NationStates Jolt Archive

Coupled with my belief in God is that God is not limited to what the major religions believe in and that he can be just like any other human that he created. I believe that God set off The Big Bang and allowed for the process of evolution.

Anyway, it seems that atheists claim that they do not believe in God for these main reasons:
1. It is not logical.
2. Religions conflict with one another
3. The origins of religion are questionable
4. Lack of evidence of God

Now those four do hold sense to them. The God we know and love does not follow the same limits as people, that can't be logical or possible. Religions claim that other religions are false, so they are all quite difficult to follow, which one is the right one if any? And the people around at the time when major religions were created (~2,000 years ago) weren't exactly at the pinnacle of intelligence and experience, they could easily be taught something that was false (Like that the Earth is at the center of the universe).

However, my belief in God does not align with those of the major religions. They want to bind God down and tell you that he does this and that. I don't think that one can say what God does and doesn't do, plus I think it's stupid for anyone to say that they saw Him do anything. I believe that God could have a history similar to human history: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463760 . I don't believe that one can just define him in a simple matter, to do so is rather stupid. Can anyone define a person and immediatly summarize him in 20 seconds or less? No.

So where am I getting at? My question.

Atheists, when you decide to not believe in God or any form of God or gods, do you swear away the complexity and possibilities that cannot be answered by current modern science but can possibly be answered by other science?

Because as I see it, science is discovering that the universe works in more and more chaotic ways than was known even 75 years ago. How long will it be until we discover something that happens illogical (Say, a sun which repels things outward instead of bringing it closer). Then we must rewrite the laws of physics that fit this in, and we must rewrite everything related to that.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (I apologize, I find it hard to organize my thoughts coherantly) is that it seems that atheism doesn't do science any justice, that they believe that science is stuck where it currently is and it won't budge and it refuses to accept any possibility of a God because of certain reasons.




Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.

That last paragraph was for those of you who like to skip to the end of the original post to see what the hell am I getting at.

Coupled with my belief in God is that God is not limited to what the major religions believe in and that he can be just like any other human that he created. I believe that God set off The Big Bang and allowed for the process of evolution.

Anyway, it seems that atheists claim that they do not believe in God for these main reasons:
1. It is not logical.
2. Religions conflict with one another
3. The origins of religion are questionable
4. Lack of evidence of God

Now those four do hold sense to them. The God we know and love does not follow the same limits as people, that can't be logical or possible. Religions claim that other religions are false, so they are all quite difficult to follow, which one is the right one if any? And the people around at the time when major religions were created (~2,000 years ago) weren't exactly at the pinnacle of intelligence and experience, they could easily be taught something that was false (Like that the Earth is at the center of the universe).

However, my belief in God does not align with those of the major religions. They want to bind God down and tell you that he does this and that. I don't think that one can say what God does and doesn't do, plus I think it's stupid for anyone to say that they saw Him do anything. I believe that God could have a history similar to human history: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463760 . I don't believe that one can just define him in a simple matter, to do so is rather stupid. Can anyone define a person and immediatly summarize him in 20 seconds or less? No.

So where am I getting at? My question.

Atheists, when you decide to not believe in God or any form of God or gods, do you swear away the complexity and possibilities that cannot be answered by current modern science but can possibly be answered by other science?

Because as I see it, science is discovering that the universe works in more and more chaotic ways than was known even 75 years ago. How long will it be until we discover something that happens illogical (Say, a sun which repels things outward instead of bringing it closer). Then we must rewrite the laws of physics that fit this in, and we must rewrite everything related to that.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (I apologize, I find it hard to organize my thoughts coherantly) is that it seems that atheism doesn't do science any justice, that they believe that science is stuck where it currently is and it won't budge and it refuses to accept any possibility of a God because of certain reasons.




Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.

That last paragraph was for those of you who like to skip to the end of the original post to see what the hell am I getting at.

First - I have never met an Atheist who CHOSE to be an Atheist. It's kind of what is left when you DON'T 'have' religion.

Second - there are two very different types of Atheists.... those who are skeptical and those who are sure. The skeptical never 'write off' God/gods at all... they just don't accept them as fact.

Third - as with all other 'religious' schools of thought, the acceptance of no god has no impact, by NECESSITY, on any other ideas. There are Christians who 'believe' in aliens... there are Athiests who 'believe' in aliens.

Most Atheists, I believe... are skeptics. They accept what can be demonstrated, and they withhold judgement on that which is speculation.

Fourth - God is not 'denied' by science. 'Science' has nothing to say about 'god', either way... since 'god' is a variable that cannot be scientifically calculated.

Man needs God more than God needs Man.

Given what I can comprehend about the Universe; any idea of a Supreme Being either makes me his pet, or him unable to put any serious difference to my life; due to the "proof denies faith" argument.

At that point, which is what I was thinking about when I was confirmed, I stopped believing.

I don't think he doesn't exist, I just think he's no longer relevant to me; I'd far rather just be nice and see the effect for what I've done.

First - I have never met an Atheist who CHOSE to be an Atheist. It's kind of what is left when you DON'T 'have' religion.

Second - there are two very different types of Atheists.... those who are skeptical and those who are sure. The skeptical never 'write off' God/gods at all... they just don't accept them as fact.

Third - as with all other 'religious' schools of thought, the acceptance of no god has no impact, by NECESSITY, on any other ideas. There are Christians who 'believe' in aliens... there are Athiests who 'believe' in aliens.

Most Atheists, I believe... are skeptics. They accept what can be demonstrated, and they withhold judgement on that which is speculation.

Fourth - God is not 'denied' by science. 'Science' has nothing to say about 'god', either way... since 'god' is a variable that cannot be scientifically calculated.

I think you're throwing in agnostics with atheists.

Agnostics believe that humans cannot possibly know there is or isn't a god.
Atheists believe that there is no god.

A short answer:

Nothing has been discovered yet which implies the existance of a 'designer' or controlling intelligence in the universe.

A short answer:

Nothing has been discovered yet which implies the existance of a 'designer' or controlling intelligence for the universe.
So you deny the possibility or any chance of one?

Quite right. I don't deny the possibility of a creator - that would be stupid, given that as currently understood, there was a physical beginning to our universe and we cannot understand anything prior to that.

The only problem is that there is no evidence of a creator, and while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the fact of the matter is that as we currently understand reality, God is an unnecessary complication.

Your kind of "unlimited god, Colodia, would be the only one I could accept anyway. All of the ones espoused by organized religion make the error of limiting God, and I have long since come to the conclusion that, even were I to be given uncontrovertible proof of the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, I still wouldn't worship him - he is unworthy of being worshipped.

im not really sure what you are getting at. but im not willing to make up a god that i would believe in if he existed. it makes no more sense to me to do that than to shop through all the religions of the world to find one that "fits"

my made up god would be no more "true" than the god someone made up 3000 years ago.

I think you're throwing in agnostics with atheists.

Agnostics believe that humans cannot possibly know there is or isn't a god.
Atheists believe that there is no god.

They always try to do that, even though agnostics want nothing to do with them for the most part. The atheists I have known give a whole new meaning to the word fanatic. I'll take the company of a religious person every time.

So you deny the possibility or any chance of one?


Not at all, just about anything is strictly possible.

"Atheist" does not only mean 'opposed to the belief in god.'

It describes anyone who is without a belief in god.

Atheists, when you decide to not believe in God or any form of God or gods, do you swear away the complexity and possibilities that cannot be answered by current modern science but can possibly be answered by other science?

Because as I see it, science is discovering that the universe works in more and more chaotic ways than was known even 75 years ago. How long will it be until we discover something that happens illogical (Say, a sun which repels things outward instead of bringing it closer). Then we must rewrite the laws of physics that fit this in, and we must rewrite everything related to that.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (I apologize, I find it hard to organize my thoughts coherantly) is that it seems that atheism doesn't do science any justice, that they believe that science is stuck where it currently is and it won't budge and it refuses to accept any possibility of a God because of certain reasons.
I'm not sure I understand why you associate atheism with believing that science is stuck where it is. I haven't heard many atheists say that, and I'm not sure what the connection is.

im not really sure what you are getting at. but im not willing to make up a god that i would believe in if he existed. it makes no more sense to me to do that than to shop through all the religions of the world to find one that "fits"

my made up god would be no more "true" than the god someone made up 3000 years ago.
What I'm getting as is that do you throw away the possibility of science discovering a God, that current science does not stand still and is imperfect, that science still has a long way to go in the universe before we can truthfully say "Okay, the facts are right here on the table. God doesn't exist. It was really that rock over there that controlled space and time." or something.

Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.

That last paragraph was for those of you who like to skip to the end of the original post to see what the hell am I getting at.
I skipped. And you can't compare God to a sock. I have socks on my feet as I speak. Type I mean. God however, is conspicuously absent, not warming my feet, or protecting them in any way. How about you say,

God = an imaginary friend.

That works for my atheism.

What I'm getting as is that do you throw away the possibility of science discovering a God, that current science does not stand still and is imperfect, that science still has a long way to go in the universe before we can truthfully say "Okay, the facts are right here on the table. God doesn't exist. It was really that rock over there that controlled space and time." or something.

Well, if it was a rock that controlled space/time, would not that rock be god?

Coupled with my belief in God is that God is not limited to what the major religions believe in and that he can be just like any other human that he created.
So he's limited in that way; okay.

I believe that God set off The Big Bang and allowed for the process of evolution.

Anyway, it seems that atheists claim that they do not believe in God for these main reasons:
1. It is not logical.
2. Religions conflict with one another
3. The origins of religion are questionable
4. Lack of evidence of God

Now those four do hold sense to them. The God we know and love does not follow the same limits as people, that can't be logical or possible. Religions claim that other religions are false, so they are all quite difficult to follow, which one is the right one if any?
Actually, very few if any really hold that other religions are false. People are getting smarter by the century.

And the people around at the time when major religions were created (~2,000 years ago)
...give or take 6,000 years...

...weren't exactly at the pinnacle of intelligence and experience, they could easily be taught something that was false (Like that the Earth is at the center of the universe).
Quite the handicap, they had, being stupid and all. Of course, if what we think they thought of their religion is just how we view them, that's another story (http://link.lanic.utexas.edu/menic/ghazal/ChapIV/chapter4.html).

However, my belief in God does not align with those of the major religions. They want to bind God down and tell you that he does this and that.
Yeah; I often wondered about that, myself; not that that is what they thought, but that IS THAT really what they thought?

I don't think that one can say what God does and doesn't do, plus I think it's stupid for anyone to say that they saw Him do anything. I believe that God could have a history similar to human history: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463760 . I don't believe that one can just define him in a simple matter, to do so is rather stupid. Can anyone define a person and immediatly summarize him in 20 seconds or less? No.

So where am I getting at? My question.

Atheists, when you decide to not believe in God or any form of God or gods, do you swear away the complexity and possibilities that cannot be answered by current modern science but can possibly be answered by other science?

Because as I see it, science is discovering that the universe works in more and more chaotic ways than was known even 75 years ago. How long will it be until we discover something that happens illogical (Say, a sun which repels things outward instead of bringing it closer). Then we must rewrite the laws of physics that fit this in, and we must rewrite everything related to that.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (I apologize, I find it hard to organize my thoughts coherantly)
... I can sympathize with that.

...is that it seems that atheism doesn't do science any justice, that they believe that science is stuck where it currently is and it won't budge and it refuses to accept any possibility of a God because of certain reasons.

Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.

That last paragraph was for those of you who like to skip to the end of the original post to see what the hell am I getting at.
It would be a better example with, "Say God = the dryer sock." Not that your analogy isn't adequate, but that God isn't comparable to something that exists in nature. To compare him to that is to limit him.

I believe in the dryer sock, the one sock that disappears when you dry your laundry; and some people don't. I believe it because I have experienced it. As a believer in the dryer sock, I can believe that dryer socks don't just disppear on their own, that there is a greater force at work. But at the same time, I recognize that my view is subjective, and that the disappearance of that dryer sock is true only for me; need be true only for me.

What I'm getting as is that do you throw away the possibility of science discovering a God, that current science does not stand still and is imperfect, that science still has a long way to go in the universe before we can truthfully say "Okay, the facts are right here on the table. God doesn't exist. It was really that rock over there that controlled space and time." or something.
I don't see who is throwing away the idea of science progressing here though. I rather doubt most atheists put science as their reason to disbelieve in God, ususally I hear things such as "lack of evidence" or "it's illogical".

Fourth - God is not 'denied' by science. 'Science' has nothing to say about 'god', either way... since 'god' is a variable that cannot be scientifically calculated.
God is not even "a variable" to science. :-)

Biogenesis vs abiogenesis.

Life must come from life. It's a basic tennet of biology.
Where then, does life begin?
This is not an anti-evolution argument. I accept evolution and think that creationists are, on the whole, cracked pots.

However, I ask the following question:

Which is more ridiculous? That the original spark of life originated in the will of a great being or that it emerged from a primordial puddle of muck?

If it's the muck, why can't we create life from scratch?

What I'm getting as is that do you throw away the possibility of science discovering a God
If you want to maintain what a god is, yeah.

...that current science does not stand still and is imperfect, that science still has a long way to go in the universe before we can truthfully say "Okay, the facts are right here on the table. God doesn't exist. It was really that rock over there that controlled space and time." or something.
There can never be a point when we say that "the supernatural does not exist." If we can ever positively say that, then we have entirely disproven the unknown. Sound silly? It is.

Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.

So, which is it? Is the sock green? Yellow? Black? Come to think of it, is there more than one sock? Are there red, blue and purple socks? Are there four brown socks, nine orange socks, and six white socks? What can the socks do? Are they just for fitting on feet, or do they have other purposes? Do they even relate to humans at all?

These questions are what challenges beliefs in God. You don't know any of the answers to these questions and neither do I. The only difference is that I am willing to explore them and, from my experiences, values, and unintentionally but unavoidably, my comfort zone, I can develop my position on this argument. Christians, Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, have mostly just jumped on the "There is ONE overpowering GOD who controls EVERYTHING but has given us FREE WILL" bandwagon. While I am free explore these questions of life, these people cannot. THIS is why I am athiest, at least for now.

What I'm getting as is that do you throw away the possibility of science discovering a God, that current science does not stand still and is imperfect, that science still has a long way to go in the universe before we can truthfully say "Okay, the facts are right here on the table. God doesn't exist. It was really that rock over there that controlled space and time." or something.
science might find anything. until they do, what should i be doing about the faint possibility that some scientist discovers "god"?

until "god" appears and declares what he wants of us, he is irrelevant.

science might find anything. until they do, what should i be doing about the faint possibility that some scientist discovers "god"?

until "god" appears and declares what he wants of us, he is irrelevant.
Whoa!

I suspected you leaned this way, but I totally underestimated you.

Well done.

First - I have never met an Atheist who CHOSE to be an Atheist. It's kind of what is left when you DON'T 'have' religion.

Second - there are two very different types of Atheists.... those who are skeptical and those who are sure. The skeptical never 'write off' God/gods at all... they just don't accept them as fact.

Third - as with all other 'religious' schools of thought, the acceptance of no god has no impact, by NECESSITY, on any other ideas. There are Christians who 'believe' in aliens... there are Athiests who 'believe' in aliens.

Most Atheists, I believe... are skeptics. They accept what can be demonstrated, and they withhold judgement on that which is speculation.

Fourth - God is not 'denied' by science. 'Science' has nothing to say about 'god', either way... since 'god' is a variable that cannot be scientifically calculated.
your second point reffers more to agnostic vs athiesm:sniper:

So, which is it? Is the sock green? Yellow? Black? Come to think of it, is there more than one sock? Are there red, blue and purple socks? Are there four brown socks, nine orange socks, and six white socks? What can the socks do?
Yeah; like... sock puppets, that talk to us.

Are they just for fitting on feet, or do they have other purposes? Do they even relate to humans at all?

These questions are what challenges beliefs in God. You don't know any of the answers to these questions and neither do I. The only difference is that I am willing to explore them and, from my experiences, values, and unintentionally but unavoidably, my comfort zone, I can develop my position on this argument. Christians, Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, have mostly just jumped on the "There is ONE overpowering GOD who controls EVERYTHING but has given us FREE WILL" bandwagon. While I am free explore these questions of life, these people cannot. THIS is why I am athiest, at least for now.
Well, we do actually know the answer to one of these questions.

"Do they even relate to humans at all?"
Yes; they establish a relationship, through scripture, of what their relationship is with us and what our relationship with them should be.

Of course, this is just the image of God, not god itself.

The only real difference I see between you as a poster and the original poster is in your base assumptions.

I personally fin no reason to believe a god exists, so I don't believe a god exists. It's interesting to compare religion to other things. For example, if you say "Why did you commit a crime?" and I give the perfectly serious answer "Aliens came down and made me," I would be laughed at, shot, and killed (not in that order). There is no reason to assume aliens exist and/or do that stuff, so therefore you wouldn't, and this is manifested by immediately rejecting the idea that it's even possible at all. That's how crazy religion sounds to me. But do as you like; after all there is always Pascal's Bet -- even though it has so many holes -- for those that like to play it safe.

I am a devout member of the Church of Reason. This church has one tennant; follow the answers that reason and logic proclaim . Although there have been many arguments (both transendal and epitemological) for the exsistance of god all have failled. There is no VALID argument that either deductively or inductively
entails the exsiance of God. Therefore, due to my mentioned 'faith' in reason,
I am precluded from holding a VALID belief on the exsistance of any Supreme Being (be it Robespierre's or otherwise).

First - I have never met an Atheist who CHOSE to be an Atheist. It's kind of what is left when you DON'T 'have' religion.

Second - there are two very different types of Atheists.... those who are skeptical and those who are sure. The skeptical never 'write off' God/gods at all... they just don't accept them as fact.

Third - as with all other 'religious' schools of thought, the acceptance of no god has no impact, by NECESSITY, on any other ideas. There are Christians who 'believe' in aliens... there are Athiests who 'believe' in aliens.

Most Atheists, I believe... are skeptics. They accept what can be demonstrated, and they withhold judgement on that which is speculation.

Fourth - God is not 'denied' by science. 'Science' has nothing to say about 'god', either way... since 'god' is a variable that cannot be scientifically calculated.



I think all atheists make the choice to become so. I know I did. It was one of the easiest choices I've ever made, but took many years for me to actually decide to make the choice. When you're raised from birth to be a christian, you just accept is as fact that god exists. But when you finally start to get a little older, wiser, and intellectually independent, you may start to look at things more closely, instead of just accepting what has been ingrained in your head from birth. That is what happened to me. I asked myself one day, 'Do I actually believe in the existence of an almighty God?' 'How can I believe in the big bang, and intelligent design at the same time?' And shortly after I started thinking about it critically, it became clear to me that I never believed in God in the first place, and that I was just following the leader and not asking myself why.

However, I can always be proven wrong I suppose. I may not believe in God's existence, but I also didn't think George Bush would win a second term. I've been proven wrong before and can accept it. But until that day comes, I know what I'll be believing in.... or not believing in if ya know what I mean.

Organized religion is the greatest threat to the existence of mankind. But thats just one mans opinion

Organized religion is the greatest threat to the existence of mankind. But thats just one mans opinion

I couldnt agree more. Further to those who believe in a god I would just say that science may not be perfect however you can not subsitute god for the holes in science. Science just needs times to patch up those holes. When all the holes are patched it is my believe and hope that god will be removed entirely form our great modern, western society and will be based on reason, not harmful dogma.

Re: the four reasons to be atheist: I disagree. My only reason for not believing in God is... not believing in God.

I don't need a reason not to believe, I'd need a reason TO believe... and I do not have such reason.

Atheists, when you decide to not believe in God or any form of God or gods, do you swear away the complexity and possibilities that cannot be answered by current modern science but can possibly be answered by other science?

I don't "decide" not to believe in God. Did you ever decide not to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I mean, really? I'm guessing you never even seriously considered it as a possibility. Well, it's the same for me and any other Gods.

And when you say "other science" it sounds to me like what you mean is, "Not science." Philosophy, theology, spirituality, supernaturalism are not any kind of science.

And no, I don't "swear away" anything, nor have I a need to. I just don't believe. That shouldn't be so hard to believe, as many people tend to "just believe."

God is not even "a variable" to science. :-)

Except in Kansas, now.

Biogenesis vs abiogenesis.

Life must come from life. It's a basic tennet of biology.
Where then, does life begin?
This is not an anti-evolution argument. I accept evolution and think that creationists are, on the whole, cracked pots.

However, I ask the following question:

Which is more ridiculous? That the original spark of life originated in the will of a great being or that it emerged from a primordial puddle of muck?

If it's the muck, why can't we create life from scratch?


Because we haven't had the time the muck had? Not to mention if we did, we'd likely get stoned by religious fanatics or something


I personally fin no reason to believe a god exists, so I don't believe a god exists. It's interesting to compare religion to other things. For example, if you say "Why did you commit a crime?" and I give the perfectly serious answer "Aliens came down and made me," I would be laughed at, shot, and killed (not in that order). There is no reason to assume aliens exist and/or do that stuff, so therefore you wouldn't, and this is manifested by immediately rejecting the idea that it's even possible at all. That's how crazy religion sounds to me. But do as you like; after all there is always Pascal's Bet -- even though it has so many holes -- for those that like to play it safe.

Actually, it's rather likely extraterrestial life is out there SOMEWHERE, just by the sheer magnitude of the universe. , but the chance of them coming here.....suffice it to say it's much lower...

Frankly, I think that science is always moving forward and that religion acts as more of a brake to real scientific progress. So I would use science to not deny the existence of a god, but to accept that there is no real rational explanation of other people's belief in any god.

I see there is another XTC fan in the forum too ;)

Biogenesis vs abiogenesis.

Life must come from life. It's a basic tennet of biology.
Where then, does life begin?


Life begins in your head. I'm sure we could have a field day with trying to define exactly what life is, running from one extreme to crystals are alive because they grow and reproduce to people aren't really alive because they are made of non-living atoms. If you wanted to get really esoteric, we could say that life transcends existence and nonexistence because it is the relation between things rather than the things themselves that make up life.

"Life....don't talk to me about life..."
-Marvin, The Paranoid Android

Life begins in your head. I'm sure we could have a field day with trying to define exactly what life is, running from one extreme to crystals are alive because they grow and reproduce to people aren't really alive because they are made of non-living atoms. If you wanted to get really esoteric, we could say that life transcends existence and nonexistence because it is the relation between things rather than the things themselves that make up life.

"Life....don't talk to me about life..."
-Marvin, The Paranoid Android
So, life is something more than physical eistence?

So, life is something more than physical eistence?

Personally, I go for option 3 in my previous post.

Ok let's run with the "God=sock".
What happens if you live in a world that has no shoes, thus no need for socks. now lets say in this world without shoes you find that in the winter your feet get cold and you think to yourself I need something to keep my feet warm in the winter. So you make shoes and all is good. then you notice that your feet get blisters and they smell. You need something between you and your shoes and you come up with the sock. Now I told you that story to make this point. Once man found out how big bad and ugly the world (the Shoe) was. He needed to find something to put between himself and the world and that my friend is why we have "God" (the sock). Just as the sock makes your foot feel better in the shoe, "God" makes mankind feel safer in the world. Mankind needed to feel safe in the world thus he made "God".


Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.

That last paragraph was for those of you who like to skip to the end of the original post to see what the hell am I getting at.[/QUOTE]

I couldnt agree more. Further to those who believe in a god I would just say that science may not be perfect however you can not subsitute god for the holes in science. Science just needs times to patch up those holes. When all the holes are patched it is my believe and hope that god will be removed entirely form our great modern, western society and will be based on reason, not harmful dogma.

By the time human science manages to "patch all the holes", so to speak, the universe, I imagine, will already have ended. And that's to say nothing about whether humans will still be around by that time (extremely doubtful), let alone 'Western' society (positively laughable).

And what is with this idea that some atheists seem to have that "Religious = stupid and hates the Great and Powerful Science!". That's as stupid as the idea that "Atheist = Immoral, corrupt monster bringing about the downfall of society!" that some religious folks have.

Ok let's run with the "God=sock".
What happens if you live in a world that has no shoes, thus no need for socks. now lets say in this world without shoes you find that in the winter your feet get cold and you think to yourself I need something to keep my feet warm in the winter. So you make shoes and all is good. then you notice that your feet get blisters and they smell. You need something between you and your shoes and you come up with the sock. Now I told you that story to make this point. Once man found out how big bad and ugly the world (the Shoe) was. He needed to find something to put between himself and the world and that my friend is why we have "God" (the sock). Just as the sock makes your foot feel better in the shoe, "God" makes mankind feel safer in the world. Mankind needed to feel safe in the world thus he made "God".
LOL!

Gotta love analogies.

Second - there are two very different types of Atheists.... those who are skeptical and those who are sure. The skeptical never 'write off' God/gods at all... they just don't accept them as fact.your second point reffers more to agnostic vs athiesm:sniper:No, not really, in my mind, though I see your confusion...


Hard atheism: "athe-ism" Belief in No-God.
Soft atheism: "a-theism" No Belief-In-God

Smilarly you'll get hard and strong theists. Fundementalists and "going through the motions" type people (who never consider the possibility of No-God but whose church attenendances are secondary to a personal observation of belief on auto-pilot), respectively.

Agnosticism is a fuzzy area, a bit like the triangle in the letter "A". Fundementalist dogma is planted at the bottom of the left hand diagonal, ultimate God-denial being planted at the bottom of the right-hand diagonal, the point where they touch being where someone essentially does not do anything different regardless of the 'switch' of belief in God being switched on or not, they get on with life much the same, without even the "can we know?" question being present in their thoughts.

Now look at the area in the central triangle. Place within this, to one side or another (and at different heights, according to how much the question 'matters' to them) the theistic agnostic (while they can't be sure, they may observe some aspect of the theology you're currently attached to and not walk under ladders if they can help it) or atheistically agnostic (they can't be sure, and suspect that if there is a God then he'd understand them using the Sabbath as they see fit, e.g. to go fishing, because they don't generally try to kill people or covet your neighbour's ass or anything any more than the neighbour covets their ox so you might as well leave Him out of the equation) and there'll probably be some fence-sitters, if I knowing humanity as well as I think I do.

There's little room for wavering down near the feet of the letter 'A' layout, so you'll probably find that someone crossing from one side of the other of the lower part either leaps across (some epiphany swings them across to relgion or some crumbling facade of ill-built faith takes them away from it) or migrates up one leg (weakening conviction), passes through the upper-middle (looks at the question) and down the other (life gives them a new certainty to work with). Some (or perhaps even most) people only make a partial journey, or wander back and forwards within a section, and I'm presopposing that you can't be "militantly agnostic" ("I demand that you consider the existence of God to be unproven and unprovable!" ;)) and so my description may be flawed. Maybe it actually is a full-sized triangle, ground up... But I'd consider agnosticism to be the area swept between the two lines. And could well be wrong in that assesment, but it's the best analogy I have so far come up with the to describe my classification.

If I disapoint any actual experts on the matter from either extremist camp, my apologies. If I upset both camps, then maybe I'm onto something... ;)

Well, we do actually know the answer to one of these questions.

"Do they even relate to humans at all?"
Yes; they establish a relationship, through scripture, of what their relationship is with us and what our relationship with them should be.

You're wrong. If you want to believe God establishes a relationship with us, you're running your beliefs past me. If you are bothering to say that God relates through scripture why don't you also tell me that you know the answer to all of the questions? Because, you don't. You're just putting your faith in the answers, as you are with this answer. It assumes that there is a God who relates through scripture. In beliefs such as Stoicism, the Gods were not like humans at all and were completely unconcerned with human affairs. They did not relate to humans at all, they simply co - existed. Thus if you go by my questioning of the sock comparison, and assume that the unknown, is, in fact, unknown, then saying that God/Gods may not relate to us is entirely plausible, because even if you don't buy into Stoicism, the answer is still unknown.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (I apologize, I find it hard to organize my thoughts coherantly) is that it seems that atheism doesn't do science any justice, that they believe that science is stuck where it currently is and it won't budge and it refuses to accept any possibility of a God because of certain reasons.




Say God = a sock.
I believe in socks, and atheists don't. As a believer in socks I can believe that socks don't just have to come in gray, they can come in green, black, blue, purple, red, rainbow, maroon, etc. I can believe they come in fluffy styles, tight, or ripped. Atheists...just say that socks don't exists and cannot embrace the possibilites that socks offer you.




Absolute garbage; science is constantly evolving and it advances year on year. There isn't a scientist on earth who wouldn't want to see their life's work superceded by more advanced thinking after their death; provided of course that these later studies offer a better 'explanatory tool' of the world around us.

It is religion that is static, unyielding and hostile to any questioning or re-positioning of its basic tenets. It is religion that will not accept progress and change. Books like the Bible and the Koran were written by people centuries ago, persons too ignorant to even understand weather systems, and yet they are considered inerrant and unchangeable by even moderate Christians and Muslims respectively.


As for your sock analogy; I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to demonstate, other than the fact that you don't appear to be very intelligent.

Personally, I go for option 3 in my previous post.
Me too.

You're wrong. If you want to believe God establishes a relationship with us, you're running your beliefs past me. If you are bothering to say that God relates through scripture why don't you also tell me that you know the answer to all of the questions?
Because "all the of the questions" are not addressed in scripture.

What else is establishing a relationship if not "running your beliefs past me"?

Because, you don't. You're just putting your faith in the answers, as you are with this answer. It assumes that there is a God who relates through scripture. In beliefs such as Stoicism, the Gods were not like humans at all and were completely unconcerned with human affairs. They did not relate to humans at all, they simply co - existed. Thus if you go by my questioning of the sock comparison, and assume that the unknown, is, in fact, unknown, then saying that God/Gods may not relate to us is entirely plausible, because even if you don't buy into Stoicism, the answer is still unknown.
Scripture is not actually "answers" to things in the physical universe, but in the spiritual universe.

It's a common misconception.

If the answers don't work for you, find a new scripture (i.e. if you cannot relate to any part of this god, find a different one).

Because "all the of the questions" are not addressed in scripture.

What else is establishing a relationship if not "running your beliefs past me"?

I was talking about the questions of how many Gods there were, what their powers were and if they had any purpose. I was NOT talking about scriptures. Perhaps you need to re-look at the sock theory.


Scripture is not actually "answers" to things in the physical universe, but in the spiritual universe.

It's a common misconception.

If the answers don't work for you, find a new scripture (i.e. if you cannot relate to any part of this god, find a different one).

Yeah, that's what I always do. When this God fails me I simply change my faith. I can't even count how many times I've done that!

Or, another idea is to actually explore the ideas of fate, God and the spiritual universe before jumping onto a religious bandwagon, as most people do.

I was talking about the questions of how many Gods there were, what their powers were and if they had any purpose. I was NOT talking about scriptures. Perhaps you need to re-look at the sock theory.
Okay; but I thought I made it clear that I just wasn't buying the sock theory. So I presented alternatives.

Yeah, that's what I always do. When this God fails me I simply change my faith. I can't even count how many times I've done that!

Or, another idea is to actually explore the ideas of fate, God and the spiritual universe before jumping onto a religious bandwagon, as most people do.
What is the difference between "exploring the ideas of fate, God and the spiritual universe" and "finding a new scripture"? (i.e. none)

However, I ask the following question:

Which is more ridiculous? That the original spark of life originated in the will of a great being or that it emerged from a primordial puddle of muck?

If it's the muck, why can't we create life from scratch?


For the same reason the Romans weren't capable of constructing a working nuclear reactor.

Biogenesis vs abiogenesis.

Life must come from life. It's a basic tennet of biology.
Where then, does life begin?
This is not an anti-evolution argument. I accept evolution and think that creationists are, on the whole, cracked pots.

However, I ask the following question:

Which is more ridiculous? That the original spark of life originated in the will of a great being or that it emerged from a primordial puddle of muck?

If it's the muck, why can't we create life from scratch?
I'll take Door #3.