Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have no problems living within the constraints set by society or groups within society. While I'm an atheist, I'm also a secondary teacher and work at a catholic school.
You claim God to be a human construct, and then further that by citing society's self-restraints as being humanly constructed. How does a practising atheist reconcile their beliefs with human constructs? That is, how do you justify living within the limits imposed by others?
I'm sure there are some (maybe many) out there who might see that as being hypocritical. I don't.
The core of my belief is a refusal to countenance the existence of an external supernatural being.
As for living within the limits imposed by others?
I don't see it that way. I'm a part of the construction of those limits by deciding to be a part of this society. If I wasn't happy with those limits I could opt out in some way - I'm not, and so I don't.
I could imagine a situation where I might not be so comfortable. If the society I'm part of decided that a belief in god was a part of the structure of that society, then I would have to opt out ...
Originally posted by princeoforangeSo does god sort the grains of sand on a beach, or can that be attributed to sorting by differential mass based upon the action of waves? Complexity can be achieved without any concious planning whatsoever. To try and 'force' a complex explanation onto a data set which can be explained using the actions of only simple processes is considered bad form in science, and typically also in society.
Surely only a crackpot would believe that the world came into being through random chance. Chess is a game of logic, to deny the existence of God takes a stubborn refusal of logic, so presumably there are no atheists using this site.
Oh, and no-one ever said the world came into existance through 'random chance'. I believe the world came into existance based on the physical and chamical rules and laws that exist even today, working the way they do today. Only a crackpot would believe that an old man sitting in a whilte fluffy cloud would create the planet in 6 days.
[edit; btw, you try to argue the existance of god based upon the fact that chess exists. This is a very poor choice of axioms and has no logical framework that allows the deduction to be made. The deduction could likewise be made that because chess exists, kdfhjnleiuhru also exists, or the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER or whatever you please really. Next time you use such a weak, pathetic argument I really will ridicule you.]
Originally posted by princeoforangeIs that your logic?
Surely only a crackpot would believe that the world came into being through random chance. Chess is a game of logic, to deny the existence of God takes a stubborn refusal of logic, so presumably there are no atheists using this site.
Surely it couldn't happen through random chance ...
I guess not, but fill me in please.
I'm looking forward to someone giving me a logical explanation for the existence of god ...
Originally posted by princeoforangelol. Welcome to the spirituality forum, and best of luck. Perhaps you would care to entertain us with the "logic" of god's existence that atheists so stubbornly refuse?
Surely only a crackpot would believe that the world came into being through random chance. Chess is a game of logic, to deny the existence of God takes a stubborn refusal of logic, so presumably there are no atheists using this site.
Originally posted by princeoforangeSigh 🙄
Surely only a crackpot would believe that the world came into being through random chance. Chess is a game of logic, to deny the existence of God takes a stubborn refusal of logic, so presumably there are no atheists using this site.
Originally posted by amannionIn your view, what type of evidence or proof would be sufficient to convince you that God exists?
Is that your logic?
Surely it couldn't happen through random chance ...
I guess not, but fill me in please.
I'm looking forward to someone giving me a logical explanation for the existence of god ...
Originally posted by StarrmanWhere did I say anything about anything not being worth doing, or
That's a very selfish (self-absorbed) view on life. Just because you can't take it with you doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Part of the pleasure of being alive is doing things with and for other people. You might give a tramp $20 on a whim, and forget about it shortly after and never see that tramp again. It doesn't make the action any less worthy, to the tramp it matters a great deal.
EDIT: Even if all he spends it on is crack.
for that matter that anything wasn't worth doing because I cannot
take it with me? You have blinders on, I don't think you are reading
what has been written, instead you are reading into what I have
said, and attempting to contect the dots to suit your views on how
you think I see things, instead of just taking the text at face value.
Kelly
As I've said before, you are sounding confused. This was your original post to which I replied:
Tell me, if there is no after life, what does meaning, mean?
After all, the fool and the wise both die, if there is nothing afterwards
they equally become nothing, and all that either gained is now lost to
them, both are now nothing once dead. If this life is all there is, than
there is no meaning; it is just taste for the moment, and the moment
is gone. Dust in the wind and all that jazz... The kind and the mean,
the loyal and the traitor, the helpful and the selfish, they are go on
to nothing, where is the meaning in nothingness if this brief life
is all there is?
Now it seems pretty clear to me that it intones the pointlessness of a life with no afterlife.
Your next post:
Who says, if this life is all there is, why should anyone care about
society, or contribute they only get a small window that will go away
as soon as death comes? Why not look at it as party while you can
and enjoy the ride, because once it is over it is over? Your values
are as meaningful in the end as those that take the 'eat drink, and
be merry' crowd in the end, what makes it important to follow your
views? You and all that agree with you will all die and turn to
nothing in the end, just as the party crowd will according to that
belief system, your views on who is right and wrong will not matter
in the end, nothing will, it all flows into nothing if that is true. So
tell me where the hogwash is, if it all is nothing in the end?
This is a pretty ambiguous post which in part seems to say that nothing will last past death, but you don't deal with what your views thereafter are, nor why/how it should be the case that nothing matters past death.
I reply with an attempted clarification, to which you post:
There is no addendum in the end, all my family and friends will die,
and all that I added to will all come to naught as well. There is no
meaning in nothing, you can multiply good deads millions of times
over, but as soon as you do it times 0, it all goes away.
You are clearly now saying that when life ends, there is absolutely nothing left. No mention of your views about the afterlife, so I conclude that you are saying you do not believe there is one, however I know you are a christian, so this is a paradox. I am confused.
I try to show you that the impact your life has made matters in the form of your legacy. Your reply:
I can break a window and the glass can remain shattered long after
I'm dead, so what? I can move a rock and it stays where I put it
300 years after I die, so what? Nothing I do would go with me, and
nothing I do even if I created music that lasted 1000 years after
my life ended would be as meaningful to me after death. It would
all be as important as moving a rock; it would be for nothing in the
end.
Legacy only matters to the living not to the ones becoming nothing,
this changes nothing I have said. You can be a part of a meeting at
work daily, you die, they pause a minute or two out of respect, and
move on. You can create a great song; you die people like the song,
you’re dead and nothing, so what? You are loved by millions, you
die, they mourn, so what, your hated by millions you die, they
rejoice, so what? All that matters only matters in life! What you
place value on and call important does not translate into much more
than vanity.
As far as making myself clear, this has been a discussion I have
been in for sometime with a few people here, sorry you didn't see
the first pass through it.
Again, you claim that nothing you do matters in this life, since when you die, that's it, all over. You also suggest you do not have to be clear abut what you mean since you have been through this discussion before with others, this makes no sense to me. I am even more confused now.
And finally you post:
Where did I say anything about anything not being worth doing, or
for that matter that anything wasn't worth doing because I cannot
take it with me? You have blinders on, I don't think you are reading
what has been written, instead you are reading into what I have
said, and attempting to contect the dots to suit your views on how
you think I see things, instead of just taking the text at face value.
Face value? What? Am I seriously reading in the wrong language or something? I have blinders on? I'm attempting to make you posts suit my views? What?
Seriously Kelly, read through that again and try and understand why I still have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could just clearly state what you do mean, since I would like to discuss it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt would have to be verifiable, repeatable, testable evidence - essentially evidence that could be examined scientifically. I've no idea what that could be, but I'm tipping it isn't going to appear any time soon.
In your view, what type of evidence or proof would be sufficient to convince you that God exists?
And don't tell me that the millions of believers around the world are the evidence. My view is they're deluded - that's going to be a tough one to disprove.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, if only more of us just took the text at face value, there'd be no problems right. We could stone the homosexuals, and the scorned parents, and the people wearing two types of cloth, and life would be just grand ....
... taking the text at face value.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionWe've [athiests] said this all along. The Christians seem to feel that the fact that there is no direct evidence is, in fact, direct evidence of god. Weird, huh?
It would have to be verifiable, repeatable, testable evidence - essentially evidence that could be examined scientifically. I've no idea what that could be, but I'm tipping it isn't going to appear any time soon.
And don't tell me that the millions of believers around the world are the evidence. My view is they're deluded - that's going to be a tough one to disprove.
Whenever a christian points out that 2 billion believe in god, remind them that (a) most of them don't go to church, and (b) 5 billion think that the christian god is a crock of crap.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYeah, unfortunately direct evidence for religious people is usualyy personal revelations, which don't really translate beyond the individual very well.
We've [athiests] said this all along. The Christians seem to feel that the fact that there is no direct evidence is, in fact, direct evidence of god. Weird, huh?
Whenever a christian points out that 2 billion believe in god, remind them that (a) most of them don't go to church, and (b) 5 billion think that the christian god is a crock of crap.
And if weight of numbers were proof of anything we'd still be living on a flat Earth.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI've just given you my standard.
That's not an answer. Surely, you must have some standard of proof that you could consider as acceptable verification of God's existence?
Any proof should be able to be tested and verified scientifically.
The difficulty with this of course is that what I'm looking for is a proof that conforms with our understandings of the natural world, or at least conforms with the scientific process of developing these understandings.
As I understand it, God by definition sits outside this natural world, as some sort of supernatural being/force.
My belief refuses the notion that this can be true. That is, I don't accept that anything can exist beyond the natural world.
So, I'm not sure how I can satisfy you. I can't think of any example of proof that could show that a supernatural being existed, given that I don't accept the notion of supernature.
I'm not sure about other Atheists, but I accept that my view is in itself a belief, a faith if you like. It must be since I can't consider the notion of a supernature, just as you can't consider the notion of there being none.
We are at an impasse.