Crosswords0 min ago
what question would religionists like to ask atheists?
31 Answers
It would appear that there are a lot of religious people on AB who answer questions from us atheists/agnostics so it is only fair to return the compliment and give us a chance to answer your questions (yes, I know that questions HAVE been asked but this is a direct challenge to beliveirs to air their questions to non believers).So, what is it that you would like to know about atheism and atheistic belief systems?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wizard69. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I might well have exclaimed 'Oh my God' on a rollercoaster, (and indeed possibly one involving Jesus' middle name; the one beginning with an 'F') but certainly never with an request for help attached!
But these things are culturally learned and are used as glottal stops. Personally, I see little difference between the exclamations 'For God's sake!' and 'For F***'s sake!'. The one including the word 'God' doesn't denote religious sentiment.
In fact, I would imagine that some of our Christ-bothering ABers would probably find the way I use numerous invocations of God, Christ, Jesus (along with and their attendant pogosticks, bowel-control problems etc) was very definitely not proof of a secret desire to cuddle up with the little baby Jesus. And his pogostick.
But these things are culturally learned and are used as glottal stops. Personally, I see little difference between the exclamations 'For God's sake!' and 'For F***'s sake!'. The one including the word 'God' doesn't denote religious sentiment.
In fact, I would imagine that some of our Christ-bothering ABers would probably find the way I use numerous invocations of God, Christ, Jesus (along with and their attendant pogosticks, bowel-control problems etc) was very definitely not proof of a secret desire to cuddle up with the little baby Jesus. And his pogostick.
Minor quibble wizard.... theists often level the charge that atheists have "belief" or "faith" in science and the non existence of a supernatural, personal God, and this is therefore no different to theists.
I would dispute that..... atheism is simply a non-belief in God, based upon a lack of evidence and the highly improbably nature of such a deity. In principle, if persuasive, peer reviewed evidence became available, then athiests and agnostics might well change their position.
If you are, on the other hand, inviting questions about atheists moral or ethical code, or where that is derived from in the absence of god, then fine :)
I would dispute that..... atheism is simply a non-belief in God, based upon a lack of evidence and the highly improbably nature of such a deity. In principle, if persuasive, peer reviewed evidence became available, then athiests and agnostics might well change their position.
If you are, on the other hand, inviting questions about atheists moral or ethical code, or where that is derived from in the absence of god, then fine :)
You�re quite right, LazyGun. Theists I correspond with imagine that atheism is some sort of manufactured philosophy like theism; they simply refuse to believe that my atheism is just a simple, ordinary, routine, everyday refusal to take seriously the idea of a supernatural being for whose existence there is not a scrap of evidence. The way I put it is that my non-belief in their God is no different from, and of no more significance than, my non-belief in Santa Claus and fairies.
I take your point, Brionon. Also, why should we be labelled according to what we don't believe in? Am I also to be called an a-flatearthist, an a-astrologist, an a-Tarotcardist?
How about Rational?
jake-the-peg, I don't know what evidence I would accept because I haven't heard any yet to make a judgment on. It's no use asking religionists for the sort of evidence I would accept for the existence of, say, unicorns because they always say that such evidence (sight, hearing, smell, touch, photography, physical presence, undoubted miracles performed in full view) are not to be asked for. I think the onus is on the believer to produce his evidence for us to judge. If he can't then we can all forget about it.
How about Rational?
jake-the-peg, I don't know what evidence I would accept because I haven't heard any yet to make a judgment on. It's no use asking religionists for the sort of evidence I would accept for the existence of, say, unicorns because they always say that such evidence (sight, hearing, smell, touch, photography, physical presence, undoubted miracles performed in full view) are not to be asked for. I think the onus is on the believer to produce his evidence for us to judge. If he can't then we can all forget about it.
Ah well the reason I ask is that in order for a position to be truely scientific and rational it really has to be falsifiable (Popper's principle of falsifyability)
So if you sit back and say "The Universe came into existance without divine intervention and nothing will convince me otherwise". You're as much guilty of faith as the archbishop of Canterbury.
And if don't know what proof you'd need doesn't that mean that you're making an emotional rather than a logical judgement on the existing evidence and are therefore irrational in your disbelief?
So if you sit back and say "The Universe came into existance without divine intervention and nothing will convince me otherwise". You're as much guilty of faith as the archbishop of Canterbury.
And if don't know what proof you'd need doesn't that mean that you're making an emotional rather than a logical judgement on the existing evidence and are therefore irrational in your disbelief?
jtp, I would suggest that you are using somewhat circular logic there.
Atheism, or even Agnosticism come to that comes about as a reaction to a hypothesis, or position of the theists, of whatever stripe... namely, that there is a divine guiding hand in the development of the Universe. So surely it is that position that fails Poppers principle, since it cannot be shown to be false?
An atheist or agnostic, on the other hand, asks for evidence in support of the position of theists.
On the specific issues that lead to discussion about the nature of the universe, where one might expect to see evidence of the divine principle, naturalistic hypotheses to the contrary have been proposed, and these do fit with Poppers principle. Indeed, some, such as the Theory of Evolution ( to explain the diversity of life) have been subject to the principle of falsifyability time and time again. The same cannot be said with respect to divine creation.
Atheism, or even Agnosticism come to that comes about as a reaction to a hypothesis, or position of the theists, of whatever stripe... namely, that there is a divine guiding hand in the development of the Universe. So surely it is that position that fails Poppers principle, since it cannot be shown to be false?
An atheist or agnostic, on the other hand, asks for evidence in support of the position of theists.
On the specific issues that lead to discussion about the nature of the universe, where one might expect to see evidence of the divine principle, naturalistic hypotheses to the contrary have been proposed, and these do fit with Poppers principle. Indeed, some, such as the Theory of Evolution ( to explain the diversity of life) have been subject to the principle of falsifyability time and time again. The same cannot be said with respect to divine creation.
I have a question for atheists:
As an atheist you believe your existence is little more than an accident, a random coming together of some chemicals in a pool of sludge millions of years ago and ultimately there is no purpose to your being.
If the Earth were to fall into the Sun then our species would blink out of existence. The trials and tribulations and seemingly insurmountable odds that we've had to overcome over the millenia to get here would all have been for nothing.
The lives you have touched, all you have done, all you would have done ceases to be. No-one would even notice let alone remember or care. The universe would barely shrug it's shoulders in disinterest.
How do you cope knowing that ultimately your life is meaningless and our continued existence pointless?
As an atheist you believe your existence is little more than an accident, a random coming together of some chemicals in a pool of sludge millions of years ago and ultimately there is no purpose to your being.
If the Earth were to fall into the Sun then our species would blink out of existence. The trials and tribulations and seemingly insurmountable odds that we've had to overcome over the millenia to get here would all have been for nothing.
The lives you have touched, all you have done, all you would have done ceases to be. No-one would even notice let alone remember or care. The universe would barely shrug it's shoulders in disinterest.
How do you cope knowing that ultimately your life is meaningless and our continued existence pointless?
llamatron, and everyone else, happy christmas.
The evidence that all living things are connected by inheritance and that through the process of natural selection (which is not random) we have evolved the ability to consider our very existence means that in the words of the great philosopher belinda Carlisle, heaven really is a place on earth. A religion is not a prerequisite for a sense of awe for the universe.
The evidence that all living things are connected by inheritance and that through the process of natural selection (which is not random) we have evolved the ability to consider our very existence means that in the words of the great philosopher belinda Carlisle, heaven really is a place on earth. A religion is not a prerequisite for a sense of awe for the universe.
Noxy - I know, but I thought I'd answer it seriously (with swearing).
Llamatron - I feel fine about it, actually. It focusses attention making the most of the life we have, and engders a respect for the rights of the other ephemeral beings to do the same.
How do you cope knowing that ultimately your life is being subject to the capricious whims of a bored deity?
Llamatron - I feel fine about it, actually. It focusses attention making the most of the life we have, and engders a respect for the rights of the other ephemeral beings to do the same.
How do you cope knowing that ultimately your life is being subject to the capricious whims of a bored deity?
Llamatron, you posted "How do you cope knowing that ultimately your life is meaningless and our continued existence pointless?"
I would say that my life is full of meaning .... but the meaning it has is defined by me. And in the end, it comes down to love... love of family and friends, love and awe at the marvels of the universe, love of the material... good food, good entertainment, good gadgets, good clothing, good sex etc, love of new experiences, new people, new challenges and constant, neverending learning.
In fact, the only thing I think that is different between a theist and an atheist on this issue is that a theist thinks that it all comes from divine interference. Or are you saying that the only thing that gives life meaning is a personal awareness of some divine principle or being?
As to the pointlessness or otherwise of life... Life itself is the point... I stand in awe at the way it evolves and adapts to fill new niches.... from the challenging environments found at the top of mountains or the bottom of the sea, right through to highly specialised niches filled that you see in the most fecund, such as tropical rainforests.
To me, it would seem to be the fundamentalist religious types who think life now is pointless... witness the suicide bombers, or matyrs for the cause that religions have created over the centuries.
I would say that my life is full of meaning .... but the meaning it has is defined by me. And in the end, it comes down to love... love of family and friends, love and awe at the marvels of the universe, love of the material... good food, good entertainment, good gadgets, good clothing, good sex etc, love of new experiences, new people, new challenges and constant, neverending learning.
In fact, the only thing I think that is different between a theist and an atheist on this issue is that a theist thinks that it all comes from divine interference. Or are you saying that the only thing that gives life meaning is a personal awareness of some divine principle or being?
As to the pointlessness or otherwise of life... Life itself is the point... I stand in awe at the way it evolves and adapts to fill new niches.... from the challenging environments found at the top of mountains or the bottom of the sea, right through to highly specialised niches filled that you see in the most fecund, such as tropical rainforests.
To me, it would seem to be the fundamentalist religious types who think life now is pointless... witness the suicide bombers, or matyrs for the cause that religions have created over the centuries.
Well the thing is LazyGun that you can't actually hold theists to the same principles as they don't all claim to be purely rational. - I know it's cheating but there you go.
On balance I think it is reasonable to be expected to justify an atheistical position over say a lock of belief in faries or trolls because of the historical precident of hundreds of generations of humans that believed in a creator - whereas faries or trolls are somewhat specific.
I have sympathy with saying the burden of evidence is on them but that doesn't preclude you from the responsibility of examining your own standpoint in a self-critical manner.
Surely it's not that unreasonable to ask "What do I have to show you to make you believe in God"?
It's reasonably easy to formulate a level of proof to counter evolution "rabbits in the Permian" wasn't it? but a similar requirement for evidence of a less specific creation doesn't seem quite so obvious
On balance I think it is reasonable to be expected to justify an atheistical position over say a lock of belief in faries or trolls because of the historical precident of hundreds of generations of humans that believed in a creator - whereas faries or trolls are somewhat specific.
I have sympathy with saying the burden of evidence is on them but that doesn't preclude you from the responsibility of examining your own standpoint in a self-critical manner.
Surely it's not that unreasonable to ask "What do I have to show you to make you believe in God"?
It's reasonably easy to formulate a level of proof to counter evolution "rabbits in the Permian" wasn't it? but a similar requirement for evidence of a less specific creation doesn't seem quite so obvious
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
News10 mins ago
On The Eve Of The Local Election...
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.