Hey LF Mod Squad, I think there was one post too much transfered to the "justification" thread. It is #3 in the other thread, by SilentScope001. Thank you. :)

(I will reply when I am in front of a PC, writing with my mobile phone atm :P)


Mod note: Fixed, I've moved that post back into this thread. :) ~M

Ah, but unlike other lifeforms, we got a little thing known as "intellect".Other lifeforms own this attribute as well.

We know about how life grows and spread and everything. We know about evolution, and we know that life exist solely to go and spread.Do we really know that it does exist to go and spread? I don't think so. I think we know: it does exist and one of its attributes is that it does spread. Why it exists is beyond my knowledge.

I assume it exists for the same reasons like everything else: because it's possible.

And we have the power to NOT do such a thing, to turn away from our nature and defy it. To go and say, "You know what? I don't see the point of having the human race live endlessly just so that we can live endlessly, an endless pyramid scheme that really begs to be toppled".Yes, everybody is able to say "I want to stop that! It's so stupid!", but I daresay that we'll have a tough time to eventually stop humans (each on their own) from breeding. If we really could do that, and intentionally stop ourselves from going on, then we're nothing but a evolutionary mistake. A species that does not (want to) create offspring at the end of the day contradicts the very definition of life.

The goal of evolution is to produce the species that can exist in an enviroment and breed, but what do we do with that species? What can that species really do? You can argue that we shouldn't worry about that, and only worry about life, which may be true, but then you get back to that boredom issue.Evolution (if ever proven correct) has no goal. In fact, species who found a habitat to breed and live in are the result of evolution (or that what some of us call evolution).

What can a species do? Hm. You know the answer: not really much, except, well, survive, spread life and help to spread life.

Besides that, many species (including us) have developed the ability do craaaazy stuff for their living. So, whenever I throw an eye onto nature I see no boredom. The ways life has found to survive are as manifold as they are bizarre, utmost complex and fragile altogether. Not to mention the places where it happens.

I'm not really caring about the emptiness of life, what I really care about is how boring it would be to have to continue to breed and evolve and adapt to the enviroment forever. About as interesting as watching paint dry, once you know the cycle, once you know the tricks, once you are able to surivie. Then you must ask, "Alright, now what?"Seriously, I doubt that. Boring would mean you could forever foresee what change happens next to the environment to adapt preemptively or something. I don't think that there ever was someone thinking "Pse. Human history nowadays. All that breeding and evolving and stuff. Becomes more boring by the minute."

You cannot totally know the cycle, all the tricks or how to survive forever as long as there is something unknown out there. And regarding the fact that we still have a lot of unknown things here on earth I doubt that we're about to get rid of the "universal unknown" any time soon.

My answer to "Now what?" is clearly "Just turn around."

In Galapogos, by Kurt Vonngeut, he makes the argument that bacterium is the most succesful species evolutionary, as they are simple, can reproduce quickly, and evovle easily. There are much more bacteria in the world than they are humans. But, we don't really honor bacterium, do we?Seeing that we have some of the most amazing environments for life on earth only can exist because of bacterias, or just that the human organism could not live without the symbioses with bacterias, it's pretty dumb not to honour them, isn't it?

Alright, gotcha. Thanks for your information.

When I said we have "intellect", I mean we are the only species (that we know of) that is able to study other species and learn about evolution and be able to ponder about it. Sure, it is unlikely we are able to stop the cycle of reproduction, and most humans won't want to anyway, but the fact that we could have the thought of deciding not to do such a thing (even though we will easily dismiss it) does sound like something unique.

I guess I only look at the broader trends rather than the challenges that we have to face in order to live day-to-day...because it looks to me that whatever challenge we'll face, we're likely to beat it (IMHO), which you disagree with, stating that we do not know of the challenges and still find it unknown. (In the end, you find this thing interesting, um, I don't. I'll just chalk it up to values...)

Sort of similar to how I view MMORPGs versus how other people view MMORPGs. I find MMORPGs boring even so they are more challenges, more unknowns, and more quests being added on every minute, due to the fact that there is no real end to strive for and that eventually, you might prevail. Other people however do see it, becuase of the fact that there are more challenges, more unknowns, more quests, and there is a chance you might fail due to PvP or your fellow players beat you to the punch. But it's just a tangent to flesh out my world view. (Might also explain my embracing of religion: The possiblity of an "endgame", so I won't get bored.)

But to each their own viewpoint, which is pretty good. And we do agree on the most basic point: "Life is life." The more you know... :)

Seeing that we have some of the most amazing environments for life on earth only can exist because of bacterias, or just that the human organism could not live without the symbioses with bacterias, it's pretty dumb not to honour them, isn't it?

:D

Sure, it is unlikely we are able to stop the cycle of reproduction, and most humans won't want to anyway, but the fact that we could have the thought of deciding not to do such a thing (even though we will easily dismiss it) does sound like something unique.Yeah, being able to think like a bunch of human Lemmings sounds somewhat unique. XD

because it looks to me that whatever challenge we'll face, we're likely to beat it (IMHO), which you disagree with, stating that we do not know of the challenges and still find it unknownBut does that mean I think we're not gonna beat our challenges eventually? It's just that I don't see how they come bundled with boredom.

(In the end, you find this thing interesting, um, I don't. I'll just chalk it up to values...)I don't know. You're not from the curious kind, are you? Heck, I can even get excited about a new LEGO block and its possibilities. :p

Sort of similar to how I view MMORPGs versus how other people view MMORPGs. I find MMORPGs boring even so they are more challenges, more unknowns, and more quests being added on every minute, due to the fact that there is no real end to strive for and that eventually, you might prevail. Other people however do see it, becuase of the fact that there are more challenges, more unknowns, more quests, and there is a chance you might fail due to PvP or your fellow players beat you to the punch.MMOOPPDGGDSROFS are entertainment. No matter how complex they are, they don't offer any *real* challenges. From a certain point of view it's all pre-chewed crap. Every game, regardless if real life or computer, is like this.

(Might also explain my embracing of religion: The possiblity of an "endgame", so I won't get bored.)Seriously, the endgame, hence the name, comes at the end. I mean, I'm not really bored today just because of the possibility that when I die I might or might not collapse to a micro black hole.

When asked why he became a Catholic, Graham Greene referred back to a point in his life when he began to "doubt my doubt" about the resurrection. I think it depends on the person.

@TK-8252: In my experience, being a Christian is anything but a crutch. It's a crucifix to be carried up your very own Golgotha.

I think atheists become people of faith because they simply cannot go throughout life the way that they were, and had to lean on the only One that could help them get over that so to speak "hill" in life.

***I KNOW THAT THIS WAS ALREADY SAID, BUT THIS IS MY OPINION TOO***

Well, I converted to get a girl :) It worked, too. We've been married for 17 years, now.

Actually, I chose to move from agnosticism to Christianity because it was the best way to explain those things that science cannot. I was in college, majoring in microbiology at the time, and I just could not buy the bill of goods they were trying to sell me. These so-called experts on life's origins were presenting "theories" and "scientific laws" that necessitated more faith than did belief in a Creator God. Fortunately, God provided someone to push me toward making a decision one way or the other. I shudder to think what would have happened had I chosen atheism.

Actually, I chose to move from agnosticism to Christianity because it was the best way to explain those things that science cannot.Could you please expand on this?

I was in college, majoring in microbiology at the time, and I just could not buy the bill of goods they were trying to sell me. These so-called experts on life's origins were presenting "theories" and "scientific laws" that necessitated more faith than did belief in a Creator God. Without knowing which "theories" and "laws" you're referring to, I'd rather proceed without guessing, however I would like to know why you opted to apply a rigorous expectation to one set of explanations, but not another.

Fortunately, God provided someone to push me toward making a decision one way or the other. I shudder to think what would have happened had I chosen atheism. Really? Why?

I have one theory: they see atheists parading about a hatred for religion and feel that in the face of such hypocrisies of being moral and ethical they are better off standing for something, religion.

I have one theory: they see atheists parading about a hatred for religion and feel that in the face of such hypocrisies of being moral and ethical they are better off standing for something, religion.Why not just opt to stand for morality and ethical behavior? Seems that making the leap to religion would be a huge, unnecessary step in the wrong direction. I suspect that fear is the true motivator. Fear of being wrong, fear of not being accepted by others, etc. Or in jimbo's case: to get the chicks.

......to get the chicks.

Now, there's a sword that cuts a multitude of ways...... :D

Actually, I chose to move from agnosticism to Christianity because it was the best way to explain those things that science cannot.Could you please expand on this?
The big thing was ultimate cause. All scientific explanations come down to taking the eternal existence of matter and energy on faith, just as Christianity takes the eternal existence of God on faith. I saw the infinitesimal probability of atoms somehow progressively coalescing into molecules, complex organic molecules, protein chains, and multi-chain proteins, then reproducing themselves because lightning struck in the exact right spot in the primordial soup (in the presence of a reducing atmosphere) to be less believable than a God who created ex nihilo.
Fortunately, God provided someone to push me toward making a decision one way or the other. I shudder to think what would have happened had I chosen atheism.Really? Why?
At the time I met Jae, I was engaging in some self-destructive behaviors. She led me to a faith that helped me see the folly of the path I was headed down. Getting married to her also made me realize that I could not continue acting in that manner because my decisions affected more than just me.
Or in jimbo's case: to get the chicks.
:)

The big thing was ultimate cause. All scientific explanations come down to taking the eternal existence of matter and energy on faith, just as Christianity takes the eternal existence of God on faith. Personally, I don't equate "not having an answer yet" with taking a conclusion "on faith".

What we still have is a situation where we are applying a rigorous expectation to one model but not another. You're more than welcome to do so, however I just hope that no one has convinced themselves that this is rational thinking.

I saw the infinitesimal probability of atoms somehow progressively coalescing into molecules, complex organic molecules, protein chains, and multi-chain proteins, then reproducing themselves because lightning struck in the exact right spot in the primordial soup (in the presence of a reducing atmosphere) to be less believable than a God who created ex nihilo. So because you personally couldn't think of an answer, that automatically meant that there couldn't possibly be one, except god (an alternative for which we have no evidence and the odds for existence are orders of magnitude more infinitesimal)? Am I summarizing the argument correctly here or did I miss something?

At the time I met Jae, I was engaging in some self-destructive behaviors. She led me to a faith that helped me see the folly of the path I was headed down. Getting married to her also made me realize that I could not continue acting in that manner because my decisions affected more than just me. Kudos to you for making it through. Unfortunately not everyone has the ability to examine their lives and the strength to make life-altering changes (even when they are the good kind).

What your response doesn't tell me though is why it is the thought of being an atheist makes you shudder. I could understand the reaction if your options were your place in life now vs. serial killer or something, but in this context it really does seem out of place.

Take care.

Perhaps. One motive to turn to religion however might be to spite the unethical atheist.

At the time I met Jae, I was engaging in some self-destructive behaviors. She led me to a faith that helped me see the folly of the path I was headed down. Getting married to her also made me realize that I could not continue acting in that manner because my decisions affected more than just me.So, in the end, all it needed wasn't some religion but someone to take care of you, to be there for you, and that what you do affects others? Someone you'd really care about? Hm.

Sounds like a normal post-pubertal development to me.

Almost like .. exactly what I have been through. Yap. Except for the marrying part - I already realised how my decisions would affect others when I made my mama cry. :(

Perhaps. One motive to turn to religion however might be to spite the unethical atheist.Because doing something out of spite is such a highly ethical behavior?

Because doing something out of spite is such a highly ethical behavior? Took the words right out of my mouth.

Quick!! Put them back in, ET. :P

Perhaps they are not thinking about being ethical, rather they see atheism as it had been portrayed to them as evil and seek shelter with those who are by default good, religion.

Perhaps. One motive to turn to religion however might be to spite the unethical atheist.

Why would we want to waste time and energy on spite when we could be busy doing things like missions/helping run the homeless shelter in our church/helping at-risk kids with schoolwork and so forth? Of all the atheists/agnostics I've talked to about their conversion to faith (in this case Christianity), their reasons generally fell into 2 camps--1. They were on a self-destructive path empty of meaning, and Christ gave them the meaning in life they were looking for. 2. Something happened in their lives that allowed them to experience Christ's love, and they wanted a closer relationship with the divine.

2. Something happened in their lives that allowed them to experience Christ's love, and they wanted a closer relationship with the divine. Hmmm...how do they know that its wasn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster's love and they chose the wrong path? Luckily the FSM isn't a vengeful or jealous god, so he'll probably let them off the hook (...noodly appendage?) for their mistake.

Aww, I'm so glad Flying Spaghetti Monster has a noodly...heart of some kind buried there in the sauce and meatballs. More protein for me when I have him for dinner tomorrow night. :D

Enjoy your meal.

You didn't answer my question though. We can use invisible pink unicorns or pagan gods if you would prefer. I think the question will still work.

The question was just 'why do atheists become people of faith?' and I was sharing my friends' experiences. I don't know how they decided that Flying Spaghetti monster was not divine but God was, since we never spoke about pasta unless they were asking me for my lasagna recipe (which is quite good, but does not approach the Divine). That may be a more appropriate question for the theism/atheism thread, however, or possibly its own thread. I will say that something that is created, cooked up, and comes in a Chef Boy-ar-dee can is more like my idea of hell on earth rather than the Divine Creator of the Universe.

The question was just 'why do atheists become people of faith?' and I was sharing my friends' experiences. I don't know how they decided that Flying Spaghetti monster was not divine but God was, since we never spoke about pasta unless they were asking me for my lasagna recipe (which is quite good, but does not approach the Divine). But you said, quite definitively, that it was jesus' love. Surely you have good cause to speak so definitively. Or perhaps you could simply rephrase your statement.

That may be a more appropriate question for the theism/atheism thread, however, or possibly its own thread. But you posted your definitive statement about christianity here *confused*.

I will say that something that is created, cooked up, and comes in a Chef Boy-ar-dee can is more like my idea of hell on earth rather than the Divine Creator of the Universe.The Flying Spaghetti Monster is infinite. He existed before time, space, and processed meals from a can.

But you said, quite definitively, that it was jesus' love. Surely you have good cause to speak so definitively. Or perhaps you could simply rephrase your statement.

But you posted your definitive statement about christianity here *confused*.

I said this: Of all the atheists/agnostics I've talked to about their conversion to faith (in this case Christianity), their reasons generally fell into 2 camps.... (emphasis mine). Where did I speak definitively where it was not specified as their reasons?


The Flying Spaghetti Monster is infinite. He existed before time, space, and processed meals from a can.Any god who can be squashed into a can and processed at high heat for consumption by 8 year olds doesn't qualify as existing before time and space.

I said this: (emphasis mine). Where did I speak definitively where it was not specified as their reasons? Fair enough. Next time you see "them", please let them know I have questions.

Any god who can be squashed into a can and processed at high heat for consumption by 8 year olds doesn't qualify as existing before time and space. He is divine pasta. He doesn't go into cans like mortal pasta. Apparently, you aren't familiar with The Gospel (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180375352&sr=8-1). Besides, you can't prove that he didn't exist before time and space.

I agree, but shouldn't this go in the Atheism/ Theism thread?

Another way of looking at it is to see the way theists are and the way atheists are and choose one side or the other because of the way their stance is portrayed.

Another way of looking at it is to see the way theists are and the way atheists are and choose one side or the other because of the way their stance is portrayed.

Faith, or lack thereof, is an extremely personal decision--I don't think people should be making a decision of that importance based on how a few individuals behave. There are good theists and atheists everywhere, and there are bad theists and atheists everywhere. If we expect perfect behavior out of either group, we are going to be sorely disappointed. Humans cannot be perfect, and if you base your decision for atheism/theism on how the worst people in that group behave, no group will ever meet your standards.

It might be wrong of me to think this way but my...faith? in atheism is somewhat shaken based on how some portray it, and on the other hand the way people, good people, portray religion has me thinking that maybe it is not so bad.

Faith, or lack thereof, is an extremely personal decision--I don't think people should be making a decision of that importance based on how a few individuals behave. There are good theists and atheists everywhere, and there are bad theists and atheists everywhere. If we expect perfect behavior out of either group, we are going to be sorely disappointed. Humans cannot be perfect, and if you base your decision for atheism/theism on how the worst people in that group behave, no group will ever meet your standards.

Plus, there are different targets and degrees you can put your "faith" in. Different groups have different definitions, retionalities and "other" agendas.

Then again, technically people put "faith" in atheism too...

Point of view is important Poiuy. TECHNICALLY they do have faith, BUT I don't think that was what Jae was talking about. I may be wrong though, so forgive me if I am. :)

Then again, technically people put "faith" in atheism too...TECHNICALLY they do have faith <snip>
Please explain? Thanks in advance.

Well, I guess that you could say that atheists have faith that what they think is right, as do everybody else in there religions. Also, in school have you ever had faith that you would get an A on the test? If you break it down to everyday life, you WILL see that you and everybody else has faith in may things even if it has nothing to do with religion. That is what I mean by "Technically the do have faith" .

Well, I guess that you could say that atheists have faith that what they think is right, as do everybody else in there religions. An absence of evidence does not require faith. Do you have faith that there's no evidence for invisible pink unicorns or do you simply refuse to seriously consider their existence until someone provides you some evidence?

Also, in school have you ever had faith that you would get an A on the test? If you break it down to everyday life, you WILL see that you and everybody else has faith in may things even if it has nothing to do with religion. That is what I mean by "Technically the do have faith" . You mean like when I sit down to a meal I have faith that it hasn't been poisoned? Or when I get in my car, I start the ignition with faith that it hasn't been wired with a detonator and some explosives?

Sure. But those things could be empirically verified beforehand. I could test my food for poison before digging in. I could inspect my vehicle for explosives before getting inside.

Plus, I'm still not sure how even this tangential application of "faith" could be applied to atheism.

I appreciate you attempt at clarification though. Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, we can't currently test for where everything in creation/existence actually came from (and probably never will), hence your faith that there is nothing/noone to believe in in the first place.

An absence of evidence does not require faith. Do you have faith that there's no evidence for invisible pink unicorns or do you simply refuse to seriously consider their existence until someone provides you some evidence?

You mean like when I sit down to a meal I have faith that it hasn't been poisoned? Or when I get in my car, I start the ignition with faith that it hasn't been wired with a detonator and some explosives?

Sure. But those things could be empirically verified beforehand. I could test my food for poison before digging in. I could inspect my vehicle for explosives before getting inside.

Plus, I'm still not sure how even this tangential application of "faith" could be applied to atheism.

I appreciate you attempt at clarification though. Thank you for your response.
Your welcome. What I was trying to say was that "TECHNICALLY" atheists do have an everyday faith, and that they have faith that what they believe in is the truth, which is that there is no God(s). By no means am I judging athiesists, it is just everybody in the world thinks that what they believe in (religiously)is right.

Your welcome. What I was trying to say was that "TECHNICALLY" atheists do have an everyday faith, and that they have faith that what they believe in is the truth, which is that there is no God(s). By no means am I judging athiesists, it is just everybody in the world thinks that what they believe in (religiously)is right. I already pointed out how this reasoning is flawed in my last response. You chose not to address my argument, which is fine, but I don't see how repeating your previous statement makes it any more accurate.

No faith is required for atheism because atheism makes no positive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.

Take care.

What I am trying to say for the third time is that atheists have a faith, or more commonly know as knowing that they are right, that there is no God(s). That is what I am trying to point out. I will not say anymore about this subject, thanks.

What I am trying to say for the third time is that atheists have a faith, or more commonly know as knowing that they are right, that there is no God(s).

Your logic is fallacious. To require faith to not believe in a deity would require an absence of faith to believe in one. You cannot logically claim that to not have faith you must have it.

But for clarification, in case you've got your definitions mixed up... Faith = belief without direct proof. Reason = belief with direct proof or lack of belief in the absence of proof.

Do atheists consider themselves reasonable? Yes. Faithful? No. I hope that's cleared the matter up for you. :)

Your logic is fallacious. To require faith to not believe in a deity would require an absence of faith to believe in one. You cannot logically claim that to not have faith you must have it.

But for clarification, in case you've got your definitions mixed up... Faith = belief without direct proof. Reason = belief with direct proof or lack of belief in the absence of proof.

Do atheists consider themselves reasonable? Yes. Faithful? No. I hope that's cleared the matter up for you. :)
First of all I am not being decietful. Second I have already stated that i am not going to argue with anybody. I was only giving my opinion, not saying that what I believe is what everybody should believe. I was only trying to state what I believe in a peaceful manner. Thank you. :)

What I am trying to say for the third time is that atheists have a faith, or more commonly know as knowing that they are right, that there is no God(s). That is what I am trying to point out. I will not say anymore about this subject, thanks. Repeating it isn't going to make it true. ;)

By definition atheist can have faith in something or someone, such as a spouse or a political belief. However, by the same definition an atheist cannot have faith in there not being a God, unless there was logical proof that there was a God and they still had believed there was not.

I have faith and I will still willingly admit there is no logical proof of his/her existence. That is why it is called faith.

How about converting because people need something more than perhaps a negative godless view has to offer?

How about converting because people need something more than perhaps a negative godless view has to offer? Pssst! Hey! Nancy! You're supposed to be an atheist now, remember?!

Converting to what? Christianity? Islam? Paganism? Pastafarianism?

And what is a "negative godless view"? Negative godless view of what? And how does it differ from a "positive godless view"?

Thanks in advance.

I'd like to know that too.

Well, since the dictionary game seems to be quite popular here......

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

.....soooo, in essence, it's quite possible for an athiest to have faith.....just not in God or gods. End of discussion.

And here I am thinking this is clearly about religious faith, and why atheists possibly might feel the need to turn to it and against reason - instead of some finickiness about atheists being able to have faith or to believe that their socks will smell when filled with dog poo. :¬:


What I am trying to say for the third time is that atheists have a faith, or more commonly know as knowing that they are right, that there is no God(s).Wrong and wrong and wrong. Atheists do not know that there is no god. They know they have no valid and testable proof for the existence any god. BIG difference. Also, for that there is no 'faith' needed.


By definition atheist can have faith in something or someoneI'm wondering where the definition of 'atheist' contains anything among the lines of "atheists can have faith".

Wrong and wrong and wrong. Atheists do not know that there is no god. They know they have no valid and testable proof for the existence any god. BIG difference. Also, for that there is no 'faith' needed.

I'm wondering where the definition of 'atheist' contains anything among the lines of "atheists can have faith".

Oh I don't know... I think a case can be made for arguing that atheists have a belief in the sense that they believe there is no god.

After all, atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

Care should be taken not to confuse an atheist with an agnostic, which means a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)

While the two may seem similar on the surface, to me it looks like an agnostic doesn't believe that we can know whether god exists or not, and maybe even that it doesn't matter anyway, while an atheist actively believes with conviction and certainty that there is no god.

I could be wrong, mind you, but that's how I interpret it.

And the two are not the same, albeit the distinction may be irrelevant or inconsequential to a religious person, especially if that person is so strong in his or her beliefs, that all non-believers are thrown into the same category.