What do you think of atheists?

[Demoralizer]

I believe the contrary; without a god, humans are always accountable for their own actions.

Perhaps people need to believe in a deity to make morally wise decisions? It doesn't hold so much ground now, as there are laws which punish those who commit crimes, and a lack of belief in God does not neccessarily equate to anarchy.

Of course, whether or not he believed in an all-powerful creator of the universe, to argue the existence or lack of a god using quotes from Einstein is fallacial, unless his quotes can also be backed up with evidence to support them. Yes, Einstein was a very intelligent person. However even Einstein can make errors.

I brought up Einstein because he too was very logical and methodical in his approach to explaining extremely complex questions. And yet, from what I read, he started believing more and more the need for a supernatural entity to fit in the puzzle. It didn't mean that he ran into a dead end, and just threw the word 'God' in to avoid further study. I'm drunk while typing this so I'll read what you posted on Einstein later.

I'll finish off with a quote I ran into and it goes: "Danger close knows no atheists". Just my 2 cents.

why do you say that?

It just means that when you're in the ****, you start to believe in a higher power to get you out alive. What triggers this I don't know, could be human nature? I am not qualified to explain these things, just to voice my opinion.

[¿¿¿]

Originally Posted by Demoralizer

Perhaps people need to believe in a deity to make morally wise decisions?

No, there is more than enough reason to have morals as an atheist.
Simply put, it's mutually beneficial for people to have morals.

Plus, I like morals.

It doesn't hold so much ground now, as there are laws which punish those who commit crimes, and a lack of belief in God does not neccessarily equate to anarchy.

The laws we live by are arbitrary, and anarchy is just a concept.

I brought up Einstein because he too was very logical and methodical in his approach to explaining extremely complex questions. And yet, from what I read, he started believing more and more the need for a supernatural entity to fit in the puzzle. It didn't mean that he ran into a dead end, and just threw the word 'God' in to avoid further study. I'm drunk while typing this so I'll read what you posted on Einstein later.

I believe that when Einstein used the word 'god', he usually wasn't actually referring to an all-powerful creator of the universe.

Several quotes from Einstein suggest that he was not a theist, but a pantheist.
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm

He did regard the ordered cosmos with the same kind of feeling that believers have for their God.

It's difficult to explain what a pantheist is. but they often use the term 'god' to describe the universe itself, and its underlying laws and principles.

Here are a couple of quotes that stand out:

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Letter of 1946, Hoffman and Dukas]


What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. [The Private Albert Einstein]

Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that because Einstein may have had certain beliefs, or lack of, that we should all adopt his stance. I don't have the same kind of stance that Einstein does.

But Einstein is often quoted out of context by some religious people, and used in fallacial arguments. Most often, the Argumentum ad verecundiam (or Appeal to authority)

It just means that when you're in the ****, you start to believe in a higher power to get you out alive. What triggers this I don't know, could be human nature? I am not qualified to explain these things, just to voice my opinion.

There are many atheists who would testify against this.

Personally, if I was in danger, thinking of god would be the last thing I'd do. Instead, I'd be focusing on doing what I can to try not to die.

Unless perhaps, in some circumstances, by sacrificing myself, I could save the lives of many innocent people who I feel deserve to live.

[Paparock]

I personally do not think about atheists. Before I became a Christian I knew quite a bit about the spiritual world beyond what the average person knows and sees not because I wanted to but because since I was an extremely small child I have been aware of it and at times able to experience it.
Shortly after entering grade school I asked my parents if I could go study in Tibet someday which they thought odd because I had never been taught anything about Tibet before. You see I am one of those people that have memories that are not all attached to this world, time or space. That will sound quite strange to many of you since I am a quite strong Christian Zionist. It is not however, but I cannot explain the reasons why as those that do not have similar experiences cannot hope to understand the complexity. It took me a large portion of my life to put all the pieces together along with meeting others like myself here in this world. You see I just do not believe in God and the Spiritual Warfare that is going on but have witnessed it and at times have been caught up in it. I know how that sounds, to many who have never experienced the things I have and my story is far too long and boring to relate here. We all make judgments based on what we experience in life, read, study, and some is based on our genetics. Some things we believe because we trust the source from which the information comes from such as we all believe in the moon because we can see it so the source of information is our eyes but a blind man believes in the moon because all those around him say it exists yet he cannot see it. I think of things in the Spiritual realm somewhat like that. We can read examples in the Bible where Prophets saw into that realm and in some cases asked that God open the eyes of their servant so that they may see. I believe Ezekiel was one example but I am certainly NO prophet. It is not something I can do by my will by it happens when God has a purpose where perhaps I can help others. I have no control over when or where it happens. I have heard all sorts of explanations for it and it is one of the reasons I got a degree in Psychology and yes I have been a subject in some research. That is not my point but my point is be they agnostic, atheist, or believer we all make choices. Some take everything on the basis of there is no evidence, some that there is some evidence but not conclusive evidence, some take everything in and make a decision to believe by Faith and then some of us have seen real evidence of the truth like Saul of Tarsus and it shakes the very foundations of our reality so that we can never be the same again. Then there is no turning back, no denying, black has become white, darkness made light. I understand anyone’s skepticism but you will have to understand for me you would have to see through my eyes to understand from where I come. During my life I have experienced many supernaturial events that have caused me to escape grave injury and even posssible death many times. I have no explinations for why I have experienced these things or why I have been spared so many times. People tell me there must be a reason in my future for these events and I can only trust in my God that he has spared me for a reason he has in mind. I once saw myself die in a dream but I do not know if it will happen as I saw because things are not set in stone but we are able to chage the future in ways. Death holds no fear fear for me which bothers many around me. If God has work for me here in this body then this is where I wish to be and if my work is finished then I am ready to depart this body. Whether I am in this body or not I will still serve him so it matters little as there is but a thin veil between this world and the next that soon will be parted so that the two shall become one. Upon that day we all shall know as we are now known and all truth revealed. God’s throne will be established in Jerusalem and Peace will reign over all the Earth.

[Groundpounder]

I have a few quotes I would like to add to the discussion from another brilliant man- Sir Isaac Newton the father of modern science.

"This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
-- Isaac Newton

It became Him who created it to set it in order; and if he did so, it is unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of Nature.-Sir Isaac Newton

Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and other suchlike considerations, always have, and always will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, who has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.Isaac Newton

[¿¿¿]

I have a few quotes I would like to add to the discussion from another brilliant man- Sir Isaac Newton the father of modern science.

firstly, even if this is said by an intelligent man, it is an Argumentum ad verecundiam (or Appeal to authority), and it isn't evidence of a god.
At best, these quotes are evidence of Isaac Newton's beliefs.

Yes, Isaac Newton was an intelligent man. So was Einstein. But they were not correct about everything. Nobody is correct about everything.

Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and other suchlike considerations, always have, and always will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, who has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.Isaac Newton

Natural selection, the backbone of evolution, doesn't work by random chance.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...e+Search&meta=

[Groundpounder]

The following is an article by Jonathan Safarti regarding the lobster eye.

Lobster eyes: chance or design?

Despite the enormous human ingenuity behind these artificial ‘lobster eyes’,(referring to reverse lobster eye fine microchips) evolutionists refuse to acknowledge a designer for the real thing, which must also be able to repair itself and be connected to a data processor (brain) as well! A designer violates the self-serving ‘rules of the game’ decreed by materialists (cf. Romans 1:18 ff.).10
Instead, they generally believe that this eye evolved from a refracting compound eye with round or hexagonal (six-sided) tubes, as other crustaceans have. Claimed supporting evidence is that the free-swimming lobster larva has a refractive eye, which is transformed into the reflective eye of the adult. However, this is just a variant of the thoroughly discredited embryonic recapitulation theory, which was supported by forged drawings.11 Lobsters clearly already have in place the genetic ‘programming’ for the transformation—this does not explain how this information arose in the first place! Neo-Darwinist theory requires:

1. A pathway of many tiny steps, with each new change caused by genetic copying mistakes (mutations).
2. Each step must have an advantage over the previous one, so its possessor will leave more offspring (natural selection).

The lobster eye seems to illustrate ‘irreducible complexity’.12 That is, unless all the right parts were in the right arrangement, all at once, light rays would not focus. Further, the mirror arrangement produces an upright image, while a lens produces an inverted one, so the brain would also need to be reprogrammed to interpret this major change. Hypothetical intermediate steps between a refractive and reflective eye, e.g. a halfway stage between a hexagonal and square tube, or between a mirror and a lens, would produce a much worse image.5 An organism with such an eye for life would have a serious disadvantage, so natural selection would work against such intermediates. And even a fully formed reflective eye (mathematically impossible to produce in a single step) seems to have little or no selective advantage over the refractive eye, since crabs—which have roughly the same lifestyle in a similar environment—manage fine with refractive eyes. So if even a fully formed reflective eye has little advantage, how much less could natural selection work on hypothetical intermediates, which must have been even less advantageous?13
Conclusion

The lobster eye exhibits amazing design, and has even inspired human designers to copy it for advanced technological applications. This eye, like many other features in living organisms, defies all plausible attempts to explain it without a Designer.

[¿¿¿]

the "ireducible complexity" arguments used by creationists usually don't take into account the fact that what may be necessary now in order for something to be functional, may not have always been necessary.
Sure, if you remove a part of it, it might not function. But how about instead of removing it, you just change it in some way?

Furthermore, the functions of items may not be the same as they had once evolved for. So they may be irreducibly complex to fulfil the function that the item has now, but in fact can be broken down into things that can easily perform different functions. And this happens all the time with evolution.

[Groundpounder]

I can only leave you with one final thought.The apostle Paul wrote:

1 corinthians 18-21

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c] 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

[¿¿¿]

Originally Posted by Groundpounder

I can only leave you with one final thought.The apostle Paul wrote:

1 corinthians 18-21

A bible passage also is not evidence for a god, unless the bible passage can be backed up with evidence.

I can create a book that has the passage "Mars is a living organism" written over and over. But unless it can be scientifically proven that Mars is a living organism (even if it is), it isn't evidence.

Now again, I'm not here to prove that god doesn't exist. I can't prove he doesn't exist. And I'm not here to stop people from believing he exists, either.

I think I have gotten what I wanted to know. And that is, that people here generally don't despise atheists, but just don't agree on the issue of god's existence.

[Paparock]

You said "I believe the contrary; without a god, humans are always accountable for their own actions."

In reality very few people are held accountable for their actions in this world by society as many commit crimes against each other before repeatedly before getting caught the first time. Then the probability of meaningful punishment for first offenders is extremely low. This trend continues throughout a person’s criminal history witness the number of people released from prison for extremely violent crimes only to repeat their offences ; study repeat offenders. A similar trend holds true in the social fabric of the societies of this world today also. What once was considered socially vile and socially unacceptable actions and ways of behavior are today hardly noticed at all. Manner of speech, actions, moral behavior have all changed, so that what was not acceptable 50 years ago and those that did such things would have been social outcasts are today accepted. So while people “without a god, humans are always accountable for their own actions." They are rarely “ held accountable” for their actions even when they are caught in the act. What good is it if they are supoosedly accoutable but there is no accoutability?

Another point to think about in this matter is that who is to determine what acceptable and not acceptable actions are. Over the earth there are totally different social structures with radically different ideas and even different subcultures within societies that hold polar opposite views. On what bases are you going to structure these actions are acceptable or not acceptable? Example: in one culture they see no wrong in forced marriage of females as young as five years old to adult males. A large group of this culture migrates to a new nation where this is not accepted who has the right to either allow the established practice to continue or to demand it cease. Does the society that relocated have the right to demand the established society accept these new comers’ ways as acceptable? You see without a center basis of agreement from which to start it is impossible to agree on even what is good and what is bad. Is society to take a vote each and every time something comes up to see what the majority thinks? If you say yes then those in the minority will ban together in an area until within that area they are the majority then the society is faced with what to do then. Let that group operate separately or inference the larger group will by force. See it becomes a slippery slope really fast.

[¿¿¿]

[quote=Paparock;18932]You said "I believe the contrary; without a god, humans are always accountable for their own actions."

In reality very few people are held accountable for their actions in this world by society as many commit crimes against each other before repeatedly before getting caught the first time. Then the probability of meaningful punishment for first offenders is extremely low. This trend continues throughout a person’s criminal history witness the number of people released from prison for extremely violent crimes only to repeat their offences ; study repeat offenders. A similar trend holds true in the social fabric of the societies of this world today also. What once was considered socially vile and socially unacceptable actions and ways of behavior are today hardly noticed at all. Manner of speech, actions, moral behavior have all changed, so that what was not acceptable 50 years ago and those that did such things would have been social outcasts are today accepted. So while people “without a god, humans are always accountable for their own actions." They are rarely “ held accountable” for their actions even when they are caught in the act.

What definition of 'accountable' do you use?

I was under the impression that being accountable did not necessarily mean the actions you performed were always bad, or that if they were, that it didn't necessarily mean you'd be caught or punished for them.

Maybe I was confusing accountable with responsible.

In any case, what I meant was that if something happened (good or bad), and it was caused by an action by one or more people, you could not just say "god did it". Because it wasn't a god. It was people.

Also, it means that if something goes wrong, without a god, it's up to humans to try and fix the problem. As in, you can't just pray, and them hope god will fix it, or something.

Another point to think about in this matter is that who is to determine what acceptable and not acceptable actions are.

People do. Or at least, try to.
Unfortunately, people all too often disagree on what are acceptable or not acceptable actions.

Over the earth there are totally different social structures with radically different ideas and even different subcultures within societies that hold polar opposite views. On what bases are you going to structure these actions are acceptable or not acceptable? Example: in one culture they see no wrong in forced marriage of females as young as five years old to adult males. A large group of this culture migrates to a new nation where this is not accepted who has the right to either allow the established practice to continue or to demand it cease. Does the society that relocated have the right to demand the established society accept these new comers’ ways as acceptable?

That's why I say that laws are arbitrary. Yes, people do disagree on an extremely broad range of issues.

You see without a center basis of agreement from which to start it is impossible to agree on even what is good and what is bad.

It's not impossible to decide what's good or bad, because what's good or bad is arbitrary. In other words, something is only 'good' if people say it is. and something is only 'bad' if people say it is.

But people disagree all the time. That's why there are conflicts, wars, and violence in the world.

All we have to decide what laws or morals to abide by is a rough guide:
If I perform action X, will people like it?
If no, then more often than not, people will say that it's bad.
If yes, then a lot of the time, people will say it's good.

But a lot of the time, there is an overlap of people who like or don't like action X.
So what happens?
well, there are two things that can, and do happen.
1. some people try to decide on the occurance or non-occurance of action X peacefully
2. some people try to forcefully change the occurrence or non-occurrence event that action X is performed. Sometimes, to the point of killing other people in order to do so.

Often both #1 and #2 happen at the same time.

If #2 happens, then there are also two possibilities branching:
1. people can try to defend against the forceful change of occurrence or non-occurrence of action X being performed
2. people can allow the change

#1 usually happens if people are both able and willing (which is usually the case)
#2 usually happens if people are not able, and/or not willing. Often due to fear of being harmed, killed, or punished somehow.

-------------

The above system of deciding morals often leads to harm, death, and suffering. That's the world we live in.

Fortunately, natural selection has done us a favour in helping humans decide on moral codes. Societies that develop moral codes in which people mutually help each other, almost always fare better than societies that don't (though I'd hesitate to call them a society in that case).

So basically, if people help each other, it's beneficial for everyone.
Also, people are more inclined to follow moral codes if they like doing so. Or for fear of being punished by others for not doing so. Often both at the same time.

This system of generating morals is not perfect, as is clearly demonstrated by the world we live in. But it is enough reason for plenty of people, including atheists, to have morals.

*edit*
in relation to your first point, I think that the reason less people (individuals, with individual motives) are getting punished today, is because less people are willing to do actions that may cause harm, suffering or dislike in others. People often call this political correctness, and/or freedom.
In some ways, it works for the better. But in some ways, it doesn't.

[krajinder]

wish whole world was atheists

[Groundpounder]

Originally Posted by ¿¿¿

It then tries to make an argument about where they think Einstein went wrong. However, they base their argument on the bible. And to do so is circular logic

I'm sorry but,the argument that basing Christian arguments on the Bible as being circular reasoning or logic is invalid.It was refuted by Dr. Walter Martin in a debate with a man named Partridge in the 1960's.

The skeptic started with the argument, saying "I am Confucius," and went from there right down the well-trodden path. He then sat back with satisfaction and said, "You always quote the Bible to prove the Bible, and that's the problem with you Christians!"
"Who told YOU the Bible was a single book?" Martin answered. The skeptic looked at him and said, "Well, it is!" Martin said, "And that's the problem with you philosophers! You don't do your research; you just spout off without checking things. It just so happens that the Bible is not one book, it is a compilation of 66 books by 30-some-odd authors spanning a period of 1500 years!" So, Martin said, if Christians quote Matthew to substantiate Deuteronomy or Deuteronomy to substantiate Ezekiel or Ezekiel to substantiate Jude, we are not quoting one book but instead we are citing wholly independant sources. They are written by people who, despite living in different places and cultures and writing in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and fifteen centuries apart, all testify to one thing: they all had an encounter with the Living God.
Jesus and the rest of the people in the New Testament are constantly referring to the Old Testament as "The Scriptures." Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture." (2 Peter 3:16). James 2:23 calls Galatians 3:6 "Scripture." So if James and Peter back up Paul, then Paul is a valid source. And Paul backs up Jesus and the Old Testament in all things.

I'm just writing this in case you decide to use the circular logic in an argument again.It's already been proven invalid.

[Rascal]

As a self proclaimed Agnostic ,I would say,I would like to believe,but from what I see in todays religions,I don't see more spiritualism than I see politics.I feel that is what drives people away from religion.Too much politics.Religion needs to be something pure.When it achives a political adjenda to control the masses it has crossed the bridge into politics.That being said,I was brought up a Anglican but lost faith.A catholic once tried to talk to me about God ,but I told him "I have too much sinning left to do,maybe later in life I will re-find God".

The US and many other majority Catholic countries do a great job in making this seperation,but there are alternitive religions ,like the volitile Islam just waiting to explode,that like to use religion as more of a political tool than a true source of inner -peace.That is their downfall and all that fallow them.

[Demoralizer]

Originally Posted by Groundpounder

I'm sorry but,the argument that basing Christian arguments on the Bible as being circular reasoning or logic is invalid.It was refuted by Dr. Walter Martin in a debate with a man named Partridge in the 1960's.

I'm just writing this in case you decide to use the circular logic in an argument again.It's already been proven invalid.

Thank you, I got tired of his circular logic argument. Was waiting for someone to post something like this.

[BrittleSteel]

I believe from a Jewish perspective, it would be best if everyone believed in G-d, but that does not mean that an atheist is any way condemned. G-d is the perfect judge and judges everyone whether faithful or faithless based on their own situations and merits. It is completely possible for a believer to end up spending time in 'hell' while an atheist goes to 'heaven'. Only G-d knows.

However, we don't know either, even for our selves. Devotion and faith helps us ensure the likelihood that we will merit 'heaven'. (This point may require more elaboration).

[¿¿¿]

Originally Posted by Groundpounder

I'm sorry but,the argument that basing Christian arguments on the Bible as being circular reasoning or logic is invalid.It was refuted by Dr. Walter Martin in a debate with a man named Partridge in the 1960's.

I doubt that.
http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2...reasoning.html

It just so happens that the Bible is not one book, it is a compilation of 66 books by 30-some-odd authors spanning a period of 1500 years!" So, Martin said, if Christians quote Matthew to substantiate Deuteronomy or Deuteronomy to substantiate Ezekiel or Ezekiel to substantiate Jude, we are not quoting one book but instead we are citing wholly independant sources. They are written by people who, despite living in different places and cultures and writing in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and fifteen centuries apart, all testify to one thing: they all had an encounter with the Living God.

I'm sorry, but the argument he uses to defend the bible, is itself circular logic.

What does he base this on?
the bible.
He's using the bible to try and prove itself, which is circular logic. There is no way out of that.

Yes, the bible had multiple writers. That doesn't make it valid.

I could get a group of people together and write a story they made-up. That would be a book written by multiple people. Still doesn't make its content true.

I'm just writing this in case you decide to use the circular logic in an argument again.It's already been proven invalid.

The argument you used to try and prove that it is not circular logic, is itself circular logic.

You cannot use the bible to prove itself. simple as that.

I believe from a Jewish perspective, it would be best if everyone believed in G-d, but that does not mean that an atheist is any way condemned. G-d is the perfect judge and judges everyone whether faithful or faithless based on their own situations and merits. It is completely possible for a believer to end up spending time in 'hell' while an atheist goes to 'heaven'. Only G-d knows.

I'm glad you believe that, rather than "everybody who disagrees with my religion goes to hell"

[vishva]

About Athiesm...
I thought Athiesm is not a religion. Am I correct? that's why I'm replying to this thread.

I do not intend to hurt any religious faith. I'm just expressing my views on this.

When I look on YouTube and many other community forums I see many Athiests who hold Athiesm as a religion.
Athiesm is a free path of thinking. It liberates people from any organized religious politics, (peace).
But if an athiest goes on beating (verbally or) a thiest for holding a faith on a God, they are not different from some medivial thiest...

It is about freedom and peace in a new way. For me, not believing on a certain God does not mean an athiest.

[Paparock]

Many, Atheists do practice Atheism as a religion and many do not. As a Christian Zionist, it does not bother me either way. I know what and why I believe and each individual must come to terms with what he is, why he exists, how he is to interact with others, and where he is going for each of us is responsible for our own choices in this life so choose wisely. I believe seek truth with all your heart and all your soul and you will find it.

[PILMAN]

My personal view on it is that Atheism is not a religion, they are not bound by religions laws, therefore they do what they feel is right. Atheism is like the independent person in terms of politics.

it's not my business what someones religion is or isn't.