Originally posted by knightmeister
I want to know why Theists are always being accused of having an illusionary coping mechanism (ie God) when it seems to me that Athieists that talk about 'love' and 'meaning' are involved in a form of comforting self delusion by refusing to accept that, taken to it's logical conclusion, Atheism = Nihilism. Is this how Atheists cope ? By not facing the ...[text shortened]... ere are the real Atheists who have popped the bubble? It all sounds far too cosy!

I think you're putting way too much meaning in the word atheist. It means to not believe in the supernatural. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are also putting way too much meaning in the word theist. Having a belief in a God makes you no more or less human than anyone else. You don't posess qualities that an atheist do not (from a definition point of view) - no matter how much you'd like to believe you do.

You need to have the world explained so that everything has it's place and purpose. Everything must be just right for a specific reason, or you can't see any meaning to it. You find meaning in your religion. The idea that there's a God in full control over his creation makes you feel good; it's an easy to understand concept that simultaneously makes you feel important. Everything you consider good is attributed to your God. If something doesn't fit your image of how the world is constructed, it confuses you and you have to make generalizations to better cope with it. Like saying that all atheists are by definition also nihilists. It is inconceivable to you that someone who hasn't taken a lot of interest in the word of God, can still have a similar sense of moral (not kill, rape or fornicate with your sister in law), or lead a life in accordance with a higher set of standards than a primitive man (acting on love and compassion in preference to hate and jealousy, for instance).

This is where you fail. For example, I can easily see how a christian can be a murderer, thief and rapist. Religious belief in itself is no guarantee against such behaviour. It's your ability to sympathise with others that keeps you from acting on bad thoughts. That ability can be found in most humans (believers and non-believers).

The moral laws seem to be written for people who can't sympathise very well with others, and so has to have a set of rules to follow or they'll start acting on pure personal incentives. (It's also possible that they were written for the purpose of controlling the masses - I suspect a mix of the two.)

Tell me, is that Satan's doing? Or is it just that nature has made some people less capable than others at expressing sympathy? Or is it possible, however unlikely, that we become who we are mainly because of how we are treated by others?

Who are you to say that what I consider meaning in my life, is not? Who are you to claim that because I don't believe in your God, I am not (really) a compassionate and moral man? (I just act like one?) How can you draw these conclusions from the simple fact that I don't believe in a God? Why do you consider a belief in the supernatural essential to being able to find meaning in life?

The very fact that I'm not (still) a believer should speak for itself. I don't need to believe in a God to find life good and enjoyable. I don't need to believe in a God to find meaningful things to do with my time. I don't need to have the world explained to me in every detail. (Although I like to hear how things work, it's not essential for me to function in my everyday life.) And I don't need to believe that what I do matters in the long run. It would be nice, but it's not a necessity.

So, you see, if I tell you that I'm atheist, you still don't know a whole lot about me. You think you do, but you don't. I wouldn't claim to know a whole lot about you based on the simple fact that you believe in the christian God. You can be a psychotic mass murderer for all I know.

Originally posted by royalchicken
knightmeister, you haven't answered my questions. Am I less special than everyone else?

Sorry royal chicken , you are special to me. I'm not denying the humanity of a self-loathing alcoholic , I'm just guessing that he may not be as happy as he could be. As for what qualities constitute a 'whole person' ? All my experience tells me self loathing is not one of them. How many people do you know who hate themselves and are also contented?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to your calculations, the sun is the only possible source of light/heat to ever have existed in the solar system and/or universe?

My calculations? What calculations?

No, the sun is not the only source of light / heat that has ever existed in the universe. There are lots of stars, our sun is not unique. Also, one imagines there would have been both alot of heat and light during the big bang.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Don't all the methods use the same assumptions?

No, they don't. They are independent. But you already know this, spammer.

Originally posted by stocken
I think you're putting way too much meaning in the word atheist. It means to not believe in the supernatural. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are also putting way too much meaning in the word theist. Having a belief in a God makes you no more or less human than anyone else. You don't posess qualities that an atheist do not (from a definition point of view ...[text shortened]... e christian God. You can be a psychotic mass murderer for all I know.

I readily accept that you may well be a very compassionate man and I also readily accept that being a Theist/Christian doesn't make you better than anyone else. Often Atheists have higher moral standards than some Christians , this I also readily accept. My query is how do you maintain being a moral , compassionate man and find so much meaning in your life when your belief system seems to have no place for meaning , love , compassion in real terms. If you are an Atheist who believes morality and meaning are more than just a subjective thing (ie they exist outside of us and are not just mere 'opinions' ) then you are going to need something outside of yourself to pin all this on. I applaud your compassion and morality I just don't think you realise how much of a theist you are being when you talk of such things as if they were real. Are you saying you don't believe that life is ultimately pointless? Here's a question for you...if every person in the world (including you ) thought that torturing children was Ok would that make it Ok or would it still be a breaking of some moral code that really existed in time and space? Is morality a matter of opinion or fact? See the 'wheel of morality' thread.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Sorry royal chicken , you are special to me. I'm not denying the humanity of a self-loathing alcoholic , I'm just guessing that he may not be as happy as he could be. As for what qualities constitute a 'whole person' ? All my experience tells me self loathing is not one of them. How many people do you know who hate themselves and are also contented?

So contentedness is a necessary condition for being a whole person?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
My calculations? What calculations?

No, the sun is not the only source of light / heat that has ever existed in the universe. There are lots of stars, our sun is not unique. Also, one imagines there would have been both alot of heat and light during the big bang.

I took your point, but I would suggest that your view of the evidence before you is akin to an inkblot test. You're going to see what you want to see.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I took your point, but I would suggest that your view of the evidence before you is akin to an inkblot test. You're going to see what you want to see.

To some extent, yes, especially when the data is so inconclusive and open to interpretation as is an inkblot test. But one cannot force the evidence to tell you something it doesn't. A radiometric date of 4.5 billion years will never give you the age of the earth at 6,000, no matter how hard you try.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
To some extent, yes, especially when the data is so inconclusive and open to interpretation as is an inkblot test. But one cannot force the evidence to tell you something it doesn't. A radiometric date of 4.5 billion years will never give you the age of the earth at 6,000, no matter how hard you try.

Unless, of course, like the star dating modifications of the 50's, our dating in other areas is 'adjusted.' But that's dating. What of the fossil record? Are we 'reading' it aright?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Unless, of course, like the star dating modifications of the 50's, our dating in other areas is 'adjusted.' But that's dating. What of the fossil record? Are we 'reading' it aright?

I don't think there will be another shift in radiometric dating. Nowadays there are just too many independant verifications of the method for it to be seriously questioned anymore.

There is only so much reading of the fossil record that can be done. You find the fossils, you date the strata. You find fossils in certain strata (and a good deal of corroboration between strata from different places of the same age), and not in others. It would be interesting to find a T. rex in a 2 billion year old strata, but it's never ever happened. From that we can conlude that T. rex probably didn't exist 2 billion years ago.

Originally posted by royalchicken
So contentedness is a necessary condition for being a whole person?

For me it's one of them. I subscribe to Carl Roger's view of wholeness where a person is either accepting of his true self or at war (disconnected) with himself. Either self loving or something else. For wholeness read happiness. If an alcoholic is happy drinking himself to his death and hating himself for it then fair play to him , it's just I haven't met one yet. To say the alcoholic is not whole is not to say he is 'half a person' but to say that his life is not what it could be. It is to value his humanity by acknowledging that he could be so much more than lying in a pool of urine. If you find my definition of wholeness so troublesome , tell me..what's your definition?