I need some questions answered about atheism

[kattrocks]

I need these questions answered by an atheist persepective. Please tell me if you need some clarity in questions.

1.What is the nature of God?
2.What is the nature of man?
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
4.How do you fix evil?
5.What happens when you die?
6.What is your source for this information?
7.How reliable is your source?
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

Thanks all!

[HMS Beagle]

Q1. Nothingness.
Q2. Mostly nothingness. More eloquently: "The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness."--Nabokov
Q3. How do you explain the presence of good?
Q4. No one ever has, no one ever will.
Q5. Left alone, your corpse rots.
Q6. Everything I've ever read that made sense.
Q7. Silly question. Multiple sources.
Q8. If God exists, I'll be flabbergasted, period. Beyond that, who can predict? Mankind has posited far too many deities and afterlifes to guess which, if any, is right.

[adelord]

I guess this is a suitable topic for my first post on this board:



1.What is the nature of God?
A meme. Often used by social institutions for control and repression, and to validate the authority of the elite.
2.What is the nature of man?
Like a monkey, only aware of his own inevitable death.
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
I don't agree with your implicit definition of evil. I'll answer the following instead. "Why do horrific acts, like mega-death crimes or child abuse happen?" On the large scale- bad systems of social organization. On the small scale- software glitches in a person's mind.
4.How do you fix evil?
On the large scale- find more humane systems for social organization. On the small scale- individual reprogramming.
5.What happens when you die?
The body rots, or is frozen, or burned, or is preserved with chemicals. Usually. The conception of self ceases with brain activity. There is no soul.
6.What is your source for this information?
A decent education, including how to compare the reliability of sources. Most recently, Edward O. Wilson's Consilience.
7.How reliable is your source?
The best I can possibly find.
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
Slight to none, depending on the definition of atheism used. Some forms of Taoism, Buddhism, Core- (or pseudo-) Shamanism, strike me as being closer to "life philosophies" then "religion" in the Western sense.

[kattrocks]

Interesting, from the atheist perspective, how do you explain how evil happnes in today's world?

[kattrocks]

How has religious ideas lead to explain all the crimes and evil that exists?

[schemanista]

Interesting, from the atheist perspective, how do you explain how evil happnes in today's world?
How about primate psychology, competition for (sometimes artificially) scarce resources, and plain old "shit happens". It makes more sense to me than "It's all part of Gawd's Plan[tm]."

Colin Wilson's A Criminal History of Mankind is a fascinating read in this vein--if you can find a copy.

[kattrocks]

Do you believe that man is "good" or that man sins and is inheriently bad? Opinions?

[baric]

I need these questions answered by an atheist persepective. Please tell me if you need some clarity in questions.

1.What is the nature of God?
Unknown. No evidence of existence.
2.What is the nature of man?
varies by individual. some good, some bad
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
evil men
4.How do you fix evil?
kill the evil men
5.What happens when you die?
your body reaches a state of equilibrium (a.k.a. you become one with the universe)
6.What is your source for this information?
observation and reason
7.How reliable is your source?
hard to say. Descarte wrestled with the reliability of our own senses and reason. I will say this:
"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
8. What if you are wrong?
I've been wrong before. The typical response is to recognize it, change your opinions accordingly and moveon. No big deal.
What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
>= 0%


Thanks all!
Glad I could help.

[schemanista]

Do you believe that man is "good" or that man sins and is inheriently bad? Opinions?
Neither. We have strong tendancies towards both social organization and, at a higher level, towards tribalism.

Everything else is contextual.

Opinions?

[baric]

Do you believe that man is "good" or that man sins and is inheriently bad? Opinions?
I will be happy to address this issue in great detail. But first, I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. How do you define "good" as opposed to "evil".

In other words, how do you recognize if an act is "good" or "evil". I have my own opinion, but answering the question won't make sense if you use a different definition of "good".

Also, what do you mean by "sin?"

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

I don't believe in "sin" nor do I believe in an absolute morality. Morality and sin are whatever each person wishes to be "right" or "wrong".

[schemanista]

1.What is the nature of God?
"Nature" of a Supernatural being? Does not compute.

2.What is the nature of man?
He's a natural product of his immediate ancestors, his immediate environment and millions of years of evolution.

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
Define evil.

4.How do you fix evil?
Define it so that it can be fixed. Then fix it.

5.What happens when you die?
You decompose.

6.What is your source for this information?
High school science courses. One undergraduate geology course, 20 years of reading, conversations with several scientists in my immediate circle of influence and ultimately the ability to access more than 9,000 years of accumulated historical, technical and scientific knowledge.

7.How reliable is your source?
So far? Irrefutable.

8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
Prove it wrong. Then I'll tell you.

[kattrocks]

I don't believe in "sin" nor do I believe in an absolute morality. Morality and sin are whatever each person wishes to be "right" or "wrong".
How do we decide what is right and wrong is there is nothing to place our morals upon? Something could be acceptable to me but not to someone else, how do we decide. If I think it is right to kill someone and I go do it, I think its okay, but does that make it right?

[baric]

I don't believe in "sin" nor do I believe in an absolute morality. Morality and sin are whatever each person wishes to be "right" or "wrong".
How do we decide what is right and wrong is there is nothing to place our morals upon? Something could be acceptable to me but not to someone else, how do we decide. If I think it is right to kill someone and I go do it, I think its okay, but does that make it right?
Absolutely not. That is why I asked you how you define what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. You seem to use the concept of 'sin' in your definition.

Believe it or not, there are ways to define good and evil without requiring a god or the concept of sin.

[kattrocks]

Evil is the lack of good. the world was created good(unflawed, beautiful, loving, and perfect), but the sinful and fallen of natureof man, being prideful and selfish (bad) brought evil into the world.

[baric]

Evil is the lack of good. the world was created good(unflawed, beautiful, loving, and perfect), but the sinful and fallen of natureof man, being prideful and selfish (bad) brought evil into the world.
So your definition of good is perfection, beauty and love? Was Hellen Keller a good person?

[schemanista]

How do we decide what is right and wrong is there is nothing to place our morals upon? Something could be acceptable to me but not to someone else, how do we decide. If I think it is right to kill someone and I go do it, I think its okay, but does that make it right?
Are you really that new at this? Your Christian Apologetics playbook is at least 200 years out of date.

Here's a starting point (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2) for a more informed discussion.

[kattrocks]

Good in a way I guess could be described as living and never breaking the moral code (murdering, cheating, stealing, ect) which you guys seem to make up and have no basis to place it upon!

Evil, bad, and sin can all be catoragized as the same, the absence and lack of good or something good.

Is this world a good place, filled with good people? Or is it an evil world where only evil happens? What are we to blame for the evil? Man cant cause it, cause according to you, we make up what is right and wrong, no one would say he is wrong.

[Lucretius]

Is this world a good place, filled with good people? Or is it an evil world where only evil happens? What are we to blame for the evil? Man cant cause it, cause according to you, we make up what is right and wrong, no one would say he is wrong.
Good an evil are subjective points, but most would agree that murder is wrong, and so is rape and robbery and genocide. We are to be held accountable for our actions, and we judge good and evil as we have defined it, though a loose definition it is. Man is responsible for his own action (I'm only a partial determinist because quantum mechanics seems to leave room for a "free will". Evil and good do not exist as an entity, merely as a subjective idea.

[baric]

Good in a way I guess could be described as living and never breaking the moral code (murdering, cheating, stealing, ect) which you guys seem to make up and have no basis to place it upon!
Now that was uncalled for. It wasn't atheist priests molesting all of those boys and then covering it up. It wasn't an atheist president who lied the United States into an immoral war over a threat that he knew did not exist.

Besides, an atheist might suggest that "making up a moral code" is no different than "making up a god who defines a moral code"

Evil, bad, and sin can all be catoragized as the same, the absence and lack of good or something good.
Fair enough

Is this world a good place, filled with good people? Or is it an evil world where only evil happens? What are we to blame for the evil? Man cant cause it, cause according to you, we make up what is right and wrong, no one would say he is wrong.
I think the world is a neutral place. The only people to blame for evil are those who commit the evil acts.

And even in a world of relative morals, for those who believe it, human society can say that individuals are wrong. For millenia, society has punished those who committed acts that were considered crimes by the culture they lived in.

Is slavery evil? For centuries it was condoned as a normal part of society, whether those societies were atheist, pagan, jewish, christian or muslim. But thanks to the Enlightenment of the 18th century, all of humanity now recognizes slavery as an evil practice. That certainly did not come out of the Bible!

[Rhinoqulous]

Good in a way I guess could be described as living and never breaking the moral code (murdering, cheating, stealing, ect) which you guys seem to make up and have no basis to place it upon!

Evil, bad, and sin can all be catoragized as the same, the absence and lack of good or something good.

Is this world a good place, filled with good people? Or is it an evil world where only evil happens? What are we to blame for the evil? Man cant cause it, cause according to you, we make up what is right and wrong, no one would say he is wrong.
The world is amoral, not good or evil. We define our actions as good or evil, but any action is not necessarily good or evil. Evil is a term tossed around to dehumanize others; the enemy is evil, that person is evil, etc.

If you have a problem with us "making up" our moral code (and I doubt everyone here would agree on a set moral system), how should we define it? From God? Sorry, that doesn't work (for many reasons).

Rhinoq

[VOICE-of-REASON]

I'm only a partial determinist because quantum mechanics seems to leave room for a "free will".
You would not use the method of biology to research/study history, so why do you suppose it is wise to use the method of physics [which studies inanimate objects] to study human action/behavior?

[thomas]

I'm only a partial determinist because quantum mechanics seems to leave room for a "free will".
This is probably a different thread, but I've heard quantum mechanics presented as a reason to adhere to concepts of free-will before, and I don't quite understand that. Can somebody explain ?

[thomas]

I'm only a partial determinist because quantum mechanics seems to leave room for a "free will".
You would not use the method of biology to research/study history, so why do you suppose it is wise to use the method of physics [which studies inanimate objects] to study human action/behavior?
I think the argument typically used here is one of reduction. That is, if the physical behaviour of every atom in your body can be described in terms of a chain of events that are either caused or random, what room does that leave for free-will ? Not that I've ever heard a decent naturalistic definition of what free-will actually is.

[schemanista]

Good in a way I guess could be described as living and never breaking the moral code (murdering, cheating, stealing, ect) which you guys seem to make up and have no basis to place it upon!
Yours is just as made up. Or do you really believe that you got the idea of right and wrong from a magic fruit tree and the top of a smoking mountain?

Secular morality predates Judeo-Christian morality by at least a thousand years.

[Little Earth Stamper]

What is amazing about moral reletavism is that it's kind of the only thing we really have.

Although certain people claim a divine authority for their moral codes, evidence for this is rather scanty. So what we have is essentially the powerful making up moral codes and imposing them on the less powerful.

Or, to put it another way why take the pope's moral code any more seriously then mine?

[Lucretius]

I'm only a partial determinist because quantum mechanics seems to leave room for a "free will".
You would not use the method of biology to research/study history, so why do you suppose it is wise to use the method of physics [which studies inanimate objects] to study human action/behavior?
I think the argument typically used here is one of reduction. That is, if the physical behaviour of every atom in your body can be described in terms of a chain of events that are either caused or random, what room does that leave for free-will ? Not that I've ever heard a decent naturalistic definition of what free-will actually is.
The reason I think quantum mechanics allows for some kind of free-will is that I also believe quantum mechanics is what ultimately gives us consciousness and allows our brain to function as it does, when making choices. In quantum mechanics there is something called Quantum Indeterminacy, which means exactly that, it is indeterminent. There is no cause, things happen to occur at random. So, when I am presented with the choice, should I eat the cake or shouldn't I, the randomness of these quantum interactions within my brain add to what I already know about my environment (will I get punished, will I get sick etc.) in order to decide whether I will do it or not.

[schemanista]

Or, to put it another way why take the pope's moral code any more seriously then mine?
Ah, that would be Argument #17 (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm).

[Rhinoqulous]

This is probably a different thread, but I've heard quantum mechanics presented as a reason to adhere to concepts of free-will before, and I don't quite understand that. Can somebody explain ?

If the physical behaviour of every atom in your body can be described in terms of a chain of events that are either caused or random, what room does that leave for free-will ? Not that I've ever heard a decent naturalistic definition of what free-will actually is.
The reason why determinism is a problem for free will is the same problem that randomness poses to free will. Free Will is concerned with responsibility of action, and if our actions are purely determined, there is no responsibility. Likewise, if our actions are purely random, there is no responsibility.

QM will not solve the problem of free will, because QM, or any field of physics, chemistry, or biology, does not deal with responsibility. Think of it this way; do we really need some complex math equation that explains why you choose pie with ice cream over pie without ice cream?

On a side note, some philosophers presented solutions to the free will/determinism problem long before QM was ever dreamed of. Hume believed that it was a problem of language; when we talk of causation in physics, we are simply talking about motivations for the human mind (this is way to simplistic, but you get my point).

Rhinoq

[Red Mage]

I need these questions answered by an atheist persepective. Please tell me if you need some clarity in questions.

1.What is the nature of God?
2.What is the nature of man?
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
4.How do you fix evil?
5.What happens when you die?
6.What is your source for this information?
7.How reliable is your source?
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

Thanks all!
(Yeah. I know. I'm late.)

1. Which one?
2. Too vague.
3. The presence of evil is inside the individual's mind. What's "evil" to one person is okay to another. The "presence of evil" implies absolute morality in this sense, so I try to avoid the term at all costs.
4. With my utility belt.
5. The same thing that happens to most organic life forms... you decompose in the ground... but you may also choose to be cremated, chopped up into bite-size pieces and fed to birds, or something else... whatever floats your boat.
6. Common sense.
7. VERY reliable. It works for everyone.
8. What if I'm wrong about what? Atheism? Why does that matter? Look around the threads... you'll see many answers to this question.

[LogicMan]

I need these questions answered by an atheist persepective. Please tell me if you need some clarity in questions.

1.What is the nature of God?
2.What is the nature of man?
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
4.How do you fix evil?
5.What happens when you die?
6.What is your source for this information?
7.How reliable is your source?
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

Thanks all!
1/ HOAX for various dishonest reasons
2/ Answered to many times
3/ Evil is an individuals choice and is not some contextually detached abstraction
4/ Free will. Only individuals can decide to be moral
5/ You cease to exist
6/ Reality - The objective observation of existense and that which exists
7/ A is A there is no option
8/ See above

[ocmpoma]

I know, I know, I'm late, too. I've been busy (and will be busy again for a week or so...)

1.What is the nature of God?
Capital 'g' indicates Christian deity - nature as determined by person in whose mind the concept resides - since 'God' only exists as a concept, it has no external nature.
2.What is the nature of man?
Same as any other animal, tweaked somewhat by self-awareness.
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
Again, as a concept in people's minds. Does not exist externally.
4.How do you fix evil?
Depends on the mind/concept - more importantly, what does 'fixing evil' mean? Why should it be 'fixed'?
5.What happens when you die?
Usually, when a person dies, those that cared for it mourn, etc.
6.What is your source for this information?
For which information, specifically? Generally, logical thought applied to objective input and my three assupmtions.
7.How reliable is your source?
Which source? So far, no known, incorrectable errors.
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
By wrong, you mean incorrect. Also, you are directly implying 'wrong about God not existing, afterlife, etc.' Not to mention the implied threat of Hell. I have no fear of being incorrect in my answers, if I am, I simply admit it and modify. What is the chance of atheism being incorrect? Much, much lower than the chance of theims being incorrect - so close to 0% as to be negligible.

As for the 'source of morality' - what is your source? God? If so, 'God' just made up the morals it imposes on you, so there is not difference - in fact, it would be better if you arrived at your morality yourself, instead of letting someone else (or something else) dictate them to you.

[baric]

I think kattrocks has bailed.

[thomas]

The reason I think quantum mechanics allows for some kind of free-will is that I also believe quantum mechanics is what ultimately gives us consciousness and allows our brain to function as it does, when making choices. In quantum mechanics there is something called Quantum Indeterminacy, which means exactly that, it is indeterminent. There is no cause, things happen to occur at random. So, when I am presented with the choice, should I eat the cake or shouldn't I, the randomness of these quantum interactions within my brain add to what I already know about my environment (will I get punished, will I get sick etc.) in order to decide whether I will do it or not.
This is interesting but leaves the problem that you can hardly call a random act "free-will". Rhinoq hit the nail on the head when he tied free-will to responsibility. You can hardly be morally responsible for a choice if it only occured because of some random Quantum Indeterminacy.

[thomas]

The reason why determinism is a problem for free will is the same problem that randomness poses to free will. Free Will is concerned with responsibility of action, and if our actions are purely determined, there is no responsibility. Likewise, if our actions are purely random, there is no responsibility.

QM will not solve the problem of free will, because QM, or any field of physics, chemistry, or biology, does not deal with responsibility. Think of it this way; do we really need some complex math equation that explains why you choose pie with ice cream over pie without ice cream?

On a side note, some philosophers presented solutions to the free will/determinism problem long before QM was ever dreamed of. Hume believed that it was a problem of language; when we talk of causation in physics, we are simply talking about motivations for the human mind (this is way to simplistic, but you get my point).

Rhinoq
Do you think there is any way that free-will can be possible without some kind of dualism ? It seems to me that even with QM our caused and random universe would leave no space for free-will and responsibility.

I take your point about equations and ice-cream to mean that in a practical day-to-day sense we have free-will and responsibility because we think that we do, even if at a fundamental logical and physical level we do not. And I think about that really as just a complexity problem. Fundamentally it seems that given sufficient knowledge, understanding, computing power and cash it would be possible to build an exact replica model of myself that would act in all the ways I appear to choose to act, based on the same inputs. It really is a clockwork universe without dualism.

[PissBoner]

Evil is the lack of good. the world was created good(unflawed, beautiful, loving, and perfect), but the sinful and fallen of natureof man, being prideful and selfish (bad) brought evil into the world.
But I thought Man was created in God's image asswipe.

Therefore, by your own logic God is prideful and selfish too.

Why don't you try using your fucking minimal brain instead of parroting mindless rhetoric.

Let me guess, you know this cause the Bible said so.

Don't you realize that is you lived 3000 years ago you would be mindlessly parroting the Egyptian Book of the Dead ?

On second thought, God is pretty fucking pathetic if stupid idiots like you were made in His image.

[Rhinoqulous]

Do you think there is any way that free-will can be possible without some kind of dualism ? It seems to me that even with QM our caused and random universe would leave no space for free-will and responsibility.

I take your point about equations and ice-cream to mean that in a practical day-to-day sense we have free-will and responsibility because we think that we do, even if at a fundamental logical and physical level we do not. And I think about that really as just a complexity problem. Fundamentally it seems that given sufficient knowledge, understanding, computing power and cash it would be possible to build an exact replica model of myself that would act in all the ways I appear to choose to act, based on the same inputs. It really is a clockwork universe without dualism.
Dualism creates more problems than it solves, the biggest being how could some non-physical substance interact with physical substance. It also seems difficult, if not impossible, to formulate Laws dealing with the non-physical (Mind, consciousness, etc.) in relation to the physical. So no, I would not embrace dualism to solve any of our philosophical quandaries. I endorse anomalous monism (http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/am.htm), which is a theory of non-reductive materialism developed by Donald Davidson.

And as for ice cream and math equations, I feel that any equations we could derive from QM would be more complex than the system we are trying to explain (why ice-cream). For responsibility, my point is that physics is unable to talk about responsibility; there are no terms in the science Language Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_%28philosophy%29) for responsibility, so science (on its own) is unable to settle questions of this nature.

I don't think Free Will is that big of a problem. We have two choices: Either we have FW, or we are determined to believe we have FW. Either way, we need a concept of FW and responsibility, at least pragmatically, for society to function.

Rhinoq

[Paradox]

1.What is the nature of God?
the nature of god is determined by the nature of the believer
2.What is the nature of man?
survival
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
there is no objective presence of evil
4.How do you fix evil?
there is no objective presence of evil
5.What happens when you die?
i will most likely be buried
6.What is your source for this information?
my will
7.How reliable is your source?
i wrote it, so its very reliable
8. What if you are wrong?
thats a rather vague question. the end result of what happens if i am wrong, is essentially determined by what is right.
What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
i fail to see how one could possibly determine the actual chance of whether atheism is right or wrong. atheism is simply the default position one should take, if there is a lack evidence for the existence of any god(s).

Thanks all!
your welcome

[bobfritzelpuff]

1.What is the nature of God?
Well, deities started as a way to explain the inexplicible- kinda like this:

"We don't know where this stuff came from, and we can't understand it. That must mean it was made by someone with much more understanding than us." (Now that we understand stuff more, we don't need the 'deity fallback' explanation.)

Then they transmorgrified into a form of controll- kinda like this.

Peasant- "Life sucks."
King- "Yeah, but if you shut the hell up and worship your god, you will live in eternal bliss forever."
Peasant- "Sweet. PRAISE THE LORD!"

2.What is the nature of man?
Heh. What is the nature of cats? What is the nature of bacteria? What is the nature of viruses? We are here, with no real purpose, no greater goal, and we are nothing special. We act for survival and personal pleasure. Enjoy it.

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
There are no evil people- only evil acts. How do you define evil? It is a changing thing. It changes with cultural perceptions. Why do evil acts happen? Well, there are a few things we must say to answer this.

a) Someone does something they do not think is evil, but current culture does see as evil. We call these people with differante perceptions of evil 'psychopaths' and 'mentaly deranged.'

b) Same reason humans do everything. Thats the way evolution turned us out- with our thinking minds, sometimes personal goals outweigh culteral perceptions, and people do things that are currently deemed evil by society.

4.How do you fix evil?
Well, there are 3 ways that I can see:

a) Kill all the humans.

b) Redefine evil. This happens a lot, and the definition is differant everywhere. Ethics are not set in stone, each person has a differant set of principals. Suicide bombing to kill hundreds of Americains may seem evil to you, but may be the peak of goodness to a muslem extreamest. Evil is defined by the people and the culture.

c) Brainwash all the humans, or otherwise exert complete controll over them all. Capture all humans and put them in some matrix type thing in which evil (or any form of thought or free will) is not possible. Would this act be evil? Depends on the person and the culture you ask. It would, after all, eliminate evil.

5.What happens when you die?
Well, you stop existing. Then you arent there any more. Your body eventually decays.

6.What is your source for this information?
Life

7.How reliable is your source?
Meh, I'd say about 42. Maybe 43.

What kind of question is this? Logic tells me there isnt a god. Life tells me there is no need for one. There is no evidence of a soul. So lack of evidence is my source. Wheras yours is some old book writen thousandds of years ago by some guys who couldn't understand the world. I think I win.

8. What if you are wrong?
I am wrong, a lot. I usually throw a hissy fit, but I sometimes kick people.

If I am wrong about the existance of (a) deity(s)? I'll be kinda surprised, but not too much. I don't deny that there is probably a type of being out there with a higher level of conciousness than we have (just like we have higher conciosness than bugs. But I doubt it would be a creator- no more than we are the creators of bugs.)
If I happen to exist in an afterlife, I will be even more surprised. (There could be something more to life than the sum of its parts. Conciousness does seem pretty cool. I doubt it, though.)
If there is a deity ruling over this afterlife, my surprisedness will reach a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10.
If the deity is one of those that humans have concocted, I will be somewhere around 9 on the surprised scale. And if that deity happens to be the christian god- well, I'd be around a 42 on the scale. Or 43. Whats the chances that the god would be yours (if it was a human concocted deity)? One in a million? Less?

What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
I already told you! 42. Or 43.

As I said, I don't rule out the existance of a species with higher conciousness. As for there being a creator, I find the chances of that slim. And as it for being your god- I think about 182378915498758012930134756.234576x10^652381982536 75 to 1 against.

Thanks all!
Welcome All!

[Asimov]

1.What is the nature of God?
What is God?

2.What is the nature of man?
Depends on the man.

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
What is evil?

4.How do you fix evil?
Fix evil?

5.What happens when you die?
Generally you decompose.

6.What is your source for this information?
Observation.

7.How reliable is your source?
Very.

8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
Oh...you mean about everything? Well, I haven't really answered anything because you're asking ambiguous questions.

[StillSurviving]

What are we to blame for the evil?
If you believe in an omnipotent God, blame God.

[Lundie]

1.What is the nature of God?
What is God? We Atheists reject the notion of God as a fallacy based on evidence, or lack thereof. But at least we don't presume to know the inner workings of a supreme being based on a book.

2.What is the nature of man?
Procreation for the purposes of continuation of genes.

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
Evil is nothing more than a concept within the minds of man. It is the polar opposite of the concept of good. There is no evil without good and no good without evil.

4.How do you fix evil?
Without good there is no evil. Therefore to eliminate evil we must first eliminate good. Which would you prefer?

5.What happens when you die?
The body begins to cool, then becomes pallid as blood ceases to be pumped. Sphincter muscles slacken and releases urine, feces, and stomach contents. Blood settles in the relatively lower parts of the body and begins to coagulate as body tempature drops. Rigor mortis sets in, peaks at approximately 12 hours and dissapears in 36 depending on conditions.

Within a day decomposition begins to occur as a result of autolytic changes and foreign catalytic organisms. Internal body structures will begin to rot. Noxious gases are released as a result of bacterial activity during the putrefication process, causing bloating as the gases accumulate within yet intact body structure. The skin begins to disintegrate along with internal muscle structures, cumulating in total collapse of external physical structures. Once muscle decomposition is complete only the skeletal structure will remain.

Does that answer your question?

6.What is your source for this information?
Logic. And an internship.

7.How reliable is your source?
Very, for I am my own source.

8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
As with all things, there is a probability, no matter how small, that Atheism is wrong. After all there is no conclusive evidence of the absence of God. We merely collated scientific and philosopical findings from other areas and juxtaposed them to the context of religion to conclude that there is no God.

But then again it's more reasonable to base one's views on concrete findings rather than on a collection of words that were dictated, written, and propagated by pre-scientific humans t arrive at a conclusion, is it not?