How do atheists have morals?

doctoremma

opinion guy wrote: »

no pretty much i see atheism, religion, science, whatever as things we choose to believe or not believe.

Do you "believe" in gravity? On what basis do you choose to "believe" in gravity?

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheists on the other hand see morality as an evolved trait that allowed us to live in groups for the mutual benefit of the pack and this position is supported by mountains of evidence of moral, ethical and altruistic behaviour in animals who aren't supposed to have a soul.

Careful now, you're treading near group based selection there

Blackhorse Slim

doctoremma wrote: »

people (undeniably, surely) DO kill/hate/harm each other over which magic man they believe in, or even which version of the same magic man is better...

But it beggars belief (no pun intended, honest) that people are fighting for something they can't see/feel/provide evidence for, something which is imaginary.

Anyway.

I don't think it's that simple. People don't kill/hate each other simply because of their religion, but because of their background/culture/community and a sense (fostered by those with vested interests) that "they" did something to "us", they are bad and we are good.

liamw

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I don't think it's that simple. People don't kill/hate each other simply because of their religion, but because of their background/culture/community and a sense (fostered by those with vested interests) that "they" did something to "us", they are bad and we are good.

It's not religion. It's labelling. And labelling is what religion does best

Dades

PharmerLuke wrote: »

But we DO have consistent and similar ideas about morals i.e Murder, Rape etc. Everyone except the mad would be repulsed by those.

We don't really - only in small social enclaves maybe. In Malasia Muslims can be caned for having sex in a car (as per a recent thread in Humanities) which isn't consistant with many socities. There is no universal morality really. Morals will be different in 100 years even in our community.

So when someone asks where did you get your morality - that's exactly what is is - yours. You get it from yourself and share it with nobody.

dvpower

doctoremma wrote: »

Can an atheist have morals?

hammerfan wrote: »

I think all atheists have morals. The theists are the ones who don't - they need a rule book ( bible, koran etc..) to tell them how to behave.

(many) Theists believe that if they break the rules, they can be punished by an eternity in hell. They also believe that the rules come from their creator. And yet they still break the rules. If they *really* took it seriously, then theists should be far more moral that the rest of us; which doesn't appear to be the case.

I'd be asking theists, given the absolute source of their morals and the absolute punishment for failure, why don't they have absolute morals?

opinion guy

5uspect wrote: »

and psychology is a...

Not sure what your point is with that, but i'd think its a theory of human cognition, no?

You clearly haven't read the book, or at least didn't get his point.

He says that in the North religions is used as a label to differentiate random people into recognisable groups. Easy targets for groups of angry people to attack. If it wasn't religion it may well be something else, football, race, etc.
......

Yes I read it and yes I got it. you're not getting my point. Oh my god u said it urself - if it wasn't religion it may well be somthing else. Point is Northen Ireland is NOT NOT NOT NOT as simple as religion. Its as much about land, histroy, money, power etc etc etc. AS you point out they could very well use another excuse. Thus Dawkins' conclusion that Northern problem is a fault of relgiion is a logical fallacy.

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you "believe" in gravity? On what basis do you choose to "believe" in gravity?

You see you've left words out of what you are asking me. What you actually mean to say is - do you believe in the theory of gravity. BIG difference. To believe in gravity is just as ludicrous as to believe in purple. Now knowing that a theory means an idea thought up by humans and tested by experiment and found to be roughlt accurate. Thou as with all scientific theories, I recognise that the theory is incomplete and that I in my humble position as a limited creature don't have the capacity to understand the universe in its totality. So I reason that to believe in gravity, or religion, or whatever is basically self-defeating since my beliefs are by definition incomplete. I reason, to adopt fixed beliefs of any sort is basically illogical. But i'm a pragmatist and I realise I can't go around questioning everything all the time. So I try to minimise any beliefs, but do loosely adopt beliefs on occasion as suits my needs. If I find those beliefs outlive there usefullness, I change them. Thus I don't become a slave to my beliefs and in fact try to make them useful to me

5uspect

opinion guy wrote: »

Not sure what your point is with that, but i'd think its a theory of human cognition, no?

It's a science.

i see atheism, religion, science, whatever as things we choose to believe or not believe. its all just psychology and really doesn't merit all the fuss IMHO

Your argument is somewhat circular. You dismiss everything as something we simply choose to believe, including science then claim it is a science.
So is science inside or outside the belief box?

Yes I read it and yes I got it. you're not getting my point. Oh my god u said it urself - if it wasn't religion it may well be somthing else. Point is Northen Ireland is NOT NOT NOT NOT as simple as religion. Its as much about land, histroy, money, power etc etc etc. AS you point out they could very well use another excuse. Thus Dawkins' conclusion that Northern problem is a fault of relgiion is a logical fallacy.

He doesn't say it is as simple as religion. Where exactly does he say it?
It's the labelling of two distinct groups, through religion that prevents one group from even contemplating even speaking to another.

You should watch this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mgaRKsIR_U&feature=video_response

opinion guy

It's a science.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I suggest you learn more about both science and psychology

Mena

opinion guy wrote: »

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I suggest you learn more about both science and psychology

You're going to have to expand on this... lololol doesn't quite do it.

The floor is yours.

philologos

OP would you mind giving a link to the thread on the Richard Dawkins site so we can actually see the context?

robindch

doctoremma wrote: »

I am now trying, simply as a thought experiment, to reconcile the idea of moral relativism with biological altruism - any suggestions?

As I mentioned in another post up above, the word "moral" usually refers to a set of behaviours and values which are derived at least in part from one or more specific interpretations of one or more specific religious texts. Effectively, they're absolutist, unchangeable, top-down, authority-derived descriptions of what and how people should think.

Non-theists and atheists tend not to use the term "moral" to refer to value frameworks, preferring instead to refer to "ethics" which, roughly speaking, is a bottom-up, user-defined description, agreed upon in public (at least in part) by the people who choose to adhere to it, and open to debate and change as circumstances within society change.

The term "moral relativism" is a boo-phrase which has entered the debate fairly recently and is intended, in broad terms, to imply that non-moralists (in the religious sense) are selfish, immoral reprobates who cannot be trusted. In practice, it means that non-moralists simply reject the authority of the kind of guys who assume that they embody the absolute authority and control that they wish to exercise over others.

If a society rejects the implicit authority inherent in a "moral"-derived framework, then the guys at the top who do the moralizing will lose all power and influence and they just don't want to do that. Hence the name-calling.

doctoremma wrote: »

They seem mutually exclusive - biological altruism depends on a unified code of conduct and given it exists in animals, we have to assume it stems from an inate source. If morality is inate, how can a person claim that a moral standard is contextual

That's the point -- if somebody is "moral", then they assume top-down control within an relatively unchangeable framework. Biological altruism, and ethical behaviour generally, works the other way, by relying instead on bottom-up co-operation, either as an emergent phenomenon in itself or through conscious debate and agreement.

Does this answer your question?

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

The term "moral relativism" is a boo-phrase which has entered the debate fairly recently and is intended, in broad terms, to imply that non-moralists (in the religious sense) are selfish, immoral reprobates who cannot be trusted. In practice, it means that non-moralists simply reject the authority of the kind of guys who assume that they embody the absolute authority and control that they wish to exercise over others.

This is one of the (very few) problems I have with Sam Harris. He lambasts moral relativists for their inability to enforce justice, but he seems to have a bizarre concept of what moral relativism means, and I think he's only adding to misconceptions. He seems to think that a moral relativist is one who believes that morality is relative and therefore we are unable to assert that others should cease their 'immoral' activities. Which I think is really quite a pointless way of thinking. I am fully aware that my morality is not objectively justified, but I remain perfectly capable of acting upon it none the less. I appeal to concensus rather than authority.

For example, I meet a man who is beating his daughter. Sam Harris seems to think that I as a moral relativist must just keep walking because that man and I each have equally (in)valid moral views. I say that I as a moral relativist am going to stop him, not because he is wrong, but because I strongly disagree with what he is doing and that most people in society would agree with me. You don't have to believe you are objectively right to be willing to take action.

Turtwig

opinion guy wrote: »

So I reason that to believe in gravity, or religion, or whatever is basically self-defeating since my beliefs are by definition incomplete. I reason, to adopt fixed beliefs of any sort is basically illogical. But i'm a pragmatist and I realise I can't go around questioning everything all the time. So I try to minimise any beliefs, but do loosely adopt beliefs on occasion as suits my needs. If I find those beliefs outlive there usefullness, I change them. Thus I don't become a slave to my beliefs and in fact try to make them useful to me

There is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Any science theory that we have today can be tested at any time via experiment, simply confirm the experiment and you can decide whether or not such and such a fact is true. With religion all you have is vague,contradictory,statements that match the beliefs of the present culture superimposed onto a mythological story which is supposedly the absolute truth, yet there is no singe way of actually testing it.

From an earlier post [Religion as a Coincidence of where you were born thread]:
If science were a religion....

America believes in the theory of Relativity and implores all its followers to do so,
Japan believes that there were no such thing as dinosaurs,
Africa believes that M Theory is the correct path,
After a schism, America is split between Relativity and Newtonian Physics - the former being deemed too counter intuitive for some.
China holds firm that dinosaurs existed, but were wiped out by humans.
India however believes that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor.
Osama Bin Laden issues a fatwa against all those who fail to believe that the black hole exists.
DPRK ,however, argues that they are dark energy stars.
Australia, uses a sexagesimal number system.

Europe on the other hand doesn't believe in any specific theory or system.

Hopefully this will tell you that science is purely rational, religion, though believers of the faith protest to otherwise, is a crazy concoction of contradictions between everyone and everything.

Gah, like Zill, my day has been far from perfect, so apologies if this sounded a little snappy.
G'Night..:)

Stockholm

How do you know if you are an atheist. I do not believe in God / Religion etc. but always felt I didn't know or care to know enough about "Atheism" to call myself an atheist. In fact I don't want to be an anything "ist". I've read people on this board, self confessed atheists, saying "this is what atheists think /feel, have morals about......" If an atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God / Religion, how can they speak for others. Of course there are plenty of atheists / people who do not believe in God/ Religion who have no morals, as there are plenty of "Christians / Jews / Muslims / Hindus etc. etc." who have no morals, ad nauseum. Its the nature of the beast. I just don't understand why some people who don't believe in God / Religion etc. call themselves "non-belivers". Doesn't this just give weight to people who do believe in God / Religion as it puts you on the defensive. You just believe in what you believe in and if God / Religion doesn't feature, so what? Just like in various faiths reincarnation, ghosts, original sin, one God, many Gods etc. are believed in, the other faiths don't profess to be non-believers in those faiths just believers in their own.

eoin5

Stockholm wrote: »

How do you know if you are an atheist. I do not believe in God / Religion etc. but always felt I didn't know or care to know enough about "Atheism" to call myself an atheist. In fact I don't want to be an anything "ist". I've read people on this board, self confessed atheists, saying "this is what atheists think /feel, have morals about......" If an atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God / Religion, how can they speak for others. Of course there are plenty of atheists / people who do not believe in God/ Religion who have no morals, as there are plenty of "Christians / Jews / Muslims / Hindus etc. etc." who have no morals, ad nauseum. Its the nature of the beast. I just don't understand why some people who don't believe in God / Religion etc. call themselves "non-belivers". Doesn't this just give weight to people who do believe in God / Religion as it puts you on the defensive. You just believe in what you believe in and if God / Religion doesn't feature, so what? Just like in various faiths reincarnation, ghosts, original sin, one God, many Gods etc. are believed in, the other faiths don't profess to be non-believers in those faiths just believers in their own.

If you dont believe in a personal god or gods (the intervening, creator type) youre an atheist. Its a yes or no question that requires no middle ground.

Atheists cant speak for others really.

I would say everyone has some morals.

How is "non-believers" defensive? Its just a statement in a context.

Dades

Stockholm wrote: »

If an atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God / Religion, how can they speak for others.

Most atheists are more concerned with not having others speak for them.

And what eoin5 said.

dragonsgates

doctoremma wrote: »

But Dawkins doesn't go around banging on about his belief...He doesn't have one to bang on about.

Exactly.

Dawkins simply says that all religious people are deluded.

No evidence, no proof, insane interpretations.

Their bible is between 3,000 and 1,400 years old, and is the most contradictory book available today, with the majority of gospels destroyed by themselves as heresy.

philologos

dragonsgates wrote: »

Their bible is between 3,000 and 1,400 years old, and is the most contradictory book available today, with the majority of gospels destroyed by themselves as heresy.

That claim is relatively easily contested if one researches the theology and the development of Christianity from Judaism (it's relatively clear that you haven't). We are given the background, the development and the outcome of our faith in the Bible.

Majority of Gospels? Heresy? Hm. Do you mean the Canonical Gospels, or the non-Canonical Gospels. If so this isn't an attack on Christianity, but on Gnosticism and Manichaeism.

dragonsgates

Jakkass wrote: »

That claim is relatively easily contested if one researches the theology and the development of Christianity from Judaism (it's relatively clear that you haven't). We are given the background, the development and the outcome of our faith in the Bible.

Majority of Gospels? Heresy? Hm. Do you mean the Canonical Gospels, or the non-Canonical Gospels. If so this isn't an attack on Christianity, but on Gnosticism and Manichaeism.

No point even attempting a discussion with you Jackass.

We should just turn our backs to you pdn fanny etc, and forget you, and let you simply vanish out of existance

cowzerp

I stopped believing in any greater being recently and although i don't intend on going on a killing rampage or raping every good looking girl i see!

there is some things that i do now that i would not have when i was following the religious code! so my morals have slightly changed but my philosophy on life now is too make the most of the now and try not to hurt others so thats what i base my morals on.

dragonsgates

cowzerp wrote: »

I stopped believing in any greater being recently and although i don't intend on going on a killing rampage or raping every good looking girl i see!

there is some things that i do now that i would not have when i was following the religious code! so my morals have slightly changed but my philosophy on life now is too make the most of the now and try not to hurt others so thats what i base my morals on.

Not to worry.

The bible encourages Rape and murder

Sam Vimes

dragonsgates wrote: »

Not to worry.

The bible encourages Rape and murder

And let us not forget 1 Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Now get back in the kitchen :pac:

5uspect

^ great sig, Sam.

doctoremma

opinion guy wrote: »

You see you've left words out of what you are asking me. What you actually mean to say is - do you believe in the theory of gravity. BIG difference. To believe in gravity is just as ludicrous as to believe in purple. Now knowing that a theory means an idea thought up by humans and tested by experiment and found to be roughlt accurate. Thou as with all scientific theories, I recognise that the theory is incomplete and that I in my humble position as a limited creature don't have the capacity to understand the universe in its totality. So I reason that to believe in gravity, or religion, or whatever is basically self-defeating since my beliefs are by definition incomplete. I reason, to adopt fixed beliefs of any sort is basically illogical. But i'm a pragmatist and I realise I can't go around questioning everything all the time. So I try to minimise any beliefs, but do loosely adopt beliefs on occasion as suits my needs. If I find those beliefs outlive there usefullness, I change them. Thus I don't become a slave to my beliefs and in fact try to make them useful to me

It was on purpose, hence the "quote" marks around "believe". I was pointing out that you don't choose to "believe" in science. You choose to believe the evidence for a scientific theory which explains a scientific fact. I think it's fair to say that we "believe" gravity happens but that we don't have the complete picture about how it happens.

And obviously, "belief" in gravity is a useful tool to demonstrate evidence-based scientific process because you don't need a whole load of scientific equipment to provide the necessary evidence...

philologos

dragonsgates wrote: »

No point even attempting a discussion with you Jackass.

We should just turn our backs to you pdn fanny etc, and forget you, and let you simply vanish out of existance

Fair enough, might as well let the atheists talk amongst themselves :pac:

Although generally wishing people out of existence only works for a while until you realise that approximately 84% of us still believe in something.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

OP would you mind giving a link to the thread on the Richard Dawkins site so we can actually see the context?

Hmm, I'm not sure what relations are like between you and the "Christianity" board and whether it would constitute some kind of "abuse by proxy"

Basically, someone asked for some website links with crazy religious people on it so he could have a laugh. Ta-da the Christianity board.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough, might as well let the atheists talk amongst themselves :pac:

Although generally wishing people out of existence only works for a while until you realise that approximately 84% of us still believe in something.

In Japan, 85 % of people don't believe in anything. Do you think if you had been born in Japan (and apologies if you were), you too would be atheist?

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

In Japan, 85 % of people don't believe in anything. Do you think if you had been born in Japan (and apologies if you were), you too would be atheist?

He has already answered that by grudgingly accepting that the probability of him becoming a christian would have been somewhat reduced. imo he never really gave any serious consideration do other religions as evidenced by this post:

Jakkass wrote: »

The question always revolves back to the following two questions, one for you and one for me:

1) What implies that God exists?
2) What implies that God does not exist?

That is the best we can get. Claiming that there are natural laws no means excludes God's existence in the slightest if God authored said laws which Christianity claims He did.

It seems that to Jakkass it's a binary situation, either god doesn't exist which makes atheism right or he does exist which makes christianity right. The fact that if he does exist it makes every other religion just as likely to be right doesn't really figure

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Hmm, I'm not sure what relations are like between you and the "Christianity" board and whether it would constitute some kind of "abuse by proxy"

Basically, someone asked for some website links with crazy religious people on it so he could have a laugh. Ta-da the Christianity board.

I mean if you are going to refer to what occurs elsewhere it might be useful to provide a link to what the discussion was rather than keeping it concealed.

As for your point on Japan, worldwide 84% of people believe in something, mostly a God or gods. It's reality, we can either accept it or be in denial. So if dragonsgates wants to ignore these 84% of people that's fine, however, the reality is that s/he and others will have to deal with them on a daily basis whether they like it or not.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough, might as well let the atheists talk amongst themselves :pac:

Although generally wishing people out of existence only works for a while until you realise that approximately 84% of us still believe in something.

Santa?

philologos

MagicMarker: I never said that numbers were proof of something being true. If that were the context I would have been referring to 33% not 84%. Reality is a lot of people believe, if you wish to ignore them that's fine, but ultimately they do have a role in society.

MagicMarker

A lot of people believe out of pure ignorance.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean if you are going to refer to what occurs elsewhere it might be useful to provide a link to what the discussion was rather than keeping it concealed.

As for your point on Japan, worldwide 84% of people believe in something, mostly a God or gods. It's reality, we can either accept it or be in denial. So if dragonsgates wants to ignore these 84% of people that's fine, however, the reality is that s/he and others will have to deal with them on a daily basis whether they like it or not.

1. I'm not being obstuctive at all. I was trying to be sensitive. And nobody was "discussing" you. The Christianity board was one of a list of websites proposed to give atheists a right good laugh.

2. People obviously cluster. If 84 % of people believe in "something, likely a god", that means that I should be one, maybe two, out of ten in my friendship group that are atheists. This is manifestly not true. In fact, I struggle to think of too many friends that are believers. But then, a lot of my friends are scientists so that might be a clue....

And that's not to mention the premise that an argument from majority is not a valid one.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

1. I'm not being obstuctive at all. I was trying to be sensitive. And nobody was "discussing" you. The Christianity board was one of a list of websites proposed to give atheists a right good laugh.

Having researched it, it was referred to in respect to Creationism.

doctoremma wrote: »

2. People obviously cluster. If 84 % of people believe in "something, likely a god", that means that I should be one, maybe two, out of ten in my friendship group that are atheists. This is manifestly not true. In fact, I struggle to think of too many friends that are believers. But then, a lot of my friends are scientists so that might be a clue....

Of course people cluster together. As for a lot of your friends being scientists, I know of a lot of people who are studying science degrees, many who are completing a phD that are Christians. It's nothing more than total nonsense that studying or being involved with science proposes a huge challenge to peoples faith.

doctoremma wrote: »

And that's not to mention the premise that an argument from majority is not a valid one.

Please read the original context of my post. It isn't an argument from majority, it's an argument that these 84% aren't to be ignored. They could well be all wrong, but ignoring them as dragonsgate seems to imply is futile.

Seriously, read my posts again, it was not an argument ad populum in the slightest! Context is key!

dragonsgates wrote:

No point even attempting a discussion with you Jackass.

We should just turn our backs to you pdn fanny etc, and forget you, and let you simply vanish out of existance

I.E - 16% should ignore 84%. Who would be more isolated I wonder?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I.E - 16% should ignore 84%. Who would be more isolated I wonder?

An awful lot of people who I know believe in God but most don't go to mass or pray or think about it much at all. They live their lives pretty much the same as I do except they like to think that there's some kind of a god out there. The whole god thing doesn't really come up in conversation and this is the case for a very sizable chunk of that 84%, especially in the western world.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

Having researched it, it was referred to in respect to Creationism.

Hmm, I'm not sure why you are fixating on this.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course people cluster together. As for a lot of your friends being scientists, I know of a lot of people who are studying science degrees, many who are completing a phD that are Christians. It's nothing more than total nonsense that studying or being involved with science proposes a huge challenge to peoples faith.

How do you reconcile a career dediated to the search for truth by evidence-based methods with the suspension of rationality and logic required for religious belief? In America, scientists are far more likely to be atheist than the general population (60 % compared to 10 % atheist), suggesting that the majority of scientists find a contradiction in maintaining faith (or discovering it). I suspect that in less religious countries than America, the disparity would be even greater although that is purely my speculation.

Larson and Witham, 1997. Nature 386: 435-436.

Jakkass wrote: »

Please read the original context of my post. It isn't an argument from majority, it's an argument that these 84% aren't to be ignored. They could well be all wrong, but ignoring them as dragonsgate seems to imply is futile.

The numbers of people who "aren't to be ignored are irrelevant". What should be ignored is the mission statement and if that means ignoring those spreading the mission statement, fine. I suspect you would find it pretty easy to dismiss the clamours of 84 % of a population demanding the reinactment of slavery, for example. Or demanding the return of capital punishment. The numbers are meaningless.

I accept you were not arguing from majority in the first instance. You have unfortunately dabbled with it in the above response.

g5fd6ow0hseima

hammerfan wrote: »

I think all atheists have morals. The theists are the ones who don't - they need a rule book ( bible, koran etc..) to tell them how to behave.

brilliant post!

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

How do you reconcile a career dediated to the search for truth by evidence-based methods with the suspension of rationality and logic required for religious belief? In America, scientists are far more likely to be atheist than the general population (60 % compared to 10 % atheist), suggesting that the majority of scientists find a contradiction in maintaining faith (or discovering it). I suspect that in less religious countries than America, the disparity would be even greater although that is purely my speculation.

I have no reason to think that believing in God is irrational or inconsistent with reality in any shape or form. At least I don't have any decent reason to. I find Christianity to be convincing on a logical level, I can't say the same is true for atheism.

Again, regional versus on the ground. I can only tell you that more than half of the Christians I know on my own university campus study science subjects, some to a rather advanced level. They reconcile their faith, and their science.

There are also a rather large movement of scientists who believe in Christ in the UK and Ireland:
http://www.cis.org.uk/ireland/

doctoremma wrote: »

The numbers of people who "aren't to be ignored are irrelevant". What should be ignored is the mission statement and if that means ignoring those spreading the mission statement, fine. I suspect you would find it pretty easy to dismiss the clamours of 84 % of a population demanding the reinactment of slavery, for example. Or demanding the return of capital punishment. The numbers are meaningless.

Ignoring the message that one puts forward because one doesn't like it is the height of anti-intellectualism.

doctoremma wrote: »

I accept you were not arguing from majority in the first instance. You have unfortunately dabbled with it in the above response.

I didn't in the slightest. Majority doesn't indicate truth at all.

I'm merely saying if we are to take dragonsgates seriously, s/he is suggesting that 16% should ignore 84%. Fantastic, but if you are trying to convince people that your viewpoint is valid, it's ultimately futile.

Sam Vimes wrote:

The whole god thing doesn't really come up in conversation and this is the case for a very sizable chunk of that 84%, especially in the western world.

We need to be more vocal about it. I agree with you in that respect.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....As for a lot of your friends being scientists, I know of a lot of people who are studying science degrees,

Which means exactly nothing.

Jakkass wrote: »

many who are completing a phD that are Christians. It's nothing more than total nonsense that studying or being involved with science proposes a huge challenge to peoples faith.....

Of course that's possible, though only if you're not being honest with yourself or not thinking about it. If I was doing a Phd in aqua biology anything goes except the mating habits of plaice that I would be unshakeable on.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no reason to think that believing in God is irrational or inconsistent with reality in any shape or form. At least I don't have any decent reason to. I find Christianity to be convincing on a logical level, I can't say the same is true for atheism.

This is a whole other argument.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also a rather large movement of scientists who believe in Christ in the UK and Ireland:
http://www.cis.org.uk/ireland/

Two lectures in the whole of autumn is a large movement?

Jakkass wrote: »

Ignoring the message that one puts forward because one doesn't like it is the height of anti-intellectualism.

No. Some messages deserve to be ignored because they are patently ridiculous. This does not mean they shouldn't be given airtime - let people shout out whatever they want. But to claim that they "deserve" to be heard because of sheer weight of numbers is a non-argument. People deserve the right to speak because most of us would say freedom of speech is a basic right in a modern society. People do not, by weight of numbers, deserve to have their opinion counted and nor does it mean they should feel free to make thinly veiled threats about the consequences of ignoring them.

I ask you again - if 84 % of people demanded the renactment of slavery, would you try to engage them or would you laugh at them?

Jakkass wrote: »

Fantastic, but if you are trying to convince people that your viewpoint is valid, it's ultimately futile.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to stop others bothering my life, dictating the law of the land and deciding what my children get taught or even exposed to.

doctoremma

Again, regional versus on the ground. I can only tell you that more than half of the Christians I know on my own university campus study science subjects, some to a rather advanced level. They reconcile their faith, and their science.

Sorry, a chunk of text got deleted from my response.

You are approaching the question backwards. Within a group of chirstians, I would expect a normal distribution of study subjects. What you need to ask is: of the scientists you know, how many are religious and how does this compare to the level of religiosity within the general population? I bet you'll find your assertion that the concept of a barrier between science and faith is ridiculous isn't borne out by the numbers.

As an aside: I'd absolutely love to know how rigorously a christian reviews a biology paper for a journal. "Well, I'd love to see some experimental evidence at this point.. but... the authors are saying it's true so I guess...". Seriously, I imagine they have as much scientific rigour as the next person, I just find it reamrkable that this skill isn't transferred to their personal beliefs.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying if we are to take dragonsgates seriously, s/he is suggesting that 16% should ignore 84%. Fantastic, but if you are trying to convince people that your viewpoint is valid, it's ultimately futile.

Well, to be fair, people are free to ignore whoever they want. However, it is the belief that ignoring us will make us vanish that is fantastic and futile.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Well, to be fair, people are free to ignore whoever they want. However, it is the belief that ignoring us will make us vanish that is fantastic and futile.

I don't know. Religions rise and religion fall so it's a fair bet that the days of christianity are numbered. In 2000 years, people will be talking about christian mythology and comparing it to the Greek version (which frankly, sounds like a whole lot more fun and obviously equally as believeable).

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know. Religions rise and religion fall so it's a fair bet that the days of christianity are numbered. In 2000 years, people will be talking about christian mythology and comparing it to the Greek version (which frankly, sounds like a whole lot more fun and obviously equally as believeable).

I support and defend your right to indulge in such wishful thinking.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's misrepresented for some people but a substantial number of people think that morals come directly from the bible and therefore atheists don't have them

Well I must admit I've never come across that, but I have come across atheists claiming that people claim it. 'I get my morals from the bible', does not translate into, 'Atheists can't be moral', so that may be where misunderstanding occurs. The issue is, and obviously speaking as a Christian, that we have been created with a sense of right and wrong, i.e. We are all moral beings. The line about 'I get my morals from the bible' is true to the Christian, but incomplete. The bible informs our concience, so we get alot of our moral information from it. It gives us Gods standards, but it is not what makes us moral. I think this is what most Christians would think.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no reason to think that believing in God is irrational or inconsistent with reality in any shape or form. At least I don't have any decent reason to. I find Christianity to be convincing on a logical level, I can't say the same is true for atheism.

This is brilliant stuff Jakkass keep it coming but while you're at it could you please in a simple, logical fashion, for once explain why.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

I support and defend your right to indulge in such wishful thinking.

Only fair and correct, given the amount of wishful thinking we have allowed you to indulge in over the last millenia...

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

The bible informs our concience, so we get alot of our moral information from it. It gives us Gods standards, but it is not what makes us moral. I think this is what most Christians would think.

Sorry, this is probably an age-old and oft repeated question but how are you dealing with all the amorality in the bible, killing your kids, offering daughters for rape etc?

eamonpendergast

doctoremma wrote: »

And to extend that, what are the questions that annoy you most about atheism? And your responses?

I have been asked a couple of eye popping ones:
"So, do think murder is ok then?"

The most frustrating conversation was with my friend's girlfriend. The conversation moved to dead relatives and she was basically asking; if I ever thought that I would see them again and do I not think that they live on 'somewhere'?
I replied that I don't think I'll see them again and that the only way they live on is in memories of them held by friends and family.
To which she just said "I think that's sad" and then refused to discuss it further.
The notion that I was pityed for such a belief drove me mental. Never came across anything that frustrating while debating religion.