So um Atheists

[Levonian]

If all of these salt-grain sized embryos are taken to Heaven during the Rapture, what does good ol’ Pat think God is going to do with them? Are they magically going to become fully grown humans? Or are they just going to float around for eternity on tiny little microscopic wings, never advancing past the 100-cell blastocyst stage? That doesn't make much sense, because Sylvia Browne says that there are no insects in Heaven! What gives? I'm confused. I think I need to go roll the I Ching and channel my Indian spirit guide right now...

 

[Rose Immortal]

Hopefully, someday what you’re proposing will be possible—it’s just that right now we don’t know how to do it. Right now, we can’t just take any old cell from a human and make it transform itself to any other cell. Right now, we have to use embryonic cells because they are the only ones we can use to make new cells. Wiki has a good article on stem cells which should give you a thorough overview of the subject.

The reason that there are so many blastocysts just ‘laying around’ in lab freezers is that it is SOP to make several blastocysts for each client in case one doesn’t work. After a successful pregnancy, the rest are discarded. Curiously, Italy takes kind of a hypocritical approach to the whole thing and legislates the number of blastocytes that the clinics are allowed to create for each client. It’s kind of like they’re saying “well, we acknowledge that it’s murder, but we don’t do it as much as other people do”.

Thanks for the reading material.

Looking at it, it seems I may be right in pointing the ethical finger first at the sloppy in vitro fertilization process. I think that those who are complaining now about these embryos being used in stem-cell research should have said something about the immense waste involved in in vitro fertilization. As to what to do about the embryos that have already been created...I am torn about that issue.

On one hand, I have heard Christians (including my mother) argue that since something unethical has already been done due to such wastefulness, the least we can do is make sure that the death of the embryos goes to improve the lives of the living. On the other, I can also sympathize with the argument that to experiment on the embryos just winds up compounding the existing wrong. There's also a concern in my mind that if we rush headlong into embryonic stem cell research, we might neglect the potential of adult stem cells, which that article you gave me shows is already succeeding in some cases. That's especially important in case the embryonic kind turn out not to be all they're cracked up to be...it would be wrong of us to have neglected a promising alternative.

It really is a tough moral question--and the reason I am undecided is that I take it very seriously and I want to make sure I a) understand the science fairly well and b) that I've thought through all of the implications of either position before I decide. I may be a Christian--but I DO believe in rational thought and that's the process I'm trying to work myself through right now. That's why I was displeased with your earlier implication that all Christians are simply herd-followers who don't consider the issues thoroughly.

I couldn’t agree more with your statements about adoption. There are just too many children in the foster care system to ignore. Personally, I don’t care if my children are my own flesh and blood or not. We can’t wait to adopt. And that kid’s gonna be deaf.

Great idea, especially since you'll be in a good position to teach that child well. One thing to consider in adopting is the possibility of adopting an older child--speaking of an ignored group!

The reason adoption is so close to my heart is that when I was conceived, my parents were VERY close to giving up on having a child naturally, and had already started filling out initial paperwork for an adoption agency. Then they found out about me at the last minute.

BTW, Levonian--A bit of humor: maybe there COULD be insects in Heaven; I don't see a reason why not. But I imagine they'd be under strict orders not to bite, sting, or otherwise annoy!

 

[The*Empress]

Miss P, sometimes you make ravensteve look like a fucking Rhodes Scholar. :roll: If people who engage in original research were selfish, they wouldn’t be engaging in original research. They would work as technicians instead, applying the products of other people’s research. How much does a professor of medicine make at the medical school closest to your home? 60k? 70? Probably closer to the former, and that’s with lots of overtime. Now, how much do his or her students typically make after they graduate and complete their residency? 80k? 120? 250? More?

Speaking of Medicine...

Indians were the one introducing to us Tobacco, Cocaine, and everything else... and the Greeks and other European were using Herbs...
And there is no change... we are using them now.

We wouldn't need Scientists if people eat right, live right, and learn
how to handle stress.

 

[Mookie]

Speaking of Medicine...

Indians were the one introducing to us Tobacco, Cocaine, and everything else... and the Greeks and other European were using Herbs...
And there is no change... we are using them now.

We wouldn't need Scientists if people eat right, live right, and learn
how to handle stress.

Don't you know difference between East Indians in Asia and America Natives in North America?

 

[The*Empress]

Don't you know difference between East Indians in Asia and America Natives in North America?

I'm sorry for using the word "Indians"
Why do they want to call themselves Native Americans?

 

[deafdyke]

Because they aren't from India....it would be like calling someone from Asia, a Bantu/Zulu/!Kung(from Africa) tribes person

 

[The*Empress]

Why can't we call them Navajo, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminole, or something like that?

It is like taking away their original tribe names and just call them Native Americans.

Do Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans like being call Asian Americans?

Because there are many countries in Asia such as Russia, India, China, Vietnam, all.

Are Iraqis people Europeans? Where is Iraq, is it in Asia or Europe?
My 63 years old mom don't know this question...

 

[webexplorer]

Why can't we call them Navajo, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminole, or something like that?

It is like taking away their original tribe names and just call them Native Americans.

Do Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans like being call Asian Americans?

Some people call them African Americans. How if we could call them Brown people? I don't know if it insults you. Sorry.

 

[Mookie]

I'm sorry for using the word "Indians"
Why do they want to call themselves Native Americans?

that was given "Indians" nickname to Native Americans by Christopher Columbus or other early settler...

 

[RedFox]

Hey Miss P, I found some sites about atheism and what it's like to be an atheist.

Daily Kos
This page uses an example to show how it feels like to be an atheist in a world of theists. It mentions a second page that will be written. I'll post the link when it's up.

Myths theists have about atheism
This about.com page also has links on the left to more pages like a FAQ and a list of reasons why atheists don't believe in gods.

 

[DreamSlayer]

I find it Ironic that an individual would find it necessary to bash a group of people, because that individual feels that the group is bashing him?
Or did I miss understand. The problem with the "Santa-ists" is that they bash other people? Or make people feel below them for not believing the samething?

The word HYPOCRICY comes to mind.

A list of reasons for not believing consists of basically the following (I will paraphrase):

a) there's lots of different beliefs, so they are all wrong.
b) We can't understand God, so let's not try.
c) You can't prove what God wants, so why try doing what it wants.
d) People aren't perfect, they will never get religion right.
e) There is "Evil" in the world.
f) There's no such thing as spirituality, you can't prove it.
g) There's no benefit to believing.

And so begins the typical Atheist VS religious arguement... which is summed up in the following statement:

"PROVE that it exists"
"PROVE that it doesn't"

It all comes down to what you believe.

(From the Link given by RedFox)
(Myths About Atheism: Must Real Atheist Know Everything to Deny God?)

However, such knowledge is not necessary in order to make other negative statements. Examples of this latter type include “no married bachelors exist” or “no round squares exist.” We can prove each of them with logic, primarily based upon the definitions of the terms involved. To assert the opposite of either statement entails asserting something which is incoherent — and we are rationally justified in denying something incoherent. If an atheist believes that the statement “God exists” is similarly incoherent, then that atheist can say “no god exists” with certainty and without being ominscient.

An Atheist would have to assert that the defined parameters of the word "God" by definiton restricts it from "existing". In fact, the mere definition of the word God implies the exact opposite. In fact, the statement "No God Exists" is the incoherent statement.

Let me Simplify for you. It is more logical for me to believe in something "Greater" and "Supernatural" existing outside and/or inside of this Universe, than it is for you to believe that "IT" doesn't exist.

 

[RedFox]

I find it Ironic that an individual would find it necessary to bash a group of people, because that individual feels that the group is bashing him?
Or did I miss understand. The problem with the "Santa-ists" is that they bash other people? Or make people feel below them for not believing the samething?

The word HYPOCRICY comes to mind.

The example is meant to show what it's like to be surrounded by people who make you feel below them for not believing what they believe.

A list of reasons for not believing consists of basically the following (I will paraphrase):

a) there's lots of different beliefs, so they are all wrong.

All of those beliefs claim to be right. They could be all wrong, or one could be right or elements of some or all of them could be right. What believers haven't given us are reasons that their beliefs are really the right ones.

b) We can't understand God, so let's not try.

Actually, what they're saying is that the gods claimed by believers have self-contradictionary characteristics. An example of this would be a god that is both omniscienist and omnipotent, wich means it knows everything and can do anything. If the god knows everything, it knows what it will do in the future, and is therefore restricted to what it knows it will do, which means it can't do anything it wants to.

c) You can't prove what God wants, so why try doing what it wants.

What they really said in this part is that no religion is free of inconsistencies and contradictions.

d) People aren't perfect, they will never get religion right.

What they are saying that religions are supposed to make their believers good. Some believers are bad, so the religion fails at its purpose.

e) There is "Evil" in the world.

Why would a god that was good create a world that could have evil?

f) There's no such thing as spirituality, you can't prove it.

Actually, it could be possible to show that spiritual things exists, that is, if they really do. But believers haven't shown us evidence, so we have no reason to believe in those things, which have no evidence for them so far.

g) There's no benefit to believing.

They say that it's the believers who must support their beliefs with evidence. Since they haven't, there's no reason to believe.

And so begins the typical Atheist VS religious arguement... which is summed up in the following statement:

"PROVE that it exists"
"PROVE that it doesn't"

It all comes down to what you believe.

As said above, it's up to believers to support their claims because they're the ones making the positive claims about something's existence.

(From the Link given by RedFox)
(Myths About Atheism: Must Real Atheist Know Everything to Deny God?)

However, such knowledge is not necessary in order to make other negative statements. Examples of this latter type include “no married bachelors exist” or “no round squares exist.” We can prove each of them with logic, primarily based upon the definitions of the terms involved. To assert the opposite of either statement entails asserting something which is incoherent — and we are rationally justified in denying something incoherent. If an atheist believes that the statement “God exists” is similarly incoherent, then that atheist can say “no god exists” with certainty and without being ominscient.

An Atheist would have to assert that the defined parameters of the word "God" by definiton restricts it from "existing". In fact, the mere definition of the word God implies the exact opposite. In fact, the statement "No God Exists" is the incoherent statement.

The incoherent thing here is the set of characteristics that people believe god has. The example of how self-contradictionary knowing everything and being able to do anything had already been given. The self-contradiction between being all good and having created a world where evil is possible had been given. I'll write more on this when I come back later.

Let me Simplify for you. It is more logical for me to believe in something "Greater" and "Supernatural" existing outside and/or inside of this Universe, than it is for you to believe that "IT" doesn't exist.

Actually, I don't believe that a god in general doesn't exist. All you have to do is give me evidence for it. For special cases of gods like those that know everything and could do everything, which is self-contradictionary as described above, I don't believe in such gods. If there was a god with no self-condictionary characteristics with evidence for it, I'd accept it as real.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Actually, what they're saying is that the gods claimed by believers have self-contradictionary characteristics. An example of this would be a god that is both omniscienist and omnipotent, wich means it knows everything and can do anything. If the god knows everything, it knows what it will do in the future, and is therefore restricted to what it knows it will do, which means it can't do anything it wants to.

Don't see the contradiction here.

--First, I am not sure God is restricted to linear time as we are. That's the first premise that doesn't work, because if He is not restricted to linear time, then the issue of a "future" becomes irrelevant. What this would suggest is that God holds a point of view that is beyond time. Imagine looking at the sum of all events in this universe, past and present, as if they were a great painting or a tapestry, already made. (Now, this argument does NOT necessarily mean predestination for those of us within linear time...it only means He sees the overall, cumulative effects of both our choices and His interventions.)

--Second major argument, and this one is only a real problem if you try to fit God into linear time: I do not see a restriction inherent in God's knowing all of what He will actually do, because He still has the power of choice to do what He wants. The believer would assert that even though He HAS the power to do all things, He does not WANT to do all things. That's desire, not power or knowledge. That doesn't make Him unable to do those things. That only occurs for finite beings like us (i.e. we can't be in 2 places at once). That's not a problem for God--therefore He can remain omnipotent even though He knows everything He could potentially do.

I know you're not necessarily going to agree with this, but I just wanted to try my hand at answering that argument. Apologies in advance if I didn't write clearly, because I did that with no prior preparation whatsoever.

 

[Rose Immortal]

The self-contradiction between being all good and having created a world where evil is possible had been given. I'll write more on this when I come back later.

OK, I'm going to tie my answer to this one to the answer I tried for the last question (though you'll see that tie only in the later steps).

First, consider the nature of a universe in which evil simply does not exist at all--no decay, no physical entropy or death, nor any other possibilities for negative or bad things. This raises a serious problem, when it comes to introducing sentient beings into that universe.

Basically, there would be no contrast between moral choices. And without a possibility of contrast, one does not have the experience of understanding why a thing is right, or of making a conscious choice to do the right thing. We could not grow or become anything. Basically, we would not be any different from other animals.

The main premise of the Judeo-Christian Creation story is that humanity was created in God's image. Excuse my being a little funny, but we were basically a "Mini-me". Now, remember my comment in the last post that God has a choice in what He does even though He does not actually do all things? I'm going to use a similar premise for human beings. Just because the possibility of evil is there does not mean we have to do it. We can choose against it. We were given free will.

So, when we make a choice to do what is evil, the fault for that choice is on us, not on God. But when we do what is right, understanding that there was also an evil choice, and that something is wrong about that choice, and therefore we don't do it, then we are doing exactly what God would've preferred we do all the time.

I know this is not a perfect explanation by any means, but this is the best I can explain what understanding I have.

 

[The*Empress]

a) there's lots of different beliefs, so they are all wrong.

I don't feel that way... I am a Christian and I am also studying Astrology.
I am open minded about a lot of things.

b) We can't understand God, so let's not try.

I understand God.

c) You can't prove what God wants, so why try doing what it wants.

I don't think God want us to do anything... he gave us FREEWILL.

d) People aren't perfect, they will never get religion right.

God is God, he is what he is, that won't change.

e) There is "Evil" in the world.

Yeah alot people do evil things.

f) There's no such thing as spirituality, you can't prove it.

There is spirituality.

g) There's no benefit to believing.

We can all be bless.

"PROVE that it exists"

I don't think you wanna have GOD here...

"PROVE that it doesn't"

If there is no God... then we shouldn't be doing evil things.

It all comes down to what you believe.

We Christians ain't bothering you.

 

[The*Empress]

That is all Atheists want to do is take away our spirit.

All we wanna do is be happy happy happy...

But all Atheists want to do is take away our Christmas, our pride
saying the word "God" in our flag...

Atheists are like Communists, telling us we can't celebrate
our beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with going to Church, and hear good
things from the pastor...

You didn't listen to Bishop Jake, he said we all need to treat
ourselves right, spouses need to treat each other right,
and everything he say that make us feel good about ourselves.

And we have good pastors in Memphis, they tell us things
that make us feel good.

For example, my pastor said that to the half of the people in his
church who has no job, and to most of us who are poor financial problem...
We need to stump on the Devil and go find a way to make money.
And don't feel bad about what you don't have, but feel good about what you have.

There is nothing wrong with listening to good message from the Pastor.

He didn't say, oh we will go to hell for this and that...
You need to go to an all black church, and listen to the pastor
where most people go... and hear the word...

It is so inspirational... everyone want inspirational.

There is nothing wroong with that, at all...
What is wrong with feeling good on the INSIDE????

We have Counselors that study to tell us something wrong with our mind.
We have to Exercise and listen to somebody telling us how to look
good physically....
But what is wrong with having a Spiritual leader to tell us
how to feel good on the inside?

Huh???

 

[RedFox]

Don't see the contradiction here.

--First, I am not sure God is restricted to linear time as we are. That's the first premise that doesn't work, because if He is not restricted to linear time, then the issue of a "future" becomes irrelevant. What this would suggest is that God holds a point of view that is beyond time. Imagine looking at the sum of all events in this universe, past and present, as if they were a great painting or a tapestry, already made. (Now, this argument does NOT necessarily mean predestination for those of us within linear time...it only means He sees the overall, cumulative effects of both our choices and His interventions.)

--Second major argument, and this one is only a real problem if you try to fit God into linear time: I do not see a restriction inherent in God's knowing all of what He will actually do, because He still has the power of choice to do what He wants. The believer would assert that even though He HAS the power to do all things, He does not WANT to do all things. That's desire, not power or knowledge. That doesn't make Him unable to do those things. That only occurs for finite beings like us (i.e. we can't be in 2 places at once). That's not a problem for God--therefore He can remain omnipotent even though He knows everything He could potentially do.

What do I mean by a god with the property of omniscience? I mean a god that knows everything there is to know. What do I mean by omnipotence? I mean the abliity to do anything. It is not about the desire to do things, just the ablity. Imagine a god that is outside of linear time. The god would see all of space and time as a collection of things and events that each exist at locations and times in that tapestry. If the god is outside of linear time, how can it be conscisous? To be conscisous needs the ablitity to think thoughts in sequence. If the god is outside of time and unconscisous, how could it be omniscienist? To be omnipotent, it would need to be able to perform actions in squence in time. If god is outside time, then how could it do actions? If it's outside of time and can't do actions, then how could it be omnipotent? So, a god outside of this universe's time would be unconscious and unable to do anything.
For the god to do anything, or think thoughts to cause it to know anything, it would have to be in time.
Since god is required to be in time to be either omniscienist or omnipotent, could it be both? If it knew what it would do later, it would have to do it, no matter what. It would be unable to do anything else. Desire does not matter, because if the god knew it will have to do something, it would do it regardless of its desires.
So, the god would need to know everything and be forced to do what it knows it will do, or not know everything and be able to do anything. Or it could have both limited knowledge and limited ablitity. If it wanted to be outside time in an attempt to have both charactistics, it would not be able to do actions or think because those things happen within time. It would be unconscious and unable to do anything.
Maybe you could say that god is in another dimension and could poke into ours, but if you want to believe in that, you have to show that those other dimensions exist.

 

[The*Empress]

God did do something...

Look at all the AIDS, SARS, BIRD FLU, E Coli, Cancer we can't even cure,
Colds, and stuff.

God told you not to eat Ham and stuff...
Why we need to listen to doctors to tell us to eat right
and get Diabetic Healthy Recipes?

God doesn't have to everything... that is why we humans are here for...
to tend the animals and crops and work.

 

[RedFox]

OK, I'm going to tie my answer to this one to the answer I tried for the last question (though you'll see that tie only in the later steps).

First, consider the nature of a universe in which evil simply does not exist at all--no decay, no physical entropy or death, nor any other possibilities for negative or bad things. This raises a serious problem, when it comes to introducing sentient beings into that universe.

Basically, there would be no contrast between moral choices. And without a possibility of contrast, one does not have the experience of understanding why a thing is right, or of making a conscious choice to do the right thing. We could not grow or become anything. Basically, we would not be any different from other animals.

The main premise of the Judeo-Christian Creation story is that humanity was created in God's image. Excuse my being a little funny, but we were basically a "Mini-me". Now, remember my comment in the last post that God has a choice in what He does even though He does not actually do all things? I'm going to use a similar premise for human beings. Just because the possibility of evil is there does not mean we have to do it. We can choose against it. We were given free will.

So, when we make a choice to do what is evil, the fault for that choice is on us, not on God. But when we do what is right, understanding that there was also an evil choice, and that something is wrong about that choice, and therefore we don't do it, then we are doing exactly what God would've preferred we do all the time.

I know this is not a perfect explanation by any means, but this is the best I can explain what understanding I have.

I wonder why god didn't design an universe where all possibile actions by sentient beings would be either neutral or good. In such an universe, beings would be given free will to choose between degrees of neutrality and goodness. There would be an constrast between the neutral and the good. The god would want the beings to become good, rather than being boring by doing good things more than neutral things. Evil would be meaningless because it would not exist by design. Then maybe the god would have a good heaven for people who did good things and a boring blah place for boring people. It would be our choice to be good or boring.
If I was god, I'd make an universe along these lines instead of this one with its wider range from good to evil. Since god decided to design an universe that ranged from good to evil with free will for us to do good or evil, rather than an universe with the range from good to neutral, with free will for us to do good or boring things, god chose the choice that seems to be the worst. You could say that becoming good rather than evil is more of a learning experience than becoming good rather than boring, but in an universe with no evil, the former would be meaningless because of the lack of evil. We won't miss the extra range.
So, it looks like the god said to make this universe is not omnibenevolent. If he was omnibenevolent, he'd put us into an universe with no evil, just goodness and neutrality. Since evil would be undefined in such an universe, we won't know about it and won't miss it and feel happy, bored rather than happy, bored or screwed up.

 

[RedFox]

That is all Atheists want to do is take away our spirit.

All we wanna do is be happy happy happy...

But all Atheists want to do is take away our Christmas, our pride
saying the word "God" in our flag...

Atheists are like Communists, telling us we can't celebrate
our beliefs.

I'm an atheist and I don't want to upset anyone. We just don't want other people to make us feel upset. Public schools are not only for Christians, so they should not upset people of different religions and those with no religions. Making people say god could do that. We're just asking you to do it somewhere it won't upset others, like in church or in the home. Jesus did say somewhere to go to your room when you pray.
I'm not a communist. I'm not telling you not to celebrate your beliefs. I'm just asking you to celebrate them where it won't bother other people. If anyone actually wants you to stop celebrating your beliefs, I'd help you to stop them.
We should allow each group to celebrate where it won't bother other groups and stop those who would stop all celebrations everywhere.