NationStates Jolt Archive

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

I'm an atheist because this God stuff is a load of bollocks.

I'm an atheist because this God stuff is a load of bollocks.
Blunt but right to the point. :D

I'm sorry most of those arguments are about 1000 years old.

Thanks for your perspective.

Just out of curiosity, and please forgive me if this question sounds confrontational, but if someone wanted to address the specific items you listed in your OP, would you consider that persecution and/or forcing beliefs upon you?

I'm sorry most of those arguments are about 1000 years old.

And the ones for religion are 2,000 years old. Your point?

Thanks for your perspective.

Just out of curiosity, and please forgive me if this question sounds confrontational, but if someone wanted to address the specific items you listed in your OP, would you consider that persecution and/or forcing beliefs upon you?

If you wanted to ask why I believe something, or why not, I don't see it as that because you're saying you're interested in knowing more.

And the ones for religion are 2,000 years old. Your point?

If you expect to have a good debate, then at least use better arguments.

If you expect to have a good debate, then at least use better arguments.

Physician, heal thyself:

I'm sorry most of those arguments are about 1000 years old.

If you wanted to ask why I believe something, or why not, I don't see it as that because you're saying you're interested in knowing more.

Makes sense, but I meant more in a context of rebuttal, like (hypothetically) if I wanted to take issue with the idea that many religions = no God, would you consider that an attack?

I agree with everything you've said. Most of it makes no sense and just falls flat on its face when someone tries to explain to me about the holy trinity :headbang:
Personally I like the edge of mystery ignorance brings

Physician, heal thyself:

Whats your point? I wasn't using that as any sort of argument.

It really comes down to whatever faith works for you.

If atheism provides you with the best context for your life stance, go with it, and if it doesn't, go with something else. It really just boils down to what works for you; however, you also have to accept that your interpretation is no more correct, logical, or accurate than anyone else's and you have to keep it to yourself like anyone else. Evangelical atheism is just as bad as someone forcing their faith on you, or anyone else for that matter.

Makes sense, but I meant more in a context of rebuttal, like (hypothetically) if I wanted to take issue with the idea that many religions = no God, would you consider that an attack?
Ah that.

Actually, I don't see it as too many religions equals no God, but rather, all these religions have their own God(s), and so, which God is right? How can there be one God, when some other religion says otherwise. After all, Judaism has one god, but Hinduism has multiple gods. Does more gods mean that that religion is right, or does that diminish the influence of the Gods because there are so many?

I'm sorry most of those arguments are about 1000 years old.

An old argument is just as good as a new one if it's valid. Remember, religion is one of those things that no one has a monopoly on its truth, no one has the right answer, and every single argument is based ultimately on faith (just like every other field, for that matter).

It really comes down to whatever faith works for you.

If atheism provides you with the best context for your life stance, go with it, and if it doesn't, go with something else. It really just boils down to what works for you; however, you also have to accept that your interpretation is no more correct, logical, or accurate than anyone else's and you have to keep it to yourself like anyone else. Evangelical atheism is just as bad as someone forcing their faith on you, or anyone else for that matter.
I agree with you on that, except that it's not Evangelical Atheism, it's Militant Atheism you're referring to.

All extreme sects and subsects of any religion and religious denomination give a bad name to the moderate and rational sects.

It's find to proclaim you believe this or that, but, it's wrong to say that because someone believes contrary to what you believe that they are going to suffer for their beliefs, simply because they are different.

I know I'm not right in the eyes of many, but, I am right in my own eyes.

Actually, I don't see it as too many religions equals no God, but rather, all these religions have their own God(s), and so, which God is right? How can there be one God, when some other religion says otherwise. After all, Judaism has one god, but Hinduism has multiple gods. Does more gods mean that that religion is right, or does that diminish the influence of the Gods because there are so many?

Well, if you were to think syncretically, you'd come to the conclusion that every religion is a particular interpretation of some unknowable divine, put in to words and ascribed traits that human beings can understand.

The problem is, a lot of people prefer to insist on their beliefs being true as a fact, as opposed to something taken on faith.

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

I could not agree more. Religion isn't only mostly a lie what keeps people believing that there is better place after and, thus, making people obey their leaders who "rule under god" or "will of god" or "are gods themselfs". Not only divining peoples, it also makes poor to think their situation is good (making them not to rise against those who are responsible that they are poor), while rich believe it only because it prevents poor killing them. It certainly is opium to people.

Well, if you were to think syncretically, you'd come to the conclusion that every religion is a particular interpretation of some unknowable divine, put in to words and ascribed traits that human beings can understand.

The problem is, a lot of people prefer to insist on their beliefs being true as a fact, as opposed to something taken on faith.
You last line speaks volumes of truth to me.

It saddens me that it is considered acceptable to insult someone's beliefs because theirs differ than yours, which you may see as the spoken, testified truth. I only oppose beliefs that hurt other people because they have different beliefs as well.

I do not care, however, that they sing praises to some guy in the clouds. If it makes them feel spiritually good, then, hey, who am I to judge?

Ah that.

Actually, I don't see it as too many religions equals no God, but rather, all these religions have their own God(s), and so, which God is right? How can there be one God, when some other religion says otherwise. After all, Judaism has one god, but Hinduism has multiple gods. Does more gods mean that that religion is right, or does that diminish the influence of the Gods because there are so many?

I"ll take that to mean you wouldn't consider it as an attack, and since we're discussing it, I'll remove it from the hypothetical column :)

Actually, it's very understandable that with the sheer volume of different religious beliefs scattered across the world, it would be discouraging to believe that any of them could be right, let alone which one.

I would point out that human beings are notoriously bad at conserving anything for very long without screwing it up, making up our own versions, etc. Give that a few thousand years to percolate and voila'. The situation you see today.

What I would say is that whatever your feelings are that lead you to atheism, don't let it be the failures of your fellow human beings. Remove them from the equation and start with the baseline premise:

If there is a God, then He must be able to make me aware of Him outside the influence of other people.

If you can accept that conditional premise, then at least you can truly decide for yourself, and leave the collective incompetence of humanity out of it.

Whats your point? I wasn't using that as any sort of argument.
You criticised Kryozerkia for making what you see as a poor argument after making an argument exactly the same.

I could not agree more. Religion isn't only mostly a lie what keeps people believing that there is better place after and, thus, making people obey their leaders who "rule under god" or "will of god" or "are gods themselfs". Not only divining peoples, it also makes poor to think their situation is good (making them not to rise against those who are responsible that they are poor), while rich believe it only because it prevents poor killing them. It certainly is opium to people.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto

I agree with you on that, except that it's not Evangelical Atheism, it's Militant Atheism you're referring to.

Well, I'm not really a fan of the kind of evangelism that people like Pat Robertson or Richard Dawkins support, or any kind of militant religion, so I tend to view both in a negative light just because they draw lines in the debate between "truth" and "falsehood" and overall end up stifling meaningful discussion.

It comes from my own distrust of anyone who tries to make me think their way by appealing to "truth", or their own definition of "logic". I draw a line between discussing religion and trying to convert others; usually the latter involves attacking the other person's belief rather than just discussing it.

All extreme sects and subsects of any religion and religious denomination give a bad name to the moderate and rational sects.

True. All they do is stifle thought, interfaith discussion, and the evolution of spirituality and theology to accommodate changes in secular society. I mean, every religion was a radical ideology at its time; I see no reason why it should stagnate and become reactionary.

It's find to proclaim you believe this or that, but, it's wrong to say that because someone believes contrary to what you believe that they are going to suffer for their beliefs, simply because they are different.

It's wrong to denigrate, threaten, condemn, insult, harass, or hurt someone for their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think they are. Curbing extremism requires patience, not anger.

Speaking in regard to Christianity, people forget that conversion has to be voluntary and it has to be real; you can't force someone to convert out of fear, it has to be done by making the leap of faith and becoming Christian willingly.

I know I'm not right in the eyes of many, but, I am right in my own eyes.

Ultimately, that's what matters. Your personal fulfillment is what provides a context for your beliefs.

Evangelical atheism is just as bad as someone forcing their faith on you, or anyone else for that matter.
Good point. There are many of little or no faith that go out of their way to mock those with faith.

At one time, I had trouble accepting God, but today, I know there is a God and I am not Him. My life has improved dramatically since that moment. :)

You last line speaks volumes of truth to me.

It saddens me that it is considered acceptable to insult someone's beliefs because theirs differ than yours, which you may see as the spoken, testified truth. I only oppose beliefs that hurt other people because they have different beliefs as well.

I do not care, however, that they sing praises to some guy in the clouds. If it makes them feel spiritually good, then, hey, who am I to judge?
Of course, I think its rubbish, but if it makes people happy then...:cool:

But if there is no God, who will save the Queen?! :eek:

I could not agree more. Religion isn't only mostly a lie what keeps people believing that there is better place after and, thus, making people obey their leaders who "rule under god" or "will of god" or "are gods themselfs". Not only divining peoples, it also makes poor to think their situation is good (making them not to rise against those who are responsible that they are poor), while rich believe it only because it prevents poor killing them. It certainly is opium to people.

Ironically, the militantly atheist Soviet Union had one of the least equal distributions of income in the world...it's not religion that is the opiate of the masses, it's unquestioned ideology that is the opiate of the masses. People forget to think, and they end up accepting only the shallow ideas that are given to them rather than really looking in to their beliefs and building something meaningful to them.

Honestly, materialism and consumerism are way better opiates than shallow religion ever was or could be. It just goes to show what a failure to think can do, no matter what the ideology is that takes advantage of it.

I've recently been inspired by Kirkegaard's idea that our relationship with God (speaking from a theist perspective) transcends social convention, the structures of organized religion, and even theology itself. It's up to us to develop our relationship with God no matter what way it seems to take us, and no matter what it looks like to the social conventions of the time.

What I would say is that whatever your feelings are that lead you to atheism, don't let it be the failures of your fellow human beings. Remove them from the equation and start with the baseline premise:

If there is a God, then He must be able to make me aware of Him outside the influence of other people.

If you can accept that conditional premise, then at least you can truly decide for yourself, and leave the collective incompetence of humanity out of it.
No, my fellow humans and their choices and beliefs did not lead me to Atheism, but rather my own curiosity did. I didn't find what I sought. I tried a couple of religions on for size.

Catholicism, which I was baptised didn't have what I was looking for, nor did Buddhism. Both have redeeming aspects, but, I didn't see what I was looking for.

I did my research, I read, but, nothing rang true for me.

I found it was easier to borrow concepts and just go with what felt right. I honestly didn't like the idea of believing some guy, in the clouds, was watching me 24/7, so, I made my choice that way.

It wasn't mankind's failings that led me to it, but rather its indecisiveness and the wide range of beliefs that led me to my conclusions.

I hate picking from what exists, so, I went my own way because I'm the annoying brat who never listened to the teacher and coloured my flowers in the wrong way because I liked the petals being multi-coloured.

But if there is no God, who will save the Queen?! :eek:
Her knight in shining armour? :p

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

To be fair, from what follows, I'd say that you don't understand theists any more than you claim we understand atheists.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

Interesting. Now, while historical accounts and religious accounts are certainly different, two different historical accounts of a given event will often contradict each other. Does that mean that none of them are more true than any other? If two accounts describe a battle differently, with different numbers of soldiers involved, does that mean that neither number is closer to the actual events?

Note: I'm not saying there's any problem with your conclusion, just that it doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. I also came to the conclusion that no stated religion is absolutely right. However, that didn't convince me that there is no God. It simply convinced me even further of the fallibility of human beings, and our inability to understand everything. I was discouraged for a while, because I think I *wanted* someone to give me all the answers. However, in the end, I realized that it wasn't going to happen, and it was silly and lazy to expect it. I try to seek out those answers myself, and it has led me to very different conclusions than your own.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

If human beings are figuring out their own paths, doesn't that mean that their own personal religious may help them answer the question, "Why are we here?"??

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

Here is the problem with your understanding of theism. You seem to think that faith must be blind. That is not true. This is why we can discuss faith as opposed to "blind faith." True faith involves constant questioning - constant searching. It is a different type of search than the scientific one, in a different realm. That search doesn't appeal to some people - there are those who find it to be futile and useless, and that is fine. But to assume that, because you have not chosen that path, those who have do it blindly is a rather large, incorrect assumption.

Good point. There are many of little or no faith that go out of their way to mock those with faith.

People are people, and you'll find the cruel, mocking, self-centered and ignorant no matter what system you look at.

At one time, I had trouble accepting God, but today, I know there is a God and I am not Him. My life has improved dramatically since that moment. :)

I've moved the same way as a matter of fact; it just seems to work for me and provide a context for my life that is stronger than indecision. It's a leap of faith, but one that has enriched my life considerably. I don't believe it would help everyone, but ultimately it is my own self-fulfillment that matters.

Religion and spirituality transcend social convention; I don't think that God would allow himself to be limited to the perception of limited and fallible humanity, and that he would establish the words of men as inerrant truth.

But if there is no God, who will save the Queen?! :eek:

Sean Connery

Sean Connery
*Giggles*

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=185806

I personally found this hilarious.

*Giggles*

Well his penis mightier, right? ;)

Well his penis mightier, right? ;)
:eek:

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

you're definatly an athiest, but when you say you're not religous i would disagree

you seem very religious to me, you belief in no-god and science seems to be very strong and based on faith (after all since when did science actually prove anything about the world?)

No, my fellow humans and their choices and beliefs did not lead me to Atheism, but rather my own curiosity did. I didn't find what I sought. I tried a couple of religions on for size.

...

I hate picking from what exists, so, I went my own way because I'm the annoying brat who never listened to the teacher and coloured my flowers in the wrong way because I liked the petals being multi-coloured.

Heh I respect that. Kinda sounds like something I'd do.

It really isn't possible to prove which religion is correct, or even that any of them are. That kind of knowledge can only be gained directly from God himself, when asked. (Sometimes the reply takes awhile.)

I used to be Catholic, too. I had a tough time living with "That's a mystery" as the answer to many of my deeper theological questions. Later, I also moved on to some other religions that I looked into, like Wicca and Evangelical Christianity.

That's about the time I had a deeply spiritual experience that came as a result of a prayer in which I asked God to show me what was the right religion, if such a thing existed at all. Well a while later I got an answer, and have been a member of my church ever since, and things do look a lot clearer now.

I guess the biggest difference between you and me is that I didn't know what religion to follow, but I always maintained the belief that there was SOME kind of God up there. In your case, I know you don't believe that either.

If I may be so bold, I would like to offer some advice. Keep an open mind. That's all. But from what I have read I think you're already doing that anyway, so I wish you the best!

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=185806

I personally found this hilarious.

I'd probably not link to a site like Break.com. It has some nudity and other things deemed non pg-13 for this forum.

I'm sorry most of those arguments are about 1000 years old.

And still relevent.

Maybe that should tell us something.

Just another round of clashing belief systems. Yay! :)

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=185806

I personally found this hilarious.

That's awesome.

you're definatly an athiest, but when you say you're not religous i would disagree

you seem very religious to me, you belief in no-god and science seems to be very strong and based on faith (after all since when did science actually prove anything about the world?)

It isn't a belief in 'no god'... it is simple no belief in any gods.

We are presented by a multitude of 'god' stories, most of which claim to be the ONLY possible truth. Obviously, if they are mutually exclusive, they can't all be the ONLY possible truth. Indeed - it is fairly logical to deduce they must all be at least equally flawed, if not entirely untrue.

The most logical assumption, then - is that no gods are believable.

That isn't a matter of faith - it's a matter of what is left when you winnow out all the crap that contradicts.

It isn't a belief in 'no god'... it is simple no belief in any gods.

We are presented by a multitude of 'god' stories, most of which claim to be the ONLY possible truth. Obviously, if they are mutually exclusive, they can't all be the ONLY possible truth. Indeed - it is fairly logical to deduce they must all be at least equally flawed, if not entirely untrue.

The most logical assumption, then - is that no gods are believable.

That isn't a matter of faith - it's a matter of what is left when you winnow out all the crap that contradicts.

you have to believe in something, or you'd just end up being a drooling dead inside person who doesn't move because they don't believe they can move

the OP believes that science proves stuff, he believes that it is fairly logical to deduce that all the religions must all be at least equally flawed (how do we know that?) he believes that no gods are believable so believes in no gods etc...

It's wrong to denigrate, threaten, condemn, insult, harass, or hurt someone for their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think they are.

Why?

Curbing extremism requires patience, not anger.

I like to think that I'm a pretty patient person, but people who reply to every challenge with "Because God/The Bible/Whatever says so!" try my patience very quickly, and with good reason, I think.

you're definatly an athiest, but when you say you're not religous i would disagree

you seem very religious to me, you belief in no-god and science seems to be very strong and based on faith (after all since when did science actually prove anything about the world?)

The kind of faith necessary to assert the existence of the natural world and the general truth of logical postulates and the kind of faith necessary to assert the existence of God are different kinds of faith.

Why?

Because it makes them look like victims, and it can attract people to their side out of some kind of sympathy.


I like to think that I'm a pretty patient person, but people who reply to every challenge with "Because God/The Bible/Whatever says so!" try my patience very quickly, and with good reason, I think.

With good reason, yes. But you're not going to change their views by it.

It isn't a belief in 'no god'... it is simple no belief in any gods.

Those are the same thing. Either you believe in the existence of some higher power, or you don't.

You can disbelieve in a particular interpretation of God, but that's an entirely different idea that has nothing to do with the existence of God in and of itself. By that definition, every religious faith would be "atheist" to all other beliefs; as a result of that definition, since atheism further extends that to all Gods, it would be the religious belief that all Gods currently known do not exist.


The most logical assumption, then - is that no gods are believable.

That isn't a matter of faith - it's a matter of what is left when you winnow out all the crap that contradicts.

There's no logic involved. You believe they contradict, and there is no simple logical justification for eliminating those because it assumes on faith that not only are all of these interpretations untrue but that it is impossible for only one of them to be true. Just because they are contradictory doesn't mean one of them is true; it's entirely possible that Christianity or Islam or anything else is the one true faith and that all others are wrong.

Those are the same thing. Either you believe in the existence of some higher power, or you don't.

Or, perhaps, you actually strongly believe that there is no higher power. Lack of belief and active disbelief are not really the same thing.

Or, perhaps, you actually strongly believe that there is no higher power. Lack of belief and active disbelief are not really the same thing.

No, they're not, but they both require faith. Strong atheism and weak atheism are still both faith-based arguments; the only difference is one takes on faith that there is no God while the other takes on faith that God as described by contemporary religious systems does not exist.

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg
I am also an atheist, for similar, if not identical reasons.

Because it makes them look like victims, and it can attract people to their side out of some kind of sympathy.

It can also impress onto them the seriousness of the implications of what they are saying... something many of them miss.

With good reason, yes. But you're not going to change their views by it.

So what do you advise?

I know no argument that can convince somebody who denies the relevance of argumentation.

No, they're not, but they both require faith. Strong atheism and weak atheism are still both faith-based arguments; the only difference is one takes on faith that there is no God while the other takes on faith that God as described by contemporary religious systems does not exist.

How does a lack of faith require faith?

Implicit atheism isn't, "I take it on faith that none of the gods I've heard of exist." Instead, it is, "I have no evidence that any deity exists, therefore I do not believe in any deity." It's kind of like me saying, "I have no evidence that there are lifeforms on Pluto, therefore I do not believe that there are lifeforms on Pluto." It doesn't require faith, because it is not a conviction. I don't have faith that there is no life on Pluto, I simply have not been given any reason to assert that there are, and the default is a lack of belief.

The implicit atheist, if faced with something that they saw as evidence of a deity's existence would like become a theist. The explicit atheist, on the other hand, actively believes that no such evidence can or does exist, and thus would not be swayed.

you have to believe in something, or you'd just end up being a drooling dead inside person who doesn't move because they don't believe they can move

the OP believes that science proves stuff, he believes that it is fairly logical to deduce that all the religions must all be at least equally flawed (how do we know that?) he believes that no gods are believable so believes in no gods etc...

no really, you dont have to believe in anything supernatural in order to live a perfectly reasonable life. god doesnt make anyone get up in the morning

i find there to be no logical reason to believe one religion over another. none have a rational basis. none are objectively true. we believe because we have been raised as believers. any religion we were raised in would seem true to us whether it be christianity, hinduism, or scientology.

i find there to be no logical reason to believe one religion over another. none have a rational basis. none are objectively true. we believe because we have been raised as believers. any religion we were raised in would seem true to us whether it be christianity, hinduism, or scientology.

I don't think this is really true. Much of the religion I was raised in I now believe to be untrue. And I am hardly alone. Adult converts and even those who are not religious at all until later on in life are not uncommon occurrences.

I don't think this is really true. Much of the religion I was raised in I now believe to be untrue. And I am hardly alone. Adult converts and even those who are not religious at all until later on in life are not uncommon occurrences.

yes but it is extremely rare for a person to totally renounce the religion they were raised in and also extremely rare for a person to convert to an entirely different religion--like christianity to hinduism.

It isn't a belief in 'no god'... it is simple no belief in any gods.

We are presented by a multitude of 'god' stories, most of which claim to be the ONLY possible truth. Obviously, if they are mutually exclusive, they can't all be the ONLY possible truth. Indeed - it is fairly logical to deduce they must all be at least equally flawed, if not entirely untrue.

The most logical assumption, then - is that no gods are believable.

That isn't a matter of faith - it's a matter of what is left when you winnow out all the crap that contradicts.

On the contrary, Atheism is in fact defined as
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think what you are referring to is Agnosticism, which is
"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

I think that this is the line that most 'atheists' on this thread are actually arguing, and is the line I would take myself. I think there is no evidence to say that there is a supreme being, but at the same time there is no evidence to suggest that there isn't one (how can it possibly be proved?). So I take the middle line that you seem to have taken, in that I have no bloody clue :)

[QUOTE=Narcilles;12004283]I think there is no evidence to say that there is a supreme being, but at the same time there is no evidence to suggest that there isn't one (how can it possibly be proved?). QUOTE]

The same could be said of absolutely anything that anyone could possibly think of. It is possible to know God does not exist just as it is possible to know that santa or thge easter bunny do not exist. If there is no evidence for the existence of something, and no one can even hypothesise anything which might ever constitute evidence, then that thing definitely does not exist.

If someone could suggest something which might exist despite there being no evidence, that would be great. I dont finish work for 8 hours and im bored.

If someone could suggest something which might exist despite there being no evidence, that would be great. I dont finish work for 8 hours and im bored.

Aliens.

Don't confuse religion with God.
Don't claim to be an athiest, when you're actually an anti-religionist.
If you want proof of God, look in a mirror (or in your case in some-one else's mirror). Think you got here by accident? Or any of us?
Big bang? Big bollocks, more like.....

Lurking behind every person is an evil clown that can only be seen by that person. These clowns can move so fast that no matter how fast you turn your head, they keep ahead of you. They also do not have reflections nor show up on camera.

These evil clowns are the source of everything bad in your life – they have fun laughing at your misfortune and like to play pranks on you all the time (like hiding your car keys).

If you do not adamantly declare that there are clowns, you must have faith as an anti-clownist. This makes about as much sense as saying that because I do not believe in god, I actively have faith that there is no god.

Not believing in god is not a religion. Atheism is simply no believing in god, agnostics just aren’t sure if there is one but are thinking about it (they sit on the fence). Atheism is no more a ‘faith’ than not thinking there is an evil clown behind you is a ‘faith’.

There is no ‘doctrine of belief’ at all. I simply am not sufficiently gullible to fall for the fairy tale you are telling.

Aliens.

Interesting. There might be aliens, or there might not be, we just dont know. i expect there are.
But while there is no evidence, as of yet, we can hypothesise evidence; aliens, space craft, transmissions, etc. we just cant find it yet because if it exists its very far away.

But is there anything completely unprovable that could exist and isnt supernatural?

Not believing in god is not a religion. Atheism is simply no believing in god, agnostics just aren’t sure if there is one but are thinking about it (they sit on the fence). Atheism is no more a ‘faith’ than not thinking there is an evil clown behind you is a ‘faith’.

Your definition of agnostic is innaccurate. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnosticism simply refers to the standpoint that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not there is a god/gods. One can assert that it is impossible to know for certain, while still believing one way or the other.

Implicit atheism isn't, "I take it on faith that none of the gods I've heard of exist." Instead, it is, "I have no evidence that any deity exists, therefore I do not believe in any deity." It's kind of like me saying, "I have no evidence that there are lifeforms on Pluto, therefore I do not believe that there are lifeforms on Pluto." It doesn't require faith, because it is not a conviction. I don't have faith that there is no life on Pluto, I simply have not been given any reason to assert that there are, and the default is a lack of belief.

You have faith that there is no evidence of God. It's possible that the Bible or the Koran really is the divinely given word of God, or that Jesus was the Son of God and you have to have faith that they aren't divine in origin.

Not believing in god is not a religion. Atheism is simply no believing in god, agnostics just aren’t sure if there is one but are thinking about it (they sit on the fence). Atheism is no more a ‘faith’ than not thinking there is an evil clown behind you is a ‘faith’.

There is no ‘doctrine of belief’ at all. I simply am not sufficiently gullible to fall for the fairy tale you are telling.

I was simply quoting the dictionary. But I guess you know better :)

But is there anything completely unprovable that could exist and isnt supernatural?

Why add on the "isn't supernatural" qualifier? Deities are often defined (although not necessarily in the more naturalistic religions) as supernatural. If you are looking for a comparison to most posited deities, then you must look for those things which are unmeasurable or unfalsifiable (which are really better terms than unprovable if we are talking about scientific investigation) precisely because they are supernatural.

Interesting. There might be aliens, or there might not be, we just dont know. i expect there are.
But while there is no evidence, as of yet, we can hypothesise evidence; aliens, space craft, transmissions, etc. we just cant find it yet because if it exists its very far away.

But is there anything completely unprovable that could exist and isnt supernatural?

You have a point! Maybe we don't have the means to prove the supernatural as of yet. We don't have the required apparatus to actually view atoms, for example, maybe in the future we will have the apparatus for this, just as we may have the apparatus to find the supernatural? But then the supernatural is on quite a different level. All we can really do is hypothesise, like you said, about that which we have no means to examine :)

You have faith that there is no evidence of God.

No, you simply have seen none. Having faith that there is no evidence of God would be explicit atheism, not implicit atheism.

I have been shown no evidence that there are lifeforms on Pluto. Does that mean I have faith that there is no such evidence? No, of course not. There very well might be such evidence. I simply haven't yet seen it, and thus do not believe that there is life on Pluto.

It's possible that the Bible or the Koran really is the divinely given word of God, or that Jesus was the Son of God and you have to have faith that they aren't divine in origin.

No, you just have no evidence that they are divine in origin. I have no evidence that aliens from Pluto make contact with human beings. Indeed, I have no evidence that there are aliens from Pluto at all. If someone showed me an artifact that they claimed came from Plutonians, I would certainly be skeptical. I would ask for some evidence that it came from Plutonians. If they could not provide said evidence, I would have no reason to believe that it was alien in origin. That doesn't mean that I would have faith that it didn't come from Pluto. I would simply have no reason to believe that it did.

The type of evidence that theists have is not empirical. It is personal in nature. Our own experiences define our beliefs. We cannot impart those experiences to others so we cannot give them our evidence.

You have a point! Maybe we don't have the means to prove the supernatural as of yet. We don't have the required apparatus to actually view atoms, for example, maybe in the future we will have the apparatus for this, just as we may have the apparatus to find the supernatural? But then the supernatural is on quite a different level. All we can really do is hypothesise, like you said, about that which we have no means to examine :)

The supernatural is, by definition, outside our ability to measure. It is outside the natural - outside the universe - and we are confined within it. We aren't going to devise any type of empirical apparatus to measure the supernatural, because anything we can measure is, by definition, part of the natural.

(Oh, and certain types of electron microscopes can get pretty much down to the atomic level, although we can't yet visually observe the internal structure of atoms)

The supernatural is, by definition, outside our ability to measure. It is outside the natural - outside the universe - and we are confined within it. We aren't going to devise any type of empirical apparatus to measure the supernatural, because anything we can measure is, by definition, part of the natural.

Haven't you seen Ghostbusters? :D

(That goes back to my original point that there is no way of proving or disproving its existence)

Haven't you seen Ghostbusters? :D

Nothing supernatural was depicted in Ghostbusters. The Ghosts and such were quite natural - bound by the universe and its rules - hence the reason that they could be trapped/destroyed/etc.

The problem here is that people have been misusing the word "supernatural" to mean "anything we don't currently understand" for quite some time. If ghosts exist, unless they are truly outside the bounds and rules of the universe, they are natural. We do not currently understand any mechanism by which a person's spirit/soul/personality/whatever could stick around after their death in some sort of new entity, but that doesn't mean that one does not exist. And if we begin to uncover evidence that it does, a theory for that will be devised.

There is no ‘doctrine of belief’ at all. I simply am not sufficiently gullible to fall for the fairy tale you are telling.

Then you have no position on the matter. It's not that God does not exist, does exist, or unknowable, you have no position and can't say anything about it. That's the only stance that requires no belief.

Many religious people would say they had a direct relationship with God, and that this is a bridge between the two realities. I have personally never experienced such a bridge and am wondering if it is just a construction of the mind. I guess I'll never get to experience what these people have, unless I find myself enlightened somehow.

No, you simply have seen none. Having faith that there is no evidence of God would be explicit atheism, not implicit atheism.

But the fact that you say there is no God because you have no evidence is still a belief. You believe that there is no evidence for God.

I have been shown no evidence that there are lifeforms on Pluto. Does that mean I have faith that there is no such evidence? No, of course not. There very well might be such evidence. I simply haven't yet seen it, and thus do not believe that there is life on Pluto.

Yes, but Pluto can be empirically observed and tested to see if there is life. The Bible or Koran can't be tested for divine origin because it's impossible, and as a result any statement on their origin is a belief rather than a fact.

No, you just have no evidence that they are divine in origin. I have no evidence that aliens from Pluto make contact with human beings. Indeed, I have no evidence that there are aliens from Pluto at all. If someone showed me an artifact that they claimed came from Plutonians, I would certainly be skeptical. I would ask for some evidence that it came from Plutonians. If they could not provide said evidence, I would have no reason to believe that it was alien in origin. That doesn't mean that I would have faith that it didn't come from Pluto. I would simply have no reason to believe that it did.

Can you provide evidence of God? No, it's impossible. As a result, they're not the same thing; statements about the physical world can be tested, whereas statements about the divine or supernatural can't. There's no proof, and there can't be, so any statement about it requires faith.

The type of evidence that theists have is not empirical. It is personal in nature. Our own experiences define our beliefs. We cannot impart those experiences to others so we cannot give them our evidence.

Of course, which is why all positions on God are a matter of personal belief.

Then you have no position on the matter. It's not that God does not exist, does exist, or unknowable, you have no position and can't say anything about it. That's the only stance that requires no belief.

That's the thing with implicit atheism. It isn't a stance. It is a default position. A lack of belief is the default position, just as a lack of belief in life on Pluto is the default position. There is no positive statement made.


But the fact that you say there is no God because you have no evidence is still a belief. You believe that there is no evidence for God.

Claiming that you have seen no evidence is not the same thing as claiming that there is no evidence. A belief that there is no evidence for God would be explicit atheism, as opposed to implicit atheism, which is simply the viewpoint that results from having seen no such evidence.

Yes, but Pluto can be empirically observed and tested to see if there is life. The Bible or Koran can't be tested for divine origin because it's impossible, and as a result any statement on their origin is a belief rather than a fact.

But an implicit atheist does not make any positive statement that a given set of scripture has no divine origin. They simply point out that they have seen no evidence that it does.

You are right that the Bible or Koran cannot be empirically tested for divine origin (although they certainly can be tested - spiritually). But that is irrelevant. Only if one were to make an adamant statement that they cannot be divine would it be a profession of belief. To simply state that you have no evidence that they are divine is, according to you, simply a statement of fact.

Can you provide evidence of God? No, it's impossible. As a result, they're not the same thing; statements about the physical world can be tested, whereas statements about the divine or supernatural can't. There's no proof, and there can't be, so any statement about it requires faith.

Yes, a positive statement in either directly requires faith. A default lack of belief, on the other hand, does not. In this case, the analogy holds.

And no, I cannot provide evidence of God. However, I know that evidence exists. My own personal experience is my evidence. I cannot impart my own experience to others, so I must assume that, if they do not believe, they have either had that experience, and interpreted it another way, or not had that experience.

Of course, which is why all positions on God are a matter of personal belief.

Or, in the case of implicit atheism, lack of belief.

Don't confuse religion with God.
Don't claim to be an athiest, when you're actually an anti-religionist.
If you want proof of God, look in a mirror (or in your case in some-one else's mirror). Think you got here by accident? Or any of us?
Big bang? Big bollocks, more like.....
Thank you for telling me what I am and what I believe. :rolleyes:

Now, aside from the obvious, the Parthenon, there are no Gods tht exist without religion, though religion does exist without Gods.

You're automatically assuming that because I have a great distaste for religion that I'm anti-religion. Sure, I like the core principles of communism as written by Marx, which includes that religion ought to be done away with, but it still doesn't mean I'm anti-religion.

Perhaps you didn't see the line where I state that my best friend is Muslim and that we have no problems with each other's beliefs and that I actually am interested in hearing about her beliefs.

And, excuse me whilst I chortle. Something other than the big bang? Even if God existed, simply saying that he did it doesn't hold water, especially in light of the fact that there are glaring contradictions in Genesis.

Two Contradictory Creation Accounts (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

So, who came first, the humans or the animals?

You can't say one or the other, when two accounts exist in the same book.

If God is all mighty, power et cetera, surely he wouldn't have contradicted himself, would he, when he created the world? After all, that is a human error contradiction. Unless of course a human wrote the story of creation, in which case, there would be errors, which means that the story isn't entirely accurate.

That's the thing with implicit atheism. It isn't a stance. It is a default position. A lack of belief is the default position, just as a lack of belief in life on Pluto is the default position. There is no positive statement made.

It's not a default position; the default position would be nontheism, or simply not considering it. After all, if you have no proof either way, the best position is to either sit on the fence and not go either way or not consider it. Implicit atheism still takes a stance.


Claiming that you have seen no evidence is not the same thing as claiming that there is no evidence. A belief that there is no evidence for God would be explicit atheism, as opposed to implicit atheism, which is simply the viewpoint that results from having seen no such evidence.

But you don't know if you've seen any evidence; you may think that whatever you've been shown isn't evidence, but that doesn't make it so. You can't know whether something is objective proof.


But an implicit atheist does not make any positive statement that a given set of scripture has no divine origin. They simply point out that they have seen no evidence that it does.

But couldn't you argue that the Bible/Koran is the work of God, and so anyone who disagrees is simply unable to see the truth?

You are right that the Bible or Koran cannot be empirically tested for divine origin (although they certainly can be tested - spiritually). But that is irrelevant. Only if one were to make an adamant statement that they cannot be divine would it be a profession of belief. To simply state that you have no evidence that they are divine is, according to you, simply a statement of fact.

It depends. Having no evidence does not necessarily equate with atheism; I could say there's no evidence but still believe in God. To make the jump from no evidence to nonexistence is ultimately taking a stance, as weak and as flexible as it is.

This is ultimately a semantic debate.

Yes, a positive statement in either directly requires faith. A default lack of belief, on the other hand, does not. In this case, the analogy holds.

And no, I cannot provide evidence of God. However, I know that evidence exists. My own personal experience is my evidence. I cannot impart my own experience to others, so I must assume that, if they do not believe, they have either had that experience, and interpreted it another way, or not had that experience.

Ah, I see. But then again, doesn't that ultimately fold back in to agnosticism in the first place?

Or, in the case of implicit atheism, lack of belief.

Which is a belief in itself.

While I find your reasoning to be quite poor, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there are unreasonable atheists as well as unreasonable theists.

The only difference is that theists are necessarily unreasonable, whereas a reasonable atheist is at least possible.

...

*takes out a blowtorch and flames everything in sight*

Oh hum...

While I find your reasoning to be quite poor, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there are unreasonable atheists as well as unreasonable theists.

It's not religion that produces that, it's an unwillingness to think and too much pride to admit you're wrong or fallible.

The only difference is that theists are necessarily unreasonable, whereas a reasonable atheist is at least possible.

I'm a theist, and I'd say I'm pretty damn reasonable.

This is ultimately a semantic debate.
I find that most debates ultimately turn on a semantic point.
Which is a belief in itself.
The absence of belief is belief? Isn't that the very definition of a contradictory statement?

While I find your reasoning to be quite poor, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there are unreasonable atheists as well as unreasonable theists.

The only difference is that theists are necessarily unreasonable, whereas a reasonable atheist is at least possible.

Irrationality knows no boundaries. While atheists may be more likely to be reasonable, there is nothing that says a theist can't be reasonable as well. It's the ones who mix their alcohol (god) with drugs (religion) that have the problem.

The Founding Fathers were a mix of theists, agnostics, gnostics, athesist and religious folks. I'd say they seemed pretty reasonable.

It's not a default position; the default position would be nontheism, or simply not considering it. After all, if you have no proof either way, the best position is to either sit on the fence and not go either way or not consider it. Implicit atheism still takes a stance.

You're assuming that the starting position is that there's a question whether or not one exists. I dispute that. The starting position should be that there is nothing and that whatever exists must be proven. We don't, after all, ask people to prove that unicorns don't exist--the starting position is that they don't and that believers in them must offer proof that they do. Otherwise, the assumption is that there are none. Why should it be any different with God?

I find that most debates ultimately turn on a semantic point.

Especially philosophical ones.

The absence of belief is belief? Isn't that the very definition of a contradictory statement?

No; if you say that "I don't believe in the existence of X" or "I do not believe in the existence of Gods", you're making a statement about the existence of X that constitutes a belief. Anything where you're advancing some side of the issue is a belief.

The only way to avoid having a belief is to have no position on the question. (whether that's a belief is a debate as well).

You're assuming that the starting position is that there's a question whether or not one exists. I dispute that. The starting position should be that there is nothing and that whatever exists must be proven. We don't, after all, ask people to prove that unicorns don't exist--the starting position is that they don't and that believers in them must offer proof that they do. Otherwise, the assumption is that there are none. Why should it be any different with God?

There are a few problems with that line of arguing; the first is the burden of proof, which actually could be argued to fall on atheism for the simple reason that mankind has been historically overwhelmingly theist, making atheism the new idea that has to be proven. It also falls in to the argument from ignorance, especially considering that empirical, objective proof is literally impossible and assuming God does not exist because of this is a fallacious argument.

Another problem is that not everything can be proven; every single concept in existence eventually reduces to some fundamental, unprovable axiom that has to be taken to be true without any possible proof. Our entire conception of reality is taken on faith at one point or another.

This discussion already has no proof by virtue of its content, and really can't because ultimately the only thing that even remotely approaches "proof" would be personal experience, and there are quite a few people who would even dispute that if it happened to them. We're trying to debate something that hinges entirely on personal experience and conviction...trying to debate what could almost be considered a qualia is pretty futile.

Problem is, not everything can be proven; every single concept in existence eventually reduces to some fundamental, unprovable axiom that has to be taken to be true without any possible proof.

This discussion already has no proof by virtue of its content, and really can't because ultimately the only thing that even remotely approaches "proof" would be personal experience, and there are quite a few people who would even dispute that if it happened to them. We're trying to debate something that hinges entirely on personal experience and conviction...trying to debate what could almost be considered a qualia is pretty futile.
That still doesn't deal with my objection, which is the starting point of the debate. The question is does God exist. The question "does God not exist" is not part of the equation--the beginning assumption must be that God does not exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove a positive insomuch as you can prove anything. Therefore, until someone proves God exists--empirically and replicatably--the assumption is that there is none. Anecdotal evidence doesn't get it done. Neither do holy books or received wisdom. That's why I balk at the notion that atheism is a belief system--it is not. It is a recognition that there is no evidence that requires one to move from the basic assumption, the starting point of the argument.

There are a few problems with that line of arguing; the first is the burden of proof, which actually could be argued to fall on atheism for the simple reason that mankind has been historically overwhelmingly theist, making atheism the new idea that has to be proven. It also falls in to the argument from ignorance, especially considering that empirical, objective proof is literally impossible and assuming God does not exist because of this is a fallacious argument.

Dude, that's such a crap argument it's laughable.

Dude, that's such a crap argument it's laughable.
"Holy crip, he's a crapple!"

Yay, thread hijack! *runs around*

Seriously?

If God did exist, I wouldn't exist. After all, who would want me around?

That still doesn't deal with my objection, which is the starting point of the debate. The question is does God exist. The question "does God not exist" is not part of the equation--the beginning assumption must be that God does not exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove a positive insomuch as you can prove anything. Therefore, until someone proves God exists--empirically and replicatably--the assumption is that there is none. Anecdotal evidence doesn't get it done. Neither do holy books or received wisdom. That's why I balk at the notion that atheism is a belief system--it is not. It is a recognition that there is no evidence that requires one to move from the basic assumption, the starting point of the argument.

No, it's not. Assuming that something does not exist because there is no evidence for it is only logically valid if the thing in question can be empirically tested; God can't be empirically tested according to the definition of God we're currently using. If you were to change God to some physical entity that exists and can be empirically tested in this universe, that would be different.

The problem is, the methods of science do not work well in metaphysics, if at all because you're dealing with something that does not exist in this physical, observable universe.

Dude, that's such a crap argument it's laughable.

No, it's not. Atheism is a newer idea than theism that goes against the commonly held opinion, and new ideas that challenge the conventionally held one have the burden of proof...if we use the scientific definition and application of the burden.

No, it's not. Assuming that something does not exist because there is no evidence for it is only logically valid if the thing in question can be empirically tested; God can't be empirically tested according to the definition of God we're currently using. If you were to change God to some physical entity that exists and can be empirically tested in this universe, that would be different.

The problem is, the methods of science do not work well in metaphysics, if at all because you're dealing with something that does not exist in this physical, observable universe.
So why aren't you an atheist?

No, it's not. Atheism is a newer idea than theism that goes against the commonly held opinion, and new ideas that challenge the conventionally held one have the burden of proof...if we use the scientific definition and application of the burden.

Nope--if we're talking about the scientific burden, as you said just a moment ago, then the starting point is non-existence. Age of the theory means nothing.

None of this, by the way, is why I'm an atheist. I'm atheist because I've never found a god worth my belief. I can find the transcendent in any number of other things.

So why aren't you an atheist?

Well, firstly because I'm not a physicalist, which I consider to be a logically weak and unproductive position to hold. I may be a methodological naturalist (in other words, I believe that physical phenomena first and foremost have natural explanations), but I'm not a physicalist. That requires a leap of faith that stifles further discussion on metaphysical concepts; at the very least, there are things that can't be reduced and which do exist, and so greatly weaken the logical strength of physicalism.

However, I also believe that there are things that are inherently irreducible, and simply because something can't be tested or observed has nothing to do with its existence. It makes no sense to say that there is only a physical world, for the simple fact that not everything can be reduced to physical concepts...it's simply impossible.

Nope--if we're talking about the scientific burden, as you said just a moment ago, then the starting point is non-existence. Age of the theory means nothing.

No, you misunderstood. What I was saying is that if we were to use the scientific method, it would require us to do that. However, the problem is, we're not because we're dealing with a concept which is by its very nature untestable and outside of the realm of empirical testing. You can't use science to argue something that is inherently unscientific.

None of this, by the way, is why I'm an atheist. I'm atheist because I've never found a god worth my belief. I can find the transcendent in any number of other things.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs.

None of this, by the way, is why I'm an atheist. I'm atheist because I've never found a god worth my belief. I can find the transcendent in any number of other things.

Whatever provides a context and meaning to your life is what matters; I mean, if there's a God I'd say that would be what he would want first and foremost. My beliefs place good works way ahead of faith in God, which I consider to be a helpful but not vital component of living a moral life.

Am I right? Who knows. I know that I'll find out sooner or later.

None of this, by the way, is why I'm an atheist. I'm atheist because I've never found a god worth my belief. I can find the transcendent in any number of other things.

im an atheist because i have a deep seated need for my religion to be true.

since none of them are objectively true, i reject them all.

im an atheist because i have a deep seated need for my religion to be true.

since none of them are objectively true, i reject them all.

That's a pretty Platonist viewpoint; of course, I feel the same way. The difference is that I constructed my own belief system according to a bunch of ideas (that would take up pages if I wrote them all) that tries to provide as close an approximation of the "truth" as possible.

That's a pretty Platonist viewpoint; of course, I feel the same way. The difference is that I constructed my own belief system according to a bunch of ideas (that would take up pages if I wrote them all) that tries to provide as close an approximation of the "truth" as possible.

thats a good system. that way you dont have to force yourself to swallow anything that is obviously not true in an effort to keep your faith.

thats a good system. that way you dont have to force yourself to swallow anything that is obviously not true in an effort to keep your faith.

That's primarily it. I don't see why faith has to be contradictory, given that we have the ability to think rationally, logically, and reasonably. I mean, why not use our God-given sense of reason to construct beliefs about Him?

It's kind of a mixed form of deism.

In reply to the OP: Don't be hypocritical. Please, you proclaim all religions to be intolerant, ignorant, hateful, awful things. But, in doing so, you are intolerant, hateful and awful, but you do NOT understand why it is, and you will NOT accept it as the truth. But it is.

The image at the end of your post proves it, really.

By the way, having faith is importent, not what faith you are.

you have to believe in something, or you'd just end up being a drooling dead inside person who doesn't move because they don't believe they can move


Not true. A simple principle of pragmatism requires no 'belief', and gives incentive to, not only move, but function in a 'moral' way.

You make a nonsense argument, relying on the fact that 'dead inside' doesn't really mean anything. I'm also not sure why you seem to think this particular type of belief is so significant?

Do you similarly believe one must believe in fairies, or end up "being a drooling dead inside person..."?


the OP believes that science proves stuff, he believes that it is fairly logical to deduce that all the religions must all be at least equally flawed (how do we know that?) he believes that no gods are believable so believes in no gods etc...

One doesn't have to 'believe' science proves anything. Indeed, if you are more than passingly familiar with 'science' you should know science doesn't 'prove' anything.

On the other hand, it is logical to deduce that all religions must be equally flawed - since so much of religion is contradictory, if not internally, certainly, in contrast to other religions. If every religion says "This is true"... and yet the stories don't match up... then they are all (logically) equally flawed.

And playing silly games with the wording doesn't help - " don't believe any gods are real" is not equal to saying "there is no god".

Not true. A simple principle of pragmatism requires no 'belief', and gives incentive to, not only move, but function in a 'moral' way

Yes it does. It requires the belief that pragmatism provides an incentive to act in a moral way, and the fundamental justifications of pragmatism are beliefs taken on axiomatic faith.

One doesn't have to 'believe' science proves anything. Indeed, if you are more than passingly familiar with 'science' you should know science doesn't 'prove' anything.

Exactly. Science is a method, not a belief. Scientism is a belief, but not science; it's sort of like how methodological naturalism does not preclude belief in God or the supernatural.

On the other hand, it is logical to deduce that all religions must be equally flawed - since so much of religion is contradictory, if not internally, certainly, in contrast to other religions. If every religion says "This is true"... and yet the stories don't match up... then they are all (logically) equally flawed.

Or, one of them is in fact true and the contradictions are not actually contradictions.

And playing silly games with the wording doesn't help - " don't believe any gods are real" is not equal to saying "there is no god".

No, but it is a belief.

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

Agreed.

God is a load of crap anyway. Makes no logical sense.

God is a load of crap anyway. Makes no logical sense.

Neither does quantum physics...

Neither does quantum physics...

Yeah, but quantum physics sounds cool.

Those are the same thing. Either you believe in the existence of some higher power, or you don't.


Never been right yet, no matter how many times you say it.

It's never a good idea to reduce something to the 'either/or' argument, because it usually doesn't take long for a third option to show up... like "Either you believe in the existence of some higher power, or you don't..." or... maybe you believe in the existence of several higher powers. Or... maybe you've never been asked the question, so have no answer.


You can disbelieve in a particular interpretation of God, but that's an entirely different idea that has nothing to do with the existence of God in and of itself. By that definition, every religious faith would be "atheist" to all other beliefs; as a result of that definition, since atheism further extends that to all Gods, it would be the religious belief that all Gods currently known do not exist.


Utter rubbish. If I do not accept any of the current stories about fairies, I don't have a 'religious belief' that there are no fairies.

If I don't accept any of the current stories about aliens, I don't have a 'religious belief' that there are no aliens.

Indeed - in both those cases, it is clear that, while I don't accept that there are aliens or fairies... I'm not logically excluding the possibility that there could be.

An atheist can be simply defined as not accepting belief of any god... it isn't intrinsic that the atheist actually believe there must be no gods.


There's no logic involved. You believe they contradict, and there is no simple logical justification for eliminating those because it assumes on faith that not only are all of these interpretations untrue but that it is impossible for only one of them to be true. Just because they are contradictory doesn't mean one of them is true; it's entirely possible that Christianity or Islam or anything else is the one true faith and that all others are wrong.

Again - more utter rot. If you are presented with a page of mathematical facts, each of which claims that every one of the other mathematical facts is flawd, and each of which makes a number of assumptions that cannot be supported by the evidenced data - one would assume that all of the data was flawed.

Not necessarily untrue... although that is a strong possibility - but certainly flawed. And there is certainly no logical basis for assuming ONE of those conflicting statements was true.

Yeah, but quantum physics sounds cool.

True. But then again, so does Dionysus.

Of course, you can't knock the term "God" for sheer boldness. I mean, it take guts to declare yourself not just a God, but to actually claim the term as your name.

No, they're not, but they both require faith. Strong atheism and weak atheism are still both faith-based arguments; the only difference is one takes on faith that there is no God while the other takes on faith that God as described by contemporary religious systems does not exist.

Nope - Strong Atheism says there is no god. Weak Atheism doesn't discount the possibility of god, it just says "Hell, I don't believe it".

True. But then again, so does Dionysus.

Of course, you can't knock the term "God" for sheer boldness. I mean, it take guts to declare yourself not just a God, but to actually claim the term as your name.

Caligula did it pretty easily.

On the contrary, Atheism is in fact defined as
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think what you are referring to is Agnosticism, which is
"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

I think that this is the line that most 'atheists' on this thread are actually arguing, and is the line I would take myself. I think there is no evidence to say that there is a supreme being, but at the same time there is no evidence to suggest that there isn't one (how can it possibly be proved?). So I take the middle line that you seem to have taken, in that I have no bloody clue :)

Agnosticism is 'not knowing'. It is only connected to the questuion of theism/atheism in tangential form - in that an agnostic doesn't believe it possible to KNOW if there is a god (or gods).

You can not KNOW, and still beleive in god(s), or you can not KNOW and lack belief. You can be an agnostic Theist, or an agnostic Atheist.

Never been right yet, no matter how many times you say it.

It's never a good idea to reduce something to the 'either/or' argument, because it usually doesn't take long for a third option to show up... like "Either you believe in the existence of some higher power, or you don't..." or... maybe you believe in the existence of several higher powers. Or... maybe you've never been asked the question, so have no answer.

Well, if you're a theist or an atheist you either believe in God or not. The other things are categories in themselves, but since we're talking solel

Utter rubbish. If I do not accept any of the current stories about fairies, I don't have a 'religious belief' that there are no fairies.

You have a belief that there are none. There's no proof, so it would be logical to believe that they don't exist, but it's still a belief. The "religious" part only comes in if that belief or disbelief affects your other beliefs in a cohesive manner, and as far as I know a person's atheist beliefs do affect their other beliefs, fitting the definition of a religion quite well.

Indeed - in both those cases, it is clear that, while I don't accept that there are aliens or fairies... I'm not logically excluding the possibility that there could be.

An atheist can be simply defined as not accepting belief of any god... it isn't intrinsic that the atheist actually believe there must be no gods.

It's still a belief, the only difference is that it's a passive belief rather than a religious one like strong atheism. But that's not a bad thing; for some reason there's a stigma about calling statements beliefs that presupposes that a particular position is invalid.


Again - more utter rot. If you are presented with a page of mathematical facts, each of which claims that every one of the other mathematical facts is flawd, and each of which makes a number of assumptions that cannot be supported by the evidenced data - one would assume that all of the data was flawed.

Is God a mathematical fact? Can we test God empirically or construct logical proofs from a series of self-evident axioms? No, and that's why God cannot be argued according to the rigors of the mathematical or physical sciences.

Not necessarily untrue... although that is a strong possibility - but certainly flawed. And there is certainly no logical basis for assuming ONE of those conflicting statements was true.

No, there is no logical basis. That's why it's faith; and, for that matter, that's why this entire debate is futile because we're just bashing different faiths against each other with no net benefit.

Nope - Strong Atheism says there is no god. Weak Atheism doesn't discount the possibility of god, it just says "Hell, I don't believe it".

So it's a belief either way, which ultimately brings us back to square one. Really, it doesn't matter which side of the issue you take because none of us have any idea who is even remotely correct other than what we get from our own personal experiences and faith.

Caligula did it pretty easily.

Yeah, but he also got assassinated. It was fun while he lasted, though.

You have faith that there is no evidence of God. It's possible that the Bible or the Koran really is the divinely given word of God, or that Jesus was the Son of God and you have to have faith that they aren't divine in origin.

You tie yourself in the most desperate of knots to try not to be wrong.

One doesn't NEED faith that 'there is no evidence of God'. The existence of a god would be an exceptional claim... and it is not unreasonable to expect exceptional evidence. Indeed - to believe that there IS "evidence of God" is a far bigger leap. A leap of faith.

You create a false situation. You say "It's possible that the Bible or the Koran really is the divinely given word of God"... but, why do you claim that as even possible?

Do you accept it as 'possible' that Harry Potter really attends Hogwarts academy? That Clark Kent really is the everyday persona of a literal Superman? Or - are you stretching the definition of 'possible' to meet a SPECIAL exception?

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

I'm an atheist because this God stuff is a load of bollocks.

If you don't believe in a superior being, then answer me this: how did the universe come into existence?

There are only FOUR possibilities:
1. It came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY
2. It has ALWAYS been here
3. It is NOT here; it is an ILLUSION
4. It came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY

#1 (It came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY) is not feasible in terms of statistical probability; the chances of the universe occuring for no reason, by accident, and by blind chance are approximately 1 in a googolplex to its own power (I will hereinafter refer to "a googolplex to its own power" as "X" for the sake of brevity.

#2 (It has ALWAYS been here) is proved false by the Laws of Thermodynamics ("Matter can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed or transformed" and "There is always entropy (meaning unusable energy) in a closed system"), because if it had ALWAYS been here, it would have degenerated into a shapeless gray mush more than "X" (see above for value of "X") years ago.

#3 (It is NOT here; it is an ILLUSION) is the reasoning of an insane lunatic, or a drunk, or a drug addict on a "trip", or a lawyer; I (and anybody who has half a brain in their head) know #3 is false the same way I know I am breathing.

That leaves #4 (It came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY) as the only scientific, statistically and mathematically feasible, and logical explanation for the origin of the universe. It was created by an eternal being superior to man.

The very EXISTENCE of the universe is proof that there is a God, or SOME kind of superior being, because this universe did NOT, and in fact COULD NOT POSSIBLY have, created itself.

Face it: while you have the freedom to be of the atheistic persuasion (and I certainly don't object to you having that freedom), it is nevertheless not rational or scientific. It takes "X" times more faith to believe #1, #2, or #3 than it does to believe #4.

P.S.: If you don't know what a googolplex to its own power is, I'll tell you here:

10 to the 100th power (1 with 100 zeroes behind it, or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) is called a googol.

10 to the power of a googol (1 with a googol of zeroes behind it) is called a googolplex.

A googolplex raised to ITS OWN power, known herein as "X", is such a high number as would, as I said above, take all humanity all eternity to write it out.

There are a few problems with that line of arguing; the first is the burden of proof, which actually could be argued to fall on atheism for the simple reason that mankind has been historically overwhelmingly theist...

The burden of proof is on atheism? So - saying "I don't accept what you call proof"... should (in your opinion) be a position that requires proof?

You tie yourself in the most desperate of knots to try not to be wrong.

One doesn't NEED faith that 'there is no evidence of God'. The existence of a god would be an exceptional claim... and it is not unreasonable to expect exceptional evidence. Indeed - to believe that there IS "evidence of God" is a far bigger leap. A leap of faith.

A leap of faith is a leap of faith. Just because there is no evidence to you doesn't mean there is no evidence. Ultimately, we're talking about something that is entirely dependent on personal experience as opposed to objective observation, so it is entirely possible that you are simply not seeing what others would perceive as obvious.

You create a false situation. You say "It's possible that the Bible or the Koran really is the divinely given word of God"... but, why do you claim that as even possible?

Do you accept it as 'possible' that Harry Potter really attends Hogwarts academy? That Clark Kent really is the everyday persona of a literal Superman? Or - are you stretching the definition of 'possible' to meet a SPECIAL exception?

Yes, I do actually. Possible and plausible aren't the same thing. I mean, honestly, if we really wanted to get in to it there could be an infinite number of worlds in which every single possible tangential reality exists, or they could even exist here and we simply have the bad luck of ignoring them.

The burden of proof is on atheism? So - saying "I don't accept what you call proof"... should (in your opinion) be a position that requires proof?

Notice the term "could be argued"; I don't think there is a burden of proof in this argument because it can't be proved by its very nature. But if you were to put it in terms of proof/disproof, you could argue about where the burden of proof falls depending on how you define the concepts involved.

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg



"I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other."

My thoughts: Have you noticed that alot of these are split-offs of a central religion? So many religions are intertwined, in both philosophy and manner of worship. Too claim (Im not accusing you) of demoniminations being completely differnt relgions, is false.

"With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us."

My thoughts: This is kind of similar too how scientists claim we evolved, while not answering the question "Where did we start from?" Learning from the world around us has yet too prove this. And a clear link between primate and human.

"I cannot believe in a superior being."

My thoughts: That's good. The only ones superior too me are God and Christ. Once again, this boils down too creationism.

"Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known"

My thoughts: If the majority of the earths population still believes in a higher power, then I think some people do not agree with modern science, and what it has defined. I on one hand, gleefully await the first controlled evolutionary process, where a primate is clearly defined, evolving into another form of being.

"I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there."

My thoughts: As do I. Personally, I am absolutly intrigued on the theroy of the universe that operates on a non-linear, chaotic system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

"Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God."

My thoughts: And what society openly persecutes atheists? Not in modern eurpe or North America. Did the Medievel Catholic Fedual system re-erect itself?

"I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything."

My thoughts: And I damn those, who would damn such an intriguing and intelligent individual as yourself.

"I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law."

My thoughts: So you refuse too conform too a higher power, not living too biblical standards, yet you worship the law of man?

"I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me."

My thoughts: You speak of evangelical persecution, yet have yet too explain atheist state authoirty in China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, which openly persecutes such people. Though this has laxed over the years.

Hm... it seems as if all these religious threads tend to get very sarcastic, bitter, and aggressive...

Well, to put in my two cents, first I'll start out by saying I'm a Roman Catholic. Personally, I think that God works through science and the laws of Physics, thus creating a (somewhat) orderly Universe that follow basic principles which we can attempt to understand. This includes such principles as guided evolution and other like ideas.

For the most part, the Laws of Physics can explain how the Universe came to be what it is today. However I still have a few questions I would like answered, such as where all the matter in the universe came from, if matter cannot be destroyed nor created.

So far as I've asked friends majoring in Physics and Physics teachers/professors, scientists and the like have yet to explain this. And while this doesn't mean that there isn't some perfectly good explanation, I personally feel like it points to there being something more. Whether you choose to believe that that something is some sort of metaphysical energy source or a supernatural being is your choice.

I object to people forcing their faith on others, and I object to people condemning others to Hell. That's just ridiculous and hypocritical, particularly if you believe in a loving and merciful God. God said not to judge, because humans don't judge the same way He does. Leave that up to Him, and just be a good example of His love and faith on Earth. That's all He wants of us, in my opinion.

Going back to the loving/merciful God thing, I personally feel like such a God wouldn't condemn a personal to eternal separation from Him simply because he found reasonable doubt in believing in Him. To me, to punish someone for what they did in such a finite and insiginificant amount of time compared to the eternity for which God has existed does not equate. I therefore tend to reject the traditional ideas for Hell, and what sort of cases would let you end up there.

Seeing as how no one can present any physical evidence whether God exists or not, there usually does have to be some element of faith involved. However, I do feel like there is a certain structure to the Universe, understandable by reason, which points to something more, as I stated before.

But really, live a good life, and treat others well, and I don't think I nor God will have any complaints. ;)

For the most part, the Laws of Physics can explain how the Universe came to be what it is today. However I still have a few questions I would like answered, such as where all the matter in the universe came from, if matter cannot be destroyed nor created.

So far as I've asked friends majoring in Physics and Physics teachers/professors, scientists and the like have yet to explain this. And while this doesn't mean that there isn't some perfectly good explanation, I personally feel like it points to there being something more. Whether you choose to believe that that something is some sort of metaphysical energy source or a supernatural being is your choice.


theres the difference between looking to science for answers and looking to religion for answers.

when there is no way to know the answer, religion provides an easy one "god did it"

it makes you feel all cozy inside but its meaningless isnt it?

science has no answer but starts working on possibilities of what the answer might be. it tests these answers and picks the best one for right now. when a better answer comes along, they dont say "but we believe the earlier one, it would be heresy to change our minds", they dump the old idea and go with the new one.

over the course of time, with lots of experiments and hard work by great thinkers, science will come closer and closer to the physical answer to where the matter of the universe came from. will they ever get it right? i dont know.

if you believe that god works through physics, isnt it our duty to get it right? to at least try to figure it out?

Hm... it seems as if all these religious threads tend to get very sarcastic, bitter, and aggressive...

Well, to put in my two cents, first I'll start out by saying I'm a Roman Catholic. Personally, I think that God works through science and the laws of Physics, thus creating a (somewhat) orderly Universe that follow basic principles which we can attempt to understand. This includes such principles as guided evolution and other like ideas.

For the most part, the Laws of Physics can explain how the Universe came to be what it is today. However I still have a few questions I would like answered, such as where all the matter in the universe came from, if matter cannot be destroyed nor created.

So far as I've asked friends majoring in Physics and Physics teachers/professors, scientists and the like have yet to explain this. And while this doesn't mean that there isn't some perfectly good explanation, I personally feel like it points to there being something more. Whether you choose to believe that that something is some sort of metaphysical energy source or a supernatural being is your choice.

I object to people forcing their faith on others, and I object to people condemning others to Hell. That's just ridiculous and hypocritical, particularly if you believe in a loving and merciful God. God said not to judge, because humans don't judge the same way He does. Leave that up to Him, and just be a good example of His love and faith on Earth. That's all He wants of us, in my opinion.

Going back to the loving/merciful God thing, I personally feel like such a God wouldn't condemn a personal to eternal separation from Him simply because he found reasonable doubt in believing in Him. To me, to punish someone for what they did in such a finite and insiginificant amount of time compared to the eternity for which God has existed does not equate. I therefore tend to reject the traditional ideas for Hell, and what sort of cases would let you end up there.

Seeing as how no one can present any physical evidence whether God exists or not, there usually does have to be some element of faith involved. However, I do feel like there is a certain structure to the Universe, understandable by reason, which points to something more, as I stated before.

But really, live a good life, and treat others well, and I don't think I nor God will have any complaints. ;)

In this, you remind me of my best friend.

While she is Muslim and not Catholic, this seems to be similar in a way or two to what she believes.

I find people like you and her refreshing. You seem like the type of person I could talk to without religion coming up and when it does, being very surprised.

I can respect someone like you because you believe what you want because you want to, and you respect that other people have other beliefs that are a stark contrast to yours.

You expressed yourself eloquently. I give you two thumbs up and the Official Weasel Seal of Approval! =^_^= Weee!

My thoughts: You speak of evangelical persecution, yet have yet too explain atheist state authoirty in China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, which openly persecutes such people. Though this has laxed over the years.
I realise that persecution is a two way street, and we all know how that one goes. Though, they don't limit their state-sanction persecution to just those who are religious. They persecute those who are dissenters, religious, political and otherwise.

I'm here to notify everyone that Ifreann has won this thread per this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12007684&postcount=16

Congratulations!

I'm here to notify everyone that Ifreann has won this thread per this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...4&postcount=16

Congratulations!

Nice. A 404. :rolleyes:

I'd like to thank Eris, Mal-II, TBD, Cluich, Jorm, Max Barry, Kat and....eh.....Dr. McNinja.

Notice the term "could be argued"; I don't think there is a burden of proof in this argument because it can't be proved by its very nature. But if you were to put it in terms of proof/disproof, you could argue about where the burden of proof falls depending on how you define the concepts involved.

You could make that argument, sure. But it would be a piss-poor argument to make - and not one I suspect would ever be supported in any other circumstances except this one 'special exception' that a lot of religious people seems to have.

if you believe that god works through physics, isnt it our duty to get it right? to at least try to figure it out?

Sure, never made an argument for or against either view, but I expressed my own opinion. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me, and I believe it makes sense in general. Others might not think the same way as I do, however.

As far as proving or disproving the existence of God, I think it's impossible to do scientifically. Some see science as disproving God, I disagree. Rather I think science helps build up the prospect of God existing and working in the world.

If you don't take holy scriptures completely literally, I believe it is in fact possible to say that God created the Universe and made it operate through the use of science and physical laws. It's when you take every word literally, and don't allow for the possibility of poetic creativity in expressing a messages, and the use of literary devices to make a point, that you may come into conflict with science, in my opinion.

You could make that argument, sure. But it would be a piss-poor argument to make - and not one I suspect would ever be supported in any other circumstances except this one 'special exception' that a lot of religious people seems to have.

No, it's complete garbage. There is no burden of proof because it's not something that can be proven.

It really comes down to whatever faith works for you.

If atheism provides you with the best context for your life stance, go with it, and if it doesn't, go with something else. It really just boils down to what works for you; however, you also have to accept that your interpretation is no more correct, logical, or accurate than anyone else's and you have to keep it to yourself like anyone else. Evangelical atheism is just as bad as someone forcing their faith on you, or anyone else for that matter.

Very good point that I think a lot of people forget.

No, my fellow humans and their choices and beliefs did not lead me to Atheism, but rather my own curiosity did. I didn't find what I sought. I tried a couple of religions on for size.

Catholicism, which I was baptised didn't have what I was looking for, nor did Buddhism. Both have redeeming aspects, but, I didn't see what I was looking for.

I did my research, I read, but, nothing rang true for me.

I found it was easier to borrow concepts and just go with what felt right. I honestly didn't like the idea of believing some guy, in the clouds, was watching me 24/7, so, I made my choice that way.

It wasn't mankind's failings that led me to it, but rather its indecisiveness and the wide range of beliefs that led me to my conclusions.

I hate picking from what exists, so, I went my own way because I'm the annoying brat who never listened to the teacher and coloured my flowers in the wrong way because I liked the petals being multi-coloured.
You're not an atheist so much as a literalist. *grin*

It isn't a belief in 'no god'... it is simple no belief in any gods.

We are presented by a multitude of 'god' stories, most of which claim to be the ONLY possible truth. Obviously, if they are mutually exclusive, they can't all be the ONLY possible truth. Indeed - it is fairly logical to deduce they must all be at least equally flawed, if not entirely untrue.

The most logical assumption, then - is that no gods are believable.

That isn't a matter of faith - it's a matter of what is left when you winnow out all the crap that contradicts.
Nah, it's just a matter of being a literalist. ;)

The kind of faith necessary to assert the existence of the natural world and the general truth of logical postulates and the kind of faith necessary to assert the existence of God are different kinds of faith.
I'm curious about these "kinds" of faith: are they qualified only by the object of the faith?

You're assuming that the starting position is that there's a question whether or not one exists. I dispute that. The starting position should be that there is nothing and that whatever exists must be proven. We don't, after all, ask people to prove that unicorns don't exist--the starting position is that they don't and that believers in them must offer proof that they do. Otherwise, the assumption is that there are none. Why should it be any different with God?
Absolutely not. The default position on any issue should be one of uncertainty.

Which, of course, means that explicit atheists (who believe that God doesn't exist) are, in fact, even more irrational than theists. Theists believe something for which they have no conlcusive evidence, but explicit atheists believe something for which they CANNOT have conclusive evidence.

In reply to the OP: Don't be hypocritical. Please, you proclaim all religions to be intolerant, ignorant, hateful, awful things. But, in doing so, you are intolerant, hateful and awful, but you do NOT understand why it is, and you will NOT accept it as the truth. But it is.

The image at the end of your post proves it, really.

By the way, having faith is importent, not what faith you are.
His hypocrisy does not invalidate his point.

Absolutely not. The default position on any issue should be one of uncertainty.

Which, of course, means that explicit atheists (who believe that God doesn't exist) are, in fact, even more irrational than theists. Theists believe something for which they have no conlcusive evidence, but explicit atheists believe something for which they CANNOT have conclusive evidence.

But you CAN have conclusive evidence FOR god?

A matter of opinion, perhaps. I'd say that most religions seem to describe a god that could never be fully realised by mere humans. You could never find 'conclusive' evidence of such an entity.

Absolutely not. The default position on any issue should be one of uncertainty.

Which, of course, means that explicit atheists (who believe that God doesn't exist) are, in fact, even more irrational than theists. Theists believe something for which they have no conlcusive evidence, but explicit atheists believe something for which they CANNOT have conclusive evidence.

sooooooo...

you hold an agnostic postion as regards zeus, shiva, odin, quetzacoatl, whatever? you would never deny that these gods exist because you can never know for sure?

i dont bother to believe in things that have less chance of being true than the chances that ill win the megalottery next week.

His hypocrisy does not invalidate his point.
I hate religion because of what it seems to do to people.

I hate religions that make a point of forcing its beliefs onto others, and calls on the unbelievers to be persecuted.

I guess you missed the point where I said I actually don't mind learning about religions when the person tells me why they believe something without actually preaching.

I found your article compelling.
I feel the same way.
I just wish people would stop looking at me like I just came from the moon when I tell them I don't believe in God.

What's even more annoying is when they tell me "Oh, then you're going to Hell." and I'm forced to answer.. "No, I don't believe in Hell either."

Funny how people think Atheists are like Satan Worshippers. O.o Especially when they don't believe in Satan.

Actually.. I don't know what is really out there.. so I guess I'm Agnostic, but I just say atheist so I don't have to explain what Agnostic means. LOL
Though I suppose if I had to choose, I'd say no.
No evidence to support a God.. their claims don't hold any water at all.
And if God really did exist, he'd be well within his power to stop me from saying so.
But he didn't. So there.

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

And what if your wrong? What if Allah is real and you have to face him after you die? what are you going to do then?

No evidence to support a God.. their claims don't hold any water at all.
And if God really did exist, he'd be well within his power to stop me from saying so. But he didn't. So there.

Why would he? If you don't want to believe, I don't see why God would violate the free will that he gave all humans in order to pay attention to one individual who feels like testing them.

Remember "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test"? I imagine it's something like that.

Atheism is ignorance.
Atheism is the complete denial that there is even a possibility of there being a "God".
There is no possible way to prove that there cannot be a superior being.
There is nothing wrong with being Agnostic.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with faith.
But atheism is just a seventh grade kid rebelling against society.
that's what atheism is.
it's an ignorant waste of time.

Don't be garbage.

Why would he? If you don't want to believe, I don't see why God would violate the free will that he gave all humans in order to pay attention to one individual who feels like testing them.

Remember "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test"? I imagine it's something like that.

Unless you are Thomas, in which case, he's cool with you doubting?

Why do some people imagine Atheists "don't want to believe"?

Atheism is ignorance.
Atheism is the complete denial that there is even a possibility of there being a "God".
There is no possible way to prove that there cannot be a superior being.
There is nothing wrong with being Agnostic.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with faith.
But atheism is just a seventh grade kid rebelling against society.
that's what atheism is.
it's an ignorant waste of time.

Don't be garbage.

Silly rabbit, trips are for kids.

Atheism is ignorance.
Atheism is the complete denial that there is even a possibility of there being a "God".
There is no possible way to prove that there cannot be a superior being.
There is nothing wrong with being Agnostic.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with faith.
But atheism is just a seventh grade kid rebelling against society.
that's what atheism is.
it's an ignorant waste of time.

Don't be garbage.

is that a poem?

Unless you are Thomas, in which case, he's cool with you doubting?

Why do some people imagine Atheists "don't want to believe"?

or that one can choose to believe or choose not to believe?

Unless you are Thomas, in which case, he's cool with you doubting?

Yeah, I always wondered about that one. However, I guess it was different because he wasn't so much testing God as he was shocked by seeing him back in the flesh.

Why do some people imagine Atheists "don't want to believe"?

Beats me.:confused:

Of course, for that matter, why do people feel that God has to make some kind of big show to confirm his existence? I think there's some pretty absurd ideas on all sides. It seems like everyone, theists and atheists alike, is trying to make God in to something objective that can be measured when in reality it hinges entirely on personal experience.

Yeah, I always wondered about that one. However, I guess it was different because he wasn't so much testing God as he was shocked by seeing him back in the flesh.


I think the idea is that one shouldn't expect god to prove his existence. It seems fairly clear that doubting is fine - just don't expect him to show up when you say "Oh, yeah? If you are god then can you do this..."


Beats me.:confused:

Of course, for that matter, why do people feel that God has to make some kind of big show to confirm his existence? I think there's some pretty absurd ideas on all sides. It seems like everyone, theists and atheists alike, is trying to make God in to something objective that can be measured when in reality it hinges entirely on personal experience.

I think you are confused - Atheists don't feel god has to make some big show, etc.

It is the religious people who insist that god HAS made a 'big show', and continuously deride the Atheists for not accepting that as 'evidence'.

I don't need god to make a big show to prove to me he exists... because I just don't believe. If HE wants me to believe, HE needs him to make a big show, not me.

Of course, for that matter, why do people feel that God has to make some kind of big show to confirm his existence? I think there's some pretty absurd ideas on all sides. It seems like everyone, theists and atheists alike, is trying to make God in to something objective that can be measured when in reality it hinges entirely on personal experience.

i dont need god to make a big show, id like him to make ANY show. 2000 years is kind of a long time to wait for a sequel ya know?

supposing of course that god cares one way or the other about exactly what we believe and how we express those beliefs. personally, i find it obvious that if there is a "god" he doesnt care about the details of our beliefs. if he did, he would have been more clear about the whole thing. (and have told everyone, not just a lucky few in the jerusalem area 2000 years ago)

I think the idea is that one shouldn't expect god to prove his existence. It seems fairly clear that doubting is fine - just don't expect him to show up when you say "Oh, yeah? If you are god then can you do this..."

Yeah, that's what I mean. I have a feeling God is one of those things you would just know if you encountered it; it's not something that'll be objectively knowable. I don't think you're going to see God show up with an army of angels and trumpets blaring, it's going to be something subtle that grows on you over time.

I think you are confused - Atheists don't feel god has to make some big show, etc.

I was referring specifically to the person I quoted.

It is the religious people who insist that god HAS made a 'big show', and continuously deride the Atheists for not accepting that as 'evidence'.

I don't need god to make a big show to prove to me he exists... because I just don't believe. If HE wants me to believe, HE needs him to make a big show, not me.

I guess the only way to know is through personal experience. No kinds of proofs or arguments have quite the convincing power of experiencing something; I think that is the only way someone can convincingly know and justify to themselves that God exists.

I guess the only way to know is through personal experience. No kinds of proofs or arguments have quite the convincing power of experiencing something; I think that is the only way someone can convincingly know and justify to themselves that God exists.

Here we agree absolutely, and it is one of my biggest problems with 'Bible beating' Christians.

The Bible can never prove the existence of God - it is just a book (no matter who you believe the author is).

Unless you accept the book is divinely guaranteed in some way, it can prove nothing to you about god... and if you DO believe it is divine, you are already a 'believer'.

i dont need god to make a big show, id like him to make ANY show. 2000 years is kind of a long time to wait for a sequel ya know?

Maybe the problem is that people stopped listening; once we had governments clamping down on religious expression, it became kind of hard for new belief systems to spring up.

supposing of course that god cares one way or the other about exactly what we believe and how we express those beliefs. personally, i find it obvious that if there is a "god" he doesnt care about the details of our beliefs. if he did, he would have been more clear about the whole thing. (and have told everyone, not just a lucky few in the jerusalem area 2000 years ago)

I think God cares about what you do, not what you believe. It simply makes no sense to punish someone eternally or reward them eternally because they believed in a particular God as opposed what they did in life. He gave us reason and feeling to find out what's right and do it, and he gave us society to find a way to put it all together

God's probably a pretty hands-off guy; I don't know if he's personal or transpersonal or whatever, so I can't comment on that. I think God's involvement in this world is limited by the laws and attributes he laid down in the beginning, and once the Big Bang exploded he was pretty limited to what preconditions he set up.

Here we agree absolutely, and it is one of my biggest problems with 'Bible beating' Christians.

The Bible can never prove the existence of God - it is just a book (no matter who you believe the author is).

It's a book with good ideas, and some bad ones, but like any ideas they have to evolve to meet the needs of society as it is now rather than it was then. That's why symbolic interpretation of the Bible is much better than literal interpretation. It has some timeless truths in it, but you also have to sift away the human stuff that accumulated through thousands of years.

Unless you accept the book is divinely guaranteed in some way, it can prove nothing to you about god... and if you DO believe it is divine, you are already a 'believer'.

Which is a nasty bit of circular logic...and it's something I can't accept even as a theist. God has to be as logically consistent as possible, and the Bible as it exists doesn't show that.

The Bible might have originated from God, but even so it was written by men over millenia and contains all their biases and problems.

Maybe the problem is that people stopped listening; once we had governments clamping down on religious expression, it became kind of hard for new belief systems to spring up.


HEY

dont make me diss the mormons!

Absolutely not. The default position on any issue should be one of uncertainty.

Which, of course, means that explicit atheists (who believe that God doesn't exist) are, in fact, even more irrational than theists. Theists believe something for which they have no conlcusive evidence, but explicit atheists believe something for which they CANNOT have conclusive evidence.

The problem with this idea is levels of certainty.

At some point you have to live your life as if all the almost infinitesimal possibilities were in fact impossible.

Its possible that the devil wrote the new testament and that Jesus was the antichrist.. I mean the contrast between the old testament and the new is pretty strong.. we went from pillars of salt, plagues of locusts and knocking off of first borns to making wine for parties, curing blindness and accepting whores... thats a pretty big swing. Whos to say it isn't the case... Its a pretty small chance but you can't disprove it, that satan is made out to be a pretty tricky guy. If you can't disprove it then you have to consider it...

The thing is if you accept that there could be a God then pretty much anything is possible. There could be infinite gods all with different demands... God could be a vindictive old prick and just send everyone to hell for no reason... I mean who is to know the mind of God.

So what do you gain by believing in a god other than a whole new set of uncertainties.... suddenly you have to start believeing in fairies... unicorns .. devils... that you might win the lottery... they are all outside chances and I really don't see why so many people believe it adds so much to their lives.

Non belief provides a much better set of morals, because you are anchored in the real world, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.. no happy little afterlife to look forward to.. this is it.. your one chance. Surely thats a much better frame work to lead your life than the belief in anything that you can't be sure isn't real....

HEY

dont make me diss the mormons!

Hey, the Mormons are the fastest growing church on Earth thanks to reverse baptism.

Hey, the Mormons are the fastest growing church on Earth thanks to reverse baptism.

the church of latter day saints is the quintessential american religion. both nutz and genius at the same time.

the church of latter day saints is the quintessential american religion. both nutz and genius at the same time.

Not to mention they have a ton of money...

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All will be explained.

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All will be explained.

No, he just rants on and spends half the time attacking straw men that he sets up. The guy's pretty unstable when it comes to religion; we'd call him a fanatic if he were a theist.

No, he just rants on and spends half the time attacking straw men that he sets up. The guy's pretty unstable when it comes to religion; we'd call him a fanatic if he were a theist.

I think its just a case of working too long in the funny farm.

He was used to dealing with logical minds during his career as a scientist. Suddenly his work on evolutionary biology throws him into direct contact with all these crazies who believe in apparently random stuff, completely devoid of any logic.

After too long hanging out with these loonies.. (and I am sure he really does attract the attention of the truely wacko) finally some of it has started to rub off.

He is still the sanest person in the facility... but thats not saying much :)

I think its just a case of working too long in the funny farm.

He was used to dealing with logical minds during his career as a scientist. Suddenly his work on evolutionary biology throws him into direct contact with all these crazies who believe in apparently random stuff, completely devoid of any logic.

After too long hanging out with these loonies.. (and I am sure he really does attract the attention of the truely wacko) finally some of it has started to rub off.

He is still the sanest person in the facility... but thats not saying much :)

I seriously think that's the case. He just lost it and burned out his temporal lobe, so he's become dead to religious feelings and became a nutty atheist instead. He forgot about fighting creationism and started going after religious believers including those on the same side as he is.

Just leave the creationists alone, and pwn them in court...other than that, it's just going to hurt you.

i was raised in a christian family. i was taught all the bible stories and what to believe. i had, in your words, blind faith. and as i got older, that wasn't enough. i have a logical and anilitical mind. what an old lady told me wasn't enouigh. i wanted facts. i wanted science. i had doubts. i didn't believe.
science ended my belief. but then it saved it. i thought i was getting the facts. i was getting half the facts. i was still in my parents house, so i still went to church. thank god. because i had a sunday class on science. now i had the evidence for evolution, and the evidence for creation. my anilitical mind wieghed both, and found evolution lacking. for example, irreducible complexity. the theory of evolution states that any thing not helpful to an animal will be discarded through the generations. there are millions of complex structures within millions of organisims that, under this law, would have been discarded before they would be fully developed to thier functional and helpful current states. i could talk for hours about science supporting creation. like this: the world is not just placed in the perfect place to cultivate life, it's also in the perfect place to observe the universe. god put us there so we could learn about our surroundings. god wants us to explore our natural [U]curiousity[U] science is a good thing. after all, it saved my soul.

The problem with this idea is levels of certainty.

At some point you have to live your life as if all the almost infinitesimal possibilities were in fact impossible.

Its possible that the devil wrote the new testament and that Jesus was the antichrist.. I mean the contrast between the old testament and the new is pretty strong.. we went from pillars of salt, plagues of locusts and knocking off of first borns to making wine for parties, curing blindness and accepting whores... thats a pretty big swing. Whos to say it isn't the case... Its a pretty small chance but you can't disprove it, that satan is made out to be a pretty tricky guy. If you can't disprove it then you have to consider it...

The thing is if you accept that there could be a God then pretty much anything is possible. There could be infinite gods all with different demands... God could be a vindictive old prick and just send everyone to hell for no reason... I mean who is to know the mind of God.

So what do you gain by believing in a god other than a whole new set of uncertainties.... suddenly you have to start believeing in fairies... unicorns .. devils... that you might win the lottery... they are all outside chances and I really don't see why so many people believe it adds so much to their lives.

Non belief provides a much better set of morals, because you are anchored in the real world, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.. no happy little afterlife to look forward to.. this is it.. your one chance. Surely thats a much better frame work to lead your life than the belief in anything that you can't be sure isn't real....








true. new testament god is very different than old testament god. that' s the miracle of jesus. the jews, god's original people, spiritually weren't ready for a loving and forgiving god. they needed someone to help them learn the meaning of rightousness. jesus came and said, "you're ready. you know all about the ten commandments, but let me show you what god really meant when he created the world."


pretty amazing.

sooooooo...

you hold an agnostic postion as regards zeus, shiva, odin, quetzacoatl, whatever? you would never deny that these gods exist because you can never know for sure?
Yes. Of course.
i dont bother to believe in things that have less chance of being true than the chances that ill win the megalottery next week.
Neither does the agnostic. You don't need to believe in things to be uncertain about them. In fact, being uncertain explicitly denies belief.

jesus came and said, "you're ready. you know all about the ten commandments, but let me show you what god really meant when he created the world."
Also known as "God's been lying to you for 4000 years."

Is it any wonder the Cathars didn't buy it?

But you CAN have conclusive evidence FOR god?
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible. That would require I believe something about its nature a priori.

true. new testament god is very different than old testament god. that' s the miracle of jesus. the jews, god's original people, spiritually weren't ready for a loving and forgiving god. they needed someone to help them learn the meaning of rightousness. jesus came and said, "you're ready. you know all about the ten commandments, but let me show you what god really meant when he created the world."Well, this god's name is jealousy.

The problem with this idea is levels of certainty.

At some point you have to live your life as if all the almost infinitesimal possibilities were in fact impossible.
Right, because you're making and winning a series of really good bets. But you needn't believe them to be impossible. Just extremely unlikely, and you have empirical evidence to support that.

The strongest agnostic position is one based in complete uncertainty. Once you're aware of your almost total ignorance on the subject of God, paying him no mind at all becomes necessary. Otherwise you're trying to appease a being of whom you have no knowledge whatever. And that would be stressful.

Yes. Of course.

Neither does the agnostic. You don't need to believe in things to be uncertain about them. In fact, being uncertain explicitly denies belief.

the more sophisticated agnostic doesnt just keep a grain of doubt in his mind that the world might not be as it seems to be on the face of it (god, the matrix, zoo for space aliens, whatever).

his belief is that its not truly possible to know anything about god. that its beyond our capabilities as human beings. therefore to be christian or hindu or whatever is a blind choice. there is simply no way to know what "god" would want of us. if he can be called god at all.

fine, if jesus returned tomorrow on clouds of glory, i wouldnt deny his existence. (same for zeus but i guess it would involve lightning bolts) that doesnt change my non-belief today. im still an atheist no matter what form of god might be supposed. i believe in none of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible. That would require I believe something about its nature a priori.

Which would be very difficult to measure outside of personal experience.

the world is not just placed in the perfect place to cultivate life, ...

this is the viewpoint that continuously irritates me about believers in creationism. thinking that way is BACKWARD. the world was not placed in the right place for us to thrive, we thrive because we adapted (through evolution) to perfectly suit this world.

life is abundant on this world because it happens to be in the right place for this to be the case. if this were not so, then we wouldn't be here to talk about it and would instead be talking about Earth like we do Mars. there are millions upon millions of planets out there for which the conditions are not right for life as we know it to flourish, and it does not. we are not so much lucky as just... a product of the planet's special positioning. this "special" positioning happens as a matter of chance, but is not so improbable to imply that some being greater than our own species somehow, with powers defying physics and natural laws, created this planet just for us. that thinking is simply backward. the planet came first, and we adapted to it.


its like... people think the sky is pretty. the sky is blue. it is pretty. because people think that's pretty it must have been designed that way, surely? no. that's the way it naturally occurred and we adapted to find blue skies pretty (probably because those of us more likely to go and work/hunt in good weather were more successful at getting food and mating or something)

the earth was not designed for us. we were designed for it by nature and the environment of the earth itself. simple as that. any other way of thinking, that we are somehow "special" or created by god or any other BS, is wrong. end of story.

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists. I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.

I cannot believe in a superior being.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim, but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me. Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/stickers/why.jpg

God acts like "an eight year old brat" because he doesn't (but he could) want to control us like robots. I can't believe that a magical explosion that came out of nowhere brought us here, and from there people claim a bacteria cell is my great-great-great-great-great-great (about 400,000,000,000,000,000 more "greats") grandpa. Not only that, I don't WANT to believe that I cease to exist when I die.

this is the viewpoint that continuously irritates me about believers in creationism. thinking that way is BACKWARD. the world was not placed in the right place for us to thrive, we thrive because we adapted (through evolution) to perfectly suit this world.

Well, at the same time however, we also have to take in to account that the universe itself is perfectly fine-tuned for the emergence of carbon-based life. If any of the conditions in existence were different we would not be here. It just seems rather odd that the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned in all aspects of its cosmology in order to allow the emergence of sentient life on this planet.

Of course, even so that suggests a deist God who set things to run and intervenes only minimally in the affairs of the universe rather than the interventionst God of creationism.

Well, at the same time however, we also have to take in to account that the universe itself is perfectly fine-tuned for the emergence of carbon-based life. If any of the conditions in existence were different we would not be here. It just seems rather odd that the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned in all aspects of its cosmology in order to allow the emergence of sentient life on this planet.

Of course, even so that suggests a deist God who set things to run and intervenes only minimally in the affairs of the universe rather than the interventionst God of creationism.

if the world werent set up for carbon-based life, we wouldnt be carbon based.

life and intelligence might be common in the universe for all we know. we cant judge it odd until we know how frequent life is out there.

if the world werent set up for carbon-based life, we wouldnt be carbon based.

No, but if some of the fundamental forces were a little different, we wouldn't be here at all regardless of what form life could take. I mean, every single condition is literally perfect for what we needed to get to where we are now to research it.

life and intelligence might be common in the universe for all we know. we cant judge it odd until we know how frequent life is out there.

Of course, the emergence of intelligent life on multiple planets would probably raise even more questions than it solves; that's obviously not a bad thing, but it wouldn't provide easy answers.

Well, at the same time however, we also have to take in to account that the universe itself is perfectly fine-tuned for the emergence of carbon-based life. If any of the conditions in existence were different we would not be here. It just seems rather odd that the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned in all aspects of its cosmology in order to allow the emergence of sentient life on this planet. You think in the wrong direction. The universe is at it is. Lifeforms only managed to adapt to the conditions in order to survive better than others. The fine-tuning is in biology and genetics, not in the universe.

God acts like "an eight year old brat" because he doesn't (but he could) want to control us like robots. I can't believe that a magical explosion that came out of nowhere brought us here, and from there people claim a bacteria cell is my great-great-great-great-great-great (about 400,000,000,000,000,000 more "greats") grandpa. Not only that, I don't WANT to believe that I cease to exist when I die.
... as opposed to a magical being magicking everything into existence? I'll grant the Big Bang may seem somewhat outlandish, but I love it when religious people believe that logically God is a more likely theory.

No, but if some of the fundamental forces were a little different, we wouldn't be here at all regardless of what form life could take. I mean, every single condition is literally perfect for what we needed to get to where we are now to research it.But the "fundamental forces" aren't any different as they are, nevertheless life could have taken a completely different route. And it may have on other planets. Your limited understanding of life seems to let you dismiss other possibilities.

You think in the wrong direction. The universe is at it is. Lifeforms only managed to adapt to the conditions in order to survive better than others. The fine-tuning is in biology and genetics, not in the universe.

No, the fine tuning is in the universe as well:

Fine Tuned Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Explaining_fine-tuned_universe)

Biology makes sense because it's the product of natural forces. These things were needed to allow life to emerge on Earth at all.

... as opposed to a magical being magicking everything into existence? I'll grant the Big Bang may seem somewhat outlandish, but I love it when religious people believe that logically God is a more likely theory.

Well, you see, all life shows signs of design. Where did color come from? Who invented emotion? A supreme being creating something is much more sensible than a magical explosion from nowhere. Explain where the gases that caused it came from. Oh wait- there were none.In our theory, a god was there to speak it into existance. And in our moder, modern world, I wander why no one has been able to observe evolution in a lab.

But the "fundamental forces" aren't any different as they are, nevertheless life could have taken a completely different route. And it may have on other planets. Your limited understanding of life seems to let you dismiss other possibilities.

Well, I'm only using the life we know about and have evidence of because that's what matters at this point in time. If non-carbon based life is discovered, I'll change my opinion, but until that happens using aliens to dismiss the possibility of a divine origin for fine tuning is a cop-out. Even so, the discovery of non-carbon based life wouldn't remove the cosmological fine-tuning. It is still perfectly suited for intelligent life to emerge somewhere in the universe due to a set of perfectly fine-tuned cosmological constants and relationships.

Right now, we only have evidence of carbon-based life on Earth and everything we've observed supports precisely the conditions needed for life to emerge on Earth.

No, but if some of the fundamental forces were a little different, we wouldn't be here at all regardless of what form life could take. I mean, every single condition is literally perfect for what we needed to get to where we are now to research it.


uh..billions of years of evolution... WE are perfect for the conditions that exist on earth because we evolved here. if life wasnt possible here, there wouldnt be life. its not odd that life evolved on a planet where its possible and that that life should have adapted to it perfectly.

after all, a few years ago you would have mentioned the sun and how we get the perfect amount of light, now we know that there are creatures that live on the floor of the ocean so deep that no light ever penetrates there. they have adapted to the steam vents putting out way more heat than surface creatures can survive living in.

uh..billions of years of evolution... WE are perfect for the conditions that exist on earth because we evolved here. if life wasnt possible here, there wouldnt be life. its not odd that life evolved on a planet where its possible and that that life should have adapted to it perfectly.

after all, a few years ago you would have mentioned the sun and how we get the perfect amount of light, now we know that there are creatures that live on the floor of the ocean so deep that no light ever penetrates there. they have adapted to the steam vents putting out way more heat than surface creatures can survive living in.

We don't evolve. There is no hard core proof. There is more proof on the underfunded creationist side, even if the media is liberal and anti-god.

uh..billions of years of evolution... WE are perfect for the conditions that exist on earth because we evolved here. if life wasnt possible here, there wouldnt be life. its not odd that life evolved on a planet where its possible and that that life should have adapted to it perfectly.

The universe is perfectly fine-tuned so that evolution could actually happen; without things being the way they are, we wouldn't be here at all and we definitely wouldn't have time to evolve in to sentient lifeforms. And the problem is, nobody has any idea why those constants are the way they are.

after all, a few years ago you would have mentioned the sun and how we get the perfect amount of light, now we know that there are creatures that live on the floor of the ocean so deep that no light ever penetrates there. they have adapted to the steam vents putting out way more heat than surface creatures can survive living in.

I'm pretty sure the cosmological constants are a lot more basic than light from the sun. You can adapt to that, but you can't go against the rules that make up the very matter in your body. This isn't biological, this is on the atomic level and lower.

Well, at the same time however, we also have to take in to account that the universe itself is perfectly fine-tuned for the emergence of carbon-based life. If any of the conditions in existence were different we would not be here. It just seems rather odd that the universe would be perfectly fine-tuned in all aspects of its cosmology in order to allow the emergence of sentient life on this planet.

Of course, even so that suggests a deist God who set things to run and intervenes only minimally in the affairs of the universe rather than the interventionst God of creationism.

A few hundred years people found it hard to believe that the sun didn't go around the earth.

That the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Well that seems to be pretty common knowledge now.

Science did that for us.

Now people still have a problem with getting used to the idea that people are not the center of the universe.

Science is doing its best to help us understand that things are as PM says.. that we are in fact not the center of the universe. We just happen to be a very small part of it. Its not here to make us.. we are just here by chance.

It can be tough to believe because you view the world from the center. Always from inside your head... always in the middle of things. Thats just the way we are biologically set up.

Maybe one day people will see the attitude that we are the center of the universe as being as silly as we now find the idea that the earth is the center of the universe.

But sadly I think that day is a little way off yet.
Ego is a terribly hard thing to get over....

The universe is perfectly fine-tuned so that evolution could actually happen; without things being the way they are, we wouldn't be here at all and we definitely wouldn't have time to evolve in to sentient lifeforms. And the problem is, nobody has any idea why those constants are the way they are.

Still just as BACKWARDS as before... we are only here to contemplate this because the constants were the way the were. If they were different then we wouldn't be here.. no quandry..

Now people still have a problem with getting used to the idea that people are not the center of the universe.

Says who? Humans are the only technologically and culturally emergent sentient life we know of in existence. There's nobody else, so it's entirely possible that we're the only ones.

Even so, we don't have to be the center of the universe. It has nothing to do with whether or not the universe is fine-tuned by God. Humans are only a part of the universe, and frankly in my opinion finding more life in this universe would only increase the chance that God exists especially if they had similar religious beliefs as well.

Science is doing its best to help us understand that things are as PM says.. that we are in fact not the center of the universe. We just happen to be a very small part of it. Its not here to make us.. we are just here by chance.

Here's a problem, though: Where did chance come from? There was obviously a beginning to the universe, and something had to have set it off and make it develop the way it did. And, for that matter, the fundamental algorithims driving processes like evolution had to come from somewhere.

No matter what, you're going to fall in to a regress problem with a naturalistic explanation for the universe.

Maybe one day people will see the attitude that we are the center of the universe as being as silly as we now find the idea that the earth is the center of the universe.

There is no center to the universe. If we really wanted to, we could make ourselves the center and go from there; frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't consider ourselves the center since as of 2006 nobody has challenged us for the position.

Well, you see, all life shows signs of design. Where did color come from? Who invented emotion? A supreme being creating something is much more sensible than a magical explosion from nowhere. Explain where the gases that caused it came from. Oh wait- there were none.In our theory, a god was there to speak it into existance. And in our moder, modern world, I wander why no one has been able to observe evolution in a lab.

We see a narrow band of the electro magnetic field.. its a tiny fraction.. we call it colour.

Emotion is a survival mechanism.

A supreme being is not a better explanation.. its crazy..

Actually matter has been created from nothing in the lab... matter and antimatter.. they go together you get .... Nothing. and vice versa....

I observed evolution in the lab yesterday.

I work on molecular ecology. You can take a single bacterial cell.. place it on a plate and end up with several populations of distinct organisms.... its happening all the time and is actually really easy to see.

Says who? Humans are the only technologically and culturally emergent sentient life we know of in existence. There's nobody else, so it's entirely possible that we're the only ones.

Even so, we don't have to be the center of the universe. It has nothing to do with whether or not the universe is fine-tuned by God. Humans are only a part of the universe, and frankly in my opinion finding more life in this universe would only increase the chance that God exists especially if they had similar religious beliefs as well.



Here's a problem, though: Where did chance come from? There was obviously a beginning to the universe, and something had to have set it off and make it develop the way it did. And, for that matter, the fundamental algorithims driving processes like evolution had to come from somewhere.

No matter what, you're going to fall in to a regress problem with a naturalistic explanation for the universe.



There is no center to the universe. If we really wanted to, we could make ourselves the center and go from there; frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't consider ourselves the center since as of 2006 nobody has challenged us for the position.

So rather than us rotating around the sun the entire universe rotates around earth.. sure its only a matter of perspective, and relativity... but its an odd one to take.

Its the same kind of attitutde that spawns "the whole world is just here for me, when I die the world will be gone" its perfectly valid philosophy .. but hardly very useful.

We see a narrow band of the electro magnetic field.. its a tiny fraction.. we call it colour.

What is it like to see the color red?

Emotion is a survival mechanism.

What do love or anger feel like?

Actually matter has been created from nothing in the lab... matter and antimatter.. they go together you get .... Nothing. and vice versa....

They were produced by colliding already existent matter. Noone has ever created matter ex nihilo.

I work on molecular ecology. You can take a single bacterial cell.. place it on a plate and end up with several populations of distinct organisms.... its happening all the time and is actually really easy to see.

You really need to suspend disbelief to not consider evolution to be a true explanation of how life emerged on Earth.

So rather than us rotating around the sun the entire universe rotates around earth.. sure its only a matter of perspective, and relativity... but its an odd one to take.

It's odd, but it is valid. The problem is that different perspectives have to be considered to learn as much as possible and to see if there are any problems with the given theory; I mean, classical mechanics is good for middling things, but it falls apart the bigger or smaller the scale you get.

Its the same kind of attitutde that spawns "the whole world is just here for me, when I die the world will be gone" its perfectly valid philosophy .. but hardly very useful.

Well, no it's not. Solipsism is useful for skeptical philosophy, but it's not useful in practical terms.

What do love or anger feel like?

Quoted from another post by a guy called Boris (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2563&page=2).. but I liked his explanation..

Human emotions arise from a physiological complex in the brain termed the "limbic system". If you want to know, the limbic system consists of such formations as the cingulate cortex, thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala, mamillary bodies and the septum. The limbic system is located in the tectum -- the dorsal (upper) portion of the midbrain -- that portion of our brain that lies underneath the cerebral cortex and is therefore far more anscient. The limbic system is present in its entirety in the brains of all vertebrates, all the way down to fish. Direct evidence abounds for the role of the limbic system in emotional response. Lesion and corresponding psychophysical studies have firmly established the facts. When people claim that 'emotions' are an integral part of the soul, they are committing a fallacy. People are alive in great numbers whose emotional brain centers have been damaged -- through accidents, strokes, genetic deformities or diseases, cancer or surgery. Such people can completely lose their emotions. They would never again get angry, or sad, or excited, or happy. They never experience love, arousal, fear, hatred. They speak in monotone (without prosody) -- like robots in cheap sci-fi movies. They are no longer able to judge emotions of others intuitively -- though they can learn to correlate facial expressions with verbal descriptions of emotion, and they can even learn to fake their own emotions when they sense it's appropriate (though sometimes they misjudge the appropriateness of vivid emotional response). So there you go -- emotions are directly generated by the brain -- a physical entity; they are by far not immortal or indestructible, nor are they an integral part of what it means to be human. Presense of brain emotional centers in all vertebrates directly clashes with your supposition that somehow humans are unique in their emotional response. To the contrary, even neurophysiological evidence alone suggests that even the lowliest of vertebrates possess emotions. But apart from that, in higher animals the emotions are actually very easy to see -- because their emotional response is so much like our own. (And why do you think that is?)

Quoted from another post by a guy called Boris (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2563&page=2).. but I liked his explanation..

It's interesting, but it doesn't tell me what emotions feel like. The physical origins of emotion do not tell me what emotion feels like.

Still just as BACKWARDS as before... we are only here to contemplate this because the constants were the way the were. If they were different then we wouldn't be here.. no quandry..

Why are they the way they are? And, for that matter, why are we capable of contemplating them to begin with?

Saying "because" is a just-so story that has little more credibility or utility than a creation myth.

They were produced by colliding already existent matter. Noone has ever created matter ex nihilo.


My impression was that all you needed to add was energy.. the energy that you get back afterwards... so in effect you get matter for nothing... http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html

My impression was that all you needed to add was energy.. the energy that you get back afterwards... so in effect you get matter for nothing...

Well, no. You need to collide subatomic particles to produce the energy needed for antimatter. There's still an initial input of matter and energy that existed prior to collision.

It's interesting, but it doesn't tell me what emotions feel like. The physical origins of emotion do not tell me what emotion feels like.

I am not sure what that has to do with anything though??

Just because I have trouble explaining what an emotion feels like doesn't make it any less physically grounded...

Its not inherent.. its nothing special.. it is simply a physical reaction.

I can't tell you what pain feels like either... but it is pretty easy to effect it with the simple use of a few chemicals.

Its not devine.. or attached to a spirit. Its simply chemical.

I am not sure what that has to do with anything though??


It's very important because it shows that subjective experience is not reducible to physical explanations. Knowing the physical causes does not tell me what it feels like to experience emotion, which means that there are properties of experience that cannot be explained in physical terms.

Just because I have trouble explaining what an emotion feels like doesn't make it any less physically grounded...

Well, if you can't explain it in physical terms, then how can it be strictly physical? It means that subjective experience is real, but it exists in some kind of non-observable and untestable physical reality, which seems like a contradiction to the concept of observable physical reality.

Its not inherent.. its nothing special.. it is simply a physical reaction.

Science has no place to comment on what is special or not. It doesn't assign value to physical processes, nor does it seek to reduce to something more than what provides meaningful information about those processes.

I can't tell you what pain feels like either... but it is pretty easy to effect it with the simple use of a few chemicals.

It doesn't tell me what it feels like, and that's what matters.

Its not devine.. or attached to a spirit. Its simply chemical.

What is subjective experience, then?

Well, no. You need to collide subatomic particles to produce the energy needed for antimatter. There's still an initial input of matter and energy that existed prior to collision.

So what your asking is for someone to detect matter appearing from nowhere without any input from us to get it started.

But if you can't put any imput in you have no idea where or when the event may occur.. it may be appearing and disappearing right next to your ear but no one would know. Who knows maybe one day we will have the equipment to detect it..

At the moment ( as far as I know) the best we can do is set up an experiment where we force matter to be created so we can be sure we are there to see the event. Its a pretty good start I would say :)

So what your asking is for someone to detect matter appearing from nowhere without any input from us to get it started.

Well, in order for something to be truly ex nihilo that would have to be the case.

But if you can't put any imput in you have no idea where or when the event may occur.. it may be appearing and disappearing right next to your ear but no one would know. Who knows maybe one day we will have the equipment to detect it..

Well, we should work on it then. It takes a lot of time and research, but that's no barrier to achieving progress in particle physics. If anything, the sheer weirdness of quantum physics suggests there is a lot of stuff out there to find.

At the moment ( as far as I know) the best we can do is set up an experiment where we force matter to be created so we can be sure we are there to see the event. Its a pretty good start I would say :)

Oh, absolutely. Set up experiments and test it to see what we can find. It makes no sense to not investigate these things out of some reservation about the universe. If we can do it, it's obvious that something is allowing us to do so.

It's very important because it shows that subjective experience is not reducible to physical explanations. Knowing the physical causes does not tell me what it feels like to experience emotion, which means that there are properties of experience that cannot be explained in physical terms.

So you are asking about conciousness??

I like to consider this a matter of time travel.

Bear in mind that I am certainly no philosopher.. and that greater minds than mine have considered this.

But If I am right I think you are suggesting that there is something outside the physical. That if I were to go back to a point 1 minute ago in the universe and replay it that I may have a different thought even though my physical presence, brain etc went through exactly the same physical changes?

That given exactly the same physical processes going on in my brain and the universe around me that out the other end I may come up with another thought?

Is that the kind of thing we are discussing when talking about subjective experience??

We see a narrow band of the electro magnetic field.. its a tiny fraction.. we call it colour.

Emotion is a survival mechanism.

A supreme being is not a better explanation.. its crazy..

Actually matter has been created from nothing in the lab... matter and antimatter.. they go together you get .... Nothing. and vice versa....

I observed evolution in the lab yesterday.

I work on molecular ecology. You can take a single bacterial cell.. place it on a plate and end up with several populations of distinct organisms.... its happening all the time and is actually really easy to see.

Well, that's strange, because in a universe of absolutely nothing, no antimatter, matter or anything exists, unless someone was there to create these boundaries. Whereas in my theory, God was there. And show me proof evolution's been observed- actually, Darwin was a drunk, and many believe he renounced evolution on his deathbed. And how exactly did a cell's DNA- almost an inatimate object- choose that one day, after it suddenl'y pops into a lemur which pops into a monkey which pops into a human, it will feel love, hate, and other emotions? No. Emotions are devine. And color takes imagination- I REALLY don't think magnets invented it. It has some creativity to it.

Darwin was a drunk,
Darwin was studying to be a preist .. look it up :)

So you are asking about conciousness??

It's related to consciousness; it's more accurately part of the philosophy of mind, which is a bit broader than just consciousness, but it's important. Non-reducible properties of mind suggest that consciousness is greater than the sum of its parts.

What that means, of course, is a different story. It's entirely possible that our conception of a "soul" is really a physical entity that produces consciousness at the quantum level. Its survival after death would be like the Buddhist concept of anatta as opposed to some kind of immortal soul that is a duplicate of our physical selves.

Maybe it's a Bose-Einstein condensate or something equally strange.

But If I am right I think you are suggesting that there is something outside the physical. That if I were to go back to a point 1 minute ago in the universe and replay it that I may have a different thought even though my physical presence, brain etc went through exactly the same physical changes?

That would probably be more of a question of free will, but that's an important one as well. We know that the universe is non-deterministic thanks to quantum theory, but we don't know what power we have to affect that randomness.

However, what I mean in this case is what it is like to feel or experience things. For example, if I say "I want that book" you know what it's like to desire something even though we can't explain what desire actually feels like.

It's also like love; you know what it's like to be in love or fall in love, but you can't describe that feeling in objective terms. You may know what causes the sensation of love in physical terms, but that doesn't tell you what love feels like. These sensations exist, and we know what it's like to feel them, but we can't put them in to objective terms.

Darwin was a preist .. look it up :)

No, he was a drunk :) look it up in an unbiased place.

What puzzles me is why people would risk spending an eternity (that means it doesn't stop) in torture, just so they don't have to except that they sin. It really seems stupid to me.

Darwin was a preist .. look it up :)

He was also a very intelligent man who was not afraid to advance his ideas. Anytime you take a new antibiotic that's designed to combat new strains of bacteria, thank Darwin.

Also, he was either an agnostic or a deistic Christian IIRC.

I'm sorry most of those arguments are about 1000 years old.

Uh, lol, old doesn't invalidate them. No one has disproved the arguments yet have they? *the answer is no, in case you were wondering*

Here we agree absolutely, and it is one of my biggest problems with 'Bible beating' Christians.

The Bible can never prove the existence of God - it is just a book (no matter who you believe the author is).

Unless you accept the book is divinely guaranteed in some way, it can prove nothing to you about god... and if you DO believe it is divine, you are already a 'believer'.

Well the bible was written by mortals anyways, and the New Testament was even more edited and such, that I don't see how you can believe that it is even remotely related to what God should be.

i was raised in a christian family. i was taught all the bible stories and what to believe. i had, in your words, blind faith. and as i got older, that wasn't enough. i have a logical and anilitical mind. what an old lady told me wasn't enouigh. i wanted facts. i wanted science. i had doubts. i didn't believe.
science ended my belief. but then it saved it. i thought i was getting the facts. i was getting half the facts. i was still in my parents house, so i still went to church. thank god. because i had a sunday class on science. now i had the evidence for evolution, and the evidence for creation. my anilitical mind wieghed both, and found evolution lacking. for example, irreducible complexity. the theory of evolution states that any thing not helpful to an animal will be discarded through the generations. there are millions of complex structures within millions of organisims that, under this law, would have been discarded before they would be fully developed to thier functional and helpful current states. i could talk for hours about science supporting creation. like this: the world is not just placed in the perfect place to cultivate life, it's also in the perfect place to observe the universe. god put us there so we could learn about our surroundings. god wants us to explore our natural [U]curiousity[U] science is a good thing. after all, it saved my soul.

I should comment:
look, no offense, but the world doesn't operate ideally, and in ideal circumstances where there were no unexpected events, that model of evolution should've worked perfectly. However, evolution is a slow process, and is never done, and if you're never done evolving, that means that you obviously can't be rid of the useless parts already. Human evolution, as with some other creatures, has slowed due to the advent of technology. We have imbalanced the natural food chain, and it does disrupt evolution. I don't have a problem with you believing in god, but I don't see why you do.

Just note this:
Just because science doesn't contradict god doesn't mean god exists. I see no logical reason why god exists, I mean, give me ONE logical argument.

Here are some I hear alot:
1) How could the universe be created?
Well, honestly, I have no idea, but having a god that 'always existed' makes about as much sense as having a point of singularity that 'always existed' and spontaneously became the universe. Where the hell did god come from? You can't 'always exist' dork.

It's very important because it shows that subjective experience is not reducible to physical explanations. Knowing the physical causes does not tell me what it feels like to experience emotion, which means that there are properties of experience that cannot be explained in physical terms.



Well, if you can't explain it in physical terms, then how can it be strictly physical? It means that subjective experience is real, but it exists in some kind of non-observable and untestable physical reality, which seems like a contradiction to the concept of observable physical reality.
I have emotions, but they are just chemical reactions. @more here:



Science has no place to comment on what is special or not. It doesn't assign value to physical processes, nor does it seek to reduce to something more than what provides meaningful information about those processes.



It doesn't tell me what it feels like, and that's what matters.



What is subjective experience, then?
But it does! Science has place to comment on everything that furthers understanding. You don't have to believe Science's comments, but it can damn well make them!

And feeling is what? I mean, do you believe you have freewill? I don't, I don't believe we have freewill, or that we 'make choices' or that god exists or that our feelings are anything other than chemical reactions of atoms influenced by other atoms which were going to move to that exact location since the beginning of the universe.

This has real credit, don't dismiss me here!
If atoms only react to other atoms, what makes you think your brain isn't the same? Your brain is made of atoms too you know, and reacts [i]very complexly to the millions of inputs and stimuluses from the outside world, but it doesn't really do much else!

Here is a wonderful article on this:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/horror.html

More like the family reject from a large line of priests. There are FAR too many gaps in evolution. The very idea is incredibly stupid. "Hey, let's go push that cow in the water, and see if its kids are whales!! UHUHUHUU!"

It's also like love; you know what it's like to be in love or fall in love, but you can't describe that feeling in objective terms. You may know what causes the sensation of love in physical terms, but that doesn't tell you what love feels like. These sensations exist, and we know what it's like to feel them, but we can't put them in to objective terms.

But what if you can remove love without removing conciousness?? Doesn't that suggest that love is purely physical. If you can have people who can think and function and postulate but just can't feel because of a physical change doesn't that go a long way to showing that it is purely a physical effect?

No, he was a drunk :) look it up in an unbiased place.

What puzzles me is why people would risk spending an eternity (that means it doesn't stop) in torture, just so they don't have to except that they sin. It really seems stupid to me.

But by chosing to accept religious doctrine about eternity in hell aren't you setting yourself up for that kind of thing?

If you believe in God then you will be in trouble with the FSM if you believe in the FSM then you will be in trouble with God.. how do you know which one to pick. They are all just about as compelling as each other. 2 billion christians 1.4 billion muslims.. seems to me thats an awful lot of folk who are wrong whichever way you look at it.

Living your life as if you have a hell or heaven to end up in seems like the odd choice to me.

I have no problem at all with trying to live your life in a positive way. I understand the need for spirituality. I can see the benifits of a social clique where you can be accepted simply by agreeing to a set of ideas..

But the idea that it actually has some reality to it simply because other people believe it too is a pretty odd thought for me.

More like the family reject from a large line of priests. There are FAR too many gaps in evolution. The very idea is incredibly stupid. "Hey, let's go push that cow in the water, and see if its kids are whales!! UHUHUHUU!"

Thats a pretty odd view of evolution.... I have to admit I probably have a fairly odd view of religion... but still.

Cows are not a bad example though.... ever seen the domestic cows ancestors?? Notice any differences?

How about corn.. you realise when they first started cultivating it the average ear of corn was smaller than your pinky...

But I suppose that the corn we grow now is identical to the corn they used to grow?? Given that it can't evolve...

It really only takes a cursory look at the world around you to see that evolution (micro evolution at the very least) is going on all the time..

The backbone of your theory is old-earth theory. Prove earth is young, disprove evolution. And this is why the earth is young. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an incredible rate, showing its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. Also, helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

Also, explain this:
1) Where did language come from?
2) Explain what sparked the increase of technology, without a supreme being.
3) The formation of a living cell asembling itself is about as likely, as a Harvard proffesor puts it, "Blowing a tornado through a junkyard trying to building a 747".

But what if you can remove love without removing conciousness?? Doesn't that suggest that love is purely physical. If you can have people who can think and function and postulate but just can't feel because of a physical change doesn't that go a long way to showing that it is purely a physical effect?

Well, it depends.

Is it possible to have an intellectual love as opposed to a physical one? I mean, the very basis of the Platonic relationship is love on a higher level than the strict physical, and its nonsexual nature suggests that it is more than just the basic chemical reactions, at least in our perception of it.

If consciousness were to survive death (this is a field I find most fascinating because of all the weirdness it can produce) in a quantum form, or some other basic physical quantity, the kind of emotions we would feel would only be perhaps in an intellectual sense as opposed to the emotions driven by chemicals.

[QUOTE=Helspotistan;12019355]

How about corn.. you realise when they first started cultivating it the average ear of corn was smaller than your pinky...

But I suppose that the corn we grow now is identical to the corn they used to grow?? Given that it can't evolve...
QUOTE]

This was done through selective breeding. It has nothing to do with evolution. Also, evolution leads to things like the holocaust and euthanasia, through survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Also, explain this: 1) Where did language come from?

There are a number of theories; one possibility is that humans are born with a neural center for decoding and coding language. This center evolved from an initial symbolic protolanguage which in turn became a formal syntax, which developed over time as human culture emerged.

There are also a number of evolutionary linguistics theories. However, an evolutionary origin for language doesn't make it any less amazing; a God who could design an algorithm that could produce the variety of languages we have now is more impressive than one that gave it to us directly.

2) Explain what sparked the increase of technology, without a supreme being.

I would say it's most likely the combination of language and the existence of primitive tool use, which enabled us to build more advanced tools that progressed in a human-controlled Larmarckian evolutionary environment.

There may be memetic properties involved as well, although it's important to note that this kind of evolution is human-controlled rather than strictly random.

3) The formation of a living cell asembling itself is about as likely, as a Harvard proffesor puts it, "Blowing a tornado through a junkyard trying to building a 747".

Evolution has nothing to say on biogenesis or abiogenesis; that's a totally different field that can use Darwinian algorithms, but it is not the realm of the theory of evolution.

3) The formation of a living cell asembling itself is about as likely, as a Harvard proffesor puts it, "Blowing a tornado through a junkyard trying to building a 747".

I think thats the bit that is the most telling....

The chance of that happening is very very small.... The thing is we are dealing with crazy numbers...

An reproductive event that is 1 in a billion would happen 3 times every hour in the bacteria in a gram of soil. Thats the kind of numbers we are talking about.

In 1940 when they first started using Penicilin it killed close to 100% of bacteria... it now kills 40%. so in just a few years bacteria on mass have evolved. Penicilin resitant bacteria can even be found in remote places like the antartic.

The events that cause this resistance to occur have such ridiculously small chances of occuring that it would seem impossible.... the thing is with the kinds of numbers you are looking with bacteria the impossible not only becomes just improbably.. but inevitable.

As for the young earth stuff I will leave that one for the moment.... I just don't think it would take you very long to find the evidence against it if you even beagn to start looking.....

Evolution and Survival of the Fittest (In a scientific respect) have absolutley nothing to do with the Holocaust.

What you're talking about in a way is social darwinism which is one of the most ridiculous theories that was ever invented and was usually used as an excuse not to pay people living wages.

If you want to blame the Holocaust on anything other than Hitler then one of the things high up on the blame list is religion. Obviously there would have been no anti-semitism without Jews, but seeing as other people, such as homosexuals were also persecuted, that wouldn't have been if Christianity hadn't condemned homosexuals as evil for the past 2000 years.

Well, it depends.

Is it possible to have an intellectual love as opposed to a physical one? I mean, the very basis of the Platonic relationship is love on a higher level than the strict physical, and its nonsexual nature suggests that it is more than just the basic chemical reactions, at least in our perception of it.

If consciousness were to survive death (this is a field I find most fascinating because of all the weirdness it can produce) in a quantum form, or some other basic physical quantity, the kind of emotions we would feel would only be perhaps in an intellectual sense as opposed to the emotions driven by chemicals.

Well if you can't have abiotic sadness.. or abiotic anger.. abiotic intellectual love seems unlikely to me.

Its a cool idea, the whole consciousness surviving death thing. It just doesn't seem all that likely.

But then like I was saying to Nova... not being likely doesn't necessarily mean being impossible ;)

There are a number of theories; one possibility is that humans are born with a neural center for decoding and coding language. This center evolved from an initial symbolic protolanguage which in turn became a formal syntax, which developed over time as human culture emerged.

There are also a number of evolutionary linguistics theories. However, an evolutionary origin for language doesn't make it any less amazing; a God who could design an algorithm that could produce the variety of languages we have now is more impressive than one that gave it to us directly.



I would say it's most likely the combination of language and the existence of primitive tool use, which enabled us to build more advanced tools that progressed in a human-controlled Larmarckian evolutionary environment.

There may be memetic properties involved as well, although it's important to note that this kind of evolution is human-controlled rather than strictly random.



Evolution has nothing to say on biogenesis or abiogenesis; that's a totally different field that can use Darwinian algorithms, but it is not the realm of the theory of evolution.

But you see, you are not answering my question.

1)The human brain's parts do not interlude from one part to another. An absence of a supreme being- a god- man could not have made up a language, all languages have thousands of words.

2)Ah, but when and wher- and why- did these apes begin using tools?

3)Another question- every bible prophecy has come true. Explain this. Oh, and how is it dinosaur tracks have appered next to human? Or their footprints, right next to each other?

Well if you can't have abiotic sadness.. or abiotic anger.. abiotic intellectual love seems unlikely to me.

Well, at the same time, life is comprised of abiotic components and all biochemicals ultimately come from abiotic molecules. I'd say that if something physical survives death, it could have these kinds of properties. They might be changed or reduced due to death, but they might not be destroyed if the fundamental cause of perception is at the quantum level. Perhaps our "reincarnation" is really a decision to collapse ourselves back in to a physical form?

That is, of course, unless there is some kind of vitalist force that makes living things alive; in that case, we'd be looking at an entirely different angle.

Its a cool idea, the whole consciousness surviving death thing. It just doesn't seem all that likely.

Well, obviously it's only an idea; I don't have the kind of experience in physics or philosophy to really construct a comprehensive idea. I just think that the conventional explanations of some immortal, immaterial soul or simply nothing do not provide helpful explanations of the phenomena or a starting point for investigating it scientifically.

I'd honestly prefer a quantum "afterlife" where I exist here rather than in some other realm that is away from the universe.

But then like I was saying to Nova... not being likely doesn't necessarily mean being impossible ;)

If we can discover a way to test it, we should do it. The condition on scientific inquiry should be based upon the ethical treatment of those involved.

In my opinion, there should be no objections on the grounds of religion, philosophy, secularism, cultural conventions or any other grounds. Reason, logic and ethics should reign supreme in science, no matter how strange the subject material.

3)Another question- every bible prophecy has come true. Explain this. Oh, and how is it dinosaur tracks have appered next to human? Or their footprints, right next to each other?

Ok now you are just being silly right??

Tell me you are not serious....

1)The human brain's parts do not interlude from one part to another. An absence of a supreme being- a god- man could not have made up a language, all languages have thousands of words.

Well, here's the way I feel: God created the universe and set up the conditions that led to the development of life, humanity, and eventually culture, religion, and language.

I move God to Prime Mover rather than direct creator.

2)Ah, but when and wher- and why- did these apes begin using tools?

Well, current estimates place the "invention" of fire around 1,000,000 years BC. However, it's still pretty new so these estimates are in flux.

3)Another question- every bible prophecy has come true. Explain this. Oh, and how is it dinosaur tracks have appered next to human? Or their footprints, right next to each other?

Bible prophecies that are "true" have been interpreted after the fact. They might be true, but ex post facto interpretation does not establish them as such. You would need a specific prediction made before the fact in a sufficiently controlled environment to have evidence for this.

Also, the footprints are simply filled in tracks from dinosaurs. We can tell by analyzing the tracks and comparing them to others in the area. The remaining ones that have a different shape do not fit the physical dimensions or properties of the human foot, which means that they are not human in origin. In fact, they might not even be footprints to begin with.

And the ones for religion are 2,000 years old. Your point?

ROFL.

I give you HINDUISM!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hinduism)

There are paths to God other than Christianity, you know. ;)

My beliefs are totally different than that of the normal as well.
Admittedly, I was 5 when i stopped being christian... and within a few years of studying information on the religions I became aethiest. However, over the last 7-9 years I have thought about the question "What exists on a plane of existance of above ours?" I came to the conclusion that there must exist a superior being somehow in a plane above us, and that if you truly think about it, there is no logical way that the universe/anything else could have been created. I mean, look at it, if there exists a superior being, then how did the superior being come to be in the first place?
I can't just deny the existance of a superior being either though, considering there has to be something that created time and the universe.

The questions I have been thinking/meditating about over the last 7-9 years almost every day are those which cannot be answered... I'd go more in to depth about what I've thought about, but it's actually been a year or so since i thought about it, considering i've taken up the stance of being a(single) theist. For those that don't know, a theist is a person who believes in something, but it is not centralized around a mass religion's beliefs or anything else. You could also call it 'spiritual'.

Essentially I believe that some(key) superior beings exist. No, I don't worship or even pray to them at ALL. I just believe that some superior being(s) exist.. for it is the closest to logical reason as to how time and the universe were created.
Think of it as a passive belief...

The Beginning

---Note--If you don't want to read all this, just skip to the bottom section---

Ok, a basic law of science states that: energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is a very simple concept that we have seen proof of in everything we see and interact with. And yet we are here along with a lot of other matter/energy.

So, we have a logical dilemma to answer. If energy cannot be created or destroyed and there is energy present, there is either a realm of existence apart from the time/space we know, or this realm has been here infinitely (or laws have somehow changed).

We must, therefore, come to terms with the fact that science supports the fact that something must have "created" us -spawned us, started us...SOMETHING happened, as I'm sure we'd all agree on.

Now, it is futile to argue that since "the odds are 1 in a billion" that we'd be here due to "random" chance and "there are billions of particles in soil", it is easy to believe in randomness. This makes absolutely NO sense. WHERE DID THE SOIL COME FROM? The question is not about what are the odds that we would spontaneously come from nothing. The odds are 0. Absolutely nothing comes from nothing with the help of nothing.

Two conclusions are possible when considering the above logic: either this universe, or realm of space/time, is infinite (which most religions as well as most scientists would blatantly disagree with) or there was another "realm" that came before us.

I conclude that the space/time dimension we live in is something finite that was spawned from something infinite. [perhaps some would argue that it could have come from another finite realm -but then I would simply ask what did that come from -endless cycle (assuming that the other finite realm held the same laws of conservation of energy as ours does)...]

Forgive me for taking up too much of your time -I just wanted to give a little background to my mindset...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One: Science does not directly come into conflict with Christianity

Two: Science is not a "force", or "power" as many people somehow act like it is. It is merely the act of questioning our surroundings using our senses. Many people seem to speak of science as if it is some form "idea" that cropped up recently in time and is now able to "beat" the other ideas. It is just looking around us and seeing what is there. It is looking at the time/space realm we are in and describing it. That's it -nothing wrong, but nothing more.

Three: Religion is not something people "do" for fun. It isn't something we should "do" to "feel good" or "satisfy ourselves" (though these may be beneficial outcomes). It isn't like you step into this world and: "Hmm...let's see here...I think THAT one looks good -yeah, I'll take it." I didn't decide to become a Christian because it looked like "the good thing to do", or "the easy choice" or "something that would meet my needs". These are all peripheral side effects. I looked at all the evidence and came to the conclusion that there is no other legitimate answer. Plain as that. If the actual truth was something horrible and required me to live in pain -then I'd follow that. If the truth was that there wasn't a god, then so be it.

Four: There is only one right answer. One truth. One. Two things that are conflicting CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. Two plus two will never make something other than four. It is stupid to accept and embrace all religions or ideas as true. Stupid. It is imperative to respect them all and love each other despite our disagreements, but that does not change the fact that there can only be one right answer. The unfortunate fact is that out of all conflicting ideas and groups -only one is right (if they are truly directly conflicting) -the rest are wrong.

Five: For all those who say it is rude to "convert" others or "push their religion" on others I have this to say. In itself, the kindest act someone could do is try to show you their "religion" or "mindset". How would you feel if the guy next to you believed that if he didn't tell you something, then you would suffer in eternal flames -and he didn't care enough to open his mouth? -I completely understand, however, the frustration people have when they are rudely encountered by people who yell useless condemnation on them -this is not good. I ask that you forgive these people for their blunt and irresponsible interactions with you. --It is most likely not the core and heart of the religion or mindset they are trying to convey.

Six: Concerning faith: Faith doesn't necessarily mean blindly following something with no proof. If that were faith, then I would have none whatsoever. Generally, faith is more like this: Let's say that I have a good friend who promised me that he would come to my house today. I have faith that he will stay true to his word and come to my house. --That's the type of faith I'm talking usually about.

I acknowledge that I am not the best writer, so please forgive my mistakes. I also ask that you do not misunderstand my argument for cruelness, or lack of sensitivity. I am good friends with many people of different mindsets. The only reason that I try to show my own is that I care about them. Lastly, I just hope that everybody keeps an open mindset, reads about every viewpoint, and keeps healthy discussion alive.

-Read Mere Christianity By: C.S. Lewis for a much better and logical view on Christianity

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." -C.S. Lewis

Please don't take this as being antagonistic I am just gonna answer some of your points... from my point of view.

The Beginning

---Note--If you don't want to read all this, just skip to the bottom section---

Ok, a basic law of science states that: energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is a very simple concept that we have seen proof of in everything we see and interact with. And yet we are here along with a lot of other matter/energy.

So, we have a logical dilemma to answer. If energy cannot be created or destroyed and there is energy present, there is either a realm of existence apart from the time/space we know, or this realm has been here infinitely (or laws have somehow changed).

We must, therefore, come to terms with the fact that science supports the fact that something must have "created" us -spawned us, started us...SOMETHING happened, as I'm sure we'd all agree on.

Now, it is futile to argue that since "the odds are 1 in a billion" that we'd be here due to "random" chance and "there are billions of particles in soil", it is easy to believe in randomness. This makes absolutely NO sense. WHERE DID THE SOIL COME FROM? The question is not about what are the odds that we would spontaneously come from nothing. The odds are 0. Absolutely nothing comes from nothing with the help of nothing.

As far as we know.. so far....That doesn't put the odds at 0. Its just really really improbable. But whos to say its any more or less probable that some "higher being" is responsible instead.

[SIZE="3"]

Two conclusions are possible when considering the above logic: either this universe, or realm of space/time, is infinite (which most religions as well as most scientists would blatantly disagree with) or there was another "realm" that came before us.


not really sure that that is blatantly disagreed upon at all...

[SIZE="3"]

I conclude that the space/time dimension we live in is something finite that was spawned from something infinite. [perhaps some would argue that it could have come from another finite realm -but then I would simply ask what did that come from -endless cycle (assuming that the other finite realm held the same laws of conservation of energy as ours does)...]

Forgive me for taking up too much of your time -I just wanted to give a little background to my mindset...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One: Science does not directly come into conflict with Christianity


Agreed.. though it certainly hasn't shown us any reason to believe in it either....

[SIZE="3"]

Two: Science is not a "force", or "power" as many people somehow act like it is. It is merely the act of questioning our surroundings using our senses. Many people seem to speak of science as if it is some form "idea" that cropped up recently in time and is now able to "beat" the other ideas. It is just looking around us and seeing what is there. It is looking at the time/space realm we are in and describing it. That's it -nothing wrong, but nothing more.



Agreed entirely...
[SIZE="3"]
Three: Religion is not something people "do" for fun. It isn't something we should "do" to "feel good" or "satisfy ourselves" (though these may be beneficial outcomes). It isn't like you step into this world and: "Hmm...let's see here...I think THAT one looks good -yeah, I'll take it." I didn't decide to become a Christian because it looked like "the good thing to do", or "the easy choice" or "something that would meet my needs". These are all peripheral side effects. I looked at all the evidence and came to the conclusion that there is no other legitimate answer. Plain as that. If the actual truth was something horrible and required me to live in pain -then I'd follow that. If the truth was that there wasn't a god, then so be it.


So how long have you been a christian may I ask? Were you born christian or did you come to it at a later point in life?

[SIZE="3"]

Four: There is only one right answer. One truth. One. Two things that are conflicting CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. Two plus two will never make something other than four. It is stupid to accept and embrace all religions or ideas as true. Stupid. It is imperative to respect them all and love each other despite our disagreements, but that does not change the fact that there can only be one right answer. The unfortunate fact is that out of all conflicting ideas and groups -only one is right (if they are truly directly conflicting) -the rest are wrong.


Well they may well all be wrong...

Not to mention that as you point out ideas that at first appear to be conflicting may indeed end up all being part of the same answer.
[SIZE="3"]

Five: For all those who say it is rude to "convert" others or "push their religion" on others I have this to say. In itself, the kindest act someone could do is try to show you their "religion" or "mindset". How would you feel if the guy next to you believed that if he didn't tell you something, then you would suffer in eternal flames -and he didn't care enough to open his mouth? -I completely understand, however, the frustration people have when they are rudely encountered by people who yell useless condemnation on them -this is not good. I ask that you forgive these people for their blunt and irresponsible interactions with you. --It is most likely not the core and heart of the religion or mindset they are trying to convey.


Surely all that needs to be done is to point them in the direction of the nearest church they should be able to take it from there....
[SIZE="3"]
Six: Concerning faith: Faith doesn't necessarily mean blindly following something with no proof. If that were faith, then I would have none whatsoever. Generally, faith is more like this: Let's say that I have a good friend who promised me that he would come to my house today. I have faith that he will stay true to his word and come to my house. --That's the type of faith I'm talking usually about.

I acknowledge that I am not the best writer, so please forgive my mistakes. I also ask that you do not misunderstand my argument for cruelness, or lack of sensitivity. I am good friends with many people of different mindsets. The only reason that I try to show my own is that I care about them. Lastly, I just hope that everybody keeps an open mindset, reads about every viewpoint, and keeps healthy discussion alive.

-Read Mere Christianity By: C.S. Lewis for a much better and logical view on Christianity

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." -C.S. Lewis

And now its time for another Episode of

"Atheist who assumes all other religions are like christianity" already in progress

Many religious who condemn those who are different don't understand why other people are atheists.

because... especially on


THE INTERNET

we have never seen an Emoish rant about how people "don't understand me" regarding Atheism that has so many falicies I can park my ice cream truck made of C-4 (because I bought it on a movie set where all the cars are made from C-4)

I want to roll this comment out to show my love for Ice Cream and heavy explosives


I want to tell everyone where why I am, and this will probably apply to others in a loose kind of way because while all atheists don't believe in God, they all have their own reasons.


And 50%-60% of them tend to be immediately dumb upon first hearing them


I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.


Welcome to a Pan-Semetic religous worldview. In the Pan Semetic religous worldview their is a boss god, and what he says goes or else

this was important because pan-semetic religous thought came in a desert. And you had to obey because if not you might die.

Now we go over to the orient and we have some religous systems like Hinduism which is utterly inconsistent with itself, and views other faiths as valid to the chinese system which is like the ancient roman school of "Whatever works use it"

furthermore religous scriptures as central to the faith tends again to be a pan-semetic issue because in the other religons they have other things that are much more important so

If billions of people in China (and greater east asia for that matter)and India seem to think more then one religion is right and and a similar number of billions of people with a semetic influenced faith thinks "Only one answer is right"

which is right?

well you seem to endorse the thinking of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam

good for you.

If you had picked the thinking of Buddhists (many of whom are atheists) I might have thought your religious thought was formed from an actual understanding of religion and not rejectionism based on Christianized thinking



With no religion have the true answer, despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?" Thus, leaving us humans to figure that out for ourselves, feeding our curiosity by learning about the world around us.


and of course whats great is very few religions are about true answers

especially in the east but also to a different way the semetic religions as well

Christianity is not about the answers, its about your salvation from sin through the sacrifice of christ and your dedication to the principles he advocated

Christianity is all about not going to hell. Answering bigger questions is not what it does. Islam likewise (The Final Prophet and Seal) has pretty much made it clear it aint about questions either.

Judaism has questions but they are questions designed to lead to faith and understanding ( I am sure you probably assume all religous faith is like christianities so I will make further comments on that as appropriate)

so really with the exception of some Buddisht and esoteric oriental paths religion isn't about answers... BUT those religions are pretty clear to

the answer isn't part of the larger religions community its in YOU


I cannot believe in a superior being.



Good for you

not all religion does

so why is this relevant to being a rejectionist of religion (which was your thesis to start this off)

and lets not get into the fact of what do you mean by a superior being

as I am not sure an animist would say the spirits are superior to people either.

The Buddah was pretty clear he wasn't superior -just pretty damned cool-

try to keep to your original thesis... it helps things out.



If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists?



woah woah woah

You see you have a different concept of what the big guy is

some jews say god is SO infinately powerful he has to stay 4 universes over from us because his raw might would make our universe explode.

So just what are we talking here about a manifestation of god?

because again you seem to be assuming the christian "Hey look its jesus in a corn chip" kinda thinking here.

and lets not even get into the fact some religions say god is so vast he isn't able to manifest in a way we'd recognize because his mind is so alien to our own


Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.


Good for you so Christian and Muslim faiths are out

You have Jewish flavor of faith which is based on knowledge and study of the history, law, and traditions of their people. The faith comes for them in seeing the lessons of how real people lived their life with god...or running from god

or a mixture in between.

In Judaism faith is born of knowledge

and I am not even getting into faith in the orient and other paths because I don't even have to get to far from your own religious worldview to show their is no single answer to faith

(and ... I could cut in on how not all christian faith is the same... but that would be way to show offy)



I cannot believe in a religion.


I recommend before you say things like that

#1) You should not confuse a lack of religous identity with a lack of theistic belief. A LOT of theistic type folks don't believe in any established religous path (like me)
and
#2) Before you make sweeping pronouncements about religion take a good world religions class and learn something


Religion is historically founded on principles of blind faith and attempt to answer questions in a time when the Scientific Method wasn't known to man kind. But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.


NOT ALL RELIGION

#1) Not all religions have what you could call by any stretch of the imagination "Blind faith"

#2) when you look at modern religions the ethical teachings (how to live your life) and the penalties (or else) tended to come first and the mythology got tacked on latter.

Now you want to talk about things like Hinduism, shaminism, or early Judaism then you might have a point but -yes- you don't know about those things



I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.



Good for you

then don't be a christian or a muslim

that leaves you with many other religious options to pick


I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.


except for god

unless your going to be one of those weird atheists who is really agnostic and doesn't understand that words should actually MEAN something (those are annoying atheists)



Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.


Can I persecute you for being Emo instead?


I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.


GREAT NEWS not every religion has a Hell. In fact most don't or have an optional hell that got taked on by the clergy to enforce political persuassion over the masses. So Hell isn't required for faith



I live my life as I want because it is my life and I know that I am a good person as long as I do what I know is right, and I don't break the law.


and apperently make judgements about religion without...YA KNOW studying religion


I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.


So ends another fun rant of an atheist who assumes all religions are like christianity


Atheists can have religious friends.

My best friend is Muslim,


Is that like black people Love Us (http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/)

and oh yeah what kind of Muslim

Shia,
Sunni,
Alawi,
12er shia,
7er,
10%er
Black Muslim

if you don't know then he probably as unserious about religion as you are


but she follows the moderate version and never once forced it on me.


or she is a friday muslim

or she thinks your a dufus

just sayin


Yet, I sat and listened to her talk about her religion because she only spoke of how she liked it and how it was right for her, never once saying how I should convert.


But clearly since you assume all religions are like christianity you didn't listen good

It really comes down to whatever faith works for you.

If atheism provides you with the best context for your life stance, go with it, and if it doesn't, go with something else. It really just boils down to what works for you; however, you also have to accept that your interpretation is no more correct, logical, or accurate than anyone else's and you have to keep it to yourself like anyone else. Evangelical atheism is just as bad as someone forcing their faith on you, or anyone else for that matter.

I thought religion was a matter of faith, not of what makes you confortable? :confused:

I thought religion was a matter of faith, not of what makes you confortable? :confused:

god know

Christianity is a matter of faith

Islam is Faith/Lifestyle

Judaism is lifestyle/culture/and their weird version of faith

and thats not even getting intot he asian ways of religious thinking which are much more about what fits you

And now for other horribly awful things that come from these kind of posts

A few hundred years people found it hard to believe that the sun didn't go around the earth.

That the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Well that seems to be pretty common knowledge now.

Science did that for us.


No the ancient greeks and others did. NOW one ancient greek disagreed. His ethical/Spiritual systems became influential in Jewish and later christian and later still muslim thought

so people forgot that

and then it was discovered again

people weren't ignorant before they just got caught up in the wrong science


and this science was invented by folks who thought god lived on a mountain top (or a golden disk...or a variety of other things)

ROFL.

I give you HINDUISM!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hinduism)

There are paths to God other than Christianity, you know. ;)

Or the Zoroastrians

Or traditional Animist Paths

Or Judaism (arguably)

the more sophisticated agnostic doesnt just keep a grain of doubt in his mind that the world might not be as it seems to be on the face of it (god, the matrix, zoo for space aliens, whatever).

his belief is that its not truly possible to know anything about god. that its beyond our capabilities as human beings. therefore to be christian or hindu or whatever is a blind choice. there is simply no way to know what "god" would want of us. if he can be called god at all.

fine, if jesus returned tomorrow on clouds of glory, i wouldnt deny his existence. (same for zeus but i guess it would involve lightning bolts) that doesnt change my non-belief today. im still an atheist no matter what form of god might be supposed. i believe in none of them.
I fail to see by what measure that makes him more sophisticated. Your description reduces agnosticism to a belief system, making it logically equivalent to explicit atheism or even theism.

At its pinnacle, agnosticism embodies the total absence of belief. That's what separates it from any other position on the religious spectrum.

The backbone of your theory is old-earth theory. Prove earth is young, disprove evolution. And this is why the earth is young. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an incredible rate, showing its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star.
Only if you assume the decay is linear. The earth's magnetic field decays entirely and then reasserts itself oriented the other way around (S becomes N and N becomes S) about every 26,000 years.

So, sure, the field is decaying, but we're looking at too small a section of the curve to identify the curve. So it looks linear.

But ancient rocks (the mid-atlantic ridge is good for this because it produces new rocks at a very steady rate) show alternating polarisation as you go back through history.

It's not a linear decay. You're seeing the downward curve of a 26,000 year term sine wave. And yes, we're frightfully close to the collapse of the magnetic field, which would flood the planet with solar radiation. If you're looking for a cause for intermittent mass-mutation events, that's it.

I fail to see by what measure that makes him more sophisticated. Your description reduces agnosticism to a belief system, making it logically equivalent to explicit atheism or even theism.

At its pinnacle, agnosticism embodies the total absence of belief. That's what separates it from any other position on the religious spectrum.

wouldnt the total absence of belief make the agnostic an atheist? one who doesnt believe in god(s)

Why am I an atheist? The probability of a god or gods existing is to implausible to be given serious consideration

I have come to the conclusion that because there are too many religions, too many Gods and too many holy scriptures that contradict each other that none of them are possibly any more true than the other.

And, you are right, because - ?

With no religion have the true answer

How do you know? Perhaps one of them does. What provides you with the insight to definitively declare thta none have the true answer?

despite what zealots claim, no religion can sincerely answer the question: "why are we here?"

It strikes me that, if zealots claim to know the answer, then their religion sincerely answers the question.

They may not be right, but they have sincerely answered it.

Further, what makes you right in your claim?

I cannot believe in a superior being.

Well, OK.

If such a being cannot show himself in anyway, how am I to know he exists? Faith alone cannot help me there because I just find myself too curious to blindly follow any line of faith.

Who said, "cannot?" God may CHOOSE not to show Himself, but that in no way means He "cannot."

I don't see how faith curtails curiosity.

I cannot believe in a religion.

Neither can I, because religion is just the process; the rules of one's faith. One does not "believe in" the rules, one simply follows them in order to comport with the requirements of one's denomination.

But, with science answering more questions, I don't need religion to answer what isn't known.

Answer this question with science; what is the carrier of gravity? How does gravity work?

I know that there is always going to be something that isn't known, and that is what makes life interesting. You don't need to rely on some unseen being to tell you that you just need faith and blind belief.

Faith does not discount science. Well, not all, anyway. I have faith and am a scientist/engineer (for lack of a better phrase). I find no conflict.

I like the mysterious and the unknown. It lets me imagine what can exist and what can't exist out there.

As do I. So, by your assertions, how is this possible, as I have faith?

Go on, persecute me because I don't believe in a God.

I detect a persecution complex. The poor atheist. Persecuted as no other. Oh, forget about those Jews gassed and burned in ovens by the Nazis. Forget about those Christians sent to slaughter in the Coliseum by the Romans. The Shiite killing Sunni and the Sunni killing Shiite.

What is your flavor of persecution?

I know people will damn me to hell because I have chosen not to believe in some being that may or may not exist above the earth, watching us as we do everything.

What do you care?

If you don't believe in it, why should this bother you? Is this your "persecution?"

I do not persecute those who believe in a god, or some superior being. I only hate those who force their awful, hating, intolerant faith on me.

And, how is this force manifested? Have you been forced to believe in a deity? Are you no longer an atheist? What have you been "forced" to do?

My 2 cents:
Atheism is quite simply a state of denial. Look around you, do you really believe that all of the wonders of the galaxy came into creation out chance? Look at yourself, and your fellow man, do our free wills and higher intellects really come form a chance evolutionary process that makes us no better then apes? My friend, if you call yourself an atheist you are sadly mistaken. No current scientific theory satisfies the phenomenon of our existance, God is the only explanation.
Now as for why the Christian God IS in fact the 1 true god, well that takes another thread...

If it makes them feel spiritually good, then, hey, who am I to judge?

Apparantly, you already have.

Why am I an atheist? The probability of a god or gods existing is to implausible to be given serious consideration

Then seriously consider the question WHAT IF?
WHAT IF, you die and find yourself before a God whose existance you have denied all of your life? Or will you refuse to answer this question because you know that, when you stand before God, you will have nothiong to say?

My 2 cents:
No current scientific theory satisfies the phenomenon of our existance, God is the only explanation.

How so?

How so?
Name 1 theory that, with 100% certainty, is correct. THERE AREN'T ANY! Science fails to explain phenomena such as free will, the order of the galaxy, ect. Name me 1 theory AND defend it, that can disprove every religion.

Then seriously consider the question WHAT IF?
WHAT IF, you die and find yourself before a God whose existance you have denied all of your life? Or will you refuse to answer this question because you know that, when you stand before God, you will have nothiong to say?


What if you've been worshiping the wrong god all this time and you have stand before the real ones?

What if you've been worshiping the wrong god all this time and you have stand before the real ones?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours ;)

Name 1 theory that, with 100% certainty, is correct. THERE AREN'T ANY! Science fails to explain phenomena such as free will, the order of the galaxy, ect. Name me 1 theory AND defend it, that can disprove every religion.

I'm asking you why anyrthing we have no explanation for automatically defaults to a god.

I'm asking you why anyrthing we have no explanation for automatically defaults to a god.

If science cannot prove the source of our existance, what is there? Humanity has a natural desire to search for the truth, even the most hardcore atheist will tell you that. Why is there nothing in between atheist/agnostic of religious? It is one or the other

Then seriously consider the question WHAT IF?
WHAT IF, you die and find yourself before a God whose existance you have denied all of your life? Or will you refuse to answer this question because you know that, when you stand before God, you will have nothiong to say?

oh i think that if you should die and find yourself before a god you are going to have plenty to say no matter if you denied his existence or not.

Name 1 theory that, with 100% certainty, is correct. THERE AREN'T ANY! Science fails to explain phenomena such as free will, the order of the galaxy, ect. Name me 1 theory AND defend it, that can disprove every religion.

Oh come on … you cant by definition prove an absolute … you can just prove likelihood

Prove ABSOLUTELY that you exist?

Cant can you, turning the litmus of an argument to proving an absolute is silly, and shows ignorance.