[Oisín]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I would say your level of disinterest uncommon.

Perhaps in the States. Over here, I think it’s rather the norm, to be honest.

I imagine you were honestly getting Dawkins and Hawkins mixed up, which is hilarious.

Oh. Right. Hawkins. I knew there was something wrong there. Oopsies.

(Just Googled Dawkins. The Selfish Gene sounds vaguely familiar; the rest of it I’ve never even heard of)

[The Final Dakar]

The God Delusion is the more popular work, I believe.

[Chongo]

Soon to a bookstore near you

[The Final Dakar]

With that combination of colors on the cover, seems like they should have named it God for Dummies.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

I didn't really answer this question. I think if God exists and reveals himself to humanity, the first thing he will do is acknowledge the wisdom of us who realized that holy books are the product of man, not god(s), and are not historically or morally inerrant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Soon to a bookstore near you

I love the absurdity behind the term "modern atheist." As if atheists today are any different than atheists in the past.

Chongo, if you want to read a quality work by a Catholic, Gary Wills is the best Catholic writer alive today.

[Paco500]

I'm going to put my $.02 in, but first I need to try and define myself and what I believe. First, my belief is pretty much in-line with the OS X dictionary definition of atheism:

atheism
|ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

One can pussy-foot around and say I can't be sure there is no God, so therefore I'm sort of agnostic, but I believe with full conviction that there is no God (or gods) as much as I believe anything.

I'm not prepared to say there is nothing super-natural in the universe- some kind of power beyond our understanding. However I firmly believe there is no sentient being that created or has any influence on creation.

I have sympathy for and feel an affinity so some religious (or religious like) philosophies including aspects of Buddhism and Taoism. I believe there is some kind on interconnectedness between all living things- perhaps a very liberal take on the Quaker philosophy that there is "that of God in everyone". I believe there is an intrinsic value in life, society and nature and to be a good person, one should be working for its preservation and betterment.

As for background- I was brought up in an evangelical Christian family- even pretending to speak in tongues on occasion to fit in. I wanted to believe. I studied (monotheistic- focused on Christian) theology at university with a healthy dose of comparative world religions. I began to lose my faith with the death of my father when I was 18 and became a committed atheist after the birth of my children.

Now to the questions.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?

Not particularly. I don't hide it, but I don't shout it from the mountain tops either. As others have said above, it doesn't define me.

2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?

I take solace in the fact that there is no being in the sky that chooses to reign down terror and despair on his creation. The notion that any kind of intelligence could create such wonders only to screw with it boggles my mind.

3. Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?

I hate the actions and ideas of some religious people. I suppose it's a case of loving the sinner but hating the sin. In some ways I look down on them. It would be disingenuous to claim I don't think less of someone who has committed so much of their lives to something I know to be wrong. I can acknowledge that many religious people can to good things for society, but they can cause a lot of pain and suffering as well. It's easy to say that most of the wars, atrocities, etc. were done in the name of religion, however, many very bad things have been done in the name of science and the pursuit of power as well. There are a lot of bad people in the world and not all of them are religious. My general perspective of the religious is not unlike how one might feel about an otherwise intelligent person in an abusive relationship. I don't necessarily blame them for the situation they find themselves in, I just can't understand it.

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

I suppose it depends on the nature of the creator. If his/her/its character is as described in the major monotheistic religions I suppose I would be dumbfounded and angry. If I could keep my wits about me in the face of such a revelation, I would refuse to bow down and worship for what he/she/it has done to his/her/its creation.

[BadKosh]

And of course nobody knows for sure. It's all assumptions.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Many misconceptions to clear up. First, the historical Buddha did acknowledge the existence of the Vedic gods, but he denied the existence of an omnipotent creator God. He also regarded the Vedic gods as irrelevant to achieving Nirvana, so he saw the issue of personal religion to be insignificant. When it comes to "folklore," there's a wide range of Buddhist views on Bodhisattvas. Many Buddhists worship these beings just as others worship their god. Simply put, if a particular branch of Buddhism worships Bodhisattvas, then that branch is more like a religion than a philosophy, but it doesn't really stop being "true Buddhism" as long as the teaching of Buddha are essentially intact. (Pure Land Buddhism is a good example of a complete departure from Buddhism, since they regard Nirvana as impossible now and replace it with the worship of Bodhisattvas.)

Not much different from the Dalai Lama acknowledging the existence of Jesus.

Hindu Texts: The Vedas - ReligionFacts
Buddhism and Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient India had two philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the Vedic religion, parallel traditions that have existed side by side for thousands of years.[2] Both Buddhism and Jainism are continuations of Shramana traditions, while modern Hinduism is a continuation of the Vedic tradition. These co-existing traditions have been mutually influential.

The Buddha rejected relying on Vedas for salvation, which included the earliest Upanishads. He redefined Indian cosmology, incorporating many existing terms in his doctrine, but redefining them for his purposes in explaining the Middle Path, also teaching that to achieve salvation one did not have to accept the authority of the scriptures or the existence of God.

Yes, there are many Buddhists who worship Bodhisattvas similar to how others worship their god. Yes, then it does become more of a religion than just a philosophy.


Why I say Buddhism is open source? Because it kinda is. You take the core Buddhist beliefs and adapted to whatever your other beliefs are.

That's why it's difficult determining the number of Buddhist there are.

Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- difficulties in defining who counts as a Buddhist;
- syncretism among the Eastern religions. Buddhism is practiced by adherents alongside many other religious traditions- including Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, traditional religions, shamanism, and animism- throughout East and Southeast Asia.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And of course nobody knows for sure. It's all assumptions.

Still not a question.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?

I think it's important not to be closeted and silent about it. We should be willing to discuss our views as openly as you believers do. Atheists are treated with far less respect than the rest of you for no objective reason whatsoever and IMO it is out of pure ignorance and prejudice. The only way to counter that is openness and education.

2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?

It seems to me that those who see it this way were already believers for different reasons. So, they are seeing the universe from a biased point of view. It also seems to me that those whose main or sole reason for believing in god is this "majesty" thing also tend to be agnostics or deists rather than religious people who believe in a personal god.

As someone else said, the god answer doesn't actually answer anything, it simply creates new questions and mysteries.

My argument comes down to this (which I have stated here before): If the universe is SO amazing and therefore, unlikely, then any creator must be even MORE amazing and thus even MORE unlikely to have created it so how does the creator make even MORE sense than spontaneity?

3. Do you hate religious people?

Um, no. Seems like an odd question. :/

Look down upon them?

I assume you mean based upon their views. Maybe some of them. I don't look down on whole groups of people because they believe differently than me.

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

I tend to avoid hypotheticals, I prefer to deal with reality. The reality is there is no logical reason to believe that could ever happen therefore there is no reason to ponder it. Or answer the question.

[BadKosh]

OK, you want a question.....

Who created God? Who or what created the Universe?

What if you're wrong?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK, you want a question.....

Who created God? Who or what created the Universe?

What if your wrong?

My understating is the many if not most believers in a supreme monotheistic god define him/her/it as an uncreated creator. It therefore follows that he/she/it created the universe.

Any believers out there, feel free to contradict or correct me.

As for what happens if they are wrong, I'll leave it up to them, but I assume they will just die having believed something that made them feel better while they were alive. See Pascal's Wagerfor the most popular thinking along these lines.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK, you want a question.....

Who created God? Who or what created the Universe?

Man. It's an interesting question, and I don't think we have an answer for it - I don't. But not knowing doesn't keep me awake at night.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What if your wrong?

What if my wrong what?

You live your life, then you die.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I imagine you were honestly getting Dawkins and Hawkins mixed up, which is hilarious.

Oh. Right. Hawkins.

Are you guys talking about Hawking?

[BadKosh]

Hawking is a believer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who created God?

Kind of a silly question to ask an non-believer. Feels sort of like "turtles all the way down" only on the opposite end.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who or what created the Universe?

Unknown. One of life's greatest mysteries.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What if you're wrong?

Not a big deal (Or maybe it is!). With the amount of religions out there it feels like there's a decent chance one can have faith and still be wrong. Why should I worry about it?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who created God?

Why would you ask an atheist this question?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who or what created the Universe?

I have no idea, perhaps it created itself. Claiming it was created by god just relegates that question to `who created God?' In any case, I don't think this question is even answerable from a human point of view. That, of course, doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about it.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What if you're wrong?

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Wrong in the sense that there is a god? Or wrong in the sense that even if I chose a religion and it was the wrong one (`It's the Mormon religion!' from South Park comes to mind )? Big Mac has already asked what we would do if god revealed him/herself to us.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What if you're wrong?

[The Final Dakar]

Some people can't help themselves.

[BadKosh]

If God revealed itself, and wasn't even close to a human appearance, what would be the reaction from those who just 'swore' the bible was literal?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I suppose it depends on the nature of the creator. If his/her/its character is as described in the major monotheistic religions I suppose I would be dumbfounded and angry. If I could keep my wits about me in the face of such a revelation, I would refuse to bow down and worship for what he/she/it has done to his/her/its creation.

What is the character that you believe is described in the monotheistic religions that makes you angry?

If there is a creator what has it done to its creation that would make you angry?

[el chupacabra]

I have a question:

do you atheists consider hyteckit to be a good representative for you?

[The Final Dakar]

Is he atheist? I missed that if he is.

I do think he's on of the worst contributors in the PL. Better discussion would be a possibility if he weren't constantly derailing threads, changing arguments, and the lesser restrained of the opposition weren't trying to respond to his crap.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I have a question for everyone:

do you atheists consider hyteckit to be a good representative for you?

Is that a question for everyone or just Atheist?

Make up your mind.

I personally think hyteckit represents me well.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is he atheist? I missed that if he is.

I do think he's on of the worst contributors in the PL. Better discussion would be a possibility if he weren't constantly derailing threads, changing arguments, and the lesser restrained of the opposition weren't trying to respond to his crap.

I think you and turtle derail more threads than anyone else.

I just think outside the box and attack the arguments from different angles. To you, that's consider derailing threads and changing arguments. Some just fail to see the sarcasm in my responses.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think you and turtle derail more threads than anyone else.

Perhaps as a percentage, I do, but on average I don't post on here anywhere near as much as you.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I just think outside the box and attack the arguments from a different angles. To you, that's consider derailing threads and changing arguments.

Sure you do. If someone brings up a current Dem that's gotten busted for doing X, you bring up a Repub that done X in the past. That's not thinking outside the box or attacking it from a different angle. That's at best changing the argument, and worst, rationalizing.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Perhaps as a percentage, I do, but on average I don't post on here anywhere near as much as you.

Sure you do. If someone brings up a current Dem that's gotten busted for doing X, you bring up a Repub that done X in the past. That's not thinking outside the box or attacking it from a different angle. That's at best changing the argument, and worst, rationalizing.

I certainly hope you mean the 'political/war lounge' when you say 'post on here' and not the macnn forums. I average about 1.49 post per day. You average 12.38 posts a day. In 9 months, you rack up most posts than I did in my first 8 years on being of the forum.

Actually, I think you are describing the form of argument most conservatives use here on the forum.

I only bring up the hypocrisy of conservatives and Republicans on this forum, not to rationalize what Democrats do.

Care you provide an example of a Democrat who gotten busted for doing X, whom I defended or rationalize the person's actions?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I certainly hope you mean the 'political/war lounge' when you say 'post on here' and not the macnn forums. I average about 1.49 post per day. You average 12.38 posts a day. In 9 months, you rack up most posts than I did in my first 8 years of being of the forum.

Yes, I mean the PL.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Actually, I think you are describing the form of argument most conservatives use here on the forum.

Perfect example. "Yeah, but they do it too."

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Perfect example. "Yeah, but they do it too."

Eh? How so?

I'm just disagreeing with your assertions and accusations.

For example:

You are accusing Atheists of being intolerant of others beliefs.
I responded by saying Muslims and Christians are the ones intolerant of others beliefs based on my own personal experience.


Am I rationalizing intolerance of Atheist toward others beliefs? No.
I'm just disagreeing with your assertions and accusations.

[The Final Dakar]

My mistake, you're in denial.

Edit: I'm derailing the topic. I'll be kind and stop.

[hyteckit]

You know who is using the 'they do it too' argument?

You, The Final Dakar. You are admitting to derailing threads, but rationalize it by saying others do it too.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Perhaps as a percentage, I do, but on average I don't post on here anywhere near as much as you.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My mistake, you're in denial.

Edit: I'm derailing the topic. I'll be kind and stop.

Atheists don't go on a witch hunt like you do.

Does hyteckit float on water? If I do, I must either be a witch or God.

[OreoCookie]

How about you guys stop derailing this thread? It was interesting while it lasted …

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by oreocookie 

how about you guys stop derailing this thread? It was interesting while it lasted …

...

Originally Posted by the final dakar 

edit: I'm derailing the topic. I'll be kind and stop.

?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I have a question for everyone:

do you atheists consider hyteckit to be a good representative for you?

Since in my outlook atheism is the absence of a thing and not a thing itself, I don't feel like there is any expectation of representing it by any thing or person. In the same way I don't expect someone who doesn't chew gum to represent the gumless, nor someone who's eyes aren't blue to represent the blueless.

But that doesn't mean I can't answer if the question is put to me, so no, I don't consider hyteckit to be a good representative of me, not as an atheist, nor as a gumless, nor as a blueless (in case he is any of those things).

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Since in my outlook atheism is the absence of a thing and not a thing itself, I don't feel like there is any expectation of representing it by any thing or person. In the same way I don't expect someone who doesn't chew gum to represent the gumless, nor someone who's eyes aren't blue to represent the blueless.

But that doesn't mean I can't answer if the question is put to me, so no, I don't consider hyteckit to be a good representative of me, not as an atheist, nor as a gumless, nor as a blueless (in case he is any of those things).

Ill clarify the reason I ask... In other threads he makes no attempt to tactfully hide his disparaging viewpoints towards religious people. His vitriol is often too shallow to be considered sarcastic, which is what hes trying to pass it off as now from his comment above.... So it makes me wonder if other atheists have this deep inner hatred towards the "stupidity" and "ignorance" of people who believe in "a Santa Clause for adults"; but are better at tactfully hiding it in order to appear more respectable. You can be honest here on the internet.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I see religion as a psychological crutch that some people use to help them "do the right thing." It's basically a codified framework of altruism. I approve of altruism, therefore I approve of religion.

It's not the type of crutch that works for me personally, I have other crutches for that. I certainly don't hate people who use religion(s), and I don't hate people who use physical crutches, and I wouldn't want people to hate me for using my various crutches, like my superstitions, mnemonics, mantras or borderline OCD habits like posting on MacNN. Do on to others, yadda yadda yadda.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Ill clarify the reason I ask... In other threads he makes no attempt to tactfully hide his disparaging viewpoints towards religious people. His vitriol is often too shallow to be considered sarcastic, which is what hes trying to pass it off as now from his comment above.... So it makes me wonder if other atheists have this deep inner hatred towards the "stupidity" and "ignorance" of people who believe in "a Santa Clause for adults"; but are better at tactfully hiding it in order to appear more respectable. You can be honest here on the internet.

Really? I've defended Muslims, Scientologists, Buddhist, and so forth. Because I've defended minority religion/beliefs against the majority religion Christianity, it makes me a religion hater?

I've defended muslim. Was called a terrorist sympathizer.
I've defended Scientologists. Was called a Scientologists.
I've defended Atheist. Was called a religion hater.


I like defending minorities against the majority. I think it's okay to make fun of the majority.


Have you seen the Colbert Report? He is a Roman Catholic who jokes about Christians and Catholics.

Colbert uses sarcasm to put Catholics in their place, saying they are no better than anyone else. I'm sure Colbert doesn't hate Catholics and Roman Catholics.

I just use sarcasm to put Catholics who think they are better than anyone else in their place.


I'm here legally in the US thanks to the Catholic Church. I've even gone to Catholic school. I have no problems going to Church or temples.

You Christians just need to be put down once in a while because you guys are sitting on your high horse looking down at everyone.

If Christianity becomes a minority in the US, I'll stop joking about them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I like defending minorities against the majority.

Really? Sarah Palin is an underdog, have you ever taken her side? The tea party is an underdog, have you ever taken its side? When Dems control congress and the white house, do you attack them and defend republicans?

It sure doesn't seem like you're always just picking the "little guy"

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Really? Sarah Palin is an underdog, have you ever taken her side? The tea party is an underdog, have you ever taken its side? When Dems control congress and the white house, do you attack them and defend republicans?

It sure doesn't seem like you're always just picking the "little guy"

Sarah Palin might be an underdog, but Barrack Obama is a minority.

I never said I would defend a person, a position, or a belief just because it's the minority.

It's one of the reasons; not the only reason.

Keep up.

[Zeeb]

Dear Atheists,

Do you think if religion never existed in the world, that somehow humanity would have evolved into a pro-social, democratic society on its own? Or, do you think these values are an effect of relgious influence--even if the person themselves is an atheist?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sarah Palin might be an underdog, but Barrack Obama is a minority.

I never said I would defend a person, a position, or a belief just because it's the minority.

It's one of the reasons; not the only reason.

Sometimes you pick the minority, but always you pick the Democrats. Sounds like you're just another partisan die-hard.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Dear Atheists,

Do you think if religion never existed in the world, that somehow humanity would have evolved into a pro-social, democratic society on its own? Or, do you think these values are an effect of relgious influence--even if the person themselves is an atheist?

As has been stated in this thread, Buddhism is not a religion. Therefore we can take Buddhist societies as an example of what the world might be like sans religion. They seem pro-social and democratic enough to me.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sometimes you pick the minority, but always you pick the Democrats. Sounds like you're just another partisan die-hard.

Let me see who I should support.

Democrats, who I believe to support minorities and the rights of minorities.

Republicans, who I believe seems to want everything to be based on Christian values.


Seems like a very easy choice for me to make. A party that support rights of minorities.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sometimes you pick the minority, but always you pick the Democrats. Sounds like you're just another partisan die-hard.

I didn't mean that in reference to the Democratic political party, but democracy. Sorry for the confusion.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I didn't mean that in reference to the Democratic political party, but democracy. Sorry for the confusion.

He was addressing me, not your question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let me see who I should support.

Democrats, who I believe to support minorities and the rights of minorities.

Republicans, who I believe seems to want everything to be based on Christian values.


Seems like a very easy choice for me to make. A party that support rights of minorities.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "partisan." Thanks for bolstering my claim.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, that's what I meant by "partisan." Thanks for bolstering my claim.

Yes, I support the rights of minorities over what Christians deem socially acceptable.

I guess that makes me a religion hater according to some.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yes, I support the rights of minorities over what Christians deem socially acceptable.

Regardless of which side is objectively correct at any one time or on any one issue, no matter what either side actually believes, does, or says.

I guess that makes me a religion hater according to some.

That's not the reason that was given.