A question for all Atheists

Believe what?

I already said I think you've made a distinction without a difference and this issue is largely unproductive on two counts anyway: First, it doesn't follow that because we don't know the cause of something it must be supernatural--and history has shown what a failed theistic perspective this is. Second, even if morality was irrefutably demonstrated to be natural believers would simply adapt like they have with evolution and other discoveries that have proven their books incorrect.

So VFN has the science on evolution changed at all or are we in the exact same position Darwin had us? Do we know it all now so that you can walk freely without having to put your faith in anything?

__________________
Letterboxd

I'm not an expert on evolution but I think its understanding has only increased since Darwin.

So why do you allow for a non believer to be sure yet evolve his thinking but a theist is not extended that same courtesy? What makes you so sure of something your not an expert on? Why is that considered faith for me but not for you?

I'm not against a theist who wants to change his perspective and macro-evolution is something evidenced by fossil ages and fossil transitions. The question i think is how or why the transitions happen. And I'm not sure getting into The Bible as science book is going to be productive.

No the Bible certainly isn't a science book. But I don't think there is a science book that can definitively talk about the nature of good and evil either which is what this discussion had basically become. The problem for me has been that you seem to want to tell the believer they are living in an unprovable fairy tale world while you have absolutes on your side. I think when it comes to something this abstract the non believer and believer should consider themselves on equal ground. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Something that always bothered me about the popular religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism...etc...while these religion claim to be the end all tell all, during their origins there were millions of people over here on North and South America who had no access to these "say all be all rules and god, gods. They were over here committing human sacrifices because their crops wouldn't come in and worshiping the sun.(I know almost as crazy as believing in virgin births or 40 virgins at death) So are you telling me for thousands upon thousands of years these people were just destined to hell because they had no access to those religions?

Something smells fishy. Thank god for those Europeans and their big guns and diseases for helping correct their beliefs

(sorry that i'm off topic).

__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)

Nope, that's not what I'm telling you, that's not what the Bible would tell you, and it's not what 99% of Christians would tell you.

Something has always bothered me about non-religious people. Why are they so willing to throw out something based on unconditional love, forgiveness, and free will because of half truths they heard somewhere once but can't remember where.

Let's just say that holy books as credible sources of fact disservice themselves.

Sean, you know I love ya bro but I have to jump in because I just don't think this is an accurate depiction of atheists. We're not just basing what we believe on "half truths". We do a lot of thinking, too. The Bible might have good stuff in it but it's not all lovey dovey and has some straight-up weird things in it like people turning into pillars of salt. Yoda and I have talked about this before, though we have differing perceptions we both agree the Bible cannot be taken lightly, it is an incredibly dense and complicated text and I think a lot of stuff gets lost in translation, too. I haven't studied the Bible, certainly not as much as you or Yoda might have, but the more I learn about it the more it strengthens my lack of faith. For some people, however, it strengthens their faith. We all do our own thinking and come to our own conclusions. There are certainly individuals who just spout off what others say but that's not specific to atheism, a lot of religious people are like that too.

Sorry didn't mean it as in you were telling me. Just a general thought I had not based on what you were saying. What I was implying is the Bible is suppose to be the beginning of the the Earth correct? Then how did half the population on earth have no clue about it for thousands and thousands of years?

I'm sorry I got defensive guys. It is one of my many bad habits. I wasn't trying to imply all atheists think alike or don't understand the believers position. I just feel sometimes people are very dimissive of a believers position because of hell, heaven, and other super natural aspects of our faith.Many times this happens without an actual understanding of what we believe. I thought that was what Moviebuffering was doing so I got snarky. I apologize again. I have to bow out for the night. Talk to you all later.

Ha it's no biggie man. I actually just watched a really smart catholic theologian on youtube about the Bible. His way of explaining the Bible almost made sense to me. Read it as genres. Not all of it is historical journalism. He goes on into greater detail. It had me going for a bit. But anyone as well read as this dude can make an argument for the bible persuasive.

That is what is the biggest problem, interpretation. To have to interpret a book that you are suppose to live your life by and ultimately decide if your ever lasting soul is saved is ludicrous. Give me concrete rules and stories to live by. Actually give me CONCRETE EVIDENCE like science does to counter religious's stories. Then there is the fact that there is other religions and books like the Quran. If I choose the wrong one I am boned. It all stands on flimsy ground.

Don't get me wrong I don't think atheist are right either. They are as absolute in their beliefs as believers are in theirs. I am hedging my bets when it comes to the after life and everyone else should too. NOBODY knows what happens when you die and NOBODY will know until they die. And thats a fact, doubt is the only absolute, until you see for yourself. Least that's my stance.

No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.

That religious people should not believe in something they can't verify. That was the clear implication of your (obviously rhetorical) question.

Yeah, I never suggested otherwise, and I think I've explicitly agreed twice now. You can stop beating up on this particular straw man. Not only is he dead: he was never alive.

I separated this out because it seems, well, like a separate argument.

Who said the argument was about whether morality might be natural? The argument is about whether or not it's rational. The idea that we have moral instincts that contribute to survival has never been under dispute as a possibility, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was.

To the contrary, you agreed earlier that it's impossible to prove any kind of objective morality through science. At most, we might be able to trace certain impulses to a related survival benefit. But that still wouldn't tell us anything about whether or not they were rational.

1. The narrative of religion slowly retreating in the face of scientific evidence is simplistic at best and fictional at worst. Catholics contributed to the theory of evolution, and the Church (which is by no means speedy about its formal declarations) formally declared evolution as compatible with its beliefs way back in the 1950s. Famous Christian writers like G.K. Chesterton dismissed the idea that they were in conflict even earlier than that. The idea that it has "proven their books incorrect" doesn't fly.

2. Just what do you think atheism has done over time, comparatively? In the early 20th century skeptics used science to try to argue for eugenics, and the inferiority of races. And then something happened in WWII that made this view seem considerably less sophisticated. And this is still modern history! So if you have disdain for any belief which has "adapted" over time to the prevailing wisdom of the time period, you won't find any refuge in atheism, which has proved just as susceptible to the popular winds and the abuse of fanatics as any religion.

Moreso, actually, because its very nature is far more malleable than religion, which is based in more rigid principles. That's supposed to be one of the things atheists dislike about it. So which is it? Is it too rigid, or too susceptible to popular opinion? Can't be both.

3. While it's certainly true that the ancient church mistook its theological import for scientific knowledge, the opposite is happening today. We see it clearly in the many futile attempts atheists engage in to try to reverse-engineer Judeo-Christian ethics from their materialist worldview. Just as believers once mistook religious authority for scientific authority, atheists now mistakenly think they can apply scientific rigor to non-scientific areas.

This is true of the word atheism. In practice, actual atheists often resemble something more aptly called "anti-theists." One of the arguments I make is that atheism may or may not be true, but there is no coherent version of it that should compel an atheist to actively argue for atheism. It simply doesn't fit the rest of the worldview. Which is the first hint that maybe something other than pure reason and skepticism is involved.

Also worth pointing out that a lack of belief in many things has no further implications for other beliefs. For example, I don't believe in unicorns, and that fact doesn't ripple throughout my worldview in any meaningful way. But in atheism's case, not believing in any God has profound implications for every other part of life: morality, truth, rationality, love, and more.

In other words, there is an either/or aspect to the existence of the Universe that separates atheism from any other lack of belief. To deny God is to necessarily affirm certain alternative truths. Which is one of the reasons I say atheism/materialism isn't actually a neutral starting point.

"To deny God is to necessarily affirm certain alternative truths. Which is one of the reasons I say atheism/materialism isn't actually a neutral starting point."


Oddly, this seems to tie in to many things I am studying in a class about how to argue effectively. I will agree with this statement, and say that God is good.

__________________
Koi Fish In My Pants

Your A OK in my book Sean It takes a big person to say they made a mistake and to say sorry. Not many people can do that these days. I'm impressed that you did.

I still don't understand what you mean by rational. As to everything else you wrote I'm not sure how it pertains to my position.

I want to add that if being attacked is considered wrong because of an instinct or feeling to preserve one's welfare that could be said to be a rational reason or basis for such consideration. As far as an objective morality, we don't even know if such a thing exists so I don't see how it's germane to the discussion.