Question for the Atheist

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Jak

This all still addresses the central topic: “Question for the Atheist.”

JAK

It does?

Where?

Please (Because of my severe ADD), I ask that you answer using 300 words or less.

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Hi Jak

This all still addresses the central topic: “Question for the Atheist.”

JAK

It does?

Where?

Please (Because of my severe ADD), I ask that you answer using 300 words or less.

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

Greetings Ceeboo,

I have been addressing comments following yours by Hoops. And, yes, they are related to how an “Atheist” might respond. As for your word limitation, surely you jest. Try another “cold Heineken’s.”

You're under no obligation to read my posts. Given no rejoinder from Hoops, I may post nothing more. (I didn't count the words here.)

JAK

[_Ceeboo]

Hello again, JAK

Greetings Creeboo,

Typo?

I have been addressing comments following yours by Hoops. And, yes, they are related to how an “Atheist” might respond.

Unless I have missed it (It is entirely possible that I have and if so, I extend you my apology), I don't remember you offering an answer the the question in the OP (How would you define what it is/means to be an Atheist?)

As for your word limitation, surely you jest. Try another “cold Heineken’s.”

Perhaps we could share a few together? I insist that I am buying! (Are you a Heineken fan as well?)

You're under no obligation to read my posts. Given no rejoinder from Hoops, I may post nothing more.

Perhaps I have given the wrong impression (sorry again), I enjoy hearing the perspectives of all people who are willing to share (yours certainly included). I was simply asking where you answered the OP.

(I didn't count the words here.)

You were well under the ceiling. (Thanks)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_JAK]

Hi Ceeboo,

My apologies about the misspelled salutation,

Atheism

Why Atheism

Famous Atheists

JAK

[_thews]

As others in this thread have noted, theism is a belief in god. Atheism is therefore not believing in god. And an atheist is not necessarily one who asserts that there is no god, but a nonbeliever could also be someone who does not believe due to the lack of evidence for such a belief. I fall in this latter category. I am an evidentialist. To justify a belief in god, I need evidence.

I respect this viewpoint. The part I find illogical is the need to find evidence to prove Gods existence vs. the lack of a need to prove how matter just *happened* from something that didn't exist. How does one weigh this need for evidence over the other when both conclusions have a foundation that cannot be proven?

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Ceeboo,

Good evening

My apologies about the misspelled salutation,

Although it is appreciated, no apology required (I just wasn't sure if what a typo or......?)

[Atheism

Yea, I am familiar with the Wiki definition. I was hoping for the individual perspectives, directly from my Atheist friends here at MDB.

Why Atheism

Interesting (Thanks for sharing it)

Famous Atheists

Billy Joel is an Atheist? (Now I am convinced) :) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Hades]

As others in this thread have noted, theism is a belief in god. Atheism is therefore not believing in god. And an atheist is not necessarily one who asserts that there is no god, but a nonbeliever could also be someone who does not believe due to the lack of evidence for such a belief. I fall in this latter category. I am an evidentialist. To justify a belief in god, I need evidence.

I respect this viewpoint. The part I find illogical is the need to find evidence to prove Gods existence vs. the lack of a need to prove how matter just *happened* from something that didn't exist. How does one weigh this need for evidence over the other when both conclusions have a foundation that cannot be proven?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

[_thews]

As others in this thread have noted, theism is a belief in god. Atheism is therefore not believing in god. And an atheist is not necessarily one who asserts that there is no god, but a nonbeliever could also be someone who does not believe due to the lack of evidence for such a belief. I fall in this latter category. I am an evidentialist. To justify a belief in god, I need evidence.

I respect this viewpoint. The part I find illogical is the need to find evidence to prove Gods existence vs. the lack of a need to prove how matter just *happened* from something that didn't exist. How does one weigh this need for evidence over the other when both conclusions have a foundation that cannot be proven?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

Thanks for proving my point. The law of gravity defines its properties in a finite box. How does something that doesn't exist have properties?

[_Hoops]

JAK: Do you regard these examples (JAK’s quote) as uncharacteristic of religious prayer? You imply it by calling the examples “…a small sliver.” If they are not typical, offer your own examples and write a prayer you would consider typical made in today’s world.

Yes, I do.

“Bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies” is a request for intervention for God’s blessing on the food. Why would it be spoken presumably to God? The implication of saying it is that nourishment might not happen if we don’t pray in petition for favor. (I’ll address “sovereign” shortly.)

No, the implication is that we are blessed to have the food as nourishment. That God in His sovereignty has given us the opportunity to be nourished.

God grant us safe journey from this place to our homes is also a petition for God’s intervention that will grant protection. Otherwise, we would just begin the drive with standard operating procedure to go someplace.

We pray for protection, yes.

There is no refutation in your comment above but rather an assertion as to what “…these prayers are not…” This prayer and others assume God.

Yes it does. I wouldn't think much of someone who prays to God that one believes does not exist AND will intervene.

People have prayed for safe journey and been unsafe or killed. God notions are irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? I don't know what you're saying here. That it is incumbent upon God to answer a prayer in only the way we deem acceptable? Not much of a God then.

God is not established any more than the gods were established when ancient people appealed to them.

Not sure what this has to do with anythng. I assumed that since we're having the discussion that you were stipulating the existence of the christian God.

Praying to God for protection prior to a dangerous encounter has the intent to manipulate that God to intervene. The implied assumption is that safety is more likely if God is petitioned than if God is not.

Not at all. You want to make it a business transaction. Prayer is not that. The implied assumption is that God works in the affairs of men as we work in the affairs of God. That's a relationship, not quid pro quo.

There is no evidence in these examples that those who pray such prayers are NOT attempting to acquire God’s intervention. It's not mere recognition of "sovereignty."

What kind of evidence do youwant?

While these were my examples, I asked you to construct what you regard as a typical prayer which religious individuals would offer today. I did so in order to have a legitimate, original paragraph or two of your idea. In that, I would address with specificity your construction not mine.

As I said, you may have to appeal to my higher church friens. My prayers are not generated by pen and paper. Here's the last one I prayed: "God, help that kid feel better." What exactly are you looking for from me.

Hoops stated: “…rather they are to remind us that God is sovereign.”

JAK: Why the reminder? When a religious person turns on a light in a room, does he have to SPEAK or think: This switch will turn on the light…? Of course not! He knows the switch will turn on the light. (I am excluding a power failure or some catastrophe which will mean no light.)

Because a man's natural tendency is to forget that he is sovereign, not God.

We don’t “remind” ourselves by word or conscious thinking about how to open doors, start cars, go to a particular store, return to our homes, etc. under normal circumstances.

JAK: Let’s address the last part first. “…a Christian's prayers are for the benefit of others, even our enemies.”
Are these prayers made to God? If so, the intent is to influence God “…for the benefit of others…”

I can't put it any other way. Sorry. If you're not gettin' me then I don't know what else to do.

Such prayers assume God. Absent any evidence for God[/i

]
Creation is evicence of God.

(or in earlier times [i]the gods), the prayers are irrelevant.

If there is no God, of course. I believe I stan on solid ground that He exists. Is this the point of your question?

We KNOW the light switch works,

Actually, no you don't. You only know that it worked a given number of times in the past. You don't know it will work the next time. And sometimes it doesn't.

Religious people don’t pray when turning on a light switch.

No, we don't. Should we?

Furthermore, they have much greater FAITH in the light switch.

We pray to the One who created light. He is worthy, not the light switch.

They are far less sure of their own notion(s) of God.

Assuming this is true... so? Why would you think unshakeable confidence in God, His existence, and that He has concern for me is a part of a christian's life? Any christian's life?

Hence, we see the compelling need of religious people to address God for favor.

I don't see it. You'll have to explain it more clearly to me.

If the religious person is praying “for the benefit of others…” they still want God’s intervention. And, they ask for it.

Unless, you mean favor for another person. I s'pose.

JAK: It’s an assertion. I am most skeptical of the contention. It’s also irrelevant to the issue of your prayer example.

It is indeed. I can only offer the testimony of those who pray, shoul they choose to weigh in. And, yes, it is irrelevant to your point. I'm only showing that my thoughts are not unique.

JAK: “Prayer” is “mystical” primarily because it dates back many centuries in the evolution from superstitions to mythologies. It may be wishful thinking. It may be conformity to that which is/was expected in particular cultural situations. We can understand this by close examination of historical development – much to large a subject to tackle here.

Prayer is mystical because it joins the material with the "other" material.

[_JAK]

Response to This Post 1

Hoops,

(Ceeboo objects to posts more than “300 words.” Obviously, I don’t. So I’m not quite sure how to address your thoughtful comments in such a short space. It cannot be done. Since there have been no additions to our conversation, I hardly see how Ceeboo can object to our continued dialogue. Therefore, I’ll respond to you.)

In the above post, you objected to my prayer example but refused to provide one of your own. That objection and time-waste was exactly why I asked you to submit a prayer that might be made in modern times. You refused then. This makes communication difficult. To shorten response words, I’ll just let you refer to your post above for some of this.

Hoops stated: No, the implication is that we are blessed to have the food as nourishment. That God in His sovereignty has given us the opportunity to be nourished.

Since we have fully half the human population out of 7 billion people at or near the starvation level, your statement is an interpretation, your interpretation that only some are “blessed to have food” presumably by God. Hence, that refutes other religious claims that God is a loving, forgiving God. In fact it makes this God notion one of an evil God who demonstrates favoritism (a very human quality). It is to invent God in the nature of man himself. Man is demonstrates favoritism and is quite willing to bring even death and destruction to other humans with whom they have disagreement including WAR which always kills innocent people.

Since the prayer you submitted for analysis was not written by you, you INTERPRET as you please the words which are not yours.

The prayer you submitted has man saying: “GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.” It’s either a command or a fearful petition to the presumed God. Not ALL had “the opportunity to be nourished.” Only some did. Otherwise there would be no need for prayer to a God for what EVERYONE had…”daily bread” or in general food “the opportunity to be nourished.” “OPPORTUNITY” afforded to only a select few.

In the interest of word conservation, throughout your response you attach your spin, your interpretation on words which were not yours or presented as a typical prayer of today. While this is typical of what religious believers do, it’s the precisely kind of spin (on ancient scripts) which has resulted in the hundreds and hundreds of Protestant Christians following the Protestant Reformation (1517 A.D.).

Hoops stated: We pray for protection, yes.

We have already established that you acknowledge those who pray to a God attempt to manipulate God to satisfy their wishes (whether it be for themselves or another person or persons).

You assert refutation but don’t provide it.

JAK previously: “People have prayed for safe journey and been unsafe or killed. God notions are irrelevant.

Hoops stated: Irrelevant to what? I don't know what you're saying here. That it is incumbent upon God to answer a prayer in only the way we deem acceptable? Not much of a God then.

JAK: Since there is NO EVIDENCE to support a claim of a God, “God notions are irrelevant”. There is no evidence for a God, hence there is no relevance for prayer. With no evidence for any god or a God, there is no rationale to consider that God does anything with regard to prayer petitions. Your last statement is correct --- “Not much of a God then.”

That’s correct. People pray for a variety of things. When they get what they pray for, they, in wishful thinking, like to believe God made it happen. But, people pray for lots of things that do not happen. I gave examples of that and you have not responded to them. (I’m not reading ahead in response here. So I’m open to what you say next.)

I don’t want to repeat, but it seems necessary. Those few individuals who jumped from high places with the prayer to God that God would give them ability to fly were doomed. They did not fly. Their prayer to God was irrelevant. Just because some get what which they pray for does not mean God did it. God is not established. This is a critical concept and position of an agnostic/atheist.

You ASSUME an entity God. You further assume the characteristics and the behavior and conduct and wishes of that God. Those assumptions which you make or any other believer with quite different beliefs than yours makes are irrelevant. God assumptions are without merit.

This would be the position of the agnostic/atheist. See the references which I provided in this post.

JAK previously: “God is not established any more than the gods were established when ancient people appealed to them.”

Hoops stated: Not sure what this has to do with anythng. I assumed that since we're having the discussion that you were stipulating the existence of the christian God.

JAK: The question is for “atheists” in this topic originated by Ceeboo. The evolution of religion was from many gods to few gods to one God. Any religion which claims one God claims that for which there is no established evidence. To illustrate, you live in a time, this time, when the notion of multiple gods is not accepted by many if any (certainly in the Western World). The invention, INVENTION, of one God occurred in human evolution thousands of years ago. It is religious dogma which perpetuates this invention to the present.

My comment is entirely relevant to this discussion. Claims of a God are lacking in evidence to support them. That is the case for any religion which claims one God. Beyond that, other believers in one God configure their own notions and interpretations of the power or lack of power, the influence or lack of influence of that God which they (and apparently you) assume.

I am not “stipulating the existence” of any god, Christian, Muslim, or other. On the contrary, absent credible evidence for a God, such a notion should be rejected.

JAK previously: Praying to God for protection prior to a dangerous encounter has the intent to manipulate that God to intervene. The implied assumption is that safety is more likely if God is petitioned than if God is not.

Hoops stated: Not at all. You want to make it a business transaction. Prayer is not that. The implied assumption is that God works in the affairs of men as we work in the affairs of God. That's a relationship, not quid pro quo.

JAK: Then why would people pray to a God if not “to manipulate that God to intervene”? Your statement is an assumption with no evidential support as you stated: “The implied assumption is that God works in the affairs of men as we work in the affairs of God. That's a relationship, not quid pro quo.

That’s your assumption. Who are “WE” in your statement? That’s quite ambiguous. Muslims believe that they “work in the affairs of God.” In Christianity, Christians have a wide variety of beliefs about “the affairs of God.” Did you examine that website? Christianity is a most fractured religion with more than 1,000 groups – all of which assert that their interpretation is in some way superior to the interpretation of other Christian groups. All the various denominations, sects, and cults which claim Christianity or some version of it each believe that their notions of religion are the correct ones, the right ones, the true ones.

Please look at that lengthy list. Religious groups which emerged and splintered from other groups after 1517 AD are part of the Protestant Reformation. You will find in that list: “Families of Christian Denominations.” One of those “families” is Latter-day Saints Family. It is ONE of many Christian families. These families have different views and different beliefs (assumptions about God, assumptions about human conduct, assumptions about a wide variety of truisms).

To your statement above, indeed prayer IS a “transaction.” People who pray WANT something. They believe that by praying, they can achieve access to the God which they address in their prayers. Otherwise, why would they pray? To whom are they speaking with a salutation: Dear God…? They perceive that they are talking to or with God. Absent an establishment of any gods or a God, the “relationship” is in the mind of the one who makes assumptions about some deity. There is only assertion in their stated claims, not fact.

For some, prayer and their conduct is indeed a “quid pro quo.” They BELIEVE that if they act in certain ways, give unquestioning deference to their notion of God’s wishes or commands, that they will be benefited – if not in this life, in another life. None of this has CREDIBILITY in fact. People can believe contrary to fact and do.

For the agnostic/atheist information, evidence, demonstrable fact, any religious invention is irrelevant.

There is no evidence that prayer influences any god, not the gods of earlier times, nor a God in today’s monotheistic age of religious nomenclature. The “relationship” to which you refer is emotional. It’s incumbent on those who assert God to assume the burden of proof for that assertion. Religion(s) do not do that. Rather, they substitute assertion, doctrine, and dogma.

I’ll stop here. I am far over Ceeboo’s admonition to limit my comments to 300 words or less.
I’ll continue in another post if time permits.

A word of appreciation that you are addressing my comments directly, Hoops.

JAK