Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

Problem is I rarely, if ever, see an atheist (at least on the Internet, I don't know any personally in every day interactions) happily discuss how they arrived at their conclusion, it's typically just filled with hate towards religion.

I addressed this. They're called :censored:holes, not atheists, and what they think is not the reason for why they behave the way they do.

It's not mandatory that you be a jerk if you disagree with someone, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Although as you can see in this thread there's also plenty of examples of people of all beliefs (or lack of) being MASSIVE jerks.

The main reason I'm not an atheist any more was that I thought a majority of atheists I came across were massive jerks and it made me stand back and reexamine my beliefs to see if I was being like that. Turn out I was and when I started listening to the other-side of the argument instead of instantly discrediting it, I found that I did believe in a higher power after all.

Why is that? Please share what got you to your current state.

This is what I was referring to in my post, many atheists refuse to even listen to anyone who's theist without getting some superiority complex about them and instantly say thing to them like "don't believe in imaginary friends", "why don't you beat your wife like the Bible says", "why do you believe in children's stories", etc.

...

I also agree that many theists, especially ones with more evangelicals beliefs, will refuse to listen to atheists and I think they are wrong too, they should at least consider the possibility their beliefs might be incorrect or unfounded all together.

That was the point that I was making. But the difference is that no matter how aggressively atheist someone may be, there is always a simple method to prove to them that they're wrong; show them God, or direct evidence of. All atheists who are not dribbling morons will accept this, no matter how much they might dislike it.

But what would a theist accept as a demonstration that they might be wrong? Assuming that they're reasonably well informed and already know about Russell's Teapot and critical thinking, there is demonstrably nothing. Their belief is by their own admission beyond rationality and logic, and so there is no system by which one can explain to them why their beliefs might be incorrect.

See as an example the Bible. Putting aside the aggressive way you termed some of the issues with it, there are a lot of parts of the Bible that are either contradictory or that people ignore outright as not compatible with modern culture. Yet this is still generally held up as a perfect document that communicates the word of God, a perfect being. It's actually a very good place to start with getting people to consider how total their belief is, and how actually might they not be creating their own beliefs based on what they think is right and good using Christianity as a draft to work from.

All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to listen then instantly refute on both sides. You should also always be challenging yourself on what you believe to be true, whether is a belief in a higher power or a non-belief. I personally don't see enough of it, especially between varying religious beliefs, and I think religion and God would be less of a hot topic if people just listened instead of instantly refuting.

Well, quite.

But I think that you'll find that the views of any given church or religion have changed fairly little over the centuries, often despite evidence to the contrary. Atheism hasn't changed much either in a fundamental way, there's still no evidence for a higher being. On the other hand, atheism tends to be pretty tolerant of societal changes like the modern acceptance of homosexual relationships and gender fluidity. Because it's based on critical thinking, most people find no real reason to oppose these things except for possibly that it squicks them out.

I feel like you're equating belief in a higher power and non-belief in something for which there is no evidence as equally rational and sensible conclusions. While you're free to believe whatever you want, they are not objectively equal. I know theists who will absolutely admit that their belief is irrational and that they're fine with that, but if someone tries to present belief in God as a rational choice then I have to at least question how they got to that point.

 

[Joey D]

I addressed this. They're called :censored:holes, not atheists, and what they think is not the reason for why they behave the way they do.

It's not mandatory that you be a jerk if you disagree with someone, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Although as you can see in this thread there's also plenty of examples of people of all beliefs (or lack of) being MASSIVE jerks.

While this is more than likely true, it's not my experience with most atheists which is what I'm drawing on here. There's no way to objectively measure this, so I can only go on personal experience, which is that many atheists I come across are jerks. Whether it's that jerks become atheists or atheism makes one a jerk is something I don't know.

Why is that? Please share what got you to your current state.

I feel that there has to be a driving force in the universe (or universes) that is greater than what exists. There are too many things that I feel would need some force to put it in motion mainly the creation of the universe, for life anywhere to begin with the right mixture of chemicals, and for all the laws that govern the physical world. To me, I feel that some other force out there.

I don't believe in religion or accept any one of them (although I do enjoy the Norse religion quite a bit). I don't think any religion provides any real answers to how things work (although I do think they provide moral guidance for some and help others through difficult times) and I fully accept scientific explanations for things. I think the Big Bang happened and I fully accept evolution to be how lift has developed to this point, but what I don't accept is that is happened by chance and I truly believe some outside force, something outside our known realm, contributed to this.

As to what got me here? Research, reading books, watching various documentaries, talking to whomever would be willing to have a civil discussion, and taking classes on the life, the universe, and the like. I admit that I can't understand everything behind it since I don't have the time nor interest to really devote my life to it, but from what I've learned and through my own reflection on it, I feel comfortable to accept a driving force outside which we know is possible. Call it God, gods, The Force, etc. I don't really have a name for it.

If for some reason science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Big Bang happened because X caused it, then I will gladly reexamine what I believe.

But what would a theist accept as a demonstration that they might be wrong? Assuming that they're reasonably well informed and already know about Russell's Teapot and critical thinking, there is demonstrably nothing. Their belief is by their own admission beyond rationality and logic, and so there is no system by which one can explain to them why their beliefs might be incorrect.

As a theist (I guess that's what I am), if you showed me evidence that was peer reviewed, well tested, and could be backed up with solid data I would gladly sit down and think about the evidence being presented and more than likely change my view. I don't believe science will ever prove what the driving force is behind the universe though.

See as an example the Bible. Putting aside the aggressive way you termed some of the issues with it, there are a lot of parts of the Bible that are either contradictory or that people ignore outright as not compatible with modern culture. Yet this is still generally held up as a perfect document that communicates the word of God, a perfect being. It's actually a very good place to start with getting people to consider how total their belief is, and how actually might they not be creating their own beliefs based on what they think is right and good using Christianity as a draft to work from.

I don't believe in the Bible, Christianity, or religion in general. A belief in a higher power is fairly different than religion, the only thing they really share in common is the belief in a higher power.

I feel like you're equating belief in a higher power and non-belief in something for which there is no evidence as equally rational and sensible conclusions. While you're free to believe whatever you want, they are not objectively equal. I know theists who will absolutely admit that their belief is irrational and that they're fine with that, but if someone tries to present belief in God as a rational choice then I have to at least question how they got to that point.

To me, I feel like there is rational thought behind what I believe and feel like there is very little rational thought in religion itself. Given all that we know today, in at least layman's terms, I feel like the possibility of an external force in the universe to be a valid idea to explain things.

 

[xyloscissor]

My father is an atheist and he never says a word about it one way or the other, he simply lives his life on his terms. There are antagonists on both sides I'm sure but I see more of the anti god ones in my face which always leaves me wondering why they have nothing better to do.

Being from the other side I make sure in my daily life not to press anything upon another, if you see me and think I have a good life you might ask, otherwise go on with your badass self 👍

Simple.

 

[Imari]

I feel that there has to be a driving force in the universe (or universes) that is greater than what exists. There are too many things that I feel would need some force to put it in motion mainly the creation of the universe, for life anywhere to begin with the right mixture of chemicals, and for all the laws that govern the physical world. To me, I feel that some other force out there.

It seems slightly odd to say that one feels that there needs to be more force out there than what exists, given that humans as a race are really not sure that we are observing all forces that exist, and we know for sure that we're observing some that we have no real idea how they work or even what is causing them.

And that's just for right now. As we go back towards creation eras, it gets more and more hypothetical to the point where science just says "Nope, before this we have absolutely no idea what happened".

I think the Big Bang happened and I fully accept evolution to be how lift has developed to this point, but what I don't accept is that is happened by chance and I truly believe some outside force, something outside our known realm, contributed to this.

Again, be careful. The Big Bang and evolution are the best explanations for a number of observed phenomena. They are not and will never be concrete in the way that something like the Bible is. There is always scope for additions and changes, it's just that as time goes on and more observations are made the likelihood of a major overturning is very low.

As for forces beyond our current comprehension contributing to our universe being how it is, I doubt you'd find an atheist to disagree with that. That would be tantamount to admitting that we know everything, and we really, really, REALLY don't.

On the other hand, if you're talking about the idea that some form of unknown intelligence created our universe, then that's a slightly different thing. For starters, you have the anthropic principle. By definition, any universe that we could observe HAS to be able to support us. That strips out a lot of the complexity right there, if it had been any other way we straight up wouldn't have seen it.

Then it becomes more probabilistic. Is it required that the universe have a creator, or could these things have happened by accident? We don't know about the beginning of the universe, so it's impossible to say anything about that. Therefore, we assume the negative until there's a reason to think otherwise. As far as life beginning and evolving current understanding seems to indicate that it is possible, but rare. But it's a big universe, and if you roll enough dice then eventually even highly unlikely things become near certain.

As to what got me here? Research, reading books, watching various documentaries, talking to whomever would be willing to have a civil discussion, and taking classes on the life, the universe, and the like. I admit that I can't understand everything behind it since I don't have the time nor interest to really devote my life to it, but from what I've learned and through my own reflection on it, I feel comfortable to accept a driving force outside which we know is possible. Call it God, gods, The Force, etc. I don't really have a name for it.

I guess this is what I'm asking you to share. Most atheists, myself included, came to their beliefs in the same way. In a broad sense, we've all had exposure to the same set of data in this age of the freedom of information, but what we consider important and the mechanisms that we imagine behind the events we observe can be very different.

I realise that this may be uncomfortable to explain, and it feels like putting yourself out there to be attacked. And I probably will ask some pointed questions about what you think. But I do so in order to test my own ideas and see whether there are any of yours that I might like to incorporate into my own views. If you want to learn from my thinking in the process then I'm happy to oblige however I can, but my objective is not to change your mind.

I happen to think that people only change their minds if they really want to, and all I can do is supply them with information and tools that they might wish to use.

If for some reason science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Big Bang happened because X caused it, then I will gladly reexamine what I believe.

Science never proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's not how science works. I know that people in conversation and the media will talk as though scientific theories are concrete facts, and that's a reasonable approximation.

However, a good scientist knows that there's always the potential to observe something new, or that someone made a mistake, or that the underlying mechanism proposed was based on incomplete information or biased thinking. Question everything, is the rule.

Note also that scientist and atheist are not always synonyms. Science is a method of problem solving and thinking clearly. Many scientists are atheist, but many are not. Science and theism are not incompatible, but it takes a

As a theist (I guess that's what I am), if you showed me evidence that was peer reviewed, well tested, and could be backed up with solid data I would gladly sit down and think about the evidence being presented and more than likely change my view. I don't believe science will ever prove what the driving force is behind the universe though.

But what would that evidence be, is the question.

Obviously, for anyone to change their thoughts an argument that is presented to them should be robust, reproduceable and transparent so that they could test it for themselves if they wished.

And no, no atheist thinks that science will necessarily prove what the driving force is behind the universe either. It may discover an explanation for what could be the driving force behind the universe, but there's no proving that. There's only being very, very, very, very sure that you've probably got the correct answer.

I don't believe in the Bible, Christianity, or religion in general. A belief in a higher power is fairly different than religion, the only thing they really share in common is the belief in a higher power.

I suppose. The main thing is that religion has documented some of it's beliefs, such that if you are part of that religion you are by definition subscribing to those beliefs whether you've actually thought about them or not.

If you're just seeing what you think of things as and when you're presented to them, based on the best information that you have at the time, then that's what atheists do too. Obviously however, there's a difference in opinion on how the information currently available points to a higher power though, which is what I'm more curious about.

To me, I feel like there is rational thought behind what I believe and feel like there is very little rational thought in religion itself. Given all that we know today, in at least layman's terms, I feel like the possibility of an external force in the universe to be a valid idea to explain things.

Perhaps, but what things are you explaining with this external force? And why is this a better explanation than others that might be available for those phenomena?

I don't want to get too far into this without understanding what it is you're trying to explain and how you do so. I know this has been a bit of a wall of text so far, but I think that's the most interesting discussion point you've raised. I think in many other areas we agree.

 

[Joey D]

Again, be careful. The Big Bang and evolution are the best explanations for a number of observed phenomena. They are not and will never be concrete in the way that something like the Bible is. There is always scope for additions and changes, it's just that as time goes on and more observations are made the likelihood of a major overturning is very low.

As for forces beyond our current comprehension contributing to our universe being how it is, I doubt you'd find an atheist to disagree with that. That would be tantamount to admitting that we know everything, and we really, really, REALLY don't.

On the other hand, if you're talking about the idea that some form of unknown intelligence created our universe, then that's a slightly different thing. For starters, you have the anthropic principle. By definition, any universe that we could observe HAS to be able to support us. That strips out a lot of the complexity right there, if it had been any other way we straight up wouldn't have seen it.

Then it becomes more probabilistic. Is it required that the universe have a creator, or could these things have happened by accident? We don't know about the beginning of the universe, so it's impossible to say anything about that. Therefore, we assume the negative until there's a reason to think otherwise. As far as life beginning and evolving current understanding seems to indicate that it is possible, but rare. But it's a big universe, and if you roll enough dice then eventually even highly unlikely things become near certain.

I'm not sure if the force that put things into motion was intelligent or not, I don't know, but I believe it was something that was not of this realm, beyond our comprehension, and acted on the universe for a reason unbeknownst to us.

When you break down the two schools thoughts to its simplest form: the universe happened by chance or the universe happened due to some external force, the simpler explanation, to me anyways, seems like the idea of an outside force seems more plausible then if happening by chance. Same goes for life, it either happened by chance or there was some sort of external force that enacted on it. Although I will admit when it comes to the idea of life I'm still not totally convinced it was an external force but I tend to lean in the direction with shades of doubt.

I guess this is what I'm asking you to share. Most atheists, myself included, came to their beliefs in the same way. In a broad sense, we've all had exposure to the same set of data in this age of the freedom of information, but what we consider important and the mechanisms that we imagine behind the events we observe can be very different.

I realise that this may be uncomfortable to explain, and it feels like putting yourself out there to be attacked. And I probably will ask some pointed questions about what you think. But I do so in order to test my own ideas and see whether there are any of yours that I might like to incorporate into my own views. If you want to learn from my thinking in the process then I'm happy to oblige however I can, but my objective is not to change your mind.

I don't feel like this attacking and having conversation around it is good. I'm also comfortable to share how to came to my conclusions since it took me a long time to reach them since this is something I've been struggling with since I went to university back in 2005 and had a broader look at the world. So it's something I've thought about frequently for 11 years and something I've tried to do moderate, layman level research when time allows. Throughout that time I've held several different beliefs and non-beliefs based on the information I've obtained. Granted I don't read in-depth journals on the subject because frankly it's over my head, but I think there's enough info out there that allows those who aren't scientist to at least become somewhat educated on that subject.

I happen to think that people only change their minds if they really want to, and all I can do is supply them with information and tools that they might wish to use.

I'll admit I'm not sure if deep down I want to change my mind since I'm happy with where I am currently, but I feel that it is important to at least hear out others and maybe something will click.

Science never proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's not how science works. I know that people in conversation and the media will talk as though scientific theories are concrete facts, and that's a reasonable approximation.

But what would that evidence be, is the question.[/quote]

I think science can prove things in a way that casts no doubt in the average person's mind. Take gravity, we can't prove it per say but any person that is capable of thought knows it to be true.

For me, if someone could some how show how the universe was created to a fairly decent degree of certainty (like as it we are certain gravity is real), then I'd probably be way more accepting of it. But right now it seems like most scientist throw around their best guess and don't have a great way to demonstrate it when it comes to really complex things like the creation of the universe.

I suppose. The main thing is that religion has documented some of it's beliefs, such that if you are part of that religion you are by definition subscribing to those beliefs whether you've actually thought about them or not.

If you're just seeing what you think of things as and when you're presented to them, based on the best information that you have at the time, then that's what atheists do too. Obviously however, there's a difference in opinion on how the information currently available points to a higher power though, which is what I'm more curious about.

To me, religion is more of a set of ways to live your life in order to get to an afterlife. I feel like it more of a tool of control than anything else though, which is why I don't believe in it. I like drawing my own conclusions and not having a written set of guidelines telling me what to believe.

Perhaps, but what things are you explaining with this external force? And why is this a better explanation than others that might be available for those phenomena?

I don't want to get too far into this without understanding what it is you're trying to explain and how you do so. I know this has been a bit of a wall of text so far, but I think that's the most interesting discussion point you've raised. I think in many other areas we agree.

With the force, I feel like it's supernatural since it's not of this universe and it's what controls things like the creation of the universe itself. I don't feel as if the current explanation is satisfactory and nor do I think anyone could explain the start of the universe without some outside force. Something must have caused the Big Bang and since the universe was a singularity, I'm of the belief that something outside that singularity set it off. This is why I think it's more of a theist point of view than an atheist one since I believe in something that is supernatural and not natural and had some driving force in the universe. As to what role it plays now, I'm not sure, but based on what I've read and researched myself, my beliefs seems to think it's still around in someway.

As for what I'm trying to explain? I'm just trying to reach a point where I can be happy with the answer to the question "why am I here?"

 

[Imari]

I'm not sure if the force that put things into motion was intelligent or not, I don't know, but I believe it was something that was not of this realm, beyond our comprehension, and acted on the universe for a reason unbeknownst to us.

There's an interesting one.

"Not of this realm" is a bit hand-wavey, because by definition to create this universe the being/force has to interact with the universe in some way and therefore must be at least partially represented here. But I think I understand what you mean.

However, why should it be beyond our comprehension? Are there things that we're simply incapable of ever comprehending, no matter what advances in thought or technology we might make? What would make them so?

When you break down the two schools thoughts to its simplest form: the universe happened by chance or the universe happened due to some external force, the simpler explanation, to me anyways, seems like the idea of an outside force seems more plausible then if happening by chance. Same goes for life, it either happened by chance or there was some sort of external force that enacted on it. Although I will admit when it comes to the idea of life I'm still not totally convinced it was an external force but I tend to lean in the direction with shades of doubt.

Or that the universe always was and there's no such thing as a universe "happening". Notice that you make the implicit assumption that the universe "began".

But actually, the idea of an external force is actually the more complex idea. The idea of something happening by chance requires no external components, merely time and probability. The idea of an external force requires at the very least an external force, which then requires a description of that force and how it came into being. Was the external force created by chance, or was it in turn created by another external force.

As soon as you introduce an external force, you're essentially creating an infinitely nested stack of them each creating each other, because you have no reason to stop on any given one and say "this was the 'first' one". Whatever first might mean in that context.

So you see that and external force actually becomes an enormous and hideously complicated system of causation, whereas chance merely requires that you believe in probability. Or in the case of the lack of a beginning, the idea that there is no absolute idea of a start and end, which given what we know of causation and thermodynamics (which absolutely may not be applicable in all realms) is not really that far fetched.

I'll admit I'm not sure if deep down I want to change my mind since I'm happy with where I am currently, but I feel that it is important to at least hear out others and maybe something will click.

I have had this discussion with people too. Some people are aware that their beliefs are not particularly rational, but that they either make them comfortable, or they don't object to them and they're an important part of their community, or whatever.

I have no objection to that. I think doing what makes you happy is in many cases more important than being right, although of course there's a certain amount of respect for the idea of the overall happiness of humanity in that. One can't simply go around punting babies because it makes them happy.

I think science can prove things in a way that casts no doubt in the average person's mind. Take gravity, we can't prove it per say but any person that is capable of thought knows it to be true.

Ah. I'm talking about a different idea of prove.

Gravity is observable in an absolute way. In the vicinity of a massive body any other bodies will be attracted together. That's without question. One can discuss what exactly one is observing, but the observation itself is objective.

But to say "gravity is caused by this, this and this acting in this way and that's how it works" is something that your average person would try to prove, and it doesn't work like that. One does not prove these things in science, one fails to disprove them. It's a fine distinction, but it's important.

Say I have a hypothesis that one can only use the Force if their body contained midichlorians (hereby abbreviated MC). I might suggest testing this by removing all the MC from a person who is known to be able to use the Force, placing them in a MC free environment and observing if they can still use the force.

This is how science works. We make an observation of some interesting phenomenon. We speculate a mechanism, and then we ask what wouldn't work if that mechanism were true. Then we test it. The more things that you can cross off as ways that the mechanism couldn't work, the smaller the group of possible ways it could work becomes. But it's never only one, because as far as I'm aware it's mathematically impossible.

For me, if someone could some how show how the universe was created to a fairly decent degree of certainty (like as it we are certain gravity is real), then I'd probably be way more accepting of it. But right now it seems like most scientist throw around their best guess and don't have a great way to demonstrate it when it comes to really complex things like the creation of the universe.

The creation of the universe will always be abstract though, because it's in the past. At best, we can hypothesize given what we know of physics. We may be able to demonstrate creating similar universes using techniques that we speculate are what created our universe, but there will always be uncertainty unless we get to travel back through time. And even then we only get a first hand observation, we're still speculating mechanisms.

We're certain that the universe exists in the same way that we're certain gravity exists. We can observe it. But we don't know that the universe was created. We speculate that it may have been, but the Big Bang is not strictly a creation mechanism. It's a model of the universe from the earliest known times, which are post-creation if there was one.

To me, religion is more of a set of ways to live your life in order to get to an afterlife. I feel like it more of a tool of control than anything else though, which is why I don't believe in it. I like drawing my own conclusions and not having a written set of guidelines telling me what to believe.

A religion doesn't require an afterlife. Nor does believing in an afterlife make you religious.

It's true that religion used to be largely intertwined with government, but that's a matter of history.

With the force, I feel like it's supernatural since it's not of this universe and it's what controls things like the creation of the universe itself. I don't feel as if the current explanation is satisfactory and nor do I think anyone could explain the start of the universe without some outside force.

I could if you like. Remember that we can speculate physics with reasonable accuracy (we think) to back within a few moments of the universe "beginning". But we don't actually know what happened before then, because all our models break down under those conditions. For all we know causality stops existing.

If you can imagine that at some point all the rules that we take for granted about our universe could be broken, then one can explain any sort of beginning (or non-beginning) that one wants.

That's why people don't. Because then it could be literally anything you could think of, and we have no reason to prefer one idea over another.

Something must have caused the Big Bang and since the universe was a singularity, I'm of the belief that something outside that singularity set it off.

See above for why the idea of causation is an assumption once you're dealing with extra-universal events.

As for what I'm trying to explain? I'm just trying to reach a point where I can be happy with the answer to the question "why am I here?"

Atheism does not and will not attempt to answer this question. Likely the most honest answer any of us will ever get is we're here because we're here. Unfortunately, this isn't very helpful and so most people, myself included, give other meanings to their lives. Mostly because it makes us more happy to feel that we're achieving something.

However, I do think it's important to try to simply be happy for being. It's hard to get by without that, because that's the only thing that you're ever guaranteed to have for as long as you're alive.

 

[CodeRedR51]

but I'm pretty sure that every atheist in existence would jump on the opportunity to see objective evidence of God were it to be available.

I just want to shake the guy's hand. Is that too much to ask?

 

[xyloscissor]

I just want to shake the guy's hand. Is that too much to ask?

To shake hands with everything that is correct leaves your vulnerabilities wide open, some people shy away from that. I don't need a hand shake to know what I strive for in this world.

 

[mistersafeway]

although I do think they provide moral guidance for some

Hmm, can't say I agree with that unless it's a very small group, I can only think of three kinds of theists with regards to morality:

1. Moral anyway, likely the closest to being helped as there's always the possibility that the religion teaches them certain things, but I think they'd just be moral after being taught right from wrong.
2. Use religion to justify their own prejudicial beliefs, for example a hatred of homosexuals.
3. Say things like how can an atheist be a good person and claim that without their god watching them they'd be murderers, showing just how bad they really are. Needing a threat of divine punishment to behave is a ridiculous viewpoint, and hopefully would bar them from any hypothetical pleasant afterlife if things like atheism would. I haven't met someone in this group myself, so I'm hopeful they're just a myth, although with some of the stories I've heard from the US it seems unlikely they are unless, again, those stories are false.

Spoiler

For example, a teacher ostracising a kid for daring to say he didn't believe in Yahweh, parents at least threatening to throw their 13 year old daughter out for... well, the same thing, the DNC trying to atheist shame Bernie Sanders into not running, and atheists being the group least likely to get elected in a country where many people are afraid to the point of irrationality of Muslims taking over.

As a theist (I guess that's what I am)

Deist seems more accurate.

But right now it seems like most scientist throw around their best guess and don't have a great way to demonstrate it when it comes to really complex things like the creation of the universe.

I don't remember ever hearing a scientist bringing up a best guess on the subject of the universe's origin, apart from if you count the Big Bang itself.

 

[FoRiZon]

There are 2 main types of atheists. One is those who just apathetic to god, dont like interfere with such topic but no problem discussing it if they prefer. And theres other who preach of why god is wrong and you should leave religion.

Personally I'd pick the former than latter.

 

[Zolon32]

Ooops, that's spooky. Unexplained double post. Maybe there are supernatural forces at play........ I'm a believer! Oh no, that was The Monkees.

Cheers, Zo.

 

[mistersafeway]

There are 2 main types of atheists. One is those who just apathetic to god, dont like interfere with such topic but no problem discussing it if they prefer. And theres other who preach of why god is wrong and you should leave religion.

I disagree, the other group "preaches" why absolute certainty about a god/some gods existing is incorrect (as in not proven to be true), but more importantly that religion is wrong. Belief in gods is not a problem, claiming that your god told you that 'non-believers are evil, this is how everything really began, and that all this is true no matter what, lalalalala not listening' is a problem, particularly when people impose their version of a religion on others, as so often happens.

I'd like to cast a vote on this subject, but feel that I can't at the moment, because I don't understand the question. Can you explain what it is you are asking people whether they believe in it or not. What is God, where does he/she/it come from? What does God consist of? Where does God habitually reside or inhabit? What does God do exactly?

Unless you can explain what/who God is, then you are simply asking people the question of 'There's this notion, I don't know what it is, where it comes from, what it does, or why it exists. In fact, I have absolutely no information whatsoever for you to base your beliefs on, but, do you believe in it/he/she?'

Cheers, Zo.

I haven't voted either because I feel that the responses are wrong, I don't believe in any gods so it's easy enough to answer, but 'No way!' implies that I find the idea of belief of any description in any gods intellectually embarrassing, and 'Maybe.' implies that belief and knowledge are the same, at least to me, and they're really not.

 

[Imari]

I don't remember ever hearing a scientist bringing up a best guess on the subject of the universe's origin, apart from if you count the Big Bang itself.

They won't call it that, but it actually happens a lot. It may or may not make it onto the media, but there's a lot of best guessing going on. That's how scientists generate hypotheses, they take their best guess and assume it to be correct.

Unfortunately, there's also a subset of scientists who seem to assume that their best guess is correct without actually bothering to test it. These people are not really practising the scientific method, but it can be confusing because sometimes they have PhDs and the like.

There are 2 main types of atheists. One is those who just apathetic to god, dont like interfere with such topic but no problem discussing it if they prefer. And theres other who preach of why god is wrong and you should leave religion.

Personally I'd pick the former than latter.

I'm kind of with @mistersafeway on this one. The atheists that go door to door like some bizarro Jehovah's Witnesses are very few and far between. Someone like Richard Dawkins is about the closest you'll get to an evangelical atheist, but even he is tame compared to his religious counterparts.

But because most atheists at least partially agree with humanist principles, you'll see a lot of them arguing against the damaging things that religion does. I'm totally with them on that one, there's some messed up stuff that goes on in the name of religion that is totally unacceptable no matter what you think you believe.

I haven't voted either because I feel that the responses are wrong, I don't believe in any gods so it's easy enough to answer, but 'No way!' implies that I find the idea of belief of any description in any gods intellectually embarrassing, and 'Maybe.' implies that belief and knowledge are the same, at least to me, and they're really not.

I voted no way, but it took me a while for similar reasons. I eventually concluded that no, I don't and would never believe in God. I would either know or I would not.

===============

On a related note that I can't decide who to quote as it kind of applies to everyone, I think there's a real danger of using the most extreme members of a group to compare them to others. Most atheists are just people, just like most Christians or people of other religions. I don't even know what religion, if any, most of the people I work with are (although I have some reasonable guesses) because it just doesn't matter.

If we wanted to use extremes, I guess one could say that atheists rarely do extreme things in the name of their non-belief. But I strongly suspect that violence in the name of religion is merely a vehicle for political and personal goals that needed a casus belli.

 

[Famine]

Whether it's that jerks become atheists or atheism makes one a jerk is something I don't know.

It's neither. Spend some time in a public-facing job and you'll soon come to realise that it's people who are jerks, regardless of what they believe in (or don't). Or what their skin colour is. Or their gender. Or who they like to bang. Or their wealth.

 

[mistersafeway]

They won't call it that, but it actually happens a lot. It may or may not make it onto the media, but there's a lot of best guessing going on. That's how scientists generate hypotheses, they take their best guess and assume it to be correct.

Unfortunately, there's also a subset of scientists who seem to assume that their best guess is correct without actually bothering to test it. These people are not really practising the scientific method, but it can be confusing because sometimes they have PhDs and the like.

Maybe I don't see it that way because I know that that's how science functions, and just dismiss the ones who treat what they think as literally true. I know it's a common criticism that scientists are often bad at explanations, hence why I feel people like Brian Cox are so important

I voted no way, but it took me a while for similar reasons. I eventually concluded that no, I don't and would never believe in God. I would either know or I would not.

Huh, excellent point, I hadn't thought of that. 👍

If we wanted to use extremes, I guess one could say that atheists rarely do extreme things in the name of their non-belief. But I strongly suspect that violence in the name of religion is merely a vehicle for political and personal goals that needed a casus belli.

Ah, now here's where I only mostly agree, I feel that there's probably an argument to be made for it being massively biased in that direction, but that it's not always the case. Unfortunately it's very difficult if not impossible to prove one way or the other, especially because you can't really take a person's word on why they think the way they do, and the few who actually do commit acts of violence for religious reasons could be insane and hearing voices.

 

[Joey D]

There's an interesting one.

"Not of this realm" is a bit hand-wavey, because by definition to create this universe the being/force has to interact with the universe in some way and therefore must be at least partially represented here. But I think I understand what you mean.

However, why should it be beyond our comprehension? Are there things that we're simply incapable of ever comprehending, no matter what advances in thought or technology we might make? What would make them so?

I don't believe as humans we can comprehend something that isn't of our universe, we have a hard enough time comprehending things that are. Take Black Holes for example, we know about them, we know they are real, and we understand the basics of them, but I don't think most people (if anyone) can fully comprehend them. Same goes for vast distances between things in space, or the number of galaxies, or even life on other worlds. Maybe some day technology will allow us to fully study these, but honestly don't think we can.

As for the "not of this realm", I'm talking about a force outside the universe. Weirdly, Men in Black used a decent illustration that to this day I think sums up how I feel about an external force. Thing of the universe like a marble and that everything that exists in it is inside of it. There's a force (probably not an alien in what I assume is southern Utah) outside of the marble that does something with it.

I've also always wondered, what if the universe is part of something much larger, like how electrons, protons, and neutrons make up an element. What if we are just a particle that makes up something that's part of a bigger world? I honestly have no idea and I'm even sure if there's any research done on this because even I will admit it's a pretty "out there". I know there's a multi-verse theory but I don't really understand what's behind it.

Or that the universe always was and there's no such thing as a universe "happening". Notice that you make the implicit assumption that the universe "began".

But actually, the idea of an external force is actually the more complex idea. The idea of something happening by chance requires no external components, merely time and probability. The idea of an external force requires at the very least an external force, which then requires a description of that force and how it came into being. Was the external force created by chance, or was it in turn created by another external force.

As soon as you introduce an external force, you're essentially creating an infinitely nested stack of them each creating each other, because you have no reason to stop on any given one and say "this was the 'first' one". Whatever first might mean in that context.

So you see that and external force actually becomes an enormous and hideously complicated system of causation, whereas chance merely requires that you believe in probability. Or in the case of the lack of a beginning, the idea that there is no absolute idea of a start and end, which given what we know of causation and thermodynamics (which absolutely may not be applicable in all realms) is not really that far fetched.

I don't anything can always just be, to me there needs to be some sort of beginning. It's something I struggle with when considering an outside force as well, but outside the universe there might be a different set of laws that dictate how things work.

Even if I were to take away the idea of an external force, I still think there's an infinite stacking of things such as where did the matter for the universe come from? Then where did the place the matter came from come from? And so on. To me an external force that doesn't play by the rules and laws of the universe could just be a one and done kind of a thing, but whatever the answer I think it goes back to humans being unable to comprehend.

I have had this discussion with people too. Some people are aware that their beliefs are not particularly rational, but that they either make them comfortable, or they don't object to them and they're an important part of their community, or whatever.

I have no objection to that. I think doing what makes you happy is in many cases more important than being right, although of course there's a certain amount of respect for the idea of the overall happiness of humanity in that. One can't simply go around punting babies because it makes them happy.

I will admit there are flaws with my line of thinking and that there are things I can not answer or even have a good answer for, but I feel that the conclusion I've reached works well enough with what I've learned and doesn't completely dismiss science fact/theory as many religions out there do.

Ah. I'm talking about a different idea of prove.

Gravity is observable in an absolute way. In the vicinity of a massive body any other bodies will be attracted together. That's without question. One can discuss what exactly one is observing, but the observation itself is objective.

But to say "gravity is caused by this, this and this acting in this way and that's how it works" is something that your average person would try to prove, and it doesn't work like that. One does not prove these things in science, one fails to disprove them. It's a fine distinction, but it's important.

Say I have a hypothesis that one can only use the Force if their body contained midichlorians (hereby abbreviated MC). I might suggest testing this by removing all the MC from a person who is known to be able to use the Force, placing them in a MC free environment and observing if they can still use the force.

This is how science works. We make an observation of some interesting phenomenon. We speculate a mechanism, and then we ask what wouldn't work if that mechanism were true. Then we test it. The more things that you can cross off as ways that the mechanism couldn't work, the smaller the group of possible ways it could work becomes. But it's never only one, because as far as I'm aware it's mathematically impossible.

In depth study of natural science and formal science isn't something that I really got into, mainly because many of the concepts were rather difficult and within only finite time I didn't really see the need for it. Social science is another story since I have a degree in archaeology which still uses the the scientific method but it was based on what tangible evidence we could dig out of the ground rather. Testing abstract concepts and things within the other branches of science is something I admittedly don't know an ton about.

I could if you like. Remember that we can speculate physics with reasonable accuracy (we think) to back within a few moments of the universe "beginning". But we don't actually know what happened before then, because all our models break down under those conditions. For all we know causality stops existing.

If you can imagine that at some point all the rules that we take for granted about our universe could be broken, then one can explain any sort of beginning (or non-beginning) that one wants.

That's why people don't. Because then it could be literally anything you could think of, and we have no reason to prefer one idea over another.

See above for why the idea of causation is an assumption once you're dealing with extra-universal events.

After the Big Bang, I can accept that things could easily have happened without the existence of an external force since the laws of the universe were now in place (although I still question it). With the amount of time that's past, I think things could have happened. As I stated earlier, life is one thing that I still struggle with regarding this and I doubt I'll ever come up with a good answer unless we can some how start creating life by mixing chemicals together, then I'll have no reason to really doubt that it could happen by chance. I also struggle to understand how single cell organisms some how evolved into such a diverse planet in a relatively short amount of time (all things considered with the universe), but I'm not so sure I want to say it was a force not of this universe that caused it.

Atheism does not and will not attempt to answer this question. Likely the most honest answer any of us will ever get is we're here because we're here. Unfortunately, this isn't very helpful and so most people, myself included, give other meanings to their lives. Mostly because it makes us more happy to feel that we're achieving something.

It might be better to word it as "how did I get here" rather than "why am I here". What events from prior to the beginning of the universe til right now caused me to be sitting here on the Internet? That's what I struggle with that and that's what I'm trying to explain when I introduce an outside force. With the introduction of that force, I can comfortably explain to myself that I'm here because something kicked off the universe and a whole bunch of events happened which lead me to be sitting here today.

On a more philosophical level, the "why am I here" question is something I've tried to figure out and pretty much gave up on since it was too difficult to figure out and I didn't have an explanation for it whether it was an external or internal force.

Hmm, can't say I agree with that unless it's a very small group, I can only think of three kinds of theists with regards to morality

I disagree, I think most folks that are religious use it as a moral compass. They are not always the best people, but neither is anyone. I grew up Catholic, well sorta Catholic, and I learned about what sins were and why you should do your best to avoid sinning. Most things that were considered a sin, I'd also consider something that anyone should avoid doing anyways, like lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc.

I'm not saying you can't be moral without religion because I'm positive you can be, but I do honestly think religion helps some people with their morals or at least better understand morals through stories that give examples.

Deist seems more accurate.

Seems to make sense.

It's neither. Spend some time in a public-facing job and you'll soon come to realise that it's people who are jerks, regardless of what they believe in (or don't). Or what their skin colour is. Or their gender. Or who they like to bang. Or their wealth.

Unfortunately I don't see it that way, maybe it's just Internet atheists since that is my primary interaction with them, not really sure. All I can draw from on this is my experiences since I don't think there's a way to really measure this. There are some atheists that I can easily have a normal conversation with that are fine, I think the past few posts show that, but overall it seems like a vast majority of atheists I come across are jerks.

I agree that jerks exist everywhere though, so I suppose it is wrong of me to say "all jerks are atheist".

 

[mistersafeway]

I don't anything can always just be, to me there needs to be some sort of beginning. It's something I struggle with when considering an outside force as well, but outside the universe there might be a different set of laws that dictate how things work.

The same goes for before the universe existed [edit: oops, kind of what you were saying, oh well], it doesn't have to be governed by the same rules because before the universe cannot be said to be within the universe, meaning energy for the Big Bang could have just come into being. Adding a god solves nothing, it just adds another step.

Most things that were considered a sin, I'd also consider something that anyone should avoid doing anyways, like lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc.

The problem with that is that they were all from the Old Testament, meaning that you then have Leviticus to consider. Does a believer ignore it, thus proving the religion is pointless to their morality, follow "certain parts" which most commonly (in Christians) means having a prejudicial view of gay people, or follow it all to the letter and consider wearing mixed fabrics a sin? That is, of course, ignoring the fact that it's very easy to decide not to kill because you don't want to be killed, which obviously applies to the others. I much prefer the golden rule*, as you may be able to guess from the previous statement, and that's not uniquely Christian, or even uniquely religious.

Religions may be able to aid some people, but they're all full of things that aren't all that moral, and if a believer ignores those parts then the source of their morality is internal rationalisation of external influences, whereas if they follow them to the letter then modern nations will brand them as criminals.

*Side note: I just checked the Wikipedia article on this subject and it's apparently mentioned in Leviticus, alongside all the stuff about how it's a sin to eat shellfish and gays should be put to death... To be honest, though, to me the phrasing (You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18) is just a contradiction of an eye for an eye. The passage also doesn't cover humanity, just people within the reader's own group, which can still be interpreted to mean you can do horrible things to foreigners.

 

[Joey D]

The problem with that is that they were all from the Old Testament, meaning that you then have Leviticus to consider. Does a believer ignore it, thus proving the religion is pointless to their morality, follow "certain parts" which most commonly (in Christians) means having a prejudicial view of gay people, or follow it all to the letter and consider wearing mixed fabrics a sin? That is, of course, ignoring the fact that it's very easy to decide not to kill because you don't want to be killed, which obviously applies to the others. I much prefer the golden rule*, as you may be able to guess from the previous statement, and that's not uniquely Christian, or even uniquely religious.

Religions may be able to aid some people, but they're all full of things that aren't all that moral, and if a believer ignores those parts then the source of their morality is internal rationalisation of external influences, whereas if they follow them to the letter then modern nations will brand them as criminals.

*Side note: I just checked the Wikipedia article on this subject and it's apparently mentioned in Leviticus, alongside all the stuff about how it's a sin to eat shellfish and gays should be put to death... To be honest, though, to me the phrasing (You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18) is just a contradiction of an eye for an eye. The passage also doesn't cover humanity, just people within the reader's own group, which can still be interpreted to mean you can do horrible things to foreigners.

I'd wager most Christians focus on the New Testament over the Old, since the primary part of their beliefs revolve around Jesus and his life. If you look at the stories of Jesus and what he did, I think you'd find it better lines up with what people consider to be moral and how they should live their life. Granted, some people don't adhere to his teachings very but I think for the most part, Christians try to act as Christ-like as they can, which means helping the less fortunate, loving your neighbor as yourself, being as selfless as possible, and so on.

I do think it's a little unfair when atheists bring up Leviticus all the time when someone starts talking about morality and the Bible since I would say most Christians don't believe everything in the Bible and know that some of it is actually down right wrong. I mean look at the Episcopal Church (well the US Episcopal Church) for example, they don't take much of an issue with homosexuality and even ordained a gay bishop in New Hampshire. I'd say the same is probably true for most religions too, but I know even less about other religions than I do Christianity.

As I've said, I believe most people use religion more as a moral compass rather than an absolute way to live their life. Out of all the religious people in the world, I'm guessing a rather small percentage of them actually take everything from their respective religious text literally.

 

[mistersafeway]

I'd wager most Christians focus on the New Testament over the Old, since the primary part of their beliefs revolve around Jesus and his life. If you look at the stories of Jesus and what he did, I think you'd find it better lines up with what people consider to be moral and how they should live their life.

While true, I would argue that most Christians seem unaware that Jesus was fine with "the sojourner" (immigrants), and wasn't being metaphorical when talking about not liking the rich. Not to say Christians are anti-immigration as a whole, or pro-rich, but they don't follow what he is quoted as saying because Jesus was essentially a communist in many of his views. I also question the morality of the Christian churches that don't pay taxes when it's in their own religious book (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's), but that's a completely different discussion as an organisation ≠ its members.

I do think it's a little unfair when atheists bring up Leviticus all the time when someone starts talking about morality and the Bible

Eh *shrug*, I felt it was valid seeing as you quoted the Ten Commandments, if someone follows them then they're admitting that the Old Testament has validity to their religion. I do see where you're coming from, though.

As I've said, I believe most people use religion more as a moral compass rather than an absolute way to live their life.

No argument here, although as I've said that throws the whole idea of basing morality on a religious text into question as you would still need to use your own judgment to decide what was moral if you chose to follow one, meaning the text itself is largely irrelevant.

Out of all the religious people in the world, I'm guessing a rather small percentage of them actually take everything from their respective religious text literally.

Thankfully true.

And it kind of seems like we're going to be reduced to going in circles if the previous paragraph is anything to go by, so unless what I've just said has convinced you that cherry picking makes a religious text a poor basis for morality then we're probably done, sadly. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. :tup:

 

[homeforsummer]

but overall it seems like a vast majority of atheists I come across are jerks.

I agree that jerks exist everywhere though, so I suppose it is wrong of me to say "all jerks are atheist".

I think this is more an issue with the people you know (and a result of a sample skewed towards the internet, where people are generally more jerky because of anonymity) than it is with atheists.

Put it this way: I'd estimate that the vast majority of people I know and interact with on a fairly regular basis are atheists. One of my close friends is Mormon, and a couple of others are practising Christians, but as far as I can work out, the majority are atheist.

Conversely, a very, very small minority of the people I know are jerks, despite the majority being atheist. The probability of the people I know being both a jerk and atheist simultaneously is higher, but that's only because I know so few religious people. And those people being jerks (I don't think I regularly interact with someone who is outright a jerk, but everyone can act like one occasionally...) are completely unrelated to them being atheist, no more so than them having different coloured skin, being gay (perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the gay people I know are atheist), being of different genders etc.

I'd say the most discussion I have with anyone on this subject is within this thread. And as the past 650-odd pages can demonstrate, people with beliefs are equally likely to be jerks as those with no beliefs. Which comes back to the internet factor, as I'm sure most of those people are fine and non-jerks in real life.

Edit:

I've thought of something additional to this discussion.

There may be a tendency for people to act like jerks specifically when talking about theism, and in this instance there's a high probability that atheists will behave like jerks when talking to people who believe in various religions.

But then the opposite is true too, just as it is when two fans of rival football clubs might speak to each other, or Hamilton fans vs Rosberg fans, or supporters of political parties, or pro-choice vs pro-life etc etc. Partisan issues can be emotive and people are likely to behave like jerks when emotions cloud their judgements.

Playing devil's advocate, @Joey D (and I say this with no disrespect, as I've "known" you for as many years as I've been on GTP and know you aren't actually a jerk!), do the jerky atheists you know behave like they do because you're coming across similarly to them in such discussions?

I know from my own experience that I get on significantly better with other GTPers when I stay out of the opinions forums - there are plenty of people I'll happily chat with in the Infield who I can't stand in the opinions forums! I know they aren't jerks, but some can behave like it (and I probably can too) when engaged in a particular discussion.

 

[Imari]

I don't believe as humans we can comprehend something that isn't of our universe, we have a hard enough time comprehending things that are. Take Black Holes for example, we know about them, we know they are real, and we understand the basics of them, but I don't think most people (if anyone) can fully comprehend them. Same goes for vast distances between things in space, or the number of galaxies, or even life on other worlds. Maybe some day technology will allow us to fully study these, but honestly don't think we can.

I feel like you're conflating "things that we don't know" with "things that we can't know". Why wouldn't we be able to comprehend life on other worlds? If we found bacteria on Mars, people would find that surprising or interesting, but not incomprehensible.

As far as astronomical distances go, that's just because we don't refer to them much. I bet you astronomers and the like comprehend them just fine. It's like a child that doesn't really comprehend what it means when you say that it's 500 miles to drive to Seattle, but you can comprehend it just fine.

If there's something that we can't know, I feel like you should be able to describe why it's unknowable. Otherwise it's just something we don't know yet, and there's a hell of a lot of those.

I've also always wondered, what if the universe is part of something much larger, like how electrons, protons, and neutrons make up an element. What if we are just a particle that makes up something that's part of a bigger world? I honestly have no idea and I'm even sure if there's any research done on this because even I will admit it's a pretty "out there". I know there's a multi-verse theory but I don't really understand what's behind it.

You're not even moderately the first person to have that thought. On the other hand, I can say confidently that there's no research done into it. Not that there never will be, but that there is not now.

Think about why. What would you need in order to be able to do research into an idea like that? Assume that I can give you all the money, expertise and equipment that you need, no holds barred. Assume that what you know now is the pinnacle of expertise on the subject. You are the Einstein of the field. What do you do? What is your first step to discover more about this?

I don't anything can always just be, to me there needs to be some sort of beginning. It's something I struggle with when considering an outside force as well, but outside the universe there might be a different set of laws that dictate how things work.

Even if I were to take away the idea of an external force, I still think there's an infinite stacking of things such as where did the matter for the universe come from? Then where did the place the matter came from come from? And so on. To me an external force that doesn't play by the rules and laws of the universe could just be a one and done kind of a thing, but whatever the answer I think it goes back to humans being unable to comprehend.

Can you see how you're getting muddled up? You're making up rules simply because you feel that it's the way it ought to be.

That's exactly what scientists don't do. Sometimes, the universe doesn't do what you expect. That's usually when you're about to discover something interesting. Good scientists follow the data and let it lead them where it will. Bad scientists think that they know how it should work and try and massage the data and ideas to fit what they want.

I will admit there are flaws with my line of thinking and that there are things I can not answer or even have a good answer for, but I feel that the conclusion I've reached works well enough with what I've learned and doesn't completely dismiss science fact/theory as many religions out there do.

It actually does dismiss science just as much as any religion. If you're ignoring information that would contradict your idea, then the scale of it hardly matters. I mean, is the flying spagetti monster more wrong than Christianity? Which is less wrong of Christianity and Islam? These are nonsense questions, they all ignore certain physical observations and logical conclusions in order to maintain their beliefs.

I'm afraid, as do you.

After the Big Bang, I can accept that things could easily have happened without the existence of an external force since the laws of the universe were now in place (although I still question it). With the amount of time that's past, I think things could have happened. As I stated earlier, life is one thing that I still struggle with regarding this and I doubt I'll ever come up with a good answer unless we can some how start creating life by mixing chemicals together, then I'll have no reason to really doubt that it could happen by chance. I also struggle to understand how single cell organisms some how evolved into such a diverse planet in a relatively short amount of time (all things considered with the universe), but I'm not so sure I want to say it was a force not of this universe that caused it.

How life began from non-life is called abiogenesis. It's currently an ongoing field of study.

As far as single cell organisms evolving into everything else, a short amount of time is indeed relative. Are you sure that the length of time that it took is actually short by the standards of evolution? Remember that evolution essentially measures time in generations.

It might be better to word it as "how did I get here" rather than "why am I here". What events from prior to the beginning of the universe til right now caused me to be sitting here on the Internet? That's what I struggle with that and that's what I'm trying to explain when I introduce an outside force. With the introduction of that force, I can comfortably explain to myself that I'm here because something kicked off the universe and a whole bunch of events happened which lead me to be sitting here today.

You're looking for causal links. I've already covered that the idea that anything outside our universe adheres to the same laws of causality is an assumption. You seem to disagree, on the basis that it seems like it should be like that.

I can't help you if you're stuck in your own assumptions. Question what you think and why you think it. You will feel like you're knowing less, but realising what you don't know is how you become wise.

 

[05XR8]

Some think why am I here and what do I do while I'm here? What do I do when my flesh dies? It's a big debate to find out how we came about and why we exist.

As a believer in God, I look forward to eternal life. My father-in-law is an atheist. He loves to have discussions on why I believe. I explain why I do. Why I believe in the Trinity. Why I walk in faith.
At 67, he lives by proof. I respect his belief.

His debate is the bible itself and why would anyone in their right mind, believe it. He has shown me proof for things we can see. I'm waiting for a proof(not really) of the things we can't. Eternal life. Our spirit. Our soul.

 

[Joey D]

I think this is more an issue with the people you know (and a result of a sample skewed towards the internet, where people are generally more jerky because of anonymity) than it is with atheists.

Put it this way: I'd estimate that the vast majority of people I know and interact with on a fairly regular basis are atheists. One of my close friends is Mormon, and a couple of others are practising Christians, but as far as I can work out, the majority are atheist.

Conversely, a very, very small minority of the people I know are jerks, despite the majority being atheist. The probability of the people I know being both a jerk and atheist simultaneously is higher, but that's only because I know so few religious people. And those people being jerks (I don't think I regularly interact with someone who is outright a jerk, but everyone can act like one occasionally...) are completely unrelated to them being atheist, no more so than them having different coloured skin, being gay (perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the gay people I know are atheist), being of different genders etc.

I'd say the most discussion I have with anyone on this subject is within this thread. And as the past 650-odd pages can demonstrate, people with beliefs are equally likely to be jerks as those with no beliefs. Which comes back to the internet factor, as I'm sure most of those people are fine and non-jerks in real life.

Edit:

I've thought of something additional to this discussion.

There may be a tendency for people to act like jerks specifically when talking about theism, and in this instance there's a high probability that atheists will behave like jerks when talking to people who believe in various religions.

But then the opposite is true too, just as it is when two fans of rival football clubs might speak to each other, or Hamilton fans vs Rosberg fans, or supporters of political parties, or pro-choice vs pro-life etc etc. Partisan issues can be emotive and people are likely to behave like jerks when emotions cloud their judgements.

Playing devil's advocate, @Joey D (and I say this with no disrespect, as I've "known" you for as many years as I've been on GTP and know you aren't actually a jerk!), do the jerky atheists you know behave like they do because you're coming across similarly to them in such discussions?

I know from my own experience that I get on significantly better with other GTPers when I stay out of the opinions forums - there are plenty of people I'll happily chat with in the Infield who I can't stand in the opinions forums! I know they aren't jerks, but some can behave like it (and I probably can too) when engaged in a particular discussion.

I think it's less that they are jerks to me and more so just jerks in the way they carry themselves during a discussion. When folks throw around statements like "I don't have imaginary friends" or "religion is for the weak and feeble" is just makes them look like a gigantic ass. I know many atheists tell me that they are "sick of having to explain it over and over again" but if you're having a discussion on the matter you should be expected to have to relay your position again and again.

I've seen it in this very thread, someone comes in, makes one post about how they believe in God and then they are berated and belittled, instead of having an actual conversation take place.

@Imari in the last few posts has shown that there are indeed atheists out there capable of having a discussion even though both side don't agree with one another and hasn't resorted to anything I would consider a jerk comment. I know there are others out there too capable of this, it's just something I haven't really come across all the often.

It's probably the Internet since I don't really know any atheists in my everyday life (even less likely now living in Utah), but it's hard for me not to get a negative impression based on my interactions. I mean the way some atheists act on the Internet drove me to actually start researching and see if that is truly what I believed and if it was making me an ass...and it was. I used to belittle and berate anyone who believed in a high power and looking back on that it make me embarrassed that I was such a gigantic turd.

I feel like you're conflating "things that we don't know" with "things that we can't know". Why wouldn't we be able to comprehend life on other worlds? If we found bacteria on Mars, people would find that surprising or interesting, but not incomprehensible.

As far as astronomical distances go, that's just because we don't refer to them much. I bet you astronomers and the like comprehend them just fine. It's like a child that doesn't really comprehend what it means when you say that it's 500 miles to drive to Seattle, but you can comprehend it just fine.

If there's something that we can't know, I feel like you should be able to describe why it's unknowable. Otherwise it's just something we don't know yet, and there's a hell of a lot of those.

I think I didn't really make my statement clear now that I've gone back and read it. I didn't intend to suggest that we can't comprehend life on other worlds and the like, but rather most people can't fully comprehend it. I think until it actually happens, everyone is going to be left to their own devices on what life on another world would look like...and I'm guessing they won't be humanoid in anyway like so many movies and "documentaries" suggest. I mean many books, tv shows, etc. always seem to suggest that life needs water or oxygen or the right temperature, and it seems like the information they are conveying is making people think that all life in the universe must be like earth. While I don't think that's true, I think it does show how little comprehension we have over what life might be like.

You're not even moderately the first person to have that thought. On the other hand, I can say confidently that there's no research done into it. Not that there never will be, but that there is not now.

Think about why. What would you need in order to be able to do research into an idea like that? Assume that I can give you all the money, expertise and equipment that you need, no holds barred. Assume that what you know now is the pinnacle of expertise on the subject. You are the Einstein of the field. What do you do? What is your first step to discover more about this?

I'm guessing the closest thing to research done on this is the multiverse or multiple dimensions.

And honestly I wouldn't know how to study it or if you could, but they some how study multiverses so maybe it is possible, I don't really know since it's way above my knowledge base.

Can you see how you're getting muddled up? You're making up rules simply because you feel that it's the way it ought to be.

That's exactly what scientists don't do. Sometimes, the universe doesn't do what you expect. That's usually when you're about to discover something interesting. Good scientists follow the data and let it lead them where it will. Bad scientists think that they know how it should work and try and massage the data and ideas to fit what they want.

I'll admit that it's not the most sound theory and that there isn't a way to really prove it, but I'm not a scientist so I really don't know how to approach it. Sure, I'm making up rules and trying to explain how I think thinks should be, but that's all I really got to go on. Between some basic research and the examination of how I interpret it, to me it seems more probable that there is some sort of super natural force that's greater than the universe. I'm sure if I had more knowledge, my thought process would be different, but with a finite amount of time and the fact that most research is written in a way that the average person hasn't a clue what it's actually on about, I can only go on with what I got.

It actually does dismiss science just as much as any religion. If you're ignoring information that would contradict your idea, then the scale of it hardly matters. I mean, is the flying spagetti monster more wrong than Christianity? Which is less wrong of Christianity and Islam? These are nonsense questions, they all ignore certain physical observations and logical conclusions in order to maintain their beliefs.

I'm not so sure it dismisses science as much as religion since I am willing to accept things and my default answer isn't "god did it". And I wouldn't ignore the information, especially if it was brought forward and was at least written so a layman could understand the gist of it. I'm more or less open to change as long as the evidence is sound and it removes doubt, as I said before I'm not so sure I want to change my mind, but with the right information it would be hard not to at least consider it.

How life began from non-life is called abiogenesis. It's currently an ongoing field of study.

As far as single cell organisms evolving into everything else, a short amount of time is indeed relative. Are you sure that the length of time that it took is actually short by the standards of evolution? Remember that evolution essentially measures time in generations.

Oh, I understand the concept behind abiogensis (well to a degree that a college class will dive into it) but I still question if there's more to it or not. The combination of various elements to form life doesn't seem like it's very probable to me, but at the same time I don't want to automatically assume a supernatural force since it did occur within this universe. I'm not really sure if an outside force can dictate anything within the universe, which is why I struggle with this question.

You're looking for causal links. I've already covered that the idea that anything outside our universe adheres to the same laws of causality is an assumption. You seem to disagree, on the basis that it seems like it should be like that.

I can't help you if you're stuck in your own assumptions. Question what you think and why you think it. You will feel like you're knowing less, but realising what you don't know is how you become wise.

I'm often questioning what I think, it's how I went from believe in the Christian form of a god, to being an atheist, and now to a deist. I also realize I don't know even a fraction of what there is to know on this subject, but given what I do know I'm fairly comfortable with the answers I've given myself currently. That's not saying it won't change again as I learn new things, but with all the stuff that comes with daily life, learning in-depth science seems pretty low on the importance scale, but I'm at least open to new ideas.

 

[Imari]

I think I didn't really make my statement clear now that I've gone back and read it. I didn't intend to suggest that we can't comprehend life on other worlds and the like, but rather most people can't fully comprehend it. I think until it actually happens, everyone is going to be left to their own devices on what life on another world would look like...and I'm guessing they won't be humanoid in anyway like so many movies and "documentaries" suggest. I mean many books, tv shows, etc. always seem to suggest that life needs water or oxygen or the right temperature, and it seems like the information they are conveying is making people think that all life in the universe must be like earth. While I don't think that's true, I think it does show how little comprehension we have over what life might be like.

I don't really think it's fair to use the media as a measuring stick for how comprehensible an idea is. These things are designed primarily for entertainment.

That said, there are reasonable assumptions that we can make about how life might appear in our universe. Any life is at the very least based on energy production, in whatever form that might take. Chemical energy is one of the simplest and most abundant forms of energy that takes place at temperatures that allow significant structure to form. Because we're restricted to the periodic table, there are a number of reactions and chemicals that are more ideal for supporting life than others. Carbon, water and oxygen are frankly really good at what they do. They are common, have useful properties and give high amounts of energy.

Life can be done other ways, but it appears to be more difficult.

I'm guessing the closest thing to research done on this is the multiverse or multiple dimensions.

And honestly I wouldn't know how to study it or if you could, but they some how study multiverses so maybe it is possible, I don't really know since it's way above my knowledge base.

Even that is not research. They do not study the idea of a multiverse. It's a hypothetical concept that is at this point untestable.

That's what I was trying to get you to think about. If you can't think of a way to test whether your idea might be correct or not, then it goes nowhere. This is not about being beyond your knowledge base, this is simple scientific principles. If you can't think of a way to test it, then you should ignore the idea until you think of a way that you can.

I'll admit that it's not the most sound theory and that there isn't a way to really prove it, but I'm not a scientist so I really don't know how to approach it. Sure, I'm making up rules and trying to explain how I think thinks should be, but that's all I really got to go on. Between some basic research and the examination of how I interpret it, to me it seems more probable that there is some sort of super natural force that's greater than the universe. I'm sure if I had more knowledge, my thought process would be different, but with a finite amount of time and the fact that most research is written in a way that the average person hasn't a clue what it's actually on about, I can only go on with what I got.

It's not about your lack of knowledge, it's that you're approaching how you think about it wrong. Seriously,
do some reading on the scientific method, because learning how to think clearly will help you WAY more than any number of facts ever will.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Also, you'll probably find that once you understand this you'll be less confused by reading research because you'll understand what they're trying to do and how they're trying to do it. You'll run into concepts and words you don't know, but you can look those up.

I'm not so sure it dismisses science as much as religion since I am willing to accept things and my default answer isn't "god did it". And I wouldn't ignore the information, especially if it was brought forward and was at least written so a layman could understand the gist of it. I'm more or less open to change as long as the evidence is sound and it removes doubt, as I said before I'm not so sure I want to change my mind, but with the right information it would be hard not to at least consider it.

Are you really willing to accept things? You wouldn't accept the idea that something might not have a beginning, even as a concept. You have your own default answers to things that you don't know. They may not be God-did-it, but they exist.

I don't mean to be rude, but as an outsider the difference between your beliefs and say that of a Christian are not huge. It's a matter of scale at best. It's the difference between a based on a true story movie and a full on fantasy. One may have some connection to reality in places, but they're still both made up.

Oh, I understand the concept behind abiogensis (well to a degree that a college class will dive into it) but I still question if there's more to it or not. The combination of various elements to form life doesn't seem like it's very probable to me, but at the same time I don't want to automatically assume a supernatural force since it did occur within this universe. I'm not really sure if an outside force can dictate anything within the universe, which is why I struggle with this question.

Of course abiogenesis is improbable or we would have observed it or been able to replicate it by now. But an external force has to be at least as improbable, because we haven't observed or replicated that either.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes badly, once you have eliminated the impossible what is left must be the truth, however improbable.

I'm often questioning what I think, it's how I went from believe in the Christian form of a god, to being an atheist, and now to a deist. I also realize I don't know even a fraction of what there is to know on this subject, but given what I do know I'm fairly comfortable with the answers I've given myself currently. That's not saying it won't change again as I learn new things, but with all the stuff that comes with daily life, learning in-depth science seems pretty low on the importance scale, but I'm at least open to new ideas.

I'm afraid you're not. You may be open to some ideas as long as they don't challenge you in ways that you find objectionable. You have boundaries that you will not go past, like the idea that causality holds even outside our universe or that everything has a beginning.

Until you can learn to let go of what you think you know, you will be trapped by your own limitations. It's not about learning more science, it's about learning how to think clearly without telling yourself what you think you want to hear.

You say you're comfortable with the answers you have, but we've already established fairly categorically that they're not as correct as you seem to think. If you're happy holding onto them then that's fine, many people do the same. But don't tell yourself that you're being open-minded to do so, because I'm afraid it isn't true.

 

[Famine]

When folks throw around statements like "I don't have imaginary friends" or "religion is for the weak and feeble" is just makes them look like a gigantic ass.

Yet on the other hand it's rare for an atheist to tell a woman she can't have an abortion under any circumstances because a sperm and an egg create a soul, that being gay is wrong because it says it in the bit of the holy book you cherry-pick from as it suits, or fly a plane of 200 people into a building of 2,000 people because most of them don't believe in the right deity (even though some of them do).

So, you know. Swings and roundabouts on the whole 'being a jerk' front.

 

[mistersafeway]

So, you know. Swings and roundabouts on the whole 'being a jerk' front.

If we're going into serious real world stuff? More like swings and centrifuges. Just a few examples for people who are unaware (so probably not the atheists): it's illegal to be an atheist in many countries, to the point where Saudi Arabia has declared us all terrorists and multiple other (7?) countries will execute us just like them, we had laws against blasphemy in Britain until 2008, meaning atheists could hypothetically go to prison for declaring their non-belief, and in the US there are seven states with (unconstitutional) laws barring atheists holding office and President Obama finally signed a bill making it illegal to fire someone for being an atheist last week. Just replace atheist with Jew*/black person/gay person where applicable and you'll see how wrong all of that is. On the other hand, atheists persecuting the religious? It's all verbal as far as I'm aware.

*One of the states has a variation which says something along the lines of they must believe in a higher power and a system of punishment and reward after death when Jews don't believe in an afterlife, so they technically apply there.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Yet on the other hand it's rare for an atheist to tell a woman she can't have an abortion under any circumstances because a sperm and an egg create a soul, that being gay is wrong because it says it in the bit of the holy book you cherry-pick from as it suits, or fly a plane of 200 people into a building of 2,000 people because most of them don't believe in the right deity (even though some of them do).

So, you know. Swings and roundabouts on the whole 'being a jerk' front.

An atheist would never tell anyone that a sperm and a egg create a soul so you'll need to find the coercion of atheism in other sorts of exemples, like Nazi eugenism , strongly opposed, as it had to be, by those that believe in the existence of a soul, the Catholic Church being just an example.

About gays, again coercion against doesn't need religious belief. Here the Soviet Union (let's leave the nazis now and try for a diferent kind of human atheist brutality shall we?

A 1964 Soviet sex manual instructed: "With all the tricks at their disposal, homosexuals seek out and win the confidence of youngsters. Then they proceed to act. Do not under any circumstances allow them to touch you. Such people should be immediately reported to the administrative organs so that they can be removed from society."[74]

Imprisonment for male same-sex sexual intercourse and government censorship of homosexuality and LGBT rights did not begin to slowly relax until the early 1970s. Venedikt Yerofeyev was permitted to include a brief interior monologue about homosexuality in Moscow to the End of the Line (1973). Perhaps the first public endorsement of LGBT rights since Stalin was a brief statement, critical of Article 121 and calling for its repeal, made in the Textbook of Soviet Criminal Law (1973).[67] These references were characterized as being brief statements in a novel or textbook and were made by heterosexuals. Vicktor Sosnora was allowed to write about witnessing an elderly gay actor being brutally murdered in a Leningrad bar in The Flying Dutchman (1979), but the book was only allowed to be published in East Germany. When the author was gay and, in particular, if they were seen as supporting gay rights, the censors tended to be much harsher.

Russian gay author Yevgeny Kharitonov illegally circulated some gay fiction before he died of heart failure in 1981. Author Gennady Trifonov served four years of hard labor for circulating his gay poems and, upon his release, was allowed to write and publish only if he avoided depicting or making reference to homosexuality.[75] In 1984, a group of Russian gay men met and attempted to organize an official gay rights organization, only to be quickly shut down by the KGB. It was not until later in the Glasnost period that public discussion was permitted about re-legalizing private, consensual adult homosexual relations.

A poll conducted in 1989 reported that homosexuals were the most hated group in Russian society and that 30 percent of those polled felt that homosexuals should be liquidated.[66] In a 1991 public opinion poll conducted in Chelyabinsk 30 percent of the respondents aged 16 to 30 years old felt that homosexuals should be "isolated from society," 5 percent felt they should be "liquidated," 60 percent had a "negative" attitude toward gay people and 5 percent labeled their sexual orientation "unfortunate."[74] In 1989–1990 a Moscow gay rights organization led by Yevgeniya Debryanskaya was permitted to exist, with Roman Kalinin given permission to publish a gay newspaper, "Tema".[76] The precise number of persons prosecuted under Article 121 is unknown, with the first official information was released only in 1988, but it is believed to be about 1000 prosecuted a year. According to official data, the number of men convicted under Article 121 had been steadily decreasing during the Glasnost period. In 1987, 831 men were sentenced under Article 121; in 1989, 539; in 1990, 497; and in 1991, 462.[77]

No time to proceed to the downing of airplanes example, possibly the least relevant of the exemples Famine brought up. I don't think people , especially atheists with a particularly smug attitude towards people with faith in God, will ever grasp that conflicts are made by man, and whatever excuse man can find to engage them (with religion being an historical favourite, that much is true) is only argued to entice and achieve popular support. It's all about power. And, for believers, a sign that evil exists, and that ther is a choice about giving in or fighting it. And I'm referring to the fight "within" each of us. Back to the soul then.

 

[mistersafeway]

An atheist would never tell anyone that a sperm and a egg create a soul so you'll need to find the coercion of atheism in other sorts of exemples, like Nazi eugenism , strongly opposed, as it had to be, by those that believe in the existence of a soul, the Catholic Church being just an example.

There's more proof for Hitler being a catholic than an atheist, a small amount versus the assertions of people since.

I don't think people , especially atheists with a particularly smug attitude towards people with faith in God, will ever grasp that conflicts are made by man, and whatever excuse man can find to engage them (with religion being an historical favourite, that much is true) is only argued to entice and achieve popular support. It's all about power.

That's been brought up recently.

If we wanted to use extremes, I guess one could say that atheists rarely do extreme things in the name of their non-belief. But I strongly suspect that violence in the name of religion is merely a vehicle for political and personal goals that needed a casus belli.

Ah, now here's where I only mostly agree, I feel that there's probably an argument to be made for it being massively biased in that direction, but that it's not always the case. Unfortunately it's very difficult if not impossible to prove one way or the other, especially because you can't really take a person's word on why they think the way they do, and the few who actually do commit acts of violence for religious reasons could be insane and hearing voices.

Neither of us thought religion was the sole reason. Famine also specified discrimination of gay people because of a cherry picked part of a religious book. A bit of an unfair example as atheists don't have one, but a lot of Christians do it and nowhere in the New Testament does "kill the queers, or at least deny them basic rights" come up. You know what does? Do to others what you would have them do to you, which means that at best severely anti-gay Christians are using their religion as an excuse for independently achieved bigoted positions, but I think it goes beyond that to the point that a lot of them genuinely believe that they have to hate gays if they want to be Christian, amusingly enough. If Christians would all start following the New Testament exclusively they'd be a minor irritation at times, nothing more.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

There's more proof for Hitler being a catholic than an atheist, a small amount versus the assertions of people since.

So much so that his party persecuted them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany

 

[Famine]

An atheist would never tell anyone that a sperm and a egg create a soul so you'll need to find the coercion of atheism in other sorts of exemples, like Nazi eugenism , strongly opposed, as it had to be, by those that believe in the existence of a soul, the Catholic Church being just an example.

Hitler was, by all accounts, a Christian before he had a very well-publicised fascination with the occult. Nazism was characterised by a form of anti-clericalism (like Hitler's own father), but it wasn't so much a battle against religion as a battle to install Hitler as the head of German state religion - he believed himself to be a messiah. To say he was without belief in deities is some way wide of the mark.

About gays, again coercion against doesn't need religious belief. Here the Soviet Union (let's leave the nazis now and try for a diferent kind of human atheist brutality shall we?

Russia literally has a religion and a state church named after it - the Russian Orthodox Church - with 150 million members. Like the USA (but not the UK, where our head of state is also the head of the church) it is notionally secular, with freedom of religion in the constitution, but like the USA that doesn't mean atheists run the show and laws are based on atheist viewpoints. Putin is Russian Orthodox, and Medvedev is probably Russian Orthodox too (having also received honours from the Greek and Serbian Orthodox churches).

Again, you're not looking at atheists deciding that being gay is wrong (at least in that example).