the mind of the atheist

[siegfriedandroy]

I am a theist, and often struggle, and in the past have even agonized and been tormented, over my religious beliefs, philosophical questions, etc...

i am curious how the standard, run of the mill 2 + 2 atheist (perhaps no such thing!) thinks about such question? are most of you sure that 'God' doesnt exist? or is that simply a 'meaningless question'? do any of you struggle and agonize, etc over such questions to the point of extreme disturbance, etc?? personally, considering the present state of my mind and its interpretation of all the info I've taken in, analyzed, etc, I am strongly convinced that a Supreme Being exists, and find it nearly impossible that I could be convinced otherwise. yet at the same time, i have often struggled with doubts about the particulars of my beliefs, etc, and often this in the past has caused me severe mental anguish and discomfort. i am curious whether many atheists have suffered through the same types of emotions?

if i were to picture myself as an atheist (which perhaps is a meaningless hypo b/c clearly i then would not be myself, but someone wholly distinct), i want to say i'd agonize over my disbelief, fearing constantly that i may be wrong and spend eternity in hell. do ANY of you feel that way? I do not see how you could not.

In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance, in the 'knowledge' we as humans possess in the 21st century. it seems that despite the recent close of a horrific century, which, i believe, consisted of more human death and suffering than all of that combined in the past history of the earth, man foolishly and pridefully hangs on to an ever increasing optimism and vast overestimation of his own intellectual abilities and those of society as a whole. i am not anti-technology or anything that extreme (although it is interesting food for thought- i.e. would humanity as a whole be better off the automobile was never invented - maybe not a good one, but ?'s to that effect). but i am quite realistic. man is clearly not 'good'.

anyway, i am rambling now. good morning.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
i have often struggled with doubts about the particulars of my beliefs, etc, and often this in the past has caused me severe mental anguish and discomfort. i am curious whether many atheists have suffered through the same types of emotions?


[/ QUOTE ]

100% sure there is no god. Never struggled with it, never had any mental conflicts whatsoever. Very happy and content in my belief (or non-belief if you will).

[siegfriedandroy]

that seems ludicrous. i dont believe any intelligent person could simply have always been '100%' certain there is no God, without any serious thought, study, etc.

[Alex-db]

What you say isn't ludicrous. Just compare my opinion of being scared of a vengeful God as being scared of a vengeful carrot that lives at the bottom of my garden. Factually equivalent, possibly real, not at all likely.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
that seems ludicrous. i dont believe any intelligent person could simply have always been '100%' certain there is no God, without any serious thought, study, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I didn't give it any thought. I looked at the evidence for god (didn't find any except for other peoples' word that there is one) and against (all the science I had learned up to that point). I was about 7 years old. Already had some knowledge of physics, biology, etc (my dad was a physics professor). Made my decision and haven't wavered one bit since. Continued my education in science and it only solidified my convictions.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
i am curious how the standard, run of the mill 2 + 2 atheist (perhaps no such thing!) thinks about such question? are most of you sure that 'God' doesnt exist? or is that simply a 'meaningless question'?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't detected any 'standard' theist or non-theist on this forum or outside. It is a meaningless question in this sense - I don't antagonize over whether 3 drunken alien college students from Alpa Centura exist and created life on earth as their engineering prank ( since Alpha exists and a more intelligent lifeform is easy to visualize, this is cannot be ruled out, but until there is evidence why take it on).

I approach life as it approaches me. I don't 'take on' a belief just because it makes me feel good or any 'personalized' cause. It either fits the evidence or it doesn't. I accept what it leads to. no agony, no twinges. Feel very fulfilled, morally, socially, intellectually ..whatever.

luckyme

[siegfriedandroy]

that is not a legitimate analogy

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance, in the 'knowledge' we as humans possess in the 21st century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you totally buy that, best to find a theory that at least fits the facts, Historical cultures of atheists ( look around world history before answering), etc.

[siegfriedandroy]

why believe in what 'fits' the evidence? why pursue what appears 'true' to you? why not purposely believe in only falsehoods, if they would make you feel even more 'fulfilled'?

[siegfriedandroy]

of course it did

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
why believe in what 'fits' the evidence? why pursue what appears 'true' to you? why not purposely believe in only falsehoods, if they would make you feel even more 'fulfilled'?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you saying here???

[hmkpoker]

I'm atheist, not 100% sure, but pretty damn close (I can't really be 100% sure of anything in the real world now can I?), I've given it a lot of thought, I'm not worried about hell to any significant degree, and I'm much, much happier since I stopped believing in life after death.

[siegfriedandroy]

i am saying that if there is no god (and perhaps no truth, meaningful moral code, etc) that there is also no reason to righteously seek 'truth' (whatever that means) in science, philosophy, math or whatever (although there is no reason not too, either). i am simply asking lucky why he/she chooses to seek meaning in truths and resist 'personalities' or whatever he said, i cant remember

ultimately i am unable to legitimately explain anything about tbe world i live in if i believe in no god, that the universe is eternal or came from nothing, etc. all of the philosophical implications of such a worldview would run completely and irreparably counter to everything i experience and see everyday on this earth. the human mind is awesome and mysterious to me, as i read through all the incredibly conflicting thoughts we each have...pehaps none of them are true and all our words and thoughts really are meaningless...but such a thought means nothing to me

[soko]

I can't help but feel pity for all the self proclaimed atheists who are wasting their time being bitter, sad and egocentric in their crusade of the "enlightened". Seriously there is no point, you can argue every day till death of the nonexistanse of whatever but it really doesnt matter, it will never get you laid and it won't make you any money so STFU already, nobody CARES.

[siegfriedandroy]

well said

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
i am saying that if there is no god (and perhaps no truth, meaningful moral code, etc) that there is also no reason to righteously seek 'truth' (whatever that means) in science, philosophy, math or whatever (although there is no reason not too, either). i am simply asking lucky why he/she chooses to seek meaning in truths and resist 'personalities' or whatever he said, i cant remember

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for Lucky, only myself, but my interpretation is that I am not seeking meaning, but rather making it for myself. I do believe there is no such thing as an absolute truth (except for the claim of this statement). If the only truth is that there is no such thing, then think about it: clinging to some other idea of truth is a complete waste of time and life. Instead of believing in some outside force, one can be living a much more fruitful life. This is my goal and the source of meaning for me.

[siegfriedandroy]

if you had your choice, would you prefer to continue living after you die?

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
if you had your choice, would you prefer to continue living after you die?

[/ QUOTE ]

above statement has nothing to do with the truth of life after death. it does, however, say a lot about why religion is so widespread.

[siegfriedandroy]

thank you captain obvious. clearly the statement had nothing to do with the truth of whether life continues. just trying to ask a question. thanks for your input, though.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
if you had your choice, would you prefer to continue living after you die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? What is your point?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
if you had your choice, would you prefer to continue living after you die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I would, what's your point?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
if there is no god

[/ QUOTE ]

then there is no god. Period. There are no leaps to other conclusions automatically. Since there is nothing to rule out that god created the universe just 'cause I wanna' ( who can know the mind of god). Then removing the causal god does not remove anything that exists in the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
that there is also no reason to righteously seek....

[/ QUOTE ]

One doesn't lead to the other. There are religions that believe in a hands-off creator god. The fact that christianity postulates that god cares about hurricanes doesn't mean that he does, nor would we have any way of knowing why he does ( the 'mind of god' problem).

[ QUOTE ]
ultimately i am unable to legitimately explain anything...

[/ QUOTE ]

does not mean that your explanations are legitimate.

luckyme

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a theist, and often struggle, and in the past have even agonized and been tormented, over my religious beliefs, philosophical questions, etc...

i am curious how the standard, run of the mill 2 + 2 atheist (perhaps no such thing!) thinks about such question? are most of you sure that 'God' doesnt exist? or is that simply a 'meaningless question'? do any of you struggle and agonize, etc over such questions to the point of extreme disturbance, etc?? personally, considering the present state of my mind and its interpretation of all the info I've taken in, analyzed, etc, I am strongly convinced that a Supreme Being exists, and find it nearly impossible that I could be convinced otherwise. yet at the same time, i have often struggled with doubts about the particulars of my beliefs, etc, and often this in the past has caused me severe mental anguish and discomfort. i am curious whether many atheists have suffered through the same types of emotions?

if i were to picture myself as an atheist (which perhaps is a meaningless hypo b/c clearly i then would not be myself, but someone wholly distinct), i want to say i'd agonize over my disbelief, fearing constantly that i may be wrong and spend eternity in hell. do ANY of you feel that way? I do not see how you could not.

In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance, in the 'knowledge' we as humans possess in the 21st century. it seems that despite the recent close of a horrific century, which, i believe, consisted of more human death and suffering than all of that combined in the past history of the earth, man foolishly and pridefully hangs on to an ever increasing optimism and vast overestimation of his own intellectual abilities and those of society as a whole. i am not anti-technology or anything that extreme (although it is interesting food for thought- i.e. would humanity as a whole be better off the automobile was never invented - maybe not a good one, but ?'s to that effect). but i am quite realistic. man is clearly not 'good'.

anyway, i am rambling now. good morning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not being facecious but I don't agonise over my positive disbelief in the existance of a one true God than I do about my positive disbelief in Thor Oris or Zeus goblins or the tooth fairy.

I do think, however, that a being a believer is truley scary. To be totally and utterly convinced that the wrong sin or believing in the wrong God in the wrong way will really end up with you having perpetual torment (that's a hell of a lot of torment if you will pardon the pun)would really drive me crazy.

Embrace atheism and chill out!

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
i am saying that if there is no god (and perhaps no truth, meaningful moral code, etc) that there is also no reason to righteously seek 'truth' (whatever that means) in science, philosophy, math or whatever (although there is no reason not too, either). i am simply asking lucky why he/she chooses to seek meaning in truths and resist 'personalities' or whatever he said, i cant remember

ultimately i am unable to legitimately explain anything about tbe world i live in if i believe in no god, that the universe is eternal or came from nothing, etc. all of the philosophical implications of such a worldview would run completely and irreparably counter to everything i experience and see everyday on this earth. the human mind is awesome and mysterious to me, as i read through all the incredibly conflicting thoughts we each have...pehaps none of them are true and all our words and thoughts really are meaningless...but such a thought means nothing to me

[/ QUOTE ]
All back to front! If there is an omnipotant God who can change physical laws at wuill science makes no sense at all. things are changeable and science good now may be nonsense later when God has had His next dabble!. no God` means science is posiible and meaningful!

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but feel pity for all the self proclaimed atheists who are wasting their time being bitter, sad and egocentric in their crusade of the "enlightened". Seriously there is no point, you can argue every day till death of the nonexistanse of whatever but it really doesnt matter, it will never get you laid and it won't make you any money so STFU already, nobody CARES.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made my become an atheist and chill out post before reading this! You really will feel happier for it!

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
that seems ludicrous. i dont believe any intelligent person could simply have always been '100%' certain there is no God, without any serious thought, study, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you pick God out as a special case or` do you believe no one should not believe in anything without serious thought, study, etc? If not, why do you think the God concept is different?

[KeysrSoze]

Man, you make it sound like everyone should just curl up in a fetal position and die if there was no god, because whats the point? So what if theres no point? People have survival instincts, pain and pleasure receptors, endorphins, all kinds of other reasons to get the most out of life and not turn into a whiney goth if there wasn't an afterlife or higher purpose.

Just believe in whatever helps you cope and makes you happy. If your beliefs are making you miserable though, you agonize about going to hell, spend your every waking hour praying and studying scripture (unless you truly enjoy doing that), or are being a general dick trying to force your beliefs upon others and make the world a theocracy (Pat Robertson, Osama B. Laden, etc.), you're just as bad off as what you envision athiests to be.

[hmkpoker]

Is that icon from Advent Children?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but feel pity for all the self proclaimed atheists who are wasting their time being bitter, sad and egocentric in their crusade of the "enlightened". Seriously there is no point, you can argue every day till death of the nonexistanse of whatever but it really doesnt matter, it will never get you laid and it won't make you any money so STFU already, nobody CARES.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made my become an atheist and chill out post before reading this! You really will feel happier for it!

[/ QUOTE ]
And siegfriedandroy, the guy who started this thread, responded to this bile with "well said".

I was going to respond to siegfriedandroy's OP but if he thinks this is appropriate in a thread that HE started and in which HE is the one soliciting atheists for commentary ... lets's just say that I won't waste my time with a hypocrite.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's more arrogant to believe some super being is looking down and smiling upon your rather trivial existence.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said I didn't give it any thought. I looked at the evidence for god (didn't find any except for other peoples' word that there is one) and against (all the science I had learned up to that point). I was about 7 years old. Already had some knowledge of physics, biology, etc (my dad was a physics professor). Made my decision and haven't wavered one bit since. Continued my education in science and it only solidified my convictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly is modern science evidence that there is no God? I can follow how modern science might refute specific doctrine of certain religions, but I don't see how it can be applied in a general sense to show that there is no God.

[hashi92]

If science could prove that life can be created without the power of God wouldnt that eliminate the need for your god.

[Meromorphic]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but feel pity for all the self proclaimed atheists who are wasting their time being bitter, sad and egocentric in their crusade of the "enlightened". Seriously there is no point, you can argue every day till death of the nonexistanse of whatever but it really doesnt matter, it will never get you laid and it won't make you any money so STFU already, nobody CARES.

[/ QUOTE ]

a)It's important to me what other people believe because, among other reasons, they vote.

b)If you meet a nice atheist girl, it could very well get you laid.

[siegfriedandroy]

i disagree - prove to me that my existence is trivial. is it trivial simply b/c the universe is huge, etc? that is not sound thinking

[Meromorphic]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly is modern science evidence that there is no God? I can follow how modern science might refute specific doctrine of certain religions, but I don't see how it can be applied in a general sense to show that there is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

The burdon of proof is on the positive. Science doesn't have to disprove the existence of God in a general sense, it just has to refute specific claims made by those seeking to meet that burdon.

[siegfriedandroy]

i would if i was convinced with sound arguments that it was true...so far i have not seen such arguments. i dont think it is fair to always use the above example of unicorns, etc, that is so common here. i will have to think more about such arguments. to me the teleological argument is convincing, and has not at all been adequately dealt with on these threads. to me it seems sensible to believe that when you observe an amazing universe, that functions according to great laws (many of which we still are nowhere near understanding) and consists of beauty, good, evil, etc that continually astonishes me, there must be Something behind. many of the greatest thinkers in history agree, despite the complacence and presumptuous attitude of many of the posters here, who sleep well at night and have put these issues forever to rest, knowing all there is to know about the universe after 20 years of either careful or not so careful study. it is ridiculous

[siegfriedandroy]

just asking /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

why not brainwash yourself, then, into believing that it exists, since perhaps that will give you greater piece of mind, etc in the present?

[siegfriedandroy]

they shouldnt curl up, or they should. either way is no better. just two meaningless choices. the survival instincts are neither good or bad. they can be changed if you decide to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Man, you make it sound like everyone should just curl up in a fetal position and die if there was no god, because whats the point? So what if theres no point? People have survival instincts, pain and pleasure receptors, endorphins, all kinds of other reasons to get the most out of life and not turn into a whiney goth if there wasn't an afterlife or higher purpose.

Just believe in whatever helps you cope and makes you happy. If your beliefs are making you miserable though, you agonize about going to hell, spend your every waking hour praying and studying scripture (unless you truly enjoy doing that), or are being a general dick trying to force your beliefs upon others and make the world a theocracy (Pat Robertson, Osama B. Laden, etc.), you're just as bad off as what you envision athiests to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am saying that if there is no god (and perhaps no truth, meaningful moral code, etc) that there is also no reason to righteously seek 'truth' (whatever that means) in science, philosophy, math or whatever (although there is no reason not too, either). i am simply asking lucky why he/she chooses to seek meaning in truths and resist 'personalities' or whatever he said, i cant remember

ultimately i am unable to legitimately explain anything about tbe world i live in if i believe in no god, that the universe is eternal or came from nothing, etc. all of the philosophical implications of such a worldview would run completely and irreparably counter to everything i experience and see everyday on this earth. the human mind is awesome and mysterious to me, as i read through all the incredibly conflicting thoughts we each have...pehaps none of them are true and all our words and thoughts really are meaningless...but such a thought means nothing to me

[/ QUOTE ]
All back to front! If there is an omnipotant God who can change physical laws at wuill science makes no sense at all. things are changeable and science good now may be nonsense later when God has had His next dabble!. no God` means science is posiible and meaningful!

[/ QUOTE ]

that is blatantly not true, and does not follow. just b/c God has the ability to change such laws does not mean that He does, and that they are therefore meaningless. such laws God has used to govern the universe for close to 20 billion years. clearly they are not useless to study.

statements like the above are the kind i refer to when i lament over the foolishness, arrogance, etc of many on this forum who are not good thinkers

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if there is no god

[/ QUOTE ]

then there is no god. Period. There are no leaps to other conclusions automatically. Since there is nothing to rule out that god created the universe just 'cause I wanna' ( who can know the mind of god). Then removing the causal god does not remove anything that exists in the universe.

I DONT UNDERSTAND. if there is no god, then there is no god. okay. i agree. so? i am curious about what you believe? do you believe an eternal universe (ala russell) or that it had a beginning. if it began, then why and how? can this ever be known in your view?

[ QUOTE ]
that there is also no reason to righteously seek....

[/ QUOTE ]

One doesn't lead to the other. "i disagree- if there is no god, or if are belief/disbelief is irrelevant to him, then there is no meaningful reason to seek truth, etc. it is hard to communicate what im trying to say, but im pretty sure im right.There are religions that believe in a hands-off creator god. The fact that christianity postulates that god cares about hurricanes doesn't mean that he does, nor would we have any way of knowing why he does ( the 'mind of god' problem).

[ QUOTE ]
ultimately i am unable to legitimately explain anything...

[/ QUOTE ]

does not mean that your explanations are legitimate.

of course not. just telling you that i find atheism incapable and lacking in its ability to logically and consistently explain the realities of our existence.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

[siegfriedandroy]

dam i suck at using quotes

[siegfriedandroy]

how can you determine who the burden is on?

[Meromorphic]

[ QUOTE ]
that is not a legitimate analogy

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Understanding why atheists think that that is a legitimate analogy would help you understand why atheists are atheists.

[Meromorphic]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you determine who the burden is on?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a standard, well-respected principle that applies to existence arguments in general. Providing positive evidence is easier in general than exhausting a large search space in order to prove that something can't be found.

An example is worth a thousand words. Alice claims that there are aliens on Mars, hiding from our probes. Bob denies it. Does Bob need to search Mars to substantiate his disbelief, or is it incumbent upon Alice to substantiate her claims first?

Alternatively: Alice claims there are black swans. Bob denies it. Should Alice have to produce one, or evidence of one, or does Bob have to search the entire earth to prove that there isn't one? Bob is wrong, of course, but who has to prove it?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
why not brainwash yourself, then, into believing that it exists, since perhaps that will give you greater piece of mind, etc in the present?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it won't. This does not logically follow from your question. IF I could choose between afterlife and no (assuming Christian theology), I'd go with the Heaven thing, because it's basically defined as the greatest experience imaginable. I would be forfeiting a lot of my enjoyment on Earth for the big pleasure cruise in the sky.

If there's no heaven though, well great, I just wasted my life in a vain hope when I could have led a much better one.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly is modern science evidence that there is no God? I can follow how modern science might refute specific doctrine of certain religions, but I don't see how it can be applied in a general sense to show that there is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern science severely weakens traditional Abrahamic religions by undermining all their silly myths. Once you recognize the foundation of these faiths is based on primitive superstition it's common to conclude that their concpets of "God" are just as supertious.

Modern science can't undermine more vague notions of Deism and Pantheism, but when most people say "God Exists" they mean the god of Abraham.

[siegfriedandroy]

i believe the 'evidence' for God is much stronger than most believe here. no such evidence exists for a vengeful carrot. probably many here have not really studied all of the common arguments enough to do them proper justice. anyone can knock down a straw man. it is not nearly so cut and dried as most here suggest

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe the 'evidence' for God is much stronger than most believe here. no such evidence exists for a vengeful carrot. probably many here have not really studied all of the common arguments enough to do them proper justice. anyone can knock down a straw man. it is not nearly so cut and dried as most here suggest

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the evidence for god? What are the common arguments that most here apparently have never thought about?

[cnfuzzd]

i try not to think about it. I mean, its pretty difficult living in a world where the vast magority of people engage in a mass delusion. It would be like waking up one day and people thinking that was an honest "straight-shooter"...

oh [censored]....


peace

john nickle

[Lestat]

The beauty of being an atheist is that you don't HAVE to agonize over such things. The mind of an atheist is pretty much the same as the mind of someone who doesn't believe in astrology, mermaids, etc. (except exceedingly more logical). Do you agonize over running into a ghost in your house? How about Count Dracula?

Once again, Jeff V shows his ignorance. If atheists are arrogant, then theists are doubly so. If we are wrong about God then we are simply wrong. If Catholics are wrong, they stand to be wrong about a whole LOT more things! Not just the dogma of ghosts, mermaids, astrology, and reincarnation, but of Protestants, Born agains, Islam, Hebrews, Thor the god of thunder, and countless, countless other beliefs. They have to have nailed a million to one shot. And Jeff V thinks atheists are arrogant?

[siegfriedandroy]

transcendental, cosmological, teological, ontological...

not that posters 'have never thought about them', only that they have not fully studied them significantly, to the point where they can be justified in fully dismissing them without further thought. i am positive they have not been adequately dealt with in this forum.

[siegfriedandroy]

yeah, it just depends, i guess, on how you define 'better'- if it is Leibniz' happiness priniciple, surely most come nowhere near attaining their own theoretical max happiness, and perhaps most are not in reality striving fully to attain this at the expense of all else (or perhaps this is untrue, and many truly are sufficiently evil to pursue solely their own good at the expense of all else)

[siegfriedandroy]

how can it be true that there is no truth? what does that mean? what do you consider 'fruitful'? you are an existentialist /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

how am i hypocritical for agreeing with this poster that it's foolish for atheists to spend their time in pissing contests on web chat forums? it indeed seems 'pointless and a waste of time to me' - clearly this does not justify a venemous response.......

why, in your view, acorns, am i even writing this? b/c of blind, purposeless chances that have literally forced me to do so? if so, are you justified in berating me? i simply asked a question about how atheists think - thus i cannot agree with a poster whose opinions appear a bit more similar to my own, without subjecting myself to undeserved criticism?

[hashi92]

if you continued living after your died would you really be dead.

[siegfriedandroy]

lestat, what are your thoughts on free will?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[/ QUOTE ]Pot.kettle.black

There is no evidence that any xtain has anything over any muslim, hindu, or sceintologist. Yet the arrogance displayed by xtians, and all people that subscribe to any religion is always overlooked.

Again the reason why atheists are seen in this light, is because it's hard to give a serious refutation of Santa Claus or pink unicorns or Jesus' Godliness, to someone who assumes that they are true. Or that believes that there is some fundemental difference between Jesus' Godliness and Santa Claus' existance.

The arrogance displayed by both parties is a poor tactic to discover truth, or to engage in a meaningful discussions.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
to me it seems sensible to believe that when you observe an amazing universe, that functions according to great laws (many of which we still are nowhere near understanding) and consists of beauty, good, evil, etc that continually astonishes me

[/ QUOTE ] Everyone is in agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
there must be Something behind

[/ QUOTE ] Anything regarding what that SOMETHING may be is pure guess. To assume that it must be a God, or a Pink Unicorn, is ridiculous. How you can make perfectly correct statements, but not realize that your "Theist" guess is nothing more than that, a guess, confuses me.

Sure, your view is consistant but it's very unlikly to be correct.

[SammyKid11]

OP, it appears to me that you've not been altogether honest in terms of your purpose for starting this thread.

First you tell us that you are a theist, who struggles with doubts about your beliefs, and that you're merely curious as to whether or not athiests also struggle with what they (we) believe. Sounds like you're looking for genuine answers.

First response is a guy telling you that he's 100% sure there is no god and that he's never struggled with it, to which you reply:

[ QUOTE ]
that seems ludicrous. i dont believe any intelligent person could simply have always been '100%' certain there is no God, without any serious thought, study, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay...so you ask whether athiests are sure in their beliefs, whether they struggle...first guy tells you he's sure and that he personally does not struggle. You call his position ludicrous and raise doubts about his intelligence. Nice. Are you really out for honest answers? Or are you interested more in advancing your personal agenda (which, best I can tell, seems to be that anyone who does not believe in god arrives at such non-belief by faulty, or a lack of, reasoning)? Let's find out.

Alex-db tries to make an analogy showing you why the first responder's position was not ludicrous -- pointing to the possibility yet unlikelihood of something making absolute assurance an irrelevant factor with which to concern oneself. You tell him:

[ QUOTE ]
that is not a legitimate analogy


[/ QUOTE ]

Fantastic.

luckyme explains that he does NOT take on certain beliefs just because it makes him feel good...that he accepts things based on whether it fits the evidence. And THEN adds that he feels very fulfilled. You twist his words in the following way:

[ QUOTE ]
why believe in what 'fits' the evidence? why pursue what appears 'true' to you? why not purposely believe in only falsehoods, if they would make you feel even more 'fulfilled'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see why this is an unacceptable way to have an intellectually-honest conversation? He tells you that he accepts what the evidence leads him to...AND that he feels perfectly fulfilled by doing so. You respond by sarcastically asking him why he pursues truth at all...why doesn't he simply pursue whichever falsehood makes him feel the best. You insinuate that what he's saying is he accepts the evidence BECAUSE it makes him feel fulfilled...when in reality he's told you just the opposite, and merely added that fulfillment is not something lacking in his life. Poor form.

This quote floors me:

[ QUOTE ]
i am saying that if there is no god that there is also no reason to righteously seek 'truth'

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay...are you TRYING to get inside the mind of a thinking athiest? Or are you trying to advance your ridiculously narrow agenda that tells you that without god there is no purpose, no point, no truth, no meaning? I have to say, based on the evidence...it sure feels like the latter.

FWIW, why can't this life be enough? Why does everything have to be leading toward afterlife and connection with deity? Why isn't humanity and life and joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, progress and possibility, birth and death enough to bestow meaning on my life? Why do I need a wise old man from up there to tell me I'm good or bad and bring me presents at Chri....er, let me into heaven? Seriously.

A jackass named soko makes the following ridiculously inflammatory, intellectually-worthless statement:
[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but feel pity for all the self proclaimed atheists who are wasting their time being bitter, sad and egocentric in their crusade of the "enlightened". Seriously there is no point, you can argue every day till death of the nonexistanse of whatever but it really doesnt matter, it will never get you laid and it won't make you any money so STFU already, nobody CARES.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you congratulate him by adding:
[ QUOTE ]
well said

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreement with soko's above statement is enough to make me absolutely lose faith in your original claim to be genuinely interested in "the mind of the atheist." If you agree with "STFU already, nobody CARES" then what are you doing starting this thread?

Could it be that what you're really interested in is starting a thread to bait atheists into a discussion with you so you can make a lame attempt at a pseudo-intellectual/fear-based case to persuade atheists to take another look at your religion of choice...which, I would wager significant money is Christianity...more specifically, American evangelical protestantism? Am I getting warm?

I think so -- I was raised fundamenalist Southern Baptist...and you took this question straight out of literature teaching high school kids how to witness to their friends:

[ QUOTE ]
if you had your choice, would you prefer to continue living after you die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good conversation piece. Too bad nobody would go for it.

[ QUOTE ]
i believe the 'evidence' for God is much stronger than most believe here. no such evidence exists for a vengeful carrot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is SHOCKING that you think this. Tell you what, why not just be intellectually honest? Start a thread entitled "reasons why siegfriedandroy thinks atheism throws existence into utter absurdity and moral bankruptcy (aka - why I believe in GOD)." Wayne Grudem would be proud. That way, the people who participate in that discussion will know what they're getting into. They'll be debating someone who is firmly convinced of his positions, who is openly trying to convince others of his positions...instead of contributing to a thread that they believe is for the purpose of merely educating a theist about the mind of an atheist, when that is so CLEARLY not what this thread is about.

Just come right out and say...you're trying to convince people. That's okay -- many will still engage you on the subject. But BE HONEST ABOUT IT!!!

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
how am i hypocritical for agreeing with this poster that it's foolish for atheists to spend their time in pissing contests on web chat forums?

[/ QUOTE ]
You start a thread asking atheists for their opinions. A poster then labels atheists as "bitter, sad, and egocentric" and tells atheists to "STFU already, nobody cares". Nothing about his post suggests anything about "pissing contests", he's talking about all atheist arguements.

You respond to this very mean-spirited post with "well said" - strongly suggesting that you agree with everything that he said. Effectively, you've told all atheists here to shut up.

If you think we should "STFU" and you "don't care" what we have to say, why are you asking for our opinions? If you ask us to talk and then tell us to "STFU" you're a hypocrite plain and simple. Either that or much worse.

[ QUOTE ]
why, in your view, acorns, am i even writing this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why indeed when you turn around and backhandedly tell your respondents to shut up.

[ QUOTE ]
i simply asked a question about how atheists think

[/ QUOTE ]

... and then told us to shut up when we replied.

[ QUOTE ]
thus i cannot agree with a poster whose opinions appear a bit more similar to my own, without subjecting myself to undeserved criticism?

[/ QUOTE ]
The criticism is only undeserved if you didn't mean to say "well said" to soko's bile.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[/ QUOTE ]Pot.kettle.black

There is no evidence that any xtain has anything over any muslim, hindu, or sceintologist. Yet the arrogance displayed by xtians, and all people that subscribe to any religion is always overlooked.

Again the reason why atheists are seen in this light, is because it's hard to give a serious refutation of Santa Claus or pink unicorns or Jesus' Godliness, to someone who assumes that they are true. Or that believes that there is some fundemental difference between Jesus' Godliness and Santa Claus' existance.

The arrogance displayed by both parties is a poor tactic to discover truth, or to engage in a meaningful discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I happen to believe, and you disagreee with me has nothing to do with my perception of arrogance on this board. I could comfortably make the same statement if I was an agnostic, muslim, or even a new comer to 2+2. Nowhere in my reply did I refer to ANY religion, yet your arrogance, and overconfidence make you draw Jesus, Santa, and pink unicorn parrallels AGAIN.

Go ahead.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say it's more arrogant to believe some super being is looking down and smiling upon your rather trivial existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Two things.

1. I don't look at God as a super being looking down on me. Relationships w/ God are a whole different thread, but suffice to say it's nothing but a good thing.

2. I don't think in the vastness of the entire known universe my nor your existance is trivial in the slightest.

Actually I can see why you perceive arrogance from your viewpoint, but mine is the exact opposite-humility.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
dam i suck at using quotes

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Very confusing following you posts.

[bocablkr]

Sammy, just finished reading your long response - nice job of putting it all together.

[Jeff V]

First off-good post.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, why can't this life be enough? Why does everything have to be leading toward afterlife and connection with deity? Why isn't humanity and life and joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, progress and possibility, birth and death enough to bestow meaning on my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question has been, and probably will be asked through the ages. The short answer is it's just not-this should be obvious. It has never been enough, and probably will never be. People will always try to answer these questions some will come to belief in God. Others to Buddha, Muhammed, mother earth etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I need a wise old man from up there to tell me I'm good or bad and bring me presents at Chri....er, let me into heaven? Seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you were just upset here, because this is the exact thing you have complaints about.

And I think it's rather arrogant.

[Lestat]

Are you serious?!! I'm really not sure if you're being sarcastic. (If you've read my past posts then no doubt you're being sarcastic).

I might actually be changing my beliefs about free will. In the past, I never really thought much about it, but assumed everyone had free will. Posts on this board got me to question that. I'm really not sure what my beliefs are on free will right at this moment. Determinism does make some sense to me now. I need to think (and try to understand), more about it. In short, I'm the wrong person to ask if you really want a good answer.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
transcendental, cosmological, teological, ontological...

not that posters 'have never thought about them', only that they have not fully studied them significantly, to the point where they can be justified in fully dismissing them without further thought. i am positive they have not been adequately dealt with in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
These arguments are laughable. It doesn't take long to show that they all contain fundamental logical errors. They don't prove anything other than god exists if god exists. They only require significant study if you want to come up with new sneaky ways to make them look valid.

The only people they convince are those who already believe.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
transcendental, cosmological

[/ QUOTE ]

Unscientific hippie crap.

[ QUOTE ]
teleological

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing this refers to evidence by design, which we've already yelled at NotReady about for being incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
ontological

[/ QUOTE ]

Anselm has been repeatedly proven wrong.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The only people they convince are those who already believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are self-contained two-dimensional logical constucts in a closed system.
All Rimroods are Red.
Some Rimroods are square.
Thus, some Rimroods are red squares.

It's certainly a solid argument, the problem is it says nothing about the existance of Rimroods.

luckyme

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
The short answer is it's just not-this should be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, what a well thought-out reply. It's just not and it should be obvious. It's SO DIFFICULT to see why I'm not a believer when these are the answers believers give me.

Man...if YOU need religion to give meaning to your life, then that's fine by me. I have no quarrels with you, brother. But you have absolutely ZERO evidence of the non-fulfillment, meaning, importance, etc. of my life which does not include faith in any deity. It's not obvious -- obvious things include the fact that most people have ten fingers, we breathe oxygen, when we jump off of buildings we fall and hurt ourselves...and hence, no one ever argues about the truth or falsehoods of those things. Faith in god or afterlife being a prerequisite for meaning does not fall into the obvious category.

And I think it's rather arrogant to state that it is obvious.

Your reasoning?

[ QUOTE ]
It has never been enough, and probably will never be. People will always try to answer these questions some will come to belief in God. Others to Buddha, Muhammed, mother earth etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people try to answer questions about the possibility or nature of god, it logically follows that humanity is not enough to give meaning and purpose to life? That's like saying that because millionaires will usually pursue the earning of more money, becoming a millionaire must not be a meaningful, good thing. Because humans pursued flight, life on the ground was un-meaningful. Because we pursue time travel, life in our present day is un-meaningful.

It's poor logic. Humanity pursuing something:
a) does not make that thing true
b) does not make life without that thing suddenly un-meaningful (ie - many scientists tell us time travel is absolutely impossible...I don't know whether or not that's true, but I know that people wondering and others actively pursuing that goal does not unravel the meaning of other science, life itself, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do I need a wise old man from up there to tell me I'm good or bad and bring me presents at Chri....er, let me into heaven? Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you were just upset here, because this is the exact thing you have complaints about.

And I think it's rather arrogant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't upset. This is how I feel. I think the story of god is an historically man-made creation that, at its base level, serves to normalize societal behavior. And while there has anthropologically been evidence to suggest that such normalization has had positive social benefits, that doesn't in any way speak to the truth or falsehood of any faith-based tenets.

In my opinion, the concept of god is a fairy tale to help keep people in line. It's not that I believe there was one guy or a group of people who purposefully "hatched" the plan or anything...I think religion evolved quite naturally out of man seeking to understand the nature of existence (and since we now have science to answer those questions for us systematically instead of mythologically, the role of religion has steadily declined in the world and will continue to decline until a point where it's almost wholly irrelevant - granted, this might take another few centuries of human evolution). But I will maintain that the Santa Claus Factor is what currently maintains religion in terms of its central role in many people's lives (ie - ask MOST uneducated people why they believe, and they can't tell you...they just know they want to be seen as good people, enjoy the comfort of happiness after this life, seeing loved ones again, believing that god is out there to help guide them, and most importantly - they don't want to go to hell...fire insurance, really). And I'm not anywhere close to being alone in this opinion. Great thinkers (including Marx and Freud, just to name a couple off the top of my head) have wholeheartedly agreed with me that religion's primary function is as a normalizing impact on society (of course it's me agreeing with them, not the other way around).

And it's not arrogant -- it's just the conclusion I've come to. You can either accept that as my (and many other people's) conclusions and live on, or you can get upset by it.

I personally find it distasteful when I have to sit through prayers to a deity I don't believe exists. One could argue that a dogmatic belief in a certain concept of god (or even that he exists) is phenomenally arrogant in light of the complete lack of evidence of such existence (and especially the lack of evidence for applying specific religious principles to such deity).

However, I don't hold you in contempt for merely believing. Most people believe because that's what they're taught from a young age by their parents. I don't find a lot of value in that kind of belief, without having truly committed oneself to discovery. But, if after truly studying, you find yourself of a particular faith (as C.S. Lewis did)...then fantastic for you. I happen to disagree, but I respect the conclusions you've drawn for yourself.

However, don't expect my respect for your positions to hold if you disrespect mine. If you want to get into a pissing contest...then start making some religious claims, and I will tear them apart limb from limb (not that this would probably serve any good purpose for either us or our readers).

And just as a BTW...my complaints with the original poster have nothing to do with the claims he's made, only with the fact that he has disguised his true intentions for starting this thread. If the thread had been titled "believe in god with me," I wouldn't have necessarily opened it and invested time in reading and becoming interested in it. Maybe I still would have, but I dunno. I just want people to state their positions clearly, and I believe in that manner I've met my own burden.

[siegfriedandroy]

well if youve yelled at notready about it, clearly you know the teleological one is wrong. what is your best argument against evidence by design?

[siegfriedandroy]

i am not agreeing that you should stfu, etc. but i do agree that atheists' efforts to 'educate' believers is without purpose even if atheism is true. that's all. if atheism is true, and if i have no free will, then i am only writing what ive been programmed to by your closed system of chance, and you are upset with me for the same reason.

[siegfriedandroy]

how does everyone agree with my first quote? i think most disagree with it? it is not anything incredible that the universe exists as it does in all its intricacies and mysteries. it is simply here, for no purpose or reason.

[siegfriedandroy]

good question. semantics

[siegfriedandroy]

what is your best argument against evidence by design? to me it is laughable to believe that the universe simply popped into existence by random chance and for no reason. there is incredible order in the universe, enough to make any sceptic think twice before simply dismissing the design argument 'laughable'. again, though, if you are right, acorns, i only believe in the teleological argument because your closed, naturalistic system has programmed me to believe this way. So are you really justified in being so upset? are you angry at the universe for coming into existence though it could be no other way (assuming you are a deterministic type atheist)? if not, then why be angry at 'stupid' Christians who only believe as they do because your system has 'forced' them to?

[siegfriedandroy]

can you please elaborate? im not sure what you are saying.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The short answer is it's just not-this should be obvious.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wow, what a well thought-out reply. It's just not and it should be obvious. It's SO DIFFICULT to see why I'm not a believer when these are the answers believers give me.

[/ QUOTE ]

First I'm not trying to convert you. Second, I was making a staement about mankind, not your reason for belief or lack thereof. This is where we got off on the wrong foot.

[ QUOTE ]
Man...if YOU need religion to give meaning to your life, then that's fine by me. I have no quarrels with you, brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I was making a statement about humanity-not you or I in particular.

[ QUOTE ]
Faith in god or afterlife being a prerequisite for meaning does not fall into the obvious category.



[/ QUOTE ]

Who made the statement that belief in a deity was a prerequisite to purpose?? Not me.

Here's another S T R E T C H

[ QUOTE ]
Because people try to answer questions about the possibility or nature of god, it logically follows that humanity is not enough to give meaning and purpose to life? That's like saying that because millionaires will usually pursue the earning of more money, becoming a millionaire must not be a meaningful, good thing. Because humans pursued flight, life on the ground was un-meaningful. Because we pursue time travel, life in our present day is un-meaningful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again you've read way too far into it(with a weak analogy by the way). The concept of a creator of the universe and a millionare just don't compare.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the concept of god is a fairy tale to help keep people in line

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not I felt THE EXACT same way for quite some time, so I can relate 100%.

[ QUOTE ]
But, if after truly studying, you find yourself of a particular faith (as C.S. Lewis did)...then fantastic for you. I happen to disagree, but I respect the conclusions you've drawn for yourself.

However, don't expect my respect for your positions to hold if you disrespect mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, and not at all.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get into a pissing contest...then start making some religious claims, and I will tear them apart limb from limb

[/ QUOTE ]

Not interested in a "pissing match", but I DO think I should be able to defend my position as you should yours.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
well if youve yelled at notready about it, clearly you know the teleological one is wrong. what is your best argument against evidence by design?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dawkins_blindwatchmaker_1996_full.pdf

(pg 43-44)

If you walk up and down a pebbly beach, you will notice that the pebbles are not arranged at random. The smaller pebbles typically tend to be found in segregated zones running along the length of the beach, the larger ones in different zones or stripes. The pebbles have been sorted, arranged, selected. A tribe living near the shore might wonder at this evidence of sorting or arrangement in the world, and might develop a myth to account for it, perhaps attributing it to a Great Spirit in the sky with a tidy mind and a sense of order. We might give a superior smile at
such a superstitious notion, and explain that the arranging was really done by the blind forces of physics, in this case the action of waves. The waves have no purposes and no intentions, no tidy mind, no mind at all. They just energetically throw the pebbles around, and big pebbles and
small pebbles respond differently to this treatment so they end up at different levels of the beach. A small amount of order has come out of disorder, and no mind planned it.

The waves and the pebbles together constitute a simple example of a system that automatically generates non-randomness. The world is full of such systems. The simplest example I can think of is a hole. Only objects smaller than the hole can pass through it. This means that if you start with a random collection of objects above the hole, and
some force shakes and jostles them about at random, after a while the objects above and below the hole will come to be nonrandomly sorted. The space below the hole will tend to contain objects smaller than the hole, and the space above will tend to contain objects larger than the hole. Mankind has, of course, long exploited this simple principle for
generating non-randomness, in the useful device known as the sieve.

The Solar System is a stable arrangement of planets, comets and debris orbiting the sun, and it is presumably one of many such orbiting systems in the universe. The nearer a satellite is to its sun, the faster it has to travel if it is to counter the sun's gravity and remain in stable orbit. For any given orbit, there is only one speed at which a satellite can travel and remain in that orbit. If it were travelling at any other velocity, it would either move out into deep space, or crash into the Sun, or move into another orbit. And if we look at the planets of our solar system, lo and behold, every single one of them is travelling at exactly the right velocity to keep it in its stable orbit around the Sun. A blessed miracle of provident design? No, just another natural 'sieve'. Obviously all the planets that we see orbiting the sun must be travelling at exactly the right speed to keep them in their orbits, or we wouldn't see them there because they wouldn't be there! But equally obviously this is not evidence for conscious design. It is just another kind of sieve.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, why can't this life be enough? Why does everything have to be leading toward afterlife and connection with deity? Why isn't humanity and life and joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, progress and possibility, birth and death enough to bestow meaning on my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question has been, and probably will be asked through the ages. The short answer is it's just not-this should be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree entirely. Life can be very fulfilling in the absence of an afterlife. The fact that Christians often claim otherwise makes me pity them.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree entirely. Life can be very fulfilling in the absence of an afterlife. The fact that Christians often claim otherwise makes me pity them.


[/ QUOTE ]

The life can be fulfilling in the absence of an afterlife- no kidding, that's why it's an afterlife ya big goof! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

FWIW- I'll restate. I wasn't talking about any one person in particular, but humanity as a whole.

Thank you for the pity.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
i am not agreeing that you should stfu, etc. but i do agree that atheists' efforts to 'educate' believers is without purpose even if atheism is true. that's all. if atheism is true, and if i have no free will, then i am only writing what ive been programmed to by your closed system of chance, and you are upset with me for the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I am at least glad to see that you don't agree with soko's suggestion that we STFU. But I still think you should be more careful when you say "well said" to a post that you only agree a fraction with. Soko's post said A LOT more than arguing atheism is a waste of time if it's true.

That said, arguing atheism isn't a waste of time even if it's true. If atheism is basically correct then this world is of paramount importance. It is therefore important that we don't waste our limited time and resources on an afterlife that will never happen.

Also, whether or not we have free will has nothing to do with whether or not god exists. It can be argued that free will is more consistant with a godless universe than one with an all-powerful, all-knowing creator god. The basic idea is this:

If an all-knowing god created the universe then he knew everything that would happen (as in every last detail). Furthermore, if this god is all-powerful then he could have created the universe differently (assuming this god has free will).

In the act of creating the universe such a god would therfore make all the decisions for us for all time. We can't have free will with such a god. In order for us to have free will, god either must not have known everything, must have been limited in the types of universes he could create, mor must not created the universe.

Finally, atheism does not say that you don't have free will (although it doesn't say you have it either). Plenty of atheists believe they have free will. Personally, I take a pragmatic approach. I either have free will or I don't. It's harmless to assume I have free will since I can't control my actions/decisions if I'm wrong. If I do have free will and act as though I don't I can potentially cause a lot of harm. It is therefore best to assume I have free will and act accordingly.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
what is your best argument against evidence by design?

[/ QUOTE ]
What version of the argument from design are you advocating here? I'll assume that it's similar to this one:

1) anything designed requires a creator
2) the universe was designed
3) the universe therfore had a designer
4) we call this designer "God"

This is only a proof if (2) is true. You need to prove that the universe was designed first. It is hterefore necessary that the theist show that (2) is true, or at least build up a very strong case by showing obvious example of design. And not just any design, but design by an independent intelligent agent. You see, (1) is also probelematic because it ingnores the possability that something can be "designed" by purely natural processes.

[ QUOTE ]
to me it is laughable to believe that the universe simply popped into existence by random chance and for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine, but don't pretend that this is a logical arguement against a creatorless universe. Such a universe doesn't care if you like it or not. Note: I don't call the agrument from design laughable because I don't like it. I call it laughable because it's logically flawed.
[ QUOTE ]
there is incredible order in the universe, enough to make any sceptic think twice before simply dismissing the design argument 'laughable'.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I've thought more than twice about it. Every example of "intelligent design" ever offered is indistinguishable from "natural design".
[ QUOTE ]
again, though, if you are right, acorns, i only believe in the teleological argument because your closed, naturalistic system has programmed me to believe this way.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're assuming I believe things I never said I believe here. I don't believe that you're programmed to think this way (although you might be). I'm open minded about this aspect of our existance.
[ QUOTE ]
are you angry at the universe for coming into existence though it could be no other way (assuming you are a deterministic type atheist)? if not, then why be angry at 'stupid' Christians who only believe as they do because your system has 'forced' them to?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I never said I was angry about anything other than people who tell me to STFU.

More importantly, I never said anything about "stupid" Christians. If you don't want me to get angry don't make up quotes of things I never said.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, why can't this life be enough? Why does everything have to be leading toward afterlife and connection with deity? Why isn't humanity and life and joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, progress and possibility, birth and death enough to bestow meaning on my life?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question has been, and probably will be asked through the ages. The short answer is it's just not-this should be obvious. It has never been enough, and probably will never be. People will always try to answer these questions some will come to belief in God. Others to Buddha, Muhammed, mother earth etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I responded to the point I thought you were making. You've gone on to tell me and others that we were missing your point. Please MAKE your point clearly...ie - what is your reasoning for disagreeing with my original quote in this post?

[ QUOTE ]
i am curious how the standard, run of the mill 2 + 2 atheist (perhaps no such thing!) thinks about such question?

[/ QUOTE ]
nope, no such thing. We're all different.
Perhaps, though, some gereralizations exist.
[ QUOTE ]
are most of you sure that 'God' doesnt exist? or is that simply a 'meaningless question'?

[/ QUOTE ]
I only worried about this during junior high school. I grew out of that stage and now the question of god ranks the same as questions about aliens. Somewhat interesting, but ultimately pointless.
[ QUOTE ]

do any of you struggle and agonize, etc over such questions to the point of extreme disturbance, etc??

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. It's a non-issue.

[ QUOTE ]
personally, considering the present state of my mind and its interpretation of all the info I've taken in, analyzed, etc, I am strongly convinced that a Supreme Being exists, and find it nearly impossible that I could be convinced otherwise. yet at the same time, i have often struggled with doubts about the particulars of my beliefs, etc, and often this in the past has caused me severe mental anguish and discomfort. i am curious whether many atheists have suffered through the same types of emotions? [ QUOTE ]

Sure, but like I said, I grew out of that.
Now I simply live, and live well.
[ QUOTE ]

if i were to picture myself as an atheist (which perhaps is a meaningless hypo b/c clearly i then would not be myself, but someone wholly distinct), i want to say i'd agonize over my disbelief, fearing constantly that i may be wrong and spend eternity in hell. do ANY of you feel that way? I do not see how you could not.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't worry about it. If I did, I'd have to worry about the various versions of heaven and hell that exist in all religions, not just yours. I wasn't raised Catholic or Morman or anything, so I don't have that ingrained worry/fear/guilt/belief. I just live.
[ QUOTE ]

In my view, the primary reason for the utter lack of such concerns (according to what i read here, etc) is because of a vast overconfidence, and even arrogance, in the 'knowledge' we as humans possess in the 21st century. it seems that despite the recent close of a horrific century, which, i believe, consisted of more human death and suffering than all of that combined in the past history of the earth, man foolishly and pridefully hangs on to an ever increasing optimism and vast overestimation of his own intellectual abilities and those of society as a whole. i am not anti-technology or anything that extreme (although it is interesting food for thought- i.e. would humanity as a whole be better off the automobile was never invented - maybe not a good one, but ?'s to that effect). but i am quite realistic. man is clearly not 'good'.

anyway, i am rambling now. good morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people are a neutral (neither inherently good nor evil) and can become good or evil, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

[David Sklansky]

"to me it is laughable to believe that the universe simply popped into existence by random chance and for no reason. there is incredible order in the universe, enough to make any sceptic think twice before simply dismissing the design argument 'laughable'."

Your first sentence has merit but not the second. Because the "incredible order" follows from a few simple mathematical laws. Now you may say that these laws were designed by God and that can't be easily disproved. But I don't think that this is what you or most religious people, who don't understand the math, usually mean when they talk about incredible order. They think there had to be a god who had a larger part in the day to day design than simply setting up a few equations fifteen billoin years ago.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
what is your best argument against evidence by design? to me it is laughable to believe that the universe simply popped into existence by random chance and for no reason. there is incredible order in the universe, enough to make any sceptic think twice before simply dismissing the design argument 'laughable'. again, though, if you are right, acorns, i only believe in the teleological argument because your closed, naturalistic system has programmed me to believe this way. So are you really justified in being so upset? are you angry at the universe for coming into existence though it could be no other way (assuming you are a deterministic type atheist)? if not, then why be angry at 'stupid' Christians who only believe as they do because your system has 'forced' them to?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it is laughable to believe that the universe did not simply pop into existence for no reason. There is incredible disorder ion the universe. As we become more adept adept at our observations, all semblence of order seems to dissapear. I see this process as continuing. Let me show some examples.

Initially people thought by observation that the earth (and therefore mankind were at the center of the universe and everything rotated around it. Then came the heliocentric explanation with perfect circular orbits of the planets and the stars. Then the orbit became elipses, then they became distorted elipses. Then they became as they are now, mere approximation of ellipses with variations which are not predictable, caused by other mechanism like gravity interference amongst planets (and other bodies) and other causes not yet found. So much for that order and design. To me it seems that has knowledge deepens the "design" aspect becomes more and more improbable. This is true of most physiacl laws (if not all). It is also true of course of all classical Newtonian physics which has been shown to be lacking by more rigourous (better or more accurately measured) observations. Not that this in any way detracts from the many use of classical physics in day-to-day physical predictions.

The next big design argument: life and its complexity. To me it seems reasonable that the very complexity is an effect of true chaos and randomness. Objective evidence makes one realises that evolution is not teleological in nature, goes via devious and improbable and sometimes very much ill disigned pathways altough those are adjusted (they are not optimally adjusted, just enough to succeed). I have a meagre intelligence but many of the design flaws are obvious in live organisms. Even without being all-knowing I know of some better designs. Some designs are really cumbersome and faulty (like the eye so often quoted by ider's). I see no order or design where I see none.

More profoundly, the human condition with it's spectacular consciousness which is really an obvious source of misery and suffering, if you are capable of any empathy, is most distressing and clear argument against design. I am, in fact, offended by the notion that this could have been designed by any intelligence. If it was it would be very far from belevolent, in my opinion.

That last point deepens my atheism, because should it even be remotely possible that an intelligent entity (God or not) would be capable of producing such a pain making mechanism, I surely do not want to be associated, or fullfill a covenent, with such. Eternal damnation seems a small price to pay for not condoning, or participating with, or pandering to such an entit in any way. At least, I think, this is the inevitable and ultimately correct human moral position to take, soundly resting in observation, empathy and compassion.

I do think that flaws in our design seem to make very few people capable of coming to such a conclusion, so I don't condemn them unless they interfere with my life and my choices.

Agreed, for the most part. (I don't agree with your ideas about human suffering)

It's the human mind that tends to see order and structure, not that the universe IS structured. It's just a strange habit we have to see organization where there is none/ little. We spot patterns and ignore the chaos. We strive for answers and explanations; we are upset by unsolvable puzzles. We think the simple explanation is inherently better than the complicated one, just because it's elegant, not because it's more true.

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm atheist, not 100% sure, but pretty damn close (I can't really be 100% sure of anything in the real world now can I?), I've given it a lot of thought, I'm not worried about hell to any significant degree, and I'm much, much happier since I stopped believing in life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto

[siegfriedandroy]

SKLANSKY!!!!!!!!!!!! how certain are you that my first is correct but not my second?? 87.8% sure? are you a genius sklansk? i challenge you to a math duel. i am only 23 though. but go to one of the best schools in the country. i am drunk off my a*s now, and dont really understand what ur saying. i read the words but dont get it. i will try again tomorrow. by design i mean like psalm 119 - "the heavens declare the glory of god". it just seems clear that the universe is not purposeless. a five year old can understand. maybe you are distinguishing an active god from deism? john adams was a Xian. i didnt know that but am reading his bio now. sorry if that didnt flow. again im drunk. my iq is 168. is urs higher? lets start a blackjack team sklansk??? i swear im better than the mits

[siegfriedandroy]

acorns. u r smart and hostile. i dont think u really understand all the implications of your atheistic world view. what is ur ev in poker? is it higher than mine? i know, that is pointless. i am just curious. hah well peace brotha

[siegfriedandroy]

free will exists. i KNOW. those who disagree are wrong. they are not as smart as you. bye

[godBoy]

A solar eclipse does it for me, how does this perfect beautiful miracle, fluke fit into your random chaos theory. Think of the solar eclipse and what it means for it to exist in our solar system, one sun, one moon, same size in the sky. However much further away the sun is from the earth, it has to be that much larger too. It just doesn't seem chaotic does it?
I'm with the design dude on this one. It's not chaotic at all, the rock where spinning around on it's perfect axis. rotating around the sun, a very stable sun I might add, in a near perfect circular orbit. The balance of light and shade , ice and desert, Mountain and sea.
The mountains are a good argument actually, caused by the shifting plates, but kept tall because of the strength of gravity, the size of the planet. The heat from the core. The earth is one of a kind and seems to be the the focus of creation, well to me anyways.
Hey dude, you make a better planet! as has been said. A 5 year old can see that it's brilliant, why do you struggle seeing it so?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
free will exists. i KNOW. those who disagree are wrong. they are not as smart as you. bye

[/ QUOTE ]

impressive

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not chaotic at all, the rock where spinning around on it's perfect axis. rotating around the sun, a very stable sun I might add, in a near perfect circular orbit. The balance of light and shade , ice and desert, Mountain and sea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish you better luck on your grade 10 science tests.

luckyme

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not chaotic at all, the rock where spinning around on it's perfect axis. rotating around the sun, a very stable sun I might add, in a near perfect circular orbit. The balance of light and shade , ice and desert, Mountain and sea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish you better luck on your grade 10 science tests.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just painful to read, isn't it?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just painful to read, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why in DS's "85%" thread, I mentioned that I have respect for dogmatic types ( like Peter666 and HR) who at least merely start with a faulty premise or two but structure a coherent philosophy on it.

Siegfreid and godboy types are more like dealing with blackflies at summer camp, bothersome (but at the level of making me embarrassed for my species).

luckyme

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
what is your best argument against evidence by design? to me it is laughable to believe that the universe simply popped into existence by random chance and for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet it is realistic that someone/something created the universe. Did he/she/it just pop into existence or have they existed forever? Which is more believable?

At least the evolution from nothing has some observed facts that support it.

Considering our limited knowledge of such things, how can you say anything semi-plausible is laughable?

[godBoy]

It was pretty late when I structured that sentence.. You haven't even attepmted to answer the question though.
What about the solar eclipse?
Do you really believe that we are just a big lucky cosmic loogie?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
A solar eclipse does it for me, how does this perfect beautiful miracle, fluke fit into your random chaos theory. Think of the solar eclipse and what it means for it to exist in our solar system, one sun, one moon, same size in the sky. However much further away the sun is from the earth, it has to be that much larger too. It just doesn't seem chaotic does it?
I'm with the design dude on this one. It's not chaotic at all, the rock where spinning around on it's perfect axis. rotating around the sun, a very stable sun I might add, in a near perfect circular orbit. The balance of light and shade , ice and desert, Mountain and sea.
The mountains are a good argument actually, caused by the shifting plates, but kept tall because of the strength of gravity, the size of the planet. The heat from the core. The earth is one of a kind and seems to be the the focus of creation, well to me anyways.
Hey dude, you make a better planet! as has been said. A 5 year old can see that it's brilliant, why do you struggle seeing it so?

[/ QUOTE ]

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos

[MidGe]

godboy,

you seem to be very selective in that in which you see evidence of your loving and perfect god.

I guess rather than focus on the nice things (and I agree a full eclipse is spectacular), with which I have no issues, I would rather have an explanantion about how does this benevolence and love manifest itself in cataclysms, like tsunamis, earthquake, hurricanes, volcanoes, plagues, etc etc.. Personally I would rather that dude didn't try to do the right thing for me. He seems too much of a hack. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I guess I could believe in a bumbling god (if it was neccessary), just not in an intelligent or perfect one.

It seems that you have been brainwashed or hypnotised in seeing only the good things to observe. You display a singular loss of impartiality.

[godBoy]

This is only one example of many, the solar eclipse.
The probability of the earth being created how it was is incomprehendably huge. There has to be a point, when the odds are stacked so far in the favour of one side that you can not place hope in the other side. This is where I have found this rarity so compelling an argument.
using your analogy, would you believe that that you would get a particular bridge hand? or would you be more inclined to say, it's far more likely that I will not get this particular hand.
And the odds for our planet coming about randomly is far far greater than 1 in 600 billion. I won't wait until I am certain of a creator, I will place my hope in Him because of the irrational faith it takes to believe that there is not a creator.

[godBoy]

MidGe, It's very true what you say.
I do look at the world with my personal convictions of a loving God in the back of my mind.

But God never said that this planet was a picture of his perfection, he created it flawed, namely sinful.
We are in the place where there are good and bad forces, and the battle rages.

I remember opening up my discman and while the cd was playing, ripping off transistors and parts of the chipboard. I was just interested in what would happen, maybe God is just curious. God doesn't play dice either.

I won't dispute the fact there there is a lot of sh#t in the world, but I can still look at the greatness of the good and be in awe. The world is not meant to be seen as God's best try, it is just how He designed it to be for his own purposes. Our existence is not just about our time spent here on earth but will persist through eternity. A perfect being can create things that are imperfect, and it doesn't make Him any less perfect.

[MidGe]

Ah well, if your god meant to inflict suffering, if it his pleasure. I'll go and join the other side without hesitation. I am not a pathological monster, I just have a glimpse of intelligence, morality and compassion. Three things that seem eminently lacking in your god.

[godBoy]

The true character of God is revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ. You can see in Him a very healthy, intelligent, moral and compassionate being, moreso than anyone else that has lived. Just as I said, the imperfections of the earth, do not say much about the character of God, it's in Jesus we understand our creator.\

I was the one to rip apart my cd player, I didn't say God was like that, he doesn't get kicks out of suffering.

But, suffering does promote maturity and as I see it, equips us for eternity.

How would we know morality and compassion were good things if there were not some measure of suffering to compare it to? If the world was truly perfect, would we really be happy, nahhh just average... The world as I see it has the potential to offer great amounts of joy and happiness because of lack of it.
If it were sunny all the time, we wouldn't really grow to appreciate the sun's warmth would we? It would just be normal.

I appreciate the freshness of the air in the country after a week in the city, but for those who dwell only in the city, air is air. nothing so special about it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">But, suffering does promote maturity and as I see it, equips us for eternity. </font>

Please explain how a 3 month old baby dying of SIDS is prepared for eternity. What preparation for eternity does a stillborn child receive?

[hashi92]

so your saying that everything that your striving for is not even worth it because perfection (heaven) is average. why be morale and go to heaven. criminals, wars and disease are good things because it makes you thankful and happy. i think your into s&amp;m.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only one example of many, the solar eclipse.
The probability of the earth being created how it was is incomprehendably huge. There has to be a point, when the odds are stacked so far in the favour of one side that you can not place hope in the other side. This is where I have found this rarity so compelling an argument.
using your analogy, would you believe that that you would get a particular bridge hand? or would you be more inclined to say, it's far more likely that I will not get this particular hand.
And the odds for our planet coming about randomly is far far greater than 1 in 600 billion. I won't wait until I am certain of a creator, I will place my hope in Him because of the irrational faith it takes to believe that there is not a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is that the odds against us existing the way we do is so huge to be nearly impossible. However, the fact that we do exist proves that the highly improbable does indeed happen. Our existence itself is a counter point to your argument. As the first sentence in my last post states, "rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything."

I'd add that it is an especially weak argument when you are trying to argue that the thing that is so vastly improbable and likely not to happen has already happened.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
acorns. u r smart and hostile.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take the "smart" as a compliment and the "hostile" as an exaggeration. The only hostility I've shown here is when people tell me to shut up (as you unintentionally did) or make up quotes (as you did). I'm willing to chalk that up to a sloppy reply though and leave it dead if it stops.
[ QUOTE ]
i dont think u really understand all the implications of your atheistic world view.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feel free to inform me (as long as it's not about going to hell - I'm familiar with that theory). If this is about your belief that atheism entails determinism bring your best - don't just say that it does.
[ QUOTE ]
what is ur ev in poker? is it higher than mine? i know, that is pointless. i am just curious. hah well peace brotha

[/ QUOTE ]
It's positive, that's for sure. I'm trying to build a bankroll from literally zero and I'm currently at a few thousand. I admit that I'm a poker newb.

[godBoy]

Yes, but it's not that it has happened that I am arguing, it's that it could happen without a creator. Which is just nonsense,
If I saw a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 to 1 chance at winning a hand of cards, I would place more hope in getting that hand than the 1 odd chance.
I don't see the weakness in this argument.
Our existence against all odds displays the need for it to have been intelligently designed, but hey I wish you all the best with your big gamble.

[godBoy]

Most of the problems in the world are caused by people, not God. Of course there seems to be injustice, we can only see the tip of the ice berg. Very true that stillborn won't have truly lived and grown, to look at an extreme example like this and hold God in contempt though.... everyone dies.

Anywho, that child will have 'all the time in the world' with it's maker. I believe that God is much bigger than all these issues and has justice sorted out.

[godBoy]

Because of Earth, people will have a real reason to worship God with everything they have, cause when they arrive home they will know what they were created for. Heaven will be far from average. It will be home.

Plenty of christian martyrs have thanked their persecuters because they have been able to understand christ's persecution. I'm not saying that these things are good in themselves . I agree with this, All things work together for good for those who love Him.
Even though people face injustice and cruelty I think it works for good in the scope of eternity.

[MidGe]

godboy,

You are going on like a broken record just repeating the same over and over again: "I believe... ".

Personally I I am sure you do, and I really don't care. People are asking you questions regarding your beliefs that you conveniently ignore, or fob off with another "I believe..". Grow up, learn to debate, or (yes, I hate to say it) stop posting. It is rather boring and the belief bit shows such a naivity that I find it hard to believe /images/graemlins/smile.gif you are a contemporary.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the problems in the world are caused by people, not God...

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the issues and sufferings are natural. If people are contributing to it, I would expect so, if I was believing what you believed. After all people are made in his image, right?



[ QUOTE ]
Even though people face injustice and cruelty I think it works for good in the scope of eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to support your monstrosity, by saying he must be right but you just can't understand it?

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of christian martyrs have thanked their persecuters because they have been able to understand christ's persecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and they never came back to say they were right. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Even though people face injustice and cruelty I think it works for good in the scope of eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sort of are capable to see the bigger picture, right? Your lack of understanding and lack of compassion is absolutely stunning. I hope many learn from it.

[Lestat]

I can understand how ID conveniently answers one question for you, but I wonder why you black out all the *additional* questions ID creates?

What created this designer? Where was this designer for the eternity before the universe was created? What was he doing all that time? Where is this designer now? What makes you think this designer is focused in on this one insignificant planet, in one tiny solar system, in one small galaxy, out of the billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, let alone on any single individual earthling? I'd think it takes a healthy sense of self importance to have this belief.

It's good that you've somehow found comfort in taking a convenient answer off the shelf. It also must be nice to not even realize that this answer is not really an answer at all, but just something that opens up many more unanswerable questions if you thought rationally.

[Lestat]

"Very true that stillborn won't have truly lived and grown, to look at an extreme example like this and hold God in contempt though.... everyone dies."

But you are avoiding the question. You said that suffering in this life is necessary to promote maturity and equip one for eternity. What of the stillborn child?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but it's not that it has happened that I am arguing, it's that it could happen without a creator. Which is just nonsense,
If I saw a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 to 1 chance at winning a hand of cards, I would place more hope in getting that hand than the 1 odd chance.
I don't see the weakness in this argument.
Our existence against all odds displays the need for it to have been intelligently designed, but hey I wish you all the best with your big gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what the odds are. The point is some outcome out of all the billions of outcomes necessarily had to happen and we are living that outcome. To say that it is improbable is basically meaningless.

Also, Lestat pointed out other problems with your perspective in that even if a creator exists, there is no logical reason to make other assumptions you would have to make to have that creator conform to your specific religious beliefs.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand how ID conveniently answers one question for you, but I wonder why you black out all the *additional* questions ID creates?

What created this designer? Where was this designer for the eternity before the universe was created? What was he doing all that time? Where is this designer now? What makes you think this designer is focused in on this one insignificant planet, in one tiny solar system, in one small galaxy, out of the billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, let alone on any single individual earthling? I'd think it takes a healthy sense of self importance to have this belief.

It's good that you've somehow found comfort in taking a convenient answer off the shelf. It also must be nice to not even realize that this answer is not really an answer at all, but just something that opens up many more unanswerable questions if you thought rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

These other questions I have not blacked out... I do feel very self important, like somebody cares about me because of the care that has been taken in setting up this glorious planet. The Earth is one of a kind and looks to me like the focuspoint of the universe. From it's place in the milky
way to it's place in our solar system, it's seen to be a special planet indeed. ID is only a baby still, yet it has a huge number of very strong arguments supporting it, look at it's arguments personally.

Nothing created this designer, he has existed for eternity and created time for us. See the thread 'something eternal'.

True, just knowing that an intelligent designer was neccessary in creation doesn't point to some particular faith/religion. That's not what ID is about though, people of many different faiths are together on this one. Knowing that there is a Creator has to probe personal investigation and thought though.

I know how small I am and how big the universe is. However, i'm convinced just because of the odds against an atheistic belief that there must have been a creator. This doesnt stop me looking for answers to other questions but makes me search all the harder. Our creator wants us to find Him, so I'm looking and still asking the hard questions.

[godBoy]

That child will not of matured and would not be prepared for eternity. You are right, I agree with you.

None of us will be completely matured when we die though, in comparison with the mind that thought us up we are all infants. Eternity is another chance to continue growing and maturing. The world is not just, eternity is a long time though...

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]

I know how small I am and how big the universe is. However, i'm convinced just because of the odds against an atheistic belief that there must have been a creator. This doesnt stop me looking for answers to other questions but makes me search all the harder. Our creator wants us to find Him, so I'm looking and still asking the hard questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis my own. Especially on a site like this, you should see why that portion isn't really correct.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
godboy,

You are going on like a broken record just repeating the same over and over again: "I believe... ".

Personally I I am sure you do, and I really don't care. People are asking you questions regarding your beliefs that you conveniently ignore, or fob off with another "I believe..". Grow up, learn to debate, or (yes, I hate to say it) stop posting. It is rather boring and the belief bit shows such a naivity that I find it hard to believe /images/graemlins/smile.gif you are a contemporary.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the problems in the world are caused by people, not God...

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the issues and sufferings are natural. If people are contributing to it, I would expect so, if I was believing what you believed. After all people are made in his image, right?



[ QUOTE ]
Even though people face injustice and cruelty I think it works for good in the scope of eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to support your monstrosity, by saying he must be right but you just can't understand it?

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of christian martyrs have thanked their persecuters because they have been able to understand christ's persecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and they never came back to say they were right. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Even though people face injustice and cruelty I think it works for good in the scope of eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sort of are capable to see the bigger picture, right? Your lack of understanding and lack of compassion is absolutely stunning. I hope many learn from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I do hold beliefs about the world as everyone does, i just may be more vocal about them.

Right, people are made in His image. That's what I believe anyways, isn't that what you were asking?

Calling your creator a monstrosity because of a stillborn. You are speaking without understanding the purpose for your life or existence. I am not saying I understand all of this , I know that there is more to my life than 80 years or so in this place. I'm not saying He must be right, but he's got to have more of an idea than me. I shouldn't expect to be able to understand the maker of the universe 100% or I would be giving myself far too much credit.

I am deeply moved when I see an injustice occur, a tragedy happen to someone I care about or see someone close pass away. I am able to see this differently to those without a belief in eternity because I don't think that this is the end of them.

[godBoy]

I don't think that the atheist population has heard all the arguments involved in the ID debate, or has seriously considered them.
I was strictly talking about the odds of the the universe occuring by chance alone, all I was saying was that these odds were enough to make me believe in an itelligent designer.

[Zak]

Since you use "God" with a capital G, I assume you are either Christain, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or one of the other monotheistic religions. All of them that I know of object to gambling, this makes your post a bit problematic, do you see why?

[hashi92]

yes most of the problems in the world are created by people. but God made people that way. he allowed people to sin and be evil. he had numerous chances to fix the situation. he flooded the earth to start all over yet he still let sin, suffering and evil continue.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the atheist population has heard all the arguments involved in the ID debate, or has seriously considered them.
I was strictly talking about the odds of the the universe occuring by chance alone, all I was saying was that these odds were enough to make me believe in an itelligent designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think most atheists are very well informed about the various arguments for god. None of them, including the one you have mentioned in this thread, are very compelling.

As for your arguement, the odds of this specific instance of the universe having happened are indeed staggering. However, that proves nothing. Some outcome had to happen. Whichever possible outcome did indeed happen would be just as improbable as any of the others, so it really doesn't say all that much that this particular version is the one that transpired. Improbable? Without question. But some outcome out of all the trillions of possible outcomes had to happen, so it's puzzling why people act like it is miraculous that one did.

This line of thinking would be akin to me thinking it is miraculous that out of the 150k poker hands I have played this year, my hole cards and those of my opponents in each specific hand came in the exact order that they did. Swap one of my cards from one of my hands for one from another player or from what was still in the deck and you have an entirely new set. You could do that for every card for every player in every hand I was dealt this year. To have been dealt this specific set of hole cards in the specific order that I was is absolutely amazing. It must have been a miracle! Seriously, what are the odds?

With the poker example, we know it was just one set of many possible outcomes and we don't think twice about it. The same line of thinking should be applied to the universe because the situations are analogous. We just place more weight on the universe than we do a random set of dealt cards.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I was strictly talking about the odds of the the universe occuring by chance alone, all I was saying was that these odds were enough to make me believe in an itelligent designer. </font>

I think the odds that an erroneous statement such as this would make it into a serious gambling forum are staggering. Therefore, I conclude this forum could not possibly have been conceived and intelligently designed by two math experts.

[Lestat]

I actually agree with your thoughts in "Something Eternal". I also have a very hard time imagining nothing (see my post Is Nothing Possible?) Sorry I don't know how to provide links.

Yes, something kick-started the universe and in order for that to have happened, something must've existed. But it's a HUGE leap in logic to think it had to have been a specific designer. It's a further leap still, to think this designer has a personal interest in you. And an incredibly further leap yet, to think this designer can bring you back into some sort of existence after you die even if he wanted to.

You are absolutely missing the point by insisting that ID must be true because of the incredibly long odds. I hope you don't gamble for a living or use odds in your work. You're very unclear on the concept of odds and should stop insisting that ID is a good or even logical bet. You are wrong!

You're making tremendous leaps in logic just to fit something which you don't understand comfortably into your head. I don't blame you for doing this, or hold it against you. But SAY this is what you're doing! Don't try and present it as logical conjecture based on rational thought or some understanding of mathematical odds!

Rationale such as, "A solar eclipse is beautiful, therefore it must have been purposely designed", is NOT logical conjecture! Neither is, "I don't know what could've caused this, so I'll make something up". It's a wish you have! Period. Maybe it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. But it has nothing to do with logic, science, or observable evidence! This is why ID has no place in public learning institutions. It's faith. It's religion. Call it by what it is and I have no problem. Blieve what you want. But people who try and imply ID is some kind of legitimate "theory", need to be struck down and exposed for promoting a religious "faith". Nothing wrong with that, but that's all it is.

Now I'm going to give it rest for today and wish you a Merry Christmas!

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> None of us will be completely matured when we die though, </font>

Then this:

[ QUOTE ]
But, suffering does promote maturity and as I see it, equips us for eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes no sense.

Do you even care about the inconsistencies in your beliefs?

[godBoy]

All I was saying was that this world is the tip of the iceberg. suffering does promote maturity, I didn't say it makes a person completely mature, our experiences add to our character and maturity. This is what we take with us into eternity.

[godBoy]

"As for your arguement, the odds of this specific instance of the universe having happened are indeed staggering. However, that proves nothing. Some outcome had to happen. Whichever possible outcome did indeed happen would be just as improbable as any of the others, so it really doesn't say all that much that this particular version is the one that transpired. Improbable? Without question. But some outcome out of all the trillions of possible outcomes had to happen, so it's puzzling why people act like it is miraculous that one did."

Whichever possible outcome did happen would not be as improbable as the others. Life is not something that can just exist anywhere, it needs certain things to exist.
It is far more probable that life would not exist if this big random bang was to occur again.
Nah, go on, you are far more intelligent than something that is random right? I mean you can choose certain things and put things where need to go, right. Try and make one living thing. The simplest of all life forms, let me know how you go. keep in mind that you have much more intelligence than something with no intelligence.

Does no one agree with me? Can no-body see that we are in a place that is more habitable than any other place we have seen?
I can't believe that people who are thinking beings can think that life on earth is the end product of random processes. Life has arisen against all odds, but that's not the argument, the argument is if life can arise from purely random processes and the answer is no.

Why can't you see the uniquness of planet Earth and draw some conclusions about it. By saying it's improbable but it did happen, were just lucky I guess is plain stupid.

[godBoy]

sorry for my erroneousness...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

Does no one agree with me? Can no-body see that we are in a place that is more habitable than any other place we have seen!
I can't believe that people who are thinking beings can think that life on earth is the end product of random processes. Life has arisen against all odds , but that's not the argument, the argument is if life can arise from purely random processes and the answer is no.

Why can't you see the uniquness of planet Earth and draw some conclusions about it. By saying it's improbable but it did happen, were just lucky I guess is plain stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we have indeed seen very few of all the possible places... so, just wait /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Life as arisen because of the huge odds in its favour The billions of years that the primordial soup had to, by being hit by lighting, or whatever else, to accidentally combine the first organic compound was nearly a dead certainty!

Rgarding foolishness, do you mind me asking what level of schooling you did reach? You do seem rather ignorant. I am not criticising your faith, which is just that, faith, but your reasoning and knowledge seems very thin, seems very puerile.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

Whichever possible outcome did happen would not be as improbable as the others. Life is not something that can just exist anywhere, it needs certain things to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say this about anything that exists in the universe.


[ QUOTE ]
It is far more probable that life would not exist if this big random bang was to occur again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, even if it were true. Please prove this statement to me. I don't see how you possibly could.

[ QUOTE ]
Nah, go on, you are far more intelligent than something that is random right? I mean you can choose certain things and put things where need to go, right. Try and make one living thing. The simplest of all life forms, let me know how you go. keep in mind that you have much more intelligence than something with no intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is this a weak attempt at insulting me, it's also irrelevant. What does my not being able to create life have to do with what we are discussing?

[ QUOTE ]
Does no one agree with me? Can no-body see that we are in a place that is more habitable than any other place we have seen?

[/ QUOTE ]

A puddle would say the same thing about the ditch it sits in if it were able to communicate. Also, of course this place is more habitable than any other place we have seen -- which, incidentally, isn't many -- that is the reason we appeared here. The conditions on Earth are perfect for what exists here, just as the conditions on all the other planets are perfect for what exists there.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that people who are thinking beings can think that life on earth is the end product of random processes. Life has arisen against all odds, but that's not the argument, the argument is if life can arise from purely random processes and the answer is no.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no possible way you can prove that life cannot arise from random processes. In fact, I'd say there is ample evidence to the contrary.

[godBoy]

"You could say this about anything that exists in the universe."

Life only exists in one place that we have seen.

"Irrelevant, even if it were true. Please prove this statement to me. I don't see how you possibly could."

I've sat around over 2 000 000 seconds and never has a universe exploded into being or a giraffe sat up in my cereal. I apologise for the nonsense but it's all i'm hearing.

Because of the conditions that need to be in place for life to exist, it is extremely improbable that it would just happen uncaused.

"The conditions on Earth are perfect for what exists here, just as the conditions on all the other planets are perfect for what exists there."

That would be no life, right? stunning.

"Not only is this a weak attempt at insulting me, it's also irrelevant. What does my not being able to create life have to do with what we are discussing?"

If something with the intelligence of man cannot possibly create the simplest life form, how is it you have such faith in your belief that the wealth of life displayed on Earth came about with no intelligence?

"There is no possible way you can prove that life cannot arise from random processes. In fact, I'd say there is ample evidence to the contrary."

Wait, you've heard that life has come about from nothing and have ample evidence to support it? I don't think so... Never ever will life arise from nothing, no matter how long you gave it. If you said there was a pile of dirt and it was thrown around in this giant jar for a trillion years, I would be stunned to find conciousness.

Life neccessitates a creator, belief in nothingness is a waste of an intellect.

[godBoy]

well i don't know what puerile means... I was home schooled by an egyptian monk.
The dead certainty you speak of is a false hope indeed.
That was a hell of a lot of convenient accidents that fell together, not one that I am going to place my faith in.
But I wish you all the best.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
"You could say this about anything that exists in the universe."

Life only exists in one place that we have seen.

"Irrelevant, even if it were true. Please prove this statement to me. I don't see how you possibly could."

I've sat around over 2 000 000 seconds and never has a universe exploded into being or a giraffe sat up in my cereal. I apologise for the nonsense but it's all i'm hearing.

Because of the conditions that need to be in place for life to exist, it is extremely improbable that it would just happen uncaused.

"The conditions on Earth are perfect for what exists here, just as the conditions on all the other planets are perfect for what exists there."

That would be no life, right? stunning.

"Not only is this a weak attempt at insulting me, it's also irrelevant. What does my not being able to create life have to do with what we are discussing?"

If something with the intelligence of man cannot possibly create the simplest life form, how is it you have such faith in your belief that the wealth of life displayed on Earth came about with no intelligence?

"There is no possible way you can prove that life cannot arise from random processes. In fact, I'd say there is ample evidence to the contrary."

Wait, you've heard that life has come about from nothing and have ample evidence to support it? I don't think so... Never ever will life arise from nothing, no matter how long you gave it. If you said there was a pile of dirt and it was thrown around in this giant jar for a trillion years, I would be stunned to find conciousness.

Life neccessitates a creator, belief in nothingness is a waste of an intellect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your posts speak for themselves. I won't bother responding to anymore of them.

[siegfriedandroy]

acorns- you are the next 'jesus'!! i heard he built a 20k bankroll from pennies. sh*t, i almost typed 'penis' by mistake! peace

[siegfriedandroy]

no.

[siegfriedandroy]

marsupial- you were smarter in jr high

[siegfriedandroy]

lestat- one of my best friends in law school, we call him thor with a giant hammer.

[siegfriedandroy]

lol. thanks hmk. if you get it, this is one of my best posts ever. peace. i was programmed to believe that free will exists

[siegfriedandroy]

thanks for questining by honesty, sammy. i can assure you 100% that i am not disingenuous here. good start moron. oh well. not everyone is blessed. peace, jon

[soon2bepro]

godBoy:

You argument that earth is so perfect for humans that it must be created by god. And let me say, that it is only "perfect" for HUMANS (or other similar lifeforms for the matter). Did it ever occur to you that the very reason there are humans in earth is because it's such a suitable enviroment for humans?

Think about how life works. Life grows, reproduces and dies. Life needs a suitable enviroment, otherwise it extincts or doesn't happen in the first place. Is it really so ridiculous to come to the conclusion that the only reason that life Is, is because life Was? In other words, had the earth not be such a suitable enviroment for life as we know it, there wouldn't have been life on earth. We wouldn't know any life; heck, we wouldn't even exist.

People have already pointed out that everything is where the "perfect conditions" for it are. But you seem to be putting some kind of cosmical supervalue in life. Like, in this argument you blind yourself of everything else and assume that the whole universe is there only for life's purpose.

As other people pointed out, whereas you see order in things, this "order" is nothing but your human nature trying to understand things; or even worse, it's your assumption that things exist for your needs.

This "randomness" as you call it is not so (in human logic, the only place for "randomness" is the unknown), but even if it was, it doesn't prove that things can't happen out of randomness. Moreover, many others pointed out, it's ridiculous to say that randomness can't produce something it has already produced.

The idea that there is some supreme force ruling the universe is not at all illogical. It is in fact very scientifical. We even know a bit of this supreme force. We know the laws of physics, the laws of math. Sure, some or all of these may be wrong. They may even be essentially flawed because they're assuming our human logic is the way the universe works (simply because it's our only way to understand it); but going from that to purpose; to saying that this force has desires, feelings, intentions that it has a PURPOSE!, Is absolutely ridiculous.

We have no evidence for this whatsoever. There is no evidence against it either, hence all religious beliefs are impossible to prove wrong. Just as they are impossible to prove right. That's why they're "faith" beliefs rather than scientifical beliefs.

Anyone who tries to tell you about how sure they are that there is no God, is not a rational person, he's a faith-ful person, just like you are.

I won't argue that beliefs such as yours are good for the believer, but that is not the point here. Sure, it might be better for me to have faith and believe; but then again, it's not better for me, because i'd feel i'm believing in something I have no evidence of, it'd make me feel empty. Pretty much the way you'd feel if you stop believing. I'm just built differently. I seek the truth, no matter the consecuences. You seek the consecuences, no matter the truth.

And we are both right in doing so. Both ways can lead to a more happy life, it's just a matter of evaluating them and finding out what's best for you.

[tolbiny]

"Nothing created this designer, he has existed for eternity and created time for us. See the thread 'something eternal'"

Ehy can't the universe have existed for eternity? If "god" can will and always has existed, why can't the universe "just exist"?

Secondly ID talks about how our planet was made perfectly for us. For god to have built erath before us he would have to have known in advance exactly how he was going to create us. On the other hand evolustion says that life forms will fit into their environment.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for questining by honesty, sammy. i can assure you 100% that i am not disingenuous here. good start moron. oh well. not everyone is blessed. peace, jon

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol -- wow, took you two weeks to respond and you didn't even quote anything for reference? I had to search back just to find and remember what it was I said.

That in mind...great job not responding to the valid ways I demonstrated how disingenuous you've been in starting this thread. Oh...and thanks for calling me a moron and telling me that your "god" hasn't blessed me. How nice and Christian of you.

Jabby one-liners that come two weeks late, total non-responsiveness to any of the legitimate arguments posed, name-calling, and my personal favorite - "god doesn't like you".....yeah, you're right, I can't believe I ever doubted your sincerity.

[siegfriedandroy]

hey sammy,

I apologize. I was drunk last night when i wrote this, and generally frustrated with some weighty personal matters. all i read was the opening lines of your response, in which you questioned my honesty. This bothered me because I am absolutely certain that I was not being dishonest. I honestly could not see how anyone can 'know' 100% sure that there is no God, and truly believe that those who fail to ask sufficient questions are not the most intelligent people in the world. Right or wrong, I am not being dishonest.

but I should not have responded as I did. My apologies.

[siegfriedandroy]

Again, I can assure you I am not being dishonest. Personally, I genuinely cannot comprehend how someone can live on this planet from anywhere, say from 15 to 95 years, and KNOW for certain that there is no God. To me, this is foolish.

As for LuckyMe, I did not twist his words, but instead posed a separate question, which you did not understand. I did not question his sincerity in attempting to 'fit' the evidence and follow it wherever it leads. Instead, I questioned the rationality in the first place of seeking truth at all. Why not seek 'non-truth'? Why follow the evidence in the first place, especially if such conclusions may lead to utter unhappiness and meaninglessness, etc? Why not live solely for your own pleasure, at the expense of truth? These are honest questions for Lucky, and you wrongly twist my words by telling me that I twist his.

Yes, I do believe in God, and yes, I am curious why so many here on this forum dont. I dont see how it's 'shocking' to believe in God. To me it is more shocking to believe that an entire, gargantuan universe filled with great order simply popped out of nothing for no reason at all. To me this makes no sense. How did a universe come from nothing? First of all, what is 'nothing', and why was there 'nothing' in the first place? There are incredible questions here that I have never seen sensible answers to from those who adhere to an atheistic world view. Most of what I read from atheists on this site are smoke screen, intellectually barren arguments attempted to pass off as knowledge, but screaming with needless, irrational hostility and emptiness. This is how i truly feel, and there is no dishonesty here, despite your accusations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As for LuckyMe, I did not twist his words, but instead posed a separate question, which you did not understand. I did not question his sincerity in attempting to 'fit' the evidence and follow it wherever it leads. Instead, I questioned the rationality in the first place of seeking truth at all. Why not seek 'non-truth'? Why follow the evidence in the first place, especially if such conclusions may lead to utter unhappiness and meaninglessness, etc? Why not live solely for your own pleasure, at the expense of truth? These are honest questions for Lucky, and you wrongly twist my words by telling me that I twist his.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hve you read the mind viruses thread. Some of us are infected with the idea that the truth matters, this of course may not be true but we're infected anyway and thats why we peruse the truth.

chez

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
hey sammy,

I apologize. I was drunk last night when i wrote this, and generally frustrated with some weighty personal matters. all i read was the opening lines of your response, in which you questioned my honesty. This bothered me because I am absolutely certain that I was not being dishonest. I honestly could not see how anyone can 'know' 100% sure that there is no God, and truly believe that those who fail to ask sufficient questions are not the most intelligent people in the world. Right or wrong, I am not being dishonest.

but I should not have responded as I did. My apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accepted.

[siegfriedandroy]

i looked at it. you are actually correct; indeed the truth matters. But it wouldn't if atheism were true, or more precisely, if there was no God.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I can assure you I am not being dishonest. Personally, I genuinely cannot comprehend how someone can live on this planet from anywhere, say from 15 to 95 years, and KNOW for certain that there is no God. To me, this is foolish.

As for LuckyMe, I did not twist his words, but instead posed a separate question, which you did not understand. I did not question his sincerity in attempting to 'fit' the evidence and follow it wherever it leads. Instead, I questioned the rationality in the first place of seeking truth at all. Why not seek 'non-truth'? Why follow the evidence in the first place, especially if such conclusions may lead to utter unhappiness and meaninglessness, etc? Why not live solely for your own pleasure, at the expense of truth? These are honest questions for Lucky, and you wrongly twist my words by telling me that I twist his.

Yes, I do believe in God, and yes, I am curious why so many here on this forum dont. I dont see how it's 'shocking' to believe in God. To me it is more shocking to believe that an entire, gargantuan universe filled with great order simply popped out of nothing for no reason at all. To me this makes no sense. How did a universe come from nothing? First of all, what is 'nothing', and why was there 'nothing' in the first place? There are incredible questions here that I have never seen sensible answers to from those who adhere to an atheistic world view. Most of what I read from atheists on this site are smoke screen, intellectually barren arguments attempted to pass off as knowledge, but screaming with needless, irrational hostility and emptiness. This is how i truly feel, and there is no dishonesty here, despite your accusations.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this just doesn't answer the charge that I brought initially. If anything, you've proven my point. Your agenda in this thread has been anything but genuinely curious...your tone has proven you to be much more committed to an adversarial position where you try to "rebut" each and every thing someone says who disagrees with you. And that's fine...many of us are up for a good debate. But proving atheism to be a lazy, faulty position at which to arrive is not the pretense under which you started the thread. That's the point I was making and I stand behind it and rest on my initial post.

Best of luck.

Edit to add: You have repeatedly complained about the hostility of atheists in this thread. However, as your response (for which you apologized) demonstrates...you have been one of, if not the most, hostile poster in this entire thread.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
i looked at it. you are actually correct; indeed the truth matters. But it wouldn't if atheism were true, or more precisely, if there was no God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you're wrong but without rehashing that argument at least we understand why we all care about the truth.

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

perhaps. i am strong in my opinions. i am genuinely curious about why atheists think as they do, believing things that seem self-evidently absurd to me. perhaps i should have made my initial post more reflective of my sharply contrasting views. i am curious, but i am also firm in my conviction that this prototypical atheistic 'mind' is flawed, and will always be quick to voice this opinion when I see examples of it, irregardless of what my posts are about. it just frustrates me when obviously intelligent people believe things i KNOW are wrong, at least to the same degree of certainty that the initial respondent 'knows' that atheism is true. And clearly I've thought much more about it than him, as he stated he has never really questioned his views.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
i am genuinely curious about why atheists think as they do

[/ QUOTE ]

Then maybe you should occasionally post something thought-provoking or intelligent rather than getting drunk and insulting people.

[soon2bepro]

siegfriedandroy:

The question about wether or not God exists or wether or not it's the christian God is not a matter of evidence or truth; it's a matter of belief. Therefore, don't expect to be able to debate with anyone about this.

If you find someone trying to prove by evidence and reason that this God doesn't exist, you can rest assured that he's only giving a lot of excuses to prove something he can't prove. And you can easily prove him wrong.

If you on the other hand try to prove that this God does exists (again, using evidence and reason as your method), you'll find yourself frustrated time and again, by scientifical people who will literally "tear your arguments apart from limb to limb" as sammy said.

But you seem to have another question despite all the obvious arguments that arise from contradictory opinions; you want to know what's it's like to be an atheist.

I will try to explain.

Think of a child, putting his hand into fire, then pulling it back as an impulse. Now think of this child doing this repeatedly. He will sooner or later realize that "fire is bad", and he will try to avoid it. Later on he might find out that fire is ok so long as you don't stick your hand in it. So he may be able to use it for cooking and other means.

Now, both of these processes were rational, although the first was merely an impulse, possesed by countless living beings, whereas the second is a conscious rational process, mostly just humans have this.
It's a process of understanding reality by analizing the evidence and thinking things out to find out what's your best option around this. This isn't majorly different from the impulse, other by the fact that it's a slower process (impulses are produced almost instantly, whereas conscious reasoning takes a little bit more time), and that it is able to try to comprehend and react to virtually anything (impulses have only so many things that they're prepared to understand).

Now, just like this child finding out about fire, all humans try to understand their enviroment in order to gain benefits.

There is only one way to do this, it's by seeking out evidence, then analyzing it using logic and former knowledges. I'm pretty sure you do this yourself, to some extent.

But then comes religion. Religion is something you're just supposed to "believe" out of nothing. There is absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs. In fact the beliefs adapt to the various evidence that come up in order to make the belief more true (or less false /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

Now, some people may easily fall for this; bu