Atheists... Your life is pointless

Yes, you are correct...I apologize for saying that, if you did not feel that way about bad behavior to evil...I am trying to relate it to your thinking...But it will take me some time to fully understand the way you think and see things...Sorry mate...

So you are saying you don't think you have any bias? That is cool and I am happy that you say you do not...I could not say that I would either...And I would not back an evil act if it was done by a "Christian" to a Buddhist, just because they say they are "Christains" And I happen to be one myself...If a real God exists...Whatever he may actually be...I believe he/she/it is a very loving, merciful God...(Omni's)...And I cant say I believe he would openly embrace someone doing something that is bad...Or not treat them fairly like everyone should...Just because of embracing certain things about this God...

But I also do not believe you can find this way through just good actions alone either...

Because no one can be perfect like him either, if he/she/it actually exists...

How about just giving me your very own opinions? Unless you actually do believe that all atheists have a common grouping together in a way I have explained? Or a similair way, that you would explain? So that it actually could not be fully explained, just from you?

Then I agree with you...And will not press you for an answer...

I'm human, so I'm sure I have biases. Not all biases are bad, though. I prefer things that promote peace and understanding, rather than division and ignorance. In general, though, I don't feel much of an imperative to go out and change the world to conform to my preferences.

As for my particular take on atheism, I don't claim to know that there is no god, but I do now claim that I've never had a genuine, direct experience of a god, even though I used to believe that I was in direct, sometimes ecstatic contact with one. I used to be very deeply religious, a Christian, to the point that I was enrolled in university in order to become an Episcopal priest. While I was taking a class called "The History of the Bible," taught by a Baptist minister, it suddenly dawned on me that the parts about a supernatural deity and miracles was made up. I'm sure there are some historically factual parts of the Bible stories, but that doesn't mean that the main part, the existence of an invisible, all-powerful, supernatural, undetectable entity is true. A much more logical explanation is that a ruling-class theocracy made up stories and built on them over the centuries in order to control the gullible majority. Politics and power, in a nutshell.

So, I don't believe that there is a god, but I don't claim to know for sure that there isn't one. What I can claim is that I have never seen credible evidence for such a thing. Everything I've experienced, seen or heard about is more rationally explained by perfectly mundane means. I'm open to any new evidence that comes along, but I doubt there will be any.

Why? Because Christianity places so much value on faith. You have to believe without evidence. If you have evidence, you have knowledge, and therefore faith is destroyed. Therefore, Christians have a vested interest in not having real, credible evidence. The modern, scientifically literate mind, however, is trained to make judgements based on evidence, regardless of whether or not that conclusion feels good.

That said, as long as you're not strapping on a bomb vest or stoning girls for learning how to read, I'm not very interested in opposing you. You've got a right to lead your life as you see fit. Of course, if you come knocking on my door and trying to sell me your beliefs, then you're instigating the contact, so I'll feel free to oppose your ideas. But not you personally.

Is there a god? If I'm intellectually honest, I have to say, "I don't know for sure." But if you want me to donate 10% of my income, then you'll need to produce some evidence. If someone takes you to court and accuses you of having stolen something, you'd demand evidence, wouldn't you?

In speaking of the general case, there are always exceptions, I think you have to look at the point it became an issue. Once the Church's position becomes a burden to a choice it is easy to see that discrediting it will be the tactic. And once on that road pride comes into the matter. That's when all the nonsensical sophistry arises. And it must be nonsensical if there is no position taken on general rules of behaviour because behaviour there will be.

It is the point of getting on the road that I think most significant. Whether to justify promiscuity, artificial birth control, adultery, divorce, homosexuality or abortion. Once on the road the argument goes the way it does because no admissions of the real reason with be forthcoming.

More or less, everything else comes under the law.

The first thing Luther did once he felt safe was get across a nun. The corruption of the Church was the excuse and not the driver. Henry the Eighth got across a fresh squeeze. Dawkins two of them. At least.

Why not? They are all the same because they derive from readings off scientific instruments which are, by definition, consistent.

In my experience, only a minority of atheists are scientists, although the vast majority of scientists are atheists. And I'd rather go by what empirical evidence and necessary inference suggest than a collection of Bronze Age myths made up by scientifically illiterate goat-herders and what charismatic, bad-haired evangelists spout in order to get your 10%. No offense intended.

I think most scientists are agnostics...not atheists. And I think almost every scientists treats the issue more like an agnostic...than like a strong atheist.

But you certainly are welcome to think whatever you like.

Well, that would be going back to the equivocation on the atheist/agnostic definitions. I'm willing to revise my statement to say "functional atheists." That is, they behave as if there were no god.

Okay...I'll buy that.

Thank god. I don't need another debate at this hour. (It's about midnight in Korea.)

They don't. They wouldn't dare. The law derives from God.

Derive our law from evolution if you will. You know--from first principles.

What are you even talking about? I know that's English, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. I live as if there were no god, and so do millions of others.

No they don't. They only think they do.

Derive our law from science if you will.

Dude. I don't pray, go to church, think about any god or salvation or afterlife or spend a minute of any day in worship. How do I nevertheless live as if there were a god? Puh-lease. Are you that delusional that you can't see the world around you clearly as it is? I live in S. Korea. Roughly half the population here is religious, the other half ignores the whole question. You're trying to tell me that they nevertheless live as if there were a god, a god that they don't waste any time even thinking about? Please attempt a logical formulation of your position. This should be interesting.

I don't know about S Korea.

Here, the great majority of the population, including atheists, follow out the logic of law and custom that has been bred into them by precept, example and tradition and the significant aspects of the law and custom derive from the Christian religion and thus from God who is regularly asked to bless America and to save our Queen.

The question you were asked, twice now, was how to derive such a body of habits of thought and behavior from science or from evolution.

This is not really a post at you Frank...Because I agree with what you have said to a degree...But this is more of a rhetoric to other atheists...

If this is true, and other atheists agree...How is an atheist embracing science, to challenge theists...(when scientists do not even do this) not a belief? Or how do the actually have a lack of belief?

I thought you said you do not pry? And it is useless?

Just having some fun with you mate...But I was debating with you because I was interested in your views or opinions...Because like I have said...I think you have some views or things to say that are worthy to consider....

What is it Frank that you are agnostic about. And what is it that all these scientists who you are claiming brotherhood with, to your credit, are agnostic about?

What is the entity you have no evidence for existing or not existing?

Not saying that I understand everything, or anything...But it does not make much sense to me that an agnostic has opinions about everything...But thinks they do not have opinions about Gods, or refuse to make a choice on a coin flip myself...

Wouldn't you naturally be uncertain about everything else?

Or if you have opinions, about everything...Would you not have one about a God? Regardless if you thought you were correct? Or had a chance to be incorrect about what you think or thought?

You are only saying this Spendiosus so, you can pretend to be engaging in significant discussion when all you are doing is flapping your tongue in the airways..... as you usually do.