Please allow me to introduce myself...

[SarraceniaScott]

I'm a man of wealth and taste

Well, OK, wealth... not so much, and perhaps questionable taste.

Nor have I stolen souls, but I may have sapped some people's faith.

I am a 35-year-old former physicist (Ph.D. dropout) who now works as a quantitative analyst in the energy industry. My hobbies include growing carnivorous plants (hence my screenname), homebrewing, astronomy, and physics.

In politics, I consider myself a left-leaning pragmatic realist -- I consider dogma as anathema, whether in politics or religion. In practice, this makes me an extreme moderate: most of my liberal friends consider me conservative, and most of my conservative friends consider me liberal.

I support a progressive tax policy. I believe laws designed to promote morality should only be considered when the behavior in question is objectively demonstrable to be harmful to society in a significant, material, quantifiable way. I believe that some greed is a great motivator, and some form of capitalism makes for a great economic system, but the government must regulate to protect against unbridled greed. I believe a civilised society should take care of its weakest and most unfortunate members, through voluntary charity, if people are shown to be consistently and sufficiently charitable, and through taxation if otherwise.

I believe that moral situations are not usually easily resolved by a binary right/wrong thought process. I believe in all criminal cases it is a far worse error to convict an innocent, than to allow the guilty to go free. I am unwaveringly opposed to the death penalty, opposed to sentencing guidelines that do not allow for judicial discretion.

With respect to religion, I am not wired for religious faith. I require empirical evidence to accept an idea. I do not believe any gods exist, although as a scientist, I accept that faith is outside the realm of naturalistic science and do not claim that no gods can exist. I believe religion evolved out of a need to explain the world, a fear of death, a desire to impose morals, and to explain feelings of spirituality -- deep sense of timelessness and connection to the universe. I rely on physics both to explain the world and to provide a sense of spirituality. I do not particularly fear non-existence... it will be no different that the 13 billion or so years before I was born. My moral compass is shaped by the Golden Rule, and I recognise that morality rooted in altruistic behavior is a result of natural evolutionary processes. Thus, I have no need of a god. I feel the same way about the idea of god as I do about an acquaintance's proposition that between every 'moment' of perceived time, there are 'aeons' of hidden time: it explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it adds nothing to the understanding of the world, and is therefore unneccesary by Occam's Razor.

Although I try not to be openly or unneccesarily antagonistic of others' faith, insofar as it does not motivate them to hurt others or control them needlessly, I find it rather rare that a religious person is not put off by my philosophy.

I have been posting to political message boards for several years, and the discussions I like the best are the more esoteric, philosophical ones.

[bernee51]

I'm a man of wealth and taste...and the discussions I like the best are the more esoteric, philosophical ones.

Welcome SS

Another atheist to help man the parapets is always welcome.

Personally I have found the level and tenor of debate here to be very stimulating and thought provoking. I'm sure your scientific background will be of assistance in the creation/evolution sub forum.

My own view on theism is that I am a strong atheist in relation to the JCI god - I have no reason to believe such a god exists and there is enough counter evidence for me to make a positive statement of non-existence. I terms of any possible definition of god - I would have to be agnostic - it is going to depend on the definition.

cheers



regards

Bernie

[SarraceniaScott]

there is enough counter evidence for me to make a positive statement of non-existence.

What do you consider counter-evidence? By JCI, I assume you mean Jewish-Christian-Islamic? I agree that the fundies' literal walking-the-earth sort of god is a falsifiable (and falsified) idea, but I know many whose idea of the christian god is such that their faith is properly outside the sphere of science, and not subject to any evidence, supporting or denying.

Thanks for the welcome.

[mrmufin]

Welcome to the DC&R forums, SarraceniaScott!

I am a 35-year-old former physicist (Ph.D. dropout) who now works as a quantitative analyst in the energy industry. My hobbies include growing carnivorous plants (hence my screenname), homebrewing, astronomy, and physics.

Physics? Cool! DC&R can never have too many participants with a decent working understanding of the mechanical aspects of nature. I'm a 38-year-old painter (and student) who used to work in a variety of geek-sector tech jobs (and got fed up with long hours, travel, and middle-of-the-night phone calls). My hobbies include music, photography, and the very lovely msmufin.

With respect to religion, I am not wired for religious faith. I require empirical evidence to accept an idea. I do not believe any gods exist, although as a scientist, I accept that faith is outside the realm of naturalistic science and do not claim that no gods can exist.

Very well put, and not unlike my sentiments on the issue.

Welcome to DC&R!

Regards,
mrmufin

[bernee51]

there is enough counter evidence for me to make a positive statement of non-existence.

What do you consider counter-evidence? By JCI, I assume you mean Jewish-Christian-Islamic? I agree that the fundies' literal walking-the-earth sort of god is a falsifiable (and falsified) idea, but I know many whose idea of the christian god is such that their faith is properly outside the sphere of science, and not subject to any evidence, supporting or denying.

Thanks for the welcome.

By counter evidence I mean that of a logical nature. I am of the opinion that the argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, and unaswered prayer adequately sum up the logical impossibility of the christian god.

cheers

[SarraceniaScott]

there is enough counter evidence for me to make a positive statement of non-existence.

What do you consider counter-evidence? By JCI, I assume you mean Jewish-Christian-Islamic? I agree that the fundies' literal walking-the-earth sort of god is a falsifiable (and falsified) idea, but I know many whose idea of the christian god is such that their faith is properly outside the sphere of science, and not subject to any evidence, supporting or denying.

Thanks for the welcome.

By counter evidence I mean that of a logical nature. I am of the opinion that the argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, and unaswered prayer adequately sum up the logical impossibility of the christian god.

cheers

Would you mind summarising the arguments from evil and non-belief for me?