Answers needed

[rexbeccarox]

I don't think this is a time-consuming question to answer, and why, if you don't have time to answer questions, are you asking more?

"Murder is not good for the individual human." Murder could help rid societies of defective genes. It could rid societies of unproductive dependents. It would also allow the murderer to acquire the murdered person's goods.

BTW. I don't murder because my God-given conscience restrains me and because God tells me not to.

So, if it weren't for your god, you would murder?

[rexbeccarox]

1) Don't know
2) Don't know
3) Don't know
4) Because humans have mainly evolved to want certain things and to avoid certain things but the nature of life means we can't always avoid certain things (cancer, rape, war, being crushed to death) and we don't always get what we want (money, fame, fortune, sex)
5) Don't know
6) You can try
7) I think people can believe they know the truth and be right, but I don't think anyone truly knows they know the truth.

Sorry for being late in answering.

1.Yes we do know that gods do not exist, in the same way we know parents invent Santa to get children to behave. They are products of human imagination reflecting humans desires.

2. False analogy. The skeptic plays into the delusion of the theist by trying to split the baby with "We don't know" We also don't know when the first clouds formed but science does not default to Poseidon being the cause of hurricanes. We do know conditions, so what came prior to this universe even if unknown at this point still would not require a super natural cognition. Stephen Hawkins "A god is not required"

Speak for yourself, please, Brian. I do not "know" that no gods exist, and I resent anyone telling me what I believe, no matter what beliefs (or lack of) they have.

[Jackalope]

Natural selection is usually only applied to individuals though.

Wrong. Natural selection applies to populations.

[SteelCurtain]

Since everyone is being so obliging, I do have another question for you. I recently heard a researcher state that naturalism leads him to understand that consciousness is simply a product of chemical reactions. This is the obvious conclusion of naturalism. If you believe this, how do you know that your logic is true? How can you be so dogmatic about the conclusions you draw? Isn't there a good chance they are false? We have a strong conception of free will, but, according to naturalism, that is simply an illusion. Couldn't our minds be playing other similar tricks?

This is actually a good question.

A couple of assumptions that need correction: 1) I am not dogmatic in my conclusions. Show me one mammal in the Pre-Cambrian fossil layer, and evolution suddenly becomes a shaky explanation. 2) If if applies to me, it applies to you just the same.

If in fact, as all evidence dictates, we are just meat machines and free will is merely an illusion, we have no choice but to go about our lives as if it isn't. Our minds could absolutely be playing tricks on us. But because that is a possibility is absolutely no reason to throw out everything we've discovered. Until there is evidence that this is the case, we'll continue operating as if we can trust our measurements.

There seems to be this tone that you'd rather accept the thing that makes you feel the best rather than that which most accurately reflects reality. That seems to be a fundamental difference between the theist mind and the atheist mind, from what I've experienced. I would much rather discover that which most accurately depicts reality rather than that which would be the nicest.

Accordingly, this is why most protestants will not even learn about evolution. It is the reason that you can literally feel like it is not utterly ridiculous for a grown up person (assumption) in 2015 to even type the words "lack of transitional fossils" without shame. In order for their literalist worldview to exist, it is not possible for fundamentalist Christians to honestly look at the mountains and mountains of independently verified evidence for evolution.

[paulpablo]

1) Don't know
2) Don't know
3) Don't know
4) Because humans have mainly evolved to want certain things and to avoid certain things but the nature of life means we can't always avoid certain things (cancer, rape, war, being crushed to death) and we don't always get what we want (money, fame, fortune, sex)
5) Don't know
6) You can try
7) I think people can believe they know the truth and be right, but I don't think anyone truly knows they know the truth.

Sorry for being late in answering.

1.Yes we do know that gods do not exist, in the same way we know parents invent Santa to get children to behave. They are products of human imagination reflecting humans desires.

2. False analogy. The skeptic plays into the delusion of the theist by trying to split the baby with "We don't know" We also don't know when the first clouds formed but science does not default to Poseidon being the cause of hurricanes. We do know conditions, so what came prior to this universe even if unknown at this point still would not require a super natural cognition. Stephen Hawkins "A god is not required"

You contradict yourself, you're saying my answer of "I don't know" Is a false analogy but yet in the next line you admit that you don't know where the universe comes from by saying "We also don't know when the first clouds formed.."
Also I never mentioned god when talking about the universe, AND when I typed "Don't know" I actually meant that I personally don't know, not that we collectively don't know, I believe he was asking us individually to reply to him and that was my individual reply.

[Brian37]

1.Yes we do know that gods do not exist, in the same way we know parents invent Santa to get children to behave. They are products of human imagination reflecting humans desires.

2. False analogy. The skeptic plays into the delusion of the theist by trying to split the baby with "We don't know" We also don't know when the first clouds formed but science does not default to Poseidon being the cause of hurricanes. We do know conditions, so what came prior to this universe even if unknown at this point still would not require a super natural cognition. Stephen Hawkins "A god is not required"

You contradict yourself, you're saying my answer of "I don't know" Is a false analogy but yet in the next line you admit that you don't know where the universe comes from by saying "We also don't know when the first clouds formed.."
Also I never mentioned god when talking about the universe, AND when I typed "Don't know" I actually meant that I personally don't know, not that we collectively don't know, I believe he was asking us individually to reply to him and that was my individual reply.

No I do not contradict myself. Semantically and "technically" since you have not lived for eternity or seen or know every nook and cranny of the universe, by your logic, a super natural unicorn caused all this. Now you know damned well that is not true. Employ Ocham's razor to claims of god and the answer is clear. Between the choice of a god existing or humans making them up, which to you seems more likely?

If you already accept, and I would hope rightfully so, that Poseidon does not cause hurricanes, what makes you think that " all this" needs any sort of cognition to start it? I see all this as nothing more than a giant weather pattern we are riding in as a mere finite blip. The universe does not require us to exist nor does it need a cognition to happen.

Technically monkeys might fly out of my butt. How much time do you waste considering that?

[ignoramus]

Louis, you have good grammar and are therefore somewhat educated.
I want to talk to you ...We all do.
But we're not talking to Louis, we're talking to a theological zombie who is preprogrammed to tell us that his indoctrination is complete.
Yes, we know how you feel about almost everything!
Because we read the fucking book too ...
Not exactly sure why you came here? Like I said. These are the public religious toilets where the fresh mass produced mindless zombies come to shit and run...

You want to impress us ...tell us something you didn't get from the bible!

[Louis Chérubin]

Louis, you have good grammar and are therefore somewhat educated.
I want to talk to you ...We all do.
But we're not talking to Louis, we're talking to a theological zombie who is preprogrammed to tell us that his indoctrination is complete.
Yes, we know how you feel about almost everything!
Because we read the fucking book too ...
Not exactly sure why you came here?  Like I said. These are the public religious toilets where the fresh mass produced mindless zombies come to shit and run...

You want to impress us ...tell us something you didn't get from the bible!

Hi ignoramus,

Actually, I'm just in the middle of my education (premed currently). I also don't want to impress you. :-) If you really care, I came to see what an "atheist forum" was all about and how you express your beliefs. Thanks again for what you've shared so far!

---

I would love to. 

1. Yes, there is a God (seen in nature and the Bible)
2. The universe came from an omnipotent creator
3. My life has purpose: to worship God.
4. People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)
5. Yes, there is life after death
6. Yes, because God created me a moral being
7. Yes, we can know truth (about nature and super-nature)

You answer for point (3) is something I was thinking about today. 
 You life is dedicated to worshiping god and to me this is something I find depressing on so many levels and it prompts me to ask you some questions.
I don't think it derails the thread too much so I don't think it's wrong to post the questions here.

1) You dedicate your life to god, which is an awfully long time, have you put much consideration into thinking about the fact you might be wrong in doing this?

2) Are you aware that putting forth a lot of dedication towards things for long periods of time often causes psychological denial?  Like a person who has invested money into a bad investment but continues investing money.  Do you ever think that in the future you may just change your mind about god existing but then look back and see that you have wasted years of your life?

I'm asking these things because I could be like you, but I love doing things that in your religion would be considered sinful but in nature is fairly common which is having sex outside of marriage, before I had sex in my life I was anxious, angry depressed and so on, and ontop of that I find praying, going to church and so on very very boring and time consuming.
Now maybe you have a whale of a time going to church, maybe your church has you singing and dancing, and maybe you don't want sex outside of marriage and you have a nice wife.
But what I find morbidly depressing is that what if I had a belief that was basically it's ok to go through this life avoiding what makes me feel really good and gets rid of my depression, go to my local church and be bored, but at the end of it is a fairground of happiness once I die.  It seems like a horribly optimistic bet on my behalf to assume it's true that the fairground exists.

But as I say I totally take into consideration you might be one of these stereotypical happy Christians with a wife and children with a monogamous attitude to sex and who loves church.

Hi paulpablo,

This is indeed a really interesting topic. Have you read Blaise Pascal's Pensées? If you don't read French, I would recommend W. F. Trotter's translation. In it Pascal proposes his "wager argument." Basically, if you're not sure God exists, believing him is the better alternative. You do loose some temporary pleasure from acts the Bible forbids, but what if God does exist? If he does, you forfeit temporary pleasure for the much better eternal joy.

Also, contrary to popular opinion, many Christians are quite happy people. Personally, I immensely enjoy my life: God, nature, people, learning. Sex and drugs are not the only things that give pleasure.  

[ignoramus]

Sex and drugs .... everyone evacuate the building! they're onto us...
btw, you still haven't told me something original about anything?

ps, do you prefer horizontal or vertical!

[Louis Chérubin]

Since everyone is being so obliging, I do have another question for you. I recently heard a researcher state that naturalism leads him to understand that consciousness is simply a product of chemical reactions. This is the obvious conclusion of naturalism. If you believe this, how do you know that your logic is true? How can you be so dogmatic about the conclusions you draw? Isn't there a good chance they are false? We have a strong conception of free will, but, according to naturalism, that is simply an illusion. Couldn't our minds be playing other similar tricks?

This is actually a good question.

A couple of assumptions that need correction: 1) I am not dogmatic in my conclusions. Show me one mammal in the Pre-Cambrian fossil layer, and evolution suddenly becomes a shaky explanation. 2) If if applies to me, it applies to you just the same.

If in fact, as all evidence dictates, we are just meat machines and free will is merely an illusion, we have no choice but to go about our lives as if it isn't. Our minds could absolutely be playing tricks on us. But because that is a possibility is absolutely no reason to throw out everything we've discovered. Until there is evidence that this is the case, we'll continue operating as if we can trust our measurements.

There seems to be this tone that you'd rather accept the thing that makes you feel the best rather than that which most accurately reflects reality. That seems to be a fundamental difference between the theist mind and the atheist mind, from what I've experienced. I would much rather discover that which most accurately depicts reality rather than that which would be the nicest.

Accordingly, this is why most protestants will not even learn about evolution. It is the reason that you can literally feel like it is not utterly ridiculous for a grown up person (assumption) in 2015 to even type the words "lack of transitional fossils" without shame. In order for their literalist worldview to exist, it is not possible for fundamentalist Christians to honestly look at the mountains and mountains of independently verified evidence for evolution.

SteelCurtain,

Thanks for answering the question. Regarding your assessment of me, believe it or not, I actually feel that the evidence I've seen points to a creator. Have you read Misia Landau's Narratives of Human Evolution? Apparently the interpretation of evidence has more to do with presuppositions than actual empirical truth. 

"The question to ask, then, is not what do fossils tell us about human evolution but what is it about human evolution . . . that through fossils is getting said."

I'm glad to hear you aren't a dogmatist about your beliefs. :-)

---

Sex and drugs .... everyone evacuate the building! they're onto us...
btw, you still haven't told me something original about anything?

ps, do you prefer horizontal or vertical!

Lol. Sorry to scare you. Remember I don't want to impress you at all. Also, I'm of the firm belief that very few original thoughts remain to be expressed.