Atheists I have a question for u?

Question

that remained unanswered after 28 empty responses
This is why I need u to read carefully and take your time and please give me strong answers or else u know what it would look like
I'm trying to get around your way of thinking that is

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av_nG4P8WSjnKcKMCV85pKnsy6IX?qid=20060926111001AA58w1Y

lol parrot
buddy I don't intend to do ur research for u
and how come u r a real atheist if u don't have your own theory to where we came from?

spamandham
I did happen to read ur 'no solicitation sign'
glad u changed your mind

Answer 1

Well a long question deserves a long answer… With that said…First, I would like to know... have you delved deeply into the theory of evolution? If so, I would like you to point me towards the laughable flaw... Next, I would like to establish what exactly a scientific theory is (in case you believe Intelligent Design is a acceptable alternate scientific theory)

A scientific theory is a theory based upon observed trends in nature that supports found evidence. But most importantly, a scientific theory is able to be falsified. This means that it CAN be proven wrong by SCIENCTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION. This is where Intelligent Design fails as a theory, as there is no way to prove conclusively that there is no God (I don’t believe there is, but I will admit that my position is nothing more than a belief, as is yours…)

Furthermore, I would like to file a protest against this statement of yours… “Did u know that all proposed scientific theories on the areas of creation and existence have as many flaws as the religion of the dumbest tribe of skinny dwarves in Middle Africa?”
Not only is it racist, implying that tribal Africans are dumb, it is flat out wrong. There is no such thing as a flaw in religion because religion is a set of beliefs. All religion requires is for you to believe… Science requires you to not believe. Therefore, discrepancies in religion can be believed away, while discrepancies in science are researched, or we accept and admit that we simply do not know. (This religion is unable to do… because it is a belief system, it must always know, it must always have the answer…)

Now... it seems you pose a few questions:
"1-Why does your heart go with science?
2-What do u demand from a given religion so u would embrace it?

It’s okay to tell me your own theory to what is our purpose in life too"

1. Why does my heart go with science? Because, unlike religion, science is based in evidence. Science is a skeptics world. The entire goal of science is to prove that you are wrong... It does not ask you to blindly believe and anyone can disprove anything (so long as they do so through proper scientific methods.) Science is ALL ABOUT change and a change of paradigm. This is contrary to any organized religion... leading me to your second posed question...

2. What do I demand from any given religion so that I may better embrace it? Well, this one is a tough one. Personally, there is no religion that I would embrace for the simple reason that every religion asks me to place my faith in some higher power that cannot be proved to exist or not exist. Religion asks me to force a heirarchical system upon myself, to place myself in a powerless situation relative to others (preachers/bishops etc... not sure what the Islamic equivalent is, if there is one...) Even eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddism etc ask me to place faith in that which cannot be proved. Furthermore, all of these religions are unbending, they are not flexible. They refuse to adapt their views of the divine entity they choose to believe in...

As for my belief in the purpose of life... I will be blunt. I do not believe we have a higher purpose in life. To say otherwise is to take part in the grand anthropocentric feeling of society which is destroying this world. To believe in a higher purpose is to believe we are better than that from which we came and better than that in which we live. To believe such leads to a degradation of the natural order of earth. Even those who look at themselves as 'stewards' or ‘protectors’ of the earth degrade it, placing themselves above it, insisting they need to protect it from other anthropocentric people. This insistence leads to further abuse. There is a reason we have lost so many rainforests, and that reason is anthropocentric people who believe that we are above the world and it is ours to use. This feeling is further enhanced by the belief of many religions in the separation of the human being into two separate entities (Body and Soul.) Most depict the body (aka Nature) as something evil which must be shed, or something temporary, something which holds the Soul back until such time as the Soul is able to shed the body. But, this separation is again only implying that we are superior. We are not superior to any being on the planet. Different, but not superior. But we feel we must assert our superiority in our minds, we feel we must prescribe a meaning to our existence, because the natural meaning of life (survival and procreation) no longer cuts it for us. Why? Because our survival as a species is ensured by our constant control of our environment. Our brains have progressed past the point at which we must worry about survival and reproduction to the point where we feel superior, and must prescribe a new meaning to our lives to fit the superior feeling. We push meaning onto our lives to ease our consciousness, and now that we can comprehend time after our own deaths, we must rationalize it (in case you didn’t know, most other animals are to busy surviving to even begin to develop comprehension of a time after their own demise.) If you look closely, you will see religion beginning to take shape once we, as a species, began to exert stifling control over our living environment…

I hope I have been somewhat coherent. I can go on for pages to answer each of your questions, and I have tried to summarize my feelings as best I can… feel free to ask questions if you will… Thank you.

Answer 2

~Congratulations. You have deduced correctly that science does not have all the answers. That is the simple fact which, in and of itself, drives scientist and thinkers to continue to question and to examine the mysteries of life.

What you have have failed to learn is that religion, from the animists and pagans through the Jews, Christians and Muslims, is the unthinking man's means by which the answers can be had through superstition and fable.

Your faith, if it is strong enough, will preclude you from accepting the fact that the mythology your revere is made of wholecloth and will come tumbling down under a modicum of scrutiny. If not the Big Bang, then from whence sprang the universe? Oh, right - God (by whatever name) created it. Ok, then from whence sprang God? Ah, he (it) was always there you say. But consider this: where was "there". If there was no universe, there was no place from which god could create.

Rather than to ask me to prove science is correct (and science itself would disagree with that statement - theories are postulated, "proven" and discarded with each new leap forward in knowledge) why don't you try proving to me - or yourself - that god (of whatever flavor) exists without putting forth some meaningless statement of faith and then discount conclusively any other possible genesis of the "proofs" you offer?

If god exists and is involved with the doings of Man, I want no part of a God that will allow the death, distruction and disharmony that so emphatically punctuates Man's conduct. If god is not involved with the doings of Man, then of what use is god or the worship of it. Organized religion is another matter entirely and should be abolished. More genocide and death have come at the hands of organized religion than from any other plague in human history.

I confess I have not read the the various "holy" books in their entirties, any more than I have read the complete works of Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon or Albert Einstein. What does your book say of the Dinosaurs? Is Pluto a planet in your book (or does it even exist)? What becomes of Java Man, Lucy, Neanderthal Man and Peking Man in your book? Why, if they are Man and god's favored creation, were they erased? Did god make a mistake - no god is infallible - just look what his creation has done to itself.

You may keep your faith in your mythology. It matters not to me. I will not try to convert you. With sufficient education and scientific curiosity, perhaps you will someday see the light. For me, I'll accept the fact that the laws of physics will make the sun come up tomorrow and realize that the power of prayer is useless against the rethlessness of Man.

Number this amongst your empty responses if you will, but until you can prove god - by whatever name you choose to call it - other than by faith, your empty questions begs empty answers.

Answer 3

It's interesting you note the name of the Big Bang - it was actually coined by somebody that was trying to discredit it.

I'd disagree with your statement that evolution is "laughably flawed". I've seen many arguments picking holes in it from one angle or another. However, a few minute's research will show that all the common holes advanced by Creationists are in fact wrong - using bad science, bad definitions, or claiming their lack of imagination as proof of impossibility. I'd in fact challenge you to find one big hole in evolution that is not either completely answered, or has several plausible theories offered for it. Even if evolution is flawed, it does not follow that there is only one alternative, and this is God. It is possible that another theory of life, not yet imagined, is the correct one.

From your last discussion, you claim the 72 virgins was made up for a film - well see http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html for the references that show it wasn't (and may actually mean 72 grapes).

Your original question has the implicit assumption that our lives have a purpose. There is no reason for this to be the case. The truth isn't what we want it to be - the truth just *is*.

Your additional replies to your original question hints at what you never actually asked, but want to know: why believe one thing over another? The answer, for science, is something called evidence. Nobody, (I hope), believes that the text of, say, The Blind Watchmaker, is literally true. They just feel it is a good summary of the available evidence at the time. What science believes can change over time, should new evidence emerge, or new theories be offered. This is a massive departure from religion, where texts are held to be sacred and unchangeable. Given the choice between taking an expert opinion based on the best currently available evidence, or a fixed dogma based on revelation and tradition, it's clear which one holds the best chance of being the correct explanation. Also, people do not "choose" to believe. If I offered you a million quid to believe the moon is purple, either you have a different mind to mine, or you couldn't honestly take the money - you can see with your own eyes it's grey. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. Belief in something because there is there is good evidence is the opposite of faith, it is rational instead of irrational. The two theories are not equivalent - they are rooted in directly opposing ways of looking at the universe - and just because religion scores some "hits" doesn't make it right or equivalent; science will do its own thing - it is not *required* to come to opposite conclusions, but it is free to change them. Faith isn't.

Edit:
"buddy I don't intend to do ur research for u"

You are the one claiming evolution is flawed. It is up to you to demonstrate this is the case, not the atheists. Trust me, we've heard all the arguments and proved them wrong a thousand times before. So: name ONE flaw with evolution that there isn't an answer to on any big site like talkorigins

" and how come u r a real atheist if u don't have your own theory to where we came from?"

You are here implicitly assuming that belief in God is the natural state of things, and people who don't believe have to justify themselves. Wrong. It is your theory that God exists, therefore it is up to you to offer both evidence that God exists, and is as described by the texts of your faith, and is not, in fact, another God entirely. You also seem to think that, by suggesting people get their own theory, that all theories are equivalent. They aren't - some are evidence-based, so why not rely on one of those instead of pulling one out of the air that's likely to be wrong?

Answer 4

It's all logic. Have you seen god? I don't know about you but I haven't. Now, the thing is that while I do agree with evolution, I disagree with the big bang. I have not studied enough to fully understand the big bang, and will have to before I see it as an answer.

However I have seen micro-evolution, through pepper flies and fruit flies, and family. And if that can happen over years and if it is logical (and it is), then one can see it happen over a billion years.

Now I imagine you seeing me as the loveless logical bad guy who hates god. But that is a world view each Atheist must deal with, for it won't change soon. All I can say is that just because I disbelieve in god doesn't mean I hate the world for believing in him, or find love illogical like Spock.

Answer 5

Because when some religious person kill or hurt or do any thing wrong to some one or to society in the name of God , he can not say in the court of law that God ask him to do it and he is just doing the well of God as it mentioned in it's holy books, this defense is not accepted by court of law and they probably well ask him to prove the existing of God or some logical evidence led to his act. It was happening in the past and this is one of the reasons led to the separation of church from state and I think Islam is the same as Church and should be separated from the state. Otherwise you can believe in any thing you wants as long as it does not limits others freedom do so.

Answer 6

1-Why does your heart go with science?
It doesn't. I am mentally incapable of believing in a god. This wasn't something I carefully considered, I just can't do it. You could more easily convince me that I had an invisible arm protruding from my mouth than convince me that a god exists.

2-What do u demand from a given religion so u would embrace it?
I would first have to believe in a god, which as I explained above, is nearly an impossibility. God himself would have to prove his own existence, or I would have to die and go to an afterlife for me to follow any given religion. I do not apologize for my atheism, as it is completely natural for me. I recognize that you may believe in something as strongly as I have disbelief towards it, but that makes neither of our beliefs any less valid. I hope that your beliefs make you content and happy with life, mine have.

Answer 7

"Did u know that the theory of evolution, a classic example indeed, is almost laughably flawed?"

I'm still waiting for an answer to that.

***

That's the best you've got? Ahahaha, that's what I thought... you're going to make claims and not back them up.

You can't just say "evolution is flawed!" and leave it at that. How is it flawed? You can't give me one reason? That's hilarious.

And you honestly wonder why you didn't get the response you were looking for.

Answer 8

enable me get this at recent,you're asking questions of atheists and complaining whilst we answer? might it slow not be extra valuable spent complaining concerning to the religious not answering once you ask questions of them? faith is backwards. i think of eighteen is your lot extra or much less

Answer 9

I stand with parrot.

Oh, and my question wwent unasnwered. Where is ithe single shred of anything to point at a creator God?

Answer 10

I'll just admit I'm your intellectual inferior. I still don't believe in your silly god though. If that bothers you, you're free to try to convince me you're right. You should have no problem doing it since you're smarter than me.

Answer 11

I answered that already... lern 2 reed.