Are you really an atheist?

[Egor]

Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads?  I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology.  Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to?  Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above?  I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.

Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.

Hello Egor,
I am not sure of your intentions in asking this question on this forum. Perhaps you have some kind of smug enjoyment knowing that you know something that is true while everyone else is wrong. Maybe you feel it is your duty to challenge the godless and wake them to your knowledge. It seems that you feel you have arrived at some strong logic able to defeat unarmed atheist.

Your question comes in two parts and so I will respond in two parts.

Is god impossible?
Nothing is impossible. your god is not impossible, there I said it. But neither is thor, or zeus.

Thor and Zeus are revelations of God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Creator of the universe.

The quality of being possible is not proof of god. it is only proof of the possible. These are not just words.
While anything is possible, far fewer things are probable, your god among them

How in the world can you say God is improbable? Seriously? Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God. So where do you get your information that God is improbable?

Do you believe that god never/never will exist?
A being that intervenes in matters of the world, and created the world, has relationships with physical matter and is subject to physical reality. god is Material and subject to material reality. material reality is not subject to belief. I don't believe in trees or clould, they just are. removing god from material reality is fine with me, but you must admit that such things are just ideas. So while there has never been material proof in the physical existence of god, I am happy to grant that god is immaterial, and therefore not real.

Your thoughts aren't material. Are you saying they're not real?

A question for you:

Is there a possibility that you are wrong? even the smallest chance?

No. It is impossible for God to not exist.

[Whitney]

I speak in tongues on occasion.

Don't take this the wrong way; in fact the reason I ask is because you seem to be a very rational Christian...but I am surprised that's an activity that you do.  Do you think you could explain it in a way (probably best in a new thread) that those of us who don't understand tongues could understand?  Even though I have a lot of past experience in the church it's something that was always very foreign to me; even in the framework of connecting to god from a believer's point of view.  Just curious.

[Whitney]

Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe

Is there something wrong with just admitting that we don't fully understand the universe yet? 

Humanity has made remarkable strides in understanding how the universe works in the lifetimes of some people still living...going from next to no knowledge; aside from a basic map of the immediate solar system; to having at least a good grasp on how it all unfolded at t=0...to me it makes sense to realize that there is a lot that is new to us about the way things really are and a lot more to learn.  Now that we are advanced enough to fully grasp just how much we don't know isn't that even more reason to acknowledge our true ignorance and stop making assumptions about higher beings that were created from man's mind?

[history_geek]

Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.

So you answers TristanJay's question about your perspective on dehumanization by saying that because you are ex-military and assume to know how the world and nature work......and then what?

Thor and Zeus are revelations of God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Creator of the universe.

So your defenition of "god" is that he/she/it is a creator of the known universe? And you also assume that other "gods" are "revelations" of this "god"?

Alright, would you like to tell us what you base these interpitations, defenitions and assumptions on? The account of the bible, or your own belief, or something else?

How in the world can you say God is improbable? Seriously? Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God. So where do you get your information that God is improbable?

To me, this answer told me a great deal. You are apparently affraid of not knowing something. Now, I'm not trying to put you on a couch and play Freud with you, but this really doesn't suprise me since this is something that I have noticed a long time ago. We humans seem to have great problems when we have to accept that we don't know something, because that implyes that we do not understand something, and that we are thus not in control of this unknown. as i see it, there are two common responses to this: one is to deny the existane of this unknown, and/or get rid of it. The second is to practically make up knowledge, so that we have something to assume that we know about this unknowable, and thus do away with our fear of not being in control of things.

It's an odd thing to do, but human nature seems to work that way, or so I am inclined to believe based upon my own experience and observations.

But the fact is, we do not know how the universe was "kick started", other then knowing that existing matter rapidly expanded from a tiny space into it's current form and size. where did that matter come from in the first place, we don't know. How life began is also a mystery, although there are a number of hypothesis', such as abiogenesis that is life from non-life, through the forming of proteins, then simple RNA and finally strands of DNA that connected into the first single celled lifeforms, if I have understood it correctly. Other member might be able to correct me, if I made a mistake. Another hypothesis that I think is proposed that it is possible that already existing life forms, extremophiles, arrived to Earth on commets and ansteroids that bombardet it through it's youth.

However, there is no basis to say that one either has to believe in "god" or stand with a gaping mouth. Why do you think we have special labratories and scientists who spend their whole carreers to find answers to such questions and so many more? Best one can do is that if you are truly intrested is to becomes a reasercher to find answers. Best of luck to those who take that road! Just don't expect to get all the answers right away, such things need time, proper research for every possible scrap of information our technology and more traditional means are able to give to us, and even more careful studying to find the facts....

I would recommend you to read my original post to this thread (just one page back) if you want to know why I think any "god" of manmade religion is impossible, though not compleatly discounting the possibility for beings that we might consider "gods", should we be given a proper defenition of such a being or beings.

Your thoughts aren't material. Are you saying they're not real?

Our thoughts are produced by our brains, that work with eletromagnetic pulses as well as chemical interractions. I'd say they are rather matterial. However, there are still many things that we do not know about our brains inner workings. another great and fascinating field of study, just waiting for people to look for answers!

No. It is impossible for God to not exist.

Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.

[Tristan Jay]

Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads?  I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology.  Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to?  Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above?  I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.

Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.

Having made the decision to put your life on the line for your country is regarded as honorable, and I would even go so far as to say I consider it so, to an extent.  When it comes to the actual mechanics and necessities of real combat and it's consequences, that's a bit more tricky.

Regarding your comment that you "know the how the world and nature works" do you feel strongly that you know absolute truth in this regard, or is this more a matter that you have a perspective that you strongly believe to be true?  I have observed that quite a lot of humans feel that when they've reach a certain point in their experiences, they tend to consider that they know how things are.  You've had different experiences from other people, and your view of the world is informed by your experiences.

I would like to focus in specifically on the de-humanization issue.  As a pragmatic thing, this is a practice that is used to make it easier to engage in lethal combat with opponents, and I'm not going to complain about from the standpoint that we have a reasonable example with, say, World War II, to justify a well-meaning war (I'm not going to over-analyze this beyond that we fought Japan because the initiated military hostilities, and opposing Nazi Germany speaks for itself).

There are a couple of points that were raised in the de-humanization thread and elsewhere that I was hoping you would comment on.  The main thing of interest to me is de-humanization as a practice to target a group of human (outside of combat situations) for the purpose of lessening their humanity in your eyes, consider them less than human.  In the context of this and similar Christian to non-Christian discussions, regarding non-Christians as something less than human.

Further, I would be interested in having you comment on the concept that the practice of de-humanization diminishes the person who is practicing de-humanization on others, on the grounds that it breaks down that person's barriers to reasonable human to human interaction.  I'm not meaning to sound accusatory to you personally, but I'm wondering about your thoughts on these dynamics in human interaction.

[Sandra Craft]

Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God.

That is in fact what a large number of atheists I know, including me, say, altho we generally leave out the supernatural as being in the same improbable category as god.  And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say most of us do stare in awe at the universe.  It's hard to believe you've never noticed this since a quick review of this one board would have shown you that.

[Egor]

There are a couple of points that were raised in the de-humanization thread and elsewhere that I was hoping you would comment on.  The main thing of interest to me is de-humanization as a practice to target a group of human (outside of combat situations) for the purpose of lessening their humanity in your eyes, consider them less than human.  In the context of this and similar Christian to non-Christian discussions, regarding non-Christians as something less than human.

Further, I would be interested in having you comment on the concept that the practice of de-humanization diminishes the person who is practicing de-humanization on others, on the grounds that it breaks down that person's barriers to reasonable human to human interaction.  I'm not meaning to sound accusatory to you personally, but I'm wondering about your thoughts on these dynamics in human interaction.

You know, you're sophistry is really annoying. Do you have a question for me? Are you asking if I think it's right to dehumanize someone? No, it's not right to dehumanize someone. Are you accusing me of dehumanizing someone? Who? Not atheists--I feel sorry for atheists. I want to stop atheism specifically because of what it does to atheists.

But I'm done guessing.

[Egor]

That is in fact what a large number of atheists I know, including me, say, altho we generally leave out the supernatural as being in the same improbable category as god.  And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say most of us do stare in awe at the universe.  It's hard to believe you've never noticed this since a quick review of this one board would have shown you that.

My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.

[Egor]

Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.

You say "no evidence" because that's the standard atheist line. The fact is evidence is all around us, you just won't look at it. You think God should be detectable in a proton accelerator, but He isn't. It doesn't work that way.

And how do you know that the God of a human religion like Christianity doesn't exist? What do you think the typical Christian idea of God is?

[Tank]

Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.

You say "no evidence" because that's the standard atheist line. The fact is evidence is all around us, you just won't look at it. You think God should be detectable in a proton accelerator, but He isn't. It doesn't work that way.

And how do you know that the God of a human religion like Christianity doesn't exist? What do you think the typical Christian idea of God is?

The highlighted above is the standard theist assertion, in fact ISoK our Muslim member used exactly the same flawed assertion. Please define evidence and then explain why what you think you see conforms to that definition. Shouldn't be that difficult should it?

[Tristan Jay]

You know, you're sophistry is really annoying.

I'm sorry that my sophistry is annoying you.  Do you feel that I've been trying to use arguments that sound plausible yet are actually misleading?  I haven't been attempting to mislead anyone.  Please, can clarify how you feel I've been misleading or disingenuous; hopefully that will help me learn to engage in discussion with you more effectively, and be less annoying. 

Do you have a question for me? Are you asking if I think it's right to dehumanize someone? No, it's not right to dehumanize someone. Are you accusing me of dehumanizing someone? Who? Not atheists--I feel sorry for atheists.

I was wanting to know about your understanding of what de-humanization is.  From that standpoint, I wanted to know if you felt that de-humanizing other people was acceptable or unacceptable.  Finally, I was trying to indicate that some of your conversation appeared (to me and another poster) to be characteristic of a diminished view of another group of humans.  In the What About Dignity thread, you challenge our capability to have dignity as human beings, without God and Jesus.  The core basis of that topic seems at the heart of it's reasoning to be dehumanizing, and I got the impression that Magic Pudding felt the same way.  We both had the same data, and came to the same (similar?) conclusion entirely independent of one another, which I thought gave this concern a degree of verisimilitude.

I want to stop atheism specifically because of what it does to atheists.

Beyond keeping atheists from salvation as you understand it, are there other things that you feel it does to atheists?  Do you feel it effects the emotions, reasoning, dignity, and capacity for generosity in atheists?

And frankly, I like to fight.

What's more important to you, fighting atheists, or learning what will persuade them and having good answers for their questions?  If you think you have the answers worth debating, does it benefit God to present them in an antagonistic way?  Is that a dignified approach to discourse, especially if you think that the immortal souls of people are at stake for all eternity?

[Guardian85]

How in the world can you say God is improbable? Seriously? Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God. So where do you get your information that God is improbable?

In a sense, you are right. There is a lot we don't know about the origins of the universe, sub-atomic particle theory, and the origin of life. Why is that wrong?   ???

The history of science and human understanding is the history of taking something we did not know and turning it into something we do know. That is how we got the theory of gravity, germ theory, the theory of relativity, etc.etc.etc.
The words "We don't know" are not a mark agaist scientists, they are a challenge.

But to assert that the thing we don't yet know, must have a supernatural explenation is just a case of intellectual laziness.
I am glad that there are things we don't know yet, because the greatest joy I have yet to experience is the joy of understanding something today that I didn't yesterday. How boring would the world be if there was nothing more to learn....

[Asmodean]

My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.

Two different things.

It's unreasonable to believe in god of Abrahamic momotheism because that being's existence has not been demonstrated and verified, and because the existence of that being is unnecessary. That's not even going into the impossible bits of his alleged nature.

Now, the Abrahamic god is unreasonable because of pretty much the entire Old Testament (And that's just for starters, really... The list goes on to, right to the sorry state the world is in)

Ex military, eh..? You know, enjoying violence is not actually a good thing there. Are you sure you are not ex military because you were kicked out after "accidentally" grenading some Muslim family's home some place abroad..?

[Tank]

My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.

Two different things.

It's unreasonable to believe in god of Abrahamic momotheism because that being's existence has not been demonstrated and verified, and because the existence of that being is unnecessary. That's not even going into the impossible bits of his alleged nature.

Now, the Abrahamic god is unreasonable because of pretty much the entire Old Testament (And that's just for starters, really... The list goes on to, right to the sorry state the world is in)

Ex military, eh..? You know, enjoying violence is not actually a good thing there. Are you sure you are not ex military because you were kicked out after "accidentally" grenading some Muslim family's home some place abroad..?

Asmo. For all we know Edward was a filing clerk who never even picked up a gun in anger! That sort of comment doesn't help reasoned discussion.

[Sweetdeath]

Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<