Pushing God from gap to gap.

[Prodigy54321]

so when the river flooded and the crops grew and sustained people...Osiris did it.

when lightning and thunder crashed...Zeus did it

countless other unexplained phenomena have been attributed to gods...but these phenomena have since been explained without invoking a concious being who willed these things to happen.

every time we figure something out...we push "the God hypothesis" back further and further..into bigger unexplained phenomena...

although there are still people who maintain that God does miraculous things..healing the sick, for instance....or HAS DONE miraculous things..flooding the earth, creating humans (not via natural processes and evolution)..

God has pretty much been pushed back to the creation of EVERYTHING...this, at least, believers are sure of...

is this the last frontier for God?..is there any more room for God to be pushed back into?

if not..if most people continue to believe in God..even when he is pushed back to the ultimate extent...is there really any hope that, through further exploration of the universe and further understanding of it, people will let go of this belief?

the only "cure" if this is the case, it the knowledge of EVERYTHING..so that no room is left to place a god...we certainly can't expect to achieve that..right?

Why do people insist on filling up the gaps with gods in the first place?...hasn't history clearly shown that this is misguided?..How many beliefs concerning gods have to be later proven to be wrong before people acknowledge that maybe their own beliefs are of the same flavor?

What I really mean to ask is...which is a better tactic for ending a person's belief in a god...taking one of the gaps they propose a god "resides" in a and filling it...or showing the person why their tendency to fill these gaps with a god in the first place is illogical?

the former, as could be inferred by my rant, seems futile to me...as we have seen, people have no problem pushing God back as far as is possible.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]

What I really mean to ask is...which is a better tactic for ending a person's belief in a god...taking one of the gaps they propose a god "resides" in a and filling it...or showing the person why their tendency to fill these gaps with a god in the first place is illogical?


[/ QUOTE ]

teach a man to fish

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
so when the river flooded and the crops grew and sustained people...Osiris did it.

when lightning and thunder crashed...Zeus did it

countless other unexplained phenomena have been attributed to gods...but these phenomena have since been explained without invoking a concious being who willed these things to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

“My dear Holmes,” said I, “this is too much. You would certainly have been burned, had you lived a few centuries ago..."

“It is simplicity itself,” said he; “my eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scraped round the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you had been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant bootslitting specimen of the London slavey. As to your practice, if a gentleman walks into my rooms smelling of iodoform, with a black mark of nitrate of silver upon his right forefinger, and a bulge on the right side of his top-hat to show where he has secreted his stethoscope, I must be dull, indeed, if I do not pronounce him to be an active member of the medical profession.”*

I could not help laughing at the ease with which he explained his process of deduction. “When I hear you give your reasons,” I remarked, “the thing always appears to me to be so ridiculously simple that I could easily do it myself, though at each successive instance of your reasoning I am baffled until you explain your process.”

-----

The leap from "I (loosely) understand the mechanism" to "ergo, God isn't responsible" really is wonderful to behold.

I have no idea whether science will ultimately lead (back) to a God conclusion. I suspect nobody else does either. I do wonder why more people don't find the question as interesting as I do though. The rampant assumption that religion and science will ultimately point in opposite directions tho, just because once upon a time the pope and Galileo disagreed on movement (which, by the way, turns out to be relative anyway) - just blows me away.

Does this really seem clearcut to anybody?

Prodigy, the phenomena you named above are understood trivially better than they were in classical Greece. The sun's not a chariot, it's a ball of hydrogen (among other elements) undergoing nuclear fusion. So where'd it come from?

*Borrowed from "A Scandal in Bohemia", natch.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The rampant assumption that religion and science will ultimately point in opposite directions tho, just because once upon a time the pope and Galileo disagreed on movement (which, by the way, turns out to be relative anyway) - just blows me away.

Does this really seem clearcut to anybody?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems clearcut to me because religion doesnt seem able to accomodate facts which contradict its cherished beliefs. It seems to me that when science contradicts a religion's claims the response is to either attack the scientific findings or to alter the specific religious doctrine which has been challenged (through a "ahh - well that bit is figurative" approach).

It seems to me that the only way religion will get close to science is by following this latter course more and more, which rather than leading to it pointing in the same direction as science would end up pointing nowhere in my opinion.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rampant assumption that religion and science will ultimately point in opposite directions tho, just because once upon a time the pope and Galileo disagreed on movement (which, by the way, turns out to be relative anyway) - just blows me away.

Does this really seem clearcut to anybody?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems clearcut to me because religion doesnt seem able to accomodate facts which contradict its cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, science too. Usually it takes a generation or two to iron out the old prejudices.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that when science contradicts a religion's claims the response is to either attack the scientific findings or to alter the specific religious doctrine which has been challenged (through a "ahh - well that bit is figurative" approach).

[/ QUOTE ]
^ isn't a bad approach, especially if the bit in question is figurative. Probably most of 'em are.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the only way religion will get close to science is by following this latter course more and more, which rather than leading to it pointing in the same direction as science would end up pointing nowhere in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant, I wonder if science will end up at God, as religion does/did. Clearly the routes will be different.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rampant assumption that religion and science will ultimately point in opposite directions tho, just because once upon a time the pope and Galileo disagreed on movement (which, by the way, turns out to be relative anyway) - just blows me away.

Does this really seem clearcut to anybody?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems clearcut to me because religion doesnt seem able to accomodate facts which contradict its cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, science too. Usually it takes a generation or two to iron out the old prejudices.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that when science contradicts a religion's claims the response is to either attack the scientific findings or to alter the specific religious doctrine which has been challenged (through a "ahh - well that bit is figurative" approach).

[/ QUOTE ]
^ isn't a bad approach, especially if the bit in question is figurative. Probably most of 'em are.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the only way religion will get close to science is by following this latter course more and more, which rather than leading to it pointing in the same direction as science would end up pointing nowhere in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant, I wonder if science will end up at God, as religion does/did. Clearly the routes will be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really hoping that science will have the balls to say "I don't know" when they reach that horizon.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rampant assumption that religion and science will ultimately point in opposite directions tho, just because once upon a time the pope and Galileo disagreed on movement (which, by the way, turns out to be relative anyway) - just blows me away.

Does this really seem clearcut to anybody?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems clearcut to me because religion doesnt seem able to accomodate facts which contradict its cherished beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, science too. Usually it takes a generation or two to iron out the old prejudices.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of science, because revision of knowledge is part of the whole thing. Religion is much slower to change (if it changes at all).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that when science contradicts a religion's claims the response is to either attack the scientific findings or to alter the specific religious doctrine which has been challenged (through a "ahh - well that bit is figurative" approach).

[/ QUOTE ]
^ isn't a bad approach, especially if the bit in question is figurative. Probably most of 'em are.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is perhaps true (it's certainly my view of religious claims). But if religious claims are eventually going to be explained away as figurative then ultimately religion is just clouding the issue. Why not speak plainly rather than covering the meaning with claims which seem to be clear statements and which are actually only figurative?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the only way religion will get close to science is by following this latter course more and more, which rather than leading to it pointing in the same direction as science would end up pointing nowhere in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant, I wonder if science will end up at God, as religion does/did. Clearly the routes will be different.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt fully appreciate this was your point. I dont think this is clearcut (although I dont believe it's what's going to happen). What I do think is that if we end up at God through scientific endeavor, then we will have good reason to believe in God.

[KUJustin]

I try to be understanding but the assumptions about believers on this board really grind on me after a while.

Guess what. Some of us are idiots who just jumped into something that sounded pleasant and made the world a little more clear. But many of us aren't and putting our faith in an all-powerful entity that we've never seen involved a little bit more than figuring out where lightning comes from or having a genie that grants wishes. For the record, God loves both the same, but moving on...

I get really tired of posts that make incorrect assumptions about the mindsets of believers from people who've never had that perspective and don't seem interested in really understanding what a believer's perspective is. The one thing a believer has in an argument that you don't is that he's most likely been on both sides in his life and is therefore aware of both perspectives. I'm not trying to be Mr. Arrogant, I just think that the previous statement is an important point to be aware of in these discussions.

[Alex-db]

KUJustin,

Please feel free to explain the 'believers' position, describing your 'God' hypothesis and the evidence that led you to believe it was true.

The above has been tried many times and doesn't hold water with many people who are very very good at thinking logically and evaluating evidence.

I'd suggest that the assumptions about the mindset of believers are usually not incorrect, and I have verified that by asking many believers about there mindset and the extent to which they were willing to examine their own beliefs honestly.

Many atheists are very interested in understanding the believers' perspective. I'd be interested in hearing perspectives on the whole spectrum from real knowledge about the universe, through outdated science and how it was improved, through believers in old-fashioned mythologies to the wonderfully interesting perspectives of delusional schizophrenics.

Nearly always, the interested atheists have more knowledge about religion, from a wider set of sources, than any of the believers I have spoken to.

And many of the schizophrenics will be adamant that you aren't interested in really understanding what their perspective on reality is.

[PairTheBoard]

I've never seen why people think this is such a strong condemnation of Religion. Our understanding of everything has progressed. Science has played a big part in that. It has improved our ability to understand things. Assuming that God exists, it has improved our ability to understand God. I don't think anyone claims a perfect understanding of God. So why shouldn't it improve as our ability to understand improves? That's assuming God exists. Of course if you take as your premise that God doesn't exist you hardly need your observation to condemn the belief in him.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

There is no reason to make either assumption.

My current belief is that there is no evidence in favour of any of the historic God/creator mythologies, and I have heard of no new theories involving a creator that come with any evidence or feel intuitively likely to be true.

I find the need to make a primary decision on this assumption to be interesting and bizzare (but common!) psychology.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to make either assumption.

My current belief is that there is no evidence in favour of any of the historic God/creator mythologies, and I have heard of no new theories involving a creator that come with any evidence or feel intuitively likely to be true.

I find the need to make a primary decision on this assumption to be interesting and bizzare (but common!) psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. I wasn't asking you to. I was responding to the OP's observation about believers in God through history.

PairTheBoard

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Nearly always, the interested atheists have more knowledge about religion, from a wider set of sources, than any of the believers I have spoken to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be amazed if this were true. Certainly my experience has been entirely the opposite.

I suspect Sklansky would post an impressive score on Standford-Binet, but I doubt he has 1/10th of the religious knowledge of the first random rabbi, priest or minister you could talk to.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nearly always, the interested atheists have more knowledge about religion, from a wider set of sources, than any of the believers I have spoken to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be amazed if this were true. Certainly my experience has been entirely the opposite.

I suspect Sklansky would post an impressive score on Standford-Binet, but I doubt he has 1/10th of the religious knowledge of the first random rabbi, priest or minister you could talk to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rabbis, ministers or priests are a tiny portion of all believers. You would be suprised how little people who claim to believe in God know about the Bible for example. I'm very certain that the average atheist knows more about the Bible than the average Christian because the atheist has probably thought a lot more about religious stuff than the believer. Or perhaps not more in sheer quantity but at least more comprehensively than the Christian.

[Alex-db]

Jessuit is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nearly always, the interested atheists have more knowledge about religion, from a wider set of sources, than any of the believers I have spoken to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be amazed if this were true. Certainly my experience has been entirely the opposite.

I suspect Sklansky would post an impressive score on Standford-Binet, but I doubt he has 1/10th of the religious knowledge of the first random rabbi, priest or minister you could talk to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how many of those Rabbi's, Priests and Ministers have taken the time to understand the flaws with Pascal's wager, the unreliable nature of their own sources, the nature of circular thought and only searching for confirming evidence, and the contradictions brought up within their own religion and the existence of hundreds of other religions, cults and mythologies throught history.

Every UK minister I have spoken too has certainly been hugely lacking in that philosophical depth, and couldn't do much more than keep refering back to popular bible verses.

Im sure they have knowledge of the contents of their texts, but thats completely different than having understanding, knowledge and thought outside-of-the-box.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

God has pretty much been pushed back to the creation of EVERYTHING...this, at least, believers are sure of..


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this so many times I'm running out of gas.


I drop an apple to the ground. You say gravity did it. Now show that God wasn't necessary for the apple to fall.

There's even more which I haven't gone into because people keep avoiding the first step.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God has pretty much been pushed back to the creation of EVERYTHING...this, at least, believers are sure of..


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this so many times I'm running out of gas.


I drop an apple to the ground. You say gravity did it. Now show that God wasn't necessary for the apple to fall.

There's even more which I haven't gone into because people keep avoiding the first step.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't...go on

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing a believer has in an argument that you don't is that he's most likely been on both sides in his life and is therefore aware of both perspectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Do you think all athiests were raised in athiest households? My guess is that there are many more athiests who once believed than there are believers who were once athiests.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen why people think this is such a strong condemnation of Religion. Our understanding of everything has progressed. Science has played a big part in that. It has improved our ability to understand things. Assuming that God exists, it has improved our ability to understand God. I don't think anyone claims a perfect understanding of God. So why shouldn't it improve as our ability to understand improves? That's assuming God exists. Of course if you take as your premise that God doesn't exist you hardly need your observation to condemn the belief in him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a strong condemnation of the "religion" that you seem to advocate. What it is a strong condemnation of is the religion that is much more prevalent in which all the answers are claimed to be absolute. Many religious people would disagree with you that we are simply moving forward in our understanding of God, since everything they hold there beliefs on was written more than 1900 years ago. To many people the Bible is the only absolute truth. Without putting words in his mouth, I think it's these types that the OP is addressing.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The one thing a believer has in an argument that you don't is that he's most likely been on both sides in his life and is therefore aware of both perspectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Do you think all athiests were raised in athiest households? My guess is that there are many more athiests who once believed than there are believers who were once athiests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define atheist. This doesn't need to be rigorous, casual is fine: EG, does going to church/mass/temple once or twice a year (EG on secularized holidays like "X-mas" or Easter) qualify a household as theist, in your thinking?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Jessuit is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nearly always, the interested atheists have more knowledge about religion, from a wider set of sources, than any of the believers I have spoken to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be amazed if this were true. Certainly my experience has been entirely the opposite.

I suspect Sklansky would post an impressive score on Standford-Binet, but I doubt he has 1/10th of the religious knowledge of the first random rabbi, priest or minister you could talk to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how many of those Rabbi's, Priests and Ministers have taken the time to understand the flaws with Pascal's wager, the unreliable nature of their own sources, the nature of circular thought and only searching for confirming evidence, and the contradictions brought up within their own religion and the existence of hundreds of other religions, cults and mythologies throught history.

Every UK minister I have spoken too has certainly been hugely lacking in that philosophical depth, and couldn't do much more than keep refering back to popular bible verses.

Im sure they have knowledge of the contents of their texts, but thats completely different than having understanding, knowledge and thought outside-of-the-box.

[/ QUOTE ]
Knowledge != understanding.

That said, I've always wondered about Anglican ministers: the church essentially spun off of Roman catholicism for political reasons, rather than theological ones, and its head is the King (or crown prince? dunno what the status is ATM) of England. I would think that would have to have a limiting effect on the sincerety of their faith. Does that seem reasonable? (Not f*cking with you or anything; I really do wonder about this.)

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen why people think this is such a strong condemnation of Religion. Our understanding of everything has progressed. Science has played a big part in that. It has improved our ability to understand things. Assuming that God exists, it has improved our ability to understand God. I don't think anyone claims a perfect understanding of God. So why shouldn't it improve as our ability to understand improves? That's assuming God exists. Of course if you take as your premise that God doesn't exist you hardly need your observation to condemn the belief in him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a strong condemnation of the "religion" that you seem to advocate. What it is a strong condemnation of is the religion that is much more prevalent in which all the answers are claimed to be absolute. Many religious people would disagree with you that we are simply moving forward in our understanding of God, since everything they hold there beliefs on was written more than 1900 years ago. To many people the Bible is the only absolute truth. Without putting words in his mouth, I think it's these types that the OP is addressing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that people who claim a Perfect understanding of God deserve criticism on that point. But just because people have strong convictions in the tenets of their Religion does not mean they claim a perfect understanding of God. I think if you question them closer you will find most of them admit they don't. They will admit that there remains mystery about God beyond their understanding. They may claim they have the Best understanding of all the religions. But as we look at Religions from the outside what we see are people with various understandings of something that they most all agree is not perfectly understood.

You can look at the history of science similiarly. It's not as easy to see because the nature of science produces relatively quick consensus most of the time. But there have still been cases of disagreements within science. And until further progress was made, all sides promoted their view with a strong conviction that it was the Best.

I think it is a valid criticism of Religions that tend to Close Off the possiblity of coming to a better understanding of God than the one they have. But if you make that criticism it's not fair to turn around and criticize them again when they do make changes to their understanding. The evidence is that they continue to change, however slowly, whether they admit to it or not. I think it's unfair to compare them to science and say, "why can't they adapt as quickly as science does". Religions are in a totally different situation as far as providing for the needs of those they serve.

Finally, Atheist attacks on Religion raise these types of criticisms to Objections to Religion itself. That is not fair. Criticisms do not amount to Objections. We can criticize science on the same basis. The scientific establishment often treats new theories with a kind of Bureaucratic inertia. Established figures are often given too much authoritarian voice. New theories sometimes have trouble getting an honest hearing. But such criticisms do not amount to an Objection to Science itself.



PairTheBoard

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nearly always, the interested atheists have more knowledge about religion, from a wider set of sources, than any of the believers I have spoken to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be amazed if this were true. Certainly my experience has been entirely the opposite.

I suspect Sklansky would post an impressive score on Standford-Binet, but I doubt he has 1/10th of the religious knowledge of the first random rabbi, priest or minister you could talk to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rabbis, ministers or priests are a tiny portion of all believers. You would be suprised how little people who claim to believe in God know about the Bible for example. I'm very certain that the average atheist knows more about the Bible than the average Christian because the atheist has probably thought a lot more about religious stuff than the believer. Or perhaps not more in sheer quantity but at least more comprehensively than the Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]
My experience doesn't bear this out, but we grew up in different places. Unless maybe we're lumping (and more importantly disincluding) different subsets of people under our "atheist" and "theist" headings.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I try to be understanding but the assumptions about believers on this board really grind on me after a while.

Guess what. Some of us are idiots who just jumped into something that sounded pleasant and made the world a little more clear. But many of us aren't and putting our faith in an all-powerful entity that we've never seen involved a little bit more than figuring out where lightning comes from or having a genie that grants wishes. For the record, God loves both the same, but moving on...

I get really tired of posts that make incorrect assumptions about the mindsets of believers from people who've never had that perspective and don't seem interested in really understanding what a believer's perspective is. The one thing a believer has in an argument that you don't is that he's most likely been on both sides in his life and is therefore aware of both perspectives. I'm not trying to be Mr. Arrogant, I just think that the previous statement is an important point to be aware of in these discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was this directed to me? I have been both an atheist and a theist (and I'm really unclear where I am at the moment) I also didnt mean to be saying anything about believers' mindsets - I was speaking about religion in general.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing a believer has in an argument that you don't is that he's most likely been on both sides in his life and is therefore aware of both perspectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Do you have a source for that?

The only data I remember seeing is that the huge majority of people worldwide have their parents religion.
Non-anecdotally, the only other source I can think of is that 100 years ago the bulk of the western world was religious, the percentage of non-religious is up now which would seem to indicate that non-believers were at least raised in religious homes. hmmmm, non-conclusive.

As a personal note, not meant to be evidence of anything other than it may be clouding my judgment, I don't know any personally that went through an atheist stage (bunny here is a possible net-person) and that includes a huge family that most have switched sects in all directions but stayed xtrian ( we now even have a couple mormons, if they are xtrians). We have gigantic family reunions and religion is not an off limit topic.

If you don't have any data, that's fine, I'd still be interested in your personal experience that leads you to believing that most theists have gone thru an atheist phase, since it is so opposite to what I've seen.

To your point that his having 'been there', how is that an asset to him? If I'm having a discussion with a theist, what would he add to his claim if he was formerly an atheist that a crib to coffin theist couldn't?

thanks, luckyme

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't have any data, that's fine, I'd still be interested in your personal experience that leads you to believing that most theists have gone thru an atheist phase, since it is so opposite to what I've seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

It’s also completely opposite to my experiences and I find the idea preposterous. To say that most theists have gone through an atheist phase then flopped back is like saying that most people went through a phase at about the age of 10 or 11 where they didn’t believe in Santa Clause, then flopped back to believing.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God has pretty much been pushed back to the creation of EVERYTHING...this, at least, believers are sure of..


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this so many times I'm running out of gas.


I drop an apple to the ground. You say gravity did it. Now show that God wasn't necessary for the apple to fall.

There's even more which I haven't gone into because people keep avoiding the first step.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its impossible to show that the god of deism wan't necessary. Its easy to show that the god who had a son and will deny heaven to those who don't believe he had a son wasn't required for the apple to fall.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God has pretty much been pushed back to the creation of EVERYTHING...this, at least, believers are sure of..


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this so many times I'm running out of gas.


I drop an apple to the ground. You say gravity did it. Now show that God wasn't necessary for the apple to fall.

There's even more which I haven't gone into because people keep avoiding the first step.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its impossible to show that the god of deism wan't necessary. Its easy to show that the god who had a son and will deny heaven to those who don't believe he had a son wasn't required for the apple to fall.

[/ QUOTE ]
That actually sounds pretty hard too.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't have any data, that's fine, I'd still be interested in your personal experience that leads you to believing that most theists have gone thru an atheist phase, since it is so opposite to what I've seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

It’s also completely opposite to my experiences and I find the idea preposterous. To say that most theists have gone through an atheist phase then flopped back is like saying that most people went through a phase at about the age of 10 or 11 where they didn’t believe in Santa Clause, then flopped back to believing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite. But I wonder if the theists went through a true "atheist" stage, or whether they just went through college and wanted to rationalize getting laid.

[David Steele]

[ QUOTE ]
I drop an apple to the ground. You say gravity did it. Now show that God wasn't necessary for the apple to fall.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is important is that God isn't necessary for "the explanation". Showing (proofs) is not what science is about, its about explaining how things work.

D.

[annabanana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't have any data, that's fine, I'd still be interested in your personal experience that leads you to believing that most theists have gone thru an atheist phase, since it is so opposite to what I've seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

It’s also completely opposite to my experiences and I find the idea preposterous. To say that most theists have gone through an atheist phase then flopped back is like saying that most people went through a phase at about the age of 10 or 11 where they didn’t believe in Santa Clause, then flopped back to believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one am an atheist who was raised in a Christian home, and at one point in time considered going into the ministry. I was 28 when I began questioning my beliefs, and now three years later am a confirmed atheist. I have known people who were raised in completely non-theist homes and then got "saved". I have known people who like me were religious and then determined those beliefs were wrong. I have known many more people who follow what they were raised with.
I should point out that I distinguish between a non-theist-- a person who doesn't give it much thought or just doesn't believe there is reason to believe in the existence of God, and an atheist who truly believes that there is not a God. Granted, my belief that there is not a God really cannot be supported by much other than the idea that religion serves certain psychological and social needs and therefore was created by man and is sustained by man, but still, I believe that there is no God.
Who has the advantage? The person who has done the best job of thinking critically about all of the possibilities, regardless of where they end up on this argument. Of course, I think the one who does the most critical thinking will end up an atheist, but then "most" is a subjective term here, so it would be hard to say who does the most critical thinking.

My Bible knowledge doesn't stack up too favorably against most people who claim christianity. I feel that my ability to understand logic does though.

I would agree that man pushes God from gap to gap, actually. It is an interesting way of putting it. I like it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I drop an apple to the ground. You say gravity did it. Now show that God wasn't necessary for the apple to fall. </font>

NotReady,

Doesn't it bother you in the least that just about anything OTHER than God can also be substituted as the answer to your question? What about Poseidon, Zeus, or Wotan? Or the Juju at the bottom of the sea? Or the Leprechan who dwells in a cave in Ireland? Can you show that any of them are not necessary for an apple to fall?

I would think such a question borders on blasphemy. You are showing God to be just as necessary as so many fictional creatures the mind can dream up. Such a question does a better job than any atheist's could do to put God on equal footing with the FSP or a pink unicorn. Even if God did exist, there is no reason to think He created everything to require His attention to every trivial detail that occurs in the universe.

I can't believe this doesn't bother you. It would bother me a great deal even if I were a believer.