why do we need God?

[cacian]

is it because one feels lonely lost and aimless?
one does no longer understand what life is for or about one is focused thoughts and locus vehemently on God.

or is it because
God is the ultimate for our sins and weaknesses?
we need to pass the blame onto a God when we have finished blaming ourselves.

[Frédéric Moreau]

That is a difficult question. I am an agnostic and I suffer a lot, actually two of the few reasons that keep me away from suicide (aside from the love of my family and a sense of effrontery, as if I had no right to commit it on account of my lack of actual suffering, like that of the Bulgarian soldiers blinded by Basil II, or the victims of the savagery of Yugoslavia) are both the fear of the existence of God and the possibility of his none-existence, given that I felt that the unique way to end with human cruelty is through his intervention, but somehow the remnant of suffering is still there and, therefore, it exists and still tortures feeble souls like mine. The unique way to erase it should be to delete every trace of this ghastly world. I don't know if I have been clear. I decided not to read History again because I ended up shattered.

[YesNo]

We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back.

The only way to get rid of them would be to "delete every trace of this ghastly world" as Frederk_Moreau suggests. There was a movie a few years ago called Melancholia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film) that showed one way the universe could get rid of us. However, I don't think suicide actually works. For it to work, there has to be no reincarnation or afterlife. So, one has to make sure there is nothing like that before trying it otherwise one might be worse off than one started. Of course there are other reasons to choose life, but then one is breathing, and aware, and looking at others and then at Others.

[Frédéric Moreau]

We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back.

The only way to get rid of them would be to "delete every trace of this ghastly world" as Frederk_Moreau suggests. There was a movie a few years ago called Melancholia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film) that showed one way the universe could get rid of us. However, I don't think suicide actually works. For it to work, there has to be no reincarnation or afterlife. So, one has to make sure there is nothing like that before trying it otherwise one might be worse off than one started. Of course there are other reasons to choose life, but then one is breathing, and aware, and looking at others and then at Others.

I agree totally with you. It is impossible to explain it better.

[cacian]

We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back.

I admit I see that but you have not actually said a good reason.
we need light and we need dark as much as we need to breath as well as eat.
does that mean our needs for the universe to connect is the same as that of god's needs?
I could not live without light and water and oxygen.
these are my priorities right? these stands more importance we depend on them.
god is surely not the same.


The only way to get rid of them would be to "delete every trace of this ghastly world" as Frederk_Moreau suggests. There was a movie a few years ago called Melancholia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film) that showed one way the universe could get rid of us.

if we do not need them we do not need to get rid of them, it seems that it is a work in reverse the more we want it the more we want to push it away and so is it futile to need?
the universe could never get rid of humans. it is an impossibility. I do not see it.


However, I don't think suicide actually works. For it to work, there has to be no reincarnation or afterlife. So, one has to make sure there is nothing like that before trying it otherwise one might be worse off than one started. Of course there are other reasons to choose life, but then one is breathing, and aware, and looking at others and then at Others.
suicide is tricky and unwanted. to precipitate life to end may adjourn afterlifes theories. I am speculating.
natural death is in accordance with the nature of things. it is suggests harmony life lasts longer.

[Frostball]

We don't.

[cacian]

We don't.

and don't we all :D

[YesNo]

I think of God as manifested in the process of our breathing. Since we need to breathe we get God whether we like it or not.

We may actually need God in order to breathe. Certainly we need the body to function on its own. How does it do that? One can say there is some unconscious and random mechanism that makes that work. Or one can say the means is conscious. Both are metaphors. Since we ourselves are conscious, the conscious metaphor makes more sense.

Of course, I am making all of this up as I go along. I don't have any specific religious tradition that I have to conform to so I can pick and choose what comes to mind. This also means I don't have any religion to rebel against.

I agree with you about suicide. We're here. We might as well enjoy it even when we suffer.

[Frostball]

and don't we all :D

Some, without a doubt, believe they do need a god or gods. But certainly not all. Certainly not me.

[cacian]

I think of God as manifested in the process of our breathing. Since we need to breathe we get God whether we like it or not.
that is an interesting theory.


We may actually need God in order to breathe. Certainly we need the body to function on its own. How does it do that? One can say there is some unconscious and random mechanism that makes that work. Or one can say the means is conscious. Both are metaphors. Since we ourselves are conscious, the conscious metaphor makes more sense
to me we make sense but we can see talk hear each other.
we cant see god so it does not make sense.
that is my simplest theory about


Of course, I am making all of this up as I go along. I don't have any specific religious tradition that I have to conform to so I can pick and choose what comes to mind. This also means I don't have any religion to rebel against.

making things up is a positive attitude to me it means we care about things and so we even imagine to create ideas.


I agree with you about suicide. We're here. We might as well enjoy it even when we suffer.
we are here and there is no going back.
suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities. we have many and we don't know how to undo them.
it is easier then one thinks because when one wants one can. fear I think is a main factor that we feel we suffer.
it is that that makes us suffer not us and not what is within us. I believe we are logical and the way out is to find courage to expose fear and rid of it.
it is a habit of mine to always say to myself:
I know fear
but it does not know me
and so I wont suffer but it will.

[cacian]

Some, without a doubt, believe they do need a god or gods. But certainly not all. Certainly not me.

true.
and those who need god would need more then that to give me a rod to pull them out when they are got.

[YesNo]

we cant see god so it does not make sense.


We can't see a lot of stuff, at least, not without some help from technology.



we are here and there is no going back.

That's how I see. I am amazed how much I take for granted the fact that I'm here at all. It really doesn't make sense.



suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities. we have many and we don't know how to undo them.
it is easier then one thinks because when one wants one can. fear I think is a main factor that we feel we suffer.
it is that that makes us suffer not us and not what is within us. I believe we are logical and the way out is to find courage to expose fear and rid of it.
it is a habit of mine to always say to myself:
I know fear
but it does not know me
and so I wont suffer but it will.

Interesting: "suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities". Sounds true. How does fear suffer?

[cacian]

We can't see a lot of stuff, at least, not without some help from technology.
I am not sure. I think we see everything we need to see to live and survive.
we see nature
we see light and dark
we hear sound
we see people each other
so we are in effect complete with everything we need.
the stuff we do not see I am guessing we do not need.
we can see as far as the moon and back and that is as good as it gets.


That's how I see. I am amazed how much I take for granted the fact that I'm here at all. It really doesn't make sense
agreed and if we are it means we have made it what comes next can only get better.
it may not happen now but it will happen. I feel positive is a way forward. we take it for granted. I feel we ought to count our lucky stars because sometimes when things get too much we forget.
sometimes the questions we want answers too are within us close to us but we chose to look away somewhere else because it is easier to think it is far away from us.
we have learn to accept who we are and until then we won't. I feel there is not that bad after all.


QUOTE]Interesting: "suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities". Sounds true. How does fear suffer?
fear we all know but those who feel it does not know them are the one who do better emotionally and physically.
they are more tolerant of themselves.
fear suffers in the same way that we do.
so we acknowledge it to ignore it.
ignorance is bliss
and then it learns to go away and one day there is no fear anymore.
I think it is a mental process that the mind goes through by assimilating logical doable facts.
one reasons with oneself and eventually learns to manage.
control is about logic
and fear is illogic.

[YesNo]

Maybe all the stuff we do see and need is God projecting Herself (or Himself) (or Itself) out there for our benefit. Just trying to rationalize a need for God.

That "fear is illogic" makes sense.

[free]

We need god because we don't know for sure how has the world been created. Until we find it out we will ascribe the creation to something as unknown as god. But those who prefer to stay eternal children will always stick to the idea of an unknown, unknowable, unreachable, untouchable idea of divinity.

[The Atheist]

There are several answers to the question, "Why do we need god?".

Atheist/agnostic, as already noted: we don't. Over a billion people have need for one, so we certainly don't all need one.

Evolutionary biologists say we need a god because our brains are hard-wired for belief.

Anthropologists say we need god because it has been a cohesive factor in the building of human society.

Theists need god because it's simpler to credit god with all the good and the bad in the world than take personal responsibility for it.

[Pope of Eruke]

I think having a god makes perfect sense.

[cacian]

There are several answers to the question, "Why do we need god?".

Atheist/agnostic, as already noted: we don't. Over a billion people have need for one, so we certainly don't all need one.

Evolutionary biologists say we need a god because our brains are hard-wired for belief.

Anthropologists say we need god because it has been a cohesive factor in the building of human society.

Theists need god because it's simpler to credit god with all the good and the bad in the world than take personal responsibility for it.
science without god would not have a reason.
bad and good would not make a blind difference.


I think having a god makes perfect sense.

what sense?

[The Atheist]

science without god would not have a reason.

That is complete nonsense, sorry. Science exists to answer questions, and no reason other than the pursuit of knowledge.



bad and good would not make a blind difference.

Have you checked out the world lately?

Bad and good make no difference at all to the universe. Murderers walk free while innocents die every hour of the day. Bad and good are human constructs that have no meaning in the real world.

[Sangi]

We need God because we created him. We are slaves of our own discoveries, inventions, creations..

[Pope of Eruke]

science without god would not have a reason.
bad and good would not make a blind difference.



what sense?

Perfect sense. It is a natural thing for humans.

[YesNo]

We need God because we created him. We are slaves of our own discoveries, inventions, creations..

She created us, then we created Her.
We round dance with a lovely metaphor.

[cacian]

Perfect sense. It is a natural thing for humans.

how is god a natural things for humans?
I don't get it.

[cacian]

That is complete nonsense, sorry. Science exists to answer questions, and no reason other than the pursuit of knowledge.
very well without questions it does not exist.


Have you checked out the world lately?
indeed I live in one.


Bad and good make no difference at all to the universe. Murderers walk free while innocents die every hour of the day. Bad and good are human constructs that have no meaning in the real world.
that is not what I meant.
good and bad is a by-product of religion.
in that it punishes hell and rewards heaven so in effect they are in opposition of each a force to be reckoned with.
when there is no religion there is no guilt/punishment/piety devotion/hell/heaven.
what there should be is common sense.

[cacian]

She created us, then we created Her.
We round dance with a lovely metaphor.

indeed a dancing metaphor.

[Pope of Eruke]

how is god a natural things for humans?
I don't get it.

How is it not? It's the absurd, the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Hence god.

[cacian]

How is it not? It's the absurd, the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Hence god.

but humans have realised more absurd then absurd itself and with a maximum exceeding the skies and beyond and with religions so many there is no room to think.
how is that absurd?

[saralynn]

As for theism…..I have made the leap off the existential cliff and into faith. There have been many factors, some of which have been works of William James, the poetry of Christian Wiman, and a life long interest in comparative religion.

I’ve exhausted skepticism. I have heard every argument atheists have to offer and I remain unconvinced. This is probably because I am biased, but I have decided to follow where my heart is leading me rather than watch thoughts spin around in my brain, as if they are the debris in a tornado.

I have certainly not chucked reasoning out the window or closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and forced myself to BELIEVE what I don’t believe, but I have made what I consider a rational decision to accept, in a very real sense, the possibility that each and every mystic who has claimed to have experienced “God”, in a multiplicity of forms, is not a dimwit, pathetic, deluded, or neurologically impaired. Some undoubtedly are; I am assuming some aren't. Some are cynical manipulators. In addition to this, I had my own micro-revelation that mirrored their own. Peace, Love, Joy blah blah blah....it is really quite repetitive. Yes, I have read about the "God helmet"

However, my faith must coexist with doubt because I can see no other alternative….at least at this point. However, instead of focusing on the doubt, I’ve decided to focus on the faith.

I may be wrong. Eh….at least I’ll die happier than I would be if I continue to indulge confusion.

Besides…..no risk, no reward. And, no, you cynics, I don’t mean Heaven. Heaven doesn’t interest me at all. My focus is HERE & NOW.

When the word "God" is mentioned, most people immediately think of Christ, Mohammed or whatever. I NEVER think of Jesus when I use the word (which will be quite unfortunate for me if HE turns out to be the real deal.), but that is because my background was secular. I never went to bed with JC holding my hand or lay awake worrying about whether I or my loved ones were going to Hell. My father was openly anti-religious.

My own conception of God is sort of Jewish-Hindu-Buddhist “May the Force Be With You”, spiritual energy in the form of intelligence, love and consciousness, not entirely impersonal, but definitely not a micro-manager in human affairs. However, he/she/it may have a spiritual interaction with people who pray in devotion, so I don't reject that notion completely.

Most importantly, for many, God is not a concept, but a living reality. Here is a description of a revelation that was quite similar to my own......

"“There came upon me a sense of exultation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination impossible to describe. Among other things, I did not merely come to believe, but I saw that the universe is not composed of dead matter, but is, on the contrary, a living Presence; I became conscious in myself of eternal life. It was not a conviction that I would have eternal life,but a consciousness that I possessed eternal life then; I saw that all men are immortal; that the cosmic order is such that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all; that the foundation principle of the world, of all the worlds, is what we call love, and that the happiness of each and all is in the long run absolutely certain”

The feeling of certitude departed rather quickly for me, but the memory of this experience never allowed me to accept atheism with certitude either.

[Pope of Eruke]

but humans have realised more absurd then absurd itself and with a maximum exceeding the skies and beyond and with religions so many there is no room to think.
how is that absurd?

I have no idea what you just said sorry, maybe rephrase it.

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

[cacian]

I have no idea what you just said sorry, maybe rephrase it.

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

you said it was absurd without god
I said people have already gone absurd with religions and more.
god does not solve the absurdity people get up to.

[Pope of Eruke]

you said it was absurd without god
I said people have already gone absurd with religions and more.
god does not solve the absurdity people get up to.

I didn't say that, I said that it was the absurd. Ie- the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. This is why humans have a tendency to create gods, and why it is a normal thing that they do so.

[cacian]

I didn't say that, I said that it was the absurd. Ie- the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. This is why humans have a tendency to create gods, and why it is a normal thing that they do so.

oh I understand now. sorry about this I misunderstood you.
I think humans are reknown to create and then destroy it is an accolade they do habitually naturally.
they may as well have god they could not destroy .the one and only they could not if they tried.
that is their one and only legacy that will haunt them forever because they could not destroy it. it almost mergers on deliria
irony.
I think this makes sense.

[cacian]

As for theism…..I have made the leap off the existential cliff and into faith. There have been many factors, some of which have been works of William James, the poetry of Christian Wiman, and a life long interest in comparative religion.

I’ve exhausted skepticism. I have heard every argument atheists have to offer and I remain unconvinced. This is probably because I am biased, but I have decided to follow where my heart is leading me rather than watch thoughts spin around in my brain, as if they are the debris in a tornado.

I have certainly not chucked reasoning out the window or closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and forced myself to BELIEVE what I don’t believe, but I have made what I consider a rational decision to accept, in a very real sense, the possibility that each and every mystic who has claimed to have experienced “God”, in a multiplicity of forms, is not a dimwit, pathetic, deluded, or neurologically impaired. Some undoubtedly are; I am assuming some aren't. Some are cynical manipulators. In addition to this, I had my own micro-revelation that mirrored their own. Peace, Love, Joy blah blah blah....it is really quite repetitive. Yes, I have read about the "God helmet"

However, my faith must coexist with doubt because I can see no other alternative….at least at this point. However, instead of focusing on the doubt, I’ve decided to focus on the faith.

I may be wrong. Eh….at least I’ll die happier than I would be if I continue to indulge confusion.

Besides…..no risk, no reward. And, no, you cynics, I don’t mean Heaven. Heaven doesn’t interest me at all. My focus is HERE & NOW.

When the word "God" is mentioned, most people immediately think of Christ, Mohammed or whatever. I NEVER think of Jesus when I use the word (which will be quite unfortunate for me if HE turns out to be the real deal.), but that is because my background was secular. I never went to bed with JC holding my hand or lay awake worrying about whether I or my loved ones were going to Hell. My father was openly anti-religious.

My own conception of God is sort of Jewish-Hindu-Buddhist “May the Force Be With You”, spiritual energy in the form of intelligence, love and consciousness, not entirely impersonal, but definitely not a micro-manager in human affairs. However, he/she/it may have a spiritual interaction with people who pray in devotion, so I don't reject that notion completely.

Most importantly, for many, God is not a concept, but a living reality. Here is a description of a revelation that was quite similar to my own......

"“There came upon me a sense of exultation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination impossible to describe. Among other things, I did not merely come to believe, but I saw that the universe is not composed of dead matter, but is, on the contrary, a living Presence; I became conscious in myself of eternal life. It was not a conviction that I would have eternal life,but a consciousness that I possessed eternal life then; I saw that all men are immortal; that the cosmic order is such that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all; that the foundation principle of the world, of all the worlds, is what we call love, and that the happiness of each and all is in the long run absolutely certain”

The feeling of certitude departed rather quickly for me, but the memory of this experience never allowed me to accept atheism with certitude either.

when did you have the revelation?
what we you doing?

[saralynn]

when did you have the revelation?
what we you doing?

I wasn't doing anything special. I was bustling around the house and then sat down on the couch, intending to take a break and read.

It occurred suddenly, as if a curtain was lifted. It was a brief encounter, indeed, because after a minute I said in astonishment, "Yikes! I'm having a spiritual experience!" It seems that looking at it destroyed it.

Yes, there are many explanations, all of which are legitimate possibilities, yet....the experience was so vivid and seemed so "real", that I have never been able to tidily dispose of it.

I recently read a book by Barbara Ehrenreich entitled “Living With a Wild God: A Nonbeliever’s Search for the Truth About Everything,”

This is what she had to say about her own experiences, "“Something peeled off the visible world, taking with it all meaning, inference, association, labels and words. I was looking at a tree, and if anyone had asked, that’s what I would have said I was doing, but the word ‘tree’ was gone, along with all the notions of tree-ness that had accumulated in the last dozen or so years since I had acquired language.”

Another occurred a few years later during a predawn walk in Lone Pine, Calif., when “the world flamed into life.” She writes: “There were no visions, no prophetic voices or visits by totemic animals, just this blazing everywhere. Something poured into me, and I poured out into it.”

The book was a bit of a disappointment, but her description of something that cannot be described was excellent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/books/barbara-ehrenreichs-living-with-a-wild-god.html

[cacian]

I wasn't doing anything special. I was bustling around the house and then sat down on the couch, intending to take a break and read.

It occurred suddenly, as if a curtain was lifted. It was a brief encounter, indeed, because after a minute I said in astonishment, "Yikes! I'm having a spiritual experience!" It seems that looking at it destroyed it.

Yes, there are many explanations, all of which are legitimate possibilities, yet....the experience was so vivid and seemed so "real", that I have never been able to tidily dispose of it.

a brief encounter it sounds like a film or a book I have heard of.
were you nervous scared?

I recently read a book by Barbara Ehrenreich entitled “Living With a Wild God: A Nonbeliever’s Search for the Truth About Everything,”

wild and truth. quite a conflict of realities.


This is what she had to say about her own experiences, "“Something peeled off the visible world, taking with it all meaning, inference, association, labels and words. I was looking at a tree, and if anyone had asked, that’s what I would have said I was doing, but the word ‘tree’ was gone, along with all the notions of tree-ness that had accumulated in the last dozen or so years since I had acquired language.”

a tree is a tree I guess it depends how long and how much one is willing to stare at it.
trees seem to always be mentioned in literature. I am not quite sure why. one would not think a fertile tree and a god never associate tree hugging comes to mind. I have a huge tree at the back of my garden a citrusy type of tree. stunning. and I have not ''dreamed it''.

Another occurred a few years later during a predawn walk in Lone Pine, Calif., when “the world flamed into life.” She writes: “There were no visions, no prophetic voices or visits by totemic animals, just this blazing everywhere. Something poured into me, and I poured out into it.”

The book was a bit of a disappointment, but her description of something that cannot be described was excellent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/books/barbara-ehrenreichs-living-with-a-wild-god.html
a disappointment I agree too. ''the world to flame into life'' is rather a cryptic denouncement the writer sounds like he/she was tripping.
many who do often are quoted alongside these huge scenes.
I am not sure why or how those who ''search for the truth '' always seem to search for it out and about. the open is already found.

[saralynn]

a brief encounter it sounds like a film or a book I have heard of.
were you nervous scared?

No, same ole sh**......peace, love, joy.



wild and truth. quite a conflict of realities.

Agree. I have a rather low-key personality, so my experience was more like "vivid and possible"




a tree is a tree I guess it depends how long and how much one is willing to stare at it.
trees seem to always be mentioned in literature. I am not quite sure why. one would not think a fertile tree and a god never associate tree hugging comes to mind. I have a huge tree at the back of my garden a citrusy type of tree. stunning. and I have not ''dreamed it''.

You're right about the tree being a potent symbol in literature, including the one in the Garden of Eden. I think Freud made a few remarks about them, as well.

The problem with "describing" any kind of revelation is that it is experiential and words are basically memories of memory. It's like trying to describe "is-ness" or maybe the quality of being conscious.


a disappointment I agree too. ''the world to flame into life'' is rather a cryptic denouncement the writer sounds like he/she was tripping.
many who do often are quoted alongside these huge scenes.
I am not sure why or how those who ''search for the truth '' always seem to search for it out and about. the open is already found.

I know, my briefest of brief revelations occurred when I was in the most mundane circumstances, which I think adds a touch of credibility.

However, faith is, at bottom, a decision, even for atheists.

[osho]

is it because one feels lonely lost and aimless?
one does no longer understand what life is for or about one is focused thoughts and locus vehemently on God.

or is it because
God is the ultimate for our sins and weaknesses?
we need to pass the blame onto a God when we have finished blaming ourselves.
We need a God(s) to ruminate on or to arrive at Eureka when we are drifting with so many existential questions and fail to anchor the ship. Or else what life is for and we just are born purposelessly and this cosmic world is a joke and man a sheer dust and through a cosmic lens nonessential, insignificant entity. People timelessly are seeking for some concrete, something that does not get dissolved or evaporate or something that has caused all causation or something that helps him to find order in this world of pandemonium

[Iain Sparrow]

However, faith is, at bottom, a decision, even for atheists.

Oh no it isn't.
An atheist does not place "faith" in Science. We simply apply the same reasoned thought to the question of God as we do to all other aspects of life. We find no evidence of a God or any supernatural entity, therefore until evidence shows itself to the contrary, we disbelieve in the existence of a God.

What is more plausible, that your revelation was due to God contacting you... are that your mind was simply in a state that made you believe that you had been contacted by God? If you had never heard of God and were never indoctrinated by our culture into a religion, would you have come to the same conclusions?

[cacian]

Oh no it isn't.
An atheist does not place "faith" in Science. We simply apply the same reasoned thought to the question of God as we do to all other aspects of life. We find no evidence of a God or any supernatural entity, therefore until evidence shows itself to the contrary, we disbelieve in the existence of a God.

What is more plausible, that your revelation was due to God contacting you... are that your mind was simply in a state that made you believe that you had been contacted by God? If you had never heard of God and were never indoctrinated by our culture into a religion, would you have come to the same conclusions?

faith is secular and science peculiar or is it the other way around ??

[The Atheist]

How is it not? It's the absurd, the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Hence god.


As for theism…..I have made the leap off the existential cliff and into faith.

Just a thought: it sounds like you've actually picked up deism rather than theism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[YesNo]

Oh no it isn't.
An atheist does not place "faith" in Science. We simply apply the same reasoned thought to the question of God as we do to all other aspects of life. We find no evidence of a God or any supernatural entity, therefore until evidence shows itself to the contrary, we disbelieve in the existence of a God.

What is more plausible, that your revelation was due to God contacting you... are that your mind was simply in a state that made you believe that you had been contacted by God? If you had never heard of God and were never indoctrinated by our culture into a religion, would you have come to the same conclusions?

The point you bring up about indoctrination could be applied to atheism as well. How is atheism any less a cultural delusion than theism?

I know the response. As you mentioned earlier, there is "science" and "reason" that supposedly puts atheism on a higher ground, but does it really, especially after considering the scientific findings over the past century?

I don't see science and reason taking sides in the debate between theists and atheists. They are just tools both sides use in defining their differing conceptual view of the universe.

[Pope of Eruke]

The point you bring up about indoctrination could be applied to atheism as well. How is atheism any less a cultural delusion than theism?

I know the response. As you mentioned earlier, there is "science" and "reason" that supposedly puts atheism on a higher ground, but does it really, especially after considering the scientific findings over the past century?

I don't see science and reason taking sides in the debate between theists and atheists. They are just tools both sides use in defining their differing conceptual view of the universe.

Well you could make the case that since various cultures have their own religions (and as all cultures have throughout history), and since none can possibly be 'correct' then atheism, or the absence of a belief is the default position. No child is born believing in a particular deity, that depends on where they were born. Atheism in the agressive sense that you find nowadays is due to indocrination, or a sort of herd mentality that they accuse religion of hving, but the actual concept of atheism isn't.

[cacian]

Well you could make the case that since various cultures have their own religions (and as all cultures have throughout history), and since none can possibly be 'correct' then atheism, or the absence of a belief is the default position. No child is born believing in a particular deity, that depends on where they were born. Atheism in the agressive sense that you find nowadays is due to indocrination, or a sort of herd mentality that they accuse religion of hving, but the actual concept of atheism isn't.

atheism is the opposite of religion so in a way it reinforces it.
I think it is preferable to be neither.

[YesNo]

Well you could make the case that since various cultures have their own religions (and as all cultures have throughout history), and since none can possibly be 'correct' then atheism, or the absence of a belief is the default position. No child is born believing in a particular deity, that depends on where they were born. Atheism in the agressive sense that you find nowadays is due to indocrination, or a sort of herd mentality that they accuse religion of hving, but the actual concept of atheism isn't.

Or you could say that since all these cultures have some religious belief, the proclaimed absence of any belief is more likely incorrect than any of these particular beliefs.

I remember reading some survey of the beliefs of children. I think the children had some generic belief in super-human agents that could not be explained by cultural indoctrination. It sort of makes one wonder where such beliefs come from at all.

[Pope of Eruke]

Or you could say that since all these cultures have some religious belief, the proclaimed absence of any belief is more likely incorrect than any of these particular beliefs.

I remember reading some survey of the beliefs of children. I think the children had some generic belief in super-human agents that could not be explained by cultural indoctrination. It sort of makes one wonder where such beliefs come from at all.

Hey you can have your beliefs, I should never have replied because I decided a while ago that arguing about religion gets no where!

[cacian]

Hey you can have your beliefs, I should never have replied because I decided a while ago that arguing about religion gets no where!

it does does it not?? I wonder why. :)
I think the faith are too similar one believe one does not.
the tension is equal and so there is no agreement.
however an atheist may turn religious more then a religious turn atheist but then I may be wrong.

[The Atheist]

however an atheist may turn religious more then a religious turn atheist but then I may be wrong.

The enormous decline of christianity in the past 40 years would say you certainly are.

[cacian]

The enormous decline of christianity in the past 40 years would say you certainly are.

indeed but never say never. things do eventually turn around one way or another.

[YesNo]

Sometimes I think when someone says they are an atheist, they really mean they are anti-Christian, or maybe anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamic. In some ways, I can't really blame them. I remember when George W Bush was starting his baked-up weapons-of-mass-destruction Iraq war having had a bellyful of Christian war-mongering. The only thing that tempered it was the Catholic pope at the time telling Bush to cool it.

Christians blew the absolute perfect opportunity of "turning the other cheek". They will hopefully never get another opportunity like that. Of course, the Muslims who were in those planes annoyed me as well. Both groups shamed their respective religions. To be fair, over the past 150 years, atheists haven't behaved any better.

All of this, however, doesn't have much to do with atheism as a theoretical position. Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option. That doesn't mean the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions have to be taken by default. They need to justify themselves as well especially in liberal democracies where one is not required to be a member of a certain religion and people have easily available information.

[Chasesnider10]

Yes we need god. God created each and every one of us, and gives us a choice every day to follow him.

[Frostball]

Sometimes I think when someone says they are an atheist, they really mean they are anti-Christian, or maybe anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamic. In some ways, I can't really blame them. I remember when George W Bush was starting his baked-up weapons-of-mass-destruction Iraq war having had a bellyful of Christian war-mongering. The only thing that tempered it was the Catholic pope at the time telling Bush to cool it.

Christians blew the absolute perfect opportunity of "turning the other cheek". They will hopefully never get another opportunity like that. Of course, the Muslims who were in those planes annoyed me as well. Both groups shamed their respective religions. To be fair, over the past 150 years, atheists haven't behaved any better.

All of this, however, doesn't have much to do with atheism as a theoretical position. Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option. That doesn't mean the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions have to be taken by default. They need to justify themselves as well especially in liberal democracies where one is not required to be a member of a certain religion and people have easily available information.

It's only religious folks who actually think that given modern science it is not reasonable to be an atheist. You're right about the whole 'even if we prove god, that doesn't say which god it is' bit, but the 'even if' has yet to be satisfied by a long shot. You even cite fields of neuroscience, cosmology, and quantum physics. I suppose if those fields make it unreasonable to be an atheist that must mean the overwhelming majority of scientists in those fields must be believers... Oh wait.. it's the other way around? That's unusual, given your statement.

As far as atheist meaning "anti-Christian", I think you should imagine it like a venn diagram. There are atheists who don't care about others' religion but don't have one themselves, there are people who hate christians yet are religious, and there's some that are atheist and also hate religion in the middle. Another way to look at it is that all atheists don't believe in a god or gods, but some section of them also are anti-theists, who are against religion and might actively seek to thwart religion and convince religious folks that it's not true.

If there is an emphasis on Christianity among anti-theists it's because christians dominate in most western countries where most atheists and anti-theists are. There are simply so many more christians out there causing so many perceived problems. I consider myself an atheist and anti-theist, but it's not like I spend that much time railing against Islam (although I do sometimes) because there simply aren't very many in my area doing much harm. The main religious harm bringers in my city, state, and country, are all Christian.

But I hold the same basic opinion about Christianity as I do about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism (when it contains supernatural beliefs) Wicca, Astrology, or Jainism; that is, I think they are superstitious beliefs with no basis in reality and are harmful to the extent that they cause people to make ill-informed decisions. While I think all these religions are the same in this respect, they all have different amounts of different claims that believers are required to ascribe to, and these beliefs all make their believers act in different ways. This is why some religions can be said to be worse than others. For example, Islam, which has peaceful verses (throat clearing), also has many verses that can be interpreted (easily) to be telling believers to kill non-believers, take part in holy war, and even that sacrificing yourself will guarantee life in Heaven. One doesn't need to try hard to imagine how a fundamentalist Muslim could be quite bad. But on the other hand, if you take Jainism, whose core tenet prescribes complete nonviolence toward all living beings. It is difficult to see how a fundamentalist Jain could ever be as bad as a fundamentalist Muslim can easily be.

Essentially I see Christianity as one of the more powerful, more life effecting (when it's followed), and more dangerous religions than Jainism, but also less dangerous than Islam.

[cacian]

It's only religious folks who actually think that given modern science it is not reasonable to be an atheist.
it is reasonable to think whatever one wants to atheist or not, it is not reasonable to link science to thinking it is not or anything for that matter.
science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up. people are born to feel or think the way they want to.
in the same way that people are born straight gay or both. science bares no bearings over how nature dictates.
in this sense science has no meanings whatsoever. it has no role.
about atheism however
does an atheist believe in evolution for example.
is automatic is what I am trying to say.

[Frostball]

it is reasonable to think whatever one wants to atheist or not, it is not reasonable to link science to thinking it is not or anything for that matter.
science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up. people are born to feel or think the way they want to.
in the same way that people are born straight gay or both. science bares no power over how nature dictates.
in this sense science has no meanings whatsoever. it has no role.
about atheism however
does an atheist believe in evolution for example.
is automatic is what I am trying to say.

If you think "science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up." Why didn't you tell that to YesNo? They are the one claiming science makes it unreasonable to be an atheist. I can quite easily see how somebody can believe in a god even with what we know of modern science, but I do not see how modern science could lead a person to that belief.

[cacian]

If you think "science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up." Why didn't you tell that to YesNo?

hi Frostball I don't think YesNo is saying that science dictates how people are born. it may influence their judgement but it wont make their minds up for them it is ultimately personal.
in the same way we are born a certain way science has no hands on it.

They are the one claiming science makes it unreasonable to be an atheist.

they may claim it but it won't make any difference on how someone's beliefs is going to turn out to be.


I can quite easily see how somebody can believe in a god

thousands of people believe in a god they have never met. so thousands others wont believe in it either. it the strike of the balance.
this means that faith has no logic. it makes no sense because it is random. it can be anyone. a monk an atheist a nudist a fanatic a terrorist. all these people run with a belief that they have acquired themselves through others.


even with what we know of modern science, but I do not see how modern science could lead a person to that belief.
science to me has no beliefs it has convictions and it wants to make a point about something because it feels it has to or because it feels ultimately it has not control and so it goes searching for things to prove to give itself that boost of 'control'.
that is my opinion.
religion is the same it claims it knows things and so create the word god to keep at people. it wants the control too.

[Frostball]

hi Frostball I don't think YesNo is saying that science dictates how people are born. it may influence their judgement but it wont make their minds up for them it is ultimately personal.
in the same way we are born a certain way science has no hands on it.

I never mentioned anything about dictating anything being born. I said that YesNo said "Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option."


they may claim it but it won't make any difference on how someone's beliefs is going to turn out to be.

This also has nothing to do with the fact that YesNo is the one saying that given the state of Modern Science, it is unreasonable to be an atheist. Again, I'm the one saying that the state of modern science is compatible with BOTH theism and atheism. YesNo is the one stating that it is unreasonable to believe in god given the state of modern science, and even states specific fields. Fields in which the great majority of experts are atheists, which I think is good evidence that people with more knowledge than either YesNo or me probably disagree with YesNo.


thousands of people believe in a god they have never met. so thousands others wont believe in it either. it the strike of the balance.
this means that faith has no logic. it makes no sense because it is random. it can be anyone. a monk an atheist a nudist a fanatic a terrorist. all these people run with a belief that they have acquired themselves through others.

The idea that whether a person believes in god or not is entirely random is just false. It's dependant on a lot of factors, some of which nobody can control, but some which can be controlled. A person can be convinced either to believe or to not believe by good arguments, bad arguments, fear, or manipulation. Ultimately the choice of what one believes is not under one's own control, but to say belief in god is random, or that a person can never be convinced one way or the other is wrong.


science to me has no beliefs it has convictions and it wants to make a point about something because it feels it has to or because it feels ultimately it has not control and so it goes searching for things to prove to give itself that boost of 'control'.
that is my opinion.
religion is the same it claims it knows things and so create the word god to keep at people. it wants the control too.

Science is just a method and a body of knowledge, while religion is a set of beliefs generally laid out in some holy book or by some holy person.

[cacian]

I never mentioned anything about dictating anything being born. I said that YesNo said "Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option."
I understand.
what I am saying one is one born with premeditated thoughts already formed what comes next is random.
that is according to me.
and therefore science is unreasonable to presume anything.
to be an atheist is like the same as being indifferent. it is a state of mind but with few differences. it could be anything as long as a firm a believe is beheld then that it is more or less the same.


This also has nothing to do with the fact that YesNo is the one saying that given the state of Modern Science, it is unreasonable to be an atheist. Again, I'm the one saying that the state of modern science is compatible with BOTH theism and atheism. YesNo is the one stating that it is unreasonable to believe in god given the state of modern science, and even states specific fields. Fields in which the great majority of experts are atheists, which I think is good evidence that people with more knowledge than either YesNo or me probably disagree with YesNo.
again I understand what you are saying.
I am saying people are born with beliefs they want to develop and hold on to because it is part of the human mind.
it does not mater what it is they believe in, it is how they develop the belief that makes them the same one and only.
hence the word random.



The idea that whether a person believes in god or not is entirely random is just false. It's dependant on a lot of factors, some of which nobody can control, but some which can be controlled. A person can be convinced either to believe or to not believe by good arguments, bad arguments, fear, or manipulation. Ultimately the choice of what one believes is not under one's own control, but to say belief in god is random, or that a person can never be convinced one way or the other is wrong.
I think as long as people hold a belief system they will go for whatever suits their chain of thoughts and how they develop understanding of things.
to believe in a god maybe false but they way they do it is not. one is ultimately convinced and therefore it is a hard thing to crack how it is done.
for example it is easier to have a conversation with an atheist for example because they are not they byest they don't believe and so anything goes.
religious people believe in an order an other being and therefore they could not ultimately believe in each other in a way that understanding and logic wans them to. it is therefore extremely hard to converse with them I find personally.


Science is just a method and a body of knowledge, while religion is a set of beliefs generally laid out in some holy book or by some holy person.
I don't fell science is knowledge science wants to think it has knowledge. sciene is driven by lack of knowledge and ultimately power.
I think:
those who understand know and those who don't quiz. that is what science does it quizzes and pokes at everything because it does not understand it.
religion is the opposite it presumes it knows and so makes up a god to be the ultimate then it can justify what it does not know.

[YesNo]

It's only religious folks who actually think that given modern science it is not reasonable to be an atheist. You're right about the whole 'even if we prove god, that doesn't say which god it is' bit, but the 'even if' has yet to be satisfied by a long shot. You even cite fields of neuroscience, cosmology, and quantum physics. I suppose if those fields make it unreasonable to be an atheist that must mean the overwhelming majority of scientists in those fields must be believers... Oh wait.. it's the other way around? That's unusual, given your statement.


It is not about a poll of scientists, but what they have discovered. So, what have they discovered? Well, the universe had a beginning. Determinism breaks down at the quantum level. The problem of reducing awareness, that is, first person conscious experience, to physics and chemistry is likely impossible.

Can atheism survive those kinds of discoveries? I don't think so, but I am sure people will do their best to rationalize it as long as possible.

Maybe "many worlds" can replace quantum indeterminism. Maybe we will build that AI machine that is conscious. Maybe the universe is old enough and there were enough viable mutations for life in its huge variety of forms to have happened by chance. I doubt it, but that's my opinion. I don't want to cause anyone undue cognitive dissonance, but I also don't want to live in an ideological fantasy land just to keep atheism afloat.

I've started reading Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Nagel is an atheist. He also thinks there is an alternative that could save atheism. It is a sort of monism based on his earlier panpsychism views. Although I don't have any problem with panpsychism as such the monism might be falsified if one accepts out-of-body experiences as real. Will something like that work?

[The Atheist]

Can atheism survive those kinds of discoveries?

I have to admit, your posts contain some of the most hilarious things ever typed on the internet.

Pity it's not intentional.

[tailor STATELY]

I have to admit, your posts contain some of the most hilarious things ever typed on the internet.

Pity it's not intentional.

Ad hominem.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Melanie]

Well said, tailorSTATELY.

Scientific Evidence For God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

[cacian]

Well said, tailorSTATELY.

Scientific Evidence For God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

what is going on with that 4/FOUR???
that is one number bigger then god who is supposed to be ONE.
4>1.
and as Judge Judy says I don't believe you!
science could not prove god let alone prove itself.
if god himself could not prove to us he exists then he does not exist.
there is no self evidence to prove it.
there is my theory done.

[Poetaster]

Can atheism survive those kinds of discoveries?

Yes, of course it would. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean we need to jump to conclusions. All atheism is, all it really is, is the lack of belief in a god. Even if there is a god out there, and we found it, some people will still be demanding absolute proof - and in some ways that's an impossible thing to do.

Just pointing to something unknown and saying 'Look, atheism doesn't know everything' is just poor reasoning. It's better to be open-minded when dealing with something unknown and suspend judgement outright until you know, because until you know your opinion is worthless. What's that saying? One experiment is worth a million expert opinions?

I'm not saying the two are the same thing, but skepticism and atheism are pretty much bedfellows, because it's not believing in a god - it is not believing in a claim to knowledge. The reasons for this need hardly to be stated.

[mal4mac]

Scientific Evidence For God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

An anonymous utube poster waffling on about crank physics does not constitute scientific evidence of God. Please quote journals like "Nature" or "Science" if you want to be taken seriously when trying to use physics to back your idea that God exists.

[Melanie]

Each to his own. Whether visual or written, there is information available everywhere and in every form to learn from. If you want to verify what you see by researching journals, be my guest. Don't be lazy and tell other people to do it for you.

[Melanie]

...science could not prove god let alone prove itself.
if god himself could not prove to us he exists then he does not exist.
Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.

[Iain Sparrow]

Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.

But don't you sometimes worry that what you're seeing, is what you want to see?
Evolution isn't a miracle, it just is. There's no intelligence behind it, it has no brain, no destiny, it sets no goals; not even for survival. Evolution ends in extinction, every time.

[Frostball]

Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.

Really? Your idea of evidence for god is basically "look at the pretty clouds, and trees, and animals! Wow!"

[Poetaster]

Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.

Evolution isn't one animal metamorphosing into another, like in Pokemon or Ovid or something. You don't get fish turning into cats or whatever. What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line. The idea of apes turning into humans is ridiculous. There are still great apes around, because they didn't all die out - that's it. We are related to them and share a common ancestor, but we are not the same species anymore, not even the same genetic line anymore.

[cacian]

Evolution isn't one animal metamorphosing into another, like in Pokemon or Ovid or something. You don't get fish turning into cats or whatever. What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line. The idea of apes turning into humans is ridiculous. There are still great apes around, because they didn't all die out - that's it. We are related to them and share a common ancestor, but we are not the same species anymore, not even the same genetic line anymore.

such a time consuming affair and rather tiring even nature would fed up.
I think if I was nature I would have created each and one separately simply and quickly and be done with it. that is sensible and logic.
instead I am having to wait millennia to metamorphose something that is already a shape because I decided to change it into another a different look and body is frankly quite tiresome and laborious task.
I am not prepared to wait so I do not believe it. time is at the essence.

[PeterL]

such a time consuming affair and rather tiring even nature would fed up.
I think if I was nature I would have created each and one separately simply and quickly and be done with it. that is sensible and logic.
instead I am having to wait millennia to metamorphose something that is already a shape because I decided to change it into another a different look and body is frankly quite tiresome and laborious task.
I am not prepared to wait so I do not believe it. time is at the essence.

Evolution is one of the tols that the Gods and Goddesses use for changing things and trying out other designs. If one tries enough random changes, then eventually one will be good and useful You have to remember that the Gods aren't making each and every change. There are ntural processes whereby things changes slowly over time. It isn't boring at all. Stick around for a few millennia and you'll see how interesting it can be.

[cacian]

Evolution is one of the tols that the Gods and Goddesses use for changing things and trying out other designs. If one tries enough random changes, then eventually one will be good and useful You have to remember that the Gods aren't making each and every change. There are ntural processes whereby things changes slowly over time. It isn't boring at all. Stick around for a few millennia and you'll see how interesting it can be.

Peter as much as I would like to stick around I think nature already does things in a way that is too perfect for us to believe. the name of nature is fast. evolution is the opposite is time consuming and boring.
we humans tend to be negative and see things in a negative way as if they needed changing all the time. they don't it is us that need to change and begin to see things they way they are and to accept them.
I am not prepared to believe animals were here before us.
evolution has a negative string about it.
I feel it is short-sighted and thoughtless. to think the origin of men springs from a jungle is just too crazy for words.
but that is me :)

[Poetaster]

such a time consuming affair and rather tiring even nature would fed up.
I think if I was nature I would have created each and one separately simply and quickly and be done with it. that is sensible and logic.
instead I am having to wait millennia to metamorphose something that is already a shape because I decided to change it into another a different look and body is frankly quite tiresome and laborious task.
I am not prepared to wait so I do not believe it. time is at the essence.

Who said it was a task that is laboured over?

[cacian]

Who said it was a task that is laboured over?

you said I quote:


What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line.

basically I interpret this as saying we had to wait millennia/millions of years before we came about?! it feels forever and forever is laborious. nature is speed. I thought quantum established a physics that is fast.
this is the opposite of what science is ultimately saying. in fact it ditches the whole theory of speed.

I don't know why we bothered.
I don't believe it in the same way that I could not believe animals were here before us.
this makes no sense.

[Poetaster]

basically I interpret this as saying we had to wait millennia/millions of years before we came about?! it feels forever and forever is laborious. nature is speed. I thought quantum established a physics that is fast.
this is the opposite of what science is ultimately saying. in fact it ditches the whole theory of speed.

I don't know why we bothered.
I don't believe it in the same way that I could not believe animals were here before us.
this makes no sense.

Nah, there is no interpretation needed in what I wrote. It's just how evolution works. It can make sense to you or not, but it is what it is.

[cacian]

Nah, there is no interpretation needed in what I wrote. It's just how evolution works. It can make sense to you or not, but it is what it is.

fair enough everyone is entitled their opinions/interpretations. :)
can i ask you this?
how long did it take you to understand evolution when you first read.
that is presuming you have read it first or was it you were told it first?

[Poetaster]

fair enough everyone is entitled their opinions/interpretations. :)
can i ask you this?
how long did it take you to understand evolution when you first read.
that is presuming you have read it first or was it you were told it first?

I don't know how long exactly. I've read a few books on the subject.

[cacian]

I don't know how long exactly. I've read a few books on the subject.

so did you make your mind up straight away after few books?

[Poetaster]

'so did you make your mind up straight away after few books?'

No.

[cacian]

'so did you make your mind up straight away after few books?'

No.

can i ask why not?

[Poetaster]

can i ask why not?

It took physical artifacts as evidence, and a long period of existential misery. I come from mildly religious parents, and often thought I should have faith myself. It took time, seeing a small part of the fossil record with my own eyes and also I've lived in the country my entire life. I've never had the inability to believe in anything (though for some time I had the strong want to have that). Being an atheist does not mean you must accept evolution, you can still have whatever believes you want outside of one about a creator god, but without a god to me the idea the universe is a pleasant, ordered, caring place is just nonsensical. Evolution by natural selection is the best, most logical thing to me because it basically requires a universe of constant struggle, extinction and adaption.

[PeterL]

Peter as much as I would like to stick around I think nature already does things in a way that is too perfect for us to believe. the name of nature is fast. evolution is the opposite is time consuming and boring.
we humans tend to be negative and see things in a negative way as if they needed changing all the time. they don't it is us that need to change and begin to see things they way they are and to accept them.

You may see things negatively, but not all humans do. But indeed humans need evolution; I made a few proposals for inprovement in my most recent blog post; see if you agree.



I am not prepared to believe animals were here before us.

Why are you "not prepared to believe animals were here before us?" The available evidence is strongly in favor of animals having preceded humans adn for humans being evolved from other animals.


evolution has a negative string about it.
I feel it is short-sighted and thoughtless. to think the origin of men springs from a jungle is just too crazy for words.
but that is me :)

What would you mean by that? I would suggect that you take a university course on Evolutionary biology. The evidence is overwhelming, but the way that human evolvution is described in the general press is shallow and imaccurate. Genetics and the methods and steps of evolution are well established science, and the evidence that humans have evolved and will continue to evolve is there is the world.

[cacian]

It took physical artifacts as evidence, and a long period of existential misery.
misery? how do you mean?


I come from mildly religious parents, and often thought I should have faith myself. It took time, seeing a small part of the fossil record with my own eyes and also I've lived in the country my entire life.
what country?



I've never had the inability to believe in anything (though for some time I had the strong want to have that). Being an atheist does not mean you must accept evolution, you can still have whatever believes you want outside of one about a creator god,
I agree.
however there is also the idea of being neither which means it does not matter where we come from.
the importance is that we are.
I think i just challenge titles we give ourselves because i see they complicate more then they help.


but without a god to me the idea the universe is a pleasant, ordered, caring place is just nonsensical. Evolution by natural selection is the best, most logical thing to me because it basically requires a universe of constant struggle, extinction and adaption.
i see what you mean and i understand your point.
to me nature is ordered. it has to be if we are to be alive on this planet.
we are the ones that are not ordered.
god is a symbol not a reality and therefore i don't believe it exists. I may believe there is something else but not the word god,
Evolution as you put it is a struggle.
I do not agree it is about adaption because if it was there could not have been any changes from one form species to another one.
that is what i call a transition.
i don't believe we are transited.
we come to be fully as we are.
to adapt is to remain true to oneself while managing to cope until nature satisfies we are.

[Poetaster]

misery? how do you mean?


what country?

First question: I'm philosophically an existentialist, I guess. I'm not going to go into exactly what that is here, or what that means to me, but look up Jean-Paul Sartre if you are interested.

Second question: the British countryside. I've actually lived in both England and the Scottish highlands, but I've always lived in very rural places. I've always been close to nature.

[cacian]

First question: I'm philosophically an existentialist, I guess. I'm not going to go into exactly what that is here, or what that means to me, but look up Jean-Paul Sartre if you are interested.

Second question: the British countryside. I've actually lived in both England and the Scottish highlands, but I've always lived in very rural places. I've always been close to nature.

I get it.
do you think you could ever be just you yourself without all these titles?
you know like when one is a kid and does not hold any of these beliefs.
they simply are until i guess they read and start to collect things they would have never thought about before.
i am saying this because i call myself none of these and others. i don't like thinking too much.
i go out and i see and i am satisfied. i don't look for anything and yet they seem to find me. :)

[Poetaster]

I get it.
do you think you could ever be just you yourself without all these titles?
you know like when one is a kid and does not hold any of these beliefs.
they simply are until i guess they read and start to collect things they would have never thought about before.
i am saying this because i call myself none of these and others. i don't like thinking too much.
i go out and i see and i am satisfied. i don't look for anything and yet they seem to find me. :)

I am me, the 'titles' are just good shorthand for describing how I tend to think.

[YesNo]

Well said, tailorSTATELY.

Scientific Evidence For God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

This was an interesting video. I will have to check some of the references. I liked the four part characterization of God as eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

I normally think of God as superior consciousness and view the atheistic fascination with materialism as a way to devalue consciousness including our own. This is what I think is failing and what I understand Thomas Nagel to claim is failing as well.

Here's a video that looks at it from the consciousness perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Thanks for noting the ad hominem remarks, tailorSTATELY. An ad hominem comment is a sign that no rational argument can be thought of.

[cacian]

I am me, the 'titles' are just good shorthand for describing how I tend to think.

I see and thanks for sharing your thoughts with me :)

[YesNo]

Yes, of course it would. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean we need to jump to conclusions. All atheism is, all it really is, is the lack of belief in a god. Even if there is a god out there, and we found it, some people will still be demanding absolute proof - and in some ways that's an impossible thing to do.

Just pointing to something unknown and saying 'Look, atheism doesn't know everything' is just poor reasoning. It's better to be open-minded when dealing with something unknown and suspend judgement outright until you know, because until you know your opinion is worthless. What's that saying? One experiment is worth a million expert opinions?

I'm not saying the two are the same thing, but skepticism and atheism are pretty much bedfellows, because it's not believing in a god - it is not believing in a claim to knowledge. The reasons for this need hardly to be stated.

I'm not saying there is a God or Goddess. I'm saying the atheistic arguments for the materialistic conclusions that they have "jumped to" have failed. Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos), who is an atheist, is saying the same thing although I might disagree with him on the alternatives available.

Regarding having an open mind, do atheists themselves have an open mind about the existence of God? I don't think so.

Let's bring it closer to home. Do atheists have an open mind about the existence of consciousness as something more than an epiphenomenon of matter? Do they have an open mind about the "causal closure of physics"?

[Melanie]

But don't you sometimes worry that what you're seeing, is what you want to see?
Evolution isn't a miracle, it just is. There's no intelligence behind it, it has no brain, no destiny, it sets no goals; not even for survival. Evolution ends in extinction, every time.
Worry about what I'm seeing?….You must not be seeing what I'm seeing.

No intelligence (no brain) behind it?….It's much easier to have faith in intelligent design than in mass confusion turning into perfect awesomeness (sorry, but there are no words to describe it's magnitude) out of nowhere.

No destiny? No goals?….are you sure about that? Have you ruled out eternity? Think about it. No offense but you're not exactly the Grand Poobah of all knowledge….or are you saying you believe that by faith?

Evolution ends in distinction every time?…Exactly!! Physical death ends…but what about beyond that? There's more to the living than skin and bones (some describe as soul). Even plants; there's more to them than we can even imagine. I believe everything that we can't physically touch (love for example) lives for eternity. Yes, it's a "belief". But your statement is also a "belief". Think about it. Don't rule so much out of possibility when you don't know for sure.

[Melanie]

Really? Your idea of evidence for god is basically "look at the pretty clouds, and trees, and animals! Wow!"
Double "Wow"….you apparently saw nothing of significance in that video. You have minimized the magnitude of the beauty, power, perfect design, plan…I'm sorry but there are no words to describe the awesomeness of creation. It's something that I see. But you just see pretty clouds, trees, and animals. I see so much more.

[Poetaster]

I'm not saying there is a God or Goddess. I'm saying the atheistic arguments for the materialistic conclusions that they have "jumped to" have failed. Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos), who is an atheist, is saying the same thing although I might disagree with him on the alternatives available.

What 'materialistic conclusions' have atheists assumed? Other than the one: that the material world is all that exists. This hasn't been 'jumped to', all we know is the material world from our normal senses. If someone can show they have a sense (like sense of smell, sense of touch - that sort of sense) that can make contact with something beyond the material I'd be very interested to see that. If that is the conclusion you are talking about it seems to me a pretty safe conclusion to make.


Regarding having an open mind, do atheists themselves have an open mind about the existence of God? I don't think so.

This one certainly does. I just don't happen to believe in one, but I'm not saying there is or isn't - I just happen to think there isn't. That to me is a distinction very rarely made. When talking about 'atheists' it's worth remembering that we aren't all 14 year olds who have just read The God Delusion.


Let's bring it closer to home. Do atheists have an open mind about the existence of consciousness as something more than an epiphenomenon of matter? Do they have an open mind about the "causal closure of physics"?

Well, I can't speak for everyone who calls them self an atheist. I can't be expected to either. What I can say is that most atheists I've ever met don't have much of an open mind to consciousness being anything more than a by product of life, because most atheists do not consider such a thing to be possible. It's hard to say you are open to supernatural things when you just don't believe in the supernatural. However, I'm sure most atheists would change their mind if shown convincing evidence that something created life to develop consciousness. The ball is in your court to prove it is, then, since it's to me a very strange idea.

'Causal closure of physics' is a phrase I'm struggling to wrap my head around to be honest.

[Melanie]

Evolution isn't one animal metamorphosing into another, like in Pokemon or Ovid or something. You don't get fish turning into cats or whatever. What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line. The idea of apes turning into humans is ridiculous....
You're saying you agree with me then. Isn't God's power, intelligent design, and plan for all of his creation as it evolves, an amazing mind-blowing thing?!

Note to Iain and Frostball: please see previous page6 (?) for my response to you in post 89 and 90. It quickly got buried.

[Poetaster]

You're saying you agree with me then. Isn't God's power, intelligent design, and plan for all of his creation as it evolves, an amazing mind-blowing thing?!

I'm not sure how you think I agree with you. I did have to explain evolution wasn't 'an ape turning into a man', that just isn't what evolution is. It isn't often an agreement when you are critiquing the other person's side, but maybe that's just me. 'Apes turning into men' often sounds like something people who do not understand evolution say to make it sound illogical, in the equivalent of saying 'I don't like Communism, the dudes use far too many images of frogs'. (hint: no Communist party has ever used the image of a frog).

If you are arguing a Deist position, fine. If you are arguing for the existence of a god that is happy to sit back and watch extinction and endless suffering and adaptation go on then I don't see much use of power or intelligence to be frank. In fact this god seems quite lazy if he can directly intervene but doesn't. If you are arguing for the God of 'All things Bright and Beautiful' then you are completely mistaken, and clearly didn't bother to read the post you quoted.

[Melanie]

Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.Poetaster…no, you didn't have to explain evolution to me!!!!...apparently you read my post #65 wrong so I have quoted it here for you to review. I clearly stated, " I don't see an ape turning into a man". God tells us that He created man in his own image…not in the apes image. The ape has evolved and man has evolved on two different paths but one did not become the other.

I hesitate to post further to you for fear you'll misquote me again. Please read carefully:

God does not look at death as a bad thing. He's looking at the total picture of Eternity while you are only looking at a speck of time. When someone dies they leave all this sin and suffering that has been caused by man and satan. Yes, God is more powerful than satan and often intervenes but sometimes God allows us to go through trials and tribulations for a whole network of reasons that ultimately lead to a perfect life in eternity. Over a hundred of those reasons are listed in the Bible.

[Iain Sparrow]

I hesitate to post further to you for fear you'll misquote me again. Please read carefully:

God does not look at death as a bad thing. He's looking at the total picture of Eternity while you are only looking at a speck of time. When someone dies they leave all this sin and suffering that has been caused by man and satan. Yes, God is more powerful than satan and often intervenes but sometimes God allows us to go through trials and tribulations for a whole network of reasons that ultimately lead to a perfect life in eternity. Over a hundred of those reasons are listed in the Bible.


Is this the same God of the Christian Bible who condones institutional slavery, sets rules and restrictions for the fair treatment and punishment of human property?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Your God and your Bible are that part of literature I most enjoy... fantasy.

[YesNo]

What 'materialistic conclusions' have atheists assumed? Other than the one: that the material world is all that exists. This hasn't been 'jumped to', all we know is the material world from our normal senses. If someone can show they have a sense (like sense of smell, sense of touch - that sort of sense) that can make contact with something beyond the material I'd be very interested to see that. If that is the conclusion you are talking about it seems to me a pretty safe conclusion to make.

Materialism is the conclusion that atheists have jumped to and it is no longer justified. I mentioned a youtube video earlier that challenged this conclusion citing scientific research. Here it is a again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Maybe we can discuss it? It might help both of us clarify our respective views.



This one certainly does. I just don't happen to believe in one, but I'm not saying there is or isn't - I just happen to think there isn't. That to me is a distinction very rarely made. When talking about 'atheists' it's worth remembering that we aren't all 14 year olds who have just read The God Delusion.

Then you would be an agnostic and not an atheist.



Well, I can't speak for everyone who calls them self an atheist. I can't be expected to either. What I can say is that most atheists I've ever met don't have much of an open mind to consciousness being anything more than a by product of life, because most atheists do not consider such a thing to be possible. It's hard to say you are open to supernatural things when you just don't believe in the supernatural. However, I'm sure most atheists would change their mind if shown convincing evidence that something created life to develop consciousness. The ball is in your court to prove it is, then, since it's to me a very strange idea.

That is the problem that Thomas Nagel is faced with as well. He is mainly concerned with the philosophy of mind and questions neo-Darwinism (which is not the same as evolution or the results of paleontology) because of its assumption that random mutations in DNA are all that is needed to produce the abundance of life forms we see on earth. He thinks, and I agree, that more is needed than these mutations since there haven't been enough of them for this to happen by chance in the limited amount of time that life has existed on earth. He feels mind needs to be added to matter in a form of monism.

In my case, I'm wondering if George Berkeley's idealism might not be right after all, however, I have only started reading him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley



'Causal closure of physics' is a phrase I'm struggling to wrap my head around to be honest.

It is meant as a challenge, to myself as well. The causal closure of physics basically is a claim that there are no non-physical, that is, conscious, causes of any physical phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

[Poetaster]

Poetaster…no, you didn't have to explain evolution to me!!!!...apparently you read my post #65 wrong so I have quoted it here for you to review. I clearly stated, " I DON'T see an ape turning into a man". God tells us that He created man in his own image…not in the apes image. The ape has evolved and man has evolved on two different paths but one did not become the other.

I hesitate to post further to you for fear you'll misquote me again. Please read carefully:

God does not look at death as a bad thing. He's looking at the total picture of Eternity while you are only looking at a speck of time. When someone dies they leave all this sin and suffering that has been caused by man and satan. Yes, God is more powerful than satan and often intervenes but sometimes God allows us to go through trials and tribulations for a whole network of reasons that ultimately lead to a perfect life in eternity. Over a hundred of those reasons are listed in the Bible.

The bit in bold shows me I read your post correctly, and that you believe that god molded man to look something like himself. And so, I'm completely mystified you thought I agree with you. However, if you are fine leaving this here, I would be ok with that. I don't believe in God or Satan, I don't believe in anything.


Materialism is the conclusion that atheists have jumped to and it is no longer justified. I mentioned a youtube video earlier that challenged this conclusion citing scientific research. Here it is a again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Maybe we can discuss it? It might help both of us clarify our respective views.

Interesting video. I will say I don't understand Quantum Physics at all, I'm not going to pretend like I do. However, one thing I will say is that atheism often prides itself on being based on reason, and often the results of science point against what mere reason will tell you. Our brains have evolved in a certain way, a way that isn't exactly the way things are on a quantum level.

I'm sorry, I just don't know enough about Quantum Physics to have a very meaningful discussion on it. However, it appears a few people have made responses to the video who seem to know what they are talking about. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuEHe_BK-oI


Then you would be an agnostic and not an atheist.

No, that would make me an atheist. This might just be a difference in lexical interpretation, I've always understood 'agnostic' to mean someone who understands they do not have ultimate knowledge, and may never do. If so, isn't that most of the human race? I certainly can't say I know. I'm an atheist, though, because I do not believe in god, as per the meaning and origin of the word, from the Greek 'A-theos' meaning A(without)-theos(god). I actually think there are no gods, that makes me an atheist. A person who believes in god and who also understands they do not know would also not be a theist but an agnostic? No, of course not.

If you want to call me an agnostic atheist, fine, I'll accept that. But understand, I am an atheist, because I don't believe in god. In fact I believe there are no gods.


That is the problem that Thomas Nagel is faced with as well. He is mainly concerned with the philosophy of mind and questions neo-Darwinism (which is not the same as evolution or the results of paleontology) because of its assumption that random mutations in DNA are all that is needed to produce the abundance of life forms we see on earth. He thinks, and I agree, that more is needed than these mutations since there haven't been enough of them for this to happen by chance in the limited amount of time that life has existed on earth. He feels mind needs to be added to matter in a form of monism.

4 billion years of life on earth is a pretty long time (I think it is). To say it's 'limited' is to make 4 billion years seem trivial, which of course it isn't. 4 billion years is a mighty long time, and a lot can happen in that time. Just because we might not know how it happens (I'm not an expert, I'm a Literature student) doesn't mean that we should assume it is impossible and then call on a god to solve the problem.


It is meant as a challenge, to myself as well. The causal closure of physics basically is a claim that there are no non-physical, that is, conscious, causes of any physical phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

Ah, then in that case I would say that atheists are open-minded to that, yes.

[cacian]

Ah, then in that case I would say that atheists are open-minded to that, yes.
I am sorry to interrupt but I don't believe that is entirely true.
if you negate something then that is not open minded.
it is in opposition against a belief.
it means one blocks the notion of god by putting a block against it which means your are closed not open to it.

[Poetaster]

I am sorry to interrupt but I don't believe that is entirely true.
if you negate something then that is not open minded.
it is in opposition against a belief.
it means one blocks the notion of god by putting a block against it which means your are closed not open to it.

Non-physical things having an effect on the physical has nothing to do with belief or any notion of god, why should it?

[cacian]

Non-physical things having an effect on the physical has nothing to do with belief or any notion of god, why should it?

well if one rejects god then one in contradiction with the fact someone else believes in god.
an atheist is in opposition with a religious one.
take an agnostic he or she believe that god cannot be proven.
but then an agnostic in opposition with themselves because without the god notion they could not be who they claim to be.
therefore agnosticism does not make sense because if they cant prove god existence then they could not call themselves agnostic because they have not got a god to deny.
if there is no god there in atheism not agnosticism and no religious.
there reasons these titles are is because of god.

[Poetaster]

well if one rejects god then one in contradiction with the fact someone else believes in god.
an atheist is in opposition with a religious one.
take an agnostic he or she believe that god cannot be proven.
but then an agnostic in opposition with themselves because without the god notion they could not be who they claim to be.
therefore agnosticism does not make sense because if they cant prove god existence then they could not call themselves agnostic because they have not got a god to deny.
if there is no god there in atheism not agnosticism and no religious.
there reasons these titles are is because of god.

This is the result of a conversation I am not sure I had. What you quoted was me commenting on nonphysical things having effects on physical things. That's all.

[cacian]

This is the result of a conversation I am not sure I had. What you quoted was me commenting on nonphysical things having effects on physical things. That's all.

sure I think I was commenting having a reply with what you had said. it was something I needed to think about I guess for myself :)

non physical things I don't know what they are.
we are the only physical thing there is.

[YesNo]

I don't believe in God or Satan, I don't believe in anything.

Mostly people are not aware of what they believe. One of the reasons to discuss issues like this is to become aware of what we assume or believe to be true.




Interesting video. I will say I don't understand Quantum Physics at all, I'm not going to pretend like I do. However, one thing I will say is that atheism often prides itself on being based on reason, and often the results of science point against what mere reason will tell you. Our brains have evolved in a certain way, a way that isn't exactly the way things are on a quantum level.

I'm sorry, I just don't know enough about Quantum Physics to have a very meaningful discussion on it. However, it appears a few people have made responses to the video who seem to know what they are talking about. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuEHe_BK-oI

No problem. This is, however, one of the supporting reasons for my position against materialism.




No, that would make me an atheist. This might just be a difference in lexical interpretation, I've always understood 'agnostic' to mean someone who understands they do not have ultimate knowledge, and may never do. If so, isn't that most of the human race? I certainly can't say I know. I'm an atheist, though, because I do not believe in god, as per the meaning and origin of the word, from the Greek 'A-theos' meaning A(without)-theos(god). I actually think there are no gods, that makes me an atheist. A person who believes in god and who also understands they do not know would also not be a theist but an agnostic? No, of course not.


If you want to call me an agnostic atheist, fine, I'll accept that. But understand, I am an atheist, because I don't believe in god. In fact I believe there are no gods.

As long as atheism is acknowledged as a belief system, I have no problem. It is often portrayed as being on some higher ground with scientific and rational support. It doesn't have that any more than any other religion.



4 billion years of life on earth is a pretty long time (I think it is). To say it's 'limited' is to make 4 billion years seem trivial, which of course it isn't. 4 billion years is a mighty long time, and a lot can happen in that time. Just because we might not know how it happens (I'm not an expert, I'm a Literature student) doesn't mean that we should assume it is impossible and then call on a god to solve the problem.

The problem is there have been models presented, in particular one by Michael Behe, and others that Nagel mentioned which show that there was not enough time given the rate of DNA mutations for this to be considered a chance process. Rationally, that falsifies this neo-Darwinist position. It doesn't matter if one thinks 4 billion years is a long time or not. The model shows it is not long enough for chance to have been at work.

What does one do with a falsified theory? One can be unscientific and maintain it is still true or one can modify the theory. Nagel explains why one should expect the theory to be falsified by discussing the philosophy of mind and suggests some paths for modification that would still support atheism. However, as I think about reports of out-of-body experiences, I don't think what he is promoting will survive a falsification either. But it is worth understanding the alternatives.




Ah, then in that case I would say that atheists are open-minded to that, yes.

The causal closure of physics is fundamental to materialism. An atheist open to questioning that causal closure, and I think Nagel would be one, would need to ground physics on something other than materialism.

[Poetaster]

Mostly people are not aware of what they believe. One of the reasons to discuss issues like this is to become aware of what we assume or believe to be true.

I agree with this, I do know, however, that I don't believe in most things in the area of the supernatural anyway.


No problem. This is, however, one of the supporting reasons for my position against materialism.

That's fair enough.


As long as atheism is acknowledged as a belief system, I have no problem. It is often portrayed as being on some higher ground with scientific and rational support. It doesn't have that any more than any other religion.

Is atheism a belief 'system' when it is just a stance on a single issue? I don't think so. You can have atheistic religions, and have spiritual beliefs when you are an atheist. You can also be like me an atheist and an existentialist. People who claim atheism is on the same level as a scientific theory are not really much more worth listening to than the Harold Campings. There is no point talking to them, they already know everything and all they want to do is to impose on you the idea that you really should think for yourself, so long as you think like them.


The problem is there have been models presented, in particular one by Michael Behe, and others that Nagel mentioned which show that there was not enough time given the rate of DNA mutations for this to be considered a chance process. Rationally, that falsifies this neo-Darwinist position. It doesn't matter if one thinks 4 billion years is a long time or not. The model shows it is not long enough for chance to have been at work.

What does one do with a falsified theory? One can be unscientific and maintain it is still true or one can modify the theory. Nagel explains why one should expect the theory to be falsified by discussing the philosophy of mind and suggests some paths for modification that would still support atheism. However, as I think about reports of out-of-body experiences, I don't think what he is promoting will survive a falsification either. But it is worth understanding the alternatives.

Michael Behe? 'Neo-Darwinist'? I'm sorry but the whole Irreducible Complexity, Intelligent Design movement has been largely discredited. Especially here in the United Kingdom. The tree of life is now pretty well understood - we are still working on Abiogenesis, but we have some nifty ideas floating about - from everything I've read 4 billion years is ample time to go from single celled acids and simple RNA to complex life. Especially considering how quickly successive generations of single-celled organisms last. In the length of time I've typed this message a generation of bacteria will have died and gave birth to a new one, plenty of time for variation and evolution.

Out of body experiences - the mind is a powerful thing. I've actually had a near death experience myself, and experienced something of 'leaving this world' and I'm just not impressed by stories of visiting hell or heaven. Sorry, my own experience tells me otherwise.


The causal closure of physics is fundamental to materialism. An atheist open to that, and I think Nagel would be one, would need to ground physics on something other than materialism.

If that's the case then there is nothing to argue with there.

[YesNo]

Is atheism a belief 'system' when it is just a stance on a single issue? I don't think so. You can have atheistic religions, and have spiritual beliefs when you are an atheist. You can also be like me an atheist and an existentialist. People who claim atheism is on the same level as a scientific theory are not really much more worth listening to than the Harold Campings. There is no point talking to them, they already know everything and all they want to do is to impose on you the idea that you really should think for yourself, so long as you think like them.

I don't see how that shows that atheism is not a belief system.

For what it's worth, I don't want you to agree with me. It would spoil the fun and I wouldn't learn anything because I would no longer need to think up a response.



Michael Behe? 'Neo-Darwinist'? I'm sorry but the whole Irreducible Complexity, Intelligent Design movement has been largely discredited. Especially here in the United Kingdom. The tree of life is now pretty well understood - we are still working on Abiogenesis, but we have some nifty ideas floating about - from everything I've read 4 billion years is ample time to go from single celled acids and simple RNA to complex life. Especially considering how quickly successive generations of single-celled organisms last. In the length of time I've typed this message a generation of bacteria will have died and gave birth to a new one, plenty of time for variation and evolution.

I don't think Behe is viewed much differently in the US than he is in the UK. That is probably why Nagel cites him. I think Nagel wants to rub in the noses of neo-Darwinists a basic piece of scientific etiquette that essentially says that it doesn't matter who has falsified a theory, the theory remains falsified.

For his part, he attempts a different type of falsification based on the philosophy of mind. One could also attempt a third approach by contrasting the slow, steady flow of mutations with the "punctuated equilibrium" one sees in the fossil record.

Regarding finding sources that believe that 4 billion years is adequate, I'm sure they exist. There are sources for just about everything. It is just whether one wants to bet that they are correct. For myself, I would need to see a mathematical argument that shows that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that all of this occurred by chance. And then I would want that checked by someone like Behe who would be motivated to find some hole in it.



Out of body experiences - the mind is a powerful thing. I've actually had a near death experience myself, and experienced something of 'leaving this world' and I'm just not impressed by stories of visiting hell or heaven. Sorry, my own experience tells me otherwise.


So what did you experience in your near-death experience?

[Melanie]

Is this the same God of the Christian Bible who condones institutional slavery, sets rules and restrictions for the fair treatment and punishment of human property?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Many who condemn the Bible, as yourself, don't understand that slavery as we know it in recent centuries is not the same as slavery as in the Old Testament Bible. "Slaves in our time and in recent centuries are "chattel" slaves. They were tricked into or forced to work. They received no pay and had no right to refuse to work. Their humanity was owned by another person.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).

In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.

Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions."
~ http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

[mona amon]

Is this the same God of the Christian Bible who condones institutional slavery, sets rules and restrictions for the fair treatment and punishment of human property?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Your God and your Bible are that part of literature I most enjoy... fantasy.

Iain, not fair, quoting the Old Testament! :D Although the passage you quoted comes from a part of the scriptures that are common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, today there is no religion in the world that insists on upholding all 613 commandments of Old Testament Law. Different times, different laws.

[ravisrajput5]

I think the most important thing for which we really need god is that there should be someone to get blamed if we fail in any aspect of life :D :D :D Secondly, If we are believing in God means We will always feel as if there is someone who is always there supporting us in every stages of Life. It is said that If our life is going good then we are surround by NUMBER OF PEOPLE.. But on the other hand if our days are surrounded with negativity WE ARE ALLONE i.e. LONELINESS so we need GOD to Remove our loneliness...

[Frostball]

Many who condemn the Bible, as yourself, don't understand that slavery as we know it in recent centuries is not the same as slavery as in the Old Testament Bible. "Slaves in our time and in recent centuries are "chattel" slaves. They were tricked into or forced to work. They received no pay and had no right to refuse to work. Their humanity was owned by another person.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).

In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.

Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions."
~ http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

This is the old "Slavery was different back then" bit. It's true that it wasn't exactly the same, but that doesn't mean it was in any way right, or good, or something I'd expect a good god to endorse. It was only the hebrew slaves that had a slavery duration of 6 years. Other slaves were slaves for life, and you could even pass them on to your children (Leviticus 25:44-46). It also gives a loophole in which if the master gives the male slave a wife, and they have children, then the wife and children will still belong to the master. If the man wants to stay with his family, then they drive a spike through his ear and he has to be a slave forever (Exodus 21:2-6 ). The OT describes how you can beat your slave and that if they die the slave owner should be punished, but if they survive, it's ok (Exodus 21:20-21). Yikes! I wouldn't want to be a slave.

This so often also comes with the "those were different times" bit. I don't see why something would be ok back then but not ok now, and I don't think anybody now would like to endure the kind of slavery the bible describes. I also wonder why a god would even make different rules at different times. Did he change his mind? The argument that the socio-economic situation would have been so upset by a prohibition of slavery is a bad one because this is god we're talking about. He was giving commandments left and right, clearly not overly worried about delving into every little detail of the israelites affairs from what they ate to what they wore. He could have easily given a commandment against slavery. "Do not rape" also would have been a good addition.

[Iain Sparrow]

Iain, not fair, quoting the Old Testament! :D Although the passage you quoted comes from a part of the scriptures that are common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, today there is no religion in the world that insists on upholding all 613 commandments of Old Testament Law. Different times, different laws.

It's that damnable Old Testament that had me scratching my head as a kid way back in Sunday School.:)
And yes, that would only be true if they were manmade laws; which are subject to time, circumstance, and cultural proclivities. But that these laws are presumably handed down to humanity by way of God, they must be timeless and give no regard to human failings. Slavery, whether it be institutional or conditional servitude should have been condemned by God... but God doesn't do that.
When this God condones such evil as slavery, or as Melanie likes to skirt the issue, renaming slavery as conditional servitude, and other absurd musings in the bible such as women submitting themselves to husbands... well then, I'm left wondering what kind of God do we have here?
A manmade God is what we have.
A God created in our image.:)

[Iain Sparrow]

Many who condemn the Bible, as yourself, don't understand that slavery as we know it in recent centuries is not the same as slavery as in the Old Testament Bible. "Slaves in our time and in recent centuries are "chattel" slaves. They were tricked into or forced to work. They received no pay and had no right to refuse to work. Their humanity was owned by another person.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).

In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.

Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions."
~ http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

Let us move on to the act of rape, and how God not only condones slavery but also treats rape in a rather disturbing manner...
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

[cacian]

Let us move on to the act of rape, and how God not only condones slavery but also treats rape in a rather disturbing manner...
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
notice how the word young is inserted there.
as though rape is only directed at the young. it makes you think the lunacy is beyond belief.



What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
nope. god does not write speak we don't hear him.
answer: these texts are the product of somebody.

COLOR="#800080"]If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.[/COLOR]

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".
I think my concern is that rape is mentioned at all and in such details you wonder what the one behind these ideas is about.
I mean to read the text is quite simple and rather fragmented almost like someone who with a disability.
a lunatic. a sadistic lunatic who has dedicated time and effort to write such demented stuff is truly demented

[Iain Sparrow]

notice how the word young is inserted there.
as though rape is only directed at the young. it makes you think the lunacy is beyond belief.



nope. god does not write speak we don't hear him.
answer: these texts are the product of somebody.

I think my concern is that rape is mentioned at all and in such details you wonder what the one behind these ideas is about.
I mean to read the text is quite simple and rather fragmented almost like someone who with a disability.
a lunatic. a sadistic lunatic who has dedicated time and effort to write such demented stuff is truly demented

Agreed... it's when you read the bible within its proper context; that it was written by powerful men of a certain tribe who wished to stay in power, that it all makes perfect sense.

[Poetaster]

I don't see how that shows that atheism is not a belief system.

Because a system is usually the sum of a load of parts working in a unity. Such as a system of government or a drainage system. A single philosophical position cannot be considered a system. It's just not what the word means.


For what it's worth, I don't want you to agree with me. It would spoil the fun and I wouldn't learn anything because I would no longer need to think up a response.

Fair enough.


I don't think Behe is viewed much differently in the US than he is in the UK. That is probably why Nagel cites him. I think Nagel wants to rub in the noses of neo-Darwinists a basic piece of scientific etiquette that essentially says that it doesn't matter who has falsified a theory, the theory remains falsified.

The mere fact you call secular evolutionary theory 'Neo-Darwinism' tells me all sorts of things. Sure, National Selection is still a big thing in evolutionary theory, but On the Origin of Species is not required reading in a evolutionary biology classroom. Darwin got a lot of stuff wrong. You say it is a falsified theory, so considering it is at the heart of virology (you almost literally cannot have virology without evolution) and still being taught in schools and universities, and wrote about in scientific journals and text books, why do you say it's falsified?


For his part, he attempts a different type of falsification based on the philosophy of mind. One could also attempt a third approach by contrasting the slow, steady flow of mutations with the "punctuated equilibrium" one sees in the fossil record.

Regarding finding sources that believe that 4 billion years is adequate, I'm sure they exist. There are sources for just about everything. It is just whether one wants to bet that they are correct. For myself, I would need to see a mathematical argument that shows that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that all of this occurred by chance. And then I would want that checked by someone like Behe who would be motivated to find some hole in it.

Mathematical argument? So essentially, you are saying it's a mathematical improbability? Well, if we are around then evolution clearly evolution doesn't involve a mathematical argument.

Anyway, what about the Lenski E-coli experiment that produced genetic change given a few thousand generations of e-coli, that's actually been observed within only two decades? E-coli adapted and evolved to start consuming starch? That's clear evidence of evolution that has been closely monitored by human beings and facilitated, but not directed. Lenski and his team did not produce and introduce the mutation into the e-coli soup, it's something the e-coli did itself.

Also, you have to remember that Behe is a member of the Discovery Institute, an organization that is known for pumping out pro-Creationist and pro-Christian material. He isn't exactly an objective, independent, unbiased source, so frankly I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I'm a weak man, physically, I likely couldn't even pick him up.


So what did you experience in your near-death experience?

I was surfing off the coast of Crete, slammed into a rock pool, and was nearly knocked out. Very quickly I had sea water rushing into my lungs and I started drawning. All my sensations started to dull, and time seemed to slow down. Even though I was cold with sweat, I felt this intense warmth, and happiness over the idea of passing out of this world. And all the while, my vision started to dim and become more distant. Like I was floating backward down a tunnel no light could enter. All sounds were not just diminishing, they were falling away. I knew there wasn't an end road for me, that was the end road, I felt there was no where for me to go, no heaven or hell, no god or devil, the black of the tunnel I was being pulled down was my own brain shutting down, and I was facing oblivion.

Well, my body gave one last push of energy and I was able to gather enough strength to pull myself out of the rocks and out of the water. I was what you might have called a believer when this happened. Not much of a one, but I had some religious inclination, and I come from Christian parents. It took a near-death experience to turn me in to an atheist. So when religious people say to me that I'm only an atheist because I'm in the prime of life, young and reckless, well, it takes a lot to not say some very choice words back because I've seen something of the other side. I saw nothing there.

[YesNo]

Because a system is usually the sum of a load of parts working in a unity. Such as a system of government or a drainage system. A single philosophical position cannot be considered a system. It's just not what the word means.

That's why philosophy is important. Atheism is not a single philosophical position, but hinges on other concepts. For example, a belief in materialism or perhaps determinism or perhaps a view of the universe as dead or unconscious. It may not be all these things in your case, but although I consider myself theistic and recite mantras to Saraswati to prove it to myself, I still find ideas, or rather biases, that I would consider "atheistic" surfacing that I didn't realize I had.



The mere fact you call secular evolutionary theory 'Neo-Darwinism' tells me all sorts of things. Sure, National Selection is still a big thing in evolutionary theory, but On the Origin of Species is not required reading in a evolutionary biology classroom. Darwin got a lot of stuff wrong. You say it is a falsified theory, so considering it is at the heart of virology (you almost literally cannot have virology without evolution) and still being taught in schools and universities, and wrote about in scientific journals and text books, why do you say it's falsified?

Evolutionary theory has not been falsified. What has been falsified is the view that chance mutations are all that there is that drives evolutionary change upon which natural selection acts. That is the neo-Darwinist position. Why has that been falsified? Because there have not been enough of these mutations in the given time frame to mathematically claim that they occurred by chance. There must be something more. It's the chance component that has been falsified.

Think about "chance" for a moment. What is the difference between saying that chance caused something or a miracle caused something? In both cases science is at a dead-end. Neither allows for further explanation. Neither allows for the event to be reproduced. What makes them different is that chance implies unconsciousness and a miracle implies that some intentional agent was involved. Those are both metaphysical, not scientific, positions.




Mathematical argument? So essentially, you are saying it's a mathematical improbability? Well, if we are around then evolution clearly evolution doesn't involve a mathematical argument.

Yes, we are here. That doesn't mean that we must be here by chance.



Anyway, what about the Lenski E-coli experiment that produced genetic change given a few thousand generations of e-coli, that's actually been observed within only two decades? E-coli adapted and evolved to start consuming starch? That's clear evidence of evolution that has been closely monitored by human beings and facilitated, but not directed. Lenski and his team did not produce and introduce the mutation into the e-coli soup, it's something the e-coli did itself.

Genes exist. Evolutionary change happens. Natural selection provides a constraint on what will survive long enough to reproduce. None of this implies that any of it occurred by chance.



Also, you have to remember that Behe is a member of the Discovery Institute, an organization that is known for pumping out pro-Creationist and pro-Christian material. He isn't exactly an objective, independent, unbiased source, so frankly I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I'm a weak man, physically, I likely couldn't even pick him up.

I don't trust him. I trust Nagel, even though I don't agree with Nagel on all points. Since Nagel, an atheist, citied him, and in general agreed with the argument, I learned I need to keep an open mind even though I thought my mind was already open.



I was surfing off the coast of Crete, slammed into a rock pool, and was nearly knocked out. Very quickly I had sea water rushing into my lungs and I started drawning. All my sensations started to dull, and time seemed to slow down. Even though I was cold with sweat, I felt this intense warmth, and happiness over the idea of passing out of this world. And all the while, my vision started to dim and become more distant. Like I was floating backward down a tunnel no light could enter. All sounds were not just diminishing, they were falling away. I knew there wasn't an end road for me, that was the end road, I felt there was no where for me to go, no heaven or hell, no god or devil, the black of the tunnel I was being pulled down was my own brain shutting down, and I was facing oblivion.

Well, my body gave one last push of energy and I was able to gather enough strength to pull myself out of the rocks and out of the water. I was what you might have called a believer when this happened. Not much of a one, but I had some religious inclination, and I come from Christian parents. It took a near-death experience to turn me in to an atheist. So when religious people say to me that I'm only an atheist because I'm in the prime of life, young and reckless, well, it takes a lot to not say some very choice words back because I've seen something of the other side. I saw nothing there.

I'm no expert on near-death experiences. P. M. H. Atwater has a reference work, The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences, that I use when I try to get an understanding of the possibilities that people have reported. Hellish near-death experiences exist. I am using "hellish" here as unpleasant which I think would describe yours. She mentions that these could happen to anyone. Some of this must be caused by the body shutting down, as you mention, since that is what death means for the body.

[Poetaster]

That's why philosophy is important. Atheism is not a single philosophical position, but hinges on other concepts. For example, a belief in materialism or perhaps determinism or perhaps a view of the universe as dead or unconscious. It may not be all these things in your case, but although I consider myself theistic and recite mantras to Saraswati to prove it to myself, I still find ideas, or rather biases, that I would consider "atheistic" surfacing that I didn't realize I had.

Again, this might be a difference in linguistic interpretation but Atheism, A-theos, means without god. It literally just means you don't believe in any gods, and so it is a single philosophical position, just like theism is a single philosophical position. You can have things around atheism, just like you can have things around theism. How many atheist Christians do you know? How many theist existentialists do you know? I rest my case. You don't need to be a materialist and be an atheist, just as you don't need to be an atheist and be a materialist - one does not need to mean the other.


Evolutionary theory has not been falsified. What has been falsified is the view that chance mutations are all that there is that drives evolutionary change upon which natural selection acts. That is the neo-Darwinist position. Why has that been falsified? Because there have not been enough of these mutations in the given time frame to mathematically claim that they occurred by chance. There must be something more. It's the chance component that has been falsified.

Think about "chance" for a moment. What is the difference between saying that chance caused something or a miracle caused something? In both cases science is at a dead-end. Neither allows for further explanation. Neither allows for the event to be reproduced. What makes them different is that chance implies unconsciousness and a miracle implies that some intentional agent was involved. Those are both metaphysical, not scientific, positions.

What is the difference between 'chance' caused something or a 'miracle': a miracle by definition is a suspension of the natural order. A mutation is very much in the natural order. Unless you want to call cancer from radiation a miracle. That's a dangerous line to go down to be honest. 'Neo-Darwinism' (if you must insist on that term) or 'Evolution by Natural Selection' has not been falsified at all. Sorry, it just hasn't.

Why do I say that? Well. You have ignored my overall point about the Lenski experiment with e-coli. The fact is it isn't chance, if you read up on that experiment you'd know that after a while starch was introduced to the e-coli broth, and after so many generations the e-coli adapted to find in that a source of energy, and thus out-developed the e-coli that did not have the ability to use starch as an energy source. Not only that, but this adaption to starch was found in every successive generation of the experiment, so it's not chance, and it's not random - it is instead something adapting to it's environment and being naturally 'selected' to dominate and thrive over the organisms that did not have that adaption.

Unless you want to say God directly intervened in the Lenski experiment and gave the e-coli the ability to use starch as a food source, and every mutation is a result of artificial selection and not natural selection, you still have to prove your God hypothesis. Either way, chance has nothing to do with it at all. If you can prove God exists you shouldn't be talking to me, you should be talking to the Nobel Prize people.


Yes, we are here. That doesn't mean that we must be here by chance.

It might if you can't prove there is a god.


Genes exist. Evolutionary change happens. Natural selection provides a constraint on what will survive long enough to reproduce. None of this implies that any of it occurred by chance.

Again, Natural Selection isn't chance. That's why it's called Natural Selection. Only this selection is not a conscious decision, but rather the result of a collective action. The collective action of every factor that affects that organism. Imagine it like an idiot committee, that might be a good analogy.


I don't trust him. I trust Nagel, even though I don't agree with Nagel on all points. Since Nagel, an atheist, citied him, and in general agreed with the argument, I learned I need to keep an open mind even though I thought my mind was already open.

As have I. This Nagel I know nothing about, I'm completely unfamiliar with his work. What I will say is that while they mix their work with ideology, even a Creationist might say something interesting. If they come out with an interesting finding, however, is another matter - that I can leave in the safe hands of the scientific community and peer revision. That is the most important part of the process really.


I'm no expert on near-death experiences. P. M. H. Atwater has a reference work, The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences, that I use when I try to get an understanding of the possibilities that people have reported. Hellish near-death experiences exist. I am using "hellish" here as unpleasant which I think would describe yours. She mentions that these could happen to anyone. Some of this must be caused by the body shutting down, as you mention, since that is what death means for the body.

The brain shutting down can - I know from my study of psychology (I'm an English teacher, this is A-level psychology stuff) that while this is happening, like in sleep, the brain can create very powerful fantasies and illusions. Especially when the person is stressed as they lose consciousness, they can see anything at all. That's the other reason why Near-Death Experiences do not impress me. It is very easy to see the dream of a dying man as what is actually happening to the consciousness on the point of death, it's a big mistake to make. The human brain is very good at creating illusions, as I said.

[Frostball]

An atheist doesn't have to be a materialist. Not by a long shot, there are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, or magic, or all sorts of things. Buddhists are atheist (Buddha isn't a god) and can believe all kinds of supernatural things. The term atheist is just a single position, but that just means you have to actually ask an atheist what they believe instead of assuming, just like you have to do with everybody else. I can't relate how it gets on my nerves when people say "you are an atheist so you must believe X". I might even believe that particular X (materialism, determinism, evolution.. yes) but the audacity of people to just assume without asking gets on my nerves. Christians all even use the same basic holy book, yet I never say to one "You're a Christian, that means you believe in hell" for example, because some Christians, of course, don't believe in hell. So even though Christians even have the same source for their religion, and so should be more similar than atheists who don't, that still doesn't mean I can just assume a Christian's whole set of beliefs without asking.

[YesNo]

Again, this might be a difference in linguistic interpretation but Atheism, A-theos, means without god. It literally just means you don't believe in any gods, and so it is a single philosophical position, just like theism is a single philosophical position. You can have things around atheism, just like you can have things around theism. How many atheist Christians do you know? How many theist existentialists do you know? I rest my case. You don't need to be a materialist and be an atheist, just as you don't need to be an atheist and be a materialist - one does not need to mean the other.

I agree with what you are saying about assuming what someone else believes if they claim they are an atheist or a Christian or whatever. Frostball also makes this point. We don't know what they actually maintain. Nor do they, in many cases, until questioned.

My point is that a position on atheism doesn't come alone. There are other ideas that will come with it so that it appears consistent and believable. Those ideas all need to be examined should we ever become aware of them.



What is the difference between 'chance' caused something or a 'miracle': a miracle by definition is a suspension of the natural order. A mutation is very much in the natural order. Unless you want to call cancer from radiation a miracle. That's a dangerous line to go down to be honest. 'Neo-Darwinism' (if you must insist on that term) or 'Evolution by Natural Selection' has not been falsified at all. Sorry, it just hasn't.

Why do I say that? Well. You have ignored my overall point about the Lenski experiment with e-coli. The fact is it isn't chance, if you read up on that experiment you'd know that after a while starch was introduced to the e-coli broth, and after so many generations the e-coli adapted to find in that a source of energy, and thus out-developed the e-coli that did not have the ability to use starch as an energy source. Not only that, but this adaption to starch was found in every successive generation of the experiment, so it's not chance, and it's not random - it is instead something adapting to it's environment and being naturally 'selected' to dominate and thrive over the organisms that did not have that adaption.

Unless you want to say God directly intervened in the Lenski experiment and gave the e-coli the ability to use starch as a food source, and every mutation is a result of artificial selection and not natural selection, you still have to prove your God hypothesis. Either way, chance has nothing to do with it at all. If you can prove God exists you shouldn't be talking to me, you should be talking to the Nobel Prize people.

It looks like you are saying chance is not involved. I would agree with that. Chance, the result of a uniformly distributed or set of equally likely outcomes, doesn't even operate at the quantum indeterministic level.

The reason I use "neo-Darwinism" is because that is the term that Nagel uses. It distinguishes the position from evolution in general.

Natural "Selection" is a metaphor for the constraints in the environment the organism must respond to. There is nothing in general being "selected" since that would imply an intentional act, unless there is another organism involved who is protecting or eating the one that is changing. However, the e-coli are alive. That means they are conscious in their own way and can take an intentional role in the changes.



It might if you can't prove there is a god.

Whether we think we are here by chance or through some non-chance scenario depends on which we think is more likely. That depends more on how we conceptualize the universe and ourselves in it.

If we think of the universe in reductionist, materialist terms, that is, unconscious except for some spots of life and see God as some intentional agent outside it and potentially creating it, we get the situation that Nagel is closer to and trying to resolve because the chance option is too improbable for him. It is too improbable for me as well.

If one takes an very different view of the universe, say, as something some consciousness gave birth to then chance is irrelevant. From that perspective, if you want to see God with your own eyes, just open them. The body of God would be all around you.




Again, Natural Selection isn't chance. That's why it's called Natural Selection. Only this selection is not a conscious decision, but rather the result of a collective action. The collective action of every factor that affects that organism. Imagine it like an idiot committee, that might be a good analogy.

What occurs by chance in the neo-Darwinist position are the mutations, not natural selection.



As have I. This Nagel I know nothing about, I'm completely unfamiliar with his work. What I will say is that while they mix their work with ideology, even a Creationist might say something interesting. If they come out with an interesting finding, however, is another matter - that I can leave in the safe hands of the scientific community and peer revision. That is the most important part of the process really.

No one is completely wrong in their positions. That is why it is difficult to sort out what part to accept or not. In the case of trusting an author, taking them as an "authority", one is taking a gamble that one has to take because no one can read everything.

Peer review should help, but I don't trust that process either.



The brain shutting down can - I know from my study of psychology (I'm an English teacher, this is A-level psychology stuff) that while this is happening, like in sleep, the brain can create very powerful fantasies and illusions. Especially when the person is stressed as they lose consciousness, they can see anything at all. That's the other reason why Near-Death Experiences do not impress me. It is very easy to see the dream of a dying man as what is actually happening to the consciousness on the point of death, it's a big mistake to make. The human brain is very good at creating illusions, as I said.

Psychologically, why does one person find something "easy to see" and another does not? It goes back to the ideas or positions one holds to make the world consistent. This brings me back to the very beginning of this post when I said that atheism is not one position, but involves many positions that don't have anything to do with God directly.

[Poetaster]

I agree with what you are saying about assuming what someone else believes if they claim they are an atheist or a Christian or whatever. Frostball also makes this point. We don't know what they actually maintain. Nor do they, in many cases, until questioned.

My point is that a position on atheism doesn't come alone. There are other ideas that will come with it so that it appears consistent and believable. Those ideas all need to be examined should we ever become aware of them.

Yes, atheism does not come alone. Lack of believe in a god cannot be an entire philosophy. Thus: not a system.


It looks like you are saying chance is not involved. I would agree with that. Chance, the result of a uniformly distributed or set of equally likely outcomes, doesn't even operate at the quantum indeterministic level.

What is your background in quantum mechanics?


The reason I use "neo-Darwinism" is because that is the term that Nagel uses. It distinguishes the position from evolution in general.

Right, because I don't really know what exactly you mean by it. Evolution by natural selection is what I know about, 'Neo-Darwinism' I've only ever heard as a Creationist short hand for that, so if I've called you a creationist without merit then I take it back. Neo-Darwinism, though, is a phrase I have problems with because it assumes some sort of hero worship of Darwin which to be honest just doesn't exist.


Natural "Selection" is a metaphor for the constraints in the environment the organism must respond to. There is nothing in general being "selected" since that would imply an intentional act, unless there is another organism involved who is protecting or eating the one that is changing. However, the e-coli are alive. That means they are conscious in their own way and can take an intentional role in the changes.

The e-coli may be alive but they cannot decide to change their own genetic make up, this happens through mutation. In a way, as I said before, Natural Selection is just that, something is being selected, but it's not a conscious selection. It's being selected by nature. Think of it as an idiot committee, again, as I said before.


Whether we think we are here by chance or through some non-chance scenario depends on which we think is more likely. That depends more on how we conceptualize the universe and ourselves in it.

You are right about this.


If we think of the universe in reductionist, materialist terms, that is, unconscious except for some spots of life and see God as some intentional agent outside it and potentially creating it, we get the situation that Nagel is closer to and trying to resolve because the chance option is too improbable for him. It is too improbable for me as well.

If one takes an very different view of the universe, say, as something some consciousness gave birth to then chance is irrelevant. From that perspective, if you want to see God with your own eyes, just open them. The body of God would be all around you.

Well, is that the same god as someone else's god? Shouldn't even the definition of god be consistent if everyone is supposed to accept a god exists? That is one thing I can never understand. I do not believe in god, to me the universe is a place that was invented I don't know how, and the only 'alive' part on it is the rare planet that can support life. If such a universe exists like ours, chance is irrelevant if not even an active factor. I've said all this before.


What occurs by chance in the neo-Darwinist position are the mutations, not natural selection.

Well, not exactly. As the Lenswki experiment shows, the mutations happen very rapidly and very frequently over a number of generations, the selection is just the process. Again, chance is not the issue, changes, variations and mutations happen all the time - for example: are you an exact clone of your father? Is your father an exact clone of his father?


No one is completely wrong in their positions. That is why it is difficult to sort out what part to accept or not. In the case of trusting an author, taking them as an "authority", one is taking a gamble that one has to take because no one can read everything.

Peer review should help, but I don't trust that process either.

Why don't you trust peer revision?


Psychologically, why does one person find something "easy to see" and another does not? It goes back to the ideas or positions one holds to make the world consistent. This brings me back to the very beginning of this post when I said that atheism is not one position, but involves many positions that don't have anything to do with God directly.

Well, it would be hard to answer that question. A lot of people can 'sense' a god. People like me can't. It doesn't mean anything other than people think in different ways.

[caddy_caddy]

Hi
I think we need Allah because we are imperfect . And He created us imperfect to need Him. He needs to be worshiped and loved by all his creatures. He is useless without us .

[YesNo]

What is your background in quantum mechanics?

What I have learned about quantum physics, along with atheism, the big bang, evolution and literature has come from reading discussions on Lit Net and then using the internet and the library. I am not an authority on any topic.



Right, because I don't really know what exactly you mean by it. Evolution by natural selection is what I know about, 'Neo-Darwinism' I've only ever heard as a Creationist short hand for that, so if I've called you a creationist without merit then I take it back. Neo-Darwinism, though, is a phrase I have problems with because it assumes some sort of hero worship of Darwin which to be honest just doesn't exist.

Here is the Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism



The e-coli may be alive but they cannot decide to change their own genetic make up, this happens through mutation. In a way, as I said before, Natural Selection is just that, something is being selected, but it's not a conscious selection. It's being selected by nature. Think of it as an idiot committee, again, as I said before.

How can something be "selected" without consciousness? I am simply pointing out a problem with the term. The same thing could be said about the term "selfish" gene. If "nature" does the selecting, is nature conscious? Even an idiot committee is conscious.



Well, is that the same god as someone else's god? Shouldn't even the definition of god be consistent if everyone is supposed to accept a god exists? That is one thing I can never understand. I do not believe in god, to me the universe is a place that was invented I don't know how, and the only 'alive' part on it is the rare planet that can support life. If such a universe exists like ours, chance is irrelevant if not even an active factor. I've said all this before.

Different religions describe what they mean by God differently, but, if there is any reality behind these descriptions, they would have to be describing the same reality. When discussing God with atheists, one can switch the concepts and talk about the universe as a whole instead. They certainly believe the universe exists.

Regarding the universe one can ask questions like the following. Is the universe more like a machine or more like an organism? How does the big bang fit in? Is the universe good?



Well, not exactly. As the Lenswki experiment shows, the mutations happen very rapidly and very frequently over a number of generations, the selection is just the process. Again, chance is not the issue, changes, variations and mutations happen all the time - for example: are you an exact clone of your father? Is your father an exact clone of his father?

Chance is used to get an unconscious change to occur when there is no other explanation. It doesn't actually explain anything.

Regarding the exact clone idea, there can be variations within an "equilibrium" according to the Niels Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium approach to evolutionary change seems sound to me. It also fits the fossil record where you see the sandstone stratification containing long periods of equilibrium punctuated by a relatively short transition into another long period of equilibrium. Within each period of equilibrium the fossils that are found are similar.




Why don't you trust peer revision?

What I meant was that I don't trust peer review to filter out error and only error. So just because an article has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it can be trusted. Peer review can also lead to censorship. However, I don't see an alternative for it.

[YesNo]

Hi
I think we need Allah because we are imperfect . And He created us imperfect to need Him. He needs to be worshiped and loved by all his creatures. He is useless without us .

This all makes sense to me except the part about Allah being useless without us. Perhaps I just don't understand.

[YesNo]

Scientific Evidence For God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

I'm looking at the video more closely.

Here is one link http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/russian_dna.htm that I found interesting. I don't understand most of it, but the idea of sound and language having an effect on DNA is what is keeping my interest.

In general, this link seems to contain the text base for the video with links to the sources: http://fernandoymas.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-admitted-that-there-is-god.html

[caddy_caddy]

This all makes sense to me except the part about Allah being useless without us. Perhaps I just don't understand.
What I mean is that Allah is a sign with no signified without us . Men is the signifier, and the whole process of signification depends on us . Otherwise there is no "meaning" for having a God . That's why He is pissed off if we reject Him . Why should He even bother?
Allah said that He created men " to worship Him " . This is the only reason for our existence .

[Poetaster]

What I have learned about quantum physics, along with atheism, the big bang, evolution and literature has come from reading discussions on Lit Net and then using the internet and the library. I am not an authority on any topic.

Then forgive me on this, but it sounds like it's not been a guided or very serious study. Intellectual honesty is always be a problem in online debates. This is why universities and centers of academia like universities exist. Well, I'm academically minded, and I'm consciously trying to be as intellectually honest as I can. I suppose it's easy to think 'atheism' is an ideology when you are talking to Richard Dawkins fans, but trust me, 'atheism' is just a single philosophical stance. It literally can't be anything else.

I'm not being pedantic here I don't think, it's just what the word means.


Here is the Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

Then yes, it's exactly what I thought it was. And no, that has certainly not been falsified, in fact gene and natural selection led evolution has libraries-worth of evidence and proof behind it.


How can something be "selected" without consciousness? I am simply pointing out a problem with the term. The same thing could be said about the term "selfish" gene. If "nature" does the selecting, is nature conscious? Even an idiot committee is conscious.

Well, I'm trying to use a shorthand, and it's obviously failed. The fact is that the English language is poorly equipped to completely express these things because of how many different meanings a word can hold. Beneficial genes are being selected, because they stay around. Also, the English language is built around servitude.

Nature isn't deciding anything consciously, it's just the strongest survive and the beneficial genes live. Sure some animals with bad mutations might get lucky, but eventually natural selection removes most of those unbeneficial mutations. It's like that saying of infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters will write the full works of Shakespeare - infinity did the work for you. It's not chance, it's sociology.


Different religions describe what they mean by God differently, but, if there is any reality behind these descriptions, they would have to be describing the same reality. When discussing God with atheists, one can switch the concepts and talk about the universe as a whole instead. They certainly believe the universe exists.

But they don't describe the same reality, nearly everything between the three monotheisms are different outside of the one god. Pagan religions are much different still, and there is no consistent description of god, my question is why. Of course the universe exists for us to talk on it, or we wouldn't be talking on it.


Regarding the universe one can ask questions like the following. Is the universe more like a machine or more like an organism? How does the big bang fit in? Is the universe good?

From my own perspective: it's just a place subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, the big bang created space/time, and the universe is not good because it is not evil - good and evil do not exist.


Chance is used to get an unconscious change to occur when there is no other explanation. It doesn't actually explain anything.

Regarding the exact clone idea, there can be variations within an "equilibrium" according to the Niels Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium approach to evolutionary change seems sound to me. It also fits the fossil record where you see the sandstone stratification containing long periods of equilibrium punctuated by a relatively short transition into another long period of equilibrium. Within each period of equilibrium the fossils that are found are similar.

That is true. My point was that mutations are not all like the effects of fallout or something, sexual acts between male and female is practically designed to create variation, there are in Deep Time long periods of not much variation and then explosions of life and diversity. This isn't a conscious act, and can't be attributed to consciousness, rather population distribution.


What I meant was that I don't trust peer review to filter out error and only error. So just because an article has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it can be trusted. Peer review can also lead to censorship. However, I don't see an alternative for it.

Well, I would certainly think peer revision greatly enhances a papers credibility. You are always going to have errors and things that simply are not true in peer reviewed work, but that's because we are human, we make mistakes, and it also is because what we know and what we think we know is always changing, and thanks to peer revision even old ideas like the Theory of Gravity can be amended and changed and adapted. Really, what is the Theory of Relativity if not a revision and deconstruction of Newtonian physics?

[YesNo]

Then yes, it's exactly what I thought it was. And no, that has certainly not been falsified, in fact gene and natural selection led evolution has libraries-worth of evidence and proof behind it.

Regarding the word "certainly", it appears Nagel would take the opposite view. Part of the subtitle of Mind and Cosmos reads "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".

Nagel backs that up by noting that experts such as Behe as well as Francis Crick consider the origin of life to have occurred by chance to be improbable. Crick considered this so improbable that having aliens seed earth with life was worth considering. (Mind and Cosmos, page 123)

Then Nagel pursues, for the majority of the book, an explanation why neo-Darwinism is almost certainly false from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, an area in which he is an expert. The issue hinges around consciousness and whether it can be reduced to physics and chemistry. He claims it cannot.



Well, I'm trying to use a shorthand, and it's obviously failed. The fact is that the English language is poorly equipped to completely express these things because of how many different meanings a word can hold. Beneficial genes are being selected, because they stay around. Also, the English language is built around servitude.

Nature isn't deciding anything consciously, it's just the strongest survive and the beneficial genes live. Sure some animals with bad mutations might get lucky, but eventually natural selection removes most of those unbeneficial mutations. It's like that saying of infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters will write the full works of Shakespeare - infinity did the work for you. It's not chance, it's sociology.

That's where the big bang comes in, and other estimates of how long life has been around on earth. We don't have an infinite amount of time. If the universe were eternal, you might have an argument. The problem is that science has shown that the universe is not eternal and it has given a close estimate of its "birth", "creation" or beginning.

In spite of that you say it is "not chance" and nothing is happening "consciously". Then how are those genetic mutations occurring? If nothing changes natural selection will have nothing to do. At the very least, neo-Darwinists realize that they have to come up with an explanation for the fact of change. When they use "chance", although a dead-end for science as much as a miracle is, it is at least an explanation and one can attempt a mathematical refutation of it.



But they don't describe the same reality, nearly everything between the three monotheisms are different outside of the one god. Pagan religions are much different still, and there is no consistent description of god, my question is why. Of course the universe exists for us to talk on it, or we wouldn't be talking on it.

When I say they "describe the same reality", I am simply saying that we all have to make sense out of reality, whatever it is. I am not saying that the various descriptions of reality are consistent between themselves.



From my own perspective: it's just a place subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, the big bang created space/time, and the universe is not good because it is not evil - good and evil do not exist.

I see the big bang as evidence that the universe might be better seen as an organism than a machine.

The non-existence of values does seem problematic especially when I hear an atheist say that. Consider the atheistic Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the subject of the movie, The Killing Fields. Can atheists make value judgments about that historical event? Nagel addressed the issue of values as well. It is, however, a part of his book that I least understood.

[YesNo]

What I mean is that Allah is a sign with no signified without us . Men is the signifier, and the whole process of signification depends on us . Otherwise there is no "meaning" for having a God . That's why He is pissed off if we reject Him . Why should He even bother?
Allah said that He created men " to worship Him " . This is the only reason for our existence .

That makes sense. If we fail, given our free will, to live up to the only reason for our existence, I can see why Allah would be pissed off. I can't think or any other, or any better, reason for our existence than worship. Everything else passes away.

I was looking further at the links that Melanie's link lead me to. There was an artcile by Tara Maclsaac featuring ideas by Bruce Lipton on how our thoughts control our DNA. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/523100-your-thoughts-control-your-dna-biologist/ I wonder how rejecting God affects our DNA.

[Poetaster]

Regarding the word "certainly", it appears Nagel would take the opposite view. Part of the subtitle of Mind and Cosmos reads "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".

Nagel backs that up by noting that experts such as Behe as well as Francis Crick consider the origin of life to have occurred by chance to be improbable. Crick considered this so improbable that having aliens seed earth with life was worth considering. (Mind and Cosmos, page 123)

Then Nagel pursues, for the majority of the book, an explanation why neo-Darwinism is almost certainly false from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, an area in which he is an expert. The issue hinges around consciousness and whether it can be reduced to physics and chemistry. He claims it cannot.

Well, I'd be interested to know why he thinks consciousness cannot be reduced to the laws of nature, but I'm totally unfamiliar with both his work and reputation so I'll leave this here.


That's where the big bang comes in, and other estimates of how long life has been around on earth. We don't have an infinite amount of time. If the universe were eternal, you might have an argument. The problem is that science has shown that the universe is not eternal and it has given a close estimate of its "birth", "creation" or beginning.

I don't understand why you think there hasn't been enough time to pass for evolution to evolve to produce complex organisms. The big bang, in terms of evolution for life on earth, is utterly irreverent too. I can't say I know what the time passage is exactly, but the Big Bang happened billions of years before the Earth was even formed. Suns had to die to produce the higher elements that make us up like the Iron that's in our bodies.

The Earth itself is about 6 billion years old, the first cell is thought to have developed via Abiogenesis 4 billion years ago. That is two billion years for Abiogenesis to work and for the first very primitive life to develop, then 4 billion for that life to develop. That includes a long period of time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. That's not bad going for the development of life, really. More later.


In spite of that you say it is "not chance" and nothing is happening "consciously". Then how are those genetic mutations occurring? If nothing changes natural selection will have nothing to do. At the very least, neo-Darwinists realize that they have to come up with an explanation for the fact of change. When they use "chance", although a dead-end for science as much as a miracle is, it is at least an explanation and one can attempt a mathematical refutation of it.

How are mutations occuring: The development of sexual reproduction is the best thing to happen to life because it lead to dramatic variation for every generation. Asexual, cellar reproduction means mutations are much slower, but still not impossible - resulting either from atmospheric reproduction, or minor changes not being carried over in the act of reproduction - in the same way that computer code isn't always exact, although with computers it's much rarer as that's pure maths. Remember the e-coli. Sexual reproduction, though, 'mutation' begins to be the wrong word, because it's essentially differences in genetic lines. I'm assuming you are not an exact clone of your father, that he wasn't an exact clone of his father and so on. Well, the mixing of genes creates interesting differences between father and son. I am taller than my father, that's an example of 'mutation'. These changes, call them micro-changes, over the accumulation of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, all add up to a macro-change, and morphological change. Thus it's no longer the same species.

It's barely a miracle mutations occur, it's just simple biology.


When I say they "describe the same reality", I am simply saying that we all have to make sense out of reality, whatever it is. I am not saying that the various descriptions of reality are consistent between themselves.

Ah, I get you. But still, my question stands, why are the descriptions of God not consistent? Even among the monotheisms, when it's the same god.


I see the big bang as evidence that the universe might be better seen as an organism than a machine.

I suppose in a poetic sense that makes sense, but in pretty much every other respect that just doesn't make sense to me. How?


The non-existence of values does seem problematic especially when I hear an atheist say that. Consider the atheistic Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the subject of the movie, The Killing Fields. Can atheists make value judgments about that historical event? Nagel addressed the issue of values as well. It is, however, a part of his book that I least understood.

Again, there isn't one philosophic field around atheism, so I can only tell you from my perspective. And I'm an existentialist.

Anyway, an atheist can make value judgments about historical events because they have morals just like a religious person. They just don't tend to believe in a universal, fixed morality. For an existentialist like myself there is no good and evil, and what you consider good and what you consider evil is entirely subjective. Yes, something like the Cambodia killing fields isn't pleasant, but that's only speaking from a subjective, human feeling. And morals change depending on the situation and different cultures. Is it right for some gang banger to murder someone from another gang? No, but is it right for some GI to shoot a terrorist, yes - given your subjective perspective. Was it right for the Ancient Greeks to kill their children in sacrifice to the gods? They thought it was helping, who are we to really judge?

I don't find the idea of polygamy offensive or immoral, though I consciously have decided it's not for me, yet others do. I find bigotry offensive, others do not. Morals are entirely subjective from what I can see, I mean, the planet's not going to miss us when we are done ****ing things up and killing each other. Just because I can feel morality affecting me, like I can feel love and hate, happiness and misery just like anyone else, does not mean that I think it comes from anywhere other than my own brain and psychological make up.

[Ecurb]

The development of sexual reproduction is the best thing to happen to life ....

I like sex as much as the next person -- but what about ice hockey?


.....because it lead(s) to dramatic variation for every generation.

Variety may be the spice of life, but is this really the best thing about sexual reproduction?

(Actually, I know what you mean -- genetic diversity, upon which natural selection can act, is the inevitable result of sexual reproduction, even if there are NO mutations. Nonetheless, it's a complicated issue. Some eusocial insects, for example, practice haplodiploidy. The males do not have a father; they hatch from unfertilized eggs. There may be selective advantages to this, just as there are to diploid reproduction.)

[The Atheist]

... experts such as Behe ...

You just keep those zingers coming!

Michael Behe.

Wow. He's not even a good liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

[The Atheist]

Allah said that He created men " to worship Him " . This is the only reason for our existence .

Gotta say I find it incredibly sad that anyone would want to believe something so vain and shallow.

What you're saying is that your god is a small boy with an ant-farm. That boy is every bit their god, and they exist solely for his amusement.

I guess it's pretty boring when you're god, and creating the odd universe and life form for your own enjoyment is all very well, but it sounds awful to me.

[caddy_caddy]

Gotta say I find it incredibly sad that anyone would want to believe something so vain and shallow.

What you're saying is that your god is a small boy with an ant-farm. That boy is every bit their god, and they exist solely for his amusement.

I guess it's pretty boring when you're god, and creating the odd universe and life form for your own enjoyment is all very well, but it sounds awful to me.

Hi :)
You are completely right if that was the whole story . But the story has other " episodes "

At the beginning the boy created one ant in his image, and He put it next to Him at home and the ant was eternal , in perfect happiness, and not even looking for her own food . Then when the ant sinned, He sent her to the animal-farm to punish her for being ungrateful to Him . But this is only temporal, because she will be again in His company and in her original condition .
-- The End

[YesNo]

You just keep those zingers coming!

Michael Behe.

Wow. He's not even a good liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

I'm glad you liked them.

According to Nagel, Francis Crick basically said the same about the likelihood of chance getting life to work on earth. In Crick's case he preferred aliens as an explanation over intelligent design. The obvious next question is: where did those aliens come from? Here's something on "panspermia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.

[Poetaster]

I like sex as much as the next person -- but what about ice hockey?



Variety may be the spice of life, but is this really the best thing about sexual reproduction?

(Actually, I know what you mean -- genetic diversity, upon which natural selection can act, is the inevitable result of sexual reproduction, even if there are NO mutations. Nonetheless, it's a complicated issue. Some eusocial insects, for example, practice haplodiploidy. The males do not have a father; they hatch from unfertilized eggs. There may be selective advantages to this, just as there are to diploid reproduction.)

Yeah, I'm speaking in general, naturalistic terms. Sex is great. :P

[Iain Sparrow]

I'm glad you liked them.

According to Nagel, Francis Crick basically said the same about the likelihood of chance getting life to work on earth. In Crick's case he preferred aliens as an explanation over intelligent design. The obvious next question is: where did those aliens come from? Here's something on "panspermia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.

This is one of those statements that makes me want to bash my head in with a hammer.:)

Guess what, the fact that you are able to type that above mentioned comment means what?.. YOU-ARE-ALIVE! Which means no matter how improbable life is, it is in fact probable enough! There is no evidence that stands up to any reasonable scrutiny that either a God exists to create life, nor that aliens came here to "seed" life on Earth. We are improbable, not impossible.

[Calidore]

Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.

People keep using "highly improbable" as a synonym for "impossible", but it isn't. Like Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of the Four: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm not making a point in this argument regarding what's impossible or not, just pointing out the distinction.

I do think that "panspermia" is one of the greatest words I've ever heard.

[The Atheist]

Hi :)
You are completely right if that was the whole story . But the story has other " episodes "

At the beginning the boy created one ant in his image, and He put it next to Him at home and the ant was eternal , in perfect happiness, and not even looking for her own food . Then when the ant sinned, He sent her to the animal-farm to punish her for being ungrateful to Him .

Do you ever wonder what kind of twisted entity would create the perfect conditions for his ants to sin against him? After all, he created the serpent as well.

I always wonder why religious people think god tempting humans, then punishing them somehow makes it better.

Not to mention the billions he's tortured since.

The boy with the ant-farm would have had his ants taken away by the RSPCA if he withheld food and water from them and allowed diseases to run unchecked that could be cured.

I do appreciate the irony, though.



But this is only temporal, because she will be again in His company and in her original condition .
-- The End

Gotcha.

[The Atheist]

I'm glad you liked them.

According to Nagel, Francis Crick basically said the same about the likelihood of chance getting life to work on earth. In Crick's case he preferred aliens as an explanation over intelligent design.

I prefer panspermia to ID as well, although I still rate it an infinitesimal chance against the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Not to mention that Crick regretted that single comment and later took quite a different stance, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story:

http://thelessonlocker.com/materials/biology/abiogenesis.pdf



The obvious next question is: where did those aliens come from? Here's something on "panspermia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.[/QUOTE]

[YesNo]

I prefer panspermia to ID as well, although I still rate it an infinitesimal chance against the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Not to mention that Crick regretted that single comment and later took quite a different stance, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story:

.

I think Dawkins said something similarly ridiculous about aliens as well when interviewed by Ben Stein. The point is if the models show that chance could not be the cause continuing to claim that chance is the cause is irrational.

[YesNo]

People keep using "highly improbable" as a synonym for "impossible", but it isn't. Like Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of the Four: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm not making a point in this argument regarding what's impossible or not, just pointing out the distinction.

I do think that "panspermia" is one of the greatest words I've ever heard.

Given materialistic neo-Darwinism, chance seems like the only alternative. When chance has to be rejected because it fails mathematical tests of likelihood one has to reexamine the assumptions why one needs chance in the first place, which means questioning neo-Darwinism. That's what falsification of theories is all about.

[YesNo]

This is one of those statements that makes me want to bash my head in with a hammer.:)

Guess what, the fact that you are able to type that above mentioned comment means what?.. YOU-ARE-ALIVE! Which means no matter how improbable life is, it is in fact probable enough! There is no evidence that stands up to any reasonable scrutiny that either a God exists to create life, nor that aliens came here to "seed" life on Earth. We are improbable, not impossible.

Given a theistic perspective life is not improbable at all. It is only given certain metaphysical beliefs that it is improbable. The existence of life is then evidence those metaphysical beliefs are false.

[YesNo]

Unless you want to say God directly intervened in the Lenski experiment and gave the e-coli the ability to use starch as a food source, and every mutation is a result of artificial selection and not natural selection,.

The Lenski experiment is valuable. It provides data on when mutations occur. If expermiental evidence exists for an adaptive mutation process, that is one involving the species controling at some level what mutations are tried given a stressful environment, then chance is also discredited. The intentionality of the species replaces chance. I think this is something Nagel would welcome. It does not involve God, but involves the consciousness of the species under stres.

[Melanie]

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
You don't seem to understand what you're reading in the Bible (or you haven't read the Bible) and you are taking scripture out of context. Do you find your info on atheist websites instead of the Bible? If you read the Bible you would see the truth in context:

"Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists...as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist…not so

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!). Also that "he may not divorce her all his days"...and is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.

But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says…

...Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

[Melanie]

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".
"...the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape" (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

[Oedipus]

What YesNo needs to understand (and this is not an insult; it is quite common and natural to initially misunderstand probabilities) is that simply because something is improbable doesn't mean it cannot occur and one should start looking for alternates. If the evidence supports something improbable, it just means that something improbable happened; and many improbable things happen every day. It is improbable, just looking at the odds, for a single pipe in a single house to burst on a single day: but we still have plumbers. In the same way, we know that the conditions for abiogenesis were present on Earth at its formation. For it to occur at any one moment is improbable; but the timespan and the number of proteins it is not so surprising.

Saying that abiogenesis is "impossible" because of the odds (impossible because improbable seems to be the basis of the argument), so God must have done it, is the same as someone winning the lotto and becoming convinced that it was an act of God, because it was so unlikely.

As for Nagel, here are some quotes from a review from two people, one of which was a philosopher himself; they have understood the book better than YesNo because they were not affected by confirmation bias and hence are aware that it is flawed on many levels.



the thesis Nagel opposes is what we will call naturalism, the view that features of our world—including “consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought, and value”—can ultimately be accounted for in terms of the natural processes described by the various sciences (whether or not they are ever “reduced” to physics). Nagel’s arguments here are aimed at a more substantial target, although he gives us few specifics about the kind of naturalism he opposes. He does characterize it as the attempt to explain everything “at the most basic level by the physical sciences, extended to include biology,” and the one named proponent of this view is the philosopher Daniel Dennett. Although Dennett would not characterize his project as trying to explain everything at the “most basic level,” he does aim to show that phenomena such as consciousness, purpose and thought find a natural home in a picture of human beings inspired by Darwin. In the absence of any clearer statement of the argument, we will assume that this is the so-called “neo-Darwinian” picture that Nagel opposes.

Defending such a sweeping claim might seem to require a detailed engagement with the relevant science, yet in a striking admission early on, Nagel reveals that his book “is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist.” And a recurring objection to what he learned from his layman’s reading of popular science writing is that much science “flies in the face of common sense,” that it is inconsistent with “evident facts about ourselves, that it “require[s] us to deny the obvious,” and so on. This style of argument does not, alas, have a promising history.



Happily, Nagel does not attempt to repudiate the Copernican revolution in astronomy, despite its hostility to common sense. But he displays none of the same humility when it comes to his preferred claims of common sense—the kind of humility that nearly 400 years of nonevident yet true scientific discoveries should engender. Are we really supposed to abandon a massively successful scientific research program because Nagel finds some scientific claims hard to square with what he thinks is obvious and “undeniable,” such as his confidence that his “clearest moral…reasonings are objectively valid”?

In support of his skepticism, Nagel writes: “The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible now than it was in Aristotle’s day.” This seems to us perhaps the most startling sentence in all of Mind and Cosmos. Epistemic humility—the recognition that we could be wrong—is a virtue in science as it is in daily life, but surely we have some reason for thinking, some four centuries after the start of the scientific revolution, that Aristotle was on the wrong track and that we are not, or at least not yet. Our reasons for thinking this are obvious and uncontroversial: mechanistic explanations and an abandonment of supernatural causality proved enormously fruitful in expanding our ability to predict and control the world around us. The fruits of the scientific revolution, though at odds with common sense, allow us to send probes to Mars and to understand why washing our hands prevents the spread of disease. We may, of course, be wrong in having abandoned teleology and the supernatural as our primary tools for understanding and explaining the natural world, but the fact that “common sense” conflicts with a layman’s reading of popular science writing is not a good reason for thinking so.

Philosophical naturalists often appeal to the metaphor of “Neurath’s Boat,” named after the philosopher who developed it. Our situation as inquirers trying to understand the world around us, according to Neurath, is like that of sailors who must rebuild their ship while at sea. These sailors do not have the option of abandoning the ship and rebuilding a new one from scratch. They must, instead, try to rebuild it piecemeal, all the time staying afloat on other parts of the ship on which they continue to depend. In epistemological terms, we are also “at sea”: we cannot abandon all the knowledge about the world we have acquired from the sciences and then ask what we really know or what is really rational. The sciences that have worked so well for us are precisely our benchmark for what we know and what is rational; they’re the things that are keeping us “afloat.” Extending this metaphor, we can say that Nagel is the sailor who says, “I know the ideal form a ship should take—it is intuitively obvious, I am confident in it—so let us jump into the ocean and start building it from scratch.”

We conclude with a comment about truth in advertising. Nagel’s arguments against reductionism are quixotic, and his arguments against naturalism are unconvincing. He aspires to develop “rival alternative conceptions” to what he calls the materialist neo-Darwinian worldview, yet he never clearly articulates this rival conception, nor does he give us any reason to think that “the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.” Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagel’s philosophical meditations, but his subtitle—”Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”—is highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “is almost certainly false.” The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues. Even a philosopher sympathetic to Nagel’s worries about the naturalistic worldview would not claim this volume comes close to living up to that subtitle. Its only effect will be to make the book an instrument of mischief.

[cacian]

People keep using "highly improbable" as a synonym for "impossible", but it isn't. Like Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of the Four: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm not making a point in this argument regarding what's impossible or not, just pointing out the distinction.

I do think that "panspermia" is one of the greatest words I've ever heard.
how does one eliminate the impossible?
and the other thing is why eliminate when one can turn into possible??
it is not about eliminating it is about changes that move one forward.
eliminating means extinction which means no remains of anything.
i don't agree with sherlock.

[Oedipus]

Cacien, I don't quite follow. One eliminates the impossible by determining that it is in fact impossible. There is no "extinction", because obviously if it was impossible it would only have existed as a concept in the first place. Eliminating the impossible is a step forward because it always us to go past the impossible and focus on the possible, leading us to the correct answer.

[cacian]

Cacien, I don't quite follow. One eliminates the impossible by determining that it is in fact impossible. There is no "extinction", because obviously if it was impossible it would only have existed as a concept in the first place. Eliminating the impossible is a step forward because it always us to go past the impossible and focus on the possible, leading us to the correct answer.

what is the impossible?
let's define it.
to me if i say something is impossible it means it is not doable. it is not approachable.
in effect an impossible means it is not something one can touch feel or even imagine.
so in something impossible is something that is not there.

[Oedipus]

Alright.

[Iain Sparrow]

You don't seem to understand what you're reading in the Bible (or you haven't read the Bible) and you are taking scripture out of context. Do you find your info on atheist websites instead of the Bible? If you read the Bible you would see the truth in context:

But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says…


First, I was a Born Again Christian long before becoming Agnostic, then an Atheist... so, both as a child and well into my adult years I read the Bible, attended a private Christian school as a child, and of course went to church on Sundays. I do not visit "atheist websites", nor do I need such sites to offer an opinion.

Just got to laugh at this quote of yours...
"But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband."

Really?.. a daughter is little more than a goat or a piece of property as she is exchanged from Father to Husband.

[caddy_caddy]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;1265604]Do you ever wonder what kind of twisted entity would create the perfect conditions for his ants to sin against him? After all, he created the serpent as well.


[QUOTE=The Atheist;1265604]Do you ever wonder what kind of twisted entity would create the perfect conditions for his ants to sin against him? After all, he created the serpent as well.


I have always been impressed by your great mind and rationality . These words cant be yours!!
This is a rhetorical question . For sure whoever does such stupid thing is twisted.
we simply sin , because only those who are " perfect " doesn't sin . And don't tell me He should have created another " PERFECT " entity to worship him . That would be another stupid thing because the perfect can't worship his equal.

I always wonder why religious people think god tempting humans, then punishing them somehow makes it better.

Satan is the one who tempts men. Religious people never think like this.

Not to mention the billions he's tortured since.

IC . Men tortures men. Allah is throwing bombs and rockets on men? !! See now who is blaming Allah on everything!!

The boy with the ant-farm would have had his ants taken away by the RSPCA if he withheld food and water from them and allowed diseases to run unchecked that could be cured.

One of His rules " First, We change ourselves from within" Then He changes the rest. Everything begins in our hearts and ends there.

I do appreciate the irony, though.

[Frostball]

Satan tempts men? Well as long as god is all powerful and all knowing, every single thing satan supposedly does is something god must want to happen, otherwise he would stop it. God either doesn't want to stop satan, or can't. So blaming bad things on satan doesn't fix anything. Also, it isn't just humans hurting humans (the free will solution to the argument of evil), but cancer, aids, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., that have nothing to do with free will. Those are pretty much in god's court. (if he existed.. which he luckily probably doesn't)

[Frostball]

Really?.. a daughter is little more than a goat or a piece of property as she is exchanged from Father to Husband.

Really! I love when people say the bible isn't that bad, and that you've got it wrong, and then proceed to describe something that is STILL bad as if it's good. The whole thing with rape in the bible is that it's a crime against the father, or the husband of the woman. No crime is committed to the woman--she's property. Husbands won't want a raped wife, so they aren't worth as much to fathers. The father won't be able to find a husband for his daughter, so that's why he must give it to the rapist since nobody else would want her, and he at least gets 50 shekels of silver for the offense of his daughter having been raped. It's essentially property damage.

[Iain Sparrow]

Really! I love when people say the bible isn't that bad, and that you've got it wrong, and then proceed to describe something that is STILL bad as if it's good. The whole thing with rape in the bible is that it's a crime against the father, or the husband of the woman. No crime is committed to the woman--she's property. Husbands won't want a raped wife, so they aren't worth as much to fathers. The father won't be able to find a husband for his daughter, so that's why he must give it to the rapist since nobody else would want her, and he at least gets 50 shekels of silver for the offense of his daughter having been raped. It's essentially property damage.


Exactly.
And when you ask religious folks to square what they read in the Bible with modern attitudes toward women, they cry "but that was the Old Testament!". To that my answer is... it's the same God in both Old and New Testaments; a timeless God of wisdom and love wouldn't count half of humanity as property of the other half.

[Melanie]

Just got to laugh at this quote of yours...
"But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband."
Really?.. a daughter is little more than a goat or a piece of property as she is exchanged from Father to Husband.
I appreciate your opinions based on your knowledge of the Bible. You did take scripture out of context though…but thank you for the opportunity to clarify for others what the true meaning was. I'm not sure why you found this particular quote funny considering it happened centuries ago…a time when father's and husband's were head of their households, pre-women's lib! Keeping everything in context is key.

[Melanie]

Frostball, apparently you didn't read posts #143 and #144….nor #155...or you would see clearly what the Bible is saying about rape and "property"

[Iain Sparrow]

I appreciate your opinions based on your knowledge of the Bible. You did take scripture out of context though…but thank you for the opportunity to clarify for others what the true meaning was. I'm not sure why you found this particular quote funny considering it happened centuries ago…a time when father's and husband's were head of their households, pre-women's lib! Keeping everything in context is key.

But a God has no such necessity to put things in proper context.

[Frostball]

Frostball, apparently you didn't read posts #143 and #144….nor #155...or you would see clearly what the Bible is saying about rape and "property"

The verses in #143 are exactly what I'm talking about. What they say is indeed backwards, cruel, and misogynist. In both of them the woman's desires are never even mentioned. Any law that could force a woman to marry her rapist against her will is clearly cruel. This isn't anything unexpected in an ancient bronze age culture, but it's not something you would expect from a good god. So I do think that the verses are evidence that the bible is just like any other ancient religious text--that is, not divinely inspired.

[Melanie]

God is not responsible for man's choices. He created man to have choices because otherwise we'd be robots. And along with man's choices come natural consequences. The ultimate choice is for us to choose to love God or not love Him. Robots can't do that. Life is all about love. Our choices affect whether we give love and whether we receive love.

[Pumpkin337]

I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.

[Iain Sparrow]

God is not responsible for man's choices. He created man to have choices because otherwise we'd be robots. And along with man's choices come natural consequences. The ultimate choice is for us to choose to love God or not love Him. Robots can't do that. Life is all about love. Our choices affect whether we give love and whether we receive love.

“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.” - Christopher Hitchens

Melanie, in respects to God we are either cats or dogs.:)

[Iain Sparrow]

I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.

I think it's probably two reasons; feelings of doubt, and having so much of their life invested in this belief in God, they can't imagine a world without it. God gives them purpose, makes the universe and their place in it seem... meaningful.

[tailor STATELY]

Why do we need God ?

A spurious question at best; one best suited for baiting.


Originally Posted by Pumpkin337
I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.
I think it's probably two reasons; feelings of doubt, and having so much of their life invested in this belief in God, they can't imagine a world without it. God gives them purpose, makes the universe and their place in it seem... meaningful.Faith bashing is as disrespectful as disrespecting anything else.

For those of the Christian faith, we know that Jesus has fulfilled the law of Moses; it is His law that is in effect today.

I am LDS. God is. We are his spirit children and He has a glorious plan for us. He has given us a Savior who has overcome death and atoned for all the hurts, cares and sins of all creation; and much more.

I know God lives and that Jesus is the Christ foretold in the Old Testament and chronicled in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. I know that those without the benefit of a spiritual understanding can know these truths if they truly desire to.

Those who desire no spiritual understanding should be respectful of those who have these divine gifts.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[cacian]

I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.

there is nothing to defend surely.
god is an imposition not a defence. god demands people to believe not defend him/her.

[mona amon]

Exactly.
And when you ask religious folks to square what they read in the Bible with modern attitudes toward women, they cry "but that was the Old Testament!". To that my answer is... it's the same God in both Old and New Testaments; a timeless God of wisdom and love wouldn't count half of humanity as property of the other half.

As Christians we are not bound to follow the Old Testament. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” or again in chapter 5:4-6, "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

As for God being "the same God, a timeless God of wisdom and love", that may very well be, but man's perception and knowledge of Him does change. As a Christian I only have to bother about the teachings of Christ. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well." - John 14:6-7.

[Pumpkin337]

I think you all missed my point. These discussions always devolve into Bible / Christianity bashing with a few foolhardy souls who inexplicably feel the need to defend either or both. The question is seldom directed at any other faith, nor do they end up defending their scriptures / beliefs. This strikes me as beyond biased.

So why aren't any of the many other people attempting to weigh in on why humanity needs a god?

I admit to not having read more than the last few pages ... so perhaps the most obvious answer has already been stated ... because the best we can come up with on our own is either that we are gods ... pah LOL yeah right ... or a kind of moral relativism in which everything is ok provided you can find something worse to compare your actions to and given the muliticiplity of evil things humans have proven themselves capable of (see why we can not be gods ourselves?) this just means that all actions, no matter how evil, are OK. We need the absolute black and white of good and evil as given by something outside ourselves to have a standard of behaviour to adhere to so that we do not do our worst. Not that this has stopped us, but it is why we need it.

[Frostball]

Why do we need God ?

A spurious question at best; one best suited for baiting.

Faith bashing is as disrespectful as disrespecting anything else.

For those of the Christian faith, we know that Jesus has fulfilled the law of Moses; it is His law that is in effect today.

I am LDS. God is. We are his spirit children and He has a glorious plan for us. He has given us a Savior who has overcome death and atoned for all the hurts, cares and sins of all creation; and much more.

I know God lives and that Jesus is the Christ foretold in the Old Testament and chronicled in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. I know that those without the benefit of a spiritual understanding can know these truths if they truly desire to.

Those who desire no spiritual understanding should be respectful of those who have these divine gifts.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
I don't think anybody here is bashing Christians. I think people are just expressing their opinions on god, religion, and christianity. It must be ok to criticize religion. What isn't fine is if somebody were to bash religious people on a personal level, and I don't personally think anybody has stooped that low in this thread. Think of it like criticizing somebody's political affiliation. Then you might see what I mean when I say that it must be ok to criticize a political party, but that doesn't mean you're meaning any insult toward people who affiliate with that party. The person in that party might feel hurt or offended anyway that something they believe in deeply is being criticized, but that's not really anybody's problem but theirs.

As far as your assertions that "god is" and the rest. Assertions are easy to make. Nobody needs to respect religious people any more or less than anybody else. I respect you, and others, simply for being fellow humans. In my opinion a holy person deserves no more respect than every other human. This goes for world leaders, politicians, and movie stars, too; we're all equally deserving of respect.

[Frostball]

As Christians we are not bound to follow the Old Testament. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” or again in chapter 5:4-6, "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

As for God being "the same God, a timeless God of wisdom and love", that may very well be, but man's perception and knowledge of Him does change. As a Christian I only have to bother about the teachings of Christ. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well." - John 14:6-7.

Jesus also said, in Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

And just a bit later in Mathew 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Regardless, the real point for me is that Jesus himself embraced the old testament, and he spoke of moses and Isaac as real people. So according to Jesus the old testament was real. Now deciding to forsake the old testament and just follow Jesus is well and good. I am very glad that almost everybody has chosen to stop following those silly laws in the old testament, because they're mostly crap laws.

But the fact is that according to Jesus it's the same god back then as now, so my question to christians is: Why would you want to follow a god that made such cruel and idiotic laws? What kind of god is this? Yes, you can say "oh, it's better now" but doesn't this tell a lot about god's character? Doesn't it make you dislike him.. at least a little? What, he's god, so you just can't dislike him? Because.. like.. heaven and stuff? The fact is that the god as described in the bible advocated slavery, genocide, child abuse, child murder, women marrying rapists, etc.. And the best people say is that that was back then, and we don't have to worry about it now. Sure we're fine, but what about those people back then? Is it ever ok for a man to own another man? Is it ever ok to force a woman to marry her rapist? I personally don't think so.

I see these things as reason to believe that the bible is a religious text like any of the countless others on this earth, and so it isn't surprising to find this kind of stuff. But even if I'm wrong, and the bible turns out the be true, and Yahweh is really up there and really did all that stuff, I would definitely not worship him. If he is going to send me to hell just for not worshipping him, then I can't stop him since he's all powerful, but as least my conscience can rest easy with the knowledge that I'm a better person than god.

[Pumpkin337]

The problem with defending faith to those without is that, to borrow a phrase, one is generally casting one's pearls before the swine.

[Ecurb]

Anthropologist Vincent Crapanzano wrote a book called, "Serving the word: Literalism in America from the Pulpit to the Bench". It offers a literary approach to looking at literalist, fundamentalist principles, comparing the literalism of Fundamentalist Christians to that of their political allies, literalist Supreme Court Justices. From a literary perspective, of course, no single interpretation of a text is definitive. In addition (as has been pointed out in this thread) it is ridiculous to ignore changing mores: nobody, not even strict biblical or Constitutional constructionists, accepts slavery as morally permissible any more.

It's been a while since I read the book, but (among other things) Crapanzano shows how Fundamentalist Christians often revere their physical Bible -- a little like some book lovers here at Litnet enjoy collecting and cherishing physical copies of their favorite books. Crapanzano's own point of view is that there cannot be one, literal interpretation of any text: context and changing mores change the way we relate to the text.

One legal example I remember from the book: an Alabama law mandated a long sentence for anyone using a machine gun in the commission of a felony. A drug dealer had been sentenced to 20 years (or whatever it was) based on this mandated sentence. The facts of the case were that the drug dealer had accepted machine guns as payment for drugs. The question before the court was: does this constitute "using" an automatic weapon during the commission of a felony. I remember Scalia wondering whether if a drug dealer scratched his head with a machine gun while driving to consummate a drug dealer, that would constitute "use" under the letter of the law.

Revering texts and those who write the texts is commonplace here at Litnet. Perhaps we can see some similarities (as well as differences) between the ways in which we revere texts, and the ways in which literalist Christians and legal scholars revere them.

[Iain Sparrow]

As Christians we are not bound to follow the Old Testament. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” or again in chapter 5:4-6, "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

As for God being "the same God, a timeless God of wisdom and love", that may very well be, but man's perception and knowledge of Him does change. As a Christian I only have to bother about the teachings of Christ. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well." - John 14:6-7.

Speaking purely from my own perspective, and that way in which I began to question my religious beliefs as I entered adulthood; I could no longer ignore that most of what appears in the Old Testament could not have possibly happened, nor could I consider it a sort of mythology about God. What it turns out to be is a mishmash of stories and myths borrowed from more ancient mediterranean cultures, and repackaged to be the acts of the One True God by a single tribe of people.
I think anytime you can discount half a book as being fantasy, you can certainly conclude the other half as being less than true. And as I ask some Christians... what if Jesus Christ never existed, what if he is a myth?

[Iain Sparrow]

So why aren't any of the many other people attempting to weigh in on why humanity needs a god?


It's part of human evolution. Such notions as Gods and a Supernatural World beyond our own probably go back as far as the first advanced human societies. We are the only creature in the Animal Kingdom with a greater awareness of our own mortality. In short, we are the only animal with imagination, and the ability to harness that imagination.
As a species, I don't think we ever reach science and reason without first imagining a God... but that was then and this is now. Now we have no need of a God or Religion.
A thousand years from now, I very much doubt that Humanity will be struggling with the idea of God.
To keep things in some perspective, it's really been in the last 200 years of human history that science has advanced to the point that we can disprove most religious teachings, certainly Western Religions don't hold up well against the evidence.

[Ecurb]

So why aren't any of the many other people attempting to weigh in on why humanity needs a god?

.

One reason: humanity doesn't "need" a God. Huge swathes of humanity do not believe in Gods -- billions of people, in fact. Chinese Communists, Japanese Buddhists, Tibetan expatriots and Western Intellectuals all agree -- we do not need Gods.

In fact, the notion that humanity "needs" God is insulting to the religous -- as if they, unlike us robust and healthy atheists, are psychologically "needy". Like Tiny Tim, they cannot walk without their crutches.

We should, perhaps, distinguish between a "need" and an inchoate longing, a longing for the past, and for the future. We seek ourselves, as Wordsworth suggests ("Ode: Intimmations of Immortality from Reflections on Early Childhood")



.
..... Thanks to the human heart by which we live, 205
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

[YesNo]

What YesNo needs to understand (and this is not an insult; it is quite common and natural to initially misunderstand probabilities) is that simply because something is improbable doesn't mean it cannot occur and one should start looking for alternates. If the evidence supports something improbable, it just means that something improbable happened; and many improbable things happen every day. It is improbable, just looking at the odds, for a single pipe in a single house to burst on a single day: but we still have plumbers. In the same way, we know that the conditions for abiogenesis were present on Earth at its formation. For it to occur at any one moment is improbable; but the timespan and the number of proteins it is not so surprising.

If one can show that an explanation is improbable so much so that one has to reject the null hypothesis that chance could have been the cause that falsifies the claim that chance was the cause. This is not rocket science. There must be something else involved. The solution: stop pushing chance like an ideological drug and find out what that something else is.

It amazes me how "chance" is so quickly turned to in neo-Darwinism. When Einstein and Bohr were debating the problem of indeterminacy (which is often confused with "chance") in quantum physics there was no rush on the part of Einstein to accept the idea. Ultimately indeterminacy won, but not without a fight that lasted decades and not without leaving competing interpretations such as many worlds or Bohm's theory that still tried to remove the indeterminacy. I don't see anything like that in neo-Darwinism.

[The Atheist]

Satan is the one who tempts men. Religious people never think like this

That was my whole point: did the god not create Satan?

My understanding is that the god created everything - the stars, the universe, the air we breathe, light even, and the angels, one of whom became Satan.



If one can show that an explanation is improbable so much so that one has to reject the null hypothesis that chance could have been the cause that falsifies the claim that chance was the cause.

That is worthy of etching onto stone tablets.

[YesNo]

One reason: humanity doesn't "need" a God. Huge swathes of humanity do not believe in Gods -- billions of people, in fact. Chinese Communists, Japanese Buddhists, Tibetan expatriots and Western Intellectuals all agree -- we do not need Gods.

In fact, the notion that humanity "needs" God is insulting to the religous -- as if they, unlike us robust and healthy atheists, are psychologically "needy". Like Tiny Tim, they cannot walk without their crutches.

We should, perhaps, distinguish between a "need" and an inchoate longing, a longing for the past, and for the future. We seek ourselves, as Wordsworth suggests ("Ode: Intimmations of Immortality from Reflections on Early Childhood")

Regarding the eastern Buddhists, I wonder how many actually don't believe in some sort of consciousness that someone might call a "God". Here is an article, one of the first that popped on the search list, on the Gods and Goddesses of Buddhism: http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist_Gods_and_Goddesses

The point I want to make is that the atheism that westerners perceive to be characteristic of Buddhism seems to me more like marketing material directed toward western intellectuals. In a similar way, yoga, viewed as something that is good for your health, is a way to market Hinduism in the west.

You become what you think, what you keep repeating to yourself. That goes for both theists and atheists and that ultimately might be the best evidence that theism, in general, is correct--consciousness trumps matter.

Theists will value consciousness to the point of manifesting some form of God to their consciousness that they can relate to. In that sense they need God. The atheist could view this need as a delusion, but then again the atheist could be the one who is deluded. Atheism is just one more story that people keep repeating to themselves.

The atheists value matter over consciousness and supposedly use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done. Then they have to do the same thing that any other religion has to do when confronted with cognitive dissonance: change their views or rationalize. Rationalization is nothing more than telling themselves another adhoc story to get by.

[Poetaster]

The atheists value matter over consciousness and supposedly use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done. Then they have to do the same thing that any other religion has to do when confronted with cognitive dissonance: change their views or rationalize. Rationalization is nothing more than telling themselves another adhoc story to get by.

How many times does it need to be said: not all atheists are secular and non-religious?

[Iain Sparrow]

The atheists value matter over consciousness and supposedly use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done. Then they have to do the same thing that any other religion has to do when confronted with cognitive dissonance: change their views or rationalize. Rationalization is nothing more than telling themselves another adhoc story to get by.


Atheists do no such thing.
You neither understand the "scientific method", nor have respect for its meaning or applications.
Let’s make a brief digression to talk about the terminology for a moment. By way of analogy: Voltaire famously remarked that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. The term "Holy Roman Empire" cannot be taken literally, yet we continue to use it. It is what we call an idiomatic expression. In English, there are hundreds of idiomatic expressions. When an idiomatic expression is taken literally, it crosses the boundary from idiomatic to idiotic.

It is important to realize that "the scientific method" is an idiomatic expression, and must never be taken literally. There is not any cut-and-dried method for doing science, just as there is not any cut-and-dried method for writing a novel. Scientists are quite aware of this. Peter Medawar, for example, has explained why there cannot be any such thing as the scientific method, if you take the term literally. Alas, misconceptions about this are appallingly common among non-scientists and the religiously-minded.

When a religious person is confronted with the unknown or met with evidence that contradicts their belief system, or as you put it "cognitive dissonance" , they will all to often cross that bridge using "faith". An atheist does not have "faith" in science. What we do not know, we simply do not know.

[YesNo]

How many times does it need to be said: not all atheists are secular and non-religious?

You may have to do this a few more times. However, it shouldn't hurt any of us to clarify our various positions. Do you have examples of atheists who are non-secular or religious?

[YesNo]

When a religious person is confronted with the unknown or met with evidence that contradicts their belief system, or as you put it "cognitive dissonance" , they will all to often cross that bridge using "faith". An atheist does not have "faith" in science. What we do not know, we simply do not know.

I don't think atheism provides atheists with any privileged position when it comes to cognitive dissonance or knowledge.

[The Atheist]

Do you have examples of atheists who are non-secular or religious?

Lots: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

[Melanie]

When a religious person is confronted with the unknown or met with evidence that contradicts their belief system, or as you put it "cognitive dissonance" , they will all to often cross that bridge using "faith".
There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible or my faith or belief. Post one piece of your "evidence" please.


An atheist does not have "faith" in science. What we do not know, we simply do not know.
My faith is based on obvious signs like fulfilled prophecy in perfect accuracy, order of creation, miracles, and specific answers to prayer (whether "yes" or "no" or immediate or in God's perfect timing). Whatever science can't explain, what they "simply do not know", Atheists base their "belief"/"faith" in what they refer to as…random consequences that just happen. The former makes more sense to me.

[YesNo]

Lots: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

That seems to work. It is certainly not materialistic.

[The Atheist]

The atheists value matter over consciousness and supposedly use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done.


...Atheists base their "belief"/"faith" in what they refer to as…random consequences that just happen...

Few things I enjoy more than theists attempting to describe what atheists do.

[Iain Sparrow]

There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible or my faith or belief. Post one piece of your "evidence" please.


My faith is based on obvious signs like fulfilled prophecy in perfect accuracy, order of creation, miracles, and specific answers to prayer (whether "yes" or "no" or immediate or in God's perfect timing). Whatever science can't explain, what they "simply do not know", Atheists base their "belief"/"faith" in what they refer to as…random consequences that just happen. The former makes more sense to me.

You must have this strange idea that I'm trying to convince you to become an atheist.
I could care less what you believe, no matter how utterly absurd those beliefs are. Melanie, there is no God, leastwise not the silly God portrayed in various Judeo-Christian holy books.

Here, conclusive evidence that the Bible was written by Men, not God...
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, 1 Chron. 16:30). Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE.

Let us move on to the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology. For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.

Do you really want me to disprove biblical prophesy?.. because you won't like what I have to say. I can disprove each and every one.

[Pumpkin337]

You must have this strange idea that I'm trying to convince you to become an atheist.
I could care less what you believe, no matter how utterly absurd those beliefs are. Melanie, there is no God, leastwise not the silly God portrayed in various Judeo-Christian holy books.

Here, conclusive evidence that the Bible was written by Men, not God...
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, 1 Chron. 16:30). Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE.

Let us move on to the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology. For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.

Do you really want me to disprove biblical prophesy?.. because you won't like what I have to say. I can disprove each and every one.

The problem is that not that you think you can, but that your mind is closed to the possibility that you can't.

Lets agree - atheism, evolutionary theory, and any other belief system, requires faith, and faith once set in the human mind is usually fairly unshakable .. so you go your way, and the others will go theirs ... each believing theirs to be right and lets try not to start any more wars over our differences ... whether real ones in the real world ... or virtual ones.

[The Atheist]

Lets agree - atheism, evolutionary theory, and any other belief system, requires faith.....

How about we disagree entirely on that?

Atheism requires no faith at all.

Repeat after me:

A = without
Theos = god

Without god. Being without god requires a lack of faith rather than the alternative.

It's actually quite simple.

[Pumpkin337]

Whether or not you believe in something, or in the absence of something it is still a belief system. You BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in... and you have faith that you are right .... this ... astonishingly .... is no less an act of blind faith as any other belief system. Some people believe the world is held up by four elephants standing on the back of a turtle flying through space (no Terry Pratchett did not make that up). You believe an invisible force called 'gravity' holds it up ... this is also just as much faith as faith in flying turtles is. They both require the same volitional act to choose to accept them as true or not.

I say this because both gravity and flying turtles are equally unprovable. Aah you say .. but science .. to which I shall reply ... aah but science is moving toward a new revision of the theory of gravity as there is some evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as gravity .. I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it ... and am too lazy right now to google it ... but go ahead ... look it up ...

Newton and his apple are proving to be as much a construct of the human imagination as any other belief system is. The fact that you believe the faith system called 'science' is no less a faith system as any other. It is pretty much the same thing you pooh-pooh in every one else. Each person comes to their own explanation of how the universe is put together .... some just sound more creative than others but are no less founded in the same urge to have some comforting explanation for the unknowable, and belief in any of them is all called 'faith'.

You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than some one who believes in one (or several) can prove to you that god(s) do exist. It is all a matter of faith and what you choose to believe or not.

[The Atheist]

Predictable response, but you're so wrong it becomes absurd.


Whether or not you believe in something, or in the absence of something it is still a belief system.

Nice try, but atheists do not generally believe in the absence of god/s. Some do, but a minority only.

Accordingly, your point is just wrong.


You BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in...

See above - you're saying the same thing in a different way and it's just as wrong.


and you have faith that you are right .... this ... astonishingly .... is no less an act of blind faith as any other belief system.

This is where the absurdity creeps in.

Belief in being right has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

Remember: a = without, theos = god. Atheist is without god and nothing else.

Do people who do not collect stamps have to have faith in aphilatelism?

No. Ditto atheists.



I say this because both gravity and flying turtles are equally unprovable. Aah you say .. but science .. to which I shall reply ... aah but science is moving toward a new revision of the theory of gravity as there is some evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as gravity .. I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it ... and am too lazy right now to google it ... but go ahead ... look it up ...

I'm not surprised you're too lazy to post links, because the statement you make is laughably wrong.


Newton and his apple are proving to be as much a construct of the human imagination as any other belief system is. The fact that you believe the faith system called 'science' is no less a faith system as any other.

From the ridiculous to the sublime as my old man used to say.

Science has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. Yes, some atheists are scientific atheists - for want of a better term - but atheism requires no science at all.


You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than some one who believes in one (or several) can prove to you that god(s) do exist. It is all a matter of faith and what you choose to believe or not.

Atheism doesn't require any proof that gods do not exist.

You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of religious findamentalism that demands certain actions by its members. There are two things wrong with that:

1 There are no rules
2 There are no actions

A = without, theos = god. Without god.

Could not be simpler, but feel free to continue posting what you think atheism is. Probably a good idea to refer to this post as well:





Few things I enjoy more than theists attempting to describe what atheists do.

[Poetaster]

Few things I enjoy more than theists attempting to describe what atheists do.

Haha, it's fantastic, isn't it?

Atheism, as The Atheist says, has it's root in Ancient Greek: a-theos. Surely theists do not reject etymology?

[Pumpkin337]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gravity+does+not+exist <- let me help you with that then, I apparently labored under the misapprehension that people were quite capable of Googling for themselves. I should have known better.

[Lokasenna]

Oh lord, this thread is priceless. Stumbling in here has made my day.

Just because there are some elements of gravity that we don't quite fully understand (yet), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! We've categorically disproved the flying space-turtle hypothesis - gravity, we're still working with. But you know what the wonderful thing is about scientists is? Most of them are entirely undogmatic. Take a concept or theory they've believed in all their life and demonstrate, empirically, how it is wrong, they are not going to hold on to their old opinions simply because it's a matteri of faith.

If there is a god (and assuming we can even use such a word), it's the god of Einstein and Spinoza. If there is a god that is anything like the hideous monster that Abraham worshipped, I would be both surprised and horrified.

[YesNo]

Nice try, but atheists do not generally believe in the absence of god/s. Some do, but a minority only.

So what is that supposed to mean?



You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of religious findamentalism that demands certain actions by its members. There are two things wrong with that:

1 There are no rules
2 There are no actions

A = without, theos = god. Without god.


I see atheism as a religious fundamentalism.

[Poetaster]

I see atheism as a religious fundamentalism.

Atheism isn't a religion. We have already established it is a single philosophical point, so no matter how you see it, if you say this you are wrong by definition.

[Pumpkin337]

1. if atheism was not a belief system in which you have invested yourself you wouldn't feel the need to defend it :-) people do not defend things they do not believe in.

2. It always amuses me how heated people get in their response when you point out that they also have a belief structure which orders their universe just like the people they are so fond of disparaging. Faith and belief are an integral part of being human and I fail to see why it bothers people so much. You exercise faith when you sit down without testing if the chair is sound first. You exercise faith everytime you switch on an electrical appliance and expect one of the least understood phenomenona in the universe aka electricity to work. You believe what you are taught about how the universe works and you have faith that it is true. Often, however it is not, even science.

My example with regard gravity is better than you are allowing because until recently it was assumed gravity was understood - there is neat formula to calculate it, it can be measured and demonstrated etc and everyone not a theoretical phycisist ignored or was unaware of how gravity failed to plug in to both nuclear physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This lack of knowledge and/or questioning did not shake your belief based on high school science lessons that you knew what gravity is and that it is a fixed reality of our world. The fact that it is proving to not be so well understood, does not explain a great many other observable phenonema, and now those scientists willing to throw out 200+ years of scientific 'fact' are discovering we basically know very little.But you and others like you will ignore that and continue to defend your faith in what you believe to be true, unwilling to admit that you are also choosing to buy into a faith/belief system just as much as anyone else is.

The aaddest thing is that science is so closed minded and arrogant about its belief structures that it is blind to the possibility that there are truths embedded in other faith systems that go a long way to better explaing some of the mysteries in the universe. In what is perhaps the greatest irony of all time quantum phycists have named the unknown force that keeps everything together at a sub-atomic level the 'god particle'. Isn't that just too marvellously ironically amusing for words?

[YesNo]

Whether or not you believe in something, or in the absence of something it is still a belief system. You BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in... and you have faith that you are right .... this ... astonishingly .... is no less an act of blind faith as any other belief system.

I think the reason that atheists like to claim they don't believe in anything is that they need to construct an ideology that gives them a privileged position on which to claim that their story is better than anyone else's. That privileged position does not exist.



I say this because both gravity and flying turtles are equally unprovable. Aah you say .. but science .. to which I shall reply ... aah but science is moving toward a new revision of the theory of gravity as there is some evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as gravity .. I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it ... and am too lazy right now to google it ... but go ahead ... look it up ...

I did look up Erik Verlinde's theory that gravity doesn't exist. I don't understand it, but I will have to look at it further.

[Frostball]

So what is that supposed to mean?



I see atheism as a religious fundamentalism.

What The Atheist is saying is that you can never really pin atheism down as being fundamentalist, or as trying to prove something, because the vast majority of atheists are simply do not believe in god. That isn't saying that they believe there are no gods--that's something different. You see, one is a claim, and one is the rejection of the claim. Theists are the ones coming forward with the claim "A god exists" and atheists are the ones who simply say they are not convinced of that claim. It's up to the theist to prove their claim, the atheist has literally nothing to prove, because they aren't making any single claim.

This might seem unfair, but the thing is atheism isn't a thing, it's the lack of a thing. If you want to go on the offensive against an atheist, you have to find out what they actually DO believe, whether that is materialism, or the scientific method, or subjective morality, or what have you. These are positive beliefs, so they can actually be defended. Nobody does anything in the name of atheism, it's always something else that people act. It may be in the name of secularism, or humanism, or progress, or liberalism, or fascism, or any number of political and philosophical stances. These are the kinds of things that people actually act in the name of, atheism is just a single position.

This is why it's ridiculous to say it takes faith to be an atheist. It's simply absurd to state that it takes faith to not believe in something. It doesn't take faith to not believe in the spaghetti monster, or bigfoot, or loch ness monster. All one must say is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest such things really exist. Likewise, trying to put atheists on the same footing as theists as being "faith based" is equally absurd. Just LOOK at what theists are trying to tell people... That everything was made by magic, in an incredibly short time (10,000 years), that a god sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself. Talking snakes? A whole book full of contradictions with both itself and known science? Ok now let's look an atheist: they say "I don't think a god exists because there I haven't seen enough evidence." There really is such a huge difference between that. Now, in order for the atheist to say something like "I think nothing exists besides matter, and that there is no supernatural" the atheist is stepping outside of what the simple term atheist means. This atheist is taking on materialism, which is a claim that has to be defended (it can be, easily..) but it has nothing to do with atheism inherently. It is compatible with atheism, it is concordant with atheism, and atheists DO often accept materialism, but that does not mean they are in any way inextricably linked.

The atheist/materialist thing is where I think YesNo gets off all the time. When YesNo says "atheist" every time it seems like he or she is really meaning to say "materialist".

Basically ANY time you say that an atheist MUST believe in X, and that X is anything other than "that there isn't enough evidence to believe in a god", you are actually talking about something else besides atheism.

[Poetaster]

1. if atheism was not a belief system in which you have invested yourself you wouldn't feel the need to defend it :-) people do not defend things they do not believe in.

But atheism isn't a belief system. I am actually a teacher by trade (just qualified) so I care about truth, and if people call atheism a religion or system of belief I have to correct them: they are wrong.


2. It always amuses me how heated people get in their response when you point out that they also have a belief structure which orders their universe just like the people they are so fond of disparaging. Faith and belief are an integral part of being human and I fail to see why it bothers people so much. You exercise faith when you sit down without testing if the chair is sound first. You exercise faith everytime you switch on an electrical appliance and expect one of the least understood phenomenona in the universe aka electricity to work. You believe what you are taught about how the universe works and you have faith that it is true. Often, however it is not, even science.

Nonsense. You do not exercise faith every time you switch an electric light on, you click it on assuming it will work, but it doesn't shatter your faith in electric lights if it doesn't work because of a shorted fuse or something.


My example with regard gravity is better than you are allowing because until recently it was assumed gravity was understood - there is neat formula to calculate it, it can be measured and demonstrated etc and everyone not a theoretical phycisist ignored or was unaware of how gravity failed to plug in to both nuclear physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This lack of knowledge and/or questioning did not shake your belief based on high school science lessons that you knew what gravity is and that it is a fixed reality of our world. The fact that it is proving to not be so well understood, does not explain a great many other observable phenonema, and now those scientists willing to throw out 200+ years of scientific 'fact' are discovering we basically know very little.But you and others like you will ignore that and continue to defend your faith in what you believe to be true, unwilling to admit that you are also choosing to buy into a faith/belief system just as much as anyone else is.

More nonsense. People who understand the scientific method know that nothing can really be 'known', and most of what we 'know' could very well be true. There is no fanaticism about the technicalities of gravity, if it works, great, if it doesn't, bummer - try again.


The aaddest thing is that science is so closed minded and arrogant about its belief structures that it is blind to the possibility that there are truths embedded in other faith systems that go a long way to better explaing some of the mysteries in the universe. In what is perhaps the greatest irony of all time quantum phycists have named the unknown force that keeps everything together at a sub-atomic level the 'god particle'. Isn't that just too marvellously ironically amusing for words?

If other faiths have mysteries of the universe, why are they not being tested scientifically? What exactly is closed minded about saying 'We don't know something, and so we have to find it out, anything we do not know cannot be trusted, and thus we must assume it doesn't work until we find out it works'?

I honestly don't understand how anyone can think a process is closed minded or arrogant. It shows me the person saying that doesn't understand what they are talking about.

[YesNo]

Atheism isn't a religion. We have already established it is a single philosophical point, so no matter how you see it, if you say this you are wrong by definition.

Who is this "we" you are referring to? As far as having established anything, you have simply stated your opinion. My opinion differs.

I am willing to consider that atheism is not a religion. Perhaps it is only an ideology having all the bad features of a real religion with none of the good ones.

[Poetaster]

Who is this "we" you are referring to? As far as having established anything, you have simply stated your opinion. My opinion differs.

I am willing to consider that atheism is not a religion. Perhaps it is only an ideology having all the bad features of a real religion with none of the good ones.

I actually meant you and I. You ended up agreeing with me basically too. If you think atheism is an ideology, you must show how atheism is more than what the word literally means, something you have shown time and again you don't know. If you want to claim the kind of New Atheist, Richard Dawkins type of person is following an ideology then you'd be right. An ideology is not a religion, if you don't know that, you don't know anything.


I think the reason that atheists like to claim they don't believe in anything is that they need to construct an ideology that gives them a privileged position on which to claim that their story is better than anyone else's. That privileged position does not exist.

What story? As far as I can tell a universal 'atheist' story does not exist.


I did look up Erik Verlinde's theory that gravity doesn't exist. I don't understand it, but I will have to look at it further.

Mostly because 'gravity' describes the effect of the curvature of space/time. It's not an invisible hand pulling everything down.

[Frostball]

1. if atheism was not a belief system in which you have invested yourself you wouldn't feel the need to defend it :-) people do not defend things they do not believe in.

2. It always amuses me how heated people get in their response when you point out that they also have a belief structure which orders their universe just like the people they are so fond of disparaging. Faith and belief are an integral part of being human and I fail to see why it bothers people so much. You exercise faith when you sit down without testing if the chair is sound first. You exercise faith everytime you switch on an electrical appliance and expect one of the least understood phenomenona in the universe aka electricity to work. You believe what you are taught about how the universe works and you have faith that it is true. Often, however it is not, even science.

My example with regard gravity is better than you are allowing because until recently it was assumed gravity was understood - there is neat formula to calculate it, it can be measured and demonstrated etc and everyone not a theoretical phycisist ignored or was unaware of how gravity failed to plug in to both nuclear physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This lack of knowledge and/or questioning did not shake your belief based on high school science lessons that you knew what gravity is and that it is a fixed reality of our world. The fact that it is proving to not be so well understood, does not explain a great many other observable phenonema, and now those scientists willing to throw out 200+ years of scientific 'fact' are discovering we basically know very little.But you and others like you will ignore that and continue to defend your faith in what you believe to be true, unwilling to admit that you are also choosing to buy into a faith/belief system just as much as anyone else is.

The aaddest thing is that science is so closed minded and arrogant about its belief structures that it is blind to the possibility that there are truths embedded in other faith systems that go a long way to better explaing some of the mysteries in the universe. In what is perhaps the greatest irony of all time quantum phycists have named the unknown force that keeps everything together at a sub-atomic level the 'god particle'. Isn't that just too marvellously ironically amusing for words?

Faith is in no way integral to the human experience. Faith is believing things without evidence, and while humans are very prone to doing so, it isn't something we all embrace. The examples you gave were not examples of faith, but example of trust based on evidence. I step on a plane and fly across the country trusting that everything works because I know that planes have been used for years, that they are safer than cars, that the pilots are usually well trained, and that even if they aren't the planes are mostly automated will well designed systems. The main point is just that I know that most planes reach their destination just fine, because that's what the evidence all around me regarding airplanes tells me. Now if it was an article of faith, I would have to have NO information about what planes are, how they work, how often they work, etc.. Then I would just be blindly putting faith in the fact that this thing that I don't understand will take me where I want to go.

You see this is a confusion that is basically the equivocation fallacy. There are multiple definition of faith, and people like to switch the two back and forth. One definition is believing things without evidence. Another is closer to trust or confidence. So while I might have the latter kind of faith, although I prefer not to use the word, I definitely stray away from the former kind of faith.

Oh, the god particle? Come on. That's the Higgs Boson! and no scientists named it the "god particle" that was news media outlets trying to sex it up because most folks don't give a crap about science.

[YesNo]

I actually meant you and I. You ended up agreeing with me basically too. If you think atheism is an ideology, you must show how atheism is more than what the word literally means, something you have shown time and again you don't know. If you want to claim the kind of New Atheist, Richard Dawkins type of person is following an ideology then you'd be right. An ideology is not a religion, if you don't know that, you don't know anything.

If you mean you and I then we did not establish anything. I did not end up agreeing with you.

How do you distinguish yourself from Dawkins?



What story? As far as I can tell a universal 'atheist' story does not exist.

What are all these posts but the construction of a story trying to justify atheism as you see it? I am not saying that your story is the same as the next story some atheist will come up with. It is still a story. It is still about that word "atheism".

[Frostball]

If you mean you and I then we did not establish anything. I did not end up agreeing with you.

How do you distinguish yourself from Dawkins?



What are all these posts but the construction of a story trying to justify atheism as you see it? I am not saying that your story is the same as the next story some atheist will come up with. It is still a story. It is still about that word "atheism".

You know, I might admit there is something to that. Atheism is just one thing--definitely. But there is a community of atheists, a movement, and people in this movement share a very very general set of beliefs. I might even be overstating it, because atheists tend to be like a herd of cats. But even as a herd of cats, there is a very general way that atheists often tend to be. Certain arguments, certain positions run very common along many atheists. But this is still a far cry from a religion. If there is any consensus among atheists I think it arises from discussions between all of them, and coming to conclusions that certain arguments are better than others, and that certain positions are better than others. But there is certainly no dogma. Anybody who's active in "atheism" has surely met an atheist that disagrees with them on every other issue.

So we have a group that agrees on one thing. This group may also agree on certain other commonly held things, such as a belief in the efficacy of science, or in materialism, or skepticism. This is what the movement of atheism has. Such things does not a religion make. I also wouldn't call it a "story". There is, however, a scientific story of the universe that a lot of atheist ascribe to. But that isn't an atheistic story, again, it's the scientific one. And it is consistent with atheism, but not required or linked to it.

[Poetaster]

If you mean you and I then we did not establish anything. I did not end up agreeing with you.

You ended up saying that atheism may mean no belief in gods, but that other ideas come attached to it. Thus it's not a belief system, not a religion, just a single philosophical point. That's what was established, and you never responded to that point - which usually means you accept my point.


How do you distinguish yourself from Dawkins?

Well for one thing I don't have a doctorate in biology. For another thing I've not written a not-very-good book called 'The God Delusion'. That's where I start from anyway.

Anyway, I'm no where near as abrasive to theists as he is, but I share his annoyance when theists don't listen.


What are all these posts but the construction of a story trying to justify atheism as you see it? I am not saying that your story is the same as the next story some atheist will come up with. It is still a story. It is still about that word "atheism".

What story? If you can't come up with a story then I'm going to assume you are pulling things out of thin air. My life-philosophy is not one 'about' atheism, far from it. My atheism is just a single point of my thought process, and I barely even tend to think of it unless talking to people who do not share that one single point.

[Pumpkin337]

there is no one who believes in God more fervently than an atheist, if they did not believe in god, they wouldn't expend so much time and energy trying to prove god doesn't exist

[Pumpkin337]

And PLEASE learn to use Google:

Re the God Particle:

The name was the invention of Leon Lederman, himself a great physicist, who used it as the title of a popular book in 1993.

ie NOT the media, but a scientist coined the phrase. Like to retract any other non-factual statements you have made?

[Frostball]

there is no one who believes in God more fervently than an atheist, if they did not believe in god, they wouldn't expend so much time and energy trying to prove he doesn't exist

There are few things as disrespectful as not taking somebody's word when they tell you what they believe. You're straight up calling all of us liars. I would never, ever, stoop so low as to tell a theist that they don't actually believe in god. When you do this, it means you don't want a conversation. If you aren't going to listen to people explain their beliefs, or lack there of, but instead assume they are lying... Then you are not interested in discussion. Having a conversation with somebody assumes you have at least enough respect to take them at their word.

[Frostball]

And PLEASE learn to use Google:

Re the God Particle:

The name was the invention of Leon Lederman, himself a great physicist, who used it as the title of a popular book in 1993.

ie NOT the media, but a scientist coined the phrase. Like to retract any other non-factual statements you have made?

From Wikipedia

The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, one of six physicists who, in 1964, proposed the mechanism that suggested the existence of such a particle. Although Higgs's name has come to be associated with this theory, several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 each independently developed different parts of it. In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic; the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism.[17][18]

[Poetaster]

There are few things as disrespectful as not taking somebody's word when they tell you what they believe. You're straight up calling all of us liars. I would never, ever, stoop so low as to tell a theist that they don't actually believe in god. When you do this, it means you don't want a conversation. If you aren't going to listen to people explain their beliefs, or lack there of, but instead assume they are lying... Then you are not interested in discussion. Having a conversation with somebody assumes you have at least enough respect to take them at their word.

This. An atheist such as myself do not try to 'prove' a god does not exist. Most of us know that's impossible. We say it's not likely, and we do not believe the claim he does exist. You are never called on to prove a negative, that is a law of logic.

[Pumpkin337]

There are few things as disrespectful as not taking somebody's word when they tell you what they believe. You're straight up calling all of us liars. I would never, ever, stoop so low as to tell a theist that they don't actually believe in god. When you do this, it means you don't want a conversation. If you aren't going to listen to people explain their beliefs, or lack there of, but instead assume they are lying... Then you are not interested in discussion. Having a conversation with somebody assumes you have at least enough respect to take them at their word.

This reaction is exactly what I wanted to elicit with my statement, as it demonstrates the double standard many of you labour under. It is a clear case of pot kettle black .. you might want to remember this next time you go off at some one who believes differently to you.

[Poetaster]

This reaction is exactly what I wanted to elicit with my statement, as it demonstrates the double standard many of you labour under. It is a clear case of pot kettle black .. you might want to remember this next time you go off at some one who believes differently to you.

If you make a statement in a public forum, expect a reaction to it. You don't call the person making the response a liar, that's just bad form. Hardly a case of the proverbial tea pot either.

[Frostball]

This reaction is exactly what I wanted to elicit with my statement, as it demonstrates the double standard many of you labour under. It is a clear case of pot kettle black .. you might want to remember this next time you go off at some one who believes differently to you.

Going off? What are you talking about? I never, ever suggested that you are lying and don't really believe in god. I'm absolutely sure you are an earnest believer who really genuinely thinks they are right and has good reasons for believing. I just happen to think you are wrong about that. But I am NOT saying you are a liar who is only pretending to believe. See the difference? It must be ok to argue about religion in the same way that it must be ok to argue about politics. If you do not want to participate it is entirely voluntary. But do not equate me criticizing Christianity or any other religion with insulting a person directly. That's what you did.

I'm sorry if anything I said offends you. I do feel strongly about this subject, and no it's not because I believe in god, but it's because there are so many people who do believe and I think that religion is a very harmful force in the world. Now I still apologize for any hard feelings. I would appreciate an apology from you for calling me and every atheist in the world a liar.

[Pumpkin337]

1. I have in no way given any indication what my beliefs are or are not so please don't make assumptions.

2. I did not call any one a liar, I made a generalised statement - and not even a very original one - regarding atheists (in general)

3. I made the statement deliberately to elicit the strong emotional response I knew it would because I wanted to show that a. you do have a belief system you will defend strongly when attacked (if it wasn't a belief system you wouldn't have reacted so defensively) and b. that you do not like it when the same tactics of non-belief, non-acceptance and nonsensical statements are turned against you. Do to others as you would have done to you. Try reading back over this thread and looking at some of the responses

4. Atheists assume that absence of proof is proof of absence ... this is a logical fallacy.

[Poetaster]

4. Atheists assume that absence of proof is proof of absence ... this is a logical fallacy.

1. Not all atheists think the same.

2. Not all (and I would guess most) do not think this. Never mind assume it. That is an example of teapotting.

[Frostball]

1. I have in no way given any indication what my beliefs are or are not so please don't make assumptions.

2. I did not call any one a liar, I made a generalised statement - and not even a very original one - regarding atheists (in general)

3. I made the statement deliberately to elicit the strong emotional response I knew it would because I wanted to show that a. you do have a belief system you will defend strongly when attacked (if it wasn't a belief system you wouldn't have reacted so defensively) and b. that you do not like it when the same tactics of non-belief, non-acceptance and nonsensical statements are turned against you. Do to others as you would have done to you. Try reading back over this thread and looking at some of the responses

4. Atheists assume that absence of proof is proof of absence ... this is a logical fallacy.

Alright, I'm sorry, I don't know what you believe, you're right. Well whatever it is you believe, if you were to tell me, I'd certainly believe you.

The strong emotional response did not come from you attacking my beliefs. Everyone in this thread has been criticizing and arguing against beliefs over and over, and nobody really got too upset, which is great. What you did was attack me personally, which is an obvious faux pas. You just don't do that. It's called ad hominem. Not only was it ad hominem, but it shows you aren't interested in actually talking about beliefs, you just want to assert things about what we believe.

As to your 4th point, you are right that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Put that way it is, indeed, a fallacy. But what isn't a fallacy is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where you would expect there to be evidence. Here's an example: if somebody said they had a fire breathing dragon in their garage, I might look for some evidence. If I found no claw marks, no scorch marks, no dragon poop, no actual dragon, and literally no signs of a fire breathing dragon being in a garage, then that is good evidence that the person is making it up or something. This isn't PROOF mind you. You can never prove that something doesn't exist, that would be ridiculous to even try. But evidence enough for a reasonable disbelief... yes.

Your general statement was a statement about all atheist in the world, but it was pointed at the atheists in here in particular. The assertion that atheists actually believe in god is a defense mechanism that theists sometimes use when they don't want to talk about it anymore. It's very rude, disrespectful, and as I said indicative of a person's lack of desire to actually have a conversation. A conversation is impossible when one person just won't believe you when you say you believe something. You are presuming to know more about our minds then we do. How presumptuous!!! Once again, I am sorry if you are offended, and I am truly sorry for assuming you are a god believer (really thought you were). But I really would like an apology for calling me a liar.

[Pumpkin337]

1. Not all atheists think the same.

2. Not all (and I would guess most) do not think this. Never mind assume it. That is an example of teapotting.

Please re-examine the logic of this statement... because you just said that atheists believe in God.

[Pumpkin337]

Alright, I'm sorry, I don't know what you believe, you're right. Well whatever it is you believe, if you were to tell me, I'd certainly believe you.

The strong emotional response did not come from you attacking my beliefs. Everyone in this thread has been criticizing and arguing against beliefs over and over, and nobody really got too upset, which is great. What you did was attack me personally, which is an obvious faux pas. You just don't do that. It's called ad hominem. Not only was it ad hominem, but it shows you aren't interested in actually talking about beliefs, you just want to assert things about what we believe.

As to your 4th point, you are right that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Put that way it is, indeed, a fallacy. But what isn't a fallacy is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where you would expect there to be evidence. Here's an example: if somebody said they had a fire breathing dragon in their garage, I might look for some evidence. If I found no claw marks, no scorch marks, no dragon poop, no actual dragon, and literally no signs of a fire breathing dragon being in a garage, then that is good evidence that the person is making it up or something. This isn't PROOF mind you. You can never prove that something doesn't exist, that would be ridiculous to even try. But evidence enough for a reasonable disbelief... yes.

Your general statement was a statement about all atheist in the world, but it was pointed at the atheists in here in particular. The assertion that atheists actually believe in god is a defense mechanism that theists sometimes use when they don't want to talk about it anymore. It's very rude, disrespectful, and as I said indicative of a person's lack of desire to actually have a conversation. A conversation is impossible when one person just won't believe you when you say you believe something. You are presuming to know more about our minds then we do. How presumptuous!!! Once again, I am sorry if you are offended, and I am truly sorry for assuming you are a god believer (really thought you were). But I really would like an apology for calling me a liar.

I can not apologise for something I didn't do. I'm sorry that you took a highly non-original, often asserted statement so personally. Forgive me for thinking that this would indicate it somehow touched on your personal belief system which you then felt obliged to defend. That was kind of my intention :)

[Frostball]

I can not apologise for something I didn't do. I'm sorry that you took a highly non-original, often asserted statement so personally. Forgive me for thinking that this would indicate it somehow touched on your personal belief system which you then felt obliged to defend. That was kind of my intention :)

You mistake my asking for an apology for offense. I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually don't mean to call me a liar, but just disagree with me. So... Which is it? Do you merely disagree with me on the state of god and all that, or are you still asserting that I actually believe in god--thus calling me a liar?

[Frostball]

You mistake my asking for an apology for offense. I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually don't mean to call me a liar, but just disagree with me. So... Which is it? Do you merely disagree with me on the state of god and all that, or are you still asserting that I actually believe in god--thus calling me a liar?

Also keep in mind that I have apologized multiple times for even the chance that I offended you. Apologizing in no way means you lose, or are stupid, or wrong, or anything. It only makes you look better, actually. Cool people apologize when it might make a person feel better, even if they haven't done anything wrong. At least in my opinion

[Poetaster]

Please re-examine the logic of this statement... because you just said that atheists believe in God.

No I didn't. I said most atheists do not think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or even assume it. If you think I said anything more, you do not understand how to use logic.

[Frostball]

No I didn't. I said most atheists do not think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or even assume it. If you think I said anything more, you do not understand how to use logic.

Well.. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you would expect there to be evidence. It's just not proof.

And people say atheists always agree! :)!

[Poetaster]

Well.. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you would expect there to be evidence. It's just not proof.

And people say atheists always agree! :)!

I disagree, it might be a suggestion of absence, but not evidence in of itself. :P

Haha! I know right!? :)

[cacian]

If you make a statement in a public forum, expect a reaction to it. You don't call the person making the response a liar, that's just bad form. Hardly a case of the proverbial tea pot either.

what does a proverbial tea pot mean?

[Poetaster]

what does a proverbial tea pot mean?

Referring to the proverb of the teapot calling the kettle black.

[Iain Sparrow]

The problem is that not that you think you can, but that your mind is closed to the possibility that you can't.

Lets agree - atheism, evolutionary theory, and any other belief system, requires faith, and faith once set in the human mind is usually fairly unshakable .. so you go your way, and the others will go theirs ... each believing theirs to be right and lets try not to start any more wars over our differences ... whether real ones in the real world ... or virtual ones.


Nah, atheists don't require faith.
Try looking at it in this way... you are a juror in a murder trial, and you must weigh all the given evidence and reach a conclusion as to the question of guilt of the accused. The evidence must meet certain standards and the preponderance of that evidence must either validate a conviction, or a lesser charge, or acquittal. Beyond a reasonable doubt won't guarantee that some innocent people are convicted or the guilty go free, or that the evidence was interpreted properly, or that the judicial system is beyond corruption and prejudice. Such is the case with Science; scientific knowledge should be subjected to specific criticism rather than rejected in toto. Folks who believe in a God and the Supernatural often approach Science as an adversary, either forcing it into their belief system (Intelligent Design), or as I'm finding in this thread... simply ignoring it altogether.

I can understand gravity as Science presents it. I can believe that it exists, in all the things we can predict and that are proven... I can also appreciate the very serious problems with our current understanding of gravity. Such as the two Voyager Probes that left what NASA Specialists believed was the bounds of our solar system and entered what scientists thought was "Interstellar Space"... but things didn't go as planned. Both Voyager Probes ever so slightly went off their projected courses. This dovetails into the holy grail of physics... a Grand Unification Theory, which the brightest minds have had 100 years to come up with, and have not. We simply do not understand all the forces of the Universe, in fact we don't even know how many forces there are. Physicists are struggling with "dark matter" and now "dark energy", and are at an impasse. The jury is out, as they say. This is how Science works, it's not exact... science is an art.

Thus far, the evidence meets my standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", that Western Religion is nonsense, the bulk of which can be disproved by not one scientific discipline, but by several scientific disciplines and over the course of several centuries. This is not to say there isn't a God or that the Bible may have his/her/its fingerprints on it. But what I can say and believe, is that much of what is in the Bible is nonsense.

[The Atheist]

there is no one who believes in God more fervently than an atheist, if they did not believe in god, they wouldn't expend so much time and energy trying to prove god doesn't exist

Gosh, I feel exactly the same way about priests and pastors who ask their flock for money - they are clearly determined, hardcore atheists.

What kind of real christian would deny the word of his own god in Matthew 19:24 and demand that people worshipping give money, which the priest or pastor then uses to buy cars, build flash houses and eat like a king? They would be risking going straight to Hell, and that's not good, so I hear.

See how easy it is to make silly assertions?

(Tip: as noted, very few atheists would try to prove non-existence of something.)



No I didn't. I said most atheists do not think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or even assume it. If you think I said anything more, you do not understand how to use logic.

Oh please FSM, noooooo!!!!

We had that discussion a little while back and I'm sad to say it was an atheist saying that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Marbles]

To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.

But still, I don't see what's the beef. A believer isn't more unconvinced of the existence God than an atheist is convinced of its existence. Come to think of it both are two sides of the same coin: You believe in what you see. Heads or tails.

[Frostball]

I don't know who this guy is, but this quote is from wikipedia and I like it as it states the evidence of absence bit.


If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...[5]
—J.P. Moreland and W.L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview


So for example, with a deistic god you wouldn't expect any evidence, since they don't interact with our world. Therefor an absence of evidence for a deistic god would not be evidence of it's absence because you wouldn't expect to see any evidence. But take the christian Yahweh as described in the bible, who purportedly answers prayers, causes miracles, and all that. You would expect evidence of his presence, therefore an absence of evidence for that god would be evidence of absence for that god. Not proof, again, mind you. Just evidence. It may not even be enough evidence to justify not believing, one could argue. But it is still evidence towards Yahweh's nonexistence if things we would expect are not found.

[Frostball]

To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.

But still, I don't see what's the beef. A believer isn't more unconvinced of the existence God than an atheist is convinced of its existence. Come to think of it both are two sides of the same coin: You believe in what you see. Heads or tails.

I'll agree that it's a matter of non-faith. I also agree that proving and disproving is the wrong way to go. Proofs are something we use in math, not in claims. Evidence to justify a reasonable belief or disbelief, on the other hand, is a good way to go. At least that's what I think.

[The Atheist]

To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.

Glad you see it like that, because most people would agree with you entirely.

On the proving non-existence of god, however, it is a bit of a red herring, because it's quite unusual to see it happening. For instance, this thread now comprises 228 posts and nobody's even come close to doing it.

[Poetaster]

On the proving non-existence of god, however, it is a bit of a red herring, because it's quite unusual to see it happening. For instance, this thread now comprises 228 posts and nobody's even come close to doing it.

I don't think anyone can.

[The Atheist]

I don't think anyone can.

My mistake.

I meant to type "nobody's even come close to trying it".

I think the claim that atheists are out to try to disprove god is mostly strawman. Sure, some atheists do, but David Icke's an atheist as well and I would call him rational.

[Poetaster]

My mistake.

I meant to type "nobody's even come close to trying it".

I think the claim that atheists are out to try to disprove god is mostly strawman. Sure, some atheists do, but David Icke's an atheist as well and I would call him rational.

I agree with you completely, like the idea that atheists are all the same is an obvious strawman to me.

David Icke - I love that man, though I have no idea why.

[YesNo]

You ended up saying that atheism may mean no belief in gods, but that other ideas come attached to it. Thus it's not a belief system, not a religion, just a single philosophical point. That's what was established, and you never responded to that point - which usually means you accept my point.

I see the problem. You thought my lack of response meant agreement. It did not.



Well for one thing I don't have a doctorate in biology. For another thing I've not written a not-very-good book called 'The God Delusion'. That's where I start from anyway.

Anyway, I'm no where near as abrasive to theists as he is, but I share his annoyance when theists don't listen.

Don't worry, people listen. However, just because they listen that doesn't mean they agree.




What story? If you can't come up with a story then I'm going to assume you are pulling things out of thin air. My life-philosophy is not one 'about' atheism, far from it. My atheism is just a single point of my thought process, and I barely even tend to think of it unless talking to people who do not share that one single point.

The story is the string of justifications for that "single point" that expands into an ideology because that point needs to be rationalized otherwise there is cognitive dissonance which is painful.

You are not alone. I am creating one as well with your help as well as the help of the others who participate in this thread. As I see it, we are making it up as we go along. What is interesting is what we think we can get away with as justification for our individual beliefs.

[mortalterror]

Atheism isn't a religion. We have already established it is a single philosophical point, so no matter how you see it, if you say this you are wrong by definition.

Atheism as a concept is a single truth claim, but in practice it is a worldview. Atheism is a definite subculture which happens to act like a religion.

Just because you don't have a single titular bible doesn't mean that there isn't a developed canon and set of popular beliefs surrounding the idea of atheism.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2007/06/AtheistBible1.jpg
Often sited influences of atheists include Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson for popular scientists. Bill Hicks, George Carlin, and Bill Maher for stand up comedians. Leaders of the New Atheist movement include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. Before that influential leaders include Madalyn Murray O'Hair, TH Huxley. John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White are oft cited for their ideas about the conflict thesis. Voltaire is a touchstone, Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, sometimes Spinoza or Epicurus are referenced. Darwin is frequently mentioned. The show Cosmos and the Atheist Experience are popular in this counter culture.

You share a lot of common ground. You read the same books.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/The_Selfish_Gene3.jpg/200px-The_Selfish_Gene3.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/God_is_not_great.JPG/220px-God_is_not_great.JPG
You commune in atheist mega churches
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/8325e9ab071d2baeed832cb16d01887a19ead72c/c=0-0-4014-3016&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/GenericImages/2013/11/10/1384120508000-AP-Atheist-Megachurches.jpg
or in online support groups like r/atheism and threads like this one. You attend atheism conventions and throw reason rallies.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Reason_Rally-Crowd-3.JPG/300px-Reason_Rally-Crowd-3.JPG
You build secular charities and form secular foundations to lobby the government
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/AtheismLogo.png/220px-AtheismLogo.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/FFR.png/200px-FFR.png
You send your kids to secular camps to learn about atheism
http://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/cqlogo.png
You make videos to proselytize and then post them to youtube. You go see movies about atheism.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/54/Religulous_poster.jpg/220px-Religulous_poster.jpg
You make memes mocking Christianity and pass them around to your friends on facebook.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxwropwx5Q1r2hnwao1_500.jpg
You share injokes and favorite stories.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbzq31VxLl1rt9874o1_500.jpg
You vote as a block. 73% of you registered as Democrats and voted for Obama.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/President_Barack_Obama.jpg/220px-President_Barack_Obama.jpg
You use a lot of the same arguments as each other when you argue against religion. A lot of you show a fondness for science and logic. But excuse me for thinking you share things in common. You are as unique as snow flakes.

Like it or not, statistically speaking you guys do have a lot in common and fall into some general categories.

Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 67% are men, and 38% are ages 18-29 (compared with 22% of all U.S. adults). About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 29% of the general public. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/


Exit polls suggest that white Americans without religion vote Democratic at roughly the same rates that white Americans with religion vote Republican. According to exit polls in the 2008 presidential election, 71% of non-religious whites voted for Democratic candidate Barack Obama while 74% of white Evangelical Christians voted for Republican candidate John McCain. This can be compared with the 43–55% share of white votes overall.[30] More than six-in-ten religiously unaffiliated registered voters are Democrats (39%) or lean toward the Democratic Party (24%). They are about twice as likely to describe themselves as political liberals than as conservatives, and solid majorities support legal abortion (72%) and same-sex marriage (73%). In the last five years, the unaffiliated have risen from 17% to 24% of all registered voters who are Democrats or lean Democratic.[31] According to a Pew Research exist poll 70% of those who were religiously unaffiliated voted for Barack Obama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States

[mortalterror]

On another note, I'd like to address some flaws, as I see them, in Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy.

1)A hypothetical teapot floating in space is completely made up with no evidence to support it, whereas there is other observable corroborating evidence for the existence of God.
1a) Texts documenting times in the past it has been observed by human beings.
1b) Continuing first hand testimony from a variety of sources who have encountered God.
1c) Physical traces from which God's existence can be observed.
1ci) The universe and it's origin
1cii) Fine tuned universe
1ciii) Life
1civ) Consciousness
2) A teapot orbiting the sun is inconsistent with the rest of the observed data and what we know of the universe.
3) A physical object's existence can be verified by current observational tools, but a supernatural object's existence cannot.

The case of Santa Clause is sometimes asserted in place of a teapot. Here we can scientifically prove that there is no toy shop at the North Pole and reindeer do not fly, but we have not yet disproven the existence of Santa Clause, only several properties ascribed to him anecdotally since the nineteenth century. In a similar manner, it is possible to disprove several claims about the nature of God without actually disproving his existence. Furthermore, we can prove a historical Saint Nicolas with a fondness for secret gift giving actually existed in the fourth century, was Bishop of Myra, and signed the Nicene Creed. So the story has some basis in fact, and such a figure once existed, much like the Biblical Jesus corroborated in Josephus and Tacitus. Whether he exists still is another matter. Since Santa Clause is considered a physical being, we can look around and say that he is not present at this moment, but unless we have looked everywhere we cannot yet prove that he does not exist somewhere we are not looking. The only way to prove that the physical being known colloquially as Santa Clause no longer exists is to observe his bones where they lay interred in Venice. Then we can admit that the man is deceased and does not physically travel to every child's house leaving toys on Christmas night. However, if we consider him the spirit of gift giving, and gift giving is practiced in a household, then he may still be said to have a symbolic presence.

Scientific things which are not observed but inferred from the existence of other things:


Even if they were orbiting one of the nearest stars, planets would be too faint to be seen directly with present-day telescopes. A planet would appear fainter than its parent star by a huge factor--roughly the same factor, in fact, by which Venus and Jupiter appear to us fainter than our sun. But in the last few years, planets have been revealed indirectly through their effect on their parent star. Some stars have been found to be wobbling slightly in their positions, just as would be expected if planets were orbiting around them. A planet tugs the star around in a small counterorbit, rather like a small dog pulling its owner on a leash.
-Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat, p. 10


In addition, ΛCDM has no explicit physical theory for the origin or physical nature of dark matter or dark energy; the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of the CMB perturbations, and their image across the celestial sphere, are believed to result from very small thermal and acoustic irregularities at the point of recombination.
...
Extensive searches for dark matter particles have so far shown no well-agreed detection; the dark energy may be almost impossible to detect in a laboratory, and its value is unnaturally small compared to naive theoretical predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model


Dark matter is a type of matter in astronomy and cosmology hypothesized to account for effects that appear to be the result of mass where such mass cannot be seen. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

We also know that Hannibal invaded Italy by going over the Alps. We have several contemporary reports that he did this. We have reports of sightings on either side of the Alps, and we have his destruction in Italy, but the actual path he took is highly debated to this day in scholarly circles, since all traces of his army's passing have been worn away with snow, wind, landslides, and age. Thus we have an example of a great historical event which can be asserted with confidence, but for which the exact details are still hazy.

[Frostball]

snip

I agree that there is a subculture and movement. There are common arguments, and positions that are held by many atheists. At the same time, atheists often vary widely in what they actually believe and there is no dogma. If anything the atheism movement is more similar to political parties, which have all the things you listed. The things that make religion a religion aren't the things you listed, those are common to many things. What makes religions different are things like holy books, dogma, supernatural beliefs.

But ok, even if you were to insist that atheism is a religion. That's really a moot point because none of those things that you listed as reasons for why atheism is a religion are bad things in and of themselves. So if books, movies, large social gatherings, in-jokes, and common political beliefs make something a religion, then religion is not a bad thing. What is bad is accepting claims that have no evidence or bad evidence, and that is where I think the true harm lies.

[Pumpkin337]

To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.

But still, I don't see what's the beef. A believer isn't more unconvinced of the existence God than an atheist is convinced of its existence. Come to think of it both are two sides of the same coin: You believe in what you see. Heads or tails.

I couldn't agree more, only I would argue that the flip side of the coin is 'you believe in what you don't see'... that both sides of the coin require 'faith' and 'belief' just one is in something and the other is in the absence.

[Poetaster]

I see the problem. You thought my lack of response meant agreement. It did not.

Don't worry, people listen. However, just because they listen that doesn't mean they agree.

Right - imagine I said that being a Christian just means eating cake. And no matter how much you told me about Jesus and the bible and the Holy Trinity, I said 'Oh, that's all lovely, but being a Christian has nothing to do with Jesus, it is just about cake. That is my opinion.' Do you not see anything wrong here?

The point is meaningful discourse. If you can't take what the other person is saying on board about their own position, and just go off your opinion, the discourse is not very meaningful.


The story is the string of justifications for that "single point" that expands into an ideology because that point needs to be rationalized otherwise there is cognitive dissonance which is painful.

You are not alone. I am creating one as well with your help as well as the help of the others who participate in this thread. As I see it, we are making it up as we go along. What is interesting is what we think we can get away with as justification for our individual beliefs.

Except I don't have a story, or my 'story' is unknown to me, because although I come from believing parents, I've never had the ability to believe. I don't know why, I just haven't. Atheism to me is not an ideology, it's a starting point - and I don't have an explanation for it. I am by my own admitting an existentialist, and that is my story if anything.

@mortalterror: That is what might be called New Atheism, which is a philosophical movement. Not all atheists are like that, such as myself - I'm an Existentialist. A completely different position, I in some ways admire people who can believe, I want to know what it's like to be honest. But that is closed to me.

Personally, I find the idea of 'Atheist Churches' a bit pathetic, and I have no time for them. I don't much care for Dawkins outside of his scientific writings (I think he's a bit of an arsehole in all honesty) or Hitchens outside of his LitCrit writings. The others you named I've only just heard about from your post. Also I don't like the joke of the Flying Spaghetti monster - I find that rather juvenile. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK the 'atheist movement' isn't apparently so 'in your face'.

Science to me is just a process - I don't have much of a fondness for it. And sure, I like logic, I'll hold my hands up there. I'm by profession a teacher. Show me a teacher who doesn't know how to use and respect logic and I'll show you someone who shouldn't have a job. Also, is there much point to an illogical argument?

So no, you are wrong. There might be the New Atheist subculture, where all of what you said is completely true and applicable. But to say that is representative of everyone who calls them self an atheist is just a fantasy - it's not true.

[Pumpkin337]

the atheist position can be boiled down ... god(s) can not be proved rationally or scientifically therefore god(s) does(do) not exist - right?

but what about all the other things that can not be proved rationally or scientifically?

things like ... where does your consciousness reside?

"I think therefore I am" can not be proven, therefore no matter how much you think, you do not exist. (IF the above argument was true and applied beyond the theist / atheist stance).


or how about something we all rely utterly on its existence and yet proving it is more than a little problematic scientifically speaking - matter.

(and you lazy so-n-so's can look up all the science on that yourselves - that is why god invented google :P )

[Poetaster]

the atheist position can be boiled down ... god(s) can not be proved rationally or scientifically therefore god(s) does not exist - right?

Not quite. Merely the rejection of the claim they do. If some god(s) cannot be proved rationally then that might be a suggestion, but not proof. No one can say they 'know' unless they are an idiot or crazy. That is agnosticism, being an atheist or not is up to opinion. Being a theist requires faith.


but what about all the other things that can not be proved rationally or scientifically?

things like ... where does your consciousness reside?

Allow me to take you to the House of Commons and the mystery would only deepen. :smilewinkgrin:


or how about something we all rely utterly on its existence and yet proving it is more than a little problematic scientifically speaking - matter.

(and you lazy so-n-so's can look up all the science on that yourselves - that is why god invented google :P )

Serious question: why is something unknown a point against a rejection of a claim? That doesn't make much sense I don't think.

[cacian]

Referring to the proverb of the teapot calling the kettle black.

ah OK.
I asked because i have never heard it before. :)

[Pumpkin337]

Serious question: why is something unknown a point against a rejection of a claim? That doesn't make much sense I don't think.

well at some point a person would need to be able justify their rejection otherwise you just look a contrary idiot. Sort of like walking rejecting the notion of the sun .... whilst all around you say 'but there it is' you insist 'but there it isn't' and unless you want to look like a complete idiot you have to offer some rational explanation for your b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶ assertion.

I think at best one could make a logical argument that the issue of god(s) is unknowable because logic must conclude that if there are many unknowable and unprovable things in the universe heck even just here on earth within our own bodies .... we can not assert with any assurance that there is nothing that might exist beyond our current ability to prove its existence without shadow of doubt.

In fact I would suggest that the basis of all scientific discovery is assuming that there is something unknown to discover and know and unless you want to assert (as did scientists in the early 1900's) that we now know all there is to know (which is still as patently absurd as it was when first coined) then logically you can at best say 'at this present time we can not prove or disprove the existence of beings known as god(s) which exist in a reality / dimension / level of energy beyond our current means of measurement'.

Theists assert that the existence of god(s) can not be proved, but can be deduced from evidence of their interaction in the universe. Atheists / agnostics / pick your label choose to deem that evidence as inconclusive.

But logically because of a. our limitations b. lack of evidence one way or another one must logically conclude that as far as scientific evidence goes the jury, is at best, out on the issue.

However the original topic of this discussion was 'why do we NEED god'

I still say ... whether god(s) exist as a separate, unknowable, unmeasurable, but distinct entity / entities or whether we invent them ... we need them as a concept of absolute morality because on our own we can only ever have a relative morality which ultimately makes all actions acceptable when clearly they should not be.

[Poetaster]

well at some point a person would need to be able justify their rejection otherwise you just look a contrary idiot. Sort of like walking rejecting the notion of the sun .... whilst all around you say 'but there it is' you insist 'but there it isn't' and unless you want to look like a complete idiot you have to offer some rational explanation for your b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶ assertion.

I think at best one could make a logical argument that the issue of god(s) is unknowable because logic must conclude that if there are many unknowable and unprovable things in the universe heck even just here on earth within our own bodies .... we can not assert with any assurance that there is nothing that might exist beyond our current ability to prove its existence without shadow of doubt.

In fact I would suggest that the basis of all scientific discovery is assuming that there is something unknown to discover and know and unless you want to assert (as did scientists in the early 1900's) that we now know all there is to know (which is still as patently absurd as it was when first coined) then logically you can at best say 'at this present time we can not prove or disprove the existence of beings known as god(s) which exist in a reality / dimension / level of energy beyond our current means of measurement'.

Theists assert that the existence of god(s) can not be proved, but can be deduced from evidence of their interaction in the universe. Atheists / agnostics / pick your label choose to deem that evidence as inconclusive.

Well, I've been called many worse things than a 'contrarian idiot' by people of the theist persuasion, so I'd call that an improvement.

Tell me, if you saw the rise of the Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg but never bought into the whole thing and warned people it might not be a good alternative to Tzarism or Capitalism, and lived long enough to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, at what point do you stop becoming a 'contrarian idiot'? When you were proved right? So we should all accept without question whatever we hear until we finally learn the truth - that we somehow find without looking for it. Sorry, you might be able to do that, but I can't. I can't not question things, and settle for what might be a lie.

By the way, if you've bothered to read my posts you'll see I call myself an atheist, but I admit (am happy to admit) that the actual existence of a god or gods is unknown and maybe unknowable. I feel I can give my reasons for making me think that there isn't, but ultimately I don't know.


I still say ... whether god(s) exist as a separate, unknowable, unmeasurable, but distinct entity / entities or whether we invent them ... we need them as a concept of absolute morality because on our own we can only ever have a relative morality which ultimately makes all actions acceptable when clearly they should not be.

Not acceptable by whose standards? Yours? Is murder ok? What about war, when murder is encouraged? Or is it not murder when it's called something else? Are primitive tribes who use ritualistic sacrifices wrong despite the fact that it is part of their belief system? Does the universe really care if one human kills another?

[Pumpkin337]

Well, I've been called many worse things than a 'contrarian idiot' by people of the theist persuasion, so I'd call that an improvement.

Tell me, if you saw the rise of the Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg but never bought into the whole thing and warned people it might not be a good alternative to Tzarism or Capitalism, and lived long enough to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, at what point do you stop becoming a 'contrarian idiot'? When you were proved right? So we should all accept without question whatever we hear until we finally learn the truth - that we somehow find without looking for it. Sorry, you might be able to do that, but I can't. I can't not question things, and settle for what might be a lie.

By the way, if you've bothered to read my posts you'll see I call myself an atheist, but I admit (am happy to admit) that the actual existence of a god or gods is unknown and maybe unknowable. I feel I can give my reasons for making me think that there isn't, but ultimately I don't know.



Not acceptable by whose standards? Yours? Is murder ok? What about war, when murder is encouraged? Or is it not murder when it's called something else? Are primitive tribes who use ritualistic sacrifices wrong despite the fact that it is part of their belief system? Does the universe really care if one human kills another?

One assumes that even in your hypothetical example that there would be some reasoning behind your disagreement otherwise, yes, you are simply an argumentative contrary idiot who disagrees simply because they can.

And I didn't say that one couldn't disagree, just that disagreeing without being able to offer some reasoning for why other than 'it just isn't' isn't good enough. Many times in this thread it has been stated that the burden of proof is on those who say a thing is, adroitly dodging the need to defend their own position ... this isn't good enough. It might work in a pure logic debate but in reality you can't just say 'well I don't' ... at some point you need to defend why you don't otherwise ...

As for 'by whose standards' well that is the exact core of the problem. If by human standards then we end up where you do .. every thing is acceptable to some one for some reason which is internally consistent with their beliefs ... however ... the logical conclusion of this is that there is no morality and everyone is free to do anything they like to anyone else.

Surely one could see how this is not acceptable, that there have to be some rules about what one can and can't justifiably do to others. However given the nature of man ... and the contrariness of some who argue just because without reason :P .... it is better if we refer to some force larger than ourselves with regard some basic absolute 'thou shalt not's'.

[Marbles]

however ... the logical conclusion of this is that there is no morality and everyone is free to do anything they like to anyone else.

Surely one could see how this is not acceptable, that there have to be some rules about what one can and can't justifiably do to others.

Basic morality comes naturally to humans, it's intrinsic to our human makeup. Such as stealing, lying, unjustifiable killing, cheating etc are wrong and must be avoided. Being kind and caring to others, helping the needy, and holding justice between people etc...none of this comes exclusively from the scriptures.

However, for advanced morality, for grey areas, for where there are disagreements, one might say that we need help but the presumption that this help must be from God rests on shaky foundations. We hardly refer to scripture when we are confronted with grey areas in morality. Not because we want to be independent in our decisions but because the old scriptures are, let's face it, incapable of offering any meaningful advice in those grey areas.

Bad argument, I'm afraid.

[Poetaster]

One assumes that even in your hypothetical example that there would be some reasoning behind your disagreement otherwise, yes, you are simply an argumentative contrary idiot who disagrees simply because they can.

And I didn't say that one couldn't disagree, just that disagreeing without being able to offer some reasoning for why other than 'it just isn't' isn't good enough. Many times in this thread it has been stated that the burden of proof is on those who say a thing is, adroitly dodging the need to defend their own position ... this isn't good enough. It might work in a pure logic debate but in reality you can't just say 'well I don't' ... at some point you need to defend why you don't otherwise ...

Well, it might be an often used argument, but it's true to say that would you believe I am sitting with the Philosopher's Stone next to my laptop as I write this? I think you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'Nah, I think that's horse **** until you show me a picture at least', and I think you'd have every right to be annoyed if I said 'Well, why don't you believe I have the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop? Can't you just take it on faith?' So people are being 'contrary idiots' if they are disagreeing without giving any reason? Well, I agree, thanks for admitting you are not listening to the other side. Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.

By the way, Contrarian Idiot isn't a bad coinage.

It's a good rule that you never need to justify a negative, since it is merely the rejection of a positive claim. 'God exists' is a positive claim, since it is actually saying something that is at least in theory unknown, so me saying 'No, he doesn't' is a negative claim - a rejection, requiring no need to justify it if you cannot convincingly argue that a god exists. The words 'convincingly argue' is important there, and I never found theist's arguments convincing, that's why I'm an atheist.


As for 'by whose standards' well that is the exact core of the problem. If by human standards then we end up where you do .. every thing is acceptable to some one for some reason which is internally consistent with their beliefs ... however ... the logical conclusion of this is that there is no morality and everyone is free to do anything they like to anyone else.

Surely one could see how this is not acceptable, that there have to be some rules about what one can and can't justifiably do to others. However given the nature of man ... and the contrariness of some who argue just because without reason :P .... it is better if we refer to some force larger than ourselves with regard some basic absolute 'thou shalt not's'.

Why is it not acceptable? You have not gave a reason, so you are now being the Contrarian Idiot. ;)

Again, I don't see a universal morality because everyone's morality is slightly different. I don't see the idea as acceptable that all living things live by the same code. You are imagining your subjective morality as universal by assuming there is an objective morality, and that's just not logical. This isn't 'without reason', if the Ancient Greeks found ritualistic sacrifices acceptable, who is to say they were wrong and we are right? What makes our perspective special? These are questions you haven't answered, and I don't think you can.

[Pumpkin337]

Well, it might be an often used argument, but it's true to say that would you believe I am sitting with the Philosopher's Stone next to my laptop as I write this? I think you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'Nah, I think that's horse **** until you show me a picture at least', and I think you'd have every right to be annoyed if I said 'Well, why don't you believe I have the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop? Can't you just take it on faith?' So people are being 'contrary idiots' if they are disagreeing without giving any reason? Well, I agree, thanks for admitting you are not listening to the other side. Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.

well yes and no ... there is a point at which your insistence on my faith in your assertion becomes an issue of trust and there is a point at which my continued failure to provide justification for my lack of trust / faith becomes simply nonsensical and problematical.

Logical constructs of argument don't hold well in the real world where most of us operate. Its all very well to throw around neat philosophical constructs and use them as the basis for this kind of debate, but at the end of the day, it isn't enough to say 'because I don't'. Even to pooh pooh every proof offered by those who do believe simply devolves into an unresolvable brick wall unless you can offer a solid reason for why what they believe is wrong. ESPECIALLY if you wish to convince them to your way of thinking.

This applies equally in the opposite direction. It is futile to offer your proofs to some one who isn't, at very least, prepared to entertain the possibility of their validity. It is even more useless and futile to attempt to discuss anything with some one who offers their disbelief as their 'proof' of the invalidity of your proof and who then have the audacity to turn around and say that they don't have to justify or defend why they think your proof is invalid - the simple fact of their disbelief is enough.

No, sorry not good enough.

If I present a theorem for review it isn't enough for people to say 'oh no that isn't true' they have to actively prove why it isn't so. Disbelief in and of itself is a choice, but it holds no water as proof of anything nor does it support any kind of debate. If there is no logical proof for your belief, then it is, as I have said all along, just your belief system not a fact and as such is no different from those who believe the opposite.

[Poetaster]

well yes and no ... there is a point at which your insistence on my faith in your assertion becomes an issue of trust and there is a point at which my continued failure to provide justification for my lack of trust / faith becomes simply nonsensical and problematical.

Funnily, this is exactly what I'm saying in a sense.


Logical constructs of argument don't hold well in the real world where most of us operate. Its all very well to throw around neat philosophical constructs and use them as the basis for this kind of debate, but at the end of the day, it isn't enough to say 'because I don't'. Even to pooh pooh every proof offered by those who do believe simply devolves into an unresolvable brick wall unless you can offer a solid reason for why what they believe is wrong. ESPECIALLY if you wish to convince them to your way of thinking.

1) I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I know I can't, what I am trying to do by posting is clear up obvious misconceptions people have about atheism - not to convince them they should be atheists.

2) I haven't offered any 'proofs', I've merely critiqued people who presume they know something I don't think they do. More on this later.


This applies equally in the opposite direction. It is futile to offer your proofs to some one who isn't, at very least, prepared to entertain the possibility of their validity. It is even more useless and futile to attempt to discuss anything with some one who offers their disbelief as their 'proof' of the invalidity of your proof and who then have the audacity to turn around and say that they don't have to justify or defend why they think your proof is invalid - the simple fact of their disbelief is enough.

No, sorry not good enough.

Again, I have offered no proofs. The most in the way of proof that I have said you have quoted from: 'Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.' This is not proof of anything, this is merely a consideration given the lack of proof as to why I don't personally think there is a god given the positive claim they do. If the positive claim is not satisfactorily supported with proof it can be rejected without proof. If I were to tell you I had the Philosophers Stone beside my laptop, I wouldn't have any right to say when you doubted it 'Well, you can't prove I don't have it!' because things do not work that way. God is no different, it's an idea that people have said exists without proof, and people have dismissed without proof, of the two, because there is no proof, I hold with those who dismiss the claim.

If that's not good enough then nothing is, and there is no point continuing this conversation.


If I present a theorem for review it isn't enough for people to say 'oh no that isn't true' they have to actively prove why it isn't so.

You keep saying this, like no reasons have been given. I've given one reason why I think gods do not exist above, now you can ignore it all you want, but it's there.


Disbelief in and of itself is a choice, but it holds no water as proof of anything nor does it support any kind of debate.

Exactly. It doesn't need to 'hold water' or offer any kind of argument, but it can provide an argument to justify itself if it must. Mostly by pointing out that you (I'm addressing you yourself now) are not being pressured into proving I don't have the Philosophers Stone beside my laptop. Unless you believe that I do. Do you?


If there is no logical proof for your belief, then it is, as I have said all along, just your belief system not a fact and as such is no different from those who believe the opposite.

I dare you to look through this thread and show me an example of where I have said otherwise. In fact, I'll even be so kind as to remind you of my 'belief system' or rather 'Philosophy', I'm an Existentialist. I've never hidden this fact at all.

[Pumpkin337]

@Poetaster I think that at least one of the points which you and I have a fundamental miscommunication, is that I am not speaking to you directly on a personal level. I use your responses to direct general replies to every one and I mistakenly thought that was self-evident from the language I use. So let's be clear, unless I directly address you, as I have now ( and this applies to others who have taken my broad statements personally) I am making more generalised and sweeping statements directed at a wider audience than one individual, even if I quote you, it is because something you said is illustrative of, or can be used to address, a wider point.