I think Im an atheist.

[Flick James]

Why consciousness even exists at all, what purpose it serves, is a mystery.

I'd say consciousness is a fairly large survival advantage.  It allows you to place priority on a number of things, plan better for the future, etc.  It may also be a natural side effect of higher intelligence.  It might be worth noting by most definitions a number of other animals have it as well.

How does the physical input, output, processing and storage connect to the basic awareness of the self.

It is a fascinating question.  I'm of the opinion it is purely physical, of course.  Which is why people can have their personalities and beliefs greatly altered through brain damage.

If you're genuinely interested in clarification of my beliefs or position I'll be happy to oblige. I really hope you're not out to get nasty, Jim, I really do.

It was an honest inquiry.  I don't know why you seem to think I've been offended by something you said, or that I'm upset with you.  I honestly didn't fully understand what you were getting at (which is why I asked the same question twice), and based on your response here it appears I misunderstood what you were getting at in your post a couple pages back.

Hardline atheists I have engaged with seem to hold that evolutionary evidence proves the non-existence of God

Yeah, I know what you mean.  There are plenty of stupid atheists out there.

Science has failed to explain fully the observable order that exists in nature and the Universe. Science is constantly changing and what was held as true by science 100 years ago has significantly changed.

I think it's best to say science remains incomplete, personally (as, most likely, it always will).  But, I'd say that is semantics and not really important.

Again, I reject religion, but I don't hold that religion has given us nothing of any worth. Hardline atheists tend to hold that idea, and will reject immediately any notion that religion has produced ANYTHING otherwise.

This is the kind of rejection that I am referring to

Ok, this is where I'll explain further why I was thinking you were making what you called an audacious claim about the nature of the universe - something I should have done earlier.  You see, a fairly typical definition of strong atheist, or a hardline atheist etc, means someone who claims, basically, "I am 100% positive that God(s) doesn't exist, I know it.".  Which is irrational.  But, still, there is nothing in the world that exists that is obviously true that flies in the face of this belief.  The only thing that would, of course, is hard proof of God's existence - and saying such exists is certainly an extreme claim about the nature of the universe.  Obviously though, this is not what you were saying.

I see now you're using a more specific definition of the term than I would.  You're referring to a subset of atheists we see online a good deal.  I feel like they need their own term, the atheists so frothing at the mouth there's no point in really even talking with them.  I honestly don't know what to call them though.

I will add that atheists like these are the Westboro Baptists of the atheist world.  They get out there and yell a lot, so they seem to be an extremely disproportionate percentage of the population.  But, they just yell the loudest and are actually a minority.  I'd hazard a guess and say most atheists have never had a serious discussion about this kind of thing (I'd say the same about most religious people) - they simply lapsed out of their respective faiths or never had one and have no interest in it further than that.

So, that said, now that I understand what you were getting at, I don't have any significant disagreements with you on anything at all.   

Yeah, I can't really find anything in your post that I would take exception to, Jim. I guess I misunderstood your intentions and for that I apologize.

[Rev. Powell]

You're referring to a subset of atheists we see online a good deal.  I feel like they need their own term, the atheists so frothing at the mouth there's no point in really even talking with them.  I honestly don't know what to call them though.

Fundamentalist atheists?

[RCMerchant]

You're referring to a subset of atheists we see online a good deal.  I feel like they need their own term, the atheists so frothing at the mouth there's no point in really even talking with them.  I honestly don't know what to call them though.

Fundamentalist atheists?

Ive noticed that" fundamentalist" anything usually = narrow minded pinheads. So does that make me a Fundamentelist Agnostic? Or a Fundamentilist Sitting on the Fence Idiot Who Cant Decide Anything? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BlmWsdeyE
	Small | Large

[Flick James]

You're referring to a subset of atheists we see online a good deal.  I feel like they need their own term, the atheists so frothing at the mouth there's no point in really even talking with them.  I honestly don't know what to call them though.

Fundamentalist atheists?

I thought it was pretty funny. 

[indianasmith]

RC, you are just fundamentally cool.

Try to live with that!

[Vik]

God doesn't exist, please do be an atheist. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, it's a very interesting book with great arguments in it.
I've always been atheistic but the subject interests me. You should also watch a few of these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2QG4D64c20
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vggXUcWaU
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V81DpVJXzUM
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NviLvMRbGoE
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gAeYxgwuSo
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Buv0YFj9e0
	Small | Large

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM
	Small | Large

[AndyC]

There's another similarity between the very religious and the very atheistic. Proselytizing. Somebody's expressed an interest in our beliefs? Get him. Don't let him escape. Start shoving books and videos at him.

This is what I find most significant in the ongoing debate. Atheism is subject to the same human failings religion gets beaten up for. Atheists can be just as intolerant, just as pushy, just as insensitive, just as bent on converting others, and just as convinced that any harm they do is for the greater good, because they know better than everyone else.

I would even go as far as to classify Atheism as a religion. The only thing that distinguishes it is a lack of belief in anything that does not seem provable by science.

When you get down to it, the question really comes down to a belief in something supernatural, and all accusations of harm done become irrelevant. Both sides are capable of doing harm.

And since the real question can't be answered, the only solution is to agree to disagree, and everyone respect everyone else's beliefs (within reason, of course), without feeling a need to save them, whether that be from eternal damnation, or from primitive superstition.

My personal opinion of Richard Dawkins? He's an a$$hole. I have the same opinion of many extreme evangelical Christians. What people believe is not as important to me as how they treat others.

[ulthar]

On Dawkins:

As a Ph.D. physical chemist, I can confidently and unequivocally state that in my professional scientific opinion, Richard Dawkins is an idiot. He is not one tenth as smart and logical as he thinks he is, and his brand of ontological naturalism is the worst kind of closed minded bigotry.

If Dawkins' moral weight results solely from his being a "scientist," then myself, or better yet, Hugh Ross, should be afforded the same courtesy.

Anyone putting all their philosophical eggs in Dawkins' basket is being sadly misled.

[Vik]

There's another similarity between the very religious and the very atheistic. Proselytizing. Somebody's expressed an interest in our beliefs? Get him. Don't let him escape. Start shoving books and videos at him.

It's relevant to the topic, I can't share information because it might convince him to something? Then what's the point?
Also, who's an a$$hole and who isn't, or who is most friendly isn't relevant to me, truth is.

[AndyC]

Anyone putting all their philosophical eggs in Dawkins' basket is being sadly misled.

And worse yet, letting Dawkins speak for them. Believe what you want, but don't hand me a book or quote Dawkins at me to explain your own personal beliefs. And I don't think I would ever let some loser on YouTube speak for me either.

This is not unique to Atheists, of course. It bugs me when Christians can't do any better than point to some celebrity preacher or book of the week to make their case for them. Nothing wrong with quoting someone else, but use it to support your own arguments, don't keep quoting the same people, and please quote somebody who has real credentials.

[Vik]

I'm not saying Dawkins is some kind of a mega-genius and we should all believe whatever he says, I just think he came up with some interesting stuff. And who came up with the arguments doesn't matter either, what matters is that it's interesting information. I justed wanted to share that information.

[El Misfit]

I don't know If I am one because, if the Bible is God's words, then I am because I hate it how the saying Marriage is strictly between man and women. Bulls**t! Marriage between man and woman is okay, but what about man and man/ woman and woman. is it bad? No, it's their preference. also, anybody who argues about gay marriage with their reasoning is that because the Bible said so, then I'll burn it because that is the biggest Bulls**tting excuse! Look at the Scopes trial! a biology teacher was jailed because he was teaching evolution. now how do these two things have in common? Both have fundamentalist saying that the Bible is right and anything else is wrong. Bulls**t! Technology have proven that to be wrong, yet still, people still insist that no, The Bible is right. I got into an argument the other day about Gay marriage and I got so f**king mad because the guy said that the Bible is right. I so wanted to burn the Bible because, as I said, It's just one Bulls**tting Excuse!

[AndyC]

I'm not saying Dawkins is some kind of a mega-genius and we should all believe whatever he says, I just think he came up with some interesting stuff. And who came up with the arguments doesn't matter either, what matters is that it's interesting information. I justed wanted to share that information.

I'm just asking if you can add more to the discussion than "God doesn't exist; read this book."

And I'm asking you to keep in mind that nobody else here is trying to convert anyone else, and personal beliefs in this thread have been qualified as just that - personal beliefs. Starting out by bluntly stating your belief as fact and making a plea that others should believe the same is not exactly an appropriate way to join in the discussion. I'm assuming you've read the rest of the thread and not just jumped in with your two cents based on the first post.

[The Gravekeeper]

There's another similarity between the very religious and the very atheistic. Proselytizing. Somebody's expressed an interest in our beliefs? Get him. Don't let him escape. Start shoving books and videos at him.

It's relevant to the topic, I can't share information because it might convince him to something? Then what's the point?
Also, who's an a$$hole and who isn't, or who is most friendly isn't relevant to me, truth is.

That seems to be a common misunderstanding about agnostics; many of the ones I've met aren't undecided, they just don't think anyone knows the exact nature of the universe. Saying "I'm right, look at this" holds no more weight than if you started spouting off scripture. Why? Scientific knowledge is incomplete.  How can you claim to know the nature of the universe when we don't even know all the creatures living on our one little planet? When we don't know how something as essential to our lives as consciousness works? Anyone who says they know the full truth is, at best, ignorant of just how much they don't know.

[AndyC]

I don't know If I am one because, if the Bible is God's words, then I am because I hate it how the saying Marriage is strictly between man and women. Bulls**t! Marriage between man and woman is okay, but what about man and man/ woman and woman. is it bad? No, it's their preference. also, anybody who argues about gay marriage with their reasoning is that because the Bible said so, then I'll burn it because that is the biggest Bulls**tting excuse! Look at the Scopes trial! a biology teacher was jailed because he was teaching evolution. now how do these two things have in common? Both have fundamentalist saying that the Bible is right and anything else is wrong. Bulls**t! Technology have proven that to be wrong, yet still, people still insist that no, The Bible is right. I got into an argument the other day about Gay marriage and I got so f**king mad because the guy said that the Bible is right. I so wanted to burn the Bible because, as I said, It's just one Bulls**tting Excuse!

Don't assume the Bible is all there is to religion. For many, it isn't even all there is to Judeo-Christian religion.

And what is attributed to the Bible as justification for human intolerance or stupidity is frequently either selectively quoted, taken out of its original context, misinterpreted either unintentionally or deliberately, mentioned so briefly that its meaning is far from clear, or just plain not in there.

Not only are there many religions that do not use the Bible at all, those that do are not necessarily in agreement on what it means.