• Hey Guest! Ever feel like entering a Game Jam, but the time limit is always too much pressure? We get it... You lead a hectic life and dedicating 3 whole days to make a game just doesn't work for you! So, why not enter the GMC SLOW JAM? Take your time! Kick back and make your game over 4 months! Interested? Then just click here!

Opinion Calling Out to All Atheists

  • Thread starter purplebubblegum
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

purplebubblegum

Guest
I've been a theist for my whole life, but for the past few years, I've encountered quite a lot of atheists and even some anti-theists. Almost all of them are perfectly logical people, save for a few, say.. Irrational ones, so I'm starting to wonder, "should I claim myself a logical person, shouldn't I view the world in the same perspective as they do? Shouldn't my stance be completely wrong my whole life? However, I have 3 points that still linger in my mind every time I think of becoming an atheist:

1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life? I'm perfectly aware that this question has been the major discussion in theist and atheist debates, but I've never found a really satisfying answer. Spare me the scientific reasoning, I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?

2. Can you people really accept that those sinful evil people, like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, so on so forth, die so 'easily', without any further consequences whatsoever? Can you accept they just decease like that, with no justification for what they've done in the afterlife you don't believe? The same applies to the good people.

If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really? Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?

3. Should you be 'right' about the world, then the theists will really have nothing to lose, for the aforementioned reasons. The theists would only have lost a few good years worshipping gods in total, an again, it wouldn't have mattered in the end. But should the theists be right, then what do you atheists expect to do? You are all familiar with the concept of hell, and that's literally the last place you want to be in. Can you really live on your life with that possibility existing?

Just for disclaimer, I never meant to offend anyone in this topic, nor am I trying to missionary of some sort. I just want to set things right and clear my mind out of this, because a belief is one's sole guide in their life, and I don't want to live the rest of my life clinging on the wrong one.
 

Ninety

Member
Your logic is shaky here.

I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?
An atheist is going to flip that question right back at you. How do you explain that God has always existed? Surely that's more complex than some hydrogen. Of course, the existence of a God opens non-scientific avenues up and allows us to think more laterally, but be careful of posing questions you don't have concrete answers to in an attempt to disprove your opposition.

Can you accept they just decease like that, with no justification for what they've done in the afterlife you don't believe? The same applies to the good people.
I'm not sure what branch of theism you subscribe to here, but it's not difficult to reason that under most religious systems, a LOT of good people aren't getting into heaven, and a LOT of people who have done awful things are. You didn't mention Christianity so I'm not going to go into the theology of divine forgiveness, but the "good people go up bad people go down" line of reasoning is, if anything, a point against theism. If you're an atheist, you likely disagree with the premise to begin with.

If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really?
Pick a reason? The absence of theism need not be nihilism. Atheists still have innate morality like most of us, and living 80 years means actions still have consequences.

You are all familiar with the concept of hell, and that's literally the last place you want to be in. Can you really live on your life with that possibility existing?
Do you believe in the afterlife of every belief system? Of course not. You're subjecting yourself to that exact same problem. Besides, threats aren't generally conductive to legitimate faith. I'd rather believe in God by my own will, rather out of making a wager to avoid hell.

Your intentions do seem noble, and it's good you're making a legitimate attempt at discussion here. For the record, I'm not an atheist. I just think some of your logic is a little flawed.

EDIT: also, be warned, this is the GMC. A religion topic is going to go down like a lead balloon.
 

Tsa05

Member
1) Generally, the beginning of the Universe is the "Big Bang." This can be exp
lained as a very complex physical phenomenon in which all of the matter in this universe was spontaneously created from a tremendously focused point of energy. To a well-informed theist, these mechanics of how that explosion happened are the human-understood mathematical model of how a deity did the creating. Both scientists and theists cannot answer the other origin question, though. If there was nothing before, then... "Where did the pre-universe mass of energy come from?" or, if you prefer, "Where did the divine creator entity come from?" Both scientist and theist are guilty of moving the goalpost here. Our universe came from something that we cannot explain, so the consensus is that it must have come from "whatever that made it." When the argument reaches "well, before that was a something that always existed" we know that we have reached a mutual agreement about things we cannot explain.

Life and the universe, then, did not pop out of nowhere. Scientists explain it as popping out of a bundle of energy, and can show through math and confirm through physics that this process took place in our universe. Theists explain that however it may have happened, a deity meant for it to occur, and perhaps made the energy bundle and set the mechanics in motion.

It is highly possible to believe that life etc came from this bundle of energy, but there's a secret catch in your question: "Spare me the scientific reasoning," you say. See the trap here? "How can you science people believe that stuff--oh, but don't explain it to me with all that science stuff." Well, the science stuff is how they came to believe it. Scientists watch seemingly non-living proteins follow basic chemistry and, through myriad combinations, become living things. Scientists watch energy gain mass, they watch stars form, they watch galaxies vanish. They form math models that predict how these forces work, and test them. They believe in what they observe and confirm.

A theist has chosen to believe what deeply knowledgeable subject authority has told them, and to further explore that knowledge with their own questions. A scientist does the same thing, and has a scientific process for this exploration. Both believe somewhat in the things that have been told to them and also in what they can observe and understand.

2) Yes, people can. Have you witnessed the punishments of wicked people after death? Have you never, even while alive, gotten away with something that perhaps you shouldn't have done? In life, there is not always a punishment exacted in equal measure for every injustice. So the only basis for this belief is one of theism. Since many (atheists, scientists, etc) choose to believe most strongly in things which can be tested, belief in punishment after death is weak among that set.

3) Believing "just in case" is no belief at all. If there is an omnipotent deity who judges all for their belief, do you really think that such a being is going to be fooled by that trick? "Believing" just because the potential reward outweighs the potential punishment is no belief at all.
 

Ihato

Member
1. The notion of something being "huge" is a perception residing in your head. It's wrong to conclude the origin of anything based on such fallible human feeling. I, for example, feel that planes are too huge to fly so how come planes exist? Are planes given to us by the gods? I mean, they must be - They're too huge to fly otherwise! (do you see where this leads?)

But to answer this question fully I'd really have to reiterate every religious debate ever so I'll just share a quote from Richard Feynaman which might be helpful:
Richard Feynaman said:
Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers”. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all.
2a. OK but does imagining an evil individual burning in hell make everything better? Especially when evil was done against you or your close ones does saying "Yeah that sucker is now burning in hell for killing my daughter haha" make you feel better? Maybe it makes you feel a little better but does it make grievance go away? Nope. And what about your (fictional) daughter does knowing that she is in better place make you feel better? It might make you feel a little better but does it make your grievance go away? Nope. Hell and heaven solve nothing! - This is something that always baffled me about religion. If there is truly an afterlife what's the point of THIS life? Most theists answer this question with: "well this life is just a test!". Well if this life is just a test why feel grievance for your lost ones? And why feel even hatred toward evil? Could it be that having these feelings means you aren't believing in afterlife strong enough? That's exactly it. I mean that's is what Jesus was talking about in the bible.
Jesus H. Christ said:
  1. "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:37
  2. "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," - Matthew 5:44
  3. "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them." - 1 John 2:15
  4. "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." - John 15:9
What Christianity basically teaches us is to forget about this world (something which is incompatible with modern economy) and emulate Jesus as best as we can (something very few are able to do especially in modern world). Now you could invoke Romans 3:23 and say "well, after all, we are all sinners!" but then you have to wonder who does God actually let in? Most Christians answer this by saying this is something which is unknown to us and only known by God - but that makes any further argument moot.

So the answer your question is: Your question is wrong!
In Christian view you aren't supposed to care about hell or heaven. They are just tools that God uses to weed out bad people and select good people for his master plan to make humanity great again in afterlife. We don't know even know how hell or heaven look like and God didn't tell us how he divides people up. It's not our job to decide how God does that with conclusions like "Yeah he's going to hell!" or "Yeah she's going to heaven!". Our job is to love God whatever he does because he is all-powerful and all-just (anything else is a sin!). If God decides she's going to hell it's the right choice. If God decides he's going to heaven it's also the right choice. The first rule of the universe is: Everything God does is right! Yet despite this most Christians use heaven/hell as a psychological tool to cope with the loss of a loved one as a form of rationalization. And even that's the whole point then it does a very poor job as noted in the first paragraph!

2b.
If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really?
What is the purpose of doing evil? Why does good need a purpose but not evil?
There are plenty of reasons to do good (enjoying helping people, getting your help returned by the commnity) and there are plenty of reasons to do evil (enjoy harming people and benefit on their expense).
However, there are often plenty of reasons NOT to do evil and little reason why NOT to do good.
Which unfortunately is not always true hence why evil exists.

Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?
Ask yourself that question. Why don't you do it? Put yourself in a situation where you can kill somebody on a street for no reason. Is your thought-process like "I can kill this guy but God told me not to..."? Your morality comes from society which condemns murder.
 
Last edited:
M

Misty

Guest
1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life? I'm perfectly aware that this question has been the major discussion in theist and atheist debates, but I've never found a really satisfying answer. Spare me the scientific reasoning, I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?
According to religion, God is eternal. Either way you have it, something eternal always existing. My troll senses are tingling.

2. Can you people really accept that those sinful evil people, like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, so on so forth, die so 'easily', without any further consequences whatsoever? Can you accept they just decease like that, with no justification for what they've done in the afterlife you don't believe? The same applies to the good people.
My troll senses are tingling even further.

If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really? Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?
Troll senses tingling.

3. Should you be 'right' about the world, then the theists will really have nothing to lose, for the aforementioned reasons. The theists would only have lost a few good years worshipping gods in total, an again, it wouldn't have mattered in the end. But should the theists be right, then what do you atheists expect to do? You are all familiar with the concept of hell, and that's literally the last place you want to be in. Can you really live on your life with that possibility existing?

Just for disclaimer, I never meant to offend anyone in this topic, nor am I trying to missionary of some sort. I just want to set things right and clear my mind out of this, because a belief is one's sole guide in their life, and I don't want to live the rest of my life clinging on the wrong one.
Name is purplebubblegum? Has 0 posts?
 
N

NPT

Guest
1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe
I can't explain the beginning of the universe. However, I accept a lot of the theories and hypothesis that points out evidence that explains some of the components of the beginning of our universe, at least to the current state of our universe.

I also accept that there are a lot of things we simply don'r know.

However, I truly am interest in why you think that being able to explain the origin of our universe is important towards one's theistic believe. It almost seems like you're suggesting that we are to accept that God did it unless we can prove some other way.

That's not logical.

.....the beginning of life?
Virtually the same answer as above.

but I've never found a really satisfying answer.
There are al kinds of questions for which there are no satisfying answers. This is not evidence for a god.

Spare me the scientific reasoning
But the answer is extremely technical, one can not describe the beginning of the universe (or life) without scientific reasoning.

However, I now understand why you haven't as yet found a really satisfying answer.

I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere
There are many hypothesis that do not involve the universe popping out of literally nowhere. Al though there are some theories that do suggest that matter can be created from "nothing". Should you ever reach the point where you are willing to listen to scientific reasoning, I suggest A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

2. Can you people really accept that those sinful evil people, like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, so on so forth, die so 'easily', without any further consequences whatsoever?
I don't accept that sin exists. Don't interpret that as to suggest that what you considered sinful isn't evil. But why would there be consequences beyond death?

What I find harder to believe is; should there be an all powerful god, especially a personal one, why would these men have been created by him?


If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really?
Evolution explains the benefits of behaving good vs behaving poorly as it applies to social species as well as how it applies to solitude species. In some contexts the lines are very blurry.

There are also chemical benefits such as the creation of oxytocin that can be created from positive experiences and behaviours, this lends itself well to bonding and creating social structure.

Why don't we just all then rob all the banks
As a youth, I didn't learn not to steal from the bible, I learned it from my parents. It certainly wasn't hard-wired into me.



Bur once again, I don't understand the the implied relationship between stealing, murder and other acts and a deity?

I'll also ask you again, is my failure to answer these questions (to your satisfaction) evidence of a deity?

3. Should you be 'right' about the world, then the theists will really have nothing to lose, for the aforementioned reasons. The theists would only have lost a few good years worshipping gods in total, an again, it wouldn't have mattered in the end. But should the theists be right, then what do you atheists expect to do?
This argument is logically flawed.

You are lumping all the theists together and assuming a common belief.

There are thousands of deities, belief in which one will reward you?

Will the Hindu's who do not believe in the god of Abraham be reward or punished any differently than the atheist should the god of Abraham be the one and only true god?

Should the christian be punished the same or differently than the atheist should Rama, Thor or Apophis be the deity that is encountered upon physical death?


EDIT: also, be warned, this is the GMC. A religion topic is going to go down like a lead balloon.
This simply is not true.
 

Lukan

Gay Wizard Freak
Most of your questions are... Strange...

As an atheist, and perhaps slight anti-theist, I don't believe in deities or their systems of punishment and reward.
I can live my life perfectly happy not caring whether Hell exists. If at the end of the road it happens to, oh well, but that's not gonna be a problem for a long time for me.

As for the universe stuff, I'm not a scientist, but I do understand the basics behind the Big Bang theory, and agree with most scientific assessments of it.
Sure, it doesn't answer all the questions, it can't. There's too much we don't know about it, but it is observable. Cosmic background radiation and the expanding universe are key evidence of the theory.

God answers no questions, despite raising many.
Why does he never make him self known? Why does he let all the awful things around the world happen?
If God created everything, then he also created Evil. Just for the purpose of torturing his most prized creations?

Eh. I'd rather be a sinful atheist than live in fear of an invisible man who lets millions of people suffer despite having the power to stop it.
 

beli_mawrr

Member
Hey Purple, great to meet you. First off I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to this, and thanks for being very polite and respectful. I hope to achieve the same in this reply.

Logic/reason has nothing to do with faith, by nature. There is no evidence for or against god, the decision to believe in a deity rests solely in the reasoning individual. I therefore detest the "Atheism is logical!" argument. God or deities exist in a null state in my mind, there's no way of telling if it's real or not. People, by default, should be able to believe what they want, in god, in a pink unicorn, whatever, without question.

That being said, I'm an atheist.


I don't believe in god. At least not in the Abrahamic god.

1. I don't. There's no legit reason that we're aware of, and every reason I hear people throw around, even physicists who know better, could be boiled down to "Chance, or God." Both are equally likely IMHO. This ties into the "Perfect universe" theory which I'll get into later. Though I don't believe in god, my theory is pretty nuanced so I'll get to it.

2. I, personally, don't believe in good or evil. Good/evil (moral absolutism) is something that was given to us by Christianity. BTW FYI, the Pope, who is supposed to be the voice of god, supported Hitler. So... Let's just say good/evil isn't as obvious as it might seem. I believe good and evil is a matter of perspective; you think Hitler or Osama woke up every day and said... "Man, I'm going to torture some babys today." No, they probably thought "I'm going to make life a little better for my people, and yeah I might have to break some eggs but sometimes things have to get done." Some Al Qaeda insurgents might think of Obama the same way we think of Bin Laden... "Man, that dude just SLAUGHTERS innocents with those drone strikes..." So I disagree with the premise of the question. However, that being said, I try to improve others lives because I hope that in times of struggle, they'll do the same for me. It's the same reason I stop at stoplights. Not because it's "Good" but because if others didn't, I'd be killed, and they're relying on me to make the same decision.

3. This is called Pascals wager, but here's the kick: the people of Swahili Africa worship the great kokoco up in the mountain. What if they're right but you're wrong?


With your comments thus addressed, I'm going to stir up the hornets nest by saying that yes, I do believe in "the clockmaker". I don't believe in the Christian god, but I do believe there is a benevolent, extremely powerful, and extremely knowledgeable (but not omniscient or omnipotent) intelligence "out there" which either intervened or is intervening on a macro scale in order for the universe and life to develop the way it is. The universe is literally incomprehensibly huge, and unimaginably old. To me (having written and read lots of science fiction) I can easily imagine that some alien intelligence somewhere and somehow transcended into near-godhood, then germinated single cell life (on earth and elsewhere no doubt), and maybe even carefully pruned it to become what we are. It could have even been them who initiated the big bang in the first place. Or tuned the laws of physics to the perfection they are. Or maybe even is actively compensating entropy and "managing" gravity with dark matter to prevent things from getting too expanded

Oh yeah guys. Perfect universe. Change the laws of physics, like the Strong nuclear force, just a smidge, and suddenly matter can't form. That's just an example, of course, there are at least 6 examples that we know of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe but I won't get into them. The only answer is a 💩💩💩💩ton of crappy universes, or a benevolent intelligence that made it so. Your guess is as good as mine.

now roast me GMCers
 
F

fxokz

Guest
I've been a theist for my whole life, but for the past few years, I've encountered quite a lot of atheists and even some anti-theists. Almost all of them are perfectly logical people, save for a few, say.. Irrational ones, so I'm starting to wonder, "should I claim myself a logical person, shouldn't I view the world in the same perspective as they do? Shouldn't my stance be completely wrong my whole life? However, I have 3 points that still linger in my mind every time I think of becoming an atheist:

1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life? I'm perfectly aware that this question has been the major discussion in theist and atheist debates, but I've never found a really satisfying answer. Spare me the scientific reasoning, I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?

2. Can you people really accept that those sinful evil people, like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, so on so forth, die so 'easily', without any further consequences whatsoever? Can you accept they just decease like that, with no justification for what they've done in the afterlife you don't believe? The same applies to the good people.

If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really? Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?

3. Should you be 'right' about the world, then the theists will really have nothing to lose, for the aforementioned reasons. The theists would only have lost a few good years worshipping gods in total, an again, it wouldn't have mattered in the end. But should the theists be right, then what do you atheists expect to do? You are all familiar with the concept of hell, and that's literally the last place you want to be in. Can you really live on your life with that possibility existing?

Just for disclaimer, I never meant to offend anyone in this topic, nor am I trying to missionary of some sort. I just want to set things right and clear my mind out of this, because a belief is one's sole guide in their life, and I don't want to live the rest of my life clinging on the wrong one.
so what exactly is your main point/argument?

Code:
argument_count = ?/CODE]
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life? I'm perfectly aware that this question has been the major discussion in theist and atheist debates, but I've never found a really satisfying answer. Spare me the scientific reasoning, I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?
I can't explain it. As an undergrad student taking a Master's Degree in Physics, I can with confidence say that nature is truly weird and unintuitive if you dig deep enough. What seems illogical in the macro-scale suddenly becomes the norm at the atomic level. Sacred laws of thermodynamics break down and give rise to new and unexpected results. Moving at incredible speeds or having a massive object introduces new concepts never before fathomed. Our most untouchable rule, the conservation of energy, is rendered moot under the Heisenberg principle. If the law of causality can be broken outside the confines of our universe, then so be it. But the concept of "time" is created at the instance of the beginning of the universe, necessarily. So saying the universe comes from "some prior starting position" may be a contradiction in terms.

2. Can you people really accept that those sinful evil people, like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, so on so forth, die so 'easily', without any further consequences whatsoever? Can you accept they just decease like that, with no justification for what they've done in the afterlife you don't believe? The same applies to the good people.
You don't have to accept it. I don't really feel anything about it, I don't feel the need for some divine, ultimate justice to punish and award people for their actions. I may be the minority in this regard, because I do know lots of people, theists and atheists alike, who crave for this higher power to exist. We as humans can strive for it in our own ways, but better than that, I don't see how it's possible. Perhaps when I have some irreversibly evil thing done to me in a meaningful sense, that fundamentally breaks me psychologically, I will desire something of that sort. However, one of the things I have learned as I mature is that there is a necessity to distinguish that which is desirable and that which is attainable.

If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really? Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?
You have a lot of secular morality literature at your disposal for that one. The idea that humans can only function morally when they are subject to divine judgement is one of the most misanthropic things I have heard, it disregards the fundamental nature of us and our innate desire to help others. My opinion is that we do everything for our own needs, even if ostensibly the action looks like a wholly altruistic ones. But most of us crave higher social status, or simply a healthy dose of dopamine discharge in our brain, by doing things that are perceived as advantageous in a social environment.

3. Should you be 'right' about the world, then the theists will really have nothing to lose, for the aforementioned reasons. The theists would only have lost a few good years worshipping gods in total, an again, it wouldn't have mattered in the end. But should the theists be right, then what do you atheists expect to do? You are all familiar with the concept of hell, and that's literally the last place you want to be in. Can you really live on your life with that possibility existing?
You are also running the risk of, like, Allah being real, and worshipping a false idol is a big no-no for him. You disbelieve in a lot more other gods than your prescribed one. And perhaps there's a god that hasn't yet revealed itself and is angry that lots of people are idolizing false prophets until it comes to earth and will punish all theists. Atheists just go one god beyond you in that regard.

(Sorry if my response is saying something that has already been said, I didn't bother to read this whole thread integrally.)


EDIT: I've read it integrally. I don't like presupposing troll behaviour for very flimsy reasons and, even if the OP is indeed a troll, he/she raises a lot of questions that are representative of the theist community. I'd reserve the accusations only after I see enough solid evidence for it (as a good skeptic) and throwing them wildly is unproductive.
 
Last edited:
P

purplebubblegum

Guest
I must say I'm quite touched by the extensive amount of reply I got, and all are concise (save for a few confusingly--kind of personally offensive--unrelated replies) and have satisfied my thirst (to an extent), although I'm afraid I can't address to all the posts here for it'll be too long, and unnecessarily wasteful. So I'll just summarize my thoughts for all your replies in general, and I'm sorry if I happen to miss a point or two in your posts, my short-term memory can only hold so much.

So I agree the theists and atheists are at stalemate here in terms of the beginning of the universe/life, since one can't simply disprove another's claim without proof (although I have to point out a reminder that there are some, if not a lot, of theist scientists out there working alongside the atheist ones). There are some things humans just can't comprehend, let alone explain, and subjecting something else as an explanation is not exactly the logical decision, and I accept that.

However, this leads back to my third point, what if a certain deity do exist, and have been constantly sending you signal to --not only worship them-- live your life based on their teachings, and are punishing the ones who do accept the 'signal' but otherwise chose to be ignorant? (there's a teaching in my religion about that, which I'm aware I haven't stated one (my religion) explicitly--that was in purpose, in order to divide this thread to only theists and atheists) that'll kind of answer the question whether the existence of hell and heaven is fair or not --I realize this may sound like an absurd proposition, but this is also something I'm curious about-- what if that's the case, then? I do agree that terror isn't a good way to imprint a certain belief in one's mind, but should that be the case, and since you only live once, shouldn't you in the very least worry a little? I'm aware of how insulting this claim could be perceived, but again, with only one chance to set things 'right', wouldn't you want to not be regretful later in the (concept of) afterlife?

A little note, I perceive you all as more of a semi-agnostic, or in the very least, not full-blown atheists, based on your replies. Just my two cents. Cheers!
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
However, this leads back to my third point, what if a certain deity do exist, and have been constantly sending you signal to --not only worship them-- live your life based on their teachings, and are punishing the ones who do accept the 'signal' but otherwise chose to be ignorant?
If there's a god out there, and is omnipotent, omniscient and indeed cares about me, then I shouldn't worry. Belief isn't voluntary, it's involuntary. You can try to believe in something that go against your other stances (so called doublethink) and perhaps on some degree you can come to self-delude yourself. Nevertheless, fundamentally, belief works in a fundamental level in our psyche. Now, I can't choose to believe in a god that might torture me after I die, even if I shoot bricks out of my backside just thinking about it. It's the same as acting as if your house is haunted when you're alone in the dark and you are feeling nervous. Fear is a natural reaction under certain circumstances, but it needn't be entirely logical or arising from epistemological reasoning.

Aside from that, I still am not worried because the god that is preached in the major religions depict an all-loving god. If that god doesn't want me to experience torture for all eternity, then I won't suffer that destiny. Being omniscient, it knows what it takes me to avoid hellfire. Being omnipotent, it is capable of making me aware of it. Ergo, a god that displays those three qualities necessarily means I won't go to hell. In that sense, the concept of hell isn't congruent with that notion of god.

Can I be wrong? Sure! God may be capricious, (which is what I feel is what the Abrahamic scriptures truly depict), and I will be sent to hell because of some self-absorbed, undeserving entitlement to dictate that the reason for my existence must be to grovel at god's presence and worship its name. And I'm okay with that, because aside from the astronomically unlikelihood of that being true, god gave me a sense of morality that doesn't allow me to love an entity that knowingly sends sentient creatures to an eternity of torture for arbitrary and devious reasons.

A little note, I perceive you all as more of a semi-agnostic, or in the very least, not full-blown atheists, based on your replies. Just my two cents. Cheers!
Atheist simply means lack of belief in god. I should know what I believe (or don't believe) so I do ascribe to that label.

now roast me GMCers
Oh you just did it sonny. Air boiiii.

The "fine tuning" argument can be deconstructed in a lot of ways. Sure, you can see how life developed in our universe and then assume the anthropocentric, utterly simplistic conclusion that everything was made for life to exist, for that one end goal. Alternatively, you can think of our universe as one of many, each of which has different parameters, different intensities in the strong nuclear force, different gravitational constants, or different laws entirely. It's no wonder, then, that those universes that harbour self-aware lifeforms will unsurprisingly beg the conclusion "hey look, these parameters are exactly tuned for us to exist, isn't <INSERT CREATOR HERE> wonderful for allowing this?"

They are wholly unaware of the other universes where self-aware, sapient lifeforms don't exist and, therefore, the whole question of "this universe is life-harbouring" isn't even asked. It's a non-argument because the argument itself is only made in life-harbouring universes.

Other than that, what makes you think life is really that fragile? Do you know the complexity of our universe and how it would behave with different parameters? 'Cause I sure as hell don't. I have no clue what the hell would happen if you change the nuclear force one smidgeon. The universe as we know it wouldn't attain its current form, obviously. But so many factors may interact with each other in an unbelievably chaotic fashion in such a way that a whole other universe that is unfathomable for us may form and allow for other lifeforms to arise.

Your "godlike alien theory" that conveniently fixes all the problems of physics that are present today makes Electro unsatisfied. Uargh.
 
Last edited:

Ninety

Member
Yeah, you're probably right. If only the GMC had a sub forum for miscellaneous discussion! You know, somewhere we could talk about topics unrelated to game development and coding... Somewhere we could discuss social issues and that sort of thing... Ah well, maybe one day! :)
 
M

Misty

Guest
Their probably is a God. However, the OP's arguments are invalid logics.

I believe there is a God, because the world seems like a simulation, and parallel coincidences happen to me constantly, almost twice a week. When they say the Word was God, I believe they mean code.
Second reason is Electroman has a good avatar, almost as if it was ordained.

I also don't trust the science community anymore. I believe Pangea is bad science, Earth is a planetary body, and such bodies don't form lopsided like Pangea implies. Rather, the Earth was smaller, and expanded due to a hot core, thus all of the continent pieces fit. The reason the Earth is no longer expanding is because the velocity was exponential, like a *=.9 equation.
 

Yokcos

Member
If the universe happens to be a simulation (which it probably is) and there's a person or group responsible for creating and overseeing the simulation, is that person or group god?
 

Alice

Darts addict
Forum Staff
Moderator
Can I add my answers to the bunch?

1. Hard to tell, maybe there always has been some sort of quantum soup thingy that our universe emerged from, or something (if one wants to go for non-entity explanation)?
Myself, I think there was something that caused our universe to appear; but that something might be just an eternal rule of metaphysics that "every once and then, a universe pops out of nowhere" (because why not?). And since there is possible explanation not involving a conscious entity and an explanation involving a conscious entity, I decide not to think too hard about it because have better (and probably more plausible) things to figure out.

2. Yeah, I can accept that various criminals, of larger or smaller caliber, get away with no direct afterlife consequences, especially since such consequences require a judgement of sorts, and judgement requires a sense of good and evil, and that's pretty tricky to define. Heck, it's possible that if Hitler didn't exist, someone else would appear in his stead commiting the same, if not worse atrocities. Morals can work in really weird ways sometimes...

As for the reasons to do good, I find them quite simple. I have certain character and abilities, and I want to keep myself happy (broadly speaking). I might do something for myself without affecting anyone else and end up happier - that results in a positive happiness balance. I might use my skills to help out someone and make them happier; but also I might be the one needing help and receive it from someone with proper skills (for simplicity, I assume that helping out doesn't involve someone else's unhappiness). So, if people help each other out to the best of their abilities, then same overall happiness is achieved with less overall effort. Conversely, if I try to make myself happy at the cost of someone else, I must take into account that others might do that, too; and if people keep getting in each other's way, then the collective effort is wasted on people interfering with each other and less happiness is achieved.

Basically, I believe that societies that value good generally work better than those that don't. If we can trust each other to help out, we can focus on out strengths (instead of becoming some sort of survivalist jack-of-all-trades). If we keep getting into each other's way, we waste our efforts on countermeasures. If we make world a bit better place, we end up in a bit better place. We don't need to seek another world for reason to be good; we have it right here.

3. Maybe you don't think wasting one's time is a big issue, I do. But then, following theistic ways has other consequences than just waste of time - it's not only rituals, there are only regulations and stuff. What would you say, for example, to a gay who have been restraining themselves for their whole life, to then find out that it was pointless altogether? Plus, some theists have that annoying tendency to force their ways on everyone else, and everyone else might not like that.

Besides, I believe in myself, in a way. As in, I will generally follow my own way. If it aligns with the God's idea of good, then I should end up in heaven without issue. If it doesn't, then their heaven is probably not the place I want to be at, anyway. Besides, really, what sort of benevolent deity would make a place of torments for infidels? That just seems really petty; like a person micromanaging an ant society or something. ^^'
 
H

HammerOn

Guest
1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life? I'm perfectly aware that this question has been the major discussion in theist and atheist debates, but I've never found a really satisfying answer. Spare me the scientific reasoning, I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?
It's not a multiple choice test. Understanding the universe is a journey.
Someone approximate solutions and we develop new things based on it. Then someone else discovery better approximations and we develop more things.
It's how we went from the curiosity of why something fell, to controlling electricity, to satellites that can correct it's trajectory calculating the distortion in space and time caused by gravity. All this in only 3 centuries.
Each approximation covers more and more fields and subjects with a single set of rules. In physics, what classic mechanics explained and what couldn't is now explained with quantum mechanics. Today even chemical reasons can be calculated with physics. Someday, someone will develop a better approximation that explain what quantum mechanics can and what it can't.
There is no practical use for faith. With observation and logical reasoning, however, we keep comming up with rules that are not set in stone to achieve more and more until we fully understand the universe.
 

Mercerenies

Member
1. Multiverse theory provides a satisfying answer to this one. The fact that there never was truly "nothing" and that all universes simultaneously exist side-by-side. The only reason we consider life to be meaningful in this universe is because there is life to observe itself. There are countless (actually, mathematically speaking, uncountably many) universes out there that fail to produce life, but we never notice them because there is no life to observe the lack of life.

2. The first part of that question only makes sense if you assume there's a god. If you assume there's a god, then it's meaningful to ask a question about divine consequences. If you assume there is no higher power, then the question of divine judgment is illogical. The second part is more interesting. Why not do all of those things? Because, and I feel this is important and sometimes misunderstood: atheism means lack of religion, not necessarily lack of philosophy. Many (most?) atheists still have philosophical connections that dictate how they behave with regard to the people around them. These connections are not bound or guarded by a higher power; they are simply intrinsic values that we choose to keep to maximize the utility of society. If you're interested in some philosophy (especially social philosophy), I would suggest looking into some of John Locke's works, which would answer your question about why we don't just up and murder people we don't like.

3. I don't remember who said it, but someone semi-famous made a quote to this effect: "There are thousands of religions out there. We atheists reject all of them. You theists reject all but one of them." By the logic you've posited in Point (3), if you want to maximize your odds of getting into eternal paradise, you should spend every waking moment of your life praying to various deities, of both active faiths and long dead ones. That way, whichever religion is right, you'll get into their afterlife. And that's clearly an absurd conclusion, so by mathematical contradiction, your argument fails.
 

Jabbers

Member
A lot of thorough posts and opinions here. I'm going to add mine too. Sorry if I go over what has already been said.

I was raised Christian, one parent was religious and the other was more spiritual, but they were not strict in any sense. I'd doubted religion when I was an older child, but I didn't realise atheism was an actual position to take until I was about 13. As I became agnostic and then atheistic, my parents were surprised at first but rightly allowed me to believe what I wanted. I see my beliefs as more in line with humanism now. I'm offering this background on my beliefs because as a young teenager it was very difficult to detach from religious views because you are having to rebuild your view of reality, and I think the same will be true for anyone at any age who is starting to shift from faith to reason.

1. How do you people explain the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life? I'm perfectly aware that this question has been the major discussion in theist and atheist debates, but I've never found a really satisfying answer. Spare me the scientific reasoning, I'm just wondering how you're perceiving something so huge to just pop out of literally nowhere, without something, not necessarily an entity, starting it?
I agree with NPT that you're thinking about this wrongly if you want to be "spared the scientific reasoning" because science underpins our understanding of the universe.

The only thing I really want to say about this is that no religious story on the origins of the universe can be accepted as credible. Having no scientific explanation is about as helpful as believing a religious myth. The only difference is science works to find these answers, and will admit to not knowing something. Religion is going to sell you the same hogwash forever, even though religious myths themselves are easy to reason away. Sure, this doesn't mean that one of the many stories of creation are necessarily untrue, but I'd rather put my money on the evolving scientific theories of how the universe came to be, because at least scientific theories are established by data, evidence, mathematics, and can be analysed and tested.

2. Can you people really accept that those sinful evil people, like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, so on so forth, die so 'easily', without any further consequences whatsoever? Can you accept they just decease like that, with no justification for what they've done in the afterlife you don't believe? The same applies to the good people.
Yes. There is no evidence to suggest anything about our bodies or our minds can escape death. This idea might sit uncomfortably with you, but it would be nonsensical to believe in an afterlife just because you don't like the idea of the likely reality that there isn't one. Why does anyone deserve to be punished? In fact, it isn't easy (and maybe not even possible) to reason that anyone deserves anything.

If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really? Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?
This is a classic question, and the classic answer is that you are a horrible person if the only reason you don't do all of these things is because of some promise of an afterlife.

You really need to read up on moral philosophy, because in short, good morality is drawn from philosophy, and is argued and reasoned. Hopefully you also have a natural capacity for empathy. I don't kill people I don't like because I don't see that I have a right to take a life. I don't want to cause suffering to him or his family, because causing unnecessary suffering is universally morally wrong, if not unjustifiable. My capacity for empathy means that even if I hate this person, because I know he is a humanbeing who shares a similar experience to me, I feel a degree of horror, fear, and sadness at the idea of him being senselessly murdered over something so trivial. It should also be true that nobody wants to live in such a savage society, and that we are willing to treat each other well simply because we don't want lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes on society and government).

3. Should you be 'right' about the world, then the theists will really have nothing to lose, for the aforementioned reasons. The theists would only have lost a few good years worshipping gods in total, an again, it wouldn't have mattered in the end. But should the theists be right, then what do you atheists expect to do? You are all familiar with the concept of hell, and that's literally the last place you want to be in. Can you really live on your life with that possibility existing?
Theists waste a life waiting for death and being repressed by bad ideas.

You can't follow every religion, and there is no reason to believe one religion and it's threat of hell is credible. If it were true that this particular religion was correct, there will be a lot of great people in hell who have rejected the bible for all of its incredibly immoral and evil ideas, and the way it has historically caused a lot of suffering and evil in the world. I am basing my beliefs on what I think is philosophically reasonable, and what does right for human beings, and if that sits wrong with a God then I don't want to spend an eternity in his or her presence. You better hope the bible is either untrue, or a totally incorrect depiction of a God, because he comes across as a total maniac who is concerned with all the wrong things.
 
Last edited:
E

Ethanicus

Guest
I'm a Christian but I'm gonna chime in here.
There was a time not too long ago where most people believed in and were convinced to follow God. I'm sure for some, yes, it was just something they were taught and decided to stick with. But for me at least, even having been raised this way, it's not something logic or science or math can explain. It's not even a matter of having a solid, immovable moral center (the Bible) to live around. I mean I see people around me suffer and hate every day and constantly change what they think "right" and "wrong" are, and even just watching that isn't the reason. That's not to say all non-believers are pitiful, suffering things. I know most are doing pretty well.
I guess for me, it's something beyond a gut feeling or simply self-satisfaction. In the end, and I don't mean to sound bigoted about this, no amount of science and logic can make that feeling stop. I think it's the same feeling that Native Americans got when the Pilgrims told them about God that made them reject their own religion.
Don't mean to ramble and ignore OP's questions, just tossing in my two cents.
 
N

NPT

Guest
Theists waste a life waiting for death and being repressed by bad ideas.
Some theists do more than just waste their life, some fly planes into buildings.

I think it's the same feeling that Native Americans got when the Pilgrims told them about God that made them reject their own religion.
For many Natives there was a lot more coersion than simply telling them about God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W

Wraithious

Guest
If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really
The thing is it doesnt matter what you believe created everything there is a definitive difference between doing what is good or bad, good i define as helping yourself without harming others or doing things to help others, and bad is the litterally the opposite from that. religion was made for 2 reasons, the first is to control the populations human animal instincts and urges to get what they want without cause for hurting others and 2 is a bit more complicated, the need to explain what we don't know (like how this all came to be) but the complication is religion uses the second part to reunforce the first part leading to inconsistancies, the most obvious being that some religions dont believe in jesus.
I'm not religious but i believe in doing what i believe are the right things. as gar as my theory as to why we're here is that we are part of something wayyy bigger and older than what science says and what religion says, the entire universe we see around us is probably just a few molecules of some... thing much much much bigger.
 

beli_mawrr

Member
I'm a Christian but I'm gonna chime in here.
I mean I see people around me suffer and hate every day and constantly change what they think "right" and "wrong" are, and even just watching that isn't the reason.
Look man, I'll be there supporting your left and right if/when the time comes about your feelings. If Christianity makes you happy, go ahead and practice like you were born for it. ONE SMALL ISSUE THOUGH. I find it amusing that 1) you seem to think you're immune from hated and suffering because you're a christian, which boy believe me I would convert in a heartbeat if I knew I could just pray away all my troubles! and 2) you grouped changing your opinion on right and wrong in the same category as hatred and suffering. You do realize that people change these opinions every day, you included. AND adapting your opinion on right and wrong should be a plus, not a negative in your book.
 

HayManMarc

Member
To me, magic is a thing of stories and fantasy. I don't believe in magic. At least, not literally.

Religion seems to be full of magic.

Just because you can learn some good lessons from a story, that doesn't mean it should be believed as factual, literal history. Great lessons and morals can be found in Star Wars. Should we therefore worship Obi Wan Kenobi and thus strive to be a Jedi?

I believe in mass, energy, and consequences. To me, these are tangible, quantifiable truths. I believe magic is fiction.
 
J

JarodTheGreat

Guest
Before I get started, I am a theist. How ever I am not in any way exactly religious.

Everything I have to say according to your argument is personal opinion and experience.

1) I do believe in the multiverse theory, and with just that your first answer can be explained.

2) This shouldn't have even been part of the argument to begin with. Let me explain this, doing good will always feel rewarding to those with the correct mindset. If you're doing good for personal gain, then you will never feel satisfied. How ever doing evil may have its personal rewards, but at the end of the day you will feel like a 💩💩💩💩ty bastard for doing such things, also not to mention its harsh consequences on your reputation while you're alive and after you have died. Take this from me, I never felt satisfied from harming others, taking things that weren't mines, and so on. At the end of the day for me I either wanted more or didn't want anything to do with it. Doing good for the right reasons always has its profit at the end of the day. Unity is the best thing that this world needs, we should ignore each others personal beliefs and be able to be reasonable with one and another.

3) Believing in a God and accepting his teachings may be outstanding for the people who acknowledged his existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean its going to be bitter and sour for all atheist and anti-theist.

Also on side note, if you're unsatisfied with your self. That means you're not trying hard enough to explore this vast universe on your own terms. Good luck with what ever it takes to find happiness, friend!

Edit: Quick question. Did you come to this website just to ask these questions on a game development forum website?
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
How ever doing evil may have its personal rewards, but at the end of the day you will feel like a ****ty bastard for doing such things, also not to mention its harsh consequences on your reputation while you're alive and after you have died. (...) Doing good for the right reasons always has its profit at the end of the day.
Highlighting these two statements hopefully sheds light on the glaring contradiction. My initial hypothesis avoids these mental gymnastics in positing that good deeds stem from selfish reasons, in which the corollary inexorably follows: "selfishness helps the species" which is congruent with Evolution theory.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread into discussions about morality as is par for the course for these Theologian considerations.
 
J

JarodTheGreat

Guest
Highlighting these two statements hopefully sheds light on the glaring contradiction. My initial hypothesis avoids these mental gymnastics in positing that good deeds stem from selfish reasons, in which the corollary inexorably follows: "selfishness helps the species" which is congruent with Evolution theory.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread into discussions about morality as is par for the course for these Theologian considerations.
What I meant by profit was, that everybody involved benefits from your good deeds.

Also you can agree to disagree with me here in any way you like. But mothers and fathers (considering that they worked together to raise a child) will selflessly love their child, and give the child the best care they can offer. Are you saying that selfless acts are impossible or unlikely?

I'll also say this, I believe in the survival of the fittest and natural selection. How ever this doesn't necessarily void my argument.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you're trying to imply.

Edit: If you were talking about doing evil having its personal rewards, I tend to not be clear about what I mean at times. But basically what I meant is that say you take something that is not yours and you really wanted it. You would of accomplished getting a hold of something that you no longer need to pay for, or you can just sell it for money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
Also you can agree to disagree with me here in any way you like. But mothers and fathers (considering that they worked together to raise a child) will selflessly love their child, and give the child the best care they can offer.
Actually you just picked the example that represents the purest form of evolutionary benefit to ostensibly act "selflessly." If evolution didn't yield onto us an innate instinct to care for our young in a collective manner, then the species would go extinct, or certainly not prosper in such a densely compacted society. In this case, one just acts "selflessly" to avoid the stigma of having neglected an offspring. A progenitor that is knowingly neglecting their young will undoubtedly feel extremely uneasy and so by paying attention and raising a child, they avoid that experience. Not to mention the amount of hormonal discharge involved in the process.

And don't pin me down as an "evolutionary purist." You can find many examples where evolution can't explain morality. You just picked the exact opposite of what a selfless act would be in an evolutionary perspective.

Are you saying that selfless acts are impossible or unlikely?
Ooh, lemme think on that one...

Well. They sure are unlikely, but impossible? I can think of some occasions where an act can just render the agent apathetic towards it. Ultimately, I find myself hard-pressed to come up with a counter-example. Call me a cynic, I simply have not come across something of that sort. It may be a bit presumptuous to presume the intentions of people, but I find the explanation that every act has a natural cause that precedes it in a comprehensive causal manner satisfactory.
 
J

JarodTheGreat

Guest
Actually you just picked the example that represents the purest form of evolutionary benefit to ostensibly act "selflessly." If evolution didn't yield onto us an innate instinct to care for our young in a collective manner, then the species would go extinct, or certainly not prosper in such a densely compacted society. In this case, one just acts "selflessly" to avoid the stigma of having neglected an offspring. A progenitor that is knowingly neglecting their young will undoubtedly feel extremely uneasy and so by paying attention and raising a child, they avoid that experience. Not to mention the amount of hormonal discharge involved in the process.

And don't pin me down as an "evolutionary purist." You can find many examples where evolution can't explain morality. You just picked the exact opposite of what a selfless act would be in an evolutionary perspective.



Ooh, lemme think on that one...

Well. They sure are unlikely, but impossible? I can think of some occasions where an act can just render the agent apathetic towards it. Ultimately, I find myself hard-pressed to come up with a counter-example. Call me a cynic, I simply have not come across something of that sort. It may be a bit presumptuous to presume the intentions of people, but I find the explanation that every act has a natural cause that precedes it in a comprehensive causal manner satisfactory.
Well I used the parent example because I believe like parents, people can use some what the same selfless acts to care for others. I don't knock evolution. I my self believe in it. How ever your arguments are very good and well put. So i'll end this here by saying you definitely are an intellectual person that clearly studies a lot. I enjoy science, and nature. I believe that all types of science having to do with all of existence is very well formulated.
 

Jabbers

Member
If evolution didn't yield onto us an innate instinct to care for our young in a collective manner, then the species would go extinct, or certainly not prosper in such a densely compacted society. In this case, one just acts "selflessly" to avoid the stigma of having neglected an offspring.
I don't know if that is a good example. In humans there is a natural instinct for the mother to protect the baby. I am not sure you can pin that down to a stigma about neglect, which sounds like a concern of modern society. That wouldn't do much to explain why many animals have similar instincts, despite the major differences in the complexity and styles of their respective societies.

I agree that most selfless acts can be traced to selfish motivations, even if the person doing them is not entirely aware of their motivation. This is probably a moot point to make in a discussion about religion vs secular morality, because although the origins of "good" behaviour are interesting, we are uniquely able to reason our own set of ethics and morals separate from what our natural instincts may be.
 
J

Jonathan-David

Guest
Caring for children is not selfless - otherwise people could just care for any random child. But since you care for only your own children, you're obviously getting something out of caring for those particular humans. Caring for your offspring means *your* genes are more likely to be passed on, and so all sorts of tricks have evolved to get you to care for them.
 

Jabbers

Member
Caring for your offspring means *your* genes are more likely to be passed on, and so all sorts of tricks have evolved to get you to care for them.
I don't think it is accurate to say that people only care for their own children. Your reason for protecting your genes doesn't explain why people have a concern for children generally, or why people will adopt children, or care for their friends children, neighbours, or or distant relatives.

I think it is more likely that you can put it down to a tribal instinct, where by protecting each other, you are a stronger unit and you will have a greater chance of survival.
 
S

Sam (Deleted User)

Guest
It is very arrogant to talk as if theists and scientists were two different categories. There are scientists of every religion and lack there of, who all actively study how things work in this universe, therefore, atheism does not equal "one who believes in science" and theism is not equal to "one who does not believe in science". Science is imperfect. It is our limited perception of reality based on our studies, observations, testing, and verification. (It will always be limited). There are theists who are scientists, and, equally so, there are atheists who are scientists. How this world came together remains debatable, but we can all agree 2 + 2 will always = 4, if you catch my drift, including many other facts of life, that are much more complicated, that we can all easily agree on. :)

Here is an example of theists who are also scientists in case anyone remains skeptical:


I see no point in refusing to believe something because you don't like it. I don't like that thousands of children are starving world wide, but that won't stop me from believing it. I find that if you don't like a deity's moral-code, that shouldn't be your only reason for not believing in that deity. If you are going to believe in something that can't be explained, whether theist or atheist, believe what you have been convinced of, which will not necessarily be what you like. Not all realities are appealing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jabbers

Member
It is very arrogant to talk as if theists and scientists were two different categories. There are scientists of every religion and lack there of, who all actively study how things work in this universe, therefore, atheism does not equal "one who believes in science" and theism is not equal to "one who does not believe in science".
It isn't a case of believing in science. Science is a practice. If someone presents an idea or theory, you have the ability to read their case, their studies, their data and their evidence, and then you are able to test this yourself and attempt to reproduce the findings. On the other hand, theism asks you to believe stories and ideas that are not provable, adequately disprovable, or totally inconsistent with well established scientific evidence and data which can reliably be taken as true fact. You cannot be a credible scientist if you choose to ignore well tested facts, evidence, and data for the sake of an old story book.

A theist scientist is either doing poor, biased work that is easily discredited, or they must avoid fields that require they examine their religion. In any other case, you would have to be religious in a very progressive, tenuous way, because the facts of science are so strongly conflicting with religion that it simply isn't true to pretend a person can have a well informed, uncompromised, and sincere involvement with both.

Science is imperfect. It is our limited perception of reality based on our studies, observations, testing, and verification. (It will always be limited).
Science gives us the broadest perception we'll ever have. For example, we can't naturally see infrared or radio waves, but science lets us understand the universe beyond our limited human perceptions.

Religious texts are written by human beings. The bible is just written by men, with nothing but their "limited perception", and so in that sense, it is even less reliable at helping us perceive the world than science. Why trust that over verifiable, provable scientific findings?

Science just happens to be our best way to understand the universe beyond our perceptions. Scientists know they can't explain everything. Nobody practicing good science would be deluded enough to claim they did. The process of being able to revise and evolve is crucial for science, and it is a strong point, not a weak point. It is a shame religion won't do the same.

How this world came together remains debatable, but we can all agree 2 + 2 will always = 4, if you catch my drift, including many other facts of life, that are much more complicated, that we can all easily agree on.
But it isn't debateable to people who take their religion seriously. Don't tell me theists can be scientific and thoughtful about the complicated facts of life, when in the USA, there are creationists insisting that the world is several thousand years old, evolution is still controversial, and polls claim that a majority of fully grown adults allegedly believe in angels.
 

Mercerenies

Member
How this world came together remains debatable, but we can all agree 2 + 2 will always = 4, if you catch my drift,
I'm just going to drop in long enough to be that guy, but if you're operating under the free monoid, 2 + 2 = 22. In higher level math, there are lots of reasons that 2 + 2 might not equal 4.

Now, back to the actually relevant topic at hand.

atheism does not equal "one who believes in science" and theism is not equal to "one who does not believe in science".
Jabbers brought this up a little bit, but science is a well-defined term which means the study of the universe through experimentation and empirical evidence. If someone ever calls themselves a scientist of religion, they are either ignorant or arrogant, possibly both. There are religious scholars, who study and find meaning in ancient texts, and there are certainly scientists who are religious, but you can't scientifically study religion, since religion by definition defies the physical laws of the world.
 
S

Sam (Deleted User)

Guest
A theist scientist is either doing poor, biased work that is easily discredited, or they must avoid fields that require they examine their religion. In any other case, you would have to be religious in a very progressive, tenuous way, because the facts of science are so strongly conflicting with religion that it simply isn't true to pretend a person can have a well informed, uncompromised, and sincere involvement with both.
I believe people who teach evolution hide from the public eye cave paintings and ancient artifacts that depict humans with dinosaurs. I believe atheists have come to know Christ being turned off by all the deception and intentional lies, including human skulls being altered as "proof" of "what we once were". I don't know these things, as I didn't witness them first hand. I've seen some photos, and heard some testimonies, and that is about it. Again, I don't know. I believe. That is my impression. It is what I've been convinced of.

Now for anyone who is reading this and shaking their head - yes, I know you probably believe the same thing in reverse. I believe atheists stretch the truth to support their beliefs. You believe the same thing about creationists. You probably saw some pictures, maybe read a few articles, a book even (or two), but again, just like me, you are probably hearing these things from someone else, and haven't done all the work it takes to find out what is truly valid and what isn't. You're taking someone else's word for it, just like me. I could be wrong, but that's my best guess. :)

Religious texts are written by human beings.
Articles written on evolution are written by human beings. Human beings aren't always honest. Where we differ is who is really being honest.

Science just happens to be our best way to understand the universe beyond our perceptions.
That, my friend, is an oxymoron. You can't understand beyond your perception. Your perception is your understanding.

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.


- the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.

synonyms: recognition, awareness, consciousness, appreciation, realization, knowledge, grasp, understanding, comprehension, apprehension; formalcognizance

"our perception of our own limitations"


- a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.

synonyms: impression, idea, conception, notion, thought, belief, judgment, estimation

"popular perceptions of old age"


- intuitive understanding and insight.

synonyms: insight, perceptiveness, percipience, perspicacity, understanding, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, intelligence, intuition, cleverness, incisiveness, trenchancy, astuteness, shrewdness, acuteness, acuity, discernment, sensitivity, penetration, thoughtfulness, profundity; formalperspicuity

"he talks with great perception"

But it isn't debateable to people who take their religion seriously
It isn't debatable to people who take their nonreligion seriously. But here we are debating. :p

when in the USA
My church is filled with international students from all around the globe. Christianity isn't an American thing. We used to have a service where we'd sing in languages including Swahili, Mandarin, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and the list goes on. One of my pastors is from Ghana.

www.newlife.global

fully grown adults allegedly believe in angels.
Remember back in the day when people who believed in aliens were looked at like they were crazy?

On a more serious note, there are atheists who actually believe that many angel/demon encounters recorded in history were real encounters, but not with angels/demons, rather, aliens posing as angels/demons. History Channel actually had another documentary all about that theory. I can't seem to find it on YouTube, but I watched it when it was on TV.

If someone ever calls themselves a scientist of religion, they are either ignorant or arrogant, possibly both.
No one said anything about being a scientist of religion. I said that both theists and atheists can be scientists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jabbers

Member
I believe people who teach evolution hide from the public eye cave paintings and ancient artifacts that depict humans with dinosaurs. I believe atheists have come to know Christ being turned off by all the deception and intentional lies, including human skulls being altered as "proof" of "what we once were". I don't know these things, as I didn't witness them first hand. I've seen some photos, and heard some testimonies, and that is about it. Again, I don't know. I believe. That is my impression. It is what I've been convinced of.
Have you even looked at the evidence, seen the fossils, read the scientific material, looked at the data? I'm not interested in your belief, I'm interested in your opinion of scientific and academic material. Evolution is the one of the most well established scientific theories, it is incredibly well backed up with facts and evidence that is completely open to the public for review.

Your response is that you believe in a conspiracy that all credible scientists are hiding information because you saw "some photos" and heard "some testimonies". What exactly is it that you saw and heard? I trust you won't cite examples of scientific hoaxes, which were debunked by science itself, because that is not representative of the large body of work that has proved evolution to a more that satisfactory degree. To reject evolution is to reject science. I suppose you put theism over science, and you are supporting my point that the two are not compatible, but thank you for your honesty.

I believe atheists stretch the truth to support their beliefs. You believe the same thing about creationists. You probably saw some pictures, maybe read a few articles, a book even (or two), but again, just like me, you are probably hearing these things from someone else, and haven't done all the work it takes to find out what is truly valid and what isn't. You're taking someone else's word for it, just like me. I could be wrong, but that's my best guess.
What truth is atheism stretching? It seems to me rejecting religion is to reject religious claims which have no evidence but old books and tales. I take it you don't believe every religion in the world. What truth are you stretching by not following Islam or Hinduism?

My beliefs are based collectively on years of introspection, reading books by philosophers and biologists, and studying philosophy and science at university. I also spent several years as a Christian, and got to understand the roots of the religion. So yes, I feel my beliefs are pretty well established.

Presumably you were born into a religion and your family and friends follow it too. I strongly suggest you spend some time exploring other religions and irreligion, so you can at least know for sure where you stand.

Articles written on evolution are written by human beings. Human beings aren't always honest. Where we differ is who is really being honest.
Science has no reason to lie. If it does, other scientists can easily pick it apart and debunk it as fraud. This is why science works. You can't lie and get away with it. You must have heard of peer review? People don't go about ruining their reputations and sullying their life work just for the sake of your particular religion, and if they did, it would require such a poor level of work that it would never get past the scientific and academic community. There has been fraud before and it gets picked up on and denounced, and rightly so.

Skepticism is good. Never accept the word of someone in a white jacket just because they claim to be an authority. On the other hand, refusing to believe anything written by humans because they might lie is a very paranoid stance to take. The bible was written by people too, perhaps they lied that it was the word of a God, so if you're going to have that attitude then by default you should be an atheist.

It isn't debatable to people who take their nonreligion seriously. But here we are debating.
Exactly my point. In your other post you made it sound as if religion and science get along perfectly well, but it is clear that these two points of view are not compatible. You yourself hold beliefs that are theistic and openly anti-science, even if you don't consider your position to be anti-scientific.

That, my friend, is an oxymoron. You can't understand beyond your perception. Your perception is your understanding.
Please don't condescend me with your dictionary quotes. I wouldn't do the same to you.

I thought you were talking about human perception, as in our senses and ability to comprehend reality. Science is able to prove the existence of things we cannot perceive, and I gave you an example before. You do understand that you cannot see infrared, don't you? But we can prove the existence of the spectrum, through machinery, which you could describe as an extension of our sensory perception.

If you want to be philosophical about it and describe the whole "indirect realism" theory that everything you experience could be a falsity created by your mind, then that would include religion. If you can never be sure what you perceive is real, then you cannot be sure there is a bible or God, because you cannot trust your perceptions. Similarly, I may be a voice in your head. Maybe I am. You'll never know.

I'm aware Christianity isn't an American thing, but I referenced the USA because of the strong (and my opinion negative) influence it has on the people, especially with regards to scientific perspective.


Remember back in the day when people who believed in aliens were looked at like they were crazy?
Depends what you are saying. People who believe they are visited by aliens are considered crazy. People who accept the mathematical probability of life on other planets are not. One is without evidence, the other is a logical theory.

I just want to add that actually I think most of what you have said supports atheism instead of theism, which surprises me. You argue that we should be skeptical of human perception, of human written text, of being lied to... and yet, I'd say all of that is a fine case to not believe in the Christian bible, wouldn't you? I don't know where you were going with the alien comment but I don't remember green men from the planet Zbargh being in the bible. Maybe your beliefs are more fluid than you realise.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
I suppose you put theism over science, and you are supporting my point that the two are not compatible,
Ummmm, actually...

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/



And finally some of the most famous proof that the two can be compatible:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ossibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

(I'm not disagreeing with the other 99% of your post though... ;) ).
 

Jabbers

Member
True, I was being a bit simplistic about that in my second post (and I'm directing that point more to modern day scientists in this present state of politics, society, and science).

I haven't looked through all of your links thoroughly, but is there anything on the nature of the religious belief in the scientists who were polled? Did they have a more liberal interpretation of their religion? Did they identify with a religion but not practice it in a very thorough way? I would find it easy to accept that a scientist might believe there is a creator of the universe that sets the everything in motion (and in that way loosely identify with aspects of a religion), but much harder to believe there was a credible scientist who could endorse creationism and the young Earth, and not realise how much of a conflict that is with science, because it absolutely is.
 
S

Sam (Deleted User)

Guest
What truth is atheism stretching? It seems to me rejecting religion is to reject religious claims which have no evidence but old books and tales. I take it you don't believe every religion in the world. What truth are you stretching by not following Islam or Hinduism?
While evolution and atheism believe in no deity, they have one thing in common with every religion - it's just another view of how this world came together.

and you are supporting my point that the two are not compatible, but thank you for your honesty.
I never said that. I said "I could be wrong" because I wanted to be respectful and not come across as arrogant, something you have no concept of.

Science has no reason to lie. If it does, other scientists can easily pick it apart and debunk it as fraud.
Disagree. It isn't possible for science to lie, as science is based on facts.

But what is possible, is for insecure evolutionists and atheists who do not like a particular deity or moral-code, to try their absolute hardest to hide evidence for that deity, because they don't want creationists debunking evolution and the like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
While evolution and atheism believe in no deity, they have one thing in common with every religion - it's just another view of how this world came together.
Evolution is not a point of view... It is established fact that has been demonstrated time and again. Just because our knowledge is incomplete that does not make it incorrect.

This is where theists always try to catch everyone out, by putting the science and religion on equal footing. They are NOT equivalent. I'm not saying one is more important than the other, but the foundation of the two are completely different. Religion says you must have faith and science says you must have facts. That does not make them mutually exclusive, but it does mean that you cannot compare the the theological point of view with the scientific point of view, because ALL religions come down to the fact that you must have blind FAITH. All science comes down to you must have measurable and observable FACTS.

You have faith that the lord created everything in 7 days, I have facts that prove the earth and all on it was created over billions of years.

Trying to argue that faith and facts are one and the same is just ludicrous.
 
S

Sam (Deleted User)

Guest
Your response is that you believe in a conspiracy that all credible scientists are hiding information because you saw "some photos" and heard "some testimonies".
I didn't say anything about credible scientists. I was talking about atheists and evolutionists, not all, but many of which aren't scientists, (not all, but many creationists aren't scientists, all the same).

Presumably you were born into a religion and your family and friends follow it too.
Presumably you were born into an atheist home and your family and friends are also atheists.

There are many atheists born into religious homes, who became atheists being turned off by their family's teachings. I've met plenty.

In the same vein, there are many creationists born into atheist homes, who became creationists being turned off by their family's teachings. I've met plenty.

ludicrous
I didn't resort to name calling. There's no reason why you had to. :)

There are some atheists who believe the human race were planted by aliens, which rises the question, how did we evolve from apes if we came from an alien experiment? They really want answers, answers that do not involve a deity or hell. Again, that is just my point of view, and you are free to have yours. :)

I do think creationists (just as much as atheists) suffer the reputation of being insulting and not respectful, thus the website URL could have been more thoughtful, but I do believe this link does make some good points if you care enough to read and consider:

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4517-how-easy-is-evolution-to-debunk/

I like where this is going, you finally posted a link, now I did the same. I read your article and saw nothing but fluff, you will read what I shared and feel the same way. I acknowlege my link is probably much less read than the one you provided. I do intend to do further research, in hopes of finding more popular pages (or a formal article, better yet) much like ones I've found and read in times past.

Forgive me if I can't find things I've read years ago on a spur of the moment google search. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lolslayer

Member
1. To be honest, nobody can be for sure atm and we maybe never know for sure. Some people don't believe in anything at all how the universe started because they can't prove their theory and some have a theory that satisfies themselves, because that's all what counts.

2. This is like believing in karma. If you don't believe in any unnatural force that decides who's good or who's and rewards or punishes them, how would they ever be punished or rewarded? Personally I am passively agnostic in this case. I don't exclude the possibility that there is a force that rewards and punishes the right people, but I don't believe there is one and I don't expect it to happen. You could be like that, or you are an atheïst who does believe in the principle of karma. That's your choice.

"If so, then what's the purpose of doing good, really? Why don't we just all then rob all the banks, kill all the people you don't like, have an intercourse with anyone you please, because in the end, it doesn't even matter? No matter whether you were a good person or a bad person in your life, you'll just be treated the same, in the end?"
Not really, because society works a bit like karma. If you do bad things like that you've a good chance to be punished for that.

3. Well, for an atheïst like me I can't tell what religion is the right one because most religions have somewhat the same arguments why theirs is right, how would an unbiased person ever be able to find out which religion is right? I believe that if there's a god, he would probably forgive me for not believing in him because I just don't know what religion would be right, if any of them is right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top