We do not cling to childish imaginary friends.
Although I commend and agree with your point that religion is learned, I would tend to expand that point a little. Although I readily agree that culturally specific religious practices and customs are learned, it still seems to me (layman with only my lay observation to support this perspective) that superstitions and fear of the supernatural are hard-wired into the human psyche. Transforming this superstition into a belief system based on evidence (science/facts) and logic is the question at hand. How is “unbelief” as a philosophical cornerstone, any more legitimate than the “faith” the theist relies on?
While humans may exhibit superstitious tendencies, most of which are learned by their elders, this does not mean that there are gods, goddesses or any other supernatural elements at work. Believing so is well..umm..superstitious fantasy.
You are forcing people to repeat themselves because you fail to read or you are simply being antagonizing. Unbelief is based on reality, theists rely on “faith”…which is equal to fantasy and wishful thinking. I am not repeating this for you again.
Although you say you disagree with my view that not knowing how the universe started is a reasonable core value, you seem to make my point with your comments. You indicate yby indicating you don’t know but you are looking into it.
Then it is your failure or refusal to understand the point being made. We are constantly seeking answers, and do not write off things we do not know or understand as goddidit! Theists say there absolutely, positively is a god. The atheists say “where is your evidence? Show us this god.” Well, Lee…where is it? Where is this evidence? And don’t tell me “it’s a feeling” or quote from your mythology book.
Lee, Your past two comments were deleted because one was the same exact thing as your previous post above, which was already responded to in bold, and the second one for turning on the xian persecution complex just because you were asked to answer some questions that you don’t seem to be able or willing to answer. It seems that you simply wish to badger us and tell us what we think, and what we are, and what we believe which leaves no room at all for debate or discussion.
There are several moderators here, not just one. You are being redundant, ignoring what other commenters have responded to you, and you are definitely coming across as an antagonistic troll.
If you wish to continue discussion here, then quit trying to label us, telling us what we think, and discuss in a respectful manner and stop the flame-baiting.
Thank you.
Moderator,
Wish you’d kept the second post and deleted the first. As I noted, the first was accidentally sent mid draft, the second was complete.
Lee, There was little difference between the first draft and second. You were simply repeating yourself.
Persecution complex or no, the moderator was angry and defensive. By the way, first I’ve seen the term Xian, found much humor in it.
Xian…you do not even know the symbolism and history of your own religion? This is the alternative spelling for the word Christian. What does the abbreviation ‘xian’ mean?
When writing the name “Christ”, it is quite common to abbreviate it to X or x, representing the first letter (chi) of the Greek XPICTOC khristos. For example, “xmas” is a common abbreviation of “Christmas”. “Xian” just means “Christian”.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the abbreviation “xian” or “xtian” for “Christian” dates back at least as far as 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first two letters of XPICTOC, and write “xpian” for “Christian”. Priests would record Christenings using the shorthand “xpen” or “xpn”.
So no, it’s not an insult. You really need to go learn about your religion.
…
Why is disagreeing with you Xians always interpreted as anger? Because we demand answers and evidence, that is anger? No, it is just demanding answers for your outrageous claim for the existence of supernatural beings. Then you turn into a victim when you cannot answer. Or you simply repeat the same accusations and use your circular reasoning again.
No intent to badger,
Then why then do you continue to do so? Being an ex-Xian, I know you are trying to hammer home YOUR points. But you are on an atheist blog and are going to hear strong counterpoints to your fantasies.
I was simply trying to learn what atheists believe.
We told you and you refuse to accept our answers. The way you are commenting seems an attempt to lead us to your way of thinking. That is not going to happen around here.
I was also not being redundant. Initial responses to my query were inconsistnat or not understood, I simply continued to converse to clear the logic and gain understanding of the positions being presented.
The answers provided were indeed consistant, and if you did not understand them, you should have stated that you do not understand and we would try to explain it in another way. Instead, you keep asking questions and making false statements about us that are obvious attempts to lead us to your way of thinking. Most of us know the games Xians play.
There was also no attempt to tell you what you believed, I simply attempted to frame what I thought was being conveyed in an effort for clarity.
No, you were telling us that we have a belief system…we disagreed…and you continued by telling us we have a belief system, we disagreed and gave reasons why, and you continued to tell us we have a belief system, and so on, and so on.
What I think I understand from this discussion is that atheist belief is based on unbelief and reality, you don’t like dogma, and you have seen no proof that god exists therefore you assert he does not.
Until someone comes up with some verifiable evidence to the contrary, that is what we can assume. And you are correct when you say we do not like dogma.
You have challenged me to answer your questions and it is only fair since you have made an attempt to answer mine.
Where is this God? or, as I asked it, what is the concrete reason I believe the way I do? The physical universe.
Despite all the space exploration, and massive telescopes sending back space images and data, absolutely no evidence has been found to support the existence of your sky daddy. Not even a glimmer.
It could not have created itself and it could not have existed forever,
Why not? How do you know? Your beliefs are based on something that you want to believe, not on scientific evidence. Fundamentalists do not consider any other possibilities because they are afraid of their fantasies being wiped away and you will have to accept the reality of life, and death…and know you are on your own. That reality is uncomfortable to most humans.
both those explanations are contrary to the nature of physical existance. Also, balance of the univers, irreducible complexity, and supernatural occurances indicating there is more to existance than just this physical condition.
The only “proofs” of supernatural occurrences are “personal experiences” and feelings of the person who claims to have experienced the “supernatural occurrence”. Again, no evidence is ever found outside the mind of the believer. God is in your head. If you were on a deserted island with no other people, with no food or drinking water, you would surely die. You could pray and pray and pray, but you would die of thirst and starvation. This happens to millions around the world on a daily basis….they pray to a silent god and still die alone. Only humans can come to the aid and rescue of other humans. There is no god or magical genie to take care of you.
In the end, either God is and He created this universe or he is not and the universe either created itself or has existed forever.
God botherers choose to believe the first part of that, and disregard any other possibilities and scientific data and research because it threatens what you wish to believe on faith. We all want to live forever, but some of us accept the nature of things, while others create fantasies of everlasting life in order to cope better. Some of us, however, do not need the fantasy to cope with reality.
One has to be true which requires the other can’t be true and is therefore just a fairy tale and wishful thinking. I believe in God because I think His creating what is lines up best with science and reality.
Seriously? You THINK that this imaginary friend lines up best with science and reality? Care to share how you came to this conclusion? Religious faith in the supernatural is not based on scientific evidence, not based on any kind of proof at all. Therefore, science and faith in supernatural beings are two separate things. One has nothing to do with the other. Most mainstream god botherers understand this.
Moderators will continue to respond to you in this way…bolded type into your comment, because it is easier to address each and every one of your points. We are not altering any of your words.
Lee: I believe in God because I think His creating what is lines up best with science and reality.
Moderator: Seriously? You THINK that this imaginary friend lines up best with science and reality? Care to share how you came to this conclusion?
You still have not explained HOW you think that your imaginary friend lines up best with science and reality. We cannot debate the issue if we don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
Sure. Science requires that the physical universe could not have been physically created. Therefore, it had to have been created by something independent of physical constraints. God is the only conclusion consistant with the scientific requirement.
Really? Science has drawn these absolute conclusions? I was always taught in my education in astronomy that these are THEORIES about how the universe came to be, based on knowledge and EVIDENCE, a collection of data over long periods of time, using various methods and analyzed by individuals with much higher levels of education and experience in the field of Astronomy than you and I will ever have. Where are YOU getting your information from? Some redneck fundie pastor who spoonfeeds you these myths and tells you what to believe? Or are you so brainwashed that you can not differentiate science and your sky daddy beliefs. Have you even taken an astronomy course? I have. It will get you thinking about so many possibilities beyond your ancient beliefs.
If there is another conclusion other than unbelief I’m very interested.
If you were truly interested, you would be seeking out all of the credible science sites, keeping up with information from NASA, and other highly recognized science sources. Also, the Ivy League universities have science departments with websites which explain everything you wish to know about recent explorations and information. You have to start EDUCATING YOURSELF, which is what I do.
You might want to read some recommended sites of actual astronomers:
Bad Astronomy (which is actually a great astronomy site)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Astroblog
Live Science
Space.com
Alder Planetarium
NASA Origins Program
University of Chicago department of Astronomy
Kitt Peak Observatory
Professor Stephen Hawking’s website
The Carl Sagan Portal
This is enough to keep you busy for a few months. Educate yourself. We have no more to discuss with you since you are only talking in circles. Don’t bother to respond, you have taken this comment thread WAY off topic of the original post and now conversation has been sidetracked. You are done here.