Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions for Atheists
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 110 (481136)
09-09-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 1:50 PM


Most of your questions sound pretty bizaare and I can't see what sense they would make. But if that's what you want to know, then I guess it must make some kind of sense to you.
But why are you restricting the questions to only atheists? Given that most of the people who know physics are theists, shouldn't you allow they to respond as well? Wouldn't that vastly improve your chances of getting answers for your questions?
Unless you have some ulterior motive behind these questions.
-----------------
Laddie, I've been an atheist for about 45 years now and ever since the "Jesus Freak" movement reared its ugly head circa 1970 I've seen just about all the dirty proselytizing tricks that they would try to pull. Including the one that you appear to be trying to pull right now. Putting your mark (term referring to the intended victim of a swindle) in a vulnerable position so that you can shake his self-confidence enough to open him to conversion. The questions are meant to be unanswerable so that he'd have to admit ignorance, thus causing his position to appear weaker.
Of course, if you're really and honestly just interesting in finding answers to your questions, then just say so. And explain why you deliberately sabotaged your chances of finding those answers by explicitly excluding the vast majority of the people who could give you those answers.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 1:50 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:59 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 19 of 110 (481177)
09-09-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 3:59 PM


Re: My Motive
I did not ask theists these question because a theist would admit that the world cannot be understood completely by human beings.
As would anyone who has given the matter any thought, atheists and theists alike. I mean, is there anyone who actually believes that the world can be completely understood by humans?
It would seem that you are proceeding from a decidedly false premise.
{NOTE: Formal logic analyzes which types of true premises lead to true conclusions. Which means that false premises produce bogus conclusions. Since you proceed from a false premise, the conclusions you draw from that false premise are bogus. }
Was there an underlying reason for you chosing to abandon the Christian faith (assuming you were once a Christian)?
Yes. I found that I couldn't believe it, so I left.
More specifically, at around the age of 11 I decided that I should learn what I was supposed to believe, so, proceeding from the premise that I was supposed to believe what was in the Bible, I started reading it, admittedly in a navely literalist manner (I can't even tell you whether our church required such an interpretation, nor even what denomination it was except "Protestant"). I quickly found that I couldn't believe any of what I was reading. And since I couldn't believe what I was supposed to, it was time to leave.
Turned out to be the right decision, even if it was for the wrong reasons.
How long did you ponder before chosing atheism?
Not long. Only as long as it took me to realize that I couldn't believe any of that stuff. But then, unlike many others, I hadn't been as heavily indoctrinated.
If you're really interested in that question, why don't you go where a lot of ex-Christians are, such as at No webpage found at provided URL: http://ex-christian.net? You can gather a lot just by reading through the testimonials.
..., have you ever considered a different religion than Christianity?
Why? Yes, I've studied about many religions, but what reason would I have to join one?
Actually, after 30 years, I discovered that, like so many others, I'd been a Unitarian-Universalist all along.
I just want to let you know that I am not and have never been a Christian.
Well, since you clearly indicate that you consider atheists to be "others", that would mean that you are some stripe of theist. As Carol Burnett asked the prism in her song, "What kind of -ISM is you?"

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:59 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 24 of 110 (481183)
09-09-2008 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 3:59 PM


Re: My Motive
I did not ask theists these question because a theist would admit that the world cannot be understood completely by human beings. Is this not why the first humans believed in a god.
There's a 20 dollar bill lying in the middle of an intersection (assume no cars travelling on the two streets involved). You're standing on one corner, Santa Claus on the second, the Easter Bunny on the third, and on the fourth corner stands an atheist who believes that the world can be completely understood by humans. Who gets to the money first? You do, because the other three don't exist.
As for your second sentence there, yes, that is indeed why we invented the gods, to try to make some sense of and try to explain the natural universe. It didn't work very well, but at least it made us feel better as it gave us the illusion of knowing what was going on. Kind of like the exchange in the pub as the world was about to end:
quote:
Barman: Are you serious, sir? I mean, do you reallythin the world's going to end this afternoon?
Ford: Yes, in just over one minute and thirty-five seconds.
Barman: Well, isn't there anything we can do?
Ford: No, nothing.
Barman: I always thought we were meant to lie down or put a paper bag over our head or something.
Ford: If you like, yes.
Barman: Will that help?
Ford: No. Excuse me, I've got to find my friend.
Barman: Oh well then, last orders please!
As I recall, in the movie when they cut back to the pub they're all lying on the floor with paper bags over their heads.
One of the benefits of science is that it has enabled us to work out infinitely better how the natural universe works. An inevitable side-effect has been the elimination of the need to invent gods to explain the natural universe. This has led to an opposing reaction from those gods' fan clubs, kind of like cancelling Star Trek after the second season.
That opposing reaction includes your apparent inclination: "The God of the Gaps". The Wikipedia article is at God of the gaps - Wikipedia. It's an interesting read, mainly because according to the article the people who coined the term did so in order criticize the idea and to dissuade believers from falling into its trap. From the end of the article:
quote:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
In other words, it is wrong and counter-productive to use God as rags and caulking to stop up the gaps in our knowledge.
But if you want to trivialize your god and doom it to extinction, then by all means go ahead. Just don't blame us for its demise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:59 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024