Total Posts:307|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

understanding atheism?

gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 2:46:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
why do people have a hard time believing in God? Why can't they just believe that there is someone who will love them and support them unconditionally?

why do they WANT to deny this?

P.S. i really want to understand this. please explain.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 2:48:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's not that they don't want to, I know L and Vi have said before they would love for a God to exist, they just don't see it possible.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 2:55:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I also believe that some atheism roots from rough childhoods-anger at God simply put.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 2:56:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is why:

"[Belief in God] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead." -- Christopher Hitchens
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:02:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And this:

the Buddha: "If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.
...
"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.
...
"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:09:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 2:56:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is why:

"[Belief in God] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead." -- Christopher Hitchens

You seem to have taken all his qualities and twisted them. if someone believes in God, it does not mean he is a slave. He will never prevent you from doing anything. If you believe you are justified in doing anything, you will do it, no matter you are an atheist or a religious person. its just you believe he is an higher authority, who is eternal. if only you are doing something wrong, will you feel guilty. you believe there is not just you, but someone with you, who you are answerable to.

believing in God does not suddenly transport you to big brother, but, don't you want,

don't you like the idea that there is someone who will always love you, is a support for you, always?

also, couldn't understand the bold part. what does thought crime mean?
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:11:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 2:54:10 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
i just found this...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And the list of former theists is probably bigger. I doubt it can be compiled at all. :\

Atheists aren't "denying" anything--that would require us to believe in a god in the first place. As was already said, most atheists want a loving god to exist. Unfortunately, we just don't see enough evidence to believe in any god, whether it's the loving god of Christianity, the hateful god of Christianity, or the gods of any other religion.

Think of it this way. Say I tell you there's a fantastic creature called a Huyhuy which cares for me. I can't, however, show you my Huyhuy, or provide any evidence it exists at all, only give you testimony that it in fact exists and that I have a personal relationship with it--and so should you, how dare you not believe in my Huyhuy and love it even though you see zero evidence of it or its kindness anywhere at all?

See my point? Replace Huyhuy with god and you understand atheism.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:14:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:11:55 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 2:54:10 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
i just found this...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And the list of former theists is probably bigger. I doubt it can be compiled at all. :\

Atheists aren't "denying" anything--that would require us to believe in a god in the first place. As was already said, most atheists want a loving god to exist. Unfortunately, we just don't see enough evidence to believe in any god, whether it's the loving god of Christianity, the hateful god of Christianity, or the gods of any other religion.

Think of it this way. Say I tell you there's a fantastic creature called a Huyhuy which cares for me. I can't, however, show you my Huyhuy, or provide any evidence it exists at all, only give you testimony that it in fact exists and that I have a personal relationship with it--and so should you, how dare you not believe in my Huyhuy and love it even though you see zero evidence of it or its kindness anywhere at all?

See my point? Replace Huyhuy with god and you understand atheism.

(My reasoning for there being a longer list of former theists being that theism is shrinking and atheism is rising. It's irrelevant either way.)
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:16:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:02:24 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And this:

the Buddha: "If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.
...
"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.
...
"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."

but a world without sorrow, sin and calamity is a unidirectional world. Sorrow teaches us the value of being happy, it makes us try and find happiness in small things, make us value happiness, sin is actually absence of goodwill, it tells us what would happen if we cross the line, and calamity makes us value life. and lives.
a world without all these is a vain world.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:18:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

but a world without sorrow, sin and calamity is a unidirectional world. Sorrow teaches us the value of being happy, it makes us try and find happiness in small things, make us value happiness, sin is actually absence of goodwill, it tells us what would happen if we cross the line, and calamity makes us value life. and lives.
a world without all these is a vain world.

sorry, forgot to state my point. So maybe god put them here for a reason.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:33:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:11:55 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 2:54:10 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
i just found this...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And the list of former theists is probably bigger. I doubt it can be compiled at all. :\

Atheists aren't "denying" anything--that would require us to believe in a god in the first place. As was already said, most atheists want a loving god to exist. Unfortunately, we just don't see enough evidence to believe in any god, whether it's the loving god of Christianity, the hateful god of Christianity, or the gods of any other religion.

Think of it this way. Say I tell you there's a fantastic creature called a Huyhuy which cares for me. I can't, however, show you my Huyhuy, or provide any evidence it exists at all, only give you testimony that it in fact exists and that I have a personal relationship with it--and so should you, how dare you not believe in my Huyhuy and love it even though you see zero evidence of it or its kindness anywhere at all?

See my point? Replace Huyhuy with god and you understand atheism.

One of the arguments used against evolution alone as having led to our creation is the argument that living creatures are much to complex to have arisen by accident. It may be impossible to comprehend how such a thing could happen but it is even more impossible to comprehend the billions of years and untold number of planets in the Universe where biochemical accidents were occurring. If a creator created us that creator would be even more complex than we are and even more difficult to comprehend.

A more convincing argument that other factors were at work in our creation is the existence of consciousness. Science so far has not been able to explain consciousness. Science can explain how a computer works, it can explain the neural networks of the brain to some extent but it has not been able to explain how those neural nets collectively are aware.

Science so far has not been to explain emotions. Electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain of animals has been shown to stimulate certain emotions but there is no explanation of where that emotion comes from. We are very familiar with the dimensions of matter but we have very little understanding of the dimension of awareness and emotion.

Since consciousness is part of living things it is likely that consciousness in some way was involved with the creation of living things in addition to evolution. This does not mean there was a conscious being who created us, there may be a tendency toward consciousness just as there is a tendency for systems to increase their free energy in thermodynamics. It is possible that a conscious being was involved in our creation but that still leaves the mystery of the creation of that conscious being and how such a being would have the power to affect our creation over billions of years.

Although evolution by itself is not able to explain our existence it may be sufficient to explain the development of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs may have evolved. This is discussed on the Religon as an Evolving Organism web page.

Another mystery associated with the mystery of consciousness is the mystery of will. Somehow our consciousness can will neurotransmitters to be released which cause currents to travel down nerves and stimulate muscles to contract so that are limbs move which in turn can move and create objects. If it is our will we can create new things. Consciousness is thus capable of creating material objects. This lends credence to the hypothesis that consciousness was involved in our creation.

In addition to the mystery of consciousness, stories about remarkable coincidences, near death experiences in which the dying person sees the whole scene from above or stories of premonitions of disaster which came true, make me wonder how much more there is in heaven and earth than we know about.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:41:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:16:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/9/2010 3:02:24 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And this:

the Buddha: "If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.
...
"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.
...
"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."


but a world without sorrow, sin and calamity is a unidirectional world. Sorrow teaches us the value of being happy, it makes us try and find happiness in small things, make us value happiness, sin is actually absence of goodwill, it tells us what would happen if we cross the line, and calamity makes us value life. and lives.
a world without all these is a vain world.

Is Heaven an undirectional world? Why don't angels need to learn the value of being happy? Why should we be forced to find happiness in small things and value happiness when sorry and suffering can simply be eliminated? The value of valuing happiness is only necessary in a world without it. Must lives really be thrown away just so a few of us can learn to value them? That hardly seems fair, and the angels weren't subjected to it.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:56:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:41:03 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 3:16:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/9/2010 3:02:24 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And this:

the Buddha: "If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.
...
"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.
...
"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."


but a world without sorrow, sin and calamity is a unidirectional world. Sorrow teaches us the value of being happy, it makes us try and find happiness in small things, make us value happiness, sin is actually absence of goodwill, it tells us what would happen if we cross the line, and calamity makes us value life. and lives.
a world without all these is a vain world.

Is Heaven an undirectional world? Why don't angels need to learn the value of being happy? Why should we be forced to find happiness in small things and value happiness when sorry and suffering can simply be eliminated? The value of valuing happiness is only necessary in a world without it. Must lives really be thrown away just so a few of us can learn to value them? That hardly seems fair, and the angels weren't subjected to it.

(sorry, i couldn't find a good preamble to this)
people die and if they are proved worthy of enjoying heaven, they are sent to it. They are proven worthy of being in heaven if they did good deeds. Good deeds can be done by overruling temptations, and thus taking the path 'less traveled'. i.e being subjected to more sufferings. They know sufferings, value happiness, and are rewarded.So, they know happiness, and achieve this through positive deeds, means they are in heaven AFTER going through a test.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:58:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

Is Heaven an undirectional world? Why don't angels need to learn the value of being happy? Why should we be forced to find happiness in small things and value happiness when sorry and suffering can simply be eliminated? The value of valuing happiness is only necessary in a world without it. Must lives really be thrown away just so a few of us can learn to value them? That hardly seems fair, and the angels weren't subjected to it.

(sorry, i couldn't find a good preamble to this)
people die and if they are proved worthy of enjoying heaven, they are sent to it. They are proven worthy of being in heaven if they did good deeds. Good deeds can be done by overruling temptations, and thus taking the path 'less traveled'. i.e being subjected to more sufferings. They know sufferings, value happiness, and are rewarded by being sent to heaven, a place where there is no suffering.So, they know happiness, and achieve happiness through positive deeds, means they are in heaven AFTER going through a test.

sorry, the first post sounded like rambling.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:59:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 2:55:48 AM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
I also believe that some atheism roots from rough childhoods-anger at God simply put.

I also believe theism roots from rough childhoods indoctrination of God simpy put
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:00:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
gerrandesquire - Everyone is born an Atheist. You need to be taught to believe in God.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:03:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 4:00:27 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
gerrandesquire - Everyone is born an Atheist. You need to be taught to believe in God.

yes, that is true. But why would you want to denounce this?
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:04:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let me take this apart...

One of the arguments used against evolution alone as having led to our creation

I'll stop you right there. Evolution is how lifeforms, once already existing, changed. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with creation, I'm afraid. You're thinking of abiogenesis.

is the argument that living creatures are much to complex to have arisen by accident.

Two things here. Evolution is not "by accident". The building-blocks of life have chemical properties which make them act in certain ways together. Anyone who made a volcano in chemistry as a kid knows that the fizzy stuff pouring out the top didn't "arise by accident", it was the result of chemicals interacting. Furthermore, even ignoring the chemical composition of life (which only really affects genetics, the rest has little to do with evolution), evolution still is not "by accident". Evolution basically amounts to, whatever genes happen to get passed on, get passed on. What happens is that certain genes don't help an organism in a certain environment, others do. And this changes based on environment. So genes that make your fur a bit poofier than the next guy get passed on if you live in a cold environment, and stop appearing in the gene pool if you live in a hot environment. You catch my drift? Evolution isn't saying complexity evolves by accident. It's saying countless, absolutely countless amounts of tiny accidents either help or hinder the organisms they happen to, slowly changing the organism's descendants. And finally, it's already been shown that extremely complex systems can arise "by accident" as you call it. Please take the time to watch and really listen to these two videos. They're long, but if you have any intellectual honesty, you'll take the time to.

http://www.pbs.org...

It may be impossible to comprehend how such a thing could happen

No it's not. See my above videos.

but it is even more impossible to comprehend the billions of years and untold number of planets in the Universe where biochemical accidents were occurring. If a creator created us that creator would be even more complex than we are and even more difficult to comprehend.

What does any of this have to do with evolution? And why does complexity = a creator? Engineers, for example, know that the better design is the one which is simplest. So simplicity could just as easily be an argument for a creator as complexity. If the universe was mind-numbingly simple, theists would be making arguments from simplicity! Furthermore, the universe is only complex according to human understanding of it. There are countless ways we explain the countless aspects of reality. This is not to say, however, that our understanding is correct or that it is not in fact simpler than we perceive it to be, if only we could understand the links! You see my point? You're not only making broad, subjective judgments about the universe but ones that have little bearing on reality. Complexity doesn't show a creator. Even if it was evidence in favor of a creator, it's not very strong evidence for the precise god you believe in. A tyrant god could just as easily have created a complex universe.

A more convincing argument that other factors were at work in our creation is the existence of consciousness. Science so far has not been able to explain consciousness. Science can explain how a computer works, it can explain the neural networks of the brain to some extent but it has not been able to explain how those neural nets collectively are aware.

First, this is called an argument for ignorance. Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean it proves anything. If anything, judgments on the nature of something should be withheld until you do understand something. Furthermore, science is beginning to understand consciousness. From what I've recently read on the subject, we know it's retroactive, self-deluding, affected by chemicals and other physical stimuli, has a physical basis, etc, etc. I suggest studying neurology before making such a claim.

Science so far has not been to explain emotions. Electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain of animals has been shown to stimulate certain emotions but there is no explanation of where that emotion comes from. We are very familiar with the dimensions of matter but we have very little understanding of the dimension of awareness and emotion.

Really? We can show more than that, we can show that emotions are based in physical and chemical changes. "Where emotions come from" is a very vague challenge. Neither does it say anything about a creator.

Since consciousness is part of living things it is likely that consciousness in some way was involved with the creation of living things in addition to evolution. This does not mean there was a conscious being who created us, there may be a tendency toward consciousness just as there is a tendency for systems to increase their free energy in thermodynamics. It is possible that a conscious being was involved in our creation but that still leaves the mystery of the creation of that conscious being and how such a being would have the power to affect our creation over billions of years.

I...really do not understand what you are trying to say with any of this. It doesn't really seem to argue anything at all.

Although evolution by itself is not able to explain our existence it may be sufficient to explain the development of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs may have evolved. This is discussed on the Religon as an Evolving Organism web page.

Ok.

Another mystery associated with the mystery of consciousness is the mystery of will. Somehow our consciousness can will neurotransmitters to be released which cause currents to travel down nerves and stimulate muscles to contract so that are limbs move which in turn can move and create objects. If it is our will we can create new things. Consciousness is thus capable of creating material objects. This lends credence to the hypothesis that consciousness was involved in our creation.

I'm fairly certain it's the other way around. And this doesn't really say anything about a creator anyway. If consciousness outside of the physical realm was proved, hell, if even the soul was proved, that still wouldn't prove the existence of god.

In addition to the mystery of consciousness, stories about remarkable coincidences, near death experiences in which the dying person sees the whole scene from above or stories of premonitions of disaster which came true, make me wonder how much more there is in heaven and earth than we know about.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

And of course, neuroscientists can actually cause patients to have spiritual visions and experiences simply by stimulating their brain.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:05:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 4:03:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/9/2010 4:00:27 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
gerrandesquire - Everyone is born an Atheist. You need to be taught to believe in God.

yes, that is true. But why would you want to denounce this?

When you replied to my post, did you read it?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:05:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 4:03:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/9/2010 4:00:27 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
gerrandesquire - Everyone is born an Atheist. You need to be taught to believe in God.

yes, that is true. But why would you want to denounce this?

Denounce what, a God? Yeah, it's a nice idea and all, but it is severely lacking in any convincing evidence, and your only evidence is a God of the Gaps argument.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:09:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:56:10 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/9/2010 3:41:03 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 3:16:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/9/2010 3:02:24 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And this:

the Buddha: "If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.
...
"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.
...
"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."


but a world without sorrow, sin and calamity is a unidirectional world. Sorrow teaches us the value of being happy, it makes us try and find happiness in small things, make us value happiness, sin is actually absence of goodwill, it tells us what would happen if we cross the line, and calamity makes us value life. and lives.
a world without all these is a vain world.

Is Heaven an undirectional world? Why don't angels need to learn the value of being happy? Why should we be forced to find happiness in small things and value happiness when sorry and suffering can simply be eliminated? The value of valuing happiness is only necessary in a world without it. Must lives really be thrown away just so a few of us can learn to value them? That hardly seems fair, and the angels weren't subjected to it.

(sorry, i couldn't find a good preamble to this)
people die and if they are proved worthy of enjoying heaven, they are sent to it. They are proven worthy of being in heaven if they did good deeds. Good deeds can be done by overruling temptations, and thus taking the path 'less traveled'. i.e being subjected to more sufferings. They know sufferings, value happiness, and are rewarded.So, they know happiness, and achieve this through positive deeds, means they are in heaven AFTER going through a test.

But angels didn't, correct? What about infants, unborn children, for example? Did those groups go through the same tests?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:12:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 2:55:48 AM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
I also believe that some atheism roots from rough childhoods-anger at God simply put.

because infants are angry at god amirite

kudos to the OP for actually wanting to understand atheism and asking instead of writing atheism off like that.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:13:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
When you replied to my post, did you read it?

yes, i read it. And i surfed for some reasons that argued god exist. i got the theory of complex design, and how a very famous atheist - i forgot his name was thinking of converting to a religion, becoming a Christian because of this theory. I understood this theory but since i had just understood it, just copied and pasted it from a site.

Also, i am just replying to your points now.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:21:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

But angels didn't, correct? What about infants, unborn children, for example? Did those groups go through the same tests?

Angels? I am sorry i don't actually get this. I am a Hindu and the theory i Have is that there are no angels. The closest we can get to them are gods like lord Rama,and lord Krishna, who actually lived on Earth and completed there lifetime, ( completed the work they were sent here for, for the abolishment of evil), so heaven for them is -deserved?

and about infants, yes, they don't actually go through any test, but they don't actually have had a life. right? They didn't experience anything. I actually have a different theory about them, but it is severely affected by my religion and would not be welcome over here.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:31:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 4:21:20 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

But angels didn't, correct? What about infants, unborn children, for example? Did those groups go through the same tests?

Angels? I am sorry i don't actually get this. I am a Hindu and the theory i Have is that there are no angels. The closest we can get to them are gods like lord Rama,and lord Krishna, who actually lived on Earth and completed there lifetime, ( completed the work they were sent here for, for the abolishment of evil), so heaven for them is -deserved?

and about infants, yes, they don't actually go through any test, but they don't actually have had a life. right? They didn't experience anything. I actually have a different theory about them, but it is severely affected by my religion and would not be welcome over here.

I'm afraid I'm not really knowledgeable about Hinduism--will be after my world religions class in the upcoming term, though. I apologize for assuming you were Christian, though.

As for infants, they didn't go through a test, right? So where do they go? Heaven? Why aren't they subjected to suffering so they can learn the value of happiness?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:34:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'll stop you right there. Evolution is how lifeforms, once already existing, changed. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with creation, I'm afraid. You're thinking of abiogenesis.

is the argument that living creatures are much to complex to have arisen by accident.

Two things here. Evolution is not "by accident". The building-blocks of life have chemical properties which make them act in certain ways together. Anyone who made a volcano in chemistry as a kid knows that the fizzy stuff pouring out the top didn't "arise by accident", it was the result of chemicals interacting. Furthermore, even ignoring the chemical composition of life (which only really affects genetics, the rest has little to do with evolution), evolution still is not "by accident". Evolution basically amounts to, whatever genes happen to get passed on, get passed on. What happens is that certain genes don't help an organism in a certain environment, others do. And this changes based on environment. So genes that make your fur a bit poofier than the next guy get passed on if you live in a cold environment, and stop appearing in the gene pool if you live in a hot environment. You catch my drift? Evolution isn't saying complexity evolves by accident. It's saying countless, absolutely countless amounts of tiny accidents either help or hinder the organisms they happen to, slowly changing the organism's descendants. And finally, it's already been shown that extremely complex systems can arise "by accident" as you call it. Please take the time to watch and really listen to these two videos. They're long, but if you have any intellectual honesty, you'll take the time to.


http://www.pbs.org...

It may be impossible to comprehend how such a thing could happen

No it's not. See my above videos.

but it is even more impossible to comprehend the billions of years and untold number of planets in the Universe where biochemical accidents were occurring. If a creator created us that creator would be even more complex than we are and even more difficult to comprehend.

What does any of this have to do with evolution? And why does complexity = a creator? Engineers, for example, know that the better design is the one which is simplest. So simplicity could just as easily be an argument for a creator as complexity. If the universe was mind-numbingly simple, theists would be making arguments from simplicity! Furthermore, the universe is only complex according to human understanding of it. There are countless ways we explain the countless aspects of reality. This is not to say, however, that our understanding is correct or that it is not in fact simpler than we perceive it to be, if only we could understand the links! You see my point? You're not only making broad, subjective judgments about the universe but ones that have little bearing on reality. Complexity doesn't show a creator. Even if it was evidence in favor of a creator, it's not very strong evidence for the precise god you believe in. A tyrant god could just as easily have created a complex universe.

A more convincing argument that other factors were at work in our creation is the existence of consciousness. Science so far has not been able to explain consciousness. Science can explain how a computer works, it can explain the neural networks of the brain to some extent but it has not been able to explain how those neural nets collectively are aware.

First, this is called an argument for ignorance. Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean it proves anything. If anything, judgments on the nature of something should be withheld until you do understand something. Furthermore, science is beginning to understand consciousness. From what I've recently read on the subject, we know it's retroactive, self-deluding, affected by chemicals and other physical stimuli, has a physical basis, etc, etc. I suggest studying neurology before making such a claim.

Science so far has not been to explain emotions. Electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain of animals has been shown to stimulate certain emotions but there is no explanation of where that emotion comes from. We are very familiar with the dimensions of matter but we have very little understanding of the dimension of awareness and emotion.

Really? We can show more than that, we can show that emotions are based in physical and chemical changes. "Where emotions come from" is a very vague challenge. Neither does it say anything about a creator.

Since consciousness is part of living things it is likely that consciousness in some way was involved with the creation of living things in addition to evolution. This does not mean there was a conscious being who created us, there may be a tendency toward consciousness just as there is a tendency for systems to increase their free energy in thermodynamics. It is possible that a conscious being was involved in our creation but that still leaves the mystery of the creation of that conscious being and how such a being would have the power to affect our creation over billions of years.

I...really do not understand what you are trying to say with any of this. It doesn't really seem to argue anything at all.

Although evolution by itself is not able to explain our existence it may be sufficient to explain the development of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs may have evolved. This is discussed on the Religon as an Evolving Organism web page.

Ok.

Another mystery associated with the mystery of consciousness is the mystery of will. Somehow our consciousness can will neurotransmitters to be released which cause currents to travel down nerves and stimulate muscles to contract so that are limbs move which in turn can move and create objects. If it is our will we can create new things. Consciousness is thus capable of creating material objects. This lends credence to the hypothesis that consciousness was involved in our creation.

I'm fairly certain it's the other way around. And this doesn't really say anything about a creator anyway. If consciousness outside of the physical realm was proved, hell, if even the soul was proved, that still wouldn't prove the existence of god.

In addition to the mystery of consciousness, stories about remarkable coincidences, near death experiences in which the dying person sees the whole scene from above or stories of premonitions of disaster which came true, make me wonder how much more there is in heaven and earth than we know about.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

And of course, neuroscientists can actually cause patients to have spiritual visions and experiences simply by stimulating their brain.

i am sorry i'll have to look deeper into this and it will take time. But the arguments are quite compelling.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:36:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

and about infants, yes, they don't actually go through any test, but they don't actually have had a life. right? They didn't experience anything. I actually have a different theory about them, but it is severely affected by my religion and would not be welcome over here.

I'm afraid I'm not really knowledgeable about Hinduism--will be after my world religions class in the upcoming term, though. I apologize for assuming you were Christian, though.

As for infants, they didn't go through a test, right? So where do they go? Heaven? Why aren't they subjected to suffering so they can learn the value of happiness?

well, i believe they are born again. and only after going through there whole life, do they go to heaven, or return to the earth as some creature.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:37:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:11:55 AM, Yvette wrote:
... I can't, however, show you my Huyhuy, or provide any evidence it exists at all, only give you testimony that it in fact exists and that I have a personal relationship with it...

I really wish you could show me your huyhuy.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:52:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 4:34:21 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I'll stop you right there. Evolution is how lifeforms, once already existing, changed. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with creation, I'm afraid. You're thinking of abiogenesis.

is the argument that living creatures are much to complex to have arisen by accident.

Two things here. Evolution is not "by accident". The building-blocks of life have chemical properties which make them act in certain ways together. Anyone who made a volcano in chemistry as a kid knows that the fizzy stuff pouring out the top didn't "arise by accident", it was the result of chemicals interacting. Furthermore, even ignoring the chemical composition of life (which only really affects genetics, the rest has little to do with evolution), evolution still is not "by accident". Evolution basically amounts to, whatever genes happen to get passed on, get passed on. What happens is that certain genes don't help an organism in a certain environment, others do. And this changes based on environment. So genes that make your fur a bit poofier than the next guy get passed on if you live in a cold environment, and stop appearing in the gene pool if you live in a hot environment. You catch my drift? Evolution isn't saying complexity evolves by accident. It's saying countless, absolutely countless amounts of tiny accidents either help or hinder the organisms they happen to, slowly changing the organism's descendants. And finally, it's already been shown that extremely complex systems can arise "by accident" as you call it. Please take the time to watch and really listen to these two videos. They're long, but if you have any intellectual honesty, you'll take the time to.


http://www.pbs.org...

It may be impossible to comprehend how such a thing could happen

No it's not. See my above videos.

but it is even more impossible to comprehend the billions of years and untold number of planets in the Universe where biochemical accidents were occurring. If a creator created us that creator would be even more complex than we are and even more difficult to comprehend.

What does any of this have to do with evolution? And why does complexity = a creator? Engineers, for example, know that the better design is the one which is simplest. So simplicity could just as easily be an argument for a creator as complexity. If the universe was mind-numbingly simple, theists would be making arguments from simplicity! Furthermore, the universe is only complex according to human understanding of it. There are countless ways we explain the countless aspects of reality. This is not to say, however, that our understanding is correct or that it is not in fact simpler than we perceive it to be, if only we could understand the links! You see my point? You're not only making broad, subjective judgments about the universe but ones that have little bearing on reality. Complexity doesn't show a creator. Even if it was evidence in favor of a creator, it's not very strong evidence for the precise god you believe in. A tyrant god could just as easily have created a complex universe.

A more convincing argument that other factors were at work in our creation is the existence of consciousness. Science so far has not been able to explain consciousness. Science can explain how a computer works, it can explain the neural networks of the brain to some extent but it has not been able to explain how those neural nets collectively are aware.

First, this is called an argument for ignorance. Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean it proves anything. If anything, judgments on the nature of something should be withheld until you do understand something. Furthermore, science is beginning to understand consciousness. From what I've recently read on the subject, we know it's retroactive, self-deluding, affected by chemicals and other physical stimuli, has a physical basis, etc, etc. I suggest studying neurology before making such a claim.

Science so far has not been to explain emotions. Electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain of animals has been shown to stimulate certain emotions but there is no explanation of where that emotion comes from. We are very familiar with the dimensions of matter but we have very little understanding of the dimension of awareness and emotion.

Really? We can show more than that, we can show that emotions are based in physical and chemical changes. "Where emotions come from" is a very vague challenge. Neither does it say anything about a creator.

Since consciousness is part of living things it is likely that consciousness in some way was involved with the creation of living things in addition to evolution. This does not mean there was a conscious being who created us, there may be a tendency toward consciousness just as there is a tendency for systems to increase their free energy in thermodynamics. It is possible that a conscious being was involved in our creation but that still leaves the mystery of the creation of that conscious being and how such a being would have the power to affect our creation over billions of years.

I...really do not understand what you are trying to say with any of this. It doesn't really seem to argue anything at all.

Although evolution by itself is not able to explain our existence it may be sufficient to explain the development of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs may have evolved. This is discussed on the Religon as an Evolving Organism web page.

Ok.

Another mystery associated with the mystery of consciousness is the mystery of will. Somehow our consciousness can will neurotransmitters to be released which cause currents to travel down nerves and stimulate muscles to contract so that are limbs move which in turn can move and create objects. If it is our will we can create new things. Consciousness is thus capable of creating material objects. This lends credence to the hypothesis that consciousness was involved in our creation.

I'm fairly certain it's the other way around. And this doesn't really say anything about a creator anyway. If consciousness outside of the physical realm was proved, hell, if even the soul was proved, that still wouldn't prove the existence of god.

In addition to the mystery of consciousness, stories about remarkable coincidences, near death experiences in which the dying person sees the whole scene from above or stories of premonitions of disaster which came true, make me wonder how much more there is in heaven and earth than we know about.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

And of course, neuroscientists can actually cause patients to have spiritual visions and experiences simply by stimulating their brain.

i am sorry i'll have to look deeper into this and it will take time. But the arguments are quite compelling.

Even if your opinion doesn't end up changing, thank you for your honesty. I could just as well be wrong and a god could really exist, of course--the most important thing is for each party to recognize the possibility of wrongness. :)

A good read I'd suggest is Time magazine's special, the title was something like Brain: A User's Manual. Lots of good and very easy to understand information.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands