Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

IMO, based on Kimdal's inquisitiveness in the op and in this thread, I think Kimdal was just being curious and is trying to get out of the box and ask questions with an open mind.  I don't think Kimdal meant any harm with his recent inquiries/comments.  Perhaps there has been a miscommunication/misunderstanding somewhere?

[Kimdal]

I have evidence for God, not any god but the God of the Bible.

Can you please list that evidence, point by point, so we can evaluate it?

The Bible and early church history (this includes Paul and his life).

You don't need to waste your time in reporting your evaluation. I pretty much can guess what is the result of your evaluation. Based on my forseeing I'm likely to claim that your evaluation is biased. 

In any case, I'm hesitant to share my evidence because I know you don't think it's any good evidence. I want to understand atheistic thinking, not to argue if Bible is folklore or not. I'm not afraid of arguing, but it's not helping me much to understand atheists.

There are some problems in rationalism and science. They assume that everything has naturalistic explanation. I have reason to believe that that’s not the case, and if I’m right, rationalism and naturalism can never find the truth.

What is that reason (or reasons) for your disbelief in the natural sciences as viable sources of knowledge?

I believe in natural sciences as viable source of knowledge very much and in many cases. I don't hate science, I love science. I'm just saying that science has limitations. Many atheists fail to see those limitations, and that's why I say they have too much faith in science. I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just answering your question here.

[Inkubus]

.
Oh, you may have missed that English is not my native language. I mentioned that in my opening post. So, please excuse me for misusing genocide.

Dan Baker, in the book you claim to have read talks at length on the subject of genocide.

[Szuchow]

IMO, based on Kimdal's inquisitiveness in the op and in this thread, I think Kimdal was just being curious and is trying to get out of the box and ask questions with an open mind.  I don't think Kimdal meant any harm with his recent inquiries/comments.  Perhaps there has been a miscommunication/misunderstanding somewhere?

Sometimes benefit of the doubt is warranted but sometimes it is just naivety of the worst sort. Here it is the latter I'm afraid:

http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid137292

http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid137308

ETA: To illustrate - some people may not like to hear that nazis platform wasn't only antisemitism but also building of national community. Others may think that USSR was pure evil not being aware of what hellscape was Russia of Tsars. It isn't hard to misconstrue genuine inquiry into controversial subject with apologia. However when one is saying that there are good reasons for genocide then one went into deep end and should be scorned and ridiculed.

[Kimdal]

Do we have better evidence for Gaius Julius Caesar? Why do many atheists have no problem in believing that Caesar lived, but they don't want to admit that Jesus was historical person?

Well, for starters Caesar never claimed to have performed any of the above so-called "miracles" LOL.

We also have his books such as De Bello Alexandrino, De Bello Africo, and De Bello Hispaniensi, as well
as a bust made during his lifetime, the Tusculum portrait, and his likeness on silver coins minted during his life.

So... where are the books Jesus wrote?  He was supposed to be pretty smart wasn't he? He could read and write
according to the bible, but apparently chose not to leave any written teachings for us.  Strange indeed.

I would reject scientific claims that rely on "miracles", because scientific method does not apply to miracles. But if religious books, christian or non-christian, tells about miracles, I would be suspicious, but would not reject them outright before investgation. Claims of miracles of Jesus don't make me think that claims of Jesus being historical are baseless or even less reliable that claims that Caesar is a historical person.

I don't know what are your sources, but my sources (e.g. wikipedia) are not so eager to claim that those books are written by Caeser.

[Kimdal]

.
Oh, you may have missed that English is not my native language. I mentioned that in my opening post. So, please excuse me for misusing genocide.

Dan Baker, in the book you claim to have read talks at length on the subject of genocide.

At length? Are we referring to the same book? I have read godless, but I can't recall lengthy talk about genocides. If you refer to the same book what pages do you mean? In any case, I don't see your point.

"claim"? Is there something that makes you doubt that I have read it?

[Kimdal]

IMO, based on Kimdal's inquisitiveness in the op and in this thread, I think Kimdal was just being curious and is trying to get out of the box and ask questions with an open mind.  I don't think Kimdal meant any harm with his recent inquiries/comments.  Perhaps there has been a miscommunication/misunderstanding somewhere?

Even though you are mostly right, I have to admit that in the last posts I had other motives, too. May I explain.

Initially I was afraid of posting to atheistic forum. I expected a lot of hateful responses, even though I tried to avoid provocation. I took it very positively that I got answer to my question and with much less hostility than I was afraid of. I was not being afraid of hostility because I felt vulnerable, but because hostility makes dialogue impossible.

I was not initially willing to discuss things that are provocative, yet I felt I need to answer the questions some people are asking me. The last thing I wanted was arguing who is right, atheist or theist. First of all, being in atheistic forum, I know I had no chances. Secondly, such arguing would take a lot of time, more than I have for now, and would not help anyone.

But when this discussion escalated to such arguing, I could not resist joining the arguing myself a little bit.

But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog? Let's forget genocides etc because it has offended people, and talk about single individual, man or dog, instead. EDIT: Or maybe it's better that I start another thread about it sometimes later.

[Szuchow]

IMO, based on Kimdal's inquisitiveness in the op and in this thread, I think Kimdal was just being curious and is trying to get out of the box and ask questions with an open mind.  I don't think Kimdal meant any harm with his recent inquiries/comments.  Perhaps there has been a miscommunication/misunderstanding somewhere?

Even though you are mostly right, I have to admit that in the last posts I had other motives, too. May I explain.

Initially I was afraid of posting in atheistic forum. I expected a lot of hateful responses, even though I tried to avoid provocation. I took it very positively that I got answer to my question and with much less hostility than I was afraid of. I was not being afraid of hostility because I felt vulnerable, but because hostility makes dialogue impossible.

I was not initially willing to discuss things that are provocative, yet I felt I need to answer the questions some people are asking me. The last thing I wanted was arguing who is right, atheist or theist. First of all, being in atheistic forum, I know I had no chances. Secondly, such arguing would take a lot of time, more than I have for now, and would not help anyone.

But when this discussion escalated to such arguing, I could not resist joining the arguing myself a little bit.

But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog? Let's forget genocides etc because it has offended people, and talk about single individual, man or dog, instead. EDIT: Or maybe it's better that I start another thread about it sometimes later.

Fact that you think that there can be a good reasons for genocide isn't something than can be brushed aside, it is not some minor faux pas but indicator of total lack of anything approaching morality. You deserve being called on it and ridiculed for it as you're potential danger to society and all around despicable individual.

Speaking about offending people shows that you don't get it. Thinking that there are good reasons for genocide is offensive but mostly it shows that you are piece of shit willing to support any action that (imagined) tyrant you worship will take. You simply lack even basic humanity and decency to admit to being spineless sheep willing to excuse any atrocity. Instead you start inane rantings about mosquitoes.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

IMO, based on Kimdal's inquisitiveness in the op and in this thread, I think Kimdal was just being curious and is trying to get out of the box and ask questions with an open mind.  I don't think Kimdal meant any harm with his recent inquiries/comments.  Perhaps there has been a miscommunication/misunderstanding somewhere?

Even though you are mostly right, I have to admit that in the last posts I had other motives, too. May I explain.

Initially I was afraid of posting in atheistic forum. I expected a lot of hateful responses, even though I tried to avoid provocation. I took it very positively that I got answer to my question and with much less hostility than I was afraid of. I was not being afraid of hostility because I felt vulnerable, but because hostility makes dialogue impossible.

I was not initially willing to discuss things that are provocative, yet I felt I need to answer the questions some people are asking me. The last thing I wanted was arguing who is right, atheist or theist. First of all, being in atheistic forum, I know I had no chances. Secondly, such arguing would take a lot of time, more than I have for now, and would not help anyone.

But when this discussion escalated to such arguing, I could not resist joining the arguing myself a little bit.

But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog? Let's forget genocides etc because it has offended people, and talk about single individual, man or dog, instead. EDIT: Or maybe it's better that I start another thread about it sometimes later.

From a philosophical mindset, your question is interesting and presenting it in another thread sounds like a good idea, provided that people understand that it is an out of the box philosophical question and no harm is intended by it.  

If humans were to encounter a more advanced species who regarded humans as a lower life-form, then would their lives be more important than humans or should all life be valued regardless of how advanced a particular life-form is?

[Kimdal]

Fact that you think that there can be a good reasons for genocide isn't something than can be brushed aside, it is not some minor faux pas but indicator of total lack of anything approaching morality. You deserve being called on it and ridiculed for it as you're potential danger to society and all around despicable individual.

I'm really trying to understand your point and I think I see it and agree with you in that case.

I agree that anybody (including me) is dangerous if he thinks any man has a good reason to murder, let alone genocide.

I don't think any man has right to murder. We were talking about God doing genocide. If God is the Creator of all universe and God has created man, and God knows what is best and morally right, I believe that God has right to decide life and death of every person. I was talking of God having good reasons for whatever He does or allows.

[Szuchow]

Fact that you think that there can be a good reasons for genocide isn't something than can be brushed aside, it is not some minor faux pas but indicator of total lack of anything approaching morality. You deserve being called on it and ridiculed for it as you're potential danger to society and all around despicable individual.

I'm really trying to understand your point and I think I see it and agree with you in that case.

I agree that anybody (including me) is dangerous if he thinks any man has a good reason to murder, let alone genocide.

I don't think any man has right to murder. We were talking about God doing genocide. If God is the Creator of all universe and God has created man, and God knows what is best and morally right, I believe that God has right to decide life and death of every person. I was talking of God having good reasons for whatever He does or allows.

God not human being mass murderer changes nothing. Godly genocide is exactly as abhorrent as ones committed by nazis or bolsheviks, perhaps even more so as neither group was omnipotent and god supposedly is. You aren't much different from followers of totalitarian rulers who thought that said rulers have right to do anything by virtue of being in charge. In fact you may be even more despicable as those people might have been in some danger in case of critiquing policy. You on the other hand have nothing to be afraid of for decrying god actions.

But I guess it is easier to look for shitty excuses than admit to being spineless follower of genocidal tyrant.

[Dom]

I have been reading Dan Barker’s book godless - How an Evangelical Preacher Become One of America’s Leading Atheists. The book has been interesting and I feel I’m in many ways like Barker. I’m Christian, but I’m willing to go wherever the evidence leads, even atheism. I’m scientifically oriented and consider myself philosophically minded. I don’t think any blind faith is healthy because it can lead to dangerous phenomena, even terrorism. I believe that civilized discussion, based on reasoning and objective facts, is possible between different religious and non-religious groups.

There are some things in the Barker’s book that I don’t understand and my lack of understanding bothers me. I don’t speak English natively, but I couldn't find an atheistic or free-thinking discussion forum in my country, so I want to ask from you.

The hardest philosophical problem for me seems to be the question if atheism is belief or lack of belief. Barker elaborates on this, but I fail to see the difference between the two. Let me try to explain how I see this:

We have two exclusive claims A) There is a god B) There is not a god. Neither claim can not be proven like mathematics, so the selection is not based on proving, but evidence. So, when asked from you, you think that one of these options is true and the other is false, based on evidence, reasoning, experience etc. We can say that you have belief in one and lack belief for the other. It seems to me that you believe one option and that means that you 1) do not have belief in the other, or 2) lack belief in the other. Based on this logic I don’t see the difference between 1) and 2).

To put it another way, atheist believes that god(s)-believing person is wrong with his belief and atheist is right. Therefore atheist believes that the claims of god(s)-believing person are wrong, or in other words, atheist lack belief in the claims of  god(s)-believing person. I don't see philosophical or practical difference in these two similar sayings that are just worded in different ways.

I kind of see the point when we are talking about flying spaghetti monster. No one believes in that, so there is no need think more than a few seconds if you believe in flying spaghetti monster or not. I don’t actively have to believe that there is no such think, so I can say I lack belief. But still, my lack of belief is not based on proof, but lack of evidence, so it’s belief-based rational mental decision, not proof-based fact (in mathematical sense, even though in daily life practical sense we could call it fact) .

And if we take (instead of flying spaghetti monster) a god that many people believe in, I need to spend slightly more time than just a few seconds. My work mate is hindu and she believes hindu gods. She has shown pictures of how the gods look like. I don’t see much evidence in believing in hindu gods, so I have I decided not to believe in it, after brief examination of claimed "evidence".

I don’t really have to decide in case of flying spaghetti monster, because nobody really believes in that, so I don’t have to consider it. But if several people strongly believes in hindu gods, flying saucers, time travelling, ghosts etc, I need a bit more time to decide because they can provide some evidence. I either believe or not believe the evidence.

I could say that I lack belief in some hindu god or I don’t believe in that hindu god, it doesn’t matter to me. I see no difference. I have examined the evidence and I fail to believe. Logically: I lack belief in P, so I believe in negation of P.

I have considered atheism, but I don’t have enough evidence to not believe in God. If I did, though, I couldn’t see the difference in not believing in god or lacking belief in god. So, why is it so important for Barker and some others that they lack belief rather they don’t believe in god?

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

[Alan V]

But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog?

1) Because our moral values are based primarily on our human interests. 

2) Because humans have many more relationships and much more potential than dogs do. The destructive potential is much wider.

3) Because moral values are often about avoiding causing unnecessary pain.  The more aware a species, the more potential for pain.

[Kimdal]

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

Interesting question, and it's a big topic. There are many reasons why it matters. I believe one reason is that you get most out of your life if you have instructions for a good life. I believe Bible contains those instructions. But I also understand why some atheists might think that the Bible contains the worst instructions for life.

[Alan V]

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

Interesting question, and it's a big topic. There are many reasons why it matters. I believe one reason is that you get most out of your life if you have instructions for a good life. I believe Bible contains those instructions. But I also understand why some atheists might think that the Bible contains the worst instructions for life.

The Bible is definitely a mixed bag.  You have to cherry pick to find good guidance, and if you can do that well you likely don't need the Bible at all.

[Kimdal]

But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog?

1) Because our moral values are primarily based on our human interests. 

2) Because humans have many more relationships and much more potential than dogs do.  The destructive potential is much wider.

3) Because moral values are often about avoiding causing unnecessary pain.  The more aware a species, the more potential for pain.

Thank you for answering my question. I will ponder what you wrote.

[Szuchow]

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

Interesting question, and it's a big topic. There are many reasons why it matters. I believe one reason is that you get most out of your life if you have instructions for a good life. I believe Bible contains those instructions. But I also understand why some atheists might think that the Bible contains the worst instructions for life.

It sure does:

Leviticus 25:44-46: 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Leviticus 19:19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Leviticus 19:27: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Truly the Bible is source of wisdom.  How one could have a good life without godly instructions on shaving and slave holding? How one can survive and prosper without such guidance?

[Dom]

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

Interesting question, and it's a big topic. There are many reasons why it matters. I believe one reason is that you get most out of your life if you have instructions for a good life. I believe Bible contains those instructions. But I also understand why some atheists might think that the Bible contains the worst instructions for life.

I don't see any instructions for a good life in the bible. It's an old lore, mildly interesting to read, and it states the same guidelines for behavior as fairytales and sitcoms - the same basic human decency we all know about already.

[Szuchow]

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

Interesting question, and it's a big topic. There are many reasons why it matters. I believe one reason is that you get most out of your life if you have instructions for a good life. I believe Bible contains those instructions. But I also understand why some atheists might think that the Bible contains the worst instructions for life.

I don't see any instructions for a good life in the bible. It's an old lore, mildly interesting to read, and it states the same guidelines for behavior as fairytales and sitcoms - the same basic human decency we all know about already.

[bold mine]

But, but how you would know how to treat your slaves without it? And what would you do when you would catch your daughter lying about her virginity without source of divine wisdom to solve this issue? Surely you jest when you say that you don't see any instructions for a good life in Bible. I just can't imagine how our civilization would survive without this wellspring of wisdom.

[Minimalist]

IF this nut was born in Baghdad.

[brewerb]

Probably you could call me an apatheist. I simply do not care whether there are any gods or not. Why does it matter?

Interesting question, and it's a big topic. There are many reasons why it matters. I believe one reason is that you get most out of your life if you have instructions for a good life. I believe Bible contains those instructions. But I also understand why some atheists might think that the Bible contains the worst instructions for life.

Instructions for a good life or instructions to get into heaven/avoid hell? I think your belief is founded in a fear of death and your need for there to be an afterlife. 

Would you follow the bible "good life" instructions if there were no ultimate prize?

[Minimalist]

Ssshhh.....he wants to live forever!

[DLJ]

...
 I want to understand atheistic thinking, not to argue if Bible is folklore or not. I'm not afraid of arguing, but it's not helping me much to understand atheists.
...

...
But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog? Let's forget genocides etc because it has offended people, and talk about single individual, man or dog, instead. 
...

...
I don't think any man has right to murder. We were talking about God doing genocide. If God is the Creator of all universe and God has created man, and God knows what is best and morally right, I believe that God has right to decide life and death of every person. I was talking of God having good reasons for whatever He does or allows.

Similarly I have been working on a thesis for the past two years to come up with an explanation for theistic thinking... and as a by-product of this, a model for all thinking.

I can give you a long answer (the core model) and a very long answer (with algorithms) but the too short answer relates to this (based on research from Richard Schweder et al):

[julep]

IMO, based on Kimdal's inquisitiveness in the op and in this thread, I think Kimdal was just being curious and is trying to get out of the box and ask questions with an open mind.  I don't think Kimdal meant any harm with his recent inquiries/comments.  Perhaps there has been a miscommunication/misunderstanding somewhere?

Even though you are mostly right, I have to admit that in the last posts I had other motives, too. May I explain.

Initially I was afraid of posting to atheistic forum. I expected a lot of hateful responses, even though I tried to avoid provocation. I took it very positively that I got answer to my question and with much less hostility than I was afraid of. I was not being afraid of hostility because I felt vulnerable, but because hostility makes dialogue impossible.

I was not initially willing to discuss things that are provocative, yet I felt I need to answer the questions some people are asking me. The last thing I wanted was arguing who is right, atheist or theist. First of all, being in atheistic forum, I know I had no chances. Secondly, such arguing would take a lot of time, more than I have for now, and would not help anyone.

But when this discussion escalated to such arguing, I could not resist joining the arguing myself a little bit.

But still, I would appreciate if someone could explain me: If man is just an animal, why killing a man is worse than killing a dog? Let's forget genocides etc because it has offended people, and talk about single individual, man or dog, instead. EDIT: Or maybe it's better that I start another thread about it sometimes later.

Trying to dodge a question by calling it "provocative" and, I guess, implying that the questioner's motives are less than pure, is a coward's move.  It solidifies my impression that you're here to evangelize rather than to understand or engage, in which case, there is little value in interacting with you.  

Regarding your question--which I will answer even though I suspect it's pointless--Killing a man is not "worse" than killing a dog on an absolute scale.  The idea of "better" or "worse is a human construct that relies, in large part, on how humans have evolved biologically and sociologically.  We have the rights and responsibilities that we have agreed to and granted ourselves, and these rights usually privilege humans over other species.  Humans have evolved to both cooperate and compete to use the (limited) resources available to us.  The competitive aspect makes us draw many us/them lines, some of them based on human tribes, and others based on species.  On that relative, human-devised scale, killing a man is (generally, at this moment in history, and of course not everyone would agree with this valuation) a bigger crime than killing a dog.

[Minimalist]

I'm afraid this one suffers from the same delusions as all other theists, no matter where, no matter when.

“Infidel, n. In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does.”

― Ambrose Bierce