Post your tough questions for an Atheist/Agnostic.

If you're an atheist, how do you justify natural rights?

 

Natural Rights? I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

If you are referring to morality then this would be the result of societal interaction and differs between individuals.

 

Thanks for the reply,
I wish to add if I may, does belief a product of thinking?

 

Indeed one must think in order to believe something. I believe I typed a reply because thinking about it and experiencing it allow me to.

 

So could we say that Science and Religion will fall on the same category?

 

Ah but what is "reality"?..
For example our eyes and brain tell us these wheels are turning, but ARE they?

 

At some level everything in existence can be placed into the same category, so sure. However at a more useful level of thought they most certainly are not.

Science depends on things that can be explored and religion does not.

 

The first time you posted this optical trick it was dismissed out of hand....and just as then it is nothing but attempted distraction from discussion.

 

But sensibilities are there like laws are furnished to regulate erring tendencies of human kind and religion does make a considerable contribution and I think more effectively because of the belief that there is an ever perennial watchful eye, perusal of everything that is being done.
Can the deduction of the string theory can be explored ?

 

When we stop for a moment to consider where string theory, M theory, quantum theory.....etc....came from they most certainly can be explored, thus do they even exist as theories/hypothesis. They are further explored in thought experiment and experimentation on a daily basis. Sensibilities are arbitrary decisions made by the individual and are far from "Laws", as is very clear if we simply ponder the ISIS mindset. They are "Furnished" by the human mind and not available to the scientific community as a whole which makes them impossible to explore in peer circles. Religion does indeed contribute to societal moralities but also confuses it to the point of irrelevancy as it varies sect to sect, religion to religion, God to God, person to person and therefore becomes unavailable to scientific thought.
The Atheist does not require a "Watchful Eye" to live in morality....though we are no better that the theist in this regard.

 

No, like, "you have the right to bear arms" is considered a right that every individual has because it's in the Constitution and you have that just because you're alive. Morality has little to do with it, I mean, yea, sure, a little bit, but the original justification was that God gave you these rights. But if we aren't supposed to trust religion, then who's to say that you have the right to anything.

 

And therein lies the major problem. Placing trust and morality (laws) into the hands of an admitted mass murderer does not seem to me a good idea. Placing it in the hands of people who believe in it without any proof seems equally ignorant. That they also KNOW who they follow is psychotic is just plain crazy.

 

Christians bash themselves. Some people just choose to point out the obvious.

 

You're looking for explanations of fairy tales and expect serious answers? Then, when confronted with your nonsense you sit back sumgly and act as if you're correct? Prove to me the old lady built a house out of candy in Hansel and Gretel.

 

Given that humans are the only creatures with self-awareness, how do atheists imagine it could have resulted from evolution, when the relatively paltry transition from single celled organism to multi-cellular, cell-differentiated organism has never been observed?

So are they all as oblivious to their own self-contradiction as you are?

 

Science do have hypothesis and equations that somehow needs verifying through irrefutable empirical data and of course limited with the capability of the instruments/equipment used to reveal evidences and our senses mostly of sight to reach final conclusions. We know that the world is round that we have oxygen in air to breath in, etc. but are we certain enough that there is no GOD, when such a theory was not carefully studied and verified unlike other Scientific theories. If it was not studied then why make the conclusions that there is no GOD?.
Can Science and human knowledge could disprove that their is no GOD convincingly with scientific means, like the articles above, it seems to me that Science in it's own regard could not still explain everything and is even flawed.

Religion in it's true value should be to unite humanity through GOD, but somehow even now that unity evades the true purpose attributed by man's intrinsic differences even in looks and language and most profoundly the way of thinking ergo given freewill. But the true purpose is there and ISIS is heeding towards the wrong way for in the first place who would you unite if you already annihilate them all.

 

Religion is not studied in the sciences because the is no data or tangible object to study. Much the way Mermaids are not studied in biology it is bypassed for lack of material and dismissed until data becomes available. Much like the Mermaid analogy religion becomes mere fable as information comes to light elimination possibility.

 

Of course we would know if mermaids do exist or not for we could already explore our very own seas, but what about the vastness of the milky ways and the universe?. Quite true that their is still no tangible data as of now but Science is still progressing and we're not still so sure that someday may show us a way to prove the existence of GOD. I could conclude that presently, Science is still limited as well as ourselves to disqualify the presence of GOD.

 

Granted science cannot "Prove" a negative (God) but unless you are claiming God is an Alien or the Universe your commentary is somewhat irrelevant. Science must have tangible data to examine and religion (which is the topic right now) has nothing to examine beyond the intangible literature humans have created. The Mermaid analogy was meant to convey the similarities to be found and the nature of religions and the God hypothesis falls under Religion primarily. The Idea of something unknown existing is actually the reason science exists and the possibility embraced...but, any of the "Gods" of men have been discounted as imagined by science.

 

Will agnostics/atheists whine if they find out they are wrong and burning in Hell or will they accept their fate?

 

An atheist stands out in a field in the middle of a dark night, and gazes out at the untold billions of planets, stars, and galaxies. He says to himself, "Yep, I'm sure of it -- no one, and nothing, created ANY of this!" How does a mind work that produces a conclusion like that...?

 

something came from nothing because something needed to exist

Do you not understand the logic of the atheist?

 

Yes I do agree that we need tangible data but how is it if Science and the knowledge that we achieved so far is still not able to determine or detect it ergo science did not reach yet that point when it could explain everything? Atoms are there but we could never feel it but could see it through an electron microscope which is of course contributed by Science, but how about GOD?

 

Knowledge is a true, justified certainty. It is possible to believe something (be certain of it), it's possible for that thing to be true and it is possible to justify that belief.

Yes, knowledge is possible.



​

 

Has an atheist ever said to you that is what he would think? I think wow how did all this come into existence, nothing in my reality has ever suggested there is any reason to think it might of been created by a god.