Atheism

[Clem72]

We have LOTS of clues, and evidence, that man has LONG believed in gods. 1,000's, maybe countless religions have come and gone.

Reminds me of an old quote. There are perhaps 1000 gods in all of the religions of man. Christians do not believe in 999 of them, and atheist believe in only one less.

 

[PsyOps]

Again, rather interesting if that's the intelligent design, wouldn't you say?

Given that I don't get to make the rules, I am fascinated by it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Reminds me of an old quote. There are perhaps 1000 gods in all of the religions of man. Christians do not believe in 999 of them, and atheist believe in only one less.

Ah, yes. Again, we're all much more alike than different!

 

[This_person]

You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means.






Splitting such fine hairs is beyond the scope of my interest. As is repeating the same argument using different words. We've successfully reach the point of spinning wheels.


You clearly do not use the word faith in the same way that I do.

If you don't like assume, how about "deduce".

If you only deduce something, you do not know it.

Would you agree that the only way to prove the formation of the universe is to design an experiment whereby nothing - not time, not space, not matter - exists, and do nothing to the nothing you have so you can't have a potential to interfere with the experiment (and thus intelligently design the outcome), and watch as that nothing becomes a universe capable of generating life both with and without thought capability? And, true to the scientific method, that experiment must be repeatable and peer reviewed?

 

[This_person]

So you believe that everything could come together to serendipitously create God, an almighty omnipotent being, but couldn't create us?

I'm not sure what you believe as a Christian, how fundamental you are or how "to the letter" you hold the Bible, but I believe that this...world, solar system, universe, everything...was created over billions of years. Science indicates that rather firmly. I think they say the universe is 13by or some such. Think about that: 13 BILLION years. Your lifespan is 100 years, now imagine 130 million times that. It's inconceivable (in the correct sense of the word) and leaves time for a LOT of evolution.

There is physical evidence of our caveman ancestors, so we know that they aren't the intelligent creatures depicted in the Old Testament. There is physical evidence that dinosaurs once roamed the earth. There is physical evidence that this planet has changed dramatically over the eons.

There's a few hundred million year gap in the life of the coelacanth as a species, so I'm very well on solid ground to deduce there is a gap in our understanding and fossil evidence of the history of mankind. Fossil evidence is tainted by our pre-conceived notions. We just say everything we can't understand was a religious practice. Why did 21st century man have all of these little black plastic things? Must have been a religious article, and they were all pretty religious! (Or, they're cell phones.)

We have ancient technology that is virtually impossible to reperform today with modern tools that we think ancient man did with sticks. We have accurate maps of Antarctica coastlines that no one alive today has ever seen except through satellite technology to penetrate the snow, and those maps date back a thousand years or more. We, as a species, don't even know what we USED to know, let alone what we think we know now.

 

[This_person]

We have LOTS of clues, and evidence, that man has LONG believed in gods. 1,000's, maybe countless religions have come and gone. You say they couldn't communicate it intelligently. I'd agree that the ability to write it down mattered but China could write 2,000 years before Christ. Why did an ID skip them with the Abrahamic god? Seems obvious to me.

What makes you think they were skipped? In the Christian view, they as much the sons and daughters of God as the rest of the humans. The bible is the part of the story you NEED to know, not everything you WANT to know.

If you say god was in no hurry, in my view, it completely wipes out the argument that he has a plan for us. Why are we so special and our ancestors, his creations, not so much? That doesn't disprove gods or a god. It does blow a pretty enormous hole in the loving god narrative. You suggest maybe they were more in tune than us. Could be. Maybe we just thing they lived like animals and are all very happy in the eternal after life.

Why do you think they were any less special? Why wasn't their plan to generate the conditions for the future, just like that's our role? You're saying nothing that "blow a pretty enormous hole in the loving god narrative."

And to say god has a plan for all time and space and places continues the atheist argument of a god of varying affections if we're supposed to be his loving children. It becomes, quickly, the answer when we have no; gods will!

Only if you assume that God is held to the laws of the universe with respect to time as we understand them today - a very small-minded thought process to put on someone who could CREATE the whole idea of time and space.

So, with god, all things are possible to which a sound atheist would say 'that's for sure!'.

One other thought; man of, say, 5,000 or 50,000 or 150,000 years ago, if he could write to us in a way we understood, he wouldn't be speaking of an Abrahamic god. He couldn't do so any more than the Chinese would or could if they'd made this stuff up. They'd pass on the myths and superstitions they came up with to explain the unexplainable. Another way to put that is if a child born today could be isolated from ALL religious material yet free to learn biology, astronomy, geology and physics, would they come up with anything resembling an Abrahamic or Buddha based faith? Let's turn that around; if we could send our knowledge back to man of 5,000 or 50,000 or 150,000 years ago in his way of understanding, what's more likely, that he'd reject it as heresy, lies, deception or would he sit back and say "Huh, well, that makes a whole lot more sense. Honey, stop the sacrifice. That's not how it works it seems..."

Interesting experiment. Let's take atheists and give them higher scientific knowledge and ask them (see the list of 27 prominent scientists previously provided).

 

[Toxick]

If you don't like assume, how about "deduce".

If you only deduce something, you do not know it.

Well when you get right down to where the short hairs are, I don't KNOW that you exist. I don't know that *I* exist.
There comes a point at which you have to say, there is enough evidence that to believe otherwise is ####ing absurd.

For example, to believe that electrons don't exist is absurd.




Deduction is good enough.

 

[This_person]

But why evolve? Why not get it right the first time?

That, to me, is the biggest argument for evolution over creationism. God is this all-powerful all-knowing being, yet he too had a large number of beta versions and continues to tinker?

I also don't believe that we, you and I, this earth, these animals, these plants, are the end of the line. We will evolve into something else, and perhaps be unrecognizable in another millennia. That's why "climate change" doesn't disturb me: I don't believe that we, humans, are all that important in the grand scheme of things. We're just another part of the universe and whatever is beyond that. We will either evolve or die and something else will take our place.

Isn't that a huge assumption that, because we evolve we must not have been right before?

 

[This_person]

Well when you get right down to where the short hairs are, I don't KNOW that you exist. I don't know that *I* exist.
There comes a point at which you have to say, there is enough evidence that to believe otherwise is ####ing absurd.

For example, to believe that electrons don't exist is absurd.




Deduction is good enough.

I believe electrons exist. I'm not as convinced about quarks, though

I deduce from my observed evidence that God exists. Deduction is, after all, good enough

 

[Larry Gude]

What makes you think they were skipped? ).

I don't think they were skipped because I don't think there was a god to skip them. You seem happy with a biblical explanation and that's fine. God, obviously, is not held to any laws of the universe. Through him all things are possible. To which I say it sure seems that way.

As for your scientists and their faith every single one of them is an atheist in that they only believe one faith; they're atheists when it comes to faiths they don't believe in. Or did I miss where they are polytheists? All faiths can be 'right' or maybe only 1 or maybe none.

How many religions do you believe are correct?

 

[This_person]

I don't think they were skipped because I don't think there was a god to skip them. You seem happy with a biblical explanation and that's fine. God, obviously, is not held to any laws of the universe. Through him all things are possible. To which I say it sure seems that way.

Wait, you said, "Why did an ID skip them with the Abrahamic god?" So, are you saying they were skipped or not? I get that you don't believe there is a god to have skipped them, but what made you say He did?

As for your scientists and their faith every single one of them is an atheist in that they only believe one faith; they're atheists when it comes to faiths they don't believe in. Or did I miss where they are polytheists? All faiths can be 'right' or maybe only 1 or maybe none.

That's like saying they're blue because they're not green.

An atheist believes there is no higher power, no god of any kind. Not that the evidence suggests it is unlikely; an atheist's claim is that there is, definitively, no god of any kind. All the people on my list stated pretty categorically that their scientific findings make them believe there is a god of some kind. Not necessarily the exact version the current pope says, but a god of some kind.

That's not an atheist.

How many religions do you believe are correct?

My personal faith says that the broader concept of Christianity is correct. Not your version, or my version, or mAlice's version....but, the broader concept.

 

[PsyOps]

Where do you think God came from?

From the kingdom of God of course

 

[This_person]

Just found this funny

 

[philibusters]

Since atheism is nothing but the religion of nothingness, I believe it deserves a thread in this community.

I seek atheists to discuss not their understanding of other people's religions, but their understanding of their own. I see many atheists continually ridicule the religious in this community, but fail to ever really explain themselves. I would appreciate as respectful and open a dialogue on atheism as you have on other people's religions.

To start, I would like to ask the atheist on what they base their faith that there is no higher power.

I lean towards atheism. But I don't think of that position as a religion. A religion is 1) a community that forms around a shared belief, that 2) gives guidance on how to live a just life, and 3) is prism for understanding the world. In terms of a shared belief system that defines a community, I don't really identify with other atheists. For example I believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. That said, I realize that issue has not been solved definitively yet and new evidence can come out at any time that refutes it. Plus I don't necessarily expect fellow atheists to believe in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics. They may believe in the Copenhagen explanation. So there is no community based around a shared belief. In terms of the prism for understanding the world, science fills in for religion quite nicely. However it gives much less definitive answers. In terms of how to live a just life, science doesn't fill in near as much, so people develop their ethics culturally and socially like everybody else, but unlike with a religious person there is no official expert such as a priest or minister to turn when you are unsure what to do. That said you can always ask ethical people what they think.

I don't believe a human like God because I have never seen any evidence of a God as described by the major religions of the world. If you define a higher power broadly then I acknowledge that a higher power could exist. But a higher power could be a computer that creating us a simulation or just physical realities that seem like magic to us (different universes with different physics).

 

[PsyOps]

I don't believe a human like God because I have never seen any evidence of a God as described by the major religions of the world.

What sort of evidence would you need? I use black holes as an example. We can see them, but we know they're there because of how objects behave around it. The evidence isn't in the actual seeing of it, but rather what's happening around it.

Isn't there evidence of things that are happening around God: archeological evidence, billions and billions of believers, the fact that life transformed from inanimate matter, that there is actually order from all that chaos in our universe...?

Do you actually have to see this God in order to believe? Is that the criteria to believe in anything?

 

[philibusters]

What sort of evidence would you need? I use black holes as an example. We can see them, but we know they're there because of how objects behave around it. The evidence isn't in the actual seeing of it, but rather what's happening around it.

Isn't there evidence of things that are happening around God: archeological evidence, billions and billions of believers, the fact that life transformed from inanimate matter, that there is actually order from all that chaos in our universe...?

Do you actually have to see this God in order to believe? Is that the criteria to believe in anything?

I would have to experience God in order to believe.

In terms of the evidence you cite I am not sure what the archeological evidence is, but the fact that there are millions of believers doesn't convince me because there are and have been lots of religions with different gods throughout time, plus human societies benefit from religion, in the sense that a shared belief creates greater cohesion in society. The fact that life transformed from inanimate matter doesn't prove God's existence to me either, you could probably describe that process through physic, chemistry, and biological processes. Plus as computer technology gets better, computers could take on a life of their own and they come from inanimate object. The universe is actually getting more chaotic as entropy throughout the universe increases. Even in our solar system entropy is increasing, but you get pockets of places where entropy is decreasing like when life formed on earth, however in order for entropy to decrease on earth it has to increase by the same amount or higher elsewhere (which in our solar system is happening in the sun).

I believe in black holes because I find the evidence convincing. There black holes were theorized about based on the known laws of the universe before we discovered their likely presence in the universe. In other words you only need to believe in time-space and gravity to believe in blackholes and I see gravity act every day. When we discovered their likely presence in our galaxy and nearby galaxies that was just more evidence of their existence.

 

[This_person]

I lean towards atheism. But I don't think of that position as a religion. A religion is 1) a community that forms around a shared belief, that 2) gives guidance on how to live a just life, and 3) is prism for understanding the world. In terms of a shared belief system that defines a community, I don't really identify with other atheists. For example I believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. That said, I realize that issue has not been solved definitively yet and new evidence can come out at any time that refutes it. Plus I don't necessarily expect fellow atheists to believe in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics. They may believe in the Copenhagen explanation. So there is no community based around a shared belief. In terms of the prism for understanding the world, science fills in for religion quite nicely. However it gives much less definitive answers. In terms of how to live a just life, science doesn't fill in near as much, so people develop their ethics culturally and socially like everybody else, but unlike with a religious person there is no official expert such as a priest or minister to turn when you are unsure what to do. That said you can always ask ethical people what they think.

I don't believe a human like God because I have never seen any evidence of a God as described by the major religions of the world. If you define a higher power broadly then I acknowledge that a higher power could exist. But a higher power could be a computer that creating us a simulation or just physical realities that seem like magic to us (different universes with different physics).

There seems to be a lot of variation both in believers of higher power and not, so I found this picture. It seems very accurate to the people with whom I've spoken.

 

[This_person]

I would have to experience God in order to believe.

In terms of the evidence you cite I am not sure what the archeological evidence is, but the fact that there are millions of believers doesn't convince me because there are and have been lots of religions with different gods throughout time, plus human societies benefit from religion, in the sense that a shared belief creates greater cohesion in society. The fact that life transformed from inanimate matter doesn't prove God's existence to me either, you could probably describe that process through physic, chemistry, and biological processes. Plus as computer technology gets better, computers could take on a life of their own and they come from inanimate object. The universe is actually getting more chaotic as entropy throughout the universe increases. Even in our solar system entropy is increasing, but you get pockets of places where entropy is decreasing like when life formed on earth, however in order for entropy to decrease on earth it has to increase by the same amount or higher elsewhere (which in our solar system is happening in the sun).

I believe in black holes because I find the evidence convincing. There black holes were theorized about based on the known laws of the universe before we discovered their likely presence in the universe. In other words you only need to believe in time-space and gravity to believe in blackholes and I see gravity act every day. When we discovered their likely presence in our galaxy and nearby galaxies that was just more evidence of their existence.

Would you agree that everything you described about black holes is just an assumption based on observation, and that the assumption has been modified over time to fit the changing and more complete observations?

A belief in God, as I understand Him, is merely the emotional/spiritual version of that. My observations have given me the firm understanding of Him, and my understanding has grown over time as I have observed more.

 

[Larry Gude]

A belief in God, as I understand Him, is merely the emotional/spiritual version of that. My observations have given me the firm understanding of Him, and my understanding has grown over time as I have observed more.

If religions weren't making claims to be THE word, THE way and promising eternal subjugation for believers and purgatory for the non believers, celebrating and yearning for that judgement day, that would be fine, but that core feature remains.

Science is, by definition, always asking, always willing to abandon a position once the hypothesis fails or is displaced by better proofs. If your understanding is to say you leave the non sense behind as you learn and grow, great. But if you retain that core belief and hope, you gotta expect people are not be willing to just go along nor be happy that it is in our politics. If you're saying you have a pick and choose version of religion then that's good in a broader sense. However, it can't be said to be true to the religion unless that core is rejected. Religion doesn't allow for picking and choosing nor does it allow for non believers to be left in peace; they're damned and doomed unless they get on board.

 

[Larry Gude]

There seems to be a lot of variation both in believers of higher power and not, so I found this picture. It seems very accurate to the people with whom I've spoken.
View attachment 117537

5th mindset; I don't believe in a god and the evidence against it continues to grow. The place faith stands on, continues to shrink. Further, this makes sense to me and makes the whole thing good that our earliest, and worst, attempts at reason and science and philosophy and biology should fade slowly into history.