When you see a popular, well-known atheist talking
I don't, I can't recall a single time I have seen a public speaker debating the merits of atheism in more than a casual reference in a completely different topic.
the subject is always "No God/Jesus"
Well, I would guess that they are influenced by and attempting to influence people who claim to believe in god/jesus.
More importantly, why are they arguing the existence of someone whose existence has more evidence than Alexander the Great?
Alexander has many cities named after him, he founded many of them, you can track the spread of culture according to his travels. There are undoubtedly bits of weaponry and equipment still around from his campaigns. Is there ANYTHING to support the existence of jesus other than second-hand writings?
Alexander was a ruler and a hero, when he died he had respect, but little else. When jesus died people hoarded every trinket and bauble he had in an effort to get him to come back and save them...
It just doesn't make sense to me, why it seems the argument is so focused on Christianity.
Tall poppy, christianity gets 80% of the exposure and 90% of the attention...
I've asked an atheist friend why he would be an atheist, and he said it "releases" you from the worry about God. My only response was WTF. It seems, no offense, stupid to say that. I'd rather believe in a God, and if he exists get into heaven than not believe, and if he exists go to hell.
Wow... I am not sure where to begin... God is an additional element to the world, which already has enough pressures, and god comes with a whole lot of rules and threats. That is a perfectly valid reason to avoid something, so the question becomes, well, it always was, really, not, why atheism? but why god?
What if god does not exist, you went through a whole lot of hassle and worry over something that you made up?
What if paranoid schizophrenics are right? And you are completely ignoring the real dangers of the world because you are just blindly following this god story.
What if god exists, the atheist goes to hell, and suffers for all eternity with no hope of redemption because god created them with a nature that did not accept something that refuses to reveal its presence? It is a high price to pay for principals, but for some people, better than no principals at all...
What if god is Evil, and you have spent your life giving it power, that it will eventually use to inflict a horrific punishment upon the earth? Yes, even worse than the ones god is already meant to be inflicting...
Accepting any one religion is placing all of your bets on a single scenario, and the best you can hope for is a pat on the back, congratulations, and an eternity of reassurance... I would rather believe in ghosts...
Finally, if there is no god, why can't I take a gun and shoot you all?
You can, god allowed guns, god allowed you, god allowed other people, "you all"(which is quite a threatening way to phrase it, I assume that you would kill a bunch of other people that you are more familiar with long before you got around to any of us...) included. And I hear that god gave you the freedom to choose...
Why are there consequences?
Cause and effect.
If we're evolved, then there is no point to morality, to justice.
False. Morality can support further evolution, which can be interpreted as the purpose of evolving. God has an agenda, therefore god is biased, therefore justice is beyond gods ability.
If the goal of atheism is to be free from God and enjoy life as it is, why don't you just break away from order and law as well?
Because living with other people in a somewhat reliable environment is more pleasant.
Aren't order and chaos, good and evil just creations of the human subconscious, like God?
Exactly, if god can be persuasive than so can a large number of other elements. Clearly god makes no sense, but this order stuff could save me from some hassles...
PS: I realize my post may seem trollish, but I apologize, as I cannot word things well. Please understand that I am simply trying to learn your perspective, so I can have a bit better understanding of your beliefs and actions.
For myself, I can't see a justification for me to impose my will over something that is apparently similar to myself. Surely all entities have an equal right to determine their own actions. There are always limitations, but these limitations should be universal, and therefore easy to recognise. I hope to bring reason to this debate and to achieve an understanding that is closer to the truth...
If what makes you people an atheist is a lack of proof, then surely you must realize no origin story of the universe has proof, right?
Sigh, origin, all origin scenarios seem to have the same flaw: In the absence of any external forces, what was the stimulus for the generation of the world?
If it was the big bang, why did a single solid lump of matter explode at the specific time that it did?
If it was god, why did god choose that precise moment out of all of eternity to create the universe?
The world is repetitive, nothing is ever stable, all things change with time, and the same systems keep returning time and time again. The origin of the world is infinite, it pretty much has to be, this isn't the first big bang, and heaven is
!*REALLY*! crowded...(except for the fact that it doesn't exist, kinda, erm... well, there are no people in heaven, lets just put it that way...((if it existed at all, which it doesn't, no, for real this time...)))
Nothing you are familiar with is proven, there is only evidence to support a theory, the big bang has evidence, specific gods do not.
Honestly, believing in something is a matter of personal preference.
Not really, I believe a lot of things that I don't want to and don't think I should. But when it comes to making decisions, you can base it off of rumour or testing. If you are trapped in a burning building, you can either assume that the wall that you have always regarded as an absolute barrier is impregnable, or you can try to break through it. Faith tells you to respect what you know, reason tells you to try to better understand your surroundings.
Why would anyone like the Red sox? They are a very bad baseball team. It's unreasonable to like them because they aren't good. Yankees are the better choice because they are a good team!
There are people who agree with that statement. For those that don't, there is patriotism(which is bad by the way), the fact that they aren't threatening, respect for their continuing to compete regardless, maybe you like their colours. Not everyone is blindly competitive...
But y'all feel it's completely different, dontcha? Think religion is somehow mightier than choice in baseball teams, or books, or games. I doubt if I made a thread about "fans of red sox" it would get as much debate and attention as this.
It isn't us, religious states are made by religious people, I am not familiar with any states founded towards the ideal of upholding a sporting tradition. Religious wars are a dime a dozen, but even the underarm bowling incident didn't go that far. How often do you see people going door to door trying to convert others to their sporting team? Would you put this much effort into a post if I said your favourite non-religious sport, book, or game was irrelevant?
I see an innumerable horde of people who would happily destroy histories, communities, traditions, beliefs and all manner of unique elements in order to spread and/or support their own. There are people out there who brutally kill members of their own families and are supported by religious laws, these aren't terrorists, these aren't fanatics, these are just families with values that are influenced by religion... So long as religion supports blind faith it is a threat to everything of value.
qualia come from the mind and the mind comes from the brain
If you're using "mind" to describe something other than the physical interactions going on in the brain, then the question is "How to physical interactions between chemicals in the brain result in subjective and non-physical sensations?"
Mind comes from the brain. It IS describing physical interactions within the brain.
The brain is complex, and does many things that are very distant from any direct external influence. According to the theory that there is no mind beyond the brain's function qualia are just the result of complex interpretations of external stimuli. Red is a definable trait of physical objects. The 'absolute' red may differ slightly between individuals, but the existence of red as a concept held by the community re-enforces that red be considered a distinct colour as opposed to pink or maroon or something. People have language, whose source I do not want to debate, but which requires the defining of specific elements. So red exists because language describes the colour of objects, the only remaining question is: Does red have any significance beyond a physical property?
People do have opinions and reactions to red, but that can basically be attributed to experience and pre-existing response patterns. People can consider red abstractly, but it doesn't really provide any new insight...
Sadness can be regarded as a chemically induced response to a situation. Feeling sad causes you to avoid similar scenarios in the future...(yes, posting this makes me sad, I prefer to pretend that none of this exists, but the fact remains that mental experiences can pretty much all be explained...)