NOMA - Is this the answer?

[QUOTE][B]So question, becuase I am trying to at least partially understand the other side, is it their own personal fears that drive their relationship with their mytical gods.[/QUOTE][/B]And how do you know the gods are mythical?You are supposed to have a scientific/logical bent. So how did you reach this conclusion and what evidence did you use? (Remembering of course Sagan's quote, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.")And of course, if you can produce no evidence, will you concede that atheism and agnoticism are both religious views? [QUOTE][B]It is their own fears of non-acceptance that they have to think that there is a God who loves them? Why?[/QUOTE][/B]The view of the atheist is, to me, as incomprehensible as the view of the theist is to you. I see no justification for strong atheism. The only logical conclusion you can reach is that you just "don't know" if God exists. Any further than that and you are deceiving yourself.

[QUOTE][B]Consider: from my standpoint religions have had literally thousands of years and literally millions of adherents searching for or at least interested in uncovering factual evidence of the existence of God or gods. In spite of all that effort, to date no such evidence has been unearthed.[/QUOTE][/B]Consider though that every religion claims to have had interaction with god(s) in the past. We don't actually *know* that no religion has uncovered evidence, we just choose to disbelieve most or all of it (one God seperates me from weak atheism so I must include myself in that group). [QUOTE][B]This is quite different from a belief that abiogenesis has occurred, for instance. While there hasn't been any objective "proof" uncovered yet that it did, there are multiply converging lines of evidence that give clues that it could have occurred.[/QUOTE][/B]That's true. But abiogenesis is a subject covered by organic chemistry, which is an empirical science that we have over a century of experience with. We can model abiogenesis because we know how molecules react under different conditions and we can make educated guesses about the conditions present on early Earth. In short abiogenesis, even though we can't go back in time, is something that is accessible to us. Theology isn't a science, it is not acceptable to us. It's a very foggy area and probably of no practical use, other than perhaps helping somebody decide if they 'believe'. [QUOTE][B]I'm not gonna hold my breath...[/QUOTE][/B]That's entirely respectable for a personal belief but it is my opinion that it doesn't justify strong atheism, which I consider, actively opposing religion. Note though that I'm not classifying you as such. My chief problem is when somebody "knows" there is no God, and that's usually the colloquial meaning of atheism.

[QUOTE][B]That is true, not sure if God exists or does not exist.[/QUOTE][/B]In that case, how can you call yourself a strong atheist?The following quote is from Moose in this thread and it sums up the classifications pretty well, at least in the same way as I see them: [QUOTE][B]I largly agree with your reasonings for this self appraisal, except, to me, a "fairly high confidence" would be more of a "medium atheist". The requirements for being a "strong atheist" would be an honest "absolute confidence" that there is no god. I don't believe that one with a rational mind can have such absolute confidence in dealing with such a nebulous concept as God's existance.[/QUOTE][/B]I almost agree completely with his final sentence except I believe that a rational mind *could* have absolute confidence in the existance of a God or gods if that mind had a witness or beheld a manifestation (IE, if a god is real and proved its existance)However neither luxury is possible for an atheist, therefore I agree to the extent that no rational mind can take up strong atheism. [QUOTE][B]That is true, not sure if God exists or does not exist. But if he did, I would hate to be in your shoes when you get to "heaven" and he asks why you did not do a better job in convicing the rest of us.[/QUOTE][/B]Fortunately, I am not held accountible for your decisions. If we were held accountible for everyone, nobody would go.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-05-2002]

[QUOTE][B]I would venture that any religion that had irrefutable evidence (or at least evidence too concrete to ignore) of the existence of their particular deity would rapidly become dominant. [/QUOTE][/B]That may or may not be true. I suspect that may be the case but I'm hesitant to announce agreement. Not when there are websites like http://www.fixedearth.com . [QUOTE][B]I don't say I "know" there is no god. OTOH, I do say that the complete absence of confirming evidence and lack of any compelling logic (i.e., no phenomena examined to date have given any reason to drag in extra complications like deities), gives me fairly high confidence to state: "There is no god".[/QUOTE][/B]I agree. I don't think people should have to believe in any deities just because they need them to make the numbers fit because the violates the concept of free will. There is also a very, very bad historical precedent.

[QUOTE][B]We are still ruled by many of our instincts. As I've stated before EVERYTHING we do is to prove our fitness to reproduce to the opposite sex. Sex is everything. To deny this is to deny one's humanity as well.[/QUOTE][/B]That's not necessarily true. Vows of celibacy and even instances of self-castration show this is not the case.Also, it seems to me that the notion of not being able to keep one's pants on being the definition of humanity is a less-than-noble outlook on the world. Surely you could think up something more pc?[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-05-2002]

[QUOTE][B]They do the population a favor by taking themselves out of the gene pool.[/QUOTE][/B]I take serious issue with the above. I think it qualifies as one of the more disturbing comments I've seen around here. I suggest you choose your words *much* more carefully in the future. [QUOTE][B]People also comit suicide as well.[/QUOTE][/B]And when people do it for religious reasons it shows that people aren't like animals hard-wired for survival. Even the most basic instincts can be overridden, including the sexdrive, and as you just pointed out, even self-preservation, the most important drive of all.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-07-2002]

[QUOTE][B]The truth is not always pretty.[/QUOTE][/B]Just because it isn't pretty doesn't make it true. Really now, we don't need genes carried by suicidal people? They are inferior by virtue of the way they died? Worse, you believe that the world is better *without* them? The arrogance in that remark, and the extreme
disregard for a substantial segment of humanity, is astounding. [QUOTE][B]Like bees, ants, and lemmings just to name a few?[/QUOTE][/B]Bees and ants are hive insects, all descended from one individual. By sacrificing themselves to defend the nest they are helping perpetuate their own genes. This is just pure Darwinism.The whole lemming mass suicide thing is a crop of bull.Did Disney Fake Lemming Suicide for 'White Wilderness'? [QUOTE][B]I didn't say that we couldn't overcome them, only that we are ruled more by them than we like to believe.[/QUOTE][/B]It seems like you've moved back a bit from your assertion that everything people do is for sex.

[QUOTE][B]Not as much as when missionaries go into less developed cultures and exterminate them all in the name of god.[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring.Besides, my church has never done that and I'm not aware of any Western church having done that in the last couple of centuries.Again, beware the Spotlight Fallacy. [QUOTE][B]It can be the same with humans as well. [/QUOTE][/B]Darwinian selection does apply in some cases but there is still self-sacrifice for what is believed to be a higher good, regardless of if it benefits the holder by propagating genes. [QUOTE][B]No, I had said that we do everything to prove our fitness to reproduce.[/QUOTE][/B]"Everything"? Again how does self-castration and suicide factor into that?[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-07-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Color is irrelevant.[/QUOTE][/B]Still obfuscating the point? [QUOTE][B]Many of them believe that it is not genocide when you destroy a culture in god's name.[/QUOTE][/B]Who's done that in the last 200 years? [QUOTE][B]That's the excuse, but there are case of a parent "sacrificing" themself in order to save their children.[/QUOTE][/B]Pure Darwinism. But that's another distraction.The point is, you're still wrong. Not everything we do is for sex and now you are trying to change the subject. [QUOTE][B]Just recently in Central America a group of missionaries went in after an earthquake and were saying to the people there that if they didn't accept JESUS that they wouldn't help them and that their god didn't love them anymore and that is why they had the Earthquake[/QUOTE][/B]Can you prove the missionaries wrong?Also, don't you think that doesn't quite qualify as violating human rights? Much less as genocide? I can walk up to somebody and tell them the same thing and get laughed at, but there isn't anything wrong or immoral about it.Finally, considering some of the things you have said in the past, I think it is fair that I ask that you support this claim. You've spent your credibility for all it was worth already, between the Bard's KJV and the suicidal lemmings, I've about heard enough bull that I think I should ask for a cite for pretty much everything you say. [QUOTE][B]And there is nothing more which reinforces this limited way of thinking than religion.[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring. Stick to the subject or admit defeat, otherwise you are wasting time you could spend more profitably elsewhere.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-08-2002]

[QUOTE][B]In what way?[/QUOTE][/B]The point is that people don't do everything for sex or to impress the opposite sex. Fight it or concede defeat. [QUOTE][B]In South-East Asia.[/QUOTE][/B]Cite? [QUOTE][B]I'm not the one who is distracted.[/QUOTE][/B]Ad hominem. [QUOTE][B]I've said that it is about proving one's fittness to reproduce. You assume it is solely for sex.[/QUOTE][/B]Fine then. How does one prove his fitness by suicide or self-castration? [QUOTE][B]They were refusing aid unless the natives converted. [/QUOTE][/B]Cite? Or is this like those suicidal lemmings? [QUOTE][B]All of that is nothing besides your imaginary "spirit witness".[/QUOTE][/B]You failed to demonstrate that it was imaginary, you only assume as much, it is a part of your faith-based belief system. Faith, of course, in your case, that is blind. I'd rather have an "imaginary" (according to you) witness than a totally unsupported faith, that I just woke up one day and decided is correct. You might as well have flipped a coin between theism and atheism, your decision would be no less scientific because you have absolutely no evidence at all.Irrelevant crap deleted.