You don't like it, it makes you sad, therefore it cannot be true. By the way, you read WAY more into that than DLH actually said. I don't see anything about oblivion or meaninglessness, just that we don't know everything and we should keep an open mind when trying to learn about the unknown.



Plenty of non-religious people have freedom from smoking, drinking, gambling, promiscuity. Plenty of religious people don't.


Again you confuse "unknown" with "unknowable". No one, not you, not me, knows what might be learned eventually.



That's a rather authoritative statement.

You think a being that created an entire universe and everything in it caring about you is humbling? Sounds more like conceit to me. Maybe we have different dictionaries.

You're correct Foob it does make sad that the athiest alternative is a limited one.

DLH has always maintained that he is in fact an atheist, which is perfectly his right... and the answers most athesists not necessarily DLH... have given me when confronted with philosophical questions such as what happens when we die... that there is no God there is no afterlife and no justice beyond mortality. And that they know that for a fact.




Freedom from what Foob? Freedom to be chained with addictions? To run the the risk of having lung cancer, cirrosis of the liver, falling into personal debt and getting stds? Thanks but no thanks I have seen what smoking and drinking has done to my father.



Some things will never be discovered from science alone.



To suggest that the universe simply came from nothing and all the random events needed to get to the point where we now debating this issue...by a cosmic quirk is a rather presumptous one in itself.




I think we do..

Foob no what I or McDaniel could tell you..you are not going to accept it..for your heart is not ready to listen to the message...only the holy spirit can give you the truth.

What? Please read what I said again. Freedom from, NOT freedom to. Big difference.


That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. That doesn't make it fact. I thought we established that in another thread, but of course we're back to square one.


Backed by study and evidence. Your statement is backed by...

Sounds good. I await the visit. Will it be like "A Christmas Carol" or...?

What it is called is compartmentalizing. Dawkins has a relevant anectode: He once met a man who worked on an oil rig, a creationist who believed the earth was 6000 years old. However, when he's at his work, he is drilling for oil beneath the surface, and he might identify an oil deposit, as, say, a billion years old or more.

So, when he's at work, the earth is 4 billion+, at home, the earth is 6000. The man jumps through mental hoops to maintain his religious beliefs.

Course, there's a difference between a sound mind, and a rational mind, isn't there?

You don't need to be insane, or of otherwise unsound mind to be religious, but to be rational, you either need to be an atheist, or ascribe to some muted form of religion. Deism, for example.



Everything the human does is pleasing to it on some level. Breathing, drinking, eating, defecating, sleeping, living in warmth, and then on into the psychological needs: social interaction, and, finally, spirituality, and the envisionment of deeper meaning; An abstract purpose, which can be adhered to above all else, and which gives satisfaction when the human realizes that so much time has been spent towards a worthy goal.

Unless reality is to be defined by whatever the hell certain people think their life is about, your god still does not exist in reality. It doesn't even exist for you, really. You don't know what it is, or how it acts or behaves, physically, rather, you feel it, or you love it. Unto the concept is given a personality, and the power to punish or reward, but nothing at all of substance.

As far as you're concerned, is a construction of the mind for the benefit of the holder. It exists in your mind, and in the mind of some others, but it does not exist in reality.

This distinction you will be unlikely to recognize, as it implies the need for some concrete reason for this thing to exist, and to behave as you think it does.

Do you see reality as anything other than what you believe? Now, you might recognize that the rest of the world is without the "love" of god or something like that, but you still refer to it as though it's a real thing, so it's not really the same.

After some of 1oldminer's comments, I should (for the sake of clarity of discussion), offer a clarification to my statements:

Just because you don't go someplace when you die, doesn't make your actions meaningless. What you're describing is nihilism. And although nihilism fits within the circle of atheists, the same cannot be said the other way around.

I know that it is not comforting to think about oblivion, but there's not much you can do about it. You had no consciousness before you were born, you'll have none after you die. It's not a hard equation. I never said that the truth would be comforting, only that it would be the truth.

But again, that doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for our actions. It's just that there are no repercussions from a supernatural authority figure. I do not rape and murder because a book tells me not to. I don't do it because it is morally wrong. It is not in my best interests or the best interests of my species. I do not take a LaVey "Do what thou will" approach to life. That does not lead to the propagation of our species. That does nothing to ensure the survivability of my children.

We are, and have always been, motivated by the same driving force that compels all living things: procreation. We, being social animals, created structure and rules to ensure the continuity of our species. But simply being good for goodness sake was not enough for some. So they empowered themselves through creation myths. Thus, religions were borne. "Do Unto Others.." existed long before modern religions, and it has very distinct evolutionary origins.

One of the first questions atheists get is "Where do you get your morals from then?" or "What's keeping you from killing and raping everything?". The truth is, it's societal pressure and my innate requirement for self-preservation that keeps me from doing those things. I truly worry about those people who only refrain from those actions because a book tells them not to. To think that that might be the only thing holding them back is scary.

Having your life blink out like a candle doesn't have to be scary. In fact, when you accept that the very chances of your existence were slim, coupled with the very short period of time you're here, you tend to view life as being especially precious. I'm not doing the things I'm doing to win brownie-points for a cool afterlife. I'm doing them to improve THIS one. I'm not being good for a god's sake, I'm doing it for humanity's sake. I'm not trying to curry favor to be with Jesus for all eternity, I'm trying to make my life on earth as significant as I can because this is all there is. You do not need a god to have a meaningful existence. In fact, I might posit that when you create meaning in your own life, through your own actions, it is likely more meaningful than if you're doing it because of religious dogma. Atheism means having to have a prescient view of humanity's future and not simply biding your time until a magical afterlife comes along.

I'm sorry if that doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies and it makes for an (even worse) Kirk Cameron movie, but the fact is, there is nothing when we die. The same nothing that existed before we lived. We should take the opportunity to appreciate this brief slice of existence and make a real difference for our species. Life is Not meaningless. But if you spend your life on your knees, praying to something that does not exist, it approaches meaninglessness.


Edit: I should also note that I have been trying, through my discussions, to keep steering this car back to the overall issue of atheistic morality. That is what the original topic was about. As far as the god debate itself, there's already a good thread for that, and I strongly suggest people read that one. But on the morality issue, I've yet to see a single counter point that actually challenges my original (and subsequent) assertions. And by challenge, I mean with facts and figures to back up your statements.

This is what irritates me the most about this whole debate, this identity crisis you guys are having. Are you agnostics or are you atheists? It seems like you guys are having trouble deciding. I've provided an example of agnosticism (foobar's quote) and atheism (DLH's quote) right here. These two statements conflict, yet I wouldn't expect you to actually point that out.

Foobar's quote is a perfect example of agnosticism. And actually, I take no umbrage with this school of thought. He says that, basically, we don't know what awaits us, and that we should be open about things unknown. Fair enough.

DLH, on the other hand, has just made a statement that he can't prove in the least. How the hell do you know that we had "no consciousness" before we were born or after we die? What application of the scientific method has caused you to come to this conclusion? How do you know with a surety that such is true? We could be living in a Matrix-style reality in which all matter is an illusion for all we know. Perhaps consciousness is all that exists.

This is why atheism is a belief (devoid of supporting evidence as much as theism is, I would argue moreso) and agnosticism is a lack thereof. To me, the truly scientific route is the path of agnosticism. I thought science was about approaching things with the "open mind" of which foobar spoke. I didn't know it was about making conclusions about things in advance, because I don't care what lack of evidence you think points to the fact that our consciousness didn't exist before or after this sphere of existence, it's not enough to make the proof positive statement that you did, DLH.

Fair enough I stand corrected...not all non religious people immerse themselves in addictions and vices, and many of actually live very pious lives and certainly not all religious people refrain from addictions and vices.



Cosmoslogists are only able to surmise/hyopothesize that the chain of events that susposedly occcured (and how is it possible that these events occured with such precision without the likelyhood of universal collapse or runaway inflation at the instant of creation in the first place?) from the beginning of creation/big bang, to the first generation of stars, galaxies to the creation of our sun and solar system and life itself on the planet and the likelyhood of life on other worlds, at least outside our solar system.

To prove that the chain of events that are believed that occurred as the latest theories tell us..we must duplicate such conditions to prove random creation is indeed valid.

And that cannot be done anymore that I can create conditions to prove Inteligent design.

I gladly accept the rebuke. It was well thought-out and you are correct, I cannot prove that we had no consciousness before we existed. I can also not prove that you are not Elvis Presley posting from the grave. But what I can do, is use fairly logical reasoning and extrapolation to reasonably deduce that you are more than likely NOT Elvis posting from the grave. I can use that same deduction to conclude that since I have no recollection (nor does anyone else) of an existence before they were born, one more-than-likely does not exist. No evidence presented here or anywhere else has shown that we had consciousness prior to existence. For you to suggest otherwise would be more presumptuous than I am being. Atheism is not a belief. It is, by definition, the lack of belief in a god. It is not applicable to all things (as agnosticism is). It's just about belief in a god. You're not atheistic about the Easter Bunny, you're agnostic.

I tend to speak/post in certainties because there is no evidence to challenge that assertion. Until you can show me evidence for your competing theory, I shouldn't have to entertain every fantasy that comes along.

You are correct in one thing though, I am an atheist. I have never claimed to be a complete agnostic. Though I speak in absolutes, I do so with the knowledge that evidential counterarguments Can change my view of things. I am not religious. I can accept new ways of viewing things as new evidence is presented. The key there being EVIDENCE. It is not my place to believe in dragons or even the possibility of dragons without a compelling reason to do so. Yes, the scientific method is fairly agnostic. As it should be. I agree with that statement.

Could we live in a Matrix-Style reality? Sure. Could we live on the back of a goldfish turd in a universe-sized fishbowl? Sure. Could we all be constructs of SnapplePumpkin's imagination? Sure. But unless evidence is presented why I should "keep an open mind" about each or any of those possibilities, it would be ridiculous for me to accept them all as equally viable. We can pass any of those possibilities through the bologna detector and deduce that I probably shouldn't put them all on equal footing. Do I know anything with 100% certainty? No. But I'm comfortable knowing things with 99.99% certainty.

Currently, all available evidence points to us not existing, in any form, prior to conception. I'm cool with that. Seems to make sense. That is why I speak in absolutes. Should I be more flexible? Possibly. I just don't feel the need to make caveats to every point to allow for every possibility. Especially when dealing with theists. When you do that in debate, they tend to fill those holes with god.

Lastly, there's no reason for foobar and I to reconcile our "identity crisis". We are two different people with two different approaches to the non-existence of deities. We're on the same road, heading in the same general direction. We're just debating people who are on the same road, coming from the other direction. I don't expect us to coordinate our viewpoints any more than I expect the religious people in this thread to do that.

Ever hear of the Large Hadron Collider? Regardless of what you think is possible or impossible, we are expanding our knowledge over time. And yes right now we don't have definitive knowledge on the origin of the universe, which is why there are multiple theories about it. But we keep gaining more knowledge, putting it together, to start forming a definitive picture over time. That's a lot stronger that evidence than "In the beginning..."

Yes I am aware of it. I also acknowledge that we do indeed continously expand our knowledge almost on a daily basis about our universe but I still maintain such discoveries is testament of an intelligent design and not a random creation.

Scientific theories are constantly being modified and self-correcting and these theories are given a lot of wiggle-room without having to defend any given position as creationists are often challenged to do so... as you pointed out they are just that..unproven theories nothing more nothing less.