Why I Don't Believe In God

[KCurtis]

I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global flood, are literally true, all runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

Well stated. I can't understand why religion and science cannot co-exist. There are certainly scientists, and people who accept evolution, who are religious.
Also, the reason we have not provided scientific data to support facts concerning geology, dinosaurs, evolution,etc., on this forum is because it has already been provided, it's everywhere, but people just choose to believe what they do. This thread will change nobody's mind. My brother in-law is a creationist. I really like him, and I don't seek him out to insult him-I don't think he is unintelligent. I don't bring up the subject- but if I am asked, I will have more ammunition for my argument than he will.

[BienvenuJDC]

The evidence corroborating the theory of evolution is staggering. I won't touch the global warming thing, except to say that the money is in denying it. You have a decomposed carcass that most think was a shark and that's the extent of your evidence? Where did the dinosaurs go? Why are there not any in the Amazonian jungle? There are few scientists percentage-wise who believe in a young earth, none of which I suspect could be deemed credible. Geology, biology, physics, climatology, its all one vast international multi-generational conspiracy of thousands of anti-Christian minds manipulating the evidence, out to discredit your beliefs.

The money is in DENYING it? I don't even care to discuss anything with you any more. If you can't understand the total fallacy in global warming and the money that has been gained by pushing that agenda, then there's no discussing anything with you. You have your mind set on things.

[Varenne Rodin]

Again, Bien, where did the icecaps go? Why are polar bears going homeless?

[JuniperWoolf]

The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact.

I think that this is dead on, and likely the reason why there is so much debate between fundamentalist theists and science people (notice I'm not saying "athists" - there are many people who's opinions adhere to the scientific process who are also religious). For a person who forces themselves to accept things which are easy to disprove, the proof doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is their version of the truth. To a scientist, proof is ALL that matters. The truth changes depending on the facts. That's why I don't put any stock into the opinion that science is just another religion because it is another "belief" - the two are worlds apart, they're exact opposites on a fundamental level.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I'd tell him the truth and say "I don't know." That's the only truth - NO ONE KNOWS. The most important person in the world to me wouldn't ask that question, though. He can think for himself.

and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.

A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that I find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies.

I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young.

Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out.

Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times.

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations. Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him. People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists, which puts us in the plus column (and don't even try to twist my words - consider yourself officially informed that it is VOCAL FUNDAMENTALISTS that we are discussing here, not religious people in general).

[cafolini]

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day.

Well, keep going. Now I know you are preaching entanglement with nonsense. Have fun.

[YesNo]

Also, the reason we have not provided scientific data to support facts concerning geology, dinosaurs, evolution,etc., on this forum is because it has already been provided, it's everywhere, but people just choose to believe what they do. This thread will change nobody's mind.

I agree that the thread will change no one's mind. Personally, I like the divergence of opinions. It does give anyone who chooses to post opportunities to clarify their positions.

I disagree with the reason people do not provide supporting evidence for their claims. I don't think it is because the evidence is somewhere else. Rather, it is because we don't know what that evidence is and we don't want to clarify the basis of our ideas. Without supporting evidence, all one has is unquestioned dogmatism which we might as well stop pretending is science and call it what it is: a belief system.

Two of BienvenuJDC's arguments seem to go something like this, unless I misunderstood him:

1) The human species is less than 10,000 years old.

2) Evolution did not occur.

Now I think the human species is about 150,000 years old, but that is based on a claim I remember reading in Brian Sykes' The Seven Daughters of Eve. However, taking Sykes word for it doesn't seem like very strong evidence. There must be better evidence.

What is that evidence?

I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?

[JuniperWoolf]

I agree that the thread will change no one's mind.

Threads change my mind all the time. It was in a thread that The Atheist convinced me that being tolerant of people who push ideas that promote inequality, suffering and ignorance is NOT the good kind of tolerance. Also, Darcy just convinced me a few pages ago to tolerate these ideas as long as the people who have them are willing to shut up about them and not try to change the government or school systems to suit their religion. That's why I like internet debates.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread hasn't changed my mind, but it has taught my a lesson I refuse to learn, and will undoubtedly break in the future, and that is to not bother arguing with fundamentalists.

[YesNo]

Threads change my mind all the time. It was in a thread that The Atheist convinced me that being tolerant of people who push ideas that promote inequality, suffering and ignorance is NOT the good kind of tolerance.

Actually, they change my mind as well, come to think of it. It was a post by OrphanPip almost a year ago that contained a link to a lecture on cosmology that made me realize the Big Bang was not what I thought it was, but a radical beginning out of nothing.

That basically eliminated atheism as a viable position.

[JuniperWoolf]

Actually, they change my mind as well, come to think of it. It was a post by OrphanPip almost a year ago that contained a link to a lecture on cosmology that made me realize the Big Bang was not what I thought it was, but a radical beginning out of nothing.

That basically eliminated atheism as a viable position.

The thing that blew my mind was when my highschool physics teacher told us that the laws of physics would have had to exist (eg. expansion outwards from an internal heat source) before there was matter and energy for the rules to act upon.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, keep going. Now I know you are preaching entanglement with nonsense. Have fun.

That wasn't directed at you, caf. I'm not preaching nonsense. "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." This was to answer a question that was posed to me. Sometimes you make quick judgements about my intentions. If you want to assess me correctly watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and soak up that carefree vibe to apply to my text.

[BienvenuJDC]

This thread hasn't changed my mind, but it has taught my a lesson I refuse to learn, and will undoubtedly break in the future, and that is to not bother arguing with fundamentalists.

Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?

[JuniperWoolf]

Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?

I'm just curious, if we were to look up "pot calling the kettle black" on wiki, would we find your picture?

[Varenne Rodin]

I think that this is dead on, and likely the reason why there is so much debate between fundamentalist theists and science people (notice I'm not saying "athists" - there are many people who's opinions adhere to the scientific process who are also religious). For a person who forces themselves to accept things which are easy to disprove, the proof doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is their version of the truth. To a scientist, proof is ALL that matters. The truth changes depending on the facts. That's why I don't put any stock into the opinion that science is just another religion because it is another "belief" - the two are worlds apart, they're exact opposites on a fundamental level.



I'd tell him the truth and say "I don't know." That's the only truth - NO ONE KNOWS. The most important person in the world to me wouldn't ask that question, though. He can think for himself.



A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that I find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies.



Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out.

Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times.



It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations. Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him. People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists, which puts us in the plus column (and don't even try to twist my words - consider yourself officially informed that it is VOCAL FUNDAMENTALISTS that we are discussing here, not religious people in general).

You're making great arguments, Jupiter. Well said.

[Darcy88]

I agree that the thread will change no one's mind. Personally, I like the divergence of opinions. It does give anyone who chooses to post opportunities to clarify their positions.

I disagree with the reason people do not provide supporting evidence for their claims. I don't think it is because the evidence is somewhere else. Rather, it is because we don't know what that evidence is and we don't want to clarify the basis of our ideas. Without supporting evidence, all one has is unquestioned dogmatism which we might as well stop pretending is science and call it what it is: a belief system.

Two of BienvenuJDC's arguments seem to go something like this, unless I misunderstood him:

1) The human species is less than 10,000 years old.

2) Evolution did not occur.

Now I think the human species is about 150,000 years old, but that is based on a claim I remember reading in Brian Sykes' The Seven Daughters of Eve. However, taking Sykes word for it doesn't seem like very strong evidence. There must be better evidence.

What is that evidence?

I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?

I think if the overwhelming majority of persons who complete higher level study of the subject have reached a consensus, we can take that consensus to mean something. I shouldn't have to study evolution in order to believe in it. And my failure to study it should not lead to the equating of my belief to dogmatism. I believe the earth is round but I've never performed the calculations myself. Its an extreme example but it nicely illustrates my point.