Atheism and Science

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

So he can't do it another way.
So therefore he's not all powerful

Or he can't figure out another way.
So therefore he's not all knowing.

Yea it does.
All powerful means being able to do anything.

The point is God cannot logically be All powerful and benevolent.

As usual, an atheist comes up with a definition for "all-powerful" which almost no theist believes in, AFAIK.

Being all-powerful, God could/did not avoid sending His Son to die for the sins of mankind. This does not mean God has limited "power." It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants. We just don't know everything about the nature of God. Slapping an attribute on Him and saying He must fit the definition we create is just plain fallacious.
Christians base the claim of omnipotence on various scripture in the Bible. This scripture, however, doesn't provide a complete breakdown on the composition of God.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

As usual, an atheist comes up with a definition for "all-powerful" which almost no theist believes in, AFAIK.

Being all-powerful, God could/did not avoid sending His Son to die for the sins of mankind. This does not mean God has limited "power." It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants. We just don't know everything about the nature of God. Slapping an attribute on Him and saying He must fit the definition we create is just plain fallacious.
Christians base the claim of omnipotence on various scripture in the Bible. This scripture, however, doesn't provide a complete breakdown on the composition of God.

No Chozo,

All Powerful means exactly what it says. Either you believe He is all powerful, or He is isn't 100% All Powerful; he is constrained by something. In which case there is something more 'powerful' than God.
Hiding this with the God is mysterious argument is not a viable argument because you have already put yourself in initial position to say
"Oh I know God can...."
Then you turn around and say:
"But you don't know God can"

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

As usual, an atheist comes up with a definition for "all-powerful" which almost no theist believes in, AFAIK.

So you're saying you use a different definition of all powerful than the ability to do anything?
Do you believe God has limits to his power or not?

chozometroid wrote: »

Being all-powerful, God could/did not avoid sending His Son to die for the sins of mankind. This does not mean God has limited "power." It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants.

So he can't change his own plan?
But he isn't limited?
That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why does his plan lead to such pointless suffering?
Why not, when he was drawing out his plan, use his all-knowingness to figure out a way achieve his goal without earthquakes or tsunamis.

chozometroid wrote: »

We just don't know everything about the nature of God. Slapping an attribute on Him and saying He must fit the definition we create is just plain fallacious.

But hang on, you said:

chozometroid wrote: »

It means He follows some course of action according to His plan and is in no way limited in resources to do what He wants.

That sounds suspiciously like slapping an attribute on him and saying he must fit the definition you created.
And it sounds like the old "God move in mysterious ways" bit.

And it doesn't even come close to answering my questions.

chozometroid wrote: »

Christians base the claim of omnipotence on various scripture in the Bible.

So you could say they slapped an attribute on him and said he must fit the definition they created.
And if we're going by the bible, oh boy then we know that God isn't benevolent.

chozometroid wrote: »

This scripture, however, doesn't provide a complete breakdown on the composition of God.

Why not?
Why doesn't it describe exactly what God is and what he wants and why he wants it?
It would have been a bit helpful and kinda the things you'd expect the Word of God to contain.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

No Chozo,

All Powerful means exactly what it says. Either you believe He is all powerful, or He is isn't 100% All Powerful; he is constrained by something. In which case there is something more 'powerful' than God.
Hiding this with the God is mysterious argument is not a viable argument because you have already put yourself in initial position to say
"Oh I know God can...."
Then you turn around and say:
"But you don't know God can"

Semantics.

I can't believe you post this as a reply to my post. I guess you didn't get the part where God is able to do anything that He wants to do. If something is not part of His plan, He won't do it. Just because you can ask an endless series of pointless "why can't He somehow make "a" happen whilst simultaneously make "b" happen?" questions doesn't somehow create a limit on God's power. This almost falls into the category of the "God can't do the illogical" where atheists say God is not all powerful because He can't kill Himself." I guess this means "something" is more powerful than God. I'd like to know what it is. If logic is an entity of some sort, then perhaps you could worship it and form a new religion from that.

I'm off to bed now. Good night, all ye that lack belief.

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

Why doesn't it describe exactly what God is and what he wants and why he wants it?
It would have been a bit helpful and kinda the things you'd expect the Word of God to contain.

I'm not sure who determines what one should "expect" the Word of God to contain. I never expected a detailed analysis of the inner workings of the Creator of the Universe, tbh. I'll answer the other questions later. I'm not Santa Claus for Dawkin's sake.

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

Semantics.

I can't believe you post this as a reply to my post. I guess you didn't get the part where God is able to do anything that He wants to do.

Well we seem to agree that all power means God can do everything and anything.

chozometroid wrote: »

If something is not part of His plan, He won't do it.

So is that why he lets horrible things like earthquakes happen?
Why does his plan include that?
What possible effect would it have on his final plan if he just tweeked that bit?

Does his plan takes precedent over people?
Doesn't sound benevolent to me.

In fact it sounds exactly like a villain that Spider-man fights.

chozometroid wrote: »

Just because you can ask an endless series of pointless "why can't He somehow make "a" happen whilst simultaneously make "b" happen?" questions doesn't somehow create a limit on God's power.

You don't seem to understand the questions or why I'm asking them.
If God doesn't have limits he should be able to do stuff like I'm suggesting.
However the stuff you're suggesting (that he must adhere to a set plan that necessitates horrible suffering of innocent people) is putting limits on what he can do.

chozometroid wrote: »

This almost falls into the category of the "God can't do the illogical" where atheists say God is not all powerful because He can't kill Himself." I guess this means "something" is more powerful than God. I'd like to know what it is.

You mean the unliftable stone paradox?
I'd love to hear a Christian answer that wasn't "it doesn't count."

Omnipotence itself isn't logical, so why can't he do the illogical?

chozometroid wrote: »

If logic is an entity of some sort, then perhaps you could worship it and form a new religion from that.

It's no more an entity than grammar or math.
And what's the problem with using logic to analyse a concept?
You make it sound like a dirty word or something.

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not sure who determines what one should "expect" the Word of God to contain. I never expected a detailed analysis of the inner workings of the Creator of the Universe, tbh. I'll answer the other questions later. I'm not Santa Claus for Dawkin's sake.

That's not an answer to the question, it's a deliberate dodge.

Why does the only apparent communication between God and the creations he supposedly loves not contain any meaningful information about God?
Wouldn't it just lead to a better understanding of who he is and why he's letting so many suffer?
Might be a comfort to some people, something people who love you actually do.

Have you honest ever asked questions like these yourself?

monosharp

King Mob wrote: »

But with the amount of tits and free sex they wave in faces, I can understand why.

Halleluyah! I've seen the light!

So help me get my story straight;

Dinosaurs, yes no ?
Evolution ?
Work on Sunday ?
Penis cutting required ?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Without God...

I wanted to make a point about this pic, though.
The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil."

You know there are many good free dictionaries online ? Honestly, all it takes is a copy paste to google and you can get the definition of a word.

thefreedictionary.com wrote:

malevolent [məˈlɛvələnt]
adj
1. wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; malicious
2. (Spirituality, New Age, Astrology & Self-help / Astrology) Astrology having an evil influence
[from Latin malevolens, from male ill + volens, present participle of velle to wish]

Thesaurus
Adj. 1. malevolent - wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense ill will or hatred; "a gossipy malevolent old woman"; "failure made him malevolent toward those who were successful"
malicious - having the nature of or resulting from malice; "malicious gossip"; "took malicious pleasure in...watching me wince"- Rudyard Kipling
2. malevolent - having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
malefic, malign, evil
maleficent - harmful or evil in intent or effect

I can't even count the amount of books, movies, tv shows etc etc where someone asks the simple question "Why god, why ?" when something bad happens. I have seen Christians debating this an uncountable number of times.

By the very definition of the word, you are wrong. To be malevolent he doesn't need to cause harm, it simply needs to appear that he causes harm. Through his actions or non-actions harm is caused, hence he is malevolent.

If god exists and is the creator of everything then he is also responsible (note I don't use the word created) for harm. If god create the world, the weather etc then he is responsible for tsunami's, storms etc.

Allowing evil does not mean you wish evil on others

Please see definition of malevolent. It doesn't require him to wish evil on others.

monosharp

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Epicurius's philosophy lives on today: it's called consumerism. He must be proud. Are you a happy little consumer who lines up every Saturday to buy "stuff" from the shopping malls so as to fulfill your every material desires? I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

What the 'harrypotterswand' are you on about ? Why are any of those things bad ?

wikipedia wrote:

For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia, peace and freedom from fear, and "aponia", the absence of pain, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends.

Sounds good to me.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Spiderman is not all-knowing, so he can't make these decisions.

Spiderman would beat god anytime.

There are consequences to constantly interfering with the natural course of things.

The natural course is things is, according to your beliefs, his plan. Hence he is responsible for them.

Flamed Diving

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Epicurius's philosophy lives on today: it's called consumerism. He must be proud. Are you a happy little consumer who lines up every Saturday to buy "stuff" from the shopping malls so as to fulfill your every material desires? I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

You really know when you have handed someones ass to them, when they make statements like this. God bless the internet.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Without God...

I wanted to make a point about this pic, though.
The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil."

Only if you get into the "evil is necessary for free will" argument, which itself is an epic fail as has been demonstrated many times on this forum.

God allowing evil is no more necessary for free will than allow us to walk on water is necessary for free will.

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now. They don't realise that God could have made the universe any way he wanted, including a universe here it was impossible to do harm to each other yet still everyone had completely free will.

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

I miss Jakkass. Such a polite guy to debate with.

I don't know, I get this weird gut feeling that himself and DL are the same poster. Sure DL's tone comes across as more arrogant (if not condescending) but the style used in dodging questions and doing the barrel-role is very similar - just the tone of voice is all that has really changed. And maybe the more aggressive irrelevant digs too.

Maybe that's cos I miss Jakkass so much too that I'm seeing signs of him everywhere?:(

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now.

I think it's more likely that theists have a hard time with the concept of "free will" because it's a phrase that appears to have no fixed meaning at all, with the instantaneous meaning at any particular time simply being whatever the conversational needs of the moment happen to be.

Just as evolution is the rationalists universal acid, "free will" seems to be the theists' universal jelly.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if you get into the "evil is necessary for free will" argument, which itself is an epic fail as has been demonstrated many times on this forum.

God allowing evil is no more necessary for free will than allow us to walk on water is necessary for free will.

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now. They don't realise that God could have made the universe any way he wanted, including a universe here it was impossible to do harm to each other yet still everyone had completely free will.

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

I wouldn't say we have completely free will. I know what you mean but that term could confuse the issue. The only way to have completely free will is to be omnipotent and it seems that by the christian definition even an omnipotent being is constrained by some things so there is no such thing as completely free will, it's all constrained to some extent. And since god has created a universe where my free will to fly to America by flapping my arms is constrained as is the free will of a weak person to fight against a stronger person as is my free will to see through the wall of the girls changing rooms as are an infinite number of other things where a person would like to do something but is constrained by circumstances or the god given laws of physics, there is no reason why god couldn’t have constrained our ability to harm others and still allowed us free will. One good example would have been making our bodies a lot less vulnerable than they are now. The only reason a bullet to the head will kill me is that god decided to make me a body that’s vulnerable to headshots.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know, I get this weird gut feeling that himself and DL are the same poster. Sure DL's tone comes across as more arrogant (if not condescending) but the style used in dodging questions and doing the barrel-role is very similar - just the tone of voice is all that has really changed. And maybe the more aggressive irrelevant digs too.

Maybe that's cos I miss Jakkass so much too that I'm seeing signs of him everywhere?:(

I saw an image of Jakkass in my toast, this morning...

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't say we have completely free will. I know what you mean but that term could confuse the issue. The only way to have completely free will is to be omnipotent and it seems that by the christian definition even an omnipotent being is constrained by some things so there is no such thing as completely free will, it's all constrained to some extent. And since god has created a universe where my free will to fly to America by flapping my arms is constrained as is the free will of a weak person to fight against a stronger person as is my free will to see through the wall of the girls changing rooms as are an infinite number of other things where a person would like to do something but is constrained by circumstances or the god given laws of physics, there is no reason why god couldn’t have constrained our ability to harm others and still allowed us free will. One good example would have been making our bodies a lot less vulnerable than they are now. The only reason a bullet to the head will kill me is that god decided to make me a body that’s vulnerable to headshots.

Yeah, sorry, that was my point. Could have been clearer.

As you say we don't have complete free will now. God, through the laws of nature and how he built us, has constrained what we can do in huge number of ways.

Creating a universe devoid of the ability to harm each other would not constrain us any further than God has constrained us now.

The idea that if God removed suffering or harm we would be robots is an epic fail idea (I like that phrase :P)

tba

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, sorry, that was my point. Could have been clearer.

As you say we don't have complete free will now. God, through the laws of nature and how he built us, has constrained what we can do in huge number of ways.

Creating a universe devoid of the ability to harm each other would not constrain us any further than God has constrained us now.

The idea that if God removed suffering or harm we would be robots is an epic fail idea (I like that phrase :P)

Especially since the only actual "crime" that is not forgiven is not believing in/loving god which we would still be perfectly capable of doing.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Especially since the only actual "crime" that is not forgiven is not believing in/loving god which we would still be perfectly capable of doing.

True, if you think that all evil comes from "sin" (a concept I never really understood, but there you go) it makes no sense that God has given you to have a body that burns or drowns.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

True, if you think that all evil comes from "sin" (a concept I never really understood, but there you go)

Interesting -- you're a woolly liberal who doesn't know right from wrong! Quick, find a Tea Party!

More seriously, the idea of "sin" and the more generic "evil" has been studied by anthropologists and it turns out, unsurprisingly, that a lot of what christians think is peculiar to their own religious worldview is in fact something that they share with many other cultures.

Basically, a "sin" is a violation of god's law, or a specific interpretation of god's law. Or in more general cultural terms, it turns out that it's usually a violation of a more general concept called "ritual purity", the intentional state that one needs to be in order to emulate, approach or consider one's view of the divine.

Jonathon Haidt did an interesting, short talk on this a while back for the New Yorker. While I think he's slightly off-mark in some respects of how he claims "liberals" think, I think he's certainly pretty accurate in describing how "conservatives" think, and how that's described by a fairly simple cognitive model:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt

Ickle Magoo

chozometroid wrote: »

To use your Spiderman analogy, if God intervened and stopped the bullet, then Spiderman would not have learned a life-changing lesson, and would not have turned out to be the unstoppable driven superhero he is today. :pac:
Allowing evil is allowing free will, and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God. God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

ie It's also a great get out clause to explain why there is an uncanny lack of intervention - almost as if god wasn't there, you could say....

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

ie It's also a great get out clause to explain why there is an uncanny lack of intervention - almost as if god wasn't there, you could say....

Reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HE79YwImPY

Ickle Magoo

Oh dear, I lol'd a lot, thanks Sam!

Antbert

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know, I get this weird gut feeling that himself and DL are the same poster. Sure DL's tone comes across as more arrogant (if not condescending) but the style used in dodging questions and doing the barrel-role is very similar - just the tone of voice is all that has really changed. And maybe the more aggressive irrelevant digs too.

Maybe that's cos I miss Jakkass so much too that I'm seeing signs of him everywhere?:(

So harsh!

I cannot believe this DL guy is still posting... Someone referred him here from After Hours. I'm going to find and harrass that person.

bogwalrus

Malty_T wrote: »

Indeed, many atheists are big into the irrational pseudo science of pseudoclimatology and pseudo immunology. That's why I don't like calling myself under the broad term of "atheist".

Do you think we could trade the term "atheist" for the term "scientologist"? it seems like a better suiting word. We could throw in a couple of quid and it should be a done deal.

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

Its like the "0" on a roulette table.

eightyfish

I am in the final year of a science degree. Nobody in my class aside from one student believes in God. Nobody in any of the previous years who dropped out did either.

I used to be a Sound Engineering student, and then (briefly) a teacher. Nobody in those classes believed in God.

Simeltaniously to that, I was a barman. Only one of my fellow bar staff believed in God.

Before all that, I sold and fixed computers. No other staff members believed or talked in a positive way about religion.

It's not just a science thing- it is, thankfully, everywhere.

Rev Hellfire

It'll be interesting to see out of all those unbelievers how many get married in a church and have their kids baptised.

Casual atheists they're as bad as the casual Catholics they complain about.

Ickle Magoo

In fairness many atheists marry and have children with theists and so cutting religion out of a shared wedding day and shared children is an impossibility, I don't think it lessons the atheists atheism any. I was lucky, I married and had kids with a fellow atheist so church weddings or baptisms wasn't something I had to compromise on.

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see out of all those unbelievers how many get married in a church and have their kids baptised.

Casual atheists they're as bad as the casual Catholics they complain about.

:)Wow, I just love the way you make such complex social problems seem so easy to understand. Tell me some more!:)

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Casual atheists they're as bad as the casual Catholics they complain about.

What the heck is a casual atheist? A person who lacks a belief in god(s) that doesn't follow atheist doctrine*?

* Does not exist

ChocolateSauce

eightyfish wrote: »

I am in the final year of a science degree. Nobody in my class aside from one student believes in God. Nobody in any of the previous years who dropped out did either.

True about science classes- this morning I was waiting for my symmetry and spectroscopy class to begin and someone asked someone else if they were religious. It being a small class, everyone gave an answer: Not one person in my 20 strong class claimed to believe in god, and most affirmed they didn't.

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

Do you think we could trade the term "atheist" for the term "scientologist"? it seems like a better suiting word. We could throw in a couple of quid and it should be a done deal.

good idea .. I'll register the domain name ... oh, funny looks like someone has already done that ... :pac:

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

What the heck is a casual atheist? A person who lacks a belief in god(s) that doesn't follow atheist doctrine*?

I was merely suggesting perhaps rather too obliquely that pop quizzes such as most of my class mates say there’re don’t believe in god aren’t really good indicators.
The very same ‘atheists’ will be accused later of been ‘catholic’ when it suits them, ie the causal catholic we hear so much about.

Most people in my humble opinion are rather fluid in their theism and atheism these days, picking one or other positions when it suits them.

Though I’ll endeavour to be more direct in my accusations in future

DogmaticLefty

Dades wrote: »

* Does not exist

You mean you just haven't discovered it yet (probably explains the speckled nature of atheist belief).

Flamed Diving

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

speckled nature of atheist belief

Ickle Magoo

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

You mean you just haven't discovered it yet (probably explains the speckled nature of atheist belief).

I see you still seem to be having some difficulty with the basic terminology, perhaps a quick read of a dictionary could help you?

Atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't have a doctrine because the only thing you have to do to warrant holding the title of atheist, is have a lack of belief in god(s). There is no common teachings, instructions or principles shared in order to be or be called atheist.

DogmaticLefty

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is no common teachings, instructions or principles shared in order to be or be called atheist.

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge. Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

It's all too convenient for atheists to just throw their hands in the air and exclaim "but we're not a religion", "there is no common teaching", etc. I see it all the time. I don't know how anyone can base their lives around such vast uncertainty. The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists. When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves now cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

Turtwig

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge. Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

It's all too convenient for atheists to just throw their hands in the air and exclaim "but we're not a religion", "there is no common teaching", etc. I see it all the time. I don't know how anyone can base their lives around such vast uncertainty. The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists. When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves now cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

I know I'm probably going to get infracted for this, but as my first (and hopefully only) ever infraction it will be worth it:

You sir, are an idiot of the highest order. Your arrogance and ignorance know no bounds! The very least you could have done is try to communicate with us and understand what atheism actually is.

Apologies to Dades and Rob.

Turtwig

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

Unity actually.

DogmaticLefty

Malty_T wrote: »

understand what atheism actually is.

It's very hard when one atheist has a different opinion to the next and you have no formal hierarchy to check the facts with. All you can do is observe the behaviour of the swarm of bees and base your response to the threat of atheism in society on their macroscopic behaviour.

Turtwig

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

It's very hard when one atheist has a different opinion to the next and you have no formal hierarchy to check the facts with.

Yay, you're finally learning something!!!
*clap* *clap*
Very hard to class that as a religion now, innit?

DogmaticLefty

Malty_T wrote: »

Yay, you're finally learning something!!!
*clap* *clap*
Very hard to class that as a religion now, innit?

Great. So how do I know you're not just making it up as you go along? That's a big problem in any discussion.

iUseVi

^^^^

Its so beautiful. What art.

iUseVi

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Great. So how do I know you're not just making it up as you go along?

Making what up? Theres nothing to make up. We disbelieve in gods. What is there to make up? Symphonies, a recipe for a chocolate pudding, seriously what are you looking for?

King Mob

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge. Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

No it's not. It's a position on one issue.
Atheists do not have a Dogma or single structured set of morals and ethics or festivals and holidays or rituals or holy texts or a clergy or tithing or a singlar belief in an afterlife.
You know the things that religions have.

But I suppose it makes a better strawman (and thus be a better troll) to say atheism is a religion.

I suppose it's be too much to ask for examples of those?

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists.

Kind of is, considering it's the only common trait of atheists.

You may as well say "communism is a denial of free markets" as if it's some startling new revelation.

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves now cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

You can always tell when someone hasn't seen Carl Sagan.

DogmaticLefty

iUseVi wrote: »

Making what up? Theres nothing to make up. We disbelieve in gods. What is there to make up? Symphonies, a recipe for a chocolate pudding, seriously what are you looking for?

You put your faith in the scientific method. The human brain severely is limited. As is human life. My faith lies in something much, much bigger.

Ickle Magoo

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge.

No, it's a lack of belief in god(s). You may dearly wish it to be something more so you can crow bar that square peg of reality into the round hole of your preconceptions - but that's what atheism is.

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

Uh-huh. And you think the hierarchy in atheism is? Nothing to pray to or idolise, different people who share a vocal lack of belief in a god which affects absolutely no other aspect of their life, people who have no belief in a god which affects absolutely no other aspect of their life, they live by no atheistic tenants and have no rules...and you think that's an organised hierarchy?

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

It's very all too convenient for atheists to just throw their hands in the air and exclaim "but we're not a religion", "there is no common teaching", etc. I see it all the time.

You may think it convenient, inconvenient, down right rude - that doesn't change the facts of the matter, I'm afraid.

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can base their lives around such uncertainty. The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists. When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

There you go again. Denial of the "divine". :rolleyes:

It's not a denial of anything. I have never, ever, even considered that "god" exists as being in the realms of possibility - ever. I don't take your claims of there being a god and deliberately deny that you speak the truth, I take your claims and hear no truth in them. There is no evidence for a god, no proof there is a god, I have no faith, I cannot, do not HAVE to believe in something. I feel no need to substitute everything I don't know or mankind can't answer yet with "god did it". I find the ability to conjure an omnipotent being out of thin air and proclaim him the maker of all we see around us based on an ancient text and historical ignorance as utterly bizarre.

I see a universe that is absolutely spectacular, when I look at the sky I think of everything we have learnt in the past 2000 years and how much I'd love to be a fly on the wall when another 2000 have past. I don't see a need to crowbar in some creator to see beauty or have to have a belief in an afterlife to be a good person who works towards having a worthwhile life.

You may wish that being a theist somehow makes your life more complete or makes you special in some way because thats what you want to believe and it justifies the lengths you go to for your faith but, like many other of your assumptions, you couldn't be farther from the truth.

King Mob

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

You put your faith in the scientific method.

Why put faith in something that's been shown to work pretty well.

Also it's been shown not all atheists are fans of the scientific method.

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

The human brain severely is limited. As is human life. My faith lies in something much, much bigger.

And how do you know that you faith and what you have faith in aren't products of your limited brain?

Lucky the scientific method doesn't rely on the human brain and excludes the truth-obscuring effects of the brain.