Any atheists here?

[sook]

a watch is a non-'living' object. there is absolutely no way that an intricate watch can be constructed without someone making it simply because the watch is made out of inanimate objects, that is to say, made out of materials that are not 'alive'

THEORETICALLY, if given the right conditions and need, life could evolve a creature to look like a watch.

living creatures have a chance to create anything if given enough time. we could have a 20 foot tall, 6 legged, 3 eyed, super horse that has wings, if the right conditions allowed nature to need such a creature.

you show a lack of understanding in basic science. Do you realize 99% of all scientists are not religious? They don't seem to think 'it's easy' to believe in a boogie man in the sky.

I am a man of science. I have studied Taxonomy and know almost every phylum of the 7 kingdoms and most of the species. I have studied Phylogeny as well, I just know there had to have been some kind of divine intervention.

What you said was correct though, Scientists CAN NOT be religous when they look at these things because when left up to religon, "It is just the will of god" which ends up being the simple answer to all the problems that plague our world.

[sook]

Mutations take place in our body all the time, whenever replication (making a copy of the DNA to get ready for division) takes place each nitrogenous base on the original strand matches with its counter base on the new strand. With millions of codons (How instructions are read, a codon is each 3 base sequence) there is a considerable room for error. You can tell me all life stemmed from unicellular organisms that moved down the complexity ladder this way but then how did these organisms come into existence at the dawn of our planet?

[Don Quixote]

Don Quixote has a twisted and misinformed view of world history. Christianity BEGAN the slave trade in certain parts of the world. Columbus and his priests justified slavery and genocide in the Americas with passages from the Bible.

In the USA, the South was 99% Christian. All slave plantation owners went to Church on Sundays. It was the North, led by an atheist President Lincoln who called all religious people 'fools', that set forth to unify the nation and end slavery.

Not at all. Yes, I am well aware that professed Christians twisted scripture to justify and spread the slave trade. It was shameful and wrong. I am not convinced that many of these people were really Christians to begin with. Furthermore, to ignore the strong Christian roots of the abolition movement and the civil-rights movement is just biased history. I guess Tubman, Wilberforce, and MLK were all atheists. Let's just say that some Christians were wrong on the whole issue, while the vast majority of them never owned slaves and would never have supported it if it were a moral question in their lives.

Second, I would love to see evidence that Lincoln was, in fact, an atheist. You mean this guy, who said these things? And even if he were, attributing abolition solely to him is, again, bad history. The abolitionist movement in America, founded and strongly backed by Northern churches, has been going strong for over 50 years, and had a longer history in Great Britain. Lincoln did not begin abolition. He accomplished it from the White House when the opportunity presented itself, and Congress codified it with the 12th-14th Amendments ratified during Reconstruction.

Lastly, the mere fact that abolition of slavery is even possible in the West is a testament to the moral strength of Christianity. In contrast to Islam, where it is still practiced in some parts of Africa, it is virtually extinct. My overall point is that, while sinful, and wicked, and wrong people have existed throughout the history of the church, it has still been the greatest force for good in world history.

But I'd love to know the atheist contribution to the abolition of slavery (besides the dubious Lincoln reference). What was the atheist role in hiding Jews during the Holocaust? And the atheist role in governing Russia and China (oh wait).

[Don Quixote]

No one believes in the ridiculous gods like Zeus or Ra anymore. I go one ridiculous god farther.

I assure you, the monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity, and I suppose Islam is not ridiculous. It is quite possible to be an intellectually satisfied, thinking, reasoning Christian. I am (I pass for one), my colleagues are, and I know of quite a few more people from across the fields (science, history, philosophy -- I am an ethics and theology guy) who are.

Don't be like Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins. Give us at least that much respect.

[jaffies]

I have never seen an atheist answer this question, and i am an extremely scientific person, mind you. I believe evolution is a law, even though it is listed as a theory. If you were to visit "Supposedly" uncharted territory that others claim you are the first to have visited with a lake, a river bank or w.e, and you find a well crafted watch, what would come to your mind? Was that watch assembled through nature by chance? You would have a hard time being convinced that. What at first sight appears to be an intricately crafted accessory in reality stands next to nowhere in complexity when put next to the Human Body. Words can't describe the miracles of it coming into existence. When you put it that way, you really don't have a hard time in believing in a transcendent being that has put us all into this set.

You've never seen an atheist answer the 'watchmaker analogy'?

In all your extremely scientific studies as an extremely scientific person, you've never read a Charles Darwin book? He's been answering this question since the early 1800's. You should go to an extremely scientific library and check out 'The Origin of Species', 'The God Delusion', or for a specific answer to the question get 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.

Here's something to consider concerning the 'watchmaker argument', assume said watch is God.

[MiamiHeat]

We're not there yet. It was only 600ish years ago we thought the Earth was flat. We only recently discovered how to fly and even more recently completed the human genome.

Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean = God.

What you SHOULD be doing is researching the history and origin of world religions

Then you will answer the question about God. it's rather obvious.

[baseline bum]

If God is as described in a literal interpretation of the bible, he is a ridiculous god with serious anger and jealousy issues. If there is a god and that ball of hate is it, we're all screwed.

[Gummi Clutch]

Mutations take place in our body all the time, whenever replication (making a copy of the DNA to get ready for division) takes place each nitrogenous base on the original strand matches with its counter base on the new strand. With millions of codons (How instructions are read, a codon is each 3 base sequence) there is a considerable room for error. You can tell me all life stemmed from unicellular organisms that moved down the complexity ladder this way but then how did these organisms come into existence at the dawn of our planet?

Yea, sounds kind of wild doesn't it? Such random events that gave rise to Humans.

I agree with you 100%.

[Don Quixote]

If God is as described in a literal interpretation of the bible, he is a ridiculous god with serious anger and jealousy issues. If there is a god and that ball of hate is it, we're all screwed.

No, I wouldn't go that far. I know the Old Testament pretty well, and the whole "anger and jealousy" thing is, I think, overplayed. First, the OT has quite a number of passages about his love for the earth and man (e.g, the Creation sequence, the Exodus, many of the Psalms, and the prophets.) Second, let's not forget his justice. He gave his rules, man screwed up, so God, if he exists, has every right to be mad. Why? Because his people, who he loves, are being hurt and killed. He values man, and does not much like men abusing others. Most of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy deal with social relations, what to do if men mistreat each other.

Also, look at it from God's perspective. He is the one God. Man makes dumb stupid idols. If I'm God, I have every reason to be angry.

Finally, let's look at the New Testament. Christ, the Lord himself, died on the cross as an act of MERCY toward mankind. Not hate. And we can all agree that Christ, whatever you think of him, was a good man and great moral teacher.

Hope that cleared it up some. Got any more questions?

[baseline bum]

No, I wouldn't go that far. I know the Old Testament pretty well, and the whole "anger and jealousy" thing is, I think, overplayed. First, the OT has quite a number of passages about his love for the earth and man (e.g, the Creation sequence, the Exodus, many of the Psalms, and the prophets.) Second, let's not forget his justice. He gave his rules, man screwed up, so God, if he exists, has every right to be mad. Why? Because his people, who he loves, are being hurt and killed. He values man, and does not much like men abusing others. Most of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy deal with social relations, what to do if men mistreat each other.

Also, look at it from God's perspective. He is the one God. Man makes dumb stupid idols. If I'm God, I have every reason to be angry.

Finally, let's look at the New Testament. Christ, the Lord himself, died on the cross as an act of MERCY toward mankind. Not hate. And we can all agree that Christ, whatever you think of him, was a good man and great moral teacher.

Hope that cleared it up some. Got any more questions?

It wasn't a question. The god spoken of in a literal interpretation of the bible would be judged as evil and criminal by any rational person if you didn't tell the person his name.

[Don Quixote]

One last note ... in order for professing Christians to justify slavery, they had to pervert the Bible, not interpret it correctly. It is clear that slavery is not an ancient belief. The early church did not practice it. The medieval church did not practice it. The Reformation church did not practice it. It was only after Discovery when men made wicked choices (and I'm not sure many were truly Christians). So parts of the Enlightenment-era and antebellum church practiced it. It is now repudiated by the worldwide church.

An analogy: the Bible teaches, You shall not murder, and you shall not commit adultery. But we all know that Christians have, indeed, murdered and committed adultery. This may make the committers hypocrites, but it need not blunt the moral force of people who work against those things.

Lastly ... for the atheist, on what grounds can you definitely say that slavery, or adultery, is wrong? I have grounds -- it's against God's commands, and contradicts his character. But what grounds does the atheist have? (Think carefully about this one -- this is a hard one for even the best atheist philosophers to answer.)

[Don Quixote]

It wasn't a question. The god spoken of in a literal interpretation of the bible would be judged as evil and criminal by any rational person if you didn't tell the person his name.

No, I think I'm a fair person. I used to be an unbeliever too and thought about this stuff.

This kind of begs the question ... by what standards are we to judge God? If God chooses to judge someone, is it not his right and prerogative? If he has mercy, how is this a bad thing? I agree that a man who did some of the things God does would be (a) a megalomaniac, (b) crazy, (c) self-righteous, and (d) totally out of line. But we're not talking about a man. We're talking about God. We don't get to judge. He does.

And how could a God not be holy? Or all-righteous? Or all-powerful? Or all-merciful? For indeed if any of his attributes could be improved upon, would he not fail to be god in the first place?

Lastly, what would you think of a justice system that did not punish its criminals? Just let em loose? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

[baseline bum]

One last note ... in order for professing Christians to justify slavery, they had to pervert the Bible, not interpret it correctly. It is clear that slavery is not an ancient belief. The early church did not practice it. The medieval church did not practice it. The Reformation church did not practice it. It was only after Discovery when men made wicked choices (and I'm not sure many were truly Christians). So parts of the Enlightenment-era and antebellum church practiced it. It is now repudiated by the worldwide church.

An analogy: the Bible teaches, You shall not murder, and you shall not commit adultery. But we all know that Christians have, indeed, murdered and committed adultery. This may make the committers hypocrites, but it need not blunt the moral force of people who work against those things.

Lastly ... for the atheist, on what grounds can you definitely say that slavery, or adultery, is wrong? I have grounds -- it's against God's commands, and contradicts his character. But what grounds does the atheist have? (Think carefully about this one -- this is a hard one for even the best atheist philosophers to answer.)

I don't know which is more arrogant: religions creating god in man's image or taking credit for morality. Are you seriously telling me the only thing keeping you from having slaves is a book? The only thing keeping you from going around and killing people is because a book says not to? To borrow Dawkins' argument, why don't you stone disobedient children or murder people who practice Islam like the bible says to do? if the bible is our source of morality, then we should follow it to the letter; we'd be incapable of picking and choosing the good parts of it, since we'd have no independent morality to tell us what the good parts are.

[Don Quixote]

I don't know which is more arrogant: religions creating god in man's image or taking credit for morality. Are you seriously telling me the only thing keeping you from having slaves is a book? The only thing keeping you from going around and killing people is because a book says not to? To borrow Dawkins' argument, why don't you stone disobedient children or murder people who practice Islam like the bible says to do? if the bible is our source of morality, then we should follow it to the letter; we'd be incapable of picking and choosing the good parts of it, since we'd have no independent morality to tell us what the good parts are.

Ah yes, Dawkins. I have heard of him. He is one of these New Atheists, who thinks that anyone who believes in God is a deluded fool. I think he's rather judgemental and self-righteous myself, but whatever. I haven't read his book, but I know he's not really taken seriously by other atheists in the philosophical community. This is not surprising -- Dawkins is not a philosopher, or a Biblical scholar. He is a biologist. I have interacted, however, with William Rowe, Paul Draper, and other much more fair-minded atheists, who are also philosophers. But anyway ...

I'm not saying that the only reason Christians reject slavery is because of some book told us to. Rather, it comes from our set of conviction about the worth of human beings created in God's image. Is our conviction rooted in scripture? Sure. If it is what we believe it is, God's self-revealing to man, then we ought to look at it and heed it.

Is it our only source? No. We also have the Holy Spirit, which changes the heart and minds of the converted.

I'll throw the question back on you. As a theist, I have a reason, from within my system, that convinces me that owning other people is wrong. Can an atheist do the same? Does he have any absolute standard of morality to which he can refer? How can the atheist presume to teach anyone else about right and wrong?

(And lastly ... if Dawkins is indeed accusing us of picking and choosing from the OT Law, then I would reply that he is interpreting the Bible very, very poorly. Much of the OT Law was for Israel after the Exodus, and must be understood in their historical context and interpreted today in light of Christ. Dawkins ignores all of this and imposes the very fundamentalist reading that he accuses us of.)

[I Love Me Some Me]

I don't know which is more arrogant: religions creating god in man's image or taking credit for morality. Are you seriously telling me the only thing keeping you from having slaves is a book? The only thing keeping you from going around and killing people is because a book says not to? To borrow Dawkins' argument, why don't you stone disobedient children or murder people who practice Islam like the bible says to do? if the bible is our source of morality, then we should follow it to the letter; we'd be incapable of picking and choosing the good parts of it, since we'd have no independent morality to tell us what the good parts are.

Where does morality come from?

[PixelPusher]

Lastly ... for the atheist, on what grounds can you definitely say that slavery, or adultery, is wrong? I have grounds -- it's against God's commands, and contradicts his character. But what grounds does the atheist have? (Think carefully about this one -- this is a hard one for even the best atheist philosophers to answer.)

Wow.

Dude, if you are so utterly lacking in the basic moral intuitions demonstrated by human behavior throughout history, that you need a supernatural father figure to instruct you in the basics of ethics and morality, then for the sake of everyone else on this planet, stay in church. Morality based on simple rote dogma is better than nihilism...not by much, but still...

[baseline bum]

Ah yes, Dawkins. I have heard of him. He is one of these New Atheists, who thinks that anyone who believes in God is a deluded fool. I think he's rather judgemental and self-righteous myself, but whatever. I haven't read his book, but I know he's not really taken seriously by other atheists in the philosophical community. This is not surprising -- Dawkins is not a philosopher, or a Biblical scholar. He is a biologist. I have interacted, however, with William Rowe, Paul Draper, and other much more fair-minded atheists, who are also philosophers. But anyway ...

You haven't read his book and you judge him? I find it hilarious you think Dawkins isn't taken seriously by athiests.

I'll throw the question back on you. As a theist, I have a reason, from within my system, that convinces me that owning other people is wrong. Can an atheist do the same? Does he have any absolute standard of morality to which he can refer? How can the atheist presume to teach anyone else about right and wrong?

Yes, I have a great reason to not own slaves: it relies on abstract thought, the idea of "what if I was the slave?" How would I feel? How much would it suck to have no control over my life? Then, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that slavery is an incredible evil thing. I don't need an imaginary friend and a book to tell me that. I know you'll just come back at me with the holy spirit being responsible for abstract thought in yet another arrogant claim by religion.

(And lastly ... if Dawkins is indeed accusing us of picking and choosing from the OT Law, then I would reply that he is interpreting the Bible very, very poorly. Much of the OT Law was for Israel after the Exodus, and must be understood in their historical context and interpreted today in light of Christ. Dawkins ignores all of this and imposes the very fundamentalist reading that he accuses us of.)

Yes, Dawkins is accusing you of picking and choosing from OT Law. Just like when the church comes out against gay marriage because sexuality is condemned by the old testament. Tell me how the opposition to gay rights from the church is justified if all those OT laws he supposedly misinterprets only applied in the context of thousands of years ago.

[baseline bum]

Where does morality come from?

My best guess is from natural selection. One who screws over members of his own group is likely to be shunned from it, and therefore has less breeding opportunities and a lower standard of living due to having to do everything on his own instead of in cooperation with his peers.

[sook]

Baseline Bum, in you i see a person that is destined to and deserves much better than this



Let god be a part of your life.

[PixelPusher]

I'll throw the question back on you. As a theist, I have a reason, from within my system, that convinces me that owning other people is wrong. Can an atheist do the same? Does he have any absolute standard of morality to which he can refer? How can the atheist presume to teach anyone else about right and wrong?

(And lastly ... if Dawkins is indeed accusing us of picking and choosing from the OT Law, then I would reply that he is interpreting the Bible very, very poorly. Much of the OT Law was for Israel after the Exodus, and must be understood in their historical context and interpreted today in light of Christ. Dawkins ignores all of this and imposes the very fundamentalist reading that he accuses us of.)

Dawkins was just applying an "absolute standard of morality" to the Old Testament, you squishy, cherry-picking Bible interpreter you!!

[baseline bum]

Baseline Bum, in you i see a person that is destined to and deserves much better than this



Let god be a part of your life.

Are you American?

[Don Quixote]

Dawkins was just applying an "absolute standard of morality" to the Old Testament, you squishy, cherry-picking Bible interpreter you!!

I am most certainly not a squishy. And I'd love to know where Dawkins gets his absolutes from to begin with.

But by OT, I'm assuming you mean the Torah, or Pentateuch. Like I said before, large parts of the Law were for ceremonial purposes, or casuistic (case law). Much of it does not directly translate to today's situation. What is tricky, but vitally important, about interpreting the OT is figuring out what translates directly (e.g., do not lie with your sister) and what reflects more of a universal principle (e.g., do not abuse members of your household). At the very least, you should study the history, background, and cultures of the OT. And Hebrew helps. Do you know OT Hebrew?

I'd love specifics actually. Is there something in, say, Amos or Micah to which you object? Or Deuteronomy?

[PixelPusher]

I am most certainly not a squishy. And I'd love to know where Dawkins gets his absolutes from to begin with.

But by OT, I'm assuming you mean the Torah, or Pentateuch. Like I said before, large parts of the Law were for ceremonial purposes, or casuistic (case law). Much of it does not directly translate to today's situation. What is tricky, but vitally important, about interpreting the OT is figuring out what translates directly (e.g., do not lie with your sister) and what reflects more of a universal principle (e.g., do not abuse members of your household). At the very least, you should study the history, background, and cultures of the OT. And Hebrew helps. Do you know OT Hebrew?

I'd love specifics actually. Is there something in, say, Amos or Micah to which you object? Or Deuteronomy?

I don't base my ethical and moral values on the Bible, so there really isn't anything I care to "object" to. But since you value ABSOLUTE morals so much, where do you derive you ABSOLUTE certainty over which Bronze Age cutlural mores you're allowed to dismiss out of hand? Remember now, you're basing your morality on ABSOLUTE STANDARDS OF MORALITY, so it's pretty important you get it right.

[Don Quixote]

My best guess is from natural selection. One who screws over members of his own group is likely to be shunned from it, and therefore has less breeding opportunities and a lower standard of living due to having to do everything on his own instead of in cooperation with his peers.

Hmmm. So our morals come from natural selection. Perhaps to a certain extent. I can see how someone who, say, commits rape and gets caught might get flogged or hanged.

But that doesn't explain how the group decides what is right or wrong in the first place. You've explained what might be profitable or unprofitable to a group, but that is not morality. And what about crimes that do not really harm the group as a whole?

Many people do things we consider wrong, and get away with it. Prosper even! History is full of rapists, theives, and thugs who did just fine. In fact, the mafia (and Hamas, and Hezbollah today) often solidify their support in the community with charitable works, even helping their community. Does that make them right, or moral?

And it's also full of great people who did good things and never got a thing. Went broke even. By your explanation, the evil murderers are helping their group, not the good people.

Lastly, how do you explain the feelings that we have, that a REAL evil has been done? That something is not the way things are SUPPOSED to be? Well, how ARE things supposed to be?

[I Love Me Some Me]

My best guess is from natural selection. One who screws over members of his own group is likely to be shunned from it, and therefore has less breeding opportunities and a lower standard of living due to having to do everything on his own instead of in cooperation with his peers.

So morality boils down to selfishness, motivated by social acceptance, sex, and money.