Friday, December 02, 2005
Ignoring? or sheer ignorance.
Yeah, i always try to beleive the best of people. But the school has been gettin gojn my nerves. Ok, they did it all at once, but it does bug me A LOT! I was reading my mail....ladidadida, when i see the "dates to remember" on the Putnam Newsletter. Guess what? they had the choir concert there, the band concert. they seem to be doing a pretty good job on keeping up witht e arts department. or ARE they. yes, my dear amis, they did not post the date for the fantastic orchestra concert. i'm trying to beleive they didn't forget, and the computer messed up. but i also failed to miss a certain "congratulations" (that did, by the way, follow the "Musical Revue", which WAS AWESOME) that should've followed the OTHER orchestra concert. but i can beleive that that was because ELEVEN intruments broke. stuuuuuuupid sixth graders. but some were ijobuby. Yea, so i'm pissed at the school. why doesn't anyone like orchestra? i want to join choir. it's so much fun! well it sounds like it, and shereen said you become really good friends with other in the group. well at least for the A-Choir, which is the one i wanna join. but i don't think i'm good eeeeeeeeenough. so, yeah. oh well. i'll just sleep and be all better. bye! the usual...
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Um...the debate thing...
Notify Blogger about objectionable content.What does this mean?
BlogThis!
blogspotInit();
Southwest in the Northwest
The long-winded and confused ramblings of a 14-year-old living in the Pacific Northwest.
Friday, October 21, 2005
"Why Atheism?"
I really will stop with the atheism posts soon. Really. But I wanted to post this, because I think it's a great speech to read, and makes some excellent points without being hostile or inflammatory.It's entitled, Why Atheism?I encourage anyone who reads this blog, theist or atheist or whatever belief, to read it.And no, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to atheism. I respect everyone's right to hold their own beliefs. But I also think that with that should come an open-mindedness to others, and I think this is a great resource.(insert more apologetic babble here)
posted by Southwest @ 9:27 PM 37 comments
37 Comments:
At Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:18:55 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
"The biggest weakness in using God to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable, and thus not even testable. There is no way to create an experiment to show that it’s wrong. For every possible set of a test and a result, we could simply say, “God did it.” Why do the Earth and Universe appear to be so old? God did it. Why does nature seem so balanced? God did it. Once again, why does anything happen? If we say that God did it, there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works. If we had stayed with God as the cause of all events, our modern culture would have been impossible. We would have no real science, engineering, or medicine; we would still be living in the Dark Ages"Obviously, people of the Middle Ages beleived strongly in the whole, "God did it." thing. God DID do everything, but he isn't stopping us from discovering it, is he? We are here for a reason, and I don't think he would have created so much to learn had he not wanted us to. Also, you have to realize (in the beginning of the essay thingamabob) that the Catholic Church was run by igonorant men, not an all-knowing God. God did not make everything and everyone perfect, obviously, or there would be no point to life. I feel bad for the people the Catholic Church punished, but I will not tolerate anything to do with John Paul II saying something like that....he was friggin' awesome. I know I know, I am blindly following others into beleiving he was perfect. That's my fault. Anyway, I think this is a brilliant essay on the behalf of Atheists, and would recommend it to Atheists who want to defend their faith. Is atheism a faith....ro well. Anyway, don't take this comment seriously because I'm stupid. No....I really am stupid, honestly. i won't accept you saying I'm NOT stupid because I am. Anyway, have a nice day and see you tomorrow!
At Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:49:15 PM, Shereen said...
First of all my sister isn't stupid, she just has a hard time presenting her argument. I like that link you posted about atheism. I mean of course it is a bit slanted toward atheism by means of connotative language at the least. I do not want to change anyone's faith either beause frankly i am in the process of the whole "finding myself" thing. I do, however, have some input on this issue. I have a few reasons for not being an atheist but it is mainly because there is no valid explanation for the creation of the known universe. Philosophers like socrates, descartes and lucretius all back me up when i say something cannot come from nothing. Thinking about this statement logically and scientifically, it makes sense. There must have been something or someone to trigger the creation of matter, engergy or whatever the first building blocks of this universe are. One might say that it was just the big bang, but the material in that little ball had to come from somewhere...it can't just appear. And if it came from another universe, it still had to orignate somewhere in that universe. So my point is that no matter how much we can explain through science...science will never explain how existence of anything we know came to be in the beginning. If you want to challenge me, do it.
At Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:52:54 PM, Southwest said...
"Anyway, don't take this comment seriously because I'm stupid. No....I really am stupid, honestly. i won't accept you saying I'm NOT stupid because I am."-she-who-must-not-be-namedYeesh, Steen, a bit hard on yourself, aren't you?You're not stupid. So there."[S]cience will never explain how existence of anything we know came to be in the beginning."-shereenThen what is the alternative? Religion? If one is to believe that a god created the universe, where did this god come from? Where did the "materials" for everything in the universe come from? If a god created them, then we still have the "something from nothing" issue-- despite whatever divine power caused it, the parts of the universe still would have come from nothing.There's a part in the speech that addresses this. I think you may want to give it another gander. It's under the heading "First Cause, or Cosmological Argument". Essentially, it states that science could, in fact, explain the origin of the universe. It offers a sound hypothesis, and also makes a strong point-- just because we currently cannot understand where the universe came from, does not mean a god did it.Again, please don't mistake me. I don't want to ridicule, I don't want to convert. I apologize if anything I say or do is offensive-- I don't mean for that at all. I simply want to present my side and support it as well as I can.(On a side note, from now on, my atheism ramblings will be in a separate blog, so as to make this blog a little less controversial.)
At Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:32:57 PM, Shereen said...
I guess i was trying to say that if there is this timeless force that existed before matter and energy then that's what must have spawned the creation of the universe. Going back to the "something can't come from nothing" idea, whatever created the universe must have existed in a way we can't concieve...beyond time-space. I say this because if we think of this force as present in our idealogical sense of the universe and existence itself...then we would have to conclude that there could never be such a being....as you have. And people like you believe this precisely because there is no way for anything to just appear out of nowhere...unless it does not have to heed to the rules of this life/world/time-space. And that is one of the reasons why i believe in some sort of higher intelligence. In order for this universe to have come into existence, something would have had to spark it. And if you say "then how did that being come into existence if "something can't come from nothing" ? As I explained earlier, this being has to exist in a different time-space than we do....that's the only explanation i can come up with as a human being....and it's the only one that makes valid sense. We cant limit our thoughts and ideas to this world...it's a retardation and a limitation of our human minds. Again, not trying to change your mind....just sharing.
At Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:45:38 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
And also....God IS a god....so he has powers that we cannot conceive of, such as exsisting forever and not needing an explanation for it. Of course, to atheists this doesn't make sense since you don't beleive in God or his powers, but to Catholics/Christians/whoever this makes perfect sense. ^_^! So....don't change these subjects to a different blog cuz that would just be stupid....no reason it just would be stupid. Bye!
At Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:56:22 PM, Southwest said...
"And that is one of the reasons why i believe in some sort of higher intelligence. In order for this universe to have come into existence, something would have had to spark it."-shereenAnd that is the "god of the gaps" argument mentioned in the speech. "We cannot conceive what caused the universe, so it must be a god." Yet, the Greeks couldn't conceive why the sun moved across the sky, so assumed it was a god pulling it behind a chariot. Today, we dismiss that as mythology and silliness because science, observations, and reasoning have proven otherwise.My intent here is not to call modern religions mythology. That is my belief, but it's not what I'm trying to express right now. What I mean to illustrate is that entire religions have been dismissed as mythology because the gaps their gods lived in have closed up. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the "god of the gaps" argument by itself, but to me, when there is a valid, believable, credible scientific option, it is more logical to assume a fact-based theory is correct than a "god of the gaps" argument.Again, I want to point out the section in the speech which offers some scientific explanation as to the origins of the universe. "As we discovered in the 20th century, the [u]niverse is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause." That phrase, and a few sentences after it do a lot of explanation for a scientific view of the universe's origins. If the most fundamental ruling of the universe says that events can happen without a cause, then it's believable that the universe could have come to exist without any sort of 'nudge'."We cant limit our thoughts and ideas to this world...it's a retardation and a limitation of our human minds."-shereenOn the other side of that continuum is the argument that to believe in an invisible, intangible being that controls the universe with divine, unlimited power but yet leaves no evidence whatsoever is insanity, schizophrenia, a retardation of our human minds.That's not necessarily my belief, but it's the opposite viewpoint.This is interesting to debate with you, Shereen. Thanks for commenting, and once more, I'll apologize if anything I say is crass. I certainly don't mean that."And also....God IS a god....so he has powers that we cannot conceive of, such as exsisting forever and not needing an explanation for it."-she-who-must-not-be-namedThis is the sort of logic that befuddles atheists like myself. God is a being which has always existed, through ways we can't understand. God has done many things, for reasons we can't understand. God is omnibenevolent-- infinitely loving-- and omniscient-- all-knowing-- and omnipotent-- all-powerful. Yet though he knows everything, including why he does things; and is infinitely caring, so he'd want us to understand; and can do anything, so could instill his knowledge in us-- he does not...."God works in ways we don't understand."-No one in particularWell, yeah, I suppose that's a way to explain/wheedle your way out of it.It just frustrates atheists like me, because it gets nowhere.ATHEIST. "Where did the universe come from, then?"THEIST. "God created it."ATHEIST. "And where did God come from?"THEIST. "God works in ways we don't understand."ATHEIST. "Wait... did you just prove God with God?"THEIST. "You obviously can't comprehend the wonders of God. Therefore, I'm right, and God exists."Obviously, I dramatized it a tad, but my point is that it seems like circular logic. Where did God come from? God works in ways we don't understand. That's not answering, that's dodging, if you ask me.But I digress.Point being... yeah, I dunno what my point was. It's just strange logic, if you ask me."So....don't change these subjects to a different blog cuz that would just be stupid....no reason it just would be stupid. Bye!"-she-who-must-not-be-namedToo late.Fair warning, though-- that gets a lot more unbridled there, because I'm not necessarily worried about stepping on toes. That blog is an atheism blog, and it's written as if it were atheist to atheist, not an atheist to a theist. Yes, I know there's something wrong with that justification, but that's how it is. Sorry.And there's only one post right now.Yeesh, Steen, can you make any sort of comment without using the word "stupid"? ;-)
At Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:07:43 AM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Now that I think about it, I don'tt hink I CAN post a comment without saying stupid on it. that's so...er...dumb...haha. "This is the sort of logic that befuddles atheists like myself. God is a being which has always existed, through ways we can't understand. God has done many things, for reasons we can't understand. God is omnibenevolent-- infinitely loving-- and omniscient-- all-knowing-- and omnipotent-- all-powerful. Yet though he knows everything, including why he does things; and is infinitely caring, so he'd want us to understand; and can do anything, so could instill his knowledge in us-- he does not."Think, Spencer. If God gave us ALL his knowledge, what do you think would happen to the world? Look what has happened now that we have Human knowledge, and aren't ignorant like fluffy little bunny rabbits. Honestly, if God gave us his all-caring, all-knowing- all-etc. powers, the world would be full of people equivilent to Gods, and THAT would definitely not be good. I would have thought you'd know that....oh well. And I knew that Atheists could not think this way, because most, not all, are realist, not idealist, and need something tangible to beleive in it. Well, MOST things need to be tangible i guess. And what's funny, is that Shereen guessed you were an Athesist even before she knew it...i was like "what the hell, how'd you know that!" and she figured it out just by the way you talked to her online. And also, here's a funny thing:My Uncle was talking about how some people think that if you don't beleive in God, then you go to hell, so he said, "If you don't beleive in Gosh, you go to Heck." i just thought that was uberly funny. Bye!
At Monday, November 07, 2005 10:50:51 PM, Southwest said...
"Think, Spencer. If God gave us ALL his knowledge, what do you think would happen to the world? Look what has happened now that we have Human knowledge, and aren't ignorant like fluffy little bunny rabbits. Honestly, if God gave us his all-caring, all-knowing- all-etc. powers, the world would be full of people equivilent to Gods, and THAT would definitely not be good."-she-who-must-not-be-namedI never implied anything about God giving us his powers, or all his knowledge. I said that if he's truly the all-caring, all-powerful, all-knowing being he is, he could and would instill in humans the knowledge of why he did certain things, hence eliminating the need for the phrase "God works in mysterious ways.""And I knew that Atheists could not think this way, because most, not all, are realist, not idealist, and need something tangible to beleive in it. Well, MOST things need to be tangible i guess."-she-who-must-not-be-namedThink what way now?MOST things have to be tangible. Okay. Going by the definition of "tangible" as "being able to be physically felt or observed", gravity's tangible, oxygen is tangible, wood is tangible, skin is tangible, everything that makes our universe is tangible. Well, except God.Yes, I'm biased. Yes, God would be "different". Except, you already base almost everything you experience on tangible evidence. Why should a supreme being be any different?It only slightly relates, but I want to post one of my favorite quotes here:"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."-Stephen RobertsYou demand evidence for everything else in your life. If I were to tell you that I had a giant dragon in my garage, and brought you there, but you were to see nothing, would you believe it? If I told you I had a book I had written telling all the things my dragon had done, and handed you a story printed on good paper, in a very nice report cover, would you believe it? If I explained that he could breathe pleasantly warm fire, and you held out your arm but felt nothing, would you believe it? If I demanded you fed him, would you?No. As humans, we logically require evidence to make conclusions. If you can understand why you would dismiss the dragon in my garage, you can understand why I dismiss gods.Likewise, there have been literally thousands of gods humanity has thought of. Zeus, Ra, and Odin were all once major gods, believed by their followers to be among the "true" gods. Certainly, tales of their actions and miracles were recorded, in the time's equivalent to books. Yet, unless you have taken polytheism to the very extreme, you certainly dismiss these gods as false, as nothing but mythology. What about Brahma of Hindu, or the Horned God of Wicca? Those are modern-day religions that many people still believe true. Certainly, you can respect them as much as possible, you can say that people can believe whatever they want-- but you don't believe in those gods. If you can understand why you dismiss those gods, you can understand why I dismiss yours.Sorry for the attacking tone-- I just got started, and didn't want to stop.The points still stand, though.
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:19:57 AM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Not at all! (about the attacking thing...). I was going to say something about this....but I lost my train of thought...so sorry, and I promise not to make any more comments on THIS blog...and I won't read your other blog cuz you said it was "atheist to atheist"...^.^. Anyway...there has to be something cool on this comment, otherwise it'd be so stupid, so:Daniel Radcliffe is the best!
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:07:03 PM, Southwest said...
"Not at all! (about the attacking thing...). I was going to say something about this....but I lost my train of thought...so sorry, and I promise not to make any more comments on THIS blog...and I won't read your other blog cuz you said it was "atheist to atheist"...^.^. Anyway...there has to be something cool on this comment, otherwise it'd be so stupid, so:Daniel Radcliffe is the best!"-she-who-must-not-be-namedHey, you can make all the comments you want. I don't want to discourage that at all.As for the other blog, it's written like atheist to atheist, which I saw scared you away. If you don't wanna read it, that's cool, but I'm not forcing you not to.And there you go, using "stupid" again. Told you it was impossible.You, Steen, have a bit of an inferiority complex, methinks.
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:24:43 PM, Shereen said...
I can definitely see your point, Spencer, about believing only what we see and know to be true. And personally, I believe that if there is a god, that he couldn't possibly be all good. I say this because then there would be no explanation for where evil came from...i mean taking into consideration the christian belief that god was here first and he is all powerful. If the devil created evil then that means that God isn't all powerful; it means he had an equal rival. But anyway that's off the subject. What I was going to say is that I don't necesarily believe that the higher force is a God...because we as humans picture god in our own image. I mean, even calling him god is human based. But I definitely believe in higher intelligence because if you look around you...there is an obvious collective human conciousness and intuition. There HAVE been unexplainable things happening. Even things like love, which are unknown to animals in the way we know it...something with intelligence must have created this or us...we cannot attribute such a powerful force as love or hatred to simple scientific evolution...atoms, molecules, organs, physics and chemistry could not possibly explain such things. That's why I believe that we are not alone in this universe or time/space...i know you have felt love before, Spencer. You can't tell me that love is the effect of certain chemical reactions. Yes there are physical feelings like adrenaline and what not that are part of these feelings...but you can't define and explain how love came about...there's something else out there...whether or not it's a god. Something...
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:37:56 PM, sploser said...
And that, is why I'm still agnostic. I believe there are things that cannot be explained by science or any of that schtuff. I'm not athiest yet!!! ^^
At Friday, November 11, 2005 11:40:26 AM, Southwest said...
But that's the clincher.It is perfectly acceptable to say, in face of things we cannot scientifically prove yet, "I don't know." There are things we can't understand at this point in time scientifically. But that doesn't mean it's immediate fodder for the god of the gaps argument.It's not what you were asking for, but I do believe there's an explanation for the feeling of love. Yes, it is an amazing feeling, but if you ask me, I personally think you can attribute it to chemicals like dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is a name you hear a lot in relation to drugs-- the drugs' effects on dopamine production creates highs, and then the drugs eventual blocking of the dopamine receptors create addiction.Yes, that does severely damage the "special" factor tied to it, saying that one of the most amazing feelings in the world is all due to chemicals. I know that. I don't like it, but I also believe it as a probable truth. Just because one has a personal problem with a concept-- and the "one" I'm referring to here is me, not anyone else-- does not falsify the concept.I know you were more interested in the origins of love. Again, I don't know. Perhaps it's unknown, unfathomable to science at this point in time. But there's nothing that says it must have been a higher power.Ugh, I cannot debate today, I swear...
At Friday, November 11, 2005 12:08:12 PM, Southwest said...
Here we go.Humans developed without any natural defenses. We have no claws, very ineffective teeth, and our skin just won't project acid, no matter how hard we try. Our only advantage on any of our predators is intelligence-- but even that can only get us so far.I'm going to assume that there were two fundamental goals involved-- the general species-wide goal of perpetuating the species, and the specific individual-related goal of perpetuating one's own lineage. In a way, both are connected-- one protects the species by perpetuating one's lineage.Love developed among families to protect the young. By caring for the young members of a group, a species protects its survival. Without it, the species would die off. Also, as a family group, each cares for everyone else. Those who weren't in the group couldn't make it solo, and so they died.Love among couples developed to protect the species. A couple that didn't protect one another would get killed, ending their chain of lineage, and thus endangering the species. There could also have been many sexually-transmitted diseases way back when-- a promiscuous individual would run a higher risk of obtaining an STD, and thus dying, damaging the species.Those who didn't show these characteristics died, so only those who had these attributes survived. Love is a product of natural selection.As the species grew and grew, by sheer numbers, humans had to worry less about the destruction of the species, and thus love became more emotional, a subconscious thing rather than a survival thing. Today, we obviously don't have to worry about our mate getting attacked by a wildcat, but love is still there.Ta-da.
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 1:17:44 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Um, yeah that made no sense to me...ok it made a little sense. Anyway, I just came here to say that it'd be stupid if Humans couldn't capture love. That would almost take away from our humaness. And, another thing. Even if there IS not god, even if all that I ever lived for and poured my soul out into wasn't real, what would happen? I mean, if there's no god, what happens after we die? Do we just rot? There would be no point in (ok, maybe a little motive) trying to live a sinless life. Godd and bad wouldn't matter to a hell of a lot of people. And believing in god (though this is such a bad thing to do) is playing on the safe side. If there is no god, and someone beleived in them their whole life, at least that caused them to lead a fairly good life. And when they die, they can rot in their grave peacefully. Do you understand what I'm saying? Maybe. But if there IS a god, and you were against that concept your whole life, depending on which god you're talking about, you'd either go to hell, or turn into a hideous spider. But that's no reason to stop becoming atheist, because that'd be like me rading your blog and saying, "Oh....I guess I've been wrong all along! Better become atheist! Hahahahaha!" Well, it'd be easier to explain my death thing if I could actually see you....see you at school!
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:02:00 PM, maxine said...
I don't care what religion anyone is as long as they believe in God. Otherwise they're bloody idiots.:)
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:08:47 PM, maxine said...
I'm just kidding. I think any religion is fine. Atheism is fine too. A lot of religions have the same basic meaning so I don't get why people don't like others because of their religion. Hinduism is like Christianity. God is like the three main Hindu Gods (I forgot their names). All the saints are like all the other Gods that are in the Hindu religion. There is no difference. I'm guessiing that it's just the little things that make a whole lot of a difference. Like how Hindus think that cows are sacred while we eat them. Spencer, I think you should try out a religion and see if it fits you and your lifestyle. Some religions might believe in everything you do and is totally perfect for you. You'll just have to find out for yourself. So give it a try and get out there! Ooga booga!
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:22:59 PM, maxine said...
Or maybe there's a religion just for you where there is no God and it's for people who have no God. You should start a religion like that where people get together and talk about religions and what they think things should be like. You don't have to listen to me though. Like christine always says "MAXINE! YOU'RE SO STUPID!!!" *sniff sniff* well bye. *slouches away*
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:36:57 PM, Southwest said...
Christine--You do not need religion to be moral.You do not have to be afraid of a hell to do good things.What you just used is called Pascal's Wager, popularized by Blaise Pascal. It says that if you believe in God, and you are correct, then you go to Heaven. Eternal happiness. Goodstuff. It goes on to say that if you don't believe in God, and you are right, then you gain nothing. If you don't believe, and you are wrong, then you lose infintely (Hell), and if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. Therefore, the concept says, it is better to believe in a god and risk being wrong, in which case you lose nothing, than to disbelieve.It's full of holes. By that wager, one should go off and find the religion with the worst Hell, and practice it, because if you're wrong, you avoid that Hell.But back to morality.People don't need religion to be moral. Look at me. Sure, I have my faults, but do I smoke, drink, do drugs, anything? No. Am I an adulterer? Hell no. Do I really do anything majorly immoral? No. I'm atheist, yet I have morals.Gasp.If the concept of religion simply vanished, what would happen?1. No more holy wars. Hmm, this is odd. If religion is so moral, then why are people fighting over it? Killing other people over it? Yes, it's only a small percentage, but there have been so many wars fought over religion it's amazing. Do the Crusades ring a bell, or maybe the wars that the Muslim "terrorists" waged on Christianity? Religion, though it preaches caring and love, tolerance-- as well as the existence of an all-caring god who could very well stop this nonsense but doesn't-- is responsible for scores of human deaths.2. Morals would remain. I can't say it enough-- you don't have to be afraid of eternal punishment to be good. Morals could have easily evolved over time-- a group of humans that killed each other didn't survive, a group that stole from each other led to fights, which killed each other, and so on. Only the cooperative genes were passed on, which then became morals. No more atheists don't go out and kill people randomly than theists do. Why? Not because they're afraid of sinning, or of Hell-- but because they know it's the wrong thing to do. Perhaps they have an even higher respect for human life; we know it's the only one any of us will get. Religion is not necessary for morality....okay, only two things are relevant to your topic. Still.The concept of a holy war-- religion against religion-- brings back to mind a topic I brought up a while ago."I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."-Stephen RobertsAgain, you dismiss all other gods as fiction, mythology, yet you are convinced yours is the true one. Why do you disregard the other religions? How can you look at their beliefs, which are fundamentally identical to yours (religion: god(s) exist and control most/all of the world) and say, "That's absolutely ridiculous," yet hold the belief in your mind that yours is somewhat different? If you can understand why you don't believe in those other gods, which are just as likely to exist as yours, then you can understand why I don't believe in any."I don't care what religion anyone is as long as they believe in God. Otherwise they're bloody idiots.:)"-MaxineThat's not bigotry at all...-Bleeding Idiot
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:43:32 PM, Southwest said...
Nevermind that bigotry comment. Sorry.And there is a "religion" for non-belief-- it's called atheism.But that's the thing. I'm an atheist. I do not believe in a god, and it would take a lot of evidence and proof to change my mind. Religions may have the greatest customs ever, but I could practice those customs without the religion. One should not join a religion for the parties it throws.I'm not lacking anything in my life-- well, religion-wise. I'm happy how I am, without believing in a god. My beliefs can provide a satisfactory explanation for anything I question, or, failing the explanation, I can simply acknowledge that I don't know. I don't need a god.
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:10:44 PM, Sploster said...
Not that I don't enjoy reading this debate... but talking back and forth isn't gonna change each other's opinions much.Spwencer is almost impossible to convince anything if he's determined of it... and Maxine, Christine, and Shereen... you guys, I'm guessing, have always been religious and will stay religious regardless of anything said here.So to make this short, you guys can just stop debating... or if you enjoy it... go ahead ^^Just thought I'd point out the complete obvious.
At Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:38:05 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Spencer, of course I know that you don't need religion to have morals. Duh. But, i think we should just discuss this in person if we're going to discuss it at all, otherwise this will become ridiculous. And I think that she's right, we shouldn't argue anymore, because all we're basically doing is pointing out eachother's flaws, which is NOT healthy. so, from now on i'm going to read these comments and say, "ok." bye!
At Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:03:01 PM, Southwest said...
The point of my debate is not to change the other side's viewpoint. That's nearly impossible and I doubt I could do it, especially not here. My purpose is to personally understand more about the opposite view and provide the other side an understanding of mine. I personally don't see where I've pointed out anyone's flaws here, and I don't see how it was getting ridiculous. I enjoyed this debate, and personally, I want it to continue.But if you want to leave, fine, whatever.
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:21:50 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
I wanted to continue, but I weas bored...and lazy when I made that comment. So, if you wanna continue...that's fine I guess. But right now, I have nothing to say, besides, nevermind....that'd be using the word "stupid" - DOH!
At Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:05:55 PM, Shereen said...
So if love was a survival tactic, then do animals love eachother in the same way humans do? Do animals die for eachother? Do animals fall in and out of love? Do animals daydream about their love partners? Why do they change mates every season (most of them)? I mean, they survived this far didn't they, like us? Furthermore, how do we explain where love came from? How do the high levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine start to rise? What triggers the production of these hormones? I know you are thinking about the God of gaps argument right now and you do make a good point about that idea. I think a lot of the reason people believe in God is because it's someone there to protect you, to hold you and comfort you...a sense of security and an explanation for the unknown. God forbid we humans want to feel those things (no pun intended). If anything, on average religous people live 10 years longer than non-religious...probably because they have hope and a positive out look because they believe that paradise awaits them. They score higher on "overall satisfaction of life" tests. That point is in support of your G.O.G. argument.Damn you Spencer.Oh well, I still like to feel comforted and protected, etc by believing in some sort of higher power. Whether or not he's real, I'm happier this way...and me being my selfish self, that's what I want. Same goes for you...you are happy as an atheist. So it is here where I will take a break from this debate unless, of course, you say something that triggers my tongue. TTFN Spensive.
At Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:40:58 PM, Sploster said...
"So if love was a survival tactic, then do animals love eachother in the same way humans do? Do animals die for eachother? Do animals fall in and out of love? Do animals daydream about their love partners? Why do they change mates every season (most of them)? I mean, they survived this far didn't they, like us? Furthermore, how do we explain where love came from? How do the high levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine start to rise? What triggers the production of these hormones?"I do believe that the love humans share with each other is different than animals but I don't think it's because of god, or even see how it relates to god... I don't know why it's so different, but I think it's because (supposedly) humans are smarter than animals and are more advanced etc. But I honestly don't know... and don't want to know. Love is just one of those things you don't wanna know why it is the way it is, because it's special and most people think it should stay that way.
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:28:19 AM, Southwest said...
Shereen--Here is an excellent article on the science of love. It provides explanation for how it would develop, some real-life examples of "monogamous" animals that aren't humans, and overall good understanding.But I'll provide my own response as well.The point being made was that love served as a survival tactic for humans. Yes, humans are animals, but we're also capable of abstract thought, and are otherwise quite different. Other animals aren't capable of loving each other like we do, so they don't need to. Again, that article I linked provides excellent explanation for this.As for the hormones-- look it up yourself. Do some research. Just because you don't know of an answer off the top of your head doesn't mean it's not out there. Search-- Google is your friend. Using a personal lack of understanding as an argument against something is far from a valid debate-- though I won't say I've never done this before*. Nevertheless, we (and by that, I don't mean "you", but "we") should avoid that, because it's simply an invalid argument.As for life quality and expectancy...First, praytell, where is your factual evidence? Granted, I've been really bad at that as well, but I would like to see some studies showing that-- that can be positive that the only factor at work is beliefs.The problem right there is it can't be done. There is no way to justifiably say that the only factor changing one's lifespan in an experiment is religion or lack thereof. What if the study had chosen atheists that were smokers, or theists that had already suffered heart attacks? There are an infinite number of factors that change life expectancy, and on can not expect to look at results from a test and single one out.Statistics can easily be skewed.And what's this about atheists being less satisfied with life? I've been so happy with my life and everything in it before that I was certain nobody could ever be happier. That's satisfaction. Things have changed since then, yes, but things always change. Life goes through ups and downs, and once again, you can't pick one factor to blame for all of it. In my example, I was soaring along, and then learned that I might move away from my home here. Does that have anything to do with my atheism? No. If I were theist, would my reaction have changed? Probably not, because even if I believed there was a god who loved me, losing the future you'd planned and the best friends in the world would still hurt deeply and cut into my satisfaction in life. Nevertheless, I know that I can be perfectly satisfied with my life, and my beliefs have nothing to do with it.Once again, I don't want to change your mind. I just want to try to see your way of viewing things, and let you see mine, so that we have a better understanding of each other's viewpoints from actual experience with the other.
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:35:05 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
"I'm happier this way...and me being my selfish self, that's what I want. Same goes for you...you are happy as an atheist."Did you even read that, Spencer? She said that you were happy with your life. She was saying that overall, theists were more satisfied. Dur. And shereen, you no leave! i can't come up with good arguments! anyway, i didn't read that article, because, i'm in a hurry to get away from blogs. So...you just pointed out the base of our argument. We beleive in things that can't be proven by ourselves, you don't. that's it. that's the main difference. that's all there is to it. ok, some atheists ( i think this is uber stupid) are out there because they don't like the way the mankind runs the church. and also, where did science come from? i was JUST wondering, not challenging, but you can take it as one if you eant to....hehe. byez!
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:01:10 PM, Southwest said...
Yes, Christine, I did read it. Why did you think I didn't?How about this:"[Theists] score higher on "overall satisfaction of life" tests."-shereenDid you even read that, Christine? Well, obviously, you did. She claimed, indirectly, that theists were happier, or more satisfied, with their lives than atheists. I don't see at all what you're trying to argue-- her claim was that "statistics show" atheists are less satisfied with their lives. I think satisfaction with life and happiness are fairly hand-in-hand. Yes, she did say I was happy. I know that, and she said she was happy too. But the point she made earlier in her post remains, and that's what I was discussing.And I'm curious, what do you mean, "where did science come from"? Science is, to quote dictionary.com, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." In short-- trying to understand all we can observe based on what we can prove. Science came from the first observation and explanation ever made. Every time an observation based on proof is made, it is science.Again-- if you believe in things that can't be proven by humankind, then why do you dismiss the dragon in my garage?"You demand evidence for everything else in your life. If I were to tell you that I had a giant dragon in my garage, and brought you there, but you were to see nothing, would you believe it? If I told you I had a book I had written telling all the things my dragon had done, and handed you a story printed on good paper, in a very nice report cover, would you believe it? If I explained that he could breathe pleasantly warm fire, and you held out your arm but felt nothing, would you believe it? If I demanded you fed him, would you?"-SouthwestAh, well. I suppose I just have a hole in my logic when it comes to dealing with invisible beings.
At Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:19:44 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
I don't even know what I meant about the science thing. I think....like, all the things IN science, i know what it IS, i wanna know where it came from. And I think there is a reason for OVERALL satisfaction. Theists have something that atheists don't have: religion (no friggin' duh). So, that gives them one more thing to be happy about. But that's just in general, I suppose. I mean, there are plenty of theists that are depressed, and plenty of atheists that are uberly ecstatic (did i spell that right?). and about the dragon thing, i had something to say about that before, and i still can't remember what it was. Wait....i said i wasn't gonna do this anymore.....oops. oh well, that's just me being stu - er - lame.
At Monday, November 21, 2005 8:19:29 AM, Southwest said...
I still don't understand the "where did it come from" question. Science came from our observations as humans based on proof.If theists have their religion to be happy about, atheists have their lack thereof. There's no reason why atheists would be less satisfied by life than theists.
At Monday, November 21, 2005 7:59:28 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Like I said, you guys are happy as you are. We agree.....i guess. And with the science thing, i don't understand myself. k? okie dokie. see ya!
At Monday, November 21, 2005 9:45:32 PM, Southwest said...
Then I suppose we can agree that the "satisfaction of life" point is moot?Just curious, as it certainly seems so to me.
At Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:49:11 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
K, not sure, but i'm guessing "moot" means not true. But no, i don't agree. She said that (or at least implied) there were studies about overall happiness including atheists and theists. the study proved that (ok, at least leaned toward the idea, not nessecarily proved) that the theists were more satisfied with their life than atheists were. but that was an overall look. that doesn't mean that every theist is happier than every atheist, my god, no. i just means that on an overall look, that's what the study identified. kapish (is that even how you spell that?)? okie doke. bye!
At Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:17:21 PM, Southwest said...
"Moot" means "irrelevant".But why can't we dismiss the study? Unless I'm mistaken, we've both agreed that if theists have their theism to be satisfied with, atheists have their atheism. Beliefs should have no effect on any other factors of satisfaction in life.If we assume everything in the tests was equal but the theism or lack thereof (a "perfect" experiment), and we both agree that the satisfaction in theists with their theism is mirrored with the atheist satisfaction with atheism, then the two cases are identical, and the point about "theists being more satisfied with life than atheists" is moot.If we admit that not everything in the tests was equal (there were factors involved other than beliefs), then we can't conclusively say that it was theism that made people more satisfied with life, which means that the test is faulty, and the "satisfaction" point is moot.Either way, the point is moot, and shouldn't be used as an argument.Theism, or lack thereof, has no effect on satisfaction with life.(And it's 'capisce'. Italian.)
At Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:55:23 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
um....i think what the study meant (bar we're saying ...or at least i am, instead of shereen....barlar star!) was that theism affected the rest of the, er, normal life in a way that atheism didn't. sure, the people were satisfied with themselves....but theism did something that atheism did not. that's what it meant. but i guess there may be things that atheism does that theism does not....who knows and/or cares. i don't. well....see you (wait....it's a four day weekend!)....monday!
At Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:29:34 PM, Sploster said...
Study means nothing. There is no way to make that study work because there are so many other factors and there is no way to make those other factors obsolete. If you isolate the person and just have the religion part then they wouldn't be living and you can't have two people living the same exact life other than religion, it's virtually impossible so all results from that study (if there even is a study with results) are moot. ^.^ Yay for using Spwencer's word, lol.
Yeah, this was the UBER long...well a debate is what i guess it was...yeah i'm kinda glad it's over, becuase it was taking to lon, we kept pointing out the same thing to eachother...and it just started to get boring. right now my compu isn't working, but i'll talk more bout this later. bye! au revoir (ah hreh vwa)!
BlogThis!
blogspotInit();
Southwest in the Northwest
The long-winded and confused ramblings of a 14-year-old living in the Pacific Northwest.
Friday, October 21, 2005
"Why Atheism?"
I really will stop with the atheism posts soon. Really. But I wanted to post this, because I think it's a great speech to read, and makes some excellent points without being hostile or inflammatory.It's entitled, Why Atheism?I encourage anyone who reads this blog, theist or atheist or whatever belief, to read it.And no, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to atheism. I respect everyone's right to hold their own beliefs. But I also think that with that should come an open-mindedness to others, and I think this is a great resource.(insert more apologetic babble here)
posted by Southwest @ 9:27 PM 37 comments
37 Comments:
At Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:18:55 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
"The biggest weakness in using God to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable, and thus not even testable. There is no way to create an experiment to show that it’s wrong. For every possible set of a test and a result, we could simply say, “God did it.” Why do the Earth and Universe appear to be so old? God did it. Why does nature seem so balanced? God did it. Once again, why does anything happen? If we say that God did it, there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works. If we had stayed with God as the cause of all events, our modern culture would have been impossible. We would have no real science, engineering, or medicine; we would still be living in the Dark Ages"Obviously, people of the Middle Ages beleived strongly in the whole, "God did it." thing. God DID do everything, but he isn't stopping us from discovering it, is he? We are here for a reason, and I don't think he would have created so much to learn had he not wanted us to. Also, you have to realize (in the beginning of the essay thingamabob) that the Catholic Church was run by igonorant men, not an all-knowing God. God did not make everything and everyone perfect, obviously, or there would be no point to life. I feel bad for the people the Catholic Church punished, but I will not tolerate anything to do with John Paul II saying something like that....he was friggin' awesome. I know I know, I am blindly following others into beleiving he was perfect. That's my fault. Anyway, I think this is a brilliant essay on the behalf of Atheists, and would recommend it to Atheists who want to defend their faith. Is atheism a faith....ro well. Anyway, don't take this comment seriously because I'm stupid. No....I really am stupid, honestly. i won't accept you saying I'm NOT stupid because I am. Anyway, have a nice day and see you tomorrow!
At Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:49:15 PM, Shereen said...
First of all my sister isn't stupid, she just has a hard time presenting her argument. I like that link you posted about atheism. I mean of course it is a bit slanted toward atheism by means of connotative language at the least. I do not want to change anyone's faith either beause frankly i am in the process of the whole "finding myself" thing. I do, however, have some input on this issue. I have a few reasons for not being an atheist but it is mainly because there is no valid explanation for the creation of the known universe. Philosophers like socrates, descartes and lucretius all back me up when i say something cannot come from nothing. Thinking about this statement logically and scientifically, it makes sense. There must have been something or someone to trigger the creation of matter, engergy or whatever the first building blocks of this universe are. One might say that it was just the big bang, but the material in that little ball had to come from somewhere...it can't just appear. And if it came from another universe, it still had to orignate somewhere in that universe. So my point is that no matter how much we can explain through science...science will never explain how existence of anything we know came to be in the beginning. If you want to challenge me, do it.
At Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:52:54 PM, Southwest said...
"Anyway, don't take this comment seriously because I'm stupid. No....I really am stupid, honestly. i won't accept you saying I'm NOT stupid because I am."-she-who-must-not-be-namedYeesh, Steen, a bit hard on yourself, aren't you?You're not stupid. So there."[S]cience will never explain how existence of anything we know came to be in the beginning."-shereenThen what is the alternative? Religion? If one is to believe that a god created the universe, where did this god come from? Where did the "materials" for everything in the universe come from? If a god created them, then we still have the "something from nothing" issue-- despite whatever divine power caused it, the parts of the universe still would have come from nothing.There's a part in the speech that addresses this. I think you may want to give it another gander. It's under the heading "First Cause, or Cosmological Argument". Essentially, it states that science could, in fact, explain the origin of the universe. It offers a sound hypothesis, and also makes a strong point-- just because we currently cannot understand where the universe came from, does not mean a god did it.Again, please don't mistake me. I don't want to ridicule, I don't want to convert. I apologize if anything I say or do is offensive-- I don't mean for that at all. I simply want to present my side and support it as well as I can.(On a side note, from now on, my atheism ramblings will be in a separate blog, so as to make this blog a little less controversial.)
At Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:32:57 PM, Shereen said...
I guess i was trying to say that if there is this timeless force that existed before matter and energy then that's what must have spawned the creation of the universe. Going back to the "something can't come from nothing" idea, whatever created the universe must have existed in a way we can't concieve...beyond time-space. I say this because if we think of this force as present in our idealogical sense of the universe and existence itself...then we would have to conclude that there could never be such a being....as you have. And people like you believe this precisely because there is no way for anything to just appear out of nowhere...unless it does not have to heed to the rules of this life/world/time-space. And that is one of the reasons why i believe in some sort of higher intelligence. In order for this universe to have come into existence, something would have had to spark it. And if you say "then how did that being come into existence if "something can't come from nothing" ? As I explained earlier, this being has to exist in a different time-space than we do....that's the only explanation i can come up with as a human being....and it's the only one that makes valid sense. We cant limit our thoughts and ideas to this world...it's a retardation and a limitation of our human minds. Again, not trying to change your mind....just sharing.
At Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:45:38 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
And also....God IS a god....so he has powers that we cannot conceive of, such as exsisting forever and not needing an explanation for it. Of course, to atheists this doesn't make sense since you don't beleive in God or his powers, but to Catholics/Christians/whoever this makes perfect sense. ^_^! So....don't change these subjects to a different blog cuz that would just be stupid....no reason it just would be stupid. Bye!
At Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:56:22 PM, Southwest said...
"And that is one of the reasons why i believe in some sort of higher intelligence. In order for this universe to have come into existence, something would have had to spark it."-shereenAnd that is the "god of the gaps" argument mentioned in the speech. "We cannot conceive what caused the universe, so it must be a god." Yet, the Greeks couldn't conceive why the sun moved across the sky, so assumed it was a god pulling it behind a chariot. Today, we dismiss that as mythology and silliness because science, observations, and reasoning have proven otherwise.My intent here is not to call modern religions mythology. That is my belief, but it's not what I'm trying to express right now. What I mean to illustrate is that entire religions have been dismissed as mythology because the gaps their gods lived in have closed up. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the "god of the gaps" argument by itself, but to me, when there is a valid, believable, credible scientific option, it is more logical to assume a fact-based theory is correct than a "god of the gaps" argument.Again, I want to point out the section in the speech which offers some scientific explanation as to the origins of the universe. "As we discovered in the 20th century, the [u]niverse is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause." That phrase, and a few sentences after it do a lot of explanation for a scientific view of the universe's origins. If the most fundamental ruling of the universe says that events can happen without a cause, then it's believable that the universe could have come to exist without any sort of 'nudge'."We cant limit our thoughts and ideas to this world...it's a retardation and a limitation of our human minds."-shereenOn the other side of that continuum is the argument that to believe in an invisible, intangible being that controls the universe with divine, unlimited power but yet leaves no evidence whatsoever is insanity, schizophrenia, a retardation of our human minds.That's not necessarily my belief, but it's the opposite viewpoint.This is interesting to debate with you, Shereen. Thanks for commenting, and once more, I'll apologize if anything I say is crass. I certainly don't mean that."And also....God IS a god....so he has powers that we cannot conceive of, such as exsisting forever and not needing an explanation for it."-she-who-must-not-be-namedThis is the sort of logic that befuddles atheists like myself. God is a being which has always existed, through ways we can't understand. God has done many things, for reasons we can't understand. God is omnibenevolent-- infinitely loving-- and omniscient-- all-knowing-- and omnipotent-- all-powerful. Yet though he knows everything, including why he does things; and is infinitely caring, so he'd want us to understand; and can do anything, so could instill his knowledge in us-- he does not...."God works in ways we don't understand."-No one in particularWell, yeah, I suppose that's a way to explain/wheedle your way out of it.It just frustrates atheists like me, because it gets nowhere.ATHEIST. "Where did the universe come from, then?"THEIST. "God created it."ATHEIST. "And where did God come from?"THEIST. "God works in ways we don't understand."ATHEIST. "Wait... did you just prove God with God?"THEIST. "You obviously can't comprehend the wonders of God. Therefore, I'm right, and God exists."Obviously, I dramatized it a tad, but my point is that it seems like circular logic. Where did God come from? God works in ways we don't understand. That's not answering, that's dodging, if you ask me.But I digress.Point being... yeah, I dunno what my point was. It's just strange logic, if you ask me."So....don't change these subjects to a different blog cuz that would just be stupid....no reason it just would be stupid. Bye!"-she-who-must-not-be-namedToo late.Fair warning, though-- that gets a lot more unbridled there, because I'm not necessarily worried about stepping on toes. That blog is an atheism blog, and it's written as if it were atheist to atheist, not an atheist to a theist. Yes, I know there's something wrong with that justification, but that's how it is. Sorry.And there's only one post right now.Yeesh, Steen, can you make any sort of comment without using the word "stupid"? ;-)
At Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:07:43 AM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Now that I think about it, I don'tt hink I CAN post a comment without saying stupid on it. that's so...er...dumb...haha. "This is the sort of logic that befuddles atheists like myself. God is a being which has always existed, through ways we can't understand. God has done many things, for reasons we can't understand. God is omnibenevolent-- infinitely loving-- and omniscient-- all-knowing-- and omnipotent-- all-powerful. Yet though he knows everything, including why he does things; and is infinitely caring, so he'd want us to understand; and can do anything, so could instill his knowledge in us-- he does not."Think, Spencer. If God gave us ALL his knowledge, what do you think would happen to the world? Look what has happened now that we have Human knowledge, and aren't ignorant like fluffy little bunny rabbits. Honestly, if God gave us his all-caring, all-knowing- all-etc. powers, the world would be full of people equivilent to Gods, and THAT would definitely not be good. I would have thought you'd know that....oh well. And I knew that Atheists could not think this way, because most, not all, are realist, not idealist, and need something tangible to beleive in it. Well, MOST things need to be tangible i guess. And what's funny, is that Shereen guessed you were an Athesist even before she knew it...i was like "what the hell, how'd you know that!" and she figured it out just by the way you talked to her online. And also, here's a funny thing:My Uncle was talking about how some people think that if you don't beleive in God, then you go to hell, so he said, "If you don't beleive in Gosh, you go to Heck." i just thought that was uberly funny. Bye!
At Monday, November 07, 2005 10:50:51 PM, Southwest said...
"Think, Spencer. If God gave us ALL his knowledge, what do you think would happen to the world? Look what has happened now that we have Human knowledge, and aren't ignorant like fluffy little bunny rabbits. Honestly, if God gave us his all-caring, all-knowing- all-etc. powers, the world would be full of people equivilent to Gods, and THAT would definitely not be good."-she-who-must-not-be-namedI never implied anything about God giving us his powers, or all his knowledge. I said that if he's truly the all-caring, all-powerful, all-knowing being he is, he could and would instill in humans the knowledge of why he did certain things, hence eliminating the need for the phrase "God works in mysterious ways.""And I knew that Atheists could not think this way, because most, not all, are realist, not idealist, and need something tangible to beleive in it. Well, MOST things need to be tangible i guess."-she-who-must-not-be-namedThink what way now?MOST things have to be tangible. Okay. Going by the definition of "tangible" as "being able to be physically felt or observed", gravity's tangible, oxygen is tangible, wood is tangible, skin is tangible, everything that makes our universe is tangible. Well, except God.Yes, I'm biased. Yes, God would be "different". Except, you already base almost everything you experience on tangible evidence. Why should a supreme being be any different?It only slightly relates, but I want to post one of my favorite quotes here:"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."-Stephen RobertsYou demand evidence for everything else in your life. If I were to tell you that I had a giant dragon in my garage, and brought you there, but you were to see nothing, would you believe it? If I told you I had a book I had written telling all the things my dragon had done, and handed you a story printed on good paper, in a very nice report cover, would you believe it? If I explained that he could breathe pleasantly warm fire, and you held out your arm but felt nothing, would you believe it? If I demanded you fed him, would you?No. As humans, we logically require evidence to make conclusions. If you can understand why you would dismiss the dragon in my garage, you can understand why I dismiss gods.Likewise, there have been literally thousands of gods humanity has thought of. Zeus, Ra, and Odin were all once major gods, believed by their followers to be among the "true" gods. Certainly, tales of their actions and miracles were recorded, in the time's equivalent to books. Yet, unless you have taken polytheism to the very extreme, you certainly dismiss these gods as false, as nothing but mythology. What about Brahma of Hindu, or the Horned God of Wicca? Those are modern-day religions that many people still believe true. Certainly, you can respect them as much as possible, you can say that people can believe whatever they want-- but you don't believe in those gods. If you can understand why you dismiss those gods, you can understand why I dismiss yours.Sorry for the attacking tone-- I just got started, and didn't want to stop.The points still stand, though.
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:19:57 AM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Not at all! (about the attacking thing...). I was going to say something about this....but I lost my train of thought...so sorry, and I promise not to make any more comments on THIS blog...and I won't read your other blog cuz you said it was "atheist to atheist"...^.^. Anyway...there has to be something cool on this comment, otherwise it'd be so stupid, so:Daniel Radcliffe is the best!
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:07:03 PM, Southwest said...
"Not at all! (about the attacking thing...). I was going to say something about this....but I lost my train of thought...so sorry, and I promise not to make any more comments on THIS blog...and I won't read your other blog cuz you said it was "atheist to atheist"...^.^. Anyway...there has to be something cool on this comment, otherwise it'd be so stupid, so:Daniel Radcliffe is the best!"-she-who-must-not-be-namedHey, you can make all the comments you want. I don't want to discourage that at all.As for the other blog, it's written like atheist to atheist, which I saw scared you away. If you don't wanna read it, that's cool, but I'm not forcing you not to.And there you go, using "stupid" again. Told you it was impossible.You, Steen, have a bit of an inferiority complex, methinks.
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:24:43 PM, Shereen said...
I can definitely see your point, Spencer, about believing only what we see and know to be true. And personally, I believe that if there is a god, that he couldn't possibly be all good. I say this because then there would be no explanation for where evil came from...i mean taking into consideration the christian belief that god was here first and he is all powerful. If the devil created evil then that means that God isn't all powerful; it means he had an equal rival. But anyway that's off the subject. What I was going to say is that I don't necesarily believe that the higher force is a God...because we as humans picture god in our own image. I mean, even calling him god is human based. But I definitely believe in higher intelligence because if you look around you...there is an obvious collective human conciousness and intuition. There HAVE been unexplainable things happening. Even things like love, which are unknown to animals in the way we know it...something with intelligence must have created this or us...we cannot attribute such a powerful force as love or hatred to simple scientific evolution...atoms, molecules, organs, physics and chemistry could not possibly explain such things. That's why I believe that we are not alone in this universe or time/space...i know you have felt love before, Spencer. You can't tell me that love is the effect of certain chemical reactions. Yes there are physical feelings like adrenaline and what not that are part of these feelings...but you can't define and explain how love came about...there's something else out there...whether or not it's a god. Something...
At Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:37:56 PM, sploser said...
And that, is why I'm still agnostic. I believe there are things that cannot be explained by science or any of that schtuff. I'm not athiest yet!!! ^^
At Friday, November 11, 2005 11:40:26 AM, Southwest said...
But that's the clincher.It is perfectly acceptable to say, in face of things we cannot scientifically prove yet, "I don't know." There are things we can't understand at this point in time scientifically. But that doesn't mean it's immediate fodder for the god of the gaps argument.It's not what you were asking for, but I do believe there's an explanation for the feeling of love. Yes, it is an amazing feeling, but if you ask me, I personally think you can attribute it to chemicals like dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is a name you hear a lot in relation to drugs-- the drugs' effects on dopamine production creates highs, and then the drugs eventual blocking of the dopamine receptors create addiction.Yes, that does severely damage the "special" factor tied to it, saying that one of the most amazing feelings in the world is all due to chemicals. I know that. I don't like it, but I also believe it as a probable truth. Just because one has a personal problem with a concept-- and the "one" I'm referring to here is me, not anyone else-- does not falsify the concept.I know you were more interested in the origins of love. Again, I don't know. Perhaps it's unknown, unfathomable to science at this point in time. But there's nothing that says it must have been a higher power.Ugh, I cannot debate today, I swear...
At Friday, November 11, 2005 12:08:12 PM, Southwest said...
Here we go.Humans developed without any natural defenses. We have no claws, very ineffective teeth, and our skin just won't project acid, no matter how hard we try. Our only advantage on any of our predators is intelligence-- but even that can only get us so far.I'm going to assume that there were two fundamental goals involved-- the general species-wide goal of perpetuating the species, and the specific individual-related goal of perpetuating one's own lineage. In a way, both are connected-- one protects the species by perpetuating one's lineage.Love developed among families to protect the young. By caring for the young members of a group, a species protects its survival. Without it, the species would die off. Also, as a family group, each cares for everyone else. Those who weren't in the group couldn't make it solo, and so they died.Love among couples developed to protect the species. A couple that didn't protect one another would get killed, ending their chain of lineage, and thus endangering the species. There could also have been many sexually-transmitted diseases way back when-- a promiscuous individual would run a higher risk of obtaining an STD, and thus dying, damaging the species.Those who didn't show these characteristics died, so only those who had these attributes survived. Love is a product of natural selection.As the species grew and grew, by sheer numbers, humans had to worry less about the destruction of the species, and thus love became more emotional, a subconscious thing rather than a survival thing. Today, we obviously don't have to worry about our mate getting attacked by a wildcat, but love is still there.Ta-da.
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 1:17:44 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Um, yeah that made no sense to me...ok it made a little sense. Anyway, I just came here to say that it'd be stupid if Humans couldn't capture love. That would almost take away from our humaness. And, another thing. Even if there IS not god, even if all that I ever lived for and poured my soul out into wasn't real, what would happen? I mean, if there's no god, what happens after we die? Do we just rot? There would be no point in (ok, maybe a little motive) trying to live a sinless life. Godd and bad wouldn't matter to a hell of a lot of people. And believing in god (though this is such a bad thing to do) is playing on the safe side. If there is no god, and someone beleived in them their whole life, at least that caused them to lead a fairly good life. And when they die, they can rot in their grave peacefully. Do you understand what I'm saying? Maybe. But if there IS a god, and you were against that concept your whole life, depending on which god you're talking about, you'd either go to hell, or turn into a hideous spider. But that's no reason to stop becoming atheist, because that'd be like me rading your blog and saying, "Oh....I guess I've been wrong all along! Better become atheist! Hahahahaha!" Well, it'd be easier to explain my death thing if I could actually see you....see you at school!
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:02:00 PM, maxine said...
I don't care what religion anyone is as long as they believe in God. Otherwise they're bloody idiots.:)
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:08:47 PM, maxine said...
I'm just kidding. I think any religion is fine. Atheism is fine too. A lot of religions have the same basic meaning so I don't get why people don't like others because of their religion. Hinduism is like Christianity. God is like the three main Hindu Gods (I forgot their names). All the saints are like all the other Gods that are in the Hindu religion. There is no difference. I'm guessiing that it's just the little things that make a whole lot of a difference. Like how Hindus think that cows are sacred while we eat them. Spencer, I think you should try out a religion and see if it fits you and your lifestyle. Some religions might believe in everything you do and is totally perfect for you. You'll just have to find out for yourself. So give it a try and get out there! Ooga booga!
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:22:59 PM, maxine said...
Or maybe there's a religion just for you where there is no God and it's for people who have no God. You should start a religion like that where people get together and talk about religions and what they think things should be like. You don't have to listen to me though. Like christine always says "MAXINE! YOU'RE SO STUPID!!!" *sniff sniff* well bye. *slouches away*
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:36:57 PM, Southwest said...
Christine--You do not need religion to be moral.You do not have to be afraid of a hell to do good things.What you just used is called Pascal's Wager, popularized by Blaise Pascal. It says that if you believe in God, and you are correct, then you go to Heaven. Eternal happiness. Goodstuff. It goes on to say that if you don't believe in God, and you are right, then you gain nothing. If you don't believe, and you are wrong, then you lose infintely (Hell), and if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. Therefore, the concept says, it is better to believe in a god and risk being wrong, in which case you lose nothing, than to disbelieve.It's full of holes. By that wager, one should go off and find the religion with the worst Hell, and practice it, because if you're wrong, you avoid that Hell.But back to morality.People don't need religion to be moral. Look at me. Sure, I have my faults, but do I smoke, drink, do drugs, anything? No. Am I an adulterer? Hell no. Do I really do anything majorly immoral? No. I'm atheist, yet I have morals.Gasp.If the concept of religion simply vanished, what would happen?1. No more holy wars. Hmm, this is odd. If religion is so moral, then why are people fighting over it? Killing other people over it? Yes, it's only a small percentage, but there have been so many wars fought over religion it's amazing. Do the Crusades ring a bell, or maybe the wars that the Muslim "terrorists" waged on Christianity? Religion, though it preaches caring and love, tolerance-- as well as the existence of an all-caring god who could very well stop this nonsense but doesn't-- is responsible for scores of human deaths.2. Morals would remain. I can't say it enough-- you don't have to be afraid of eternal punishment to be good. Morals could have easily evolved over time-- a group of humans that killed each other didn't survive, a group that stole from each other led to fights, which killed each other, and so on. Only the cooperative genes were passed on, which then became morals. No more atheists don't go out and kill people randomly than theists do. Why? Not because they're afraid of sinning, or of Hell-- but because they know it's the wrong thing to do. Perhaps they have an even higher respect for human life; we know it's the only one any of us will get. Religion is not necessary for morality....okay, only two things are relevant to your topic. Still.The concept of a holy war-- religion against religion-- brings back to mind a topic I brought up a while ago."I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."-Stephen RobertsAgain, you dismiss all other gods as fiction, mythology, yet you are convinced yours is the true one. Why do you disregard the other religions? How can you look at their beliefs, which are fundamentally identical to yours (religion: god(s) exist and control most/all of the world) and say, "That's absolutely ridiculous," yet hold the belief in your mind that yours is somewhat different? If you can understand why you don't believe in those other gods, which are just as likely to exist as yours, then you can understand why I don't believe in any."I don't care what religion anyone is as long as they believe in God. Otherwise they're bloody idiots.:)"-MaxineThat's not bigotry at all...-Bleeding Idiot
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:43:32 PM, Southwest said...
Nevermind that bigotry comment. Sorry.And there is a "religion" for non-belief-- it's called atheism.But that's the thing. I'm an atheist. I do not believe in a god, and it would take a lot of evidence and proof to change my mind. Religions may have the greatest customs ever, but I could practice those customs without the religion. One should not join a religion for the parties it throws.I'm not lacking anything in my life-- well, religion-wise. I'm happy how I am, without believing in a god. My beliefs can provide a satisfactory explanation for anything I question, or, failing the explanation, I can simply acknowledge that I don't know. I don't need a god.
At Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:10:44 PM, Sploster said...
Not that I don't enjoy reading this debate... but talking back and forth isn't gonna change each other's opinions much.Spwencer is almost impossible to convince anything if he's determined of it... and Maxine, Christine, and Shereen... you guys, I'm guessing, have always been religious and will stay religious regardless of anything said here.So to make this short, you guys can just stop debating... or if you enjoy it... go ahead ^^Just thought I'd point out the complete obvious.
At Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:38:05 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Spencer, of course I know that you don't need religion to have morals. Duh. But, i think we should just discuss this in person if we're going to discuss it at all, otherwise this will become ridiculous. And I think that she's right, we shouldn't argue anymore, because all we're basically doing is pointing out eachother's flaws, which is NOT healthy. so, from now on i'm going to read these comments and say, "ok." bye!
At Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:03:01 PM, Southwest said...
The point of my debate is not to change the other side's viewpoint. That's nearly impossible and I doubt I could do it, especially not here. My purpose is to personally understand more about the opposite view and provide the other side an understanding of mine. I personally don't see where I've pointed out anyone's flaws here, and I don't see how it was getting ridiculous. I enjoyed this debate, and personally, I want it to continue.But if you want to leave, fine, whatever.
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:21:50 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
I wanted to continue, but I weas bored...and lazy when I made that comment. So, if you wanna continue...that's fine I guess. But right now, I have nothing to say, besides, nevermind....that'd be using the word "stupid" - DOH!
At Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:05:55 PM, Shereen said...
So if love was a survival tactic, then do animals love eachother in the same way humans do? Do animals die for eachother? Do animals fall in and out of love? Do animals daydream about their love partners? Why do they change mates every season (most of them)? I mean, they survived this far didn't they, like us? Furthermore, how do we explain where love came from? How do the high levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine start to rise? What triggers the production of these hormones? I know you are thinking about the God of gaps argument right now and you do make a good point about that idea. I think a lot of the reason people believe in God is because it's someone there to protect you, to hold you and comfort you...a sense of security and an explanation for the unknown. God forbid we humans want to feel those things (no pun intended). If anything, on average religous people live 10 years longer than non-religious...probably because they have hope and a positive out look because they believe that paradise awaits them. They score higher on "overall satisfaction of life" tests. That point is in support of your G.O.G. argument.Damn you Spencer.Oh well, I still like to feel comforted and protected, etc by believing in some sort of higher power. Whether or not he's real, I'm happier this way...and me being my selfish self, that's what I want. Same goes for you...you are happy as an atheist. So it is here where I will take a break from this debate unless, of course, you say something that triggers my tongue. TTFN Spensive.
At Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:40:58 PM, Sploster said...
"So if love was a survival tactic, then do animals love eachother in the same way humans do? Do animals die for eachother? Do animals fall in and out of love? Do animals daydream about their love partners? Why do they change mates every season (most of them)? I mean, they survived this far didn't they, like us? Furthermore, how do we explain where love came from? How do the high levels of dopamine and phenylethylamine start to rise? What triggers the production of these hormones?"I do believe that the love humans share with each other is different than animals but I don't think it's because of god, or even see how it relates to god... I don't know why it's so different, but I think it's because (supposedly) humans are smarter than animals and are more advanced etc. But I honestly don't know... and don't want to know. Love is just one of those things you don't wanna know why it is the way it is, because it's special and most people think it should stay that way.
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:28:19 AM, Southwest said...
Shereen--Here is an excellent article on the science of love. It provides explanation for how it would develop, some real-life examples of "monogamous" animals that aren't humans, and overall good understanding.But I'll provide my own response as well.The point being made was that love served as a survival tactic for humans. Yes, humans are animals, but we're also capable of abstract thought, and are otherwise quite different. Other animals aren't capable of loving each other like we do, so they don't need to. Again, that article I linked provides excellent explanation for this.As for the hormones-- look it up yourself. Do some research. Just because you don't know of an answer off the top of your head doesn't mean it's not out there. Search-- Google is your friend. Using a personal lack of understanding as an argument against something is far from a valid debate-- though I won't say I've never done this before*. Nevertheless, we (and by that, I don't mean "you", but "we") should avoid that, because it's simply an invalid argument.As for life quality and expectancy...First, praytell, where is your factual evidence? Granted, I've been really bad at that as well, but I would like to see some studies showing that-- that can be positive that the only factor at work is beliefs.The problem right there is it can't be done. There is no way to justifiably say that the only factor changing one's lifespan in an experiment is religion or lack thereof. What if the study had chosen atheists that were smokers, or theists that had already suffered heart attacks? There are an infinite number of factors that change life expectancy, and on can not expect to look at results from a test and single one out.Statistics can easily be skewed.And what's this about atheists being less satisfied with life? I've been so happy with my life and everything in it before that I was certain nobody could ever be happier. That's satisfaction. Things have changed since then, yes, but things always change. Life goes through ups and downs, and once again, you can't pick one factor to blame for all of it. In my example, I was soaring along, and then learned that I might move away from my home here. Does that have anything to do with my atheism? No. If I were theist, would my reaction have changed? Probably not, because even if I believed there was a god who loved me, losing the future you'd planned and the best friends in the world would still hurt deeply and cut into my satisfaction in life. Nevertheless, I know that I can be perfectly satisfied with my life, and my beliefs have nothing to do with it.Once again, I don't want to change your mind. I just want to try to see your way of viewing things, and let you see mine, so that we have a better understanding of each other's viewpoints from actual experience with the other.
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:35:05 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
"I'm happier this way...and me being my selfish self, that's what I want. Same goes for you...you are happy as an atheist."Did you even read that, Spencer? She said that you were happy with your life. She was saying that overall, theists were more satisfied. Dur. And shereen, you no leave! i can't come up with good arguments! anyway, i didn't read that article, because, i'm in a hurry to get away from blogs. So...you just pointed out the base of our argument. We beleive in things that can't be proven by ourselves, you don't. that's it. that's the main difference. that's all there is to it. ok, some atheists ( i think this is uber stupid) are out there because they don't like the way the mankind runs the church. and also, where did science come from? i was JUST wondering, not challenging, but you can take it as one if you eant to....hehe. byez!
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:01:10 PM, Southwest said...
Yes, Christine, I did read it. Why did you think I didn't?How about this:"[Theists] score higher on "overall satisfaction of life" tests."-shereenDid you even read that, Christine? Well, obviously, you did. She claimed, indirectly, that theists were happier, or more satisfied, with their lives than atheists. I don't see at all what you're trying to argue-- her claim was that "statistics show" atheists are less satisfied with their lives. I think satisfaction with life and happiness are fairly hand-in-hand. Yes, she did say I was happy. I know that, and she said she was happy too. But the point she made earlier in her post remains, and that's what I was discussing.And I'm curious, what do you mean, "where did science come from"? Science is, to quote dictionary.com, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." In short-- trying to understand all we can observe based on what we can prove. Science came from the first observation and explanation ever made. Every time an observation based on proof is made, it is science.Again-- if you believe in things that can't be proven by humankind, then why do you dismiss the dragon in my garage?"You demand evidence for everything else in your life. If I were to tell you that I had a giant dragon in my garage, and brought you there, but you were to see nothing, would you believe it? If I told you I had a book I had written telling all the things my dragon had done, and handed you a story printed on good paper, in a very nice report cover, would you believe it? If I explained that he could breathe pleasantly warm fire, and you held out your arm but felt nothing, would you believe it? If I demanded you fed him, would you?"-SouthwestAh, well. I suppose I just have a hole in my logic when it comes to dealing with invisible beings.
At Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:19:44 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
I don't even know what I meant about the science thing. I think....like, all the things IN science, i know what it IS, i wanna know where it came from. And I think there is a reason for OVERALL satisfaction. Theists have something that atheists don't have: religion (no friggin' duh). So, that gives them one more thing to be happy about. But that's just in general, I suppose. I mean, there are plenty of theists that are depressed, and plenty of atheists that are uberly ecstatic (did i spell that right?). and about the dragon thing, i had something to say about that before, and i still can't remember what it was. Wait....i said i wasn't gonna do this anymore.....oops. oh well, that's just me being stu - er - lame.
At Monday, November 21, 2005 8:19:29 AM, Southwest said...
I still don't understand the "where did it come from" question. Science came from our observations as humans based on proof.If theists have their religion to be happy about, atheists have their lack thereof. There's no reason why atheists would be less satisfied by life than theists.
At Monday, November 21, 2005 7:59:28 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
Like I said, you guys are happy as you are. We agree.....i guess. And with the science thing, i don't understand myself. k? okie dokie. see ya!
At Monday, November 21, 2005 9:45:32 PM, Southwest said...
Then I suppose we can agree that the "satisfaction of life" point is moot?Just curious, as it certainly seems so to me.
At Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:49:11 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
K, not sure, but i'm guessing "moot" means not true. But no, i don't agree. She said that (or at least implied) there were studies about overall happiness including atheists and theists. the study proved that (ok, at least leaned toward the idea, not nessecarily proved) that the theists were more satisfied with their life than atheists were. but that was an overall look. that doesn't mean that every theist is happier than every atheist, my god, no. i just means that on an overall look, that's what the study identified. kapish (is that even how you spell that?)? okie doke. bye!
At Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:17:21 PM, Southwest said...
"Moot" means "irrelevant".But why can't we dismiss the study? Unless I'm mistaken, we've both agreed that if theists have their theism to be satisfied with, atheists have their atheism. Beliefs should have no effect on any other factors of satisfaction in life.If we assume everything in the tests was equal but the theism or lack thereof (a "perfect" experiment), and we both agree that the satisfaction in theists with their theism is mirrored with the atheist satisfaction with atheism, then the two cases are identical, and the point about "theists being more satisfied with life than atheists" is moot.If we admit that not everything in the tests was equal (there were factors involved other than beliefs), then we can't conclusively say that it was theism that made people more satisfied with life, which means that the test is faulty, and the "satisfaction" point is moot.Either way, the point is moot, and shouldn't be used as an argument.Theism, or lack thereof, has no effect on satisfaction with life.(And it's 'capisce'. Italian.)
At Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:55:23 PM, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said...
um....i think what the study meant (bar we're saying ...or at least i am, instead of shereen....barlar star!) was that theism affected the rest of the, er, normal life in a way that atheism didn't. sure, the people were satisfied with themselves....but theism did something that atheism did not. that's what it meant. but i guess there may be things that atheism does that theism does not....who knows and/or cares. i don't. well....see you (wait....it's a four day weekend!)....monday!
At Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:29:34 PM, Sploster said...
Study means nothing. There is no way to make that study work because there are so many other factors and there is no way to make those other factors obsolete. If you isolate the person and just have the religion part then they wouldn't be living and you can't have two people living the same exact life other than religion, it's virtually impossible so all results from that study (if there even is a study with results) are moot. ^.^ Yay for using Spwencer's word, lol.
Yeah, this was the UBER long...well a debate is what i guess it was...yeah i'm kinda glad it's over, becuase it was taking to lon, we kept pointing out the same thing to eachother...and it just started to get boring. right now my compu isn't working, but i'll talk more bout this later. bye! au revoir (ah hreh vwa)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
