Is any one else on these boards an atheist?

[Proletariat]

I became an atheist after beginning to doubt my Methodist upbringing. As a teenager, I asked my pastor one day about something which had been bothering me. Prompted by some news stories at the time, I asked why God allows children, especially innocent babies to be tortured and murdered. His response was that God was calling the child to Heaven. I pointed out that such wasn't my question. If this just and loving God, and most importantly all-powerful and all-knowing God, wanted to call an innocent baby to Heaven, then why allow that innocent baby to be tortured, sexually abused and murdered first? He had no answer; so I went looking for one.

If you admit God is all knowing, how can you disbelieve in him because you don't understand the way his world works? I'm an atheist and can see a problem with that logic.

[Soulforged]

It was a pretty slow but steady fall from faith. I was actually pretty faithful, I even went to church until I was like 12 or 13 years old (not that long ago) and I even fanatically followed what I believed to be christian morals (Chatolic Apostolic Roman Church dogma). However all started to change after my uncle's death, it's hard to recover from such a blow, even so I forced myself to praise God further. I still believed but I also hated. When that hatred passed away I had a lot of questions for my religion teacher in the school (yes religion teacher, we call that assignature "catequesis" here), wich didn't return any desired answers. When I reached the University I remember reading Bakunin's "God and the State" wich determined me as an atheist. That was, simply put, the breaking point. Then I started to hate religion and religious people, hatred that grew when my father died, but I'm now simply an atheist, that hatred has disappeared completely.

However I'm almost sure when I say this: Everyone will look to a superior power when his life is menaced or when the questions are not answered by science, I do it myself when I hope for a life after this life.

[Lemur]

However I'm almost sure when I say this: Everyone will look to a superior power when his life is menaced or when the questions are not answered by science, I do it myself when I hope for a life after this life.

This reminds me of that old -- and false -- canard about how "there are no atheists in foxholes." Demonstrably false. Atheists have served, fought, and died for our nation, and for many other nations besides.

They've even got a bit of a web site.

Although I believe in the Almighty, I think it's false and demeaning to think that atheists (a) cannot have a basis for morality, and (b) cannot adhere to their beliefs in the face of danger, or even death.

A good person is a good person, no matter his or her belief system. And by the same token, a rotten, conniving back-stabber will be all that whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Manx.

[CrossLOPER]

how can you know a line is crooked

Pay attention in calculus?

[Lorenzo_H]

Pay attention in calculus?

Yeah! But If your calculus teacher had never seen a straight line he wouldn't have known!

[doc_bean]

Yeah! But If your calculus teacher had never seen a straight line he wouldn't have known!

If somethign as a straight line existed then he would be able to see and draw it, since it's clearly defined.

What was your point again ? Because I'm really not following this straight line thing...

[Lorenzo_H]

You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

How can you know what is the difference between good and bad, right and wrong without some preliminary knowledge given to you by something.

To put it into perspective, how can you know a line is crooked unless you have seen a straight line before? How can you know when something is wrong, if you don't know what is right?

I hesitate a moment before engaging you again, but I trust this will be relevant to the thread, and the issue of atheists having no basis for a moral compass.

Diablo*, you are a Christian and take the Bible as your moral guide, I believe?

Even if I accept some of your premises (for the sake of argument) such as the age of the earth and humanity (just over 4000 years of history, as I understand your position) throughout most of that time, the bulk of humanity had no access to the lessons of the Bible.

Yet there is good historical evidence that they developed moral codes. In your terms, they knew what a straight line looked like. How so?

If you argue that your god somehow gave them this information before they saw the bible, then you are accepting that there are divinely inspired texts and influences beyond that tome. If the bible is the only source of moral inspiration, how did these cultures develop moral codes before they were evangelised? If it is possible to develop a moral code from a belief system other than that of the Christian bible, why is the atheist belief system uniquely unable to do it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*I note the humour about your religion in your recent signature, so perhaps you do see the delicious joy in being able to address you in these debates by your abbreviated user-name.

[AntiochusIII]

You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.

Err...

God so did not give me my conscience.

In fact, I think something in the back of my head named Prometheus or somesuch is responsible for it. Or that's what he's always telling me.

Oh, and he's the one who taught me how to write a straight line. And make fire.

[Andres]

Well, it's a matter of believing: you believe in God or you don't.

On the other hand, if one dares to state he believes in God, chances are some atheist asks him to prove to him there is a God.

Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God...

[AntiochusIII]

Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God...

Who says I don't believe in a Creator? I just don't believe in some old, outdated concept like a grandfatherly figure with a mean streak creating everything and calling his creations "Ma Cheeldrien."

Ugh.

What I believe, however, is that reality is but a dream of a certain, all-powerful being, and that certain being is:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, it's a matter of believing: you believe in God or you don't.

On the other hand, if one dares to state he believes in God, chances are some atheist asks him to prove to him there is a God.

Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God...

Most atheists tend to have to ask a believer to provide some evidence because the believer is questioning their ability to function as a human being without belief in a higher being.

The reverse of the question is a useless exercise. If a believer is unwilling to accept the constraints of scientific method which rests upon hypotheses supported or disproved by observation - because his god cannot be observed - then there cannot be proof of that deity's absence. The word proof is redundant.

You might as well ask someone to prove to you the non-existence of leprechauns, fairies, gryphons, flibbertigibbets and every figment ever imagined or yet to be imagined. None of these beliefs can be tested, thus require faith, not proof.

The atheist simply discounts your unprovable hypothesis as having no practical influence on his daily activity. When you try to make him take it into account, he asks you to provide him with proof that it is a hypothesis he should be aware of. More militant atheists work against the very real practical influences believers exert on their daily lives. Some while ago, I posted about a judge who was disciplined because he admitted to taking advice from some ethereal dwarves. Yet many people in senior positions of influence claim that they receive advice from a similarly ethereal bearded fellow of greater than normal stature and this is seen as a desirable qualification for office. Why?

You might better amuse yourself by asking you why - if your faith allows for the existence of unprovable beings - it is your unprovable being that is the true one - as opposed to the legion of others. If I were a believer, this would be the preoccupation of my thoughts. Why is my deity and his/her moral code the only one that should be believed in? What techniques can I employ to ascertain the truth? Am I entirely sure that I should practise kindness and peace to all men to enter the promised land, rather than acts of heroism, violence and valour as advised by other invisible bearded chaps? Maybe it would be a good after-life choice to blow myself to glory in a crowd of schoolchildren for the reward of paradise and pliable virgins? Is a beard strictly necessary for divinity?

These and many, many more challenges presented by unprovable gods should occupy the believer, not the fate of those who don't believe.

Prove your god to yourself.

[caravel]

I was indoctrinated into atheism from birth. Brought up among a notorious atheist sect in a secluded mountain hideaway, preached to on a daily basis by atheist "hate preachers" under our mighty leader Osama Int Bin LaidYet we plotted the downfall of all religion.

[InsaneApache]

Well, it's a matter of believing: you believe in God or you don't.

On the other hand, if one dares to state he believes in God, chances are some atheist asks him to prove to him there is a God.

Now I would like to reverse this question and ask the atheists: prove to me there is NO God...

Surely the onus is on the proposition that something is there rather than that it is not.

Ok we've played nicely so I'll tell you why I arrived at my view.

Brought up an Anglican Catholic. Church on Sundays, Sunday school afterwards. Chorister in the school/church choir (until my balls dropped ) I was pretty much immersed in the faith.

R.E. at junior school and double R.E. at grammar school were imposed just make sure that I stayed `on message'.

Then I started learning about science. I was very much interested in the sciences, because in common with a lot of boys of my generation I wanted to be an astronaut. Man had landed on the Moon and the way to the stars lay before us (or so I thought at the time).

Physics and chemistry were my favourites but somehow I ended up doing a biology O level. The more I learned, the more I found my new knowledge at variance with my faith. As hard as I tried I could not get the two to dovetail together.

Then I was introduced to the classics. The Illyiad, The Odessy et al. This made me ask myself about these older religions. About this time I was also exposed to other contemporary religions.

If Christianity, not just Christianity but the particular flavour that I had been taught, was right, then surely all these others must be, by definition wrong. If however one of the others was right, then mine must also be wrong. They couldn't all be right. Ergo they could all be wrong.

The more I looked at the Bible (King James version ) the more I became convinced that, although a great read and a belting tale, that's all it was, a tale.

There were other factors at play but this is the essence.

[Lorenzo_H]

I hesitate a moment before engaging you again, but I trust this will be relevant to the thread, and the issue of atheists having no basis for a moral compass.

Diablo*, you are a Christian and take the Bible as your moral guide, I believe?

Even if I accept some of your premises (for the sake of argument) such as the age of the earth and humanity (just over 4000 years of history, as I understand your position) throughout most of that time, the bulk of humanity had no access to the lessons of the Bible.

Yet there is good historical evidence that they developed moral codes. In your terms, they knew what a straight line looked like. How so?

If you argue that your god somehow gave them this information before they saw the bible, then you are accepting that there are divinely inspired texts and influences beyond that tome. If the bible is the only source of moral inspiration, how did these cultures develop moral codes before they were evangelised? If it is possible to develop a moral code from a belief system other than that of the Christian bible, why is the atheist belief system uniquely unable to do it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*I note the humour about your religion in your recent signature, so perhaps you do see the delicious joy in being able to address you in these debates by your abbreviated user-name.

If you'll pardon my asking, but I didn't understand one bit of this post, escpecially regarding my username and signature.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If you'll pardon my asking, but I didn't understand one bit of this post, escpecially regarding my username and signature.

Hmm. OK.

Jokey part first. You have recently adopted this signature:

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. Peter Kay

Since this pokes gentle fun at Christian morality, I took it as a sign that you have sense of humour about your faith. Your user name is translated as "devil of the sea" so I found it amusing to engage you in religious debate by referring to you as Diablo, or Devil. In the light of your apparent humour, I hoped this might lighten our discussions.

The substantive part of my post was to address your argument that atheists cannot be moral without god.

I noted that your god and his ethics were unknown to many historical cultures and yet they had moral guidelines.

I wanted to know how you thought this could happen before the word of your god got to them, since you appear to believe the bible is the only source of moral guidance.

I pre-empted some of your answers by giving examples of what those answers might mean.

Clearer?

[BDC]

Surely it is superior to be nice to people out of your own personal feelings, rather than out of fear of retribution from a god?

[doc_bean]

You cannot know if something was wrong if someone/something hadn't put it on your mind that it was wrong. i.e. your conscience. Which God gave you.

My parents thought me part of it, another part of morality is simply encoded in my genes because that kind of morality is beneficial to "society", and more importantly, my own survival (and chances to reproduce, and my possible future offspring).

If there is such a thing as absolute morality, how come some people claim piracy is one of the most heinous of crimes and others see it as a normal activity. How come women can walk around half naked here, yet have to be fully (I do mean fully) covered in same middle eastern places. How come a Pakistani tribal court can think gang raping someone's sister is a good sentence, while I find that disgusting ?

There's even a huge difference of morality between christians. How could the inquisition (clergymen no less) apply torture yet follow the same Bible as Methodists or the Amish ? Why do so many christian Americans approve of the death sentence, while christian workers around the world protest this practice ?

Morality is not absolute, it's relative, a way for a society to function. Society benefits mankind (medicin, science,taking care of eachother). That's why we have morality, because we are 'social' beings.

[Lorenzo_H]

My parents thought me part of it, another part of morality is simply encoded in my genes because that kind of morality is beneficial to "society", and more importantly, my own survival (and chances to reproduce, and my possible future offspring).

If there is such a thing as absolute morality, how come some people claim piracy is one of the most heinous of crimes and others see it as a normal activity. How come women can walk around half naked here, yet have to be fully (I do mean fully) covered in same middle eastern places. How come a Pakistani tribal court can think gang raping someone's sister is a good sentence, while I find that disgusting ?

There's even a huge difference of morality between christians. How could the inquisition (clergymen no less) apply torture yet follow the same Bible as Methodists or the Amish ? Why do so many christian Americans approve of the death sentence, while christian workers around the world protest this practice ?

Morality is not absolute, it's relative, a way for a society to function. Society benefits mankind (medicin, science,taking care of eachother). That's why we have morality, because we are 'social' beings.

Yes I am familiar with the arguement of absolutes. I think it's best to condemn these evil things, accept they are not part of what Jesus Christ taught, and follow his teachings. Luckily, I will probably never encounter a scenario in which my absolute values are to be tested (having said that, I plan to join the army).

[Lorenzo_H]

Hmm. OK.

Jokey part first. You have recently adopted this signature:



Since this pokes gentle fun at Christian morality, I took it as a sign that you have sense of humour about your faith. Your user name is translated as "devil of the sea" so I found it amusing to engage you in religious debate by referring to you as Diablo, or Devil. In the light of your apparent humour, I hoped this might lighten our discussions.

The substantive part of my post was to address your argument that atheists cannot be moral without god.

I noted that your god and his ethics were unknown to many historical cultures and yet they had moral guidelines.

I wanted to know how you thought this could happen before the word of your god got to them, since you appear to believe the bible is the only source of moral guidance.

I pre-empted some of your answers by giving examples of what those answers might mean.

Clearer?

Ah yes. I do have a sense of humour, you're right.

And you can call me whatever you want within reason. I chose diablo del mar as my name not because I am a devil worshipping sailor but because I like the Spanish language and it is a good name for a Spanish pirate ship in a novel I once read.

And what I said about people who have never read the bible, is that there is still hope for them.

[doc_bean]

I plan to join the army

How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ?


Not mention Jesus' 'command' of turning the other cheek ?

[caravel]

How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ?


Not mention Jesus' 'command' of turning the other cheek ?

It's ok to kill infidels apparently as they're already booked into hell anyway. All religion works like that. Scribble out a few words and change them around, rip out a few pages here and there...

[Watchman]

Mom was raised to be a religious believer, but her faith kind of died out at the early teens. Not that she can accept the categorical denial of the "strong atheist" position eihter - too much undemonstrable issues of reverse faith.

Dad's enough of a conniving crook he probably never believed in the first place, regardless of nurture (which I presume to be primarily responsible of the former anyway). Certainly doesn't nowadays, and I've never bothered asking about earlier.

The elementary school I went to (and hated deeply) was of the deeply religious sort, which more or less tainted Christianity in particular and religious belief in general forever in my eyes by association. That's what you get for alienating kids with too much preaching at the tender formative stage.

End result is I unsurprisingly am none too convinced the divine exists, but don't really care either since I seem to get by right fine anyway. Others are free to find salvation for their souls the way they want as far as I'm concerned.

Is that just agnosticims or does it count as atheism ?


As for the crooked line, I doubt if its existence is particularly dependent of us. Once there is a sapient, language-using being like a human that perceives one through its senses it duly needs to preocure some sort of designation for it that differentiates it from what the being defines as a straight line though. A hassle that comes with the territory of being a sapient being that has to give names to things to differentiate them from other things.


And Antiochus ? Seconded. Nutball Haruhi beats some beardy old homophobe any day.

[CBR]

If you have the atheist in you, why? What brought you to that conclusion?

Never believed in gods and so far havent had any divine revelations

There are lots of religions out there and some, if not most of them, claim to be the only true one. They cannot all be right, but all the evidence they seem to have is some kind of personal close connection to their god. I just need slightly more than "But I can feel his presence!" or whatever the claim is.


CBR

[CBR]

How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ?

AFAIK the proper translation is more like "you shall not murder" The old Testament had no problems with killing in self defense/war, while doing it for personal gain is seen as wrong.


CBR

[Husar]

Surely it is superior to be nice to people out of your own personal feelings, rather than out of fear of retribution from a god?

Neither of these ways is it supposed to work if you are a christian, it's more like you develop into the first kind because if you love God, you will automatically and by your free will try to act as he wants you to act and that will change you as a person over time so that your own personal feelings will be nice.

[BDC]

Neither of these ways is it supposed to work if you are a christian, it's more like you develop into the first kind because if you love God, you will automatically and by your free will try to act as he wants you to act and that will change you as a person over time so that your own personal feelings will be nice.

Why do you have to love god to do that?

[doc_bean]

AFAIK the proper translation is more like "you shall not murder" The old Testament had no problems with killing in self defense/war, while doing it for personal gain is seen as wrong.


CBR

I believe most justified killing was in case of war (which would have been killing non-jews) or in applying 'justice'.

Now, in the old days, the jews were the chose people, so they could kill an enslave pretty much everyone all they wanted. Since JC, God has embraced all people, so by extension, killing anyone in case of war should be considered wrong.

The death penalty is arguably still valid, but then only in cases were the Bible allows it.

[macsen rufus]

Well, I think I'm an atheist, but agnostic is probably closer to it.

Most of the reasoning behind this position has been posited by other posters. IAs reasoning about if one religion is correct, then all the others are wrong is central in my thinking too, what I call the "One True Faith dilemma". Any believer (including atheists, in their way) generally adopts the belief of their culture, leaving the question "How come I had the fortune to be born into the ONE TRUE FAITH when the vast majority aren't?"

I totally reject the idea that morality can only come from religious belief, or that "conscience" is purely god-given. Our notions of "right and wrong" are socialised values. No one comes to maturity without being indoctrinated in the beliefs of their community, and like a fish in the sea, these values form part of the "moral environment" and are perceived as givens. "Conscience" is the act of judging yourself against the values you hold (wherever they are derived), and morality is NOT an issue of right and wrong but "how well do I fit the society around me?"

I prefer to draw a distinction between morality and ethics (and no pedantry please, I know I'm using both terms in a slightly non-standard way here ) whereby I see morality as the adherence to social norms as a matter of obedience (which I believe fits the religious Ten Commandments style of thinking), but ethics I see as the application of a set of value judgments to one's actions (which I believe is a better description for humanist value-sets). I agree with BDC that I prefer to know that people are restrained from killing me because they've thought about it and applied their values to their actions than because they're simply following orders - "thou shalt not kill" is a fine commandment, but following a rational decision to not kill is superior to my mind. In this way I see secular humanism as an advance in morality/ethics over and beyond the proscriptive, obedience-based moral codes derived from religious beliefs.

The whole idea of a personal and interested overbeing I find absurd. The agnostic tendency overlaid on my general atheist standpoint comes from a reverence for the principle of Life (life as a system, not every beloved little foetus) which is something special in the Universe. The self-organising, anti-entropic principle is awesome. BUT I don't feel it needs to have been designed, or created with "purpose". The study of complex systems proves that new behaviours emerge from them, and the chemistry of carbon is incredibly complex. Life is an emergent behaviour in organic chemistry, just as speciation, evolution, consciousness and intelligence are emergent in their turn.

Scientific method is the only grounds for investigating the nature of the universe, as it is transparent and repeatable, and REFUTABLE. We can be sure that where science can be refuted - a theory disproved - it WILL BE. Unlike religion which places itself above judgment. Science does not have all the answers - it is after all a process, not a doctrine. But more answers and explanations will come, more light will be shed into dark corners. I believe the universe to be rationally comprehendable, but that does not mean every individual human being will have the IQ necessary to understand all of it. I abhor the notion that if we come to a limit of what we can explain, for now, then the only explanation left must be "god did it." That's a capitulation, not an answer.

And then of course there is the "Problem of Evil" -- why should an all-powerful, all-knowing and supremely LOVING god allow evil and suffering to flourish? And if the existence of conscience "proves" God exists, doesn't the existence of psychopaths (in strict medical sense) therefore prove he doesn't?

Finally, one question for diablo:

I will probably never encounter a scenario in which my absolute values are to be tested

Really? Most of the committed Christians I know say their faith is engaged in the world and tested numerous times a day. I find my values tested every day, regardless that they are largely secular and humanist in origin. If your faith is not engaged in every action and decision, what role does it actually play in your life?

[Lorenzo_H]

How can you POSSIBLY do that knowing the first commandment ?


Not mention Jesus' 'command' of turning the other cheek ?

Let me echo what CBR said. Thanks CBR.