Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[sirineou]

What atheist claimed that there is absolutely no God? can you name a few?

where millions of christians will tel you with absolute certainty that there is a God

Mark Twain for one, me for another and how many Christians are absolutely certain,all the time, of their belief in a God ?

If you are an Atheist and claim there is no God with absolute certainty, you need to produce your evidence,

Remember it is imposible to prove a negative.

As for Mark Twain I quote:

"I am plenty safe enough in his hands; I am not in any danger from that kind of a Diety. The one that I want to keep out of the reach of, is the caricature of him which one finds in the Bible. We (that one and I) could never respect each other, never get along together. I have met his superior a hundred times-- in fact I amount to that myself.

- Letter to Olivia Clemens, 17 July 1889"

Given that there is no factual or objective basis for a belief in God then no evidence is necessary to refute it as there is nothing to refute. The selected Mark Twain quote is hardly convincing in seeking to demonstrate that he wasn't an atheist.

What about this one:

"There is no other life; life itself is only a vision and a dream for nothing exists but space and you. If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made all good, and no bad." Mark Twain in Eruption

The millions of Christians who will tell you with absolute certainty that there is a God will go on to doubt that belief on many occasions throughout their lives and in some instances will revert to non belief, so you can't claim that they enjoy a belief based on absolute certainty.

You are confusing Theism and Deism,

as far as the Millions of christians that temporarily regain their sanity and question their faith are concerned, all I would say is that I wish them well and hope that some day they will regain their sanity permanently.

Edited January 8, 2014 by sirineou

[wym]

I have no idea why so many people see this as black and white, either you're an atheist or you go along with some organized religion.

It is a binary question. There either is an intervening god or there is not. The topic is "Are you an Atheist/Believer?" and not what flavour of believer.

So many atheists seem to argue "organized religion is often evil, therefore there is no validity to any spiritual belief system".

It is totally possible to believe there is no god, but to still hold many spiritual/supernatural beliefs - Buddhism being a prime example.

Rather than arguing for a given conception of "God" (even assuming all the monotheistic ones are the same God), I am making a case for the absurdity of statements like:

It is "scientific" to state that there is no higher-order intelligence in the world, no underlying meaning or purpose, all the universes are just the result of a mechanical and random interplay of matter and energy.

Anyone who doesn't see evidence of a higher power in their own heart and life just isn't looking IMO, in fact must be actively ignoring a lot of evidence right in front of their nose.

Sounds interesting, such as? (Please don't say look at the trees)

Why not? They sure seem pretty miraculous to me when I go out and commune with them. But even just at a human-centered level, all kinds of "coincidences" and miracles come my way all the time, and the more I submit myself and ask for help from (whatever you want to call a power greater than yourself), the more I develop and exercise my qualities like mindfulness and compassion, the more frequently these occur for me.

When I try to "make things happen" my way, act as if I'm in charge of my life and try to get what I want without being mindful of the world around me and its needs, the more obstacles I find in my way.

I'm not arguing "evidence" in the sense that my words here can convince you, just saying anyone who keeps an open mind - the fundamental requirement for any truly scientific approach - and experiments with those ideas and practices from whatever spiritual tradition seem attractive or at least less repugnant to you, and make judgments based on results and evidence, I am sure they will start to see the Light that is at the heart of each of us.

Edited January 8, 2014 by wym

[wym]

Not overselling this, but in general alignment with what I'm talking about:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/how-a-monkey-in-a-toilet-helped-me-find-god

[notmyself]

So many atheists seem to argue "organized religion is often evil, therefore there is no validity to any spiritual belief system".

Never heard that before.

It is totally possible to believe there is no god, but to still hold many spiritual/supernatural beliefs - Buddhism being a prime example.

Errrr. OK.

Rather than arguing for a given conception of "God" (even assuming all the monotheistic ones are the same God), I am making a case for the absurdity of statements like:

It is "scientific" to state that there is no higher-order intelligence in the world, no underlying meaning or purpose, all the universes are just the result of a mechanical and random interplay of matter and energy.

Strawman.

No, it is 'scientific' (?) to state that there is no reason to believe that there is a higher-order etc. etc.

Why not? They sure seem pretty miraculous to me when I go out and commune with them. But even just at a human-centered level, all kinds of "coincidences" and miracles come my way all the time, and the more I submit myself and ask for help from (whatever you want to call a power greater than yourself), the more I develop and exercise my qualities like mindfulness and compassion, the more frequently these occur for me.

We are pattern seeking primates... Oh, look at that cloud! It's looks like 'x'

In much of your post you are using reason to suggest we should not use reason. Do you not see a problem with that?

[wym]

So many atheists seem to argue "organized religion is often evil, therefore there is no validity to any spiritual belief system".

Never heard that before.

Dozens of posts above appear to argue from that position.

Rather than arguing for a given conception of "God" (even assuming all the monotheistic ones are the same God), I am making a case for the absurdity of statements like:

It is "scientific" to state that there is no higher-order intelligence in the world, no underlying meaning or purpose, all the universes are just the result of a mechanical and random interplay of matter and energy.

Strawman.

No, it is 'scientific' (?) to state that there is no reason to believe that there is a higher-order etc. etc.

In much of your post you are using reason to suggest we should not use reason. Do you not see a problem with that?

My position is that it is not rational to believe that just because a topic domain is not demonstrated or measurable by the paradigms and instruments of the current state of science, does not imply that that topic is not worthy of study and should be dismissed out of hand.

Keeping an open mind is required in order to be able to rationally test the efficacy of methods and beliefs - seeking evidence for yourself.

We don't really understand electricity, nor the immune system, how the mind works, thousands of topic areas - however we all don't require full understanding in order to make use of the scientific method in order to incrementally improve our lives in practical ways.

There are thousands of scientists that believe in God, or at least have open minds, are actively seeking answers to spiritual and "supernatural" questions.

It's only ignorant laymen that pretend to believe the current state of science has a grasp on fundamental questions of the nature of reality. Advanced physicists make no such claims.

[notmyself]

Dozens of posts above appear to argue from that position.

Really? The only ones I can think of argue that validation cannot be established given the evil but that validation is still possible. I doubt you would find any atheist unwilling to change their view given a reason to do so.

My position is that it is not rational to believe that just because a topic domain is not demonstrated or measurable by the paradigms and instruments of the current state of science, does not imply that that topic is not worthy of study and should be dismissed out of hand.

I agree with that fully so everything comes down to probability. Should we ans a species with finite resources spend our time looking for a stone on the Earth which is itself bigger than the Earth?

We don't really understand electricity, nor the immune system, how the mind works, thousands of topic areas

Granted but we do know they exist in some form. You are suggesting research into something that that we have no reason to believe exists and would not be able to test in any case. The invisible and the imagined look very much alike.

There are thousands of scientists that believe in God, or at least have open minds, are actively seeking answers to spiritual and "supernatural" questions.

Many of whom are working for the Templeton Foundation and or the Discovery Institute.

"It's only ignorant laymen that pretend to believe the current state of science has a grasp on fundamental questions of the nature of reality. Advanced physicists make no such claims."

Sorry, too many embedded quotes...

Would be interesting to know what percentage of Advanced physicists are atheist... 97% perhaps?

[wym]

Should we ans a species with finite resources spend our time looking for a stone on the Earth which is itself bigger than the Earth?

---

You are suggesting research into something that that we have no reason to believe exists and would not be able to test in any case. The invisible and the imagined look very much alike.

I'm not advocating for funded scientific research, just advocating that each of us be open to exploring the issues ourselves.

And there are many many reasons for people to do so, not "evidence" from a scientific POV but practical real-life benefits.

Many of whom are working for the Templeton Foundation and or the Discovery Institute.

Never heard of either, nor interested if they are sponsored by any organized religions.

Would be interesting to know what percentage of Advanced physicists are atheist... 97% perhaps?

In a 2009 Pew Foundation study, a third said they believe in God, 18% that they believe in some "universal spirit or higher power" and 41% say they dont believe in either.

Apparently belief rates are higher among scientists outside the US, while the reverse is true for the lay population.

I believe many people who go into science careers have already decided not to believe, due to the irrational prejudice that there is a conflict between spiritual beliefs and science.

Edited January 8, 2014 by wym

[wym]

I've added this book to my wishlist

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199975000/

[sustento]

I've added this book to my wishlist

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199975000/

Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. A huge sample...

Her other book is:

http://www.amazon.com/Korean-American-Evangelicals-Models-Civic-ebook/dp/B005NJU9HC/ref=la_B001JRYK9K_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389225594&sr=1-2

Obviously a disinterested researcher

[canman]

Frankly I am no more convinced by the big bang theory and hyper inflation than I am of Genesis. Both concepts say there was nothing and then there was something. Maybe it is tutles all the way down and the universe is infinite. Is there a higher being, a creator, an overseeer and life after death? I dont know. Does Science have the answers yet? I don't think so. I guess that puts me in the agnostic camp.

[greytown]

Science is a good thing. However I believe science is simply not the right tool to explain things that are of a spiritual or supernatural nature.

[wym]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

-- Arthur C Clark

[canman]

Have you noticed how quickly public phone boxes are disappearing? Maybe we are in the matrix and they are quietly destroying any chance to get out??

[sirineou]

Science is a good thing. However I believe science is simply not the right tool to explain things that are of a spiritual or supernatural nature.

what is?

[greytown]

Science is a good thing. However I believe science is simply not the right tool to explain things that are of a spiritual or supernatural nature.

what is?

Being that matters of faith are of the soul (or the heart?) approaching these things from a cerebral angle seems incorrect. Can science explain love?

[sirineou]

Science is a good thing. However I believe science is simply not the right tool to explain things that are of a spiritual or supernatural nature.

what is?

Being that matters of faith are of the soul (or the heart?) approaching these things from a cerebral angle seems incorrect. Can science explain love?

Yes

[jackr]

You die ,end of road ,there is nothing .

10: there is no such thing.

I am aware of this since age 10.

Don't have the time or patience to read whole thread, but will pick up on these.

Whether one believes in a god or not, the problem with this train of thought is you are severely limiting yourselves and being illogical. How could you know for sure; because your dopey parents said so or something that just feels right to you? Whatever, it doesn't really interest me and neither does peoples' belief in this or that thing. Unbelievers are likely swayed by the stigma of the God humans have created. With this in mind, I am a definite 4 and if something is there it is very likely nothing like the 'good book' says.

The universe is very precise such that something could have flipped a switch for it to be, or it came about through nothing, a false vacuum, and went through the cycle an infinite number of times to get itself right. There is also a very real chance that something intelligent is happening after death at the quantum level--atoms don't just stop moving because the brain dies you know! The bottom line is we just don't know at this juncture, the level of understanding in our brain does not permit it, and, subsequently, saying things like 'there is nothing' has that person come across as somewhat infantile and/or unintelligent.

[jackr]

Frankly I am no more convinced by the big bang theory and hyper inflation than I am of Genesis. Both concepts say there was nothing and then there was something. Maybe it is tutles all the way down and the universe is infinite. Is there a higher being, a creator, an overseeer and life after death? I dont know. Does Science have the answers yet? I don't think so. I guess that puts me in the agnostic camp.

Me too, but have a read a bit ole mate. Within the scientific community, only crackpots don't believe in the big bang today as we know enough that groups of galaxies are all moving away from one another. Read about colliding membranes and the transference of energy etc for seeing how the big bang could have come about.

[wym]

Science is very much aware it's barely started to try to make sense of reality at that level.

Jusr trying to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics makes the brains of the smartest people explode. This stuff makes the Flying Spaghetti Monster plausible.

https://www.google.com/search?q="big+bang"+multiverse&hl=en&pws=0

[alexviseu]

I'm always amazed to see atheist bash theist for having faith (believing something without reason) in God, but then claiming, many times in the very

same sentence, that there are Absolutely no Gods.

Both statements (there is a God. There aren't any Gods.) have the burden of proof, and yet both are happily stated without anyone meeting it.

The difference is that theists, at least most that I know, don't pretend to be skeptical and rational while spewing dogmatic believes as if it was truth.

So if I say that I am god, you will reply 'maybe yes maybe no', because of the burdon of proof eitherwise?

What did I say that would entail that rationale?

It appears to me that you do not seem to understand what burden of proof is nor what is the difference between belief and knowledge.

If someone claimed to be a God and hoping to convince others of it, the person making the claim would be required to provide enough evidence to back up the claim. The level of proof needed would depend on what the recipient would find proper. Different people would require different levels of evidence mostly based on how much they care to be right in that particular subject.

If such a burden of proof if met, then the person is entitled to be convinced of the fact and now BELIEVES. The recipient of the belief may or may not claim KNOWLEDGE of the fact. Knowledge might need a different set of evidence altogether.

As an example: If I claimed I owned a cat and shown you pictures of it. You would most likely BELIEVE me, yet claim no knowledge of the fact. Someone who interacts with me or visits me at my home might claim knowledge based on the facts he or she both experiences. I could still be lying to both of you and only shown you pictures of a random cat or borrowed a cat from a neighbor during those visits. The level of evidence is most likely low based on the fact that me having a cat will not impact you in any way and hence you would not particularly care to make sure that belief or knowledge is correct as near as 100% as possible.

While one might entertain the possibility of another person being God, it can be easily dismissed by the lack of evidence and based on past experience (the fact that every single person you met so far was not God). The level of evidence would obviously be higher based on the fact that it would be both important and unusual.

If someone claims to be a Policeman or a Lawyer, depending on the situation, I might just accept it on face value. If that claim becomes the premise to a more important claim then I might reevaluate all claims that are premises and demand proof of all those who do not meet my new level of evidence.

In another hand, if the claim is obviously incompatible with reality it can be usually be dismissed at hand.

I'm always amazed to see atheist bash theist for having faith (believing something without reason) in God, but then claiming, many times in the very

same sentence, that there are Absolutely no Gods.

Both statements (there is a God. There aren't any Gods.) have the burden of proof, and yet both are happily stated without anyone meeting it.

The difference is that theists, at least most that I know, don't pretend to be skeptical and rational while spewing dogmatic believes as if it was truth.

What atheist claimed that there is absolutely no God? can you name a few?

where millions of christians will tel you with absolute certainty that there is a God

There were several of them in this topic already.

[thailiketoo]

So if I say that I am god, you will reply 'maybe yes maybe no', because of the burdon of proof eitherwise?

What did I say that would entail that rationale?

It appears to me that you do not seem to understand what burden of proof is nor what is the difference between belief and knowledge.

If someone claimed to be a God and hoping to convince others of it, the person making the claim would be required to provide enough evidence to back up the claim. The level of proof needed would depend on what the recipient would find proper. Different people would require different levels of evidence mostly based on how much they care to be right in that particular subject.

If such a burden of proof if met, then the person is entitled to be convinced of the fact and now BELIEVES. The recipient of the belief may or may not claim KNOWLEDGE of the fact. Knowledge might need a different set of evidence altogether.

As an example: If I claimed I owned a cat and shown you pictures of it. You would most likely BELIEVE me, yet claim no knowledge of the fact. Someone who interacts with me or visits me at my home might claim knowledge based on the facts he or she both experiences. I could still be lying to both of you and only shown you pictures of a random cat or borrowed a cat from a neighbor during those visits. The level of evidence is most likely low based on the fact that me having a cat will not impact you in any way and hence you would not particularly care to make sure that belief or knowledge is correct as near as 100% as possible.

While one might entertain the possibility of another person being God, it can be easily dismissed by the lack of evidence and based on past experience (the fact that every single person you met so far was not God). The level of evidence would obviously be higher based on the fact that it would be both important and unusual.

If someone claims to be a Policeman or a Lawyer, depending on the situation, I might just accept it on face value. If that claim becomes the premise to a more important claim then I might reevaluate all claims that are premises and demand proof of all those who do not meet my new level of evidence.

In another hand, if the claim is obviously incompatible with reality it can be usually be dismissed at hand.

I'm always amazed to see atheist bash theist for having faith (believing something without reason) in God, but then claiming, many times in the very

same sentence, that there are Absolutely no Gods.

Both statements (there is a God. There aren't any Gods.) have the burden of proof, and yet both are happily stated without anyone meeting it.

The difference is that theists, at least most that I know, don't pretend to be skeptical and rational while spewing dogmatic believes as if it was truth.

What atheist claimed that there is absolutely no God? can you name a few?

where millions of christians will tel you with absolute certainty that there is a God

There were several of them in this topic already.

I know it has been said before but my dog knows I am god.

[alexviseu]

Frankly I am no more convinced by the big bang theory and hyper inflation than I am of Genesis. Both concepts say there was nothing and then there was something. Maybe it is tutles all the way down and the universe is infinite. Is there a higher being, a creator, an overseeer and life after death? I dont know. Does Science have the answers yet? I don't think so. I guess that puts me in the agnostic camp.

As a clarification, the big bang theory makes no claim on the subject of where the matter came from and hence does NOT say that "there was nothing and then there was something". The theory only addresses the moments immediately after the expansion began.

There are several option being considered for the explanation of where the matter came from and whether the matter could have just existed in the first place. I have heard and read about hypothesis ranging from quantum mechanics to multiverses. There is no universally concentual answer right now.

[greytown]

Science is a good thing. However I believe science is simply not the right tool to explain things that are of a spiritual or supernatural nature.

what is?

Being that matters of faith are of the soul (or the heart?) approaching these things from a cerebral angle seems incorrect. Can science explain love?

Yes

How does science explain love?

[canuckamuck]

I earlier posted about the circumstances required for life to originate. I left out a lot of things but some of the complexity was revealed. Many people are satisfied believing that life originated without assistance. For these people no more investigation is necessary.

However I think most people see life and the universe as beautiful, complex, and highly interconnected - driven even. It appears to have a consciousness guiding it. People who are fervently opposed to any supernatural realm can still be heard describing evolution and life itself as a cognitive force. And of course there is the ubiquitous ‘mother nature’ that seems to be approved at many levels for explanations of all non-human events on the planet.

Why does man ascribe intelligence to the natural world with one breath and dismiss it as infantile in the next? Why is man continually in denial about what he accepts subconsciously? Is it fear?

[alexviseu]

I earlier posted about the circumstances required for life to originate. I left out a lot of things but some of the complexity was revealed. Many people are satisfied believing that life originated without assistance. For these people no more investigation is necessary.

However I think most people see life and the universe as beautiful, complex, and highly interconnected - driven even. It appears to have a consciousness guiding it. People who are fervently opposed to any supernatural realm can still be heard describing evolution and life itself as a cognitive force. And of course there is the ubiquitous mother nature that seems to be approved at many levels for explanations of all non-human events on the planet.

Why does man ascribe intelligence to the natural world with one breath and dismiss it as infantile in the next? Why is man continually in denial about what he accepts subconsciously? Is it fear?

Not sure who who have been arguing with but there iw no "mother nature" or any evolution entity. There is only random mutation (according with the laws of physics) and natural selection. Neither has any purpose nor direction.

Also the fact that someone considers something to be beautiful says nothing about it's origins.

[canman]

Frankly I am no more convinced by the big bang theory and hyper inflation than I am of Genesis. Both concepts say there was nothing and then there was something. Maybe it is tutles all the way down and the universe is infinite. Is there a higher being, a creator, an overseeer and life after death? I dont know. Does Science have the answers yet? I don't think so. I guess that puts me in the agnostic camp.

Me too, but have a read a bit ole mate. Within the scientific community, only crackpots don't believe in the big bang today as we know enough that groups of galaxies are all moving away from one another. Read about colliding membranes and the transference of energy etc for seeing how the big bang could have come about.

25 years ago you would have been labled a crackpot if as a cosmologist you said the expansion of the universe was accelerating and that we are missing 80% of the mass and energy in the universe.

Membranes, multiverse, 11 dimensions, string theory and many more out there. All theorys which emerg from branches of mathmatics which only a handful of people claim to understand.

[canuckamuck]

I earlier posted about the circumstances required for life to originate. I left out a lot of things but some of the complexity was revealed. Many people are satisfied believing that life originated without assistance. For these people no more investigation is necessary.

However I think most people see life and the universe as beautiful, complex, and highly interconnected - driven even. It appears to have a consciousness guiding it. People who are fervently opposed to any supernatural realm can still be heard describing evolution and life itself as a cognitive force. And of course there is the ubiquitous mother nature that seems to be approved at many levels for explanations of all non-human events on the planet.

Why does man ascribe intelligence to the natural world with one breath and dismiss it as infantile in the next? Why is man continually in denial about what he accepts subconsciously? Is it fear?

Not sure who who have been arguing with but there iw no "mother nature" or any evolution entity. There is only random mutation (according with the laws of physics) and natural selection. Neither has any purpose nor direction.

Also the fact that someone considers something to be beautiful says nothing about it's origins.

Then you belong to the group described in the first paragraph. I am happy you are at peace with your world view.

I must ask though, is your faith in this view consistent? I would have great difficulty being this resolute.

[bundoi]

I earlier posted about the circumstances required for life to originate. I left out a lot of things but some of the complexity was revealed. Many people are satisfied believing that life originated without assistance. For these people no more investigation is necessary.

However I think most people see life and the universe as beautiful, complex, and highly interconnected - driven even. It appears to have a consciousness guiding it. People who are fervently opposed to any supernatural realm can still be heard describing evolution and life itself as a cognitive force. And of course there is the ubiquitous mother nature that seems to be approved at many levels for explanations of all non-human events on the planet.

Why does man ascribe intelligence to the natural world with one breath and dismiss it as infantile in the next? Why is man continually in denial about what he accepts subconsciously? Is it fear?

Not sure who who have been arguing with but there iw no "mother nature" or any evolution entity. There is only random mutation (according with the laws of physics) and natural selection. Neither has any purpose nor direction.

Also the fact that someone considers something to be beautiful says nothing about it's origins.

Then you belong to the group described in the first paragraph. I am happy you are at peace with your world view.

I must ask though, is your faith in this view consistent? I would have great difficulty being this resolute.

The mutation is random, but only the mutations most capable of survival actually do survive; this is why evolution looks as if it has intelligent design: it is the cumulative effect of millions of years of the most successful mutations.

Most non-theists have some understanding of theism due to their early school curriculum, but the reverse is seldom true. If there are any theists here who would like a thought-provoking read may I suggest "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Edited January 9, 2014 by bundoi

[canuckamuck]

You are speaking of one aspect of life and evolution which you have satisfied your curiosity on. That beneficial mutations out paced harmful mutations and that eventually single celled organisms became complex organisms. Do we have in science any examples of single celled organisms developing multi-cellular forms? I only ask because you are certain this has occurred.

Your other point is misinformed. A great many theists have invested their time in understanding the atheist world view. There have been converts in both directions.

[alexviseu]

Then you belong to the group described in the first paragraph. I am happy you are at peace with your world view.

I must ask though, is your faith in this view consistent? I would have great difficulty being this resolute.

I'm not sure which definition of "faith" you are using so let me define how I use the word. Let me know if we are using different definitions. "Faith" is the believing in something without good reason.

The theory of evolution describes the process of evolution which resulted in the diversity of life we hace on earth. It clearly explains the hows and there is extensive evidence around. Many of the processes used to confirm evolution as described by the theory are also usee in different fields in "real life" ranging from animal breedng to DNA tests for criminal investigation.

Nothing described in the theory needs a supernatural addition in order to be explained.

If I explain to you how a combustion car works, would you require faith in not believing that in addition to the engine a greek mythical God also helped, tweeked or directed the engine? The simplest explanation is the one that one is justified to accept. Faith would be required for the unevidenced addition of other unecessary elements.

In sum, I do have good reason to believe in the theory of evolution, both from the point of logic and from the widely available evidence. Therefore I do need any faith on the matter.

And evolution is not a "world view" it's just a scientific theory explaining natural events. The theory of evolution is as much "world view" as the theory of gravity.

Hope that answered your question.