Hi All

[Spockrates]

Technically this is a forum for everyone. In practice, most of the atheists here are very short on patience when it comes to anything theistic, mainly because our theist visitors tend to trot out the same arguments and don't know when to stop arguing.
Or as the Argument Ref would say:

Good. I don't like to argue, or debate. Though I don't mind someone who becomes confrontational. I usually respond to such with question and a genuine curiosity in what they have to say, regardless of how they say it.

:)

[SGOS]

Thanks for telling me. Did you decide there was no God because you found insufficient evidence for the being'sexistence? Or did you decide there was no God because you found there was sufficient evidence the being couldn't possibly exist?

The first was true.

[Spockrates]

There is no rule against having theists here. We've had long-lasting christians, theists, and deists get along with the other members here that are atheists pretty well in the past on rare occasion.

As long as you can be respectful of the other members and the rules, you won't have any problems for the most part.

So anyway, welcome.

Thanks for welcoming me. :)

[Mike Cl]

Good question. After thinking a moment, I guess I'd say it's a presupposition. I presupposed God existed as a child. As an adult, I've not yet found any evidence sufficient to convince me my presupposition is incorrect. But I'm willing to learn! 

I guess I don't understand. Perhaps my ignorance is getting the best of me? One example: I work for a software company and it seems to me DNA is like a complex kind of three dimensional programming. So I tend to think such has a kind of programmer. Is my thinking somehow illogical?

A presupposition.  That's as good an answer as any, I suppose.  I did not have a presupposition.  My parents did not talk about it, one way or the other.  They did go to church when my brothers and I went for a few years in my preteens.  But nothing there made me believe that god existed.  But I did not see any 'proof' the other way either.  So, I guess I would have been a true agnostic for most of my life.  But in elder years, I see the lack of any proof of any god/gods as proof against it.  If there is a god who is interested in the 'salvation' of his creation, then he should make it crystal clear what his requirements are.  And that just has not happened.  Not in any religion or any region of this world.  It sounds to me you are saying you believe out of habit. 

As for how DNA works, you are way beyond me.  But I do know that scientists who work on that work according to the scientific principle.  If I wanted to become an 'expert' on the subject, there are plenty of peer reviewed tests to refer to.  What kind of test does one perform that tests god? 

[Spockrates]

The first was true.

I guess, then we disagree about DNA. I don't understand how random chance and time is sufficient to account for its existence.

[SGOS]

I'm confused. Sounds like you mean you don't believe there is such a thing as an Agnostic.

I'm an agnostic and an atheist.  But chances are we define terms differently.  Here is a description of the definition that I use and a discussion of atheism and agnosticism that describes most atheists.  Theists generally disagree with this.  They seem to want atheists to actively deny the existence of a god.  Most of us don't.  We just don't have a reason to believe in a god.

Opps, there was supposed to be a hyperlink in there somewhere.  Go to http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm if you are interested.

[Baruch]

Jesus says ... "Where two or more are gathered in my name (spirit)".  That defines the followers of Jesus.  If you are not in communion (another related concept) then you are a "fellow traveler" a Christian-like person, not a full member.  Though not necessarily in the process of entering or leaving the Church.  Religion is from a Latin word, meaning "to bind together".

On DNA vs programming ... in software, there is a binary code, located in a particular machine, in a particular place.  The point of software isn't something static, but something that is dynamic, that does something.  To do this the software must exist in a runtime environment, and not just the machine, but the glitches (not bugs) and the incoming data (it might be in firmware, so it is still incoming to the CPU).  Software under execution under these necessary and unavoidable conditions is the point.  This applies to DNA as well, DNA being only part of a vastly complicated cellular (for eukaryotes) machine, including the RNA that it manufactures as necessary, and the mitochondrial DNA that only comes from the mother's egg.  Nuclear DNA is shared between mother and father, but not the mitochondrial DNA.  That is just a part ... the actual reality is the whole cell, which is the computer, with the two kinds of DNA as the software, and what many parts (peripherals) that operate autonomously from the DNA.  This is a whole room of supercomputing equipment operated at a molecular level that has a runtime environment of what is outside the primary cellular wall.

So really nobody knows how this arose.  There is only speculation (including alien spores and ID).  Based on philosophy or ideology, some speculation is supported or discounted.  All the laboratory evidence we have, has to do with highly developed biological systems and simpler systems that operate as parasites (bacteria, viruses etc).  Fossil evidence indicates that advanced multicellular plants and animals and bacteria existed in the late pre-Cambrian.  We will probably only know more, if we can travel to other planets that are in a primitive state of biological development.

My metaphysical position on reality, won't support random creation of vast 3-D supercomputer rooms by any physics or chemistry I know.  Others have different metaphysics, whether they own it or are driven unconsciously.

[Spockrates]

A presupposition.  That's as good an answer as any, I suppose.  I did not have a presupposition.  My parents did not talk about it, one way or the other.  They did go to church when my brothers and I went for a few years in my preteens.  But nothing there made me believe that god existed.  But I did not see any 'proof' the other way either.  So, I guess I would have been a true agnostic for most of my life.  But in elder years, I see the lack of any proof of any god/gods as proof against it.  If there is a god who is interested in the 'salvation' of his creation, then he should make it crystal clear what his requirements are.  And that just has not happened.  Not in any religion or any region of this world.  It sounds to me you are saying you believe out of habit. 

I find Agnosticism to be more logical than Atheism. For to be certain God does exist seems as illogical as to be certain God does not. But perhaps I misunderstand what each are. What kind of proof would you like to see that would give you some reason to think such a being does exist?

As for how DNA works, you are way beyond me.  But I do know that scientists who work on that work according to the scientific principle.  If I wanted to become an 'expert' on the subject, there are plenty of peer reviewed tests to refer to.  What kind of test does one perform that tests god?

Right, if God does exist apart from that which he or she creates, then he or she cannot be put in a test tube. I guess the best one can do is look at the alleged creation and examine the evidence that it could come into being on its own.

:)

[Spockrates]

I'm an agnostic and an atheist.  But chances are we define terms differently.  Here is a description of the definition that I use and a discussion of atheism and agnosticism that describes most atheists.  Theists generally disagree with this.  They seem to want atheists to actively deny the existence of a god.  Most of us don't.  We just don't have a reason to believe in a god.

Correct. The Christian teachers to whom I've listened define an atheist as one who has no doubt God does not exist. Consequently some of them also define a Christian as--among other things--one who has no doubt God does exist. So these teachers would say I am not a Christian.

What I wonder is if most atheists and Christians do in fact have doubts, and so they are all agnostics--some who are more inclined to believe God does exist and some who are more inclined to believe God does not exist.

[Baruch]

Religious support or antipathy ebbs and flows, in my experience.  But it is hard to get people (not just Christians) to be honestly introspective, and convey the results of that outside the confessional (if you are Catholic).  Conformism is a powerful thing.

[Spockrates]

Jesus says ... "Where two or more are gathered in my name (spirit)".  That defines the followers of Jesus.  If you are not in communion (another related concept) then you are a "fellow traveler" a Christian-like person, not a full member.  Though not necessarily in the process of entering or leaving the Church.  Religion is from a Latin word, meaning "to bind together". ...

Yes, if we can believe the quote, Jesus did say:

"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

(Matthew 18:20)

What I wonder is what he meant by the word with. Did he mean he was in agreement with them?  Or did he mean he was present metaphysically? In what sense do you think a gathering of two people makes them Christians?

[Spockrates]

Religious support or antipathy ebbs and flows, in my experience.  But it is hard to get people (not just Christians) to be honestly introspective, and convey the results of that outside the confessional (if you are Catholic).  Conformism is a powerful thing.

I think I try to be honestly introspective and don't mind being so with others. But in what way is conformity opposed to such sincerity?

Edit: No need to answer. I guess what I'm saying is two people might conform to the idea that one should be introspectively honest. In such case conformism would not be opposed to such honesty.

[SGOS]

Correct. The Christian teachers to whom I've listened define atheism as one who has no doubt God does not exist. Consequently some of them also define a Christian as--among other things--one who has no doubt God does exist. So these teachers would say I am not a Christian. What I wonder is if most atheists and Christians do in fact have doubts, and so they are all agnostics--some who are more inclined to believe God does exist and some who are inclined to believe God does not exist.

As far as I know, most atheists probably do.  A good synonym for atheism might be skepticism.  As far as theists, I don't know.  I had doubts when I was a Christian, but some Christians would have denied me the title like they do you.  I also doubted most Christians were as sure as they said they were about God.  How could they not have doubts?  But then I really can't speak for their confidence.  I can only measure the quality of the evidence they provide.

[Baruch]

I think the answer to your question about "communion" depends on a whole lot of metaphysics, it depends on the individual.

By "name" in that culture, it means "power" not some magic word like "abracadabra".  Of course simple men probably at times have gone into battle as Christian soldiers, shouting "Iesou Pantokrator" ... which is the Greek phrase for the theology and ideology of Emperor Constantine.

My personal view, that what was understood by the early faithful, was that the power of forgiveness and friendliness ... aka the coherence of will in a positive way between two people (not eros or even philos but agape), represented the metaphysical presence of G-d's Salvation aka Yehoshua.  People then, including Jewish people, believed in archangels (personified ideals), because the presence of a transcendental and infinite Being is incomprehensible.

This is my view based on my understanding of Kabbalah.  Theologically, gnostic theologians presupposed a whole hierarchy of partial divinity that extended from G-d at the center to the ordinary believer at the periphery.  Kabbalah is in this family of theology.  This still exists as a belief system in later centuries, as Shekhinah ... the Presence of G-d, of which faithful Jews are the human manifestation.  But Shekhinah is feminine, while Yehoshua is masculine (the idea and the lieutenant of Moses).  In latter-day Hasidic belief, this intermediary represents the hieros gamos between G-d and G-d's wife in Heaven, but also between the Hasid and his wife during Shabbat (Friday night) who mirror on Earth, what is Above.  Making the intermediary masculine, neutralized the sexual content ... and the wife of G-d was demoted to Earth as the Virgin Mary ... though partially elevated again in Marian devotion.

[Spockrates]

As far as I know, most atheists probably do.  A good synonym for atheism might be skepticism.  As far as theists, I don't know.  I had doubts when I was a Christian, but some Christians would have denied me the title like they do you.  I also doubted most Christians were as sure as they said they were about God.  How could they not have doubts?  But then I really can't speak for their confidence.  I can only measure the quality of the evidence they provide.

Agreed. The truth might very well be that all Christians are agnostics, but not all agnostics are Christians. For all atheists are agnostics but not all agnostics are atheists!