Hey,

Quoted from Death Monkey In the context of this discussion I mean that a the white house goes hand in hand with a person of faith.

Yeah, I guess I can agree with that. At least for the next generation or so. Perhaps more.

Quoted from Death Monkey What about Gay marriage?

Yeah, that might be a possible exception. There's enough opposition outside of the evangelical community that no one really presses them on it. That said, the religious right does have secular arguments against it. Some of the things I've heard are:

1. It will open loop holes that non-homosexuals same sex couples will exploit for tax reasons(I and a close same sex friend of mine have agreed to marry one another if it or civil unions ever get passed. At least until we earn more. That and we're very, very close )

2. Same Sex marriages don't deserve the same amount of benefits and validation as heterosexual marriages because they don't contribute as much to society(because they don't produce children/ children raised by them don't have both a male and female parent to model, the reasoning being that with both to model the children will be enriched I guess)

3. It's not discriminatory because homosexual can marry any man(if they are a woman) or any woman(if they are a man) and that the society reserves the right to prohibit just any two people from marrying. (i.e. Dads can't marry daughters)  

I'm sure there are more, but the point is that usually arguing against something just because it says not to in the bible usually isn't going to fly.

Quoted from Death Monkey But is that so? What about the evangelical revival in the 80's? the moral majority and such? I'm not sure the US is less religious now than 50 years ago.  At least it's a different kind of religious. So we should define our terms, what do you mean by "less religious"? I'd argue religion plays a bigger part in forging the American foreign policy now then in the 50's.

I just wanted to point out your "the religious have more kids so society is also going to be very religious" thing didn't quite flush out.

So, to make that point I'll drop the 50 years ago thing. Let's go back 200 years when I don't think you can argue that we were less religious. By your logic, if back then, lets just say that (conservatively) 90% of people were religious, then now around 90%  of Americans should be religious because all their kids should be religious(math is super glossed over but you see what I mean right?).

I don't want to argue whether or not we have grown more or less religious in the past 20 years.

Quoted from Death Monkey Religion in some states have been taken out of the schools, so definitely some states enforce a less religious agenda, but other react to that and go the other way.

There is some of that ,yes, but I think you have to admit that there are many more schools and Universities that have the "less religion" agenda then the small private schools that have the more religion.

I'm not even religious and I've noticed some blatant hostility towards religion coming out of my professors, and in some cases, in that environment where it's close to being seen as a unenlightened if you don't reject religion, I think its understandable how people come out of it less religious. ... That and the emphasis on evidence and clear thought.

Well, I must fly. Tom Brady and Petty beckon me.

sheepwalker  

Here's an entertaining video I found on youtube that, amongst other observations about religion, touches on what some of the presidents thought about religion and its relationship with the state. There's also some amusing stuff from Bill Hicks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZcKomzHaU



  

Quoted from Soap Hands Yeah, that might be a possible exception. There's enough opposition outside of the evangelical community that no one really presses them on it. That said, the religious right does have secular arguments against it. Some of the things I've heard are: 1. It will open loop holes that non-homosexuals same sex couples will exploit for tax reasons(I and a close same sex friend of mine have agreed to marry one another if it or civil unions ever get passed. At least until we earn more. That and we're very, very close )

But how is that different from heterosexual couples marrying for tax reasons or to fool INS? Seems like a very make-shift argument to me, that's covering over the real reason.

Quoted Text 2. Same Sex marriages don't deserve the same amount of benefits and validation as heterosexual marriages because they don't contribute as much to society(because they don't produce children/ children raised by them don't have both a male and female parent to model, the reasoning being that with both to model the children will be enriched I guess)

Again, foolish argument. Who defines marriage as an institution producing babies? The vow you make is solely to love and honor your partner, not to have his babies. Should those heterosexual couples who don't have children, or who can't, then also be considered second class citizens, or a second class marriage? Again, it really looks like some fundamentalist set down and tried to come up with "icky" secular arguments because the other side doesn't respond well to quotes from Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quoted Text 3. It's not discriminatory because homosexual can marry any man(if they are a woman) or any woman(if they are a man) and that the society reserves the right to prohibit just any two people from marrying. (i.e. Dads can't marry daughters)   I'm sure there are more, but the point is that usually arguing against something just because it says not to in the bible usually isn't going to fly.

That's like saying segragation isn't discriminatory because black people can marry any black man/woman and society reserves the right to prohibit just any two people from marrying. The boundaries are arbitrary, whether they be race or gender, it's just a line in the sand.

I really think it depends on who you are trying to convince. If you're pandering to the fiscal conservatives or traditional nationalists.

Like I said, I think these are arguments designed to appeal to non-religious traditionalists, but it looks very clear to me that the arguments themselves aren't founded in rationality.

Quoted Text I just wanted to point out your "the religious have more kids so society is also going to be very religious" thing didn't quite flush out. So, to make that point I'll drop the 50 years ago thing. Let's go back 200 years when I don't think you can argue that we were less religious. By your logic, if back then, lets just say that (conservatively) 90% of people were religious, then now around 90%  of Americans should be religious because all their kids should be religious(math is super glossed over but you see what I mean right?). I don't want to argue whether or not we have grown more or less religious in the past 20 years.

Well 200 years ago EVERYBODY was more religious. This was before Darwin, the discovery of germs and various scientific and social breakthroughs that helped push secularism. It was not religious "by choice" as it were. So this really has very little to do with religious procreation. Furthermore what kind of tendency stagnates 50 years ago only to turn the other way?

I think if anything today we see that the impact of science can't extinguish religion, because in spite of scientific revolutions, the splitting of the atom, many Christians still believe the Earth is 6000 years old (depite carbon dating). What kind of secular institution is gonna change their minds? Those who survived the age of enlightenment are the die-hards it would seem, who are not swayed by external arguments. They won't let their kids be taught evolution and so forth. So unless something radically changes I think the procreation argument is apt.

Quoted Text There is some of that ,yes, but I think you have to admit that there are many more schools and Universities that have the "less religion" agenda then the small private schools that have the more religion. I'm not even religious and I've noticed some blatant hostility towards religion coming out of my professors, and in some cases, in that environment where it's close to being seen as a unenlightened if you don't reject religion, I think its understandable how people come out of it less religious. ... That and the emphasis on evidence and clear thought. Well, I must fly. Tom Brady and Petty beckon me. sheepwalker

I agree, but there's more division now it would seem. those who are religious got relatively more religious than their secular counterparts.

There is hostility, or at least disdain, for organized religion in many universities. But the emphasis on empirical theory is an operational moral and doesn't inherently negate religion, it just negates flimsy evidence that some creationists teach. If God came down and showed himself to us, empirical theory would accept evidence of God.

Empirical theory should be taught exactly because it is operational as opposed to absolute. Those theories who already know the answer and set out to figure out how are inferior in a scholastic debate.

Hey,

Quoted from Death Monkey But how is that different from heterosexual couples marrying for tax reasons or to fool INS? Seems like a very make-shift argument to me, that's covering over the real reason. Again, foolish argument. That's like saying segragation isn't discriminatory because black people can marry any black man/woman and society reserves the right to prohibit just any two people from marrying. Like I said, I think these are arguments designed to appeal to non-religious traditionalists, but it looks very clear to me that the arguments themselves aren't founded in rationality.

Whoa!!! Hold on. ...I didn't say these were good arguments. I said these were some secular arguments I've heard out of religious people against gay marriage because you brought up gay marriage(as a possible counter example) in which religious people only argue against it on a religious basis.

The point was that any serious politician can't just use religion to justify policy, they also have to have secular arguments or they aren't going to be taken seriously.

I also don't want to get side tracked into arguing about gay marriage. At least not here and now.    

And just to clarify my personal position, If it were entirely up to me I would allow gay marriage. However, I do think that civil Unions are the fairest compromise in todays political landscape.

About the religious procreation thing:

Alright. How bout we go back a happy 78 years   Just kidding.

I think a lot of your counter argument works for me too, actually. The point I was making about your generalization was that the spawn of the religious aren't going to necessarily share the beliefs of their parents(i.e. be religious) precisely because of new evidence and life experience. By in large, I don't think it's fair to say that they can just keep their kids locked in a basement all of their adolescence, shielding them from dissenting opinion. At least as far as I'm aware, all kids are required to go to school were they will also take a science class. So, I don't think your generalization about religious procreation holds a lot of water. If you're still unconvinced I'll concede the point to you. lol

Quoted from Death Monkey But the emphasis on empirical theory is an operational moral and doesn't inherently negate religion, it just negates flimsy evidence that some creationists teach. If God came down and showed himself to us, empirical theory would accept evidence of God. Empirical theory should be taught exactly because it is operational as opposed to absolute. Those theories who already know the answer and set out to figure out how are inferior in a scholastic debate.

Yeah, I agree with most of what your saying. However, just because "empirical theory... doesn't negate religion" doesn't mean, generally speaking, that some professors aren't anti religion. It also doesn't mean that fewer people come out of university(or even lower educational institutions) more secularized.

sheepwalker

  

Could an atheist win the White House? Yes, depending on how well funded he is by the corporations that own him.

This post isn't directly related to the topic of this thread, but because it's related to politics I thought I'd post it here rather than start another political thread.

I recently filled in an online survey that asked us Aussies who we would prefer to see represent the Democrats and Republicans in the next US election and who our preferred President would be.  

This was the bottom line:

Quoted Text    When it came to overall voting intentions, this resulted in an ultra-landslide to the Democrats giving them 75 per cent of the primary vote to the Republicans' 14 per cent. Democrat support was stronger among women, and peaked among voters 55-64 years of age. It was weakest with the youngest and oldest voters. Democrat Total Barack Obama 54% Hillary Clinton 33% John Edwards 7% Unsure 6% Grand Total 100% Republican Total John McCain 48% Mike Huckabee 6% Mitt Romney 6% Ron Paul 6% Rudolph Giuliani 11% Unsure 24% Grand Total 100%

Here's the article  

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6962

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Atheism. Atheism doesn’t mean there can’t be any deities, it only means that there isn’t enough evidence to support the hypothesis.

Most of America’s founders were almost certainly either Atheists or Deists. I am personally an Atheist. I was raised in a very devout Christian family and I can tell you from experience that it’s a long hard road to go from Christian believer to someone who demands evidence to substantiate a view. It was very painful for me to face the overwhelming probability that no deities exist.

For many years after I began to arrive at the conclusion that there simply isn’t enough evidence to support the existence of any deity, Zeus or otherwise, I still kept my Atheism hidden for fear of retribution. When my views were first published in a local paper in Kentucky where I’m originally from, I came home to a full answering machine. Within a couple of days, I was receiving cards and letters.

Some of course were to call me the devil or satanic or whatever. Some were more polite and offered prayers (which have been demonstrated scientifically to be ineffective by the way). But most were from people who questioned their faith. They told me of how they wanted to question religion more but were afraid.

It’s tough to be an Atheist. No doubt about it. Statistics do show Atheists are the least trusted segment of society. Much of that is due to cultural influence and demonizing propaganda from religious organizations. (For example, there is still a persistent lie that there are no Atheists in foxholes despite that I personally know several.)

Nonetheless, more and more people are building the courage to stand up and speak their minds despite cultural pressure and an almost constant stream of misrepresentation of facts and science from religious organizations.

Statistics also show the average American has never read the Bible. Essentially, the average American places absolute faith in a book written thousands of years ago, hundreds of years after events described, by unknown authors, translated innumerable times, sometimes by known fraudsters, and that they’ve never even read!

Can an Atheist ever be president? I think Atheists already have been. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, all had less than flattering words to say about Christianity. There is a good chance they simply couldn’t come right out with it in the climate of their time. In the future, it’s almost certain that Atheists will be more forthright with their views.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Atheism. Atheism doesn't mean there can't be any deities, it only means that there isn't enough evidence to support the hypothesis. Most of America's founders were almost certainly either Atheists or Deists. I am personally an Atheist. I was raised in a very devout Christian family and I can tell you from experience that it's a long hard road to go from Christian believer to someone who demands evidence to substantiate a view. It was very painful for me to face the overwhelming probability that no deities exist. For many years after I began to arrive at the conclusion that there simply isn't enough evidence to support the existence of any deity, Zeus or otherwise, I still kept my Atheism hidden for fear of retribution. When my views were first published in a local paper in Kentucky where I'm originally from, I came home to a full answering machine. Within a couple of days, I was receiving cards and letters. Some of course were to call me the devil or satanic or whatever. Some were more polite and offered prayers (which have been demonstrated scientifically to be ineffective by the way). But most were from people who questioned their faith. They told me of how they wanted to question religion more but were afraid. It's tough to be an Atheist. No doubt about it. Statistics do show Atheists are the least trusted segment of society. Much of that is due to cultural influence and demonizing propaganda from religious organizations. (For example, there is still a persistent lie that there are no Atheists in foxholes despite that I personally know several.) Nonetheless, more and more people are building the courage to stand up and speak their minds despite cultural pressure and an almost constant stream of misrepresentation of facts and science from religious organizations. Statistics also show the average American has never read the Bible. Essentially, the average American places absolute faith in a book written thousands of years ago, hundreds of years after events described, by unknown authors, translated innumerable times, sometimes by known fraudsters, and that they've never even read! Can an Atheist ever be president? I think Atheists already have been. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, all had less than flattering words to say about Christianity. There is a good chance they simply couldn't come right out with it in the climate of their time. In the future, it's almost certain that Atheists will be more forthright with their views. Breanne

Hi, Breanne

Sounds like a tough thing you did, especially with your background and all, so good on you for questioning things. However, I was curious about your definition of atheism? Most lexical definitions I know, like Merriam-webster, cambridge, Oxford and the likes, offer this definition:

: one who believes that there is no deity

Or at least implicitly one who has weighed the evidence and believes there is no deity. The notion of God's existence being unprovable sounds like agnosticism to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge."

But the American founding fathers were not atheists, to my knowledge. Jefferson was a skeptical deist, or as it has been conined in recent years a "de-mystified" Christian.

For instance check out his "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" published in 1803.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

"The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.[2]"

Quoted from Death Monkey Hi, Breanne Sounds like a tough thing you did, especially with your background and all, so good on you for questioning things. However, I was curious about your definition of atheism? Most lexical definitions I know, like Merriam-webster, cambridge, Oxford and the likes, offer this definition: : one who believes that there is no deity Or at least implicitly one who has weighed the evidence and believes there is no deity. The notion of God's existence being unprovable sounds like agnosticism to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism "Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge." But the American founding fathers were not atheists, to my knowledge. Jefferson was a skeptical deist, or as it has been conined in recent years a "de-mystified" Christian. For instance check out his "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" published in 1803. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible "The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.[2]"

Hi Death Monkey,

Please let me clarify; I’m an Atheist because, based on evidence, there isn’t any to support the existence of any deity. I do not know that the existence of a deity is not provable, only that it hasn’t even been evidenced.

I do not agree with the agnostic view that a conclusion cannot be drawn due to lack of evidence. I believe the lack of evidence speaks volumes. In thousands of years of human existence, much of it devoted to corroborating god’s existence, not a shred of evidence corroborates the hypothesis that our species was created by some humanoid deity. Quite the opposite.

Most facts of our world are in fact overwhelming probability. There is an overwhelming probability that if someone jumps off the Empire State Building, he or she will fall to the earth. It can’t be known with absolute certainty but it is so overwhelming of a probability that for all practical purposes, it’s a fact. Very little outside of strictly confined circumstances can be known with absolute certainty unless everything there is to know is known.

As a species, the only logical way to proceed is by the evidence. The existence of any deity is painfully devoid of evidence and the overwhelming probability is that there are no deities.

Should evidence arise to change that fact, I would be more than willing to correct my view accordingly. Being willing to reevaluate one’s views in light of new evidence isn’t the same thing as remaining “indefinitely indifferent,” which is how I perceive the agnostic view.

About America’s founders; a Deist is about as close to an Atheist as one could publicly pronounce oneself to be at the time - with the sole exception of a “skeptical deist,” which is a term I’d never heard of. Looking back, our nation’s founders made some bold statements that demonstrated a disdain for religion. If people were to cherry pick my statements throughout my life, they could just as easily make a case that I was a devout Christian. The truth would have been that I was raised Christian, had it ingrained into my psyche from childhood, and deduced, quite on my own, that it was all a lot of nonsense, and abandoned it for reason.

America’s founders would never have been able to forge our nation had they publicly proclaimed themselves Atheists. As Deists, they had a chance. One thing is certain, America was not founded on Christianity as so many Christians claim. Throughout our nation’s most sacred documents, the word God is found peppered generically. But the words Jesus, bible and Christianity are blaringly absent. Once again, absence speaks volumes.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson Hi Death Monkey, Please let me clarify; I’m an Atheist because, based on evidence, there isn’t any to support the existence of any deity. I do not know that the existence of a deity is not provable, only that it hasn’t even been evidenced. I do not agree with the agnostic view that a conclusion cannot be drawn due to lack of evidence. I believe the lack of evidence speaks volumes. In thousands of years of human existence, much of it devoted to corroborating god’s existence, not a shred of evidence corroborates the hypothesis that our species was created by some humanoid deity. Quite the opposite.

Right. But Lack of evidence can't disprove the existence of something. We have currently absolutely no evidence of the existence of three-headed unicorns, but that doesn't mean that they can't exist somewhere in the universe. It just means we don't have evidence of that.

Quoted Text Most facts of our world are in fact overwhelming probability. There is an overwhelming probability that if someone jumps off the Empire State Building, he or she will fall to the earth. It can’t be known with absolute certainty but it is so overwhelming of a probability that for all practical purposes, it’s a fact. Very little outside of strictly confined circumstances can be known with absolute certainty unless everything there is to know is known. As a species, the only logical way to proceed is by the evidence. The existence of any deity is painfully devoid of evidence and the overwhelming probability is that there are no deities.

I don't think it's not completely accurate to say that the overwhelming probability suggests that there are no deities. First define you terms, how you define a deity? Many people would argue that the existence of matter, the fact that something MUST have created the universe, and nothing can come from nothing points to design. That something must've started it all, something that "thought out" the rules of chemistry, particles, laws of dynamics and so forth. It's highly improbable that something arises out of nothing. However the flipside of that argument is of course that if there is a creator, then who created him?

Now as to the probability of a deity as described in any of the major religions, Abrahamic as well as Hindu and Sikh, I think you're right. there are so many paramenters and circumstantial evidence you can deflect using logic and reason. But the mere idea of God...I don't know about that.

Quoted Text Should evidence arise to change that fact, I would be more than willing to correct my view accordingly. Being willing to reevaluate one’s views in light of new evidence isn’t the same thing as remaining “indefinitely indifferent,” which is how I perceive the agnostic view.

I still think it's slightly inaccurate to apply to label "atheist" as a shorthand for being skeptical of the data to support God's existence. What do you base your definition on?

Quoted Text About America’s founders; a Deist is about as close to an Atheist as one could publicly pronounce oneself to be at the time - with the sole exception of a “skeptical deist,” which is a term I’d never heard of. Looking back, our nation’s founders made some bold statements that demonstrated a disdain for religion. If people were to cherry pick my statements throughout my life, they could just as easily make a case that I was a devout Christian. The truth would have been that I was raised Christian, had it ingrained into my psyche from childhood, and deduced, quite on my own, that it was all a lot of nonsense, and abandoned it for reason.

Right, but there is a distinction between cherrypicking and then looking at actual published works throughout their lives. These are not idle musings, these are readily prepared political, philosophical and moral treaties designed to enlight the debate at the time. I don't think it's unfair take them at face-value, unless there are jarring inconsistencies (as in your case). What are some of the bold statements you feel refelect a disdain for Christianity, or a distinctively atheist philosophy?

Mind you, I'm not talking about the religious labels the founding fathers offered to categorize themselves, I'm talking about dissecting what they actually argued, thought and believed in. Now, unless you're arguing that most of what they wrote were disengenuous cover-stories to fool a religious majority, the historical data shows that the majority were followers of Christian teachings, although of the enlightenment school of thought and non-literal interpretation.

Quoted Text America’s founders would never have been able to forge our nation had they publicly proclaimed themselves Atheists. As Deists, they had a chance. One thing is certain, America was not founded on Christianity as so many Christians claim. Throughout our nation’s most sacred documents, the word God is found peppered generically. But the words Jesus, bible and Christianity are blaringly absent. Once again, absence speaks volumes.

Yeah but the fact that they wouldn't have been able to forge America had they been atheists doesn't prove that they were. They wouldn't have been able to forge America as Satanists, that doesn't mean deism is just a convenient disguise for devil-worship.

And I don't think it's certain that America isn't founded on Christianity. It's not a question of "either it is or it isn't". The US wasn't really founded in 1776 or 1789, that was just when it was defined and its constitution codified. Now to understand the values that were put into the constitution it's imperative to look to the puritan movements in the 17th century and the political battles that were won using Christianity as an arguement for freedom. As such Christianity was a driving force behind the American democracy, even if it had to accomodate to the enlightenment. But of course America wasn't made for by and to Christians, but the way it was forged does reflect Enlightenment Christian ideas.

I consider myself an agnostic, which to some may only be one step up from nihilism, but to me it's the most logical choice. I don't see any evidence proving nor disproving the existence of God and cannot imagine any evidence that could (how can you disprove the potential existence of something?) And you don't find die-hard extremists in the agnostic camp

Quoted from Death Monkey Lack of evidence can't disprove the existence of something. We have currently absolutely no evidence of the existence of three-headed unicorns, but that doesn't mean that they can't exist somewhere in the universe. It just means we don't have evidence of that.

One cannot disprove the existence of something that does not exist. That’s why when someone claims the existence of something for which there is no evidence, it’s the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence. In other words, it’s not my responsibility to disprove god; it’s the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that a deity exists, as well as evidence that it’s their particular deity as opposed to something else.

Quoted from Death Monkey I don't think it's not completely accurate to say that the overwhelming probability suggests that there are no deities. First define you terms, how you define a deity? Many people would argue that the existence of matter, the fact that something MUST have created the universe, and nothing can come from nothing points to design. That something must've started it all, something that "thought out" the rules of chemistry, particles, laws of dynamics and so forth. It's highly improbable that something arises out of nothing. However the flipside of that argument is of course that if there is a creator, then who created him?

I’ll address your points one by one:

1) As far as defining deity, I am of course speaking about a supernatural being that exerts some sort of control over the universe. To the best of my knowledge, no one is debating the other definitions of the word.

2) If someone believes matter is a god according to the definition in question, then it’s their responsibility to provide evidence that matter fits the description. If someone believes matter is a god according to one of the other not-in-dispute definitions, that’s different.

3) I do not know how the universe began with any certainty. Neither do you. Neither do creationists. Matter and energy, by the very properties we know of today, could have conceivably brought about the universe - without a deity.

4) I do not know that something came from nothing and never claimed it did. You do not know that either. Ironically, Creationists often accuse Atheists of holding this view when it is in fact usually the opposite. Creationists often believe things come from nothing. They believe their deity just “always existed” but can’t conceive that matter and energy just always existed. Creationists often believe their deity just created the universe out of nothing and then, after incorrectly ascribing that view to Atheists, point out its absurdity.

5) Design can be an illusion. When humans can’t comprehend things more complicated than their comprehension ability, they tend to feel those things are designed. Humans are prone to wishful thinking.

Bottom Line:

If a deity can have just always existed, then so can matter and energy. If a deity can “come from nothing,” then so could matter and energy. If all things must have been created, then the deity must have been created. In any case, there is a more viable and evidentiary explanation for the origin of the universe that is devoid of god than that some deity created everything like a child playing make-believe.

And all this, mind you, is only addressing the improbable existence of a deity. This isn’t speaking at all as to WHICH deity it might be of the hundreds of gods that have been worshipped throughout history. If something willfully and deliberately instigated the formation of our universe, there is nothing to say it wasn’t aliens or something else as yet even conceived of.

First Creationists have to provide tangible testable evidence that any deity exists at all before we can begin discussing the nature of that entity. On top of that, there are in every religion questionable facts in their doctrines to demonstrate that they are overwhelmingly probably the product of human invention.

Quoted from Death Monkey I still think it's slightly inaccurate to apply to label "atheist" as a shorthand for being skeptical of the data to support God's existence. What do you base your definition on?

I’m not skeptical of the data to support god’s existence. There isn’t any.

Based on the evidence - or rather overwhelming lack thereof - I do not believe any deities exist. If someone can provide me with a shred of evidence, I’ll be more than happy to reevaluate but until then; I see no reason to conclude anything other than that there are no deities. I don’t see how one can get anymore atheistic than that.

Quoted from Death Monkey Right, but there is a distinction between cherrypicking and then looking at actual published works throughout their lives. These are not idle musings, these are readily prepared political, philosophical and moral treaties designed to enlight the debate at the time. I don't think it's unfair take them at face-value, unless there are jarring inconsistencies (as in your case). What are some of the bold statements you feel refelect a disdain for Christianity, or a distinctively atheist philosophy?

I could probably write a book of quotes but I’ll list just a few:

Thomas Jefferson:

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." 1787 letter to his nephew

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

James Madison:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." April 1, 1774

John Adams:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven...”

These are just a few of many. There’s no point in going on. What’s clear here is that these men at this time believed in some sort of guiding principal - however abstract - but rejected religion quite utterly and believed strongly that religion had no place in the formation of our nation or government.

There’s no sense in debating their personal views on god specifically as it’s quite apparent they concentrated all their firepower on undermining Christianity, which one even referred to as a heresy. Any comments on their personal views is really just speculation but I don’t see how anyone can justifiably say America was founded on Christian values. It’s painfully obvious to me that’s not the case. I think it’s obvious in their words that our nation’s founders would have been appalled at the idea that an Atheist couldn’t get elected to public office.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson One cannot disprove the existence of something that does not exist. That’s why when someone claims the existence of something for which there is no evidence, it’s the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence. In other words, it’s not my responsibility to disprove god; it’s the responsibility of believers to provide evidence that a deity exists, as well as evidence that it’s their particular deity as opposed to something else.

I never said it was and that was certainly not my meaning. I'm saying that just because something hasn't been proved, it doesn't mean that it doesn't or cannot exist. At the same time, that of course doesn't mean that it exists just because it can't be disproven. It's a two-way street.


1)
But people are. Maybe not so much in Abrahamic terms but there are creator Gods who do not dote upon humanity or intervene in any way. There are Gods who created the world and then died or ceased to exist (Greek, Norse). What you're talking about is more familiar to us in the western world. Cosmos. However it begs the question whether or not a diety cannot be just an ordered flux of bits of information that make up the universe, that's inside every black hole and molecule of air? So completely beyond our understanding. That doesn't sound completely ridiculous to me.


2) I don't believe I ever said matter was God. I said that the existence of matter could be argued to indicate design.

3)Then what created matter and energy? Neither side makes any sense to me. Whether it be creationists who argue God created the world from nothing or atheists who argue it was brought about by itself.

4) But didn't you just say that matter end anergy could've brought about the universe? Well, it goes without saying that something must've created matter and energy (unless it always existed). And whatever created matter and eneergy must've been created by something too. And so on.

Btw. you don't have to re-iterate that I don't know either. I never claimed I did. the nature of my agnosticism in this case forbids it.

5) Most scientists agree there are patterns, laws and order in nature. Chemicals react and atoms behave in certain ways. Why? The fact that there are laws of physics and nature, suggests, some would say, that they were thought out. Or they could just be completely random as you say. Either way it's speculation so far.

Quoted Text If a deity can have just always existed, then so can matter and energy. If a deity can “come from nothing,” then so could matter and energy. If all things must have been created, then the deity must have been created. In any case, there is a more viable and evidentiary explanation for the origin of the universe that is devoid of god than that some deity created everything like a child playing make-believe.

Your argument seems to be that if Christians are allowed to belive in wish-wash then so are you. But does that make it any less nonsensical?

Shouldn't you as an skeptical atheist, by deiniftion, subject yourself to more scientific standards than those you accuse of fairytale logic? It seems sort of reactionary, like saying "if they believe the world was created in 6 days, then I believe puppies can fly!"

Quoted Text And all this, mind you, is only addressing the improbable existence of a deity. This isn’t speaking at all as to WHICH deity it might be of the hundreds of gods that have been worshipped throughout history. If something willfully and deliberately instigated the formation of our universe, there is nothing to say it wasn’t aliens or something else as yet even conceived of.

But that's circular logic. Aliens would be part of the same universe they created. Doesn't solve anything. And how come you can conceive of Aliens creating the universe but not God when the evidence supports neither?

Quoted Text First Creationists have to provide tangible testable evidence that any deity exists at all before we can begin discussing the nature of that entity. On top of that, there are in every religion questionable facts in their doctrines to demonstrate that they are overwhelmingly probably the product of human invention.

You're preaching to the choir. I've been an atheist for all my life and only turned agnostic these last few years. I don't believe in any religious proof of 'their' God. I believe religion is mad-made and can be explained by social, and historical circumstances.

Here's where I think we disconnect. I'm not talking about whether or not God actually exists. I'm talking about whether or not it would be possible that God could exist. I find it very hard to talk about providing proof within our perception of the world, to counter the possibility of the existence of an entitiy that would subsequently exist outside of it.

Quoted Text I’m not skeptical of the data to support god’s existence. There isn’t any...

That's semantics. Clearly evidence has been put forth, you just don't accept it as evidence of God. Incidentally neither do I, but it's still there.

Mind you there are plenty of things whose existence cannot be proven. "Hope" for instance. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quoted Text I could probably write a book of quotes but I’ll list just a few: [...] These are just a few of many. There’s no point in going on. What’s clear here is that these men at this time believed in some sort of guiding principal - however abstract - but rejected religion quite utterly and believed strongly that religion had no place in the formation of our nation or government.

But aren't you cherrypicking now? Many of the quotes are ourcries against absolutism, political christianity, and blind faith. Taken in context, their meaning are clearer which is why most scholars on the founding fathers agree that generally (as much as you can generalize) the founding fathers overall saw religion in a favorbale light.

Take Edwin Gaustad's book "Faith of our Fathers" in which he argues that Adams stressed "the necessary connection between religion and morality" and depicts him as a die-hard believer in the calvinist doctrine. He talks about Jefferson being a religious reformer and "far from religious indifferant". In fact he supposits that while Jefferson loathed "platonic Christianity" (all the mystical mumbo-jumbo brought by calvinism) he was deeply influenced by religion and "cannot be explained without it"

Kerry S. Walters imbues Benjamin Frankling with a "theistic perspectivism" (in response to D.H. Lawrence's dissection of his faith, calling it nothing but pragmatism). But the founding fathers weren't monolithic in their views.

In John G. West's "The Politics of revelation and reason" he asserts that while differing greatly on certain religious issues the founding fathers agreed that churches were "helpful or necessary" in building morality and morality was essential to this new nation.

Jefferson, as mentioned, had problems with the Christian tradition, and as your quote highlights the mystical nature of its teachings. But he was a follower of the principles of Christ and admired his morals and teachings.

The point is that it's not so easily explained as to say that either they were Christians or atheists.

Quoted Text There’s no sense in debating their personal views on god specifically as it’s quite apparent they concentrated all their firepower on undermining Christianity, which one even referred to as a heresy. Any comments on their personal views is really just speculation...

You come off as quite uninterested in actually examining the evidence. You assert the 'obvious' legitimacy of your position with fragmented quotes, but the fact of the matter is that it IS up to debate. If you wanna talk about empircal study then you can't just look at one side and assert it's pointless to look at the other. That kind of arrogance is as senseless as creationists arguing that the founding father OBVIOUSLY were die-hard Christians.

What literature about the founding fathers have you read? What authority are you invoking in this matter?

Scholars have, an do, debate over and over the degree of the Founding fathers' religiosity, and it's not something you can just brush off with a simple "yes" or "no". It's not "just" speculation. We have actual records of their thoughts and ideas. And while it may be crystal clear to you that America isn't founded one bit on Christianity, and while this certainly was not the founding fathers' intention, Christianity does play a part. How else do you explain Roger Williams, Thomas Hooker et al. who all justified America's democratic preamble in the preceding century by invoking scripture? How else do you explain the Judicial Branch historically alligning the constitution to The Bible? Certainly it played a part, but let me be absolutely clear, that does not mean American was made for Christians by Christians.

This conversation is turning out be too long and may spiral out of control soon. Sorry. It happens for me some times. Just ask Sheepwalker.

Quoted from Death Monkey That's semantics. Clearly evidence has been put forth, you just don't accept it as evidence of God. Incidentally neither do I, but it's still there.

What evidence has been put forth, TJ?

Quoted from Death Monkey However it begs the question whether or not a diety cannot be just an ordered flux of bits of information that make up the universe,…

If you mean this as in it didn’t willfully create the universe by design, then no it cannot be a deity by the above definition.

Quoted from Death Monkey Then what created matter and energy?

There’s no evidence it was created by anything.

Quoted from Death Monkey Well, it goes without saying that something must've created matter and energy (unless it always existed). And whatever created matter and eneergy must've been created by something too. And so on.

I’m sorry but it doesn’t go without saying that something must have created matter and energy. For all we know, it always existed. We don’t know where matter and energy came from. What we know is that the properties of matter and energy brought about the chain of events that eventually led to the existence of our species.

Quoted from Death Monkey Most scientists agree there are patterns, laws and order in nature. Chemicals react and atoms behave in certain ways. Why? The fact that there are laws of physics and nature, suggests, some would say, that they were thought out. Or they could just be completely random as you say. Either way it's speculation so far.

I never said anything about randomness. But the origin of our universe isn’t all speculation. We know that matter and energy brought about our universe. Just because we don’t know how long it existed prior to that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about it at all.

The properties of chemicals don’t suggest they were thought out at all. Neither do patterns suggest design. Just because people have a natural tendency to seek patterns doesn’t mean patterns are evidence of design. Sometimes it causes people to think they see things that aren’t there.

Quoted from Death Monkey Your argument seems to be that if Christians are allowed to belive in wish-wash then so are you. But does that make it any less nonsensical?

Not at all and this is a complete misrepresentation of my view. I base my views on evidence - the same scientific process that’s responsible for all human advancement in the whole of history. The religious view is based on blind faith, which opens the door to every human delusion to be given the same credence as scientific fact.

Quoted from Death Monkey Shouldn't you as an skeptical atheist, by deiniftion, subject yourself to more scientific standards than those you accuse of fairytale logic? It seems sort of reactionary, like saying "if they believe the world was created in 6 days, then I believe puppies can fly!" ?

Again, this is misrepresentative. And no, I shouldn’t subject myself to more scientific standards. We should all subject our views to scientific methodology.

Quoted from Death Monkey But that's circular logic. Aliens would be part of the same universe they created. Doesn't solve anything. And how come you can conceive of Aliens creating the universe but not God when the evidence supports neither?

I can conceive of just about anything. Only notions that are supported by evidence should be pursued; otherwise people are squandering the advancement of our species.

Quoted from Death Monkey Here's where I think we disconnect. I'm not talking about whether or not God actually exists. I'm talking about whether or not it would be possible that God could exist. I find it very hard to talk about providing proof within our perception of the world, to counter the possibility of the existence of an entitiy that would subsequently exist outside of it.

If believers in deities had faith that their deity only existed in some supernatural realm, I wouldn’t care what fantasy world they lived in. But when people claim a supernatural being imposes itself into the physical world by claiming to see, hear, or feel it - or that it created the physical universe, then that deity has crossed the line of the supernatural and entered the realm of science - where it has placed itself into the position of being examined and scrutinized. If a deity indeed has manifested in the physical realm, then it should have left evidence. There is none.

Quoted from Death Monkey Mind you there are plenty of things whose existence cannot be proven. "Hope" for instance. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist..

First off, I don’t require proof; only evidence. Secondly, although hope cannot be held in the hand, it’s a very real and examinable phenomenon. Much of our knowledge of the cosmos isn’t based on first hand experience - or proof for that matter. It’s based on evidence - the same thing all our scientific knowledge is based on.


Breanne


As far as the nation’s founders:

Quoted from Death Monkey You come off as quite uninterested in actually examining the evidence. You assert the 'obvious' legitimacy of your position with fragmented quotes, but the fact of the matter is that it IS up to debate. If you wanna talk about empircal study then you can't just look at one side and assert it's pointless to look at the other. That kind of arrogance is as senseless as creationists arguing that the founding father OBVIOUSLY were die-hard Christians.

I see no reason to debate about them further. I think you have misunderstood me completely on the subject.

Hey,

Quoted from Death Monkey This conversation is turning out be too long and may spiral out of control soon. Sorry. It happens for me some times. Just ask Sheepwalker.

It's true; he likes to argue, this one; he's like a mystical long argument/writing monkey (strung out on crazy meth that makes him write long counter arguments) that is payed in long vowels to produce posts that if recited would last a great duration, while rocking out to November Rain.

That's a ridiculous amount of research(for a forum debate) on the religious views of the founding fathers btw. Did you take a class on faith in the founding of America or something? To prime yourself for a conversion to America(not just a country, a state of mind), I hope. Anyway, impressive.

Hi, Breanne. It's nice to see you around again but I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Death Monkey on this one.  God cannot be proved or disproved.

Quoted from Breanne I’m sorry but it doesn’t go without saying that something must have created matter and energy. For all we know, it always existed.

For all we now, god created this dimension and everything in it then removed all evidence of itself and went to another dimensions where we can't perceive it.(I actually saw this in a video game )

Quoted from Breanne We don’t know where matter and energy came from.

You're right, we don't. Perhaps God created them. Perhaps not.

Quoted from Breanne But when people claim a supernatural being imposes itself into the physical world by claiming to see, hear, or feel it - or that it created the physical universe, then that deity has crossed the line of the supernatural and entered the realm of science - where it has placed itself into the position of being examined and scrutinized.

Perhaps we just haven't found a means to perceive it yet, or realize it as it. Like dark matter and dark energy.

Quoted from Breanne If a deity indeed has manifested in the physical realm, then it should have left evidence.

Why must that be the case?

Quoted from Breanne Sometimes it causes people to think they see things that aren’t there.

How is it that you are so sure that we aren't all in this category?

Admittedly, a lot of my points are kind of unfair. The point is that there are a lot of things we don't know, can't perceive, and don't understand (especially when it comes to things that are definitionally supposed to be beyond our understanding). That said, I don't see how it takes less faith to say that that everything created itself or has always existed then to say that something divine created it.

As Jules would say, "the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence"... "mother fucker".

sheepwalker