Ask an Atheist

[doseofreality]

It may be a loaded question, but it proved that you're not bigoted and you have the intellect to understand how to answer the question.

I'd also like to inquire whether you believe infinity to be probable or improbable in our universe, do you sway towards the idea of multiverses being probable? How about extraterrestrial life, do you believe aliens are statistically probable?

infinity with respect to time? I can't say because time is relative.
I will say that I think eternity is probable since "something" exists, "something" must have always existed.

I am not a physicist or cosmologist so I cannot comment on probability of a multiverse. It is a theory with no evidence thus far.

Alien life does not interest me that much. I have to say that statistically it is probable though.
However, I think "life" could be vastly different than what we think of as life here on earth.

 

[doseofreality]

I'm not talking about numbers, but that the great commission is being fulfilled. By the way, in mentioning Mormonism your still proving the bible's point, apostasy is increasing...

Here is more info about gospels.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


**Yes I know its wikipedia, Im lazy

 

[Spokenpassage]

Here is more info about gospels.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that where you are getting all your information, from wikipedia?

 

[Pozessed]

infinity with respect to time? I can't say because time is relative.
I will say that I think eternity is probable since "something" exists, "something" must have always existed.

I am not a physicist or cosmologist so I cannot comment on probability of a multiverse. It is a theory with no evidence thus far.

Alien life does not interest me that much. I have to say that statistically it is probable though.
However, I think "life" could be vastly different than what we think of as life here on earth.

Have you ever considered the possibility of energy behaving intelligently?

 

[doseofreality]

Is that where you are getting all your information, from wikipedia?

Haha no not at all... but it is my go to for quick info. Plus it is organized and concise.

That page had nearly 200 sources cited, you could check out each source if you wanted to.

 

[doseofreality]

Have you ever considered the possibility of energy behaving intelligently?

Uh oh, where is this going?

Well I am potential energy, and I behave intelligently sometimes...

Define "intelligently".
As far as pure energy, with no brain, how would you measure intelligence?

 

[Pozessed]

Uh oh, where is this going?

Well I am potential energy, and I behave intelligently sometimes...

Define "intelligently".
As far as pure energy, with no brain, how would you measure intelligence?

Electromagnetic energy is a great example. We use it to transfer almost immeasurable amounts of data a day. Yet, it goes unquestioned whether or not it can be intelligent. The information certainly has intelligence. Our human brains use and exhaust electromagnetic waves to function.

Why should electromagnetic energy not be thought of as intelligent? This whole universe exists in frequencies due to electromagnetism, frequencies that we can't fathom. It seems pretty quick to claim your an atheist and you haven't even pondered the question of how an intelligent being would control a universe.

 

[doseofreality]

Electromagnetic energy is a great example. We use it to transfer almost immeasurable amounts of data a day. Yet, it goes unquestioned whether or not it can be intelligent. The information certainly has intelligence. Our human brains use and exhaust electromagnetic waves to function.

Why should electromagnetic energy not be thought of as intelligent? This whole universe exists in frequencies due to electromagnetism, frequencies that we can't fathom. It seems pretty quick to claim your an atheist and you haven't even pondered the question of how an intelligent being would control a universe.

hmm I may have to concede to you from ignorance.

I am not familiar with the intricacies of electromagnetic energy.

I dispute than information itself is intelligent, intelligence is defined as a mind using information to make decisions.

"how an intelligent being would control a universe" .... that is speculation is it not?
Also as an atheist I do not eliminate the possibility of such intelligent beings, but do you have evidence for this being?

 

[Pozessed]

hmm I may have to concede to you from ignorance.

I am not familiar with the intricacies of electromagnetic energy.

I dispute than information itself is intelligent, intelligence is defined as a mind using information to make decisions.

"how an intelligent being would control a universe" .... that is speculation is it not?
Also as an atheist I do not eliminate the possibility of such intelligent beings, but do you have evidence for this being?

Nope, but my only intention was to get you intrigued. With a scientific mind, looking into things that may be possible should befit you, should it not?

Oh and yes it is speculation, but my speculation is based on scientific facts about electromagnetism. As far as I know there would be no way to prove this as of yet. I'm not a physicist. I just like to dabble.

 

[doseofreality]

Nope, but my only intention was to get you intrigued. With a scientific mind, looking into things that may be possible should befit you, should it not?

Oh and yes it is speculation, but my speculation is based on scientific facts about electromagnetism. As far as I know there would be no way to prove this as of yet. I'm not a physicist. I just like to dabble.

Yes, but until the speculation can be backed by evidence, then something "possible" should not be believed to be true.

Its possible we are all in the matrix, its possible aliens are living in ice houses on saturns moon, etc...

 

[Pozessed]

Yes, but until the speculation can be backed by evidence, then something "possible" should not be believed to be true.

Its possible we are all in the matrix, its possible aliens are living in ice houses on saturns moon, etc...

If my speculation had no logical evidence I'd agree. We look for life on other planets because it's possible they are there. We look for other planets to move to, because we speculate that we will some day have the potential to move there. We speculated the Earth was flat at one time as well as the sun revolved around it.
What these things have in common with the idea I suggested is that they are all tangible speculations and they all have physical properties that should not be overlooked.

 

[gamlet]

I guess my only honest answer is I don't know. The documentation of his life is really shotty. I'm also not a historian. Some historians have given evidence for why such a man never existed. Others say he did. I honestly think that he was a real man that may have been a prophet and teacher that lived a normal life and attracted a following. People then wrote stories about him and turned him into the character in the bible by attaching the supernatural claims. He was probably written in to fulfill the OT prophecies and to reform the religion to make it more appealing as the OT laws were becoming outdated as society and their morals changed.

How can you have enough knowledge of him when you discredit the most pertinent historical document about him? When you say, "He was probably written in," that's a very big probably. You really exercise great faith in the scholars who have said that before you.

 

[Cycel]

Jesus gave the "golden rule" and the world would be a better place if more followed that whether they "believe" or not.

Jesus said: “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).

The Golden Rule would make the world a better place if it were followed by all. On this I agree. If it can be said that there is a philosophy I live by then this would be it, but I must point out Jesus was not the first to proclaim it.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cause and effect can go in two directions between "believing" and "following Jesus". I find it more credible when someone follows Jesus first. The believing or faith part can be discovered afterwards.

If by follow Jesus first you mean follow the Golden Rule, then this is what I have tried to live by for nearly 50 years. Was it something else you meant? The problem with this approach for me is that there was already a time that I believed in Jesus as the Son of God and this belief was lost. So in a sense: “Been there, done that.”

The point I have tried to stress is that I already went through a period when I very much wanted to believe in God and for those Christians who always respond with the assertion that I only need ask God, or give myself to God, etc., I have to say I tried that route. I tried it sincerely, but God never responded. So once a person has made the sincere effort to that end then what comes next? Now that the feeling of urgency to seek belief has left me I don’t see a way to get it back. I no longer desire it.

I suppose I must confess I am no longer searching for the path back, but if you feel you have solid evidence for my lost beliefs I am always happy to examine them. Only know that I have, as far as I can tell, already looked under every stone.

 

[Cycel]

Have you ever considered the possibility of energy behaving intelligently?

Well I am potential energy, and I behave intelligently sometimes...

Define "intelligently".
As far as pure energy, with no brain, how would you measure intelligence?

Another issue is, ‘How can potential energy be stored, organized, and directed without some mechanism, such as a brain or a computer, to organize and direct it?’ I have all kinds of programs and data on my computer, but vaporize the hardware and what becomes of the potential energy stored there? Doesn’t it just dissipate to the environment?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The Golden Rule would make the world a better place if it were followed by all. On this I agree. If it can be said that there is a philosophy I live by then this would be it, but I must point out Jesus was not the first to proclaim it.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If by follow Jesus first you mean follow the Golden Rule, then this is what I have tried to live by for nearly 50 years. Was it something else you meant? The problem with this approach for me is that there was already a time that I believed in Jesus as the Son of God and this belief was lost. So in a sense: “Been there, done that.”

The point I have tried to stress is that I already went through a period when I very much wanted to believe in God and for those Christians who always respond with the assertion that I only need ask God, or give myself to God, etc., I have to say I tried that route. I tried it sincerely, but God never responded. So once a person has made the sincere effort to that end then what comes next? Now that the feeling of urgency to seek belief has left me I don’t see a way to get it back. I no longer desire it.

I suppose I must confess I am no longer searching for the path back, but if you feel you have solid evidence for my lost beliefs I am always happy to examine them. Only know that I have, as far as I can tell, already looked under every stone.

I'd say just follow that Golden Rule for if you believe Jesus' words that's all Jesus asks for you beleive in, but believe his words that he have a Father too and that is God that you should believe too and that should enough for you to be called Christian by any biblical standard I can think of. Just keep being good to people and believe in God.

 

[Cycel]

How can you have enough knowledge of him when you discredit the most pertinent historical document about him? When you say, "He was probably written in," that's a very big probably. You really exercise great faith in the scholars who have said that before you.

Hi Gamlet,
When we atheists take the secular approach it means we interpret biblical scripture with the same critical insight that we would apply to any other written source. What you are doing is taking this written source and arguing that it is above criticism. You are making the claim that its special nature makes it more correct, more accurate and more trustworthy than other human documents; you would argue it cannot be truly compared to other human works. You want to make its contents above reproach. I imagine Mormons say the same thing of the Book of Mormon and that Muslims say the same of the Koran. Everyone involved want to create a framework in which their own scripture cannot be critiqued as a work of human literature. Just remember that before the New Testament was compiled these individual ‘books’ circulated as personal letters and sermons, or in the case of the four gospels as just a few among many other such accounts that widely circulated among the churches of the empire. They were in the beginning not considered sacred texts.

 

[Sirk]

I think it's the for this thread to die. Titus 3:9. Next!

 

[Cycel]

I think it's the for this thread to die. Titus 3:9. Next!

“But steer clear of foolish speculations, genealogies, quarrels, and controversies over the Law; they are unprofitable and pointless.” (Titus 3:9). I suppose this must mean that the author of Titus noticed Christians were always doing this among themselves?

Lucky for us this discussion has not included anything on Old Testament Law or genealogies of Christ (I wonder if this impies that arguments over which was the true genealogy of Jesus was very common back then?). As for not quarrelling or speculating (ie., discussing points of view) what then would the point of even having a forum, for what is a forum if not a place for discussion?

 

[Cycel]

My second son who was born with fluid in his lungs and science said he wouldn't make and if he did he would be debilitated all his life....

Science said? You actually mean one, two or three medical doctors told you something? Very often it is one doctor who talks with us in hospital, at least that has been my experience; unless, of course, your son saw a number of specialists who all talked with you, but this would suggest your son received medical treatment.

The whole paragraph that this statement is attached to is one long denouncement of medical science, yet it was a medical doctor, using the science at his disposal to help your son, yes? Your boy wasn’t born and then immediately sent home with medical problems, was he? He was treated? So when you later added that he recovered “all by the power of God that defied science” you are telling me that your son received no medical treatment?

I can assure you that without medical treatment my second born son would have died. He spent the first two months of his life in the neonatal intensive care unit.

 

[Cycel]

As an atheist, do you conclude that a Creator of the universe certainly does not exist?

In Babylonian religion Marduk was the creator god and among the Canaanites it was Baal. So let us call God by his proper name, Yahweh – as revealed by Moses – to distinguish him from some of the other creator gods. If, as an atheist it is considered improper to deny the existence of a given creator god without sufficient evidence then I suppose it would also be necessary to admit the possible existence of Marduk and Baal as well as that of Yahweh, and perhaps also a large number of additional deities once thought of as the creators of the world. Richard Dawkins states, “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist” (The God Delusion, p. 51).

So for this philosophical reason many atheists claim, as does Dawkins, not to have total conviction. Yet, is it reasonable to claim that Yahweh, Marduk and Baal, along with hundreds of names of other gods that we might look up, could all – possibly – exist? One approach is to make the assumption that all of them might exist, while the other consideration is that in the absence of sufficient proof there is no reason to assume any of them exist. The latter view is mine. So, if it can be considered reasonable by anyone to deny that Marduk or Baal existed then it should be equally reasonable to conclude that Yahweh did not exist.