Questions for the Atheists

[Devian]

---

See how one word makes so much difference? It's clearly stated that "SOME" but by omitting this word in your response, then you intended to make it as a whole. Theists doesn't share the same way of thinking and reasoning and same goes to the atheist. So making such generalization is absurd.

this reminds of those threads quoting verses...

[kit_cebu]

Pero unsaon grabe man pag pamomba sa pipila ka mga atheists (nga gipangulohan ni florida.blanca)

katong kagang, murag di na gyud to atheist.....anti-god natong animas.....

[kit_cebu]

k lang tingali diri... ma gamit gamay ang utok...

lisod tingali no kung personal? inom--debate--away--patay

i learned to like all of you guys.

murag mao gyud tingaling wa gyud madayon pirmi ang abot-abot.....

diba treize / nulzz?

[Peenut]

Nganung pangitaan man jud ug evidence ang mga Atheist?

[FAVER]

mo up lang sa ko ani nga thread, ganahan sad unta ko mo express sa akong pagtuo. maminaw lang sa ko ninyo ug wala lang untay insulyohay haron masabtan kung unsay ipasabot sa usag-usa kanato, ang tanan sakto kay naatay tagsa2x nga gituohan.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Mga abay nga atheists, dili tanang theists against sa kalamboan sa syensya.. Ang uban kanamo kabalo pud mosabot anang mga libro ni Stephen Hawking, etc..Ganahan pud mi motan-aw sa Discovery, NatGeo ug uban pang mga science channels.

Medyo usahay kining atong binayloay sa nga ideas diri nga thread murag init kaayo paminawon. Unsaon dili man nato makita ang expression sa dagway sa nag-post. But I do believe nga kun personal tang magtapok2x unya maghisgut2x aning mga butanga, wala man siguro'y magpatay...hehe...Sa akong tan-aw mga professional man ang both sides nga nagbayloay og mga ideas aning maong thread.

[kit_cebu]

Unsaon dili man nato makita ang expression sa dagway sa nag-post. But I do believe nga kun personal tang magtapok2x unya maghisgut2x aning mga butanga, wala man siguro'y magpatay...hehe...Sa akong tan-aw mga professional man ang both sides nga nagbayloay og mga ideas aning maong thread.

way siguro di mahisgotan pani.... babaye, hubo-hubo, duwaan, basket, ug lain pay ma-storyaan....

naa pa tingali pa-refer sa trabaho...

[Sanosuke]

OT: Ok raman siguro ni... kay sa lain nga thread or topics, magka sabot raman pod ta..

[Saint_hard]

katong kagang, murag di na gyud to atheist.....anti-god natong animas.....

OT: hahahahah....asa nakaha ni sya krn tawn gbutang ni lord si florida_blanca....heheheh

[treize]

i stumbled across your thread and im quite intrigued by it.
i am, by definition, an atheist. but i am more like an agnostic. i believe in a nameless creator but not necessarily a god. I find those as hoax
my answer may be "babaw" for others but im just gonna answer your question as simple as i could
i was brought up by strict Roman Catholic Family with a long lineage of Christianity in association with the Benedictines/Holy Trinitarians Faction.
Baptized, Communioned, and Confirmed. YFC member and all... but ended up being agnostic since 2001.


1. If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered.

The thing is, questions are created from peer pressure. the quality our society works depend on the people who drives it. Different questions would pop up depending in which group are you enlisted at.
I mean, take a look at it. if you were a Muslim, your questions would most likely be different from the Christians.
Questions would all depend on your satisfaction and curiosity. Its human by nature not to be satisfied. if we were, we would be living under the moonlit sky.

Indeed, different questions from different denominations/religions, but those questions only lies from the pattern or guide that they are following. So even if we remove religion from the equation, by following the laws of logic and reason, the big question still remains unanswered. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning.

IMHO, the bible, Quoran, the book of Mormons or whichever book, are just mere guides for better living. The meaning would still depend on how you comprehend whats written. this is one of the reasons why i stopped believing. sometimes, these books are ironic. it pains to state that this may be the reason why religion becomes a hindrance. discrimination between religions is abundant all over the world. even Christians discriminates Christians (RC vs Protestants).

I do agree that they are guide to teach about the absolute morals. Yes it will be a pain if you can't absorb their true wisdom and just become a fanatic and becomes obsessed to what you think it's meaning. So once again by removing God there's no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. And this three philosophers Jean Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault who embraced atheism recognized that.

3. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific

o'really?? or is that all youve seen?
because if you have checked history and took a look at the extremists... you would say the same with religion.
the crusades vs the jihad?
al'queda vs illuminati?
these are not stories. these are also facts which were hidden/blocked out.

Those people were capable of doing such thing even though they are aware and embraced the absolute morals, how much more if they didn't?

Here's a good explanation for that..

First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t.

Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.

Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.

Let me put some flesh and blood on this and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can’t complain when the situation suits somebody else’s fancy and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy.

If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice, but opinions don’t make ethical standards. If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a Moral Law Giver.

Anyway, some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says it’s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can’t help us here. It just isn’t up to the task of providing solid answers.

Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self contradictory, and can lead to anarchy.
True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more.

It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness, but not so in atheism’s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner.

So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a person who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved

lets just say my(as an atheist/agnostic) understanding of evil and good is far beyond your belief. I don't believe in heaven nor hell. I believe in human doing and that would be a matter of upbringing and preferences. Its more like psychological in every angle i look at it.

Yup it's more psychological when you remove God from the equation. Let's say people do not believe in God, no hope for redemption and imagine how many poor people were suffering, hungry for food, no shelter nothing to warm them up when it's extremely cold, then remember that we removed God from them. Moral right and wrong will be very much subjective for them. As long as they won't get caught they will rob you even if it's your life that they have to take.

I think you have a slight idea what kind of world we'll be living in.

5. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people

wouldn't that be better?
no more arguments on
who is the real god
who is the god of all gods
who is the better god

in history, gods were made because of fear
god of the sea was created so humans could pray for safe voyage
god of the sky was created so humans could pray for better weather
god of all gods were created to pressure the current god they need so that, that god would be in their favor
and the story goes on.

shrines were made for these gods
and now its upgraded into what we call churches/mosques/temples and etc.

Yes indeed no arguments about who is the real God but an argument of who is right and who is wrong. Everyone thinks they're right. Is it really better to live a world like that?

6. If there is no God, we don’t make sense

please check my answer on number 2. i think its all but the same.

Yeah a bit but not entirely..

===--=====--===--===

my answers are on my honest opinion. you need not to follow it or believe it. you can ask me questions and ill answer as long as i can.

i prefer to be religion less but that doesn't mean i don't respect your God.
I believe in a creator, i just don't believe in a name.
as I don't think a God would want us to suffer by relying on him.
I believe he cant do anything since every action we do is still ours to decide and it will still be our responsibility.

guides were created, may be by him or may not be by him but either way, we are left on earth for us to handle our own.

we are living a borrowed life. it is yours to keep as long as you can. and I don't think God would want you to be burdened by what others want you to believe.

A name is not really necessary, cause if there is a God, I presume that we only have one no matter what kind of name you call him.

Thank you for taking time in answering those questions and I do apologize if I missed your post.