Captain Pedantic

I think (s)he may not be coming back.

Anyway:

1)What happens to the body after we die is known and avaliable for anyone to find out. What happens to the "self" of a person (which you may call the soul, but which others here might call the psyche, consciousness, personality, whatever) is not known by anyone. It may never be known.

2)I believe creating one's own purpose is far more satisfying than having purpose thrust upon one.

3)Atheists only "target" religions they are being "targeted" by themselves. Because the US is predominantly Christian in it's population, and because many of the folk who call themselves Christian seem to see fit to abuse atheists in some manner, it would seem fair that atheists might lash out in retalliation. If Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or worship of the Cheese Fairies were the predominant religion where you are, you might see atheists lash out against that.

Some atheists are deliberately abusive, but it's in the same way that some feminists hate men, some blacks hate whites and some gay people hate straight people - it's a great deal rarer than people would suppose.

4) I think some people see a need to have some kind of religion, deity, whatever in their lives. I just don't think it should involve other people (NB: Judaism does not practise proseletysing, as it is against the religion - something to consider). While I do not believe in God, or a god, or gods, I think people should be free to do so, but govermnments should not be run along religious lines (as far as it can be avoided, anyway).

Evil Milkman

Breezinatree: Hello?

Too busy? Forgot?

Frighteningly impressed?

pug846

Geez guys, give him or her a break. It's been a day or two. With attitudes like that, I wouldn't want to come back if I were him/her.

DMB

Too many people have answered the first question and the first part of the second to my satisfaction for me to want to chip in there. I would like to add some responses just to the bits I have quoted.

In my experience, atheists do not try at all to deny or reject gods. They simply do not accept them. Surely, you can understand the difference.

When you say you are unfortunately not forgetting about organised religion yourself. You use the term "God" (with a capital letter) which is pretty well indicative of a certain type of religious belief. Why not "Allah", "Vishnu", "Apollo" or "Thor"? Why not "gods"? Why not "djinns" or "dryads"? etc...

No-one could begin to answer this question unless we knew what you meant. I suspect you simply mean the xian or Jewish god, because you don't take any of the others seriously.

I am an atheist who has never belonged to any religion. So why ask your question of me? Why on earth would I want to prove the existence of the xian or any other god? How would I choose which one or which pantheon?

Or could your question mean the existence of a creator god stripped of all the trappings specific to any religion? I.e. are you talking about deism? My answer might then be that I have no way of knowing whether or not such a being might exist, but nor can I see how its existence would make any practical difference to my life or add any meaning that wasn't already there. Gods shorn of religion don't seem to matter. Those dripping with religious significance seem to me either repugnant, ridiculous, or both.

None of the foregoing implies that I could not be convinced of the existence of a god or gods if sufficient evidence were presented. I simply can't see any good reason for my spending time trying to prove that such things exist.

I personally do not particularly "target" xianity. I am against many forms of xianity and islam, because they are proselytising religions whose followers frequently try to impose their beliefs on others or attack those who don't share them. Both have bloody and disgraceful histories, and in the modern world I see islam as more dangerous than xianity, although both have some seriously bad effects on the lives of believers and unbelievers.

Your fourth question reflects the fact that you post from America, which is the major largely xian society left in the West. Europe appears to be moving towards a post-religious society, although this progress is threatened by the growth of islam that is resulting from immigration.

All human societies have good and bad characteristics. This seems to be true regardless of culture, although the prevailing culture determines what the particular characteristics are. I don't suppose therefore that a post-xian society is likely to be either hellish or utopian. The most important determinants seem to me to be a sound legal system and a well educated population.

BreezeinaTree

I was not explicit enough in my introduction. As an Engineer, I spend much of my time running tests on a design and examining the resulting empirical data. It does not matter if I "feel" that a design will work. What matters is what is shown in the lab. Christianity is often regarded as a religious belief which can only be justified on the basis of a "feeling in your heart". On the contrary, I have examined the evidence and feel comfortable in what I believe. Therefore, my point in mentioning my MSEE was to indicate that I require facts before I believe something.

Regarding credentials that apply here specifically, I am a Sunday School teacher at a Baptist church. I have read the Bible through completely. I subsequently have studied several of its books in depth. I read a lot of Christian apologetics literature, including Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", Paul Little's "Know Why You Believe" and Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Both Strobel and McDowell were Atheists at one time and became Christians after an examination of the evidence.

DMB

Breeze: I'm glad you've returned. Perhaps when you have digested what everyone has posted here you will comment on some of it. In the meantime, I suggest you have a look at the <a href="http://www.ffrf.org/" target="_blank">website of the Freedom from Religion Foundation </a> where you will find references to the works of Dan Barker, who is a former xian preacher turned atheist.

We do have some members of IIDB who are former preachers, illustrating the fact that even those whose whole lives are dedicated to religion can turn away from it, if they find sufficient reason.

BreezeinaTree

I counter that the abuses you mention above are contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught us to "love [our] enemies" and to do good to those who hurt us.

A great example of this issue is child molestation in the Catholic Church, perpetrated by priests of all people. They are using the Church as a vehicle to satisfy their perverted sexual desires. This is clearly against the teachings of the Bible.

When such things happen, non-believers say this is just one more reason to reject Christianity. Some believers take this as a hard blow to their faith and end up leaving it.

This is an example of confusing the issue. The Church is made up of humans. Humans make mistakes, humans sometimes have evil intentions, act on these intentions and hurt others as a result. However, Christians who do these things act in opposition to the teachings of the Bible and therefore do not accurately represent what the Church should be.

I believe that to really deal with the issue of Christian Theism, we must divorce ourselves (at least to an extent) from the "Church" and instead focus on the teachings of the Bible. The Bible claims to be the mind of God, and if we are to examine the concept of deity we must focus on God, not errant followers.


Thanks for the kind welcome. I like challenges, so I won't be withdrawing. And I try to adhere to the teachings of Christ, so I have no intention of becoming abusive (I may become angry but I'll keep myself under control).

Liquidrage

Of course these leads to "present the facts".

BreezeinaTree

Here's my response:

"Christians constantly lie for their faith" - Can you give me specific examples?

"They also want everyone else to be a Christian." - Yes, we do. It's based on two things. First, speaking for myself and the Christians I know personally, we find peace and hope in what we believe, and we want to share that with others. Secondly, Jesus commands us to go into all the world and teach others what we have been taught and see them converted (see Matthew 28).

"They disrupt public life, re-write history, intentionally mislead the public..." - Again, specific examples?

"...bomb abortion clinics..." - Eric Rudolph? He's a nutcase, if that's who you're referring to. Not to get off topic, but I consider abortion murder. I am currently expecting my first child. My wife and I had our first ultrasound this past week. Our baby is 10 weeks along, and already he/she has a heart and looks like a little person (albeit a small one at 1.4 inches long). Abortions are allowed at my child's age. I think this is simply horrible. However, I do not think that killing abortion doctors is the answer.

"...destroy indigenous people (or their culture)..." - I cannot argue with this. We send missionaries into all the world, hoping to save them spiritually. That often means that they must abandon their "pagan" belief systems. That does not mean that they have to totally abandon their culture, however.

"...short-circuit rational thought..." - Examples?

"...refuse to face the horrific history of their religion..." - I admit that many terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. I counter that these are people acting on their own behalf, not on behalf of what the Bible teaches.

"...promote ignorance..." - Examples?

"And all the while, most of them have not even read the entire Bible." - I attend a large Southern Baptist Church. We have a pastor who teaches from the Bible every Sunday and Wednesday. So at least most attendees receive some Bible teaching, regardless of their personal study habits. As for me personally, I also attend a Bible Study every week. I have read the entire Bible and have studied several books in-depth. Most of the Christians I know take the Bible very seriously and study it frequently.

Thanks for your response. I hope to hear back from you with examples of some of you comments.

BreezeinaTree

Sakrelige and K are fairly accurate in their account of Engineers. We do spend a lot of our time applying formulas. Our job is to take proven physical principles (as described by formulas) and apply them to specific problems. We are not paid to discover new physical principles. I would argue that scientists and engineers both have to be problem solvers, just with different end results. Scientists undoubtedly must be more rigorous.

I often joke that as an engineer, my job is one big problem. Things frequently go wrong during a test that requires detective work to explain. I use my background to find a cause and correct it.

I read published scientific journals frequently. Within the context of the job I perform, using the term "Applied Physicist" would more accurately describe what I do (which is to design communications equipment for space and military applications).