Dear Atheists, tell me what you DO believe

[John53]

Fair enough. It would be boring if we were all the same

That is so true. Back in the pre-internet dark ages of fidonet I was involved in a Christians v Atheist group where the main aim was to try and get the other side banned for rule breaches, it went for years until we actually got one of the main Christian protagonists banned permanently and the rest left in protest. We heathens boasted and patted ourselves on the backs for a couple of weeks then the group died, it got very boring agreeing with each other.

 

[ChristineM]

That is so true. Back in the pre-internet dark ages of fidonet I was involved in a Christians v Atheist group where the main aim was to try and get the other side banned for rule breaches, it went for years until we actually got one of the main Christian protagonists banned permanently and the rest left in protest. We heathens boasted and patted ourselves on the backs for a couple of weeks then the group died, it got very boring agreeing with each other.

I would also have liked to give your post an informative and a winner but RF won't allow it

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, there is nothing new in your point. You want me to agree. That we can agree is shared individuality and not mutual external experience or hands-on.
In effect you want a shared subjective rule, that only the objective matters, but that it matters, is subjective.

I would never state otherwise. What matters to human beings OBVIOUSLY may exclusively matter to human beings. But the point stands that shared mutual experience has enormous utility within our subjective human experience. Much less utility is to be had from religious or spiritual experience I am afraid. You can call this just "my opinion" all you want... it won't change the fact that even YOU will still go on to utilize far more items, technology, eat food, take advantage of architecture, be provided heat, have people greet you whom you can greet in return with language than religious ideas have ever provided on ANY score - and ALL due to the fact that we humans have a mutual reality that we at least appear to inhabit and interact within. Name me one thing that any "supernatural" or "spiritual" element has provided to you that is as well-demonstrated, established and shared as something like language, or agriculture or your cell phone. You downplay one of the only things that actually produces results on this planet. And yes! That any of those things matter is a SUBJECTIVE assessment. So what? Are you not human? Can you state that these things DO NOT matter to you? And if they DO, then I ask again - what are you going on about?!?!?!

 

[Kenny]

I suspect that is a misconception about evolution.
The idea is not that "life" changed according to it's environment. Life changed a great deal. More often than not to it's own detriment. Maybe 99.99% of these changes did not survive. Maybe only .01% or less did. That was enough.

If I designed something that only worked .01% of the time, I'd be out of a job.

If it didn't move forward, it was out of design.

 

[Kenny]

I would say that your body has structure and function. That is NOT the same as a design. Design requires a consciousness to get going. Structure and function do not.

We have a consciousness. A consciousness creates design.

 

[Kenny]

Or it is simply the result of natural laws.

The way we determine design is to see what *can't* happen without intelligent intervention. The process of natural laws is thereby NOT designed.

If it is a "natural law" - it speaks of design. Natural laws aren't happenstance.

 

[Kenny]

Is the body a design or did it evolve naturally. I believe it evolved and is still evolving.
Certainly if i had designed it it would be far more efficient, more compact, organs in more convenient places, less reliability on individual organs, duplication of critical organs etc.

The Fibonacci shapes are perfectly natural, evolved as the best available given circumstances.

As I said, even the process of "evolution" dictates a design that adapts.

 

[Clara Tea]

From @lewisnotmiller comment on another thread

That sounds like a more constructive thread.​

Dear atheists...I get that you don't believe in Gods. But tell me what you DO believe in...​

There is no logical reason to believe in a god or gods, no hard evidence . So an atheist does not believe in god or gods.

Mentioning no names @questfortruth and others but there are some people on RF who believe that atheists have no belief whatsoever.

So i am asking atheists what do they actually believe in.

For me

I hope and believe that i will live to see my kids fledge the nest. It's one of my dearest wishes to take them through children and launch them on a successful adulthood.

I believe my husband and children love me

I believe that my car will start when i need it.

I even believe Jesus existed but not as the person described in the bible

I believe that the bread dough i made this morning will have risen enough to bake a couple of loaves.

And much more

So all you atheists out there in RF land, please inform us all of a few of the things you believe in.

I'm a bit heavy, and an adult. As I was sitting on Santa's lap, at the mall, and Santa was begging for mercy, Santa quickly agreed to get me every present that I asked for (on the threat that I'd stay on his lap until he did).

Since Santa was actually there, in person, I came to the conclusion that Santa was real.

God never appeared to any theist (unless stoned on meth...perhaps a common occurrence with some), but the mall Santa was there at the mall.

God doesn't answer prayers, even if they come from cancer victims who are in a lot of pain. God made this world, in which one animal eats another, sometimes the animals are still alive as they are painfully eaten, and sometimes animals have to endure a long and arduous chase then get eaten. God made this world of poop and stink. God had his own son crucified, and wouldn't forgive the sins of some ancient ancestor of man until his son died a horrible and painful death (removing his kind son who cured the sick and fed the hungry from this world--depriving the world). The myth is that God is good.....good how?

While God doesn't answer prayers, mall Santas promise that they will bring toys.

Thus, there is proof that Santa exists, and no proof that God exists. There is proof that Santa is good, and no proof that God is good (in fact, there is plenty of proof that God is not good). Should one get close to the powerful just because they are powerful, or should one seek to get close to powerful good spirits?

Kid fledging (kid-a-pult)....like a catapult, but you use kids, not cats (neighbor complained that it was raining cats and dogs).

Lets all go over to the theist's house for bread (they can feed the masses with just a few loves and some fish).

Faith and trust are very similar. Atheists must trust in someone or something or they would be afraid to leave their homes. That faith (that a driver won't run over them) is not proven to be true, yet they have faith anyway.

Faith and trust are based on past relationships. Did someone act responsibly in the past so that we can trust them now and in the future? Then faith in God is forged partially by our perception of how good God has been in the past. But was God good in the past, or was he evil? Did God get made and flood the world (Noah), killing millions of innocent people, including women and children. If so, God is not good (as the myth about God insists).

 

[Clara Tea]

No.
The question is not that. The question is whether there is any design at all. Ergo, you are begging the question, pretty blatantly.

It is like asking: can you have Kryptonite without Superman?

Ciao

- viole

Kryptonite is a fictional substance that hurts Superman. Without fictional Superman, there would be no Kryptonite (no comic book that wrote a tale of Kryptonite without Superman).

If someone did write about Kryptonite without Superman, I could add to that fiction and include Kryptonite.

 

[Clara Tea]

Bluntly, there is no God. There never was a God and there will never be a God.

And off hand, there are at least three major differences between me and the rest of the atheists on RF:

a) Because I've been a Marxist and a Materialist, I tend to believe the existence of god is impossible. Hence I don't equivocate on the "lack of belief". There is no "agnostic atheism" in my case, it's just straight up "atheism". It is denial of belief and not the "absence" of belief". I deny God exists, believe God's existence is impossible and would assume any evidence to the contrary can (and should) be attributed to natural causes.

b) Because materialism denies consciousness cannot exist separately from matter, that means it has a domino effect on theological questions such as belief in existence of the soul, the afterlife, heaven and hell, etc. in my case, atheism is closer to a worldview rather than a limited to the question of "does god exist or not". The belief in the objective material character of natural laws, would also prevent the existence of miracles too.

c) This understanding Atheism has a direct bearing on morals because if there is no God (and no possibility of a "higher power" to govern human affairs other than human beings themselves), then you have to question the morals we have inherited from religion traditions and determine which parts might be true and which parts are as false as the belief in god.

So when religious people attack atheism, many of their criticisms do apply to me even if they do not apply to the "lack of belief" variety of atheism.

It seems very easy to staunchly assert that God does not exist. However, logically, one cannot prove a negative. It is like asserting that Santa Claus doesn't exist (in logic courses in college, we learned that we cannot assert negatives).

Once you ask yourself if you exist, the problem becomes harder. Existentialism is a branch of philosophy that deals with existence (when I minored in philosophy, I didn't like this subject).

Look at how amazing you are. The cells of your body know where to go (forming eyes, ears, etc). Blood vessels supply nutrients to all of your cells. If you get injured, your body heals with scar tissue. If you have an invading germ, your body fights that germ. Sure, such a complex body could evolve from simpler life, but the complexity is mind-blowing.

How do you know that you are not a butterfly dreaming that you are a human, or a human dreaming that you are a butterfly?

Are the things we see real, or are we in a virtual world and a computer program makes all of the things that we see?

Senses can be fooled. Sometimes an optical illusion makes us think that things are real. So, we can't always trust our senses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would never state otherwise. What matters to human beings OBVIOUSLY may exclusively matter to human beings. But the point stands that shared mutual experience has enormous utility within our subjective human experience. Much less utility is to be had from religious or spiritual experience I am afraid. You can call this just "my opinion" all you want... it won't change the fact that even YOU will still go on to utilize far more items, technology, eat food, take advantage of architecture, be provided heat, have people greet you whom you can greet in return with language than religious ideas have ever provided on ANY score - and ALL due to the fact that we humans have a mutual reality that we at least appear to inhabit and interact within. Name me one thing that any "supernatural" or "spiritual" element has provided to you that is as well-demonstrated, established and shared as something like language, or agriculture or your cell phone. You downplay one of the only things that actually produces results on this planet. And yes! That any of those things matter is a SUBJECTIVE assessment. So what? Are you not human? Can you state that these things DO NOT matter to you? And if they DO, then I ask again - what are you going on about?!?!?!

I don't believe in anything spiritual or supernatural. But nor do I believe that reality is physical, natural or any of these one factor explanation.

If you look in other threads, you will notice that I differ to some other atheists as to what reality is and whether it is e.g. natural or physical. That you have to believe it means I believe in the supernatural and what not, is your problem, not mine.

So here is where I suggest we start. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
That is the limit of our shared mutual reality in practice as far as evidence alone goes. So science can help you, but it can also kill you better than non-science. That also applies to me as I am not that naive about how the world works as former professional soldier.

So here is my problem, you have only stated the good aspects of science in effect, but I have found no evidence that we humans share a common good based on science alone. In effect we have to leave science as the only answer and enter into how we do shared inter-subjectivity about the shared good, but that is not a part of objective reality.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Scoop]

since it is on a debate section... I thought I would add to the debate.

Have you ever seen a design with no designer? The design itself is hard evidence.

Love (as in loving your children) is the hard wire of who God is.

Yes, but first you must prove that something is designed.

 

[Scoop]

since it is on a debate section... I thought I would add to the debate.

Have you ever seen a design with no designer? The design itself is hard evidence.

Love (as in loving your children) is the hard wire of who God is.

Yes, but only when there actually is a design. I see no indication that the universe was designed.

 

[John53]

We have a consciousness. A consciousness creates design.

Do ants have a consciousness? Or flowers?

 

[Polymath257]

If it is a "natural law" - it speaks of design. Natural laws aren't happenstance.

How is it even possible for natural laws to be designed? In order to design requires the functioning of natural laws.

 

[Polymath257]

We have a consciousness. A consciousness creates design.

Bt we don't create everything. And not all structure formation requires consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

If it didn't move forward, it was out of design.

So you essentially attribute *everything* to design. At which point, the concept of design becomes nill.

 

[Polymath257]

As I said, even the process of "evolution" dictates a design that adapts.

Why would you think that?

Is there anything conceivable that does NOT imply a design in your view?

 

[Nakosis]

If it didn't move forward, it was out of design.

So whatever happens to happen is proof of design.
So it doesn't really matter what the outcome is, it's going to support your belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

From @lewisnotmiller comment on another thread

That sounds like a more constructive thread.​

Dear atheists...I get that you don't believe in Gods. But tell me what you DO believe in...​

There is no logical reason to believe in a god or gods, no hard evidence . So an atheist does not believe in god or gods.

Mentioning no names @questfortruth and others but there are some people on RF who believe that atheists have no belief whatsoever.

So i am asking atheists what do they actually believe in.

For me

I hope and believe that i will live to see my kids fledge the nest. It's one of my dearest wishes to take them through children and launch them on a successful adulthood.

I believe my husband and children love me

I believe that my car will start when i need it.

I even believe Jesus existed but not as the person described in the bible

I believe that the bread dough i made this morning will have risen enough to bake a couple of loaves.

And much more

So all you atheists out there in RF land, please inform us all of a few of the things you believe in.

I believe that rational thought is most useful