[Nard Bagman]

I do not believe in God. I do believe that religion has been a detriment to human progress and growth and bad for the species as a whole.

.

[Schmattakopf]

1. There are some objective logical absolutes. Law of Identity Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. Law of Non-Contradiction Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Law of Excluded Middle A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground. Alright there we go. I can provide examples for the logical absolutes if needed. Will be interested on everyone's take. Let me know if you accept the first premise.

How are these an argument?

[Gaborn]

I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity. This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion. Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.

I think your problem is that you misunderstand the atheists objection to God. Say that a God came to earth and performed a series of, for want of a better word miracles. Raised the dead for example, instantly turned water into wine, etc. That would essentially eliminate all atheists.

Atheists aren't necessarily saying there is no god in the way that theists believe there IS a God. Atheists generally claim they see no evidence in the natural world that requires there to be a supernatural force such as God. They may say "God does not exist" but it's more in the sense "I see no evidence for the existence of God" rather than "I believe God CANNOT exist."

It's a bit like my objection to Creationism in the classroom. It's possible as you suggest that a God could for example create an "old earth" perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology, but until there is a scientific basis for such a possibility it would be irrational and irresponsible to put that belief in the classroom.

[Pixel Pete]

I'll be more than pleased to change my mind on the god question if strong empirical evidence presents itself. For example, if a being who claimed to be the Lord materialized in a public area and cheerfully agreed to perform over a year's time a set of the same miracles (say, resurrecting a fossilized creature cell by cell, producing a hailstorm concentrated over a single cubic meter, healing an amputee in a matter of minutes, etc.) at the invitation of any scientist, and managed to make good on his promise and win the endorsement and esteem of the scientific community, my notions of the possible and actual would be drastically revised.

As much as I'd likely do the same thing as you, I can't help but be fair in comment.

Atheists complain quite often about the 'moving the goal posts' that theists do.
But in the same vein, couldn't an atheist just say 'well, that's neat, but isn't it just possible that this 'god' is simply an egotistical alien with superb technology.
After all, as Arthur C Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Maybe the difference is semantics?

I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity. This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion. Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.

It's not really logically sound to claim there is definitely no god. As an atheist, I disagree with the stance that there is not possibly a god. It certain is possible. It is just, given the current collection of evidence, incredibly unlikely.

So, what if the evidence is fabricated, hidden, misleading? Then the question of god because so incredibly vague that it becomes a question of epistemology, not of science or theology.

[Ostinatto]

i think we're never gonna know if god really exist

so what i am? an atheist?

[Aristion]

There is a God because of the impossibility of the contrary. For the atheist, the source of reality (i.e. the Universe) is either absolute chance or an absolute determinism. If it is the former (chance), we could never know of what this 'absolute' is, as the concept of randomness is an incoherent concept to a person who thinks in deterministic categories.

The ancient philosopher Anaximander spoke of the 'arche' (source) of all reality an indeterminate being which created the Universe by absolute chance, and yet paradoxically, he said that he had intellectual knowledge of it. But if the source of all logic is unknowable, the logic that is entailed by it is unknowable, and we could never have any knowledge of anything at all. In other words, if we could only define something by what it is not (e.g. indeterminate, impersonal, unknowable etc.) then you cannot know anything about it at all, including it's existence!

The other route the Atheist could take is to assert that the Universe is absolutely logically necessary (the Universe is eternal and was not brought into existence). This is similar to the deterministic position of Parmenides, who famously asserted that freedom or change is impossible. But this must be false, as one can conceive of oneself as existing under different circumstances or existing within a different Universe than the one we currently exist in (otherwise the 'I' that I can conceive of as existing in another universe is not really me at all). There is similarly the properly basic belief that humans have freedom in choice (and thus we have moral obligations due to our ability to choose otherwise).

This is why the only logical position to hold (and the position that is assumed by everyone who reasons), is that the source of all reality is not absolute determinism or absolute indeterminism, but a libertarian (free) agent who freely brings the Universe into existence, and who can be defined as an agent who is spaceless, timeless, immaterial and MUST be personal in order to avoid the irrational implications of the erroneous positions that have been outlined.

[MickeyKnox]

The original causeless cause is what I go by. If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?

This is an always fascinating take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Haly]

Law of Excluded Middle A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.

Does this exclude paradoxes like: "This sentence is false"

Or do you mean that for something to be considered a statement it must be either true or false and not unknowable?

[Superimposer]

It's not really logically sound to claim there is definitely no god. As an atheist, I disagree with the stance that there is not possibly a god. It certain is possible. It is just, given the current collection of evidence, incredibly unlikely. So, what if the evidence is fabricated, hidden, misleading? Then the question of god because so incredibly vague that it becomes a question of epistemology, not of science or theology.

Thanks everyone who replied, I see where I was going wrong

[ghst]

making an lOTl will do nothing to stop people scrutinizing the validity of your religious reasoning in any place on this board/internet where it is at all relevant, just as it should be.

why is it always those who have taken it upon themselves to spread the word of god who wish to gag and contain the debate?

[NullPointer]

This is an always fascinating take on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Thanks for the link. Its a long one so I'll check it out when I get home.

And just to be clear, I'm not posting here as somebody who has got any answers or as an expert in any of these categories. Just showing where my personal questions lie. My family is very religious so I get a lot of their perspectives, but I also devour stuff from minds like Dawkins and Hitchens, even if I find their arguments to be better placed against the dogma of established religion instead of the concept of a God. The best argument against the concept I've heard is that "its unnecessary", which may be true. But then that opens up the whole jar of worms of causality.

Its fascinating stuff, and the hardest thing for me to believe in are people who sit smug in their absolute acceptance of one perspective or another.

It might drive some people nuts too, but I don't see why so much faith is placed in Logic and Reason. Those are just tools and the universe may just be larger and more impenetrable than we can contain in mathematical notation, language or thought. Not to say we shouldn't keep trying though ;P

[Pandaman]

I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity. This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion. Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.

People can't be expected to act on evidence they don't have, even if god didn't sweep the universe of all evidence and some does exists out there, no one has found it yet so there's no real reason to believe a gods out there.

[Sqorgar]

I can't prove that A god doesn't exist, but I can prove that YOUR god doesn't exist. Atheism is just a matter of actually reading religious texts and not ignoring the WTF moments.

[GTP_Daverytimes]

People can't be expected to act on evidence they don't have, even if god didn't sweep the universe of all evidence and some does exists out there, no one has found it yet so there's no real reason to believe a gods out there.

What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?

[Marius_]

What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?

What reason is there to believe that God came from nothing?

[CornBurrito]

You mean as in believing there isn't anything out there isn't a belief as well. It might be rejecting another belief, but it doesn't stop it from being a belief in itself.

You are describing gnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism is the position most atheists likely hold.

[ciaossu]

My 2 cents,

God only exists as a concept

Religion = fear, guilt and shame

Fuckin' A, man.

What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?

Who claims that it does?

Even the Big Bang Theory claims that the known Universe came from a singularity (LOADS of mass in a single point). What was before that? No one is claiming to know. Except religions, who say that god was always there or something.

[GTP_Daverytimes]

What reason is there to believe that God came from nothing?

What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?

[NullPointer]

No U!

[Marius_]

What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?

And who created him?

Answer: men did

[ciaossu]

What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?

Define god then. If god isn't the highest being, and it's potentially one of many, what is its significance?

[Falcs00]

I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists...

What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world?
For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.

Thoughts? Comments?

[Kosmo]

I think your problem is that you misunderstand the atheists objection to God. Say that a God came to earth and performed a series of, for want of a better word miracles. Raised the dead for example, instantly turned water into wine, etc. That would essentially eliminate all atheists. Atheists aren't necessarily saying there is no god in the way that theists believe there IS a God. Atheists generally claim they see no evidence in the natural world that requires there to be a supernatural force such as God. They may say "God does not exist" but it's more in the sense "I see no evidence for the existence of God" rather than "I believe God CANNOT exist." It's a bit like my objection to Creationism in the classroom. It's possible as you suggest that a God could for example create an "old earth" perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology, but until there is a scientific basis for such a possibility it would be irrational and irresponsible to put that belief in the classroom.

This is agnosticism, one who claims neither faith, nor disbelief - the only rational view, IMO. Atheists definitely believe there God does not exist.

What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world? For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.

This is where I think agnosticism comes in. Despite all of these reports, nobody has definitively captured something on tape that is there for all of us to see in disbelief. What caused those phenomena may be explainable by unknown physical forces that we simply cannot comprehend.

[Monocle]

As much as I'd likely do the same thing as you, I can't help but be fair in comment. Atheists complain quite often about the 'moving the goal posts' that theists do. But in the same vein, couldn't an atheist just say 'well, that's neat, but isn't it just possible that this 'god' is simply an egotistical alien with superb technology. After all, as Arthur C Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Maybe the difference is semantics?

Oh, of course none of the conditions I specified would isolate the identity of that agent to (for example) the Abrahamic God alone. That's one of the tricky bits about certainty: there are virtually always multiple explanations for an observation—some just fit the evidence better than others. However, I hold that any being sufficiently advanced to perform the wonders I described would be aptly defined as a god, unless one's particular idea of a god includes very particular stipulations that disqualify members of inconceivably advanced alien species from that designation.

[Sharp]

Alright, just to be clear this isn't my argument, it has been proposed by an 'apologist', but I will try and use my own terminology where acceptable. I'm also not going to be on GAF very often for the next week, so I may be slow to add the next premise once it has been agreed upon. This argument is for the Biblical god as described in the Old and New Testaments, you can decide if it successfully accomplishes the goal of 'proving' that God's existence. 1st Premise. 1. There are some objective logical absolutes. Law of Identity Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. Law of Non-Contradiction Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Law of Excluded Middle A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground. Alright there we go. I can provide examples for the logical absolutes if needed. Will be interested on everyone's take. Let me know if you accept the first premise.

I'm actually going to take issue with your law of non-contradiction, as Godel proved this to be false in certain logical systems. So my question to you is, are you using a system sufficiently powerful to define the natural numbers (or, in layman's terms, are you going to reference anything infinite)? If yes, I do not except your premises. If no, I accept them.

[CornBurrito]

What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?

Turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN!!!

You do realize that answering questions with what amounts to "NO U!" isn't helping the debate, right?

You don't need to answer the origins of the universe to be an atheist. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

I need proof of a higher power before I believe in one. Me not being able to answer a question doesn't mean the answer has to be god.

This is agnosticism, one who claims neither faith, nor disbelief - the only rational view, IMO. Atheists definitely believe there God does not exist.

Incorrect. Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheis/theist, or a gnostic atheist/theist.

I'd imagine most people that call themselves atheists are agnostic atheists.

But this is a semantic debate.

[Korey]

Thanks for the link. Its a long one so I'll check it out when I get home. And just to be clear, I'm not posting here as somebody who has got any answers or as an expert in any of these categories. Just showing where my personal questions lie. My family is very religious so I get a lot of their perspectives, but I also devour stuff from minds like Dawkins and Hitchens, even if I find their arguments to be better placed against the dogma of established religion instead of the concept of a God. The best argument against the concept I've heard is that "its unnecessary", which may be true. But then that opens up the whole jar of worms of causality. Its fascinating stuff, and the hardest thing for me to believe in are people who sit smug in their absolute acceptance of one perspective or another. It might drive some people nut too, but I don't see why so much faith is placed in Logic and Reason. Those are just tools and the universe may just be larger and more impenetrable than we can contain in mathematical notation, language or thought. Not to say we shouldn't keep trying though ;P

God is the adult version of Santa Claus.

Invented by early humans because they found themselves with a brain big enough to contemplate their own existence and to explain natural events like lightning and fire. In modern times, science has explained all of these things and yet the relic notion of god remains, but it's dying out.

A lot of people don't realize we're just another animal on this earth (out of what, several million species?). We're more advanced than ants and dogs but we're just another species. A whale in the ocean or eagle in the sky or an elephant in Africa have no notion of gods. We only do because our minds can't grasp concepts like "a billion objects" much less things like "what happens after you die" and "how did the universe come about" and that's why we invent things like God.

Our minds are primitive compared to what they will be like in a few million years. At that point humans will be able to conceptualize what a billion objects looks like. They won't grasp at such primitive ideas as souls and afterlives.

The fact that there's been literally thousands of religions on earth since the beginning of man should make you question why the current fads (ie Christianity if you happen to live in 2011 USA) have any more credibility than any other that has ever existed. People who lived in The 300 times probably believed in Zeus as passionately as you believe in yours. People who lived in Aladdin times believed in genies and crap.

Also the fact that 99% of people believe in whatever religion they grew up being indoctrinated with. While not realizing the irony that if they happened to be born on the other side of the world they would be Hindu or Muslim or Voodoo or Buddhist. And those people believe they are just as right as you think you are.

-----

For any religious person reading this, I'd advise you to write down your beliefs and replace all instances of "God" with "adult version of Santa Claus" to see how ridiculous your belief system is.

[bounchfx]

I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists... What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world? For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things. Thoughts? Comments?

lol what? are you serious? people that claim they've seen ghosts, or experienced some 'phenomenon' ? either they're full of shit, or they're acting on assumptions and don't know the entire situation. Seeing something out of the corner of my eye or while high on LSD doesn't mean anything.

People are very good at convincing themselves to believe ridiculous shit. Some examples include:

God
or no god ?

either way there's not enough evidence for either, though one is a fuck load more plausible than a fairy tale written ages ago.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?

The notion that the universe has a cause comes from the supposition that all things must have a cause. However this would also require whatever caused the universe to have a cause. In order to satisfy the fact that the universe does exist, the original proposition must be false - it must be possible for something to exist without cause.

The question is this: Why does God not require a cause, while the universe does? If God does not need one, then there is no reason to assume that, as a whole, the universe does. The notion that all things require causes is based on observations of subsets of the universe, and does not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.

So the possibilities are this:

1. God exists for no reason, and created the Universe.
2. The universe exists for no reason.

It should be simple to see how #2 is far more elegant and simple (think Ockham's razor here).


On a more specific basis, since time is a subset of the universe (time only exists inside of the universe), and time is finite pastwards, there was a "first" moment of time with no time preceding this. Since causes must exist prior to effects, and all the energy of the universe already existed at this point (Big Bang Cosmology), there cannot have been a cause for any of it.

A popular notion is that God exists "outside of time", but how can something that does not progress from past to future actually take any actions? How can it decide to do things? How can it cause anything if there is no time?

[Kosmo]

Incorrect. Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheis/theist, or a gnostic atheist/theist. I'd imagine most people that call themselves atheists are agnostic atheists. But this is a semantic debate.

Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.

[ciaossu]

I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists... What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world? For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things. Thoughts? Comments?

The human mind is incredible, however, it can also misinterpret things. Have you ever heard a howl in the wind that sounded like speech? It's not because it actually was speech, but it's because your brain tries to interpret the sound using previous experiences. Ever seen a mirage that looks like water? Same thing, but with your vision.

In short, ghosts (and other supernatural stuff) were real, top researchers would be studying them. Same for other so called 'supernatural phenomenon'. They would not be ignored were they legitimate.

[Pandaman]

What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?

I dont share the assumptions you've taken to make this question meaningful, so i cant really answer.

[dejay]

In my opinion, if God existed and actually cared or not if people believed in him, he'd make it pretty evident. This day and age he'd have his own chat show or something.

From this I can conclude one of two things:

1 - There is no god. Look for an alternative.

2 - If there is a god, he doesn't really care about our relationship with him as much as Christianity would suggest.

[CornBurrito]

Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.

Again, you are wrong.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I do not believe in a god. I think the existence of a god is unknowable. We cannot prove or disprove many claims religions make, the existence of god being one of them.

There you go, agnostic atheism in a nutshell.

To further simplify:

AA: I don't believe in a god, a higher power may or may not exist.

GA: There is no god. I am positive of this.

AT: I believe in a god, a higher power may or may not exist.

GT: There is a god. I am positive of this.

[Air]

I think your problem is that you misunderstand the atheists objection to God. Say that a God came to earth and performed a series of, for want of a better word miracles. Raised the dead for example, instantly turned water into wine, etc. That would essentially eliminate all atheists. Atheists aren't necessarily saying there is no god in the way that theists believe there IS a God. Atheists generally claim they see no evidence in the natural world that requires there to be a supernatural force such as God. They may say "God does not exist" but it's more in the sense "I see no evidence for the existence of God" rather than "I believe God CANNOT exist." It's a bit like my objection to Creationism in the classroom. It's possible as you suggest that a God could for example create an "old earth" perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology, but until there is a scientific basis for such a possibility it would be irrational and irresponsible to put that belief in the classroom.

I don't know, I think the problem with that, is some people still wont be satisfied. "He raised the dead, must have used a virus." etc. I'm not saying all atheists are like that, but I don't think they will be so easily swayed, despite what some may tell you. Personally, as I said to another poster, I think its simply a matter of perspective. Someone could believe (and most people who willingly do so do it out of personal reasons) by looking at the universe, others can see evolution and think it to be awesome (they exist!), and yet others just walk outside and breathe in the air. There probably won't be any hard scientific evidence of God, but that's fine, and I think that where is the disconnect between a lot of people. For someone to be swayed to the side of belief, they will have to experience something personal to them that will make them go that way, otherwise it just doesn't make sense to them. But there is the fact that someone doesn't see the universe as miraculous, just a bunch of matter clashing. That too is fine, but the two people talking at that point need to realize that they have a difference of perspective.

I dunno its my 2 cents. I believe all evidence pertaining to God is subjective, and those who don't believe, and those who do, should realize this is the case. By keeping it in mind, you'll definitely bypass all the meaningless comments, and hopefully have a conversation, instead of a debate, that both parties will enjoy.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.

[IMG]http://i53.************/2ldxg6e.jpg[/IMG]


Agnosticism is a statement about how "certain" you are - whether you know (or rather, believe that you know it) or just believe. All agnostics are either Theists or Atheists in addition to being Agnostic.

There is a proposition:

At least one God exists.

If you would agree with this statement, you are a Theist.

Since the most broadly accepted definition of Atheism is essentially "Not Theism", it becomes impossible to be neither Theist nor Atheist, because that proposition becomes "A or ~A", which is a tautology (true under all conditions). If you would not agree with this statement (including "well I don't really know", "I haven't decided so I can't say I agree" etc) then you are an Atheist.

Your specific position will be one of four things:

Theism / Agnostic Theism / Agnostic (or "Weak") Atheism / ("Strong") Atheism.

[NullPointer]

God is the adult version of Santa Claus. Invented by early humans because they found themselves with a brain big enough to contemplate their own existence and to explain natural events like lightning and fire. In modern times, science has explained all of these things and yet the relic notion of god remains, but it's dying out. A lot of people don't realize we're just another animal on this earth (out of what, several million species?). We're more advanced than ants and dogs but we're just another species. A whale in the ocean or eagle in the sky or an elephant in Africa have no notion of gods. We only do because our minds can't grasp concepts like "a billion objects" much less things like "what happens after you die" and "how did the universe come about" and that's why we invent things like God. Our minds are primitive compared to what they will be like in a few million years. At that point humans will be able to conceptualize what a billion objects looks like. They won't grasp at such primitive ideas as souls and afterlives. The fact that there's been literally thousands of religions on earth since the beginning of man should make you question why the current fads (ie Christianity if you happen to live in 2011 USA) have any more credibility than any other that has ever existed. People who lived in The 300 times probably believed in Zeus as passionately as you believe in yours. People who lived in Aladdin times believed in genies and crap. Also the fact that 99% of people believe in whatever religion they grew up being indoctrinated with. While not realizing the irony that if they happened to be born on the other side of the world they would be Hindu or Muslim or Voodoo or Buddhist. And those people believe they are just as right as you think you are. ----- For any religious person reading this, I'd advise you to write down your beliefs and replace all instances of "God" with "adult version of Santa Claus" to see how ridiculous your belief system is.

Believe me, I've heard this argument a million times, and I've made it a million times myself. While it sounds nice, I would like some better scientific models for the beginning of the universe. Specifically how causality is derived.

And I'd say its wise to separate the conception and faith in God (or Gods) from various religions and dogmas.

[Monocle]

Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.

There's a different definition of "agnostic" floating around that is distinct from the term as Huxley coined it. The idea is that "agnostic" is the antonym of "gnostic," so that an agnostic atheist is one who disbelieves in god without claiming certainty on the matter, while a gnostic atheist asserts that he or she knows god does not exist.

By this reckoning, I'm an agnostic atheist. I avoid using the term around philosophers because it tends to give them a bee in their bonnet. If anyone can cite an academic reference for this usage of "agnostic," I'll be grateful.

[Falcs00]

people that claim they've seen ghosts, or experienced some 'phenomenon' ? either they're full of shit, or they're acting on assumptions and don't know the entire situation. Seeing something out of the corner of my eye or while high on LSD doesn't mean anything. People are very good at convincing themselves to believe ridiculous shit.

So are you saying everyone who posted in that thread is simply full of crap or was high?
I'm not saying there's truth to all or any of the stories, just wondering what people think on the subject.
What about those of you who posted in that thread (if any of you are in here), what are your thoughts or explanation for your experience?

The human mind is incredible, however, it can also misinterpret things. Have you ever heard a howl in the wind that sounded like speech? It's not because it actually was speech, but it's because your brain tries to interpret the sound using previous experiences. Ever seen a mirage that looks like water? Same thing, but with your vision.

Fair enough. That's a perfectly valid answer.

[JohnTuk]

God is the adult version of Santa Claus. ... For any religious person reading this, I'd advise you to write down your beliefs and replace all instances of "God" with "adult version of Santa Claus" to see how ridiculous your belief system is.

You seem to have it all figured out, do you?

This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".

Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

[Trent Strong]

I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists... What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world? For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things. Thoughts? Comments?

Hallucinations, hypnagogic hallucinations, lies, etc.

[Sharp]

You seem to have it all figured out, do you? This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate". Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

Because it's already been scrutinized, I imagine. That's why science is, well, science.

[CornBurrito]

Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

Thankfully I (and I'd assume Korey) base my beliefs of of credible evidence. I prefer peer reviewed scientific papers as my main source, so my beliefs do indeed hold up to scrutiny.

I will admit that my beliefs my indeed be wrong. Science marches on, and what is now considered fact my someday be proven fiction. However, I'd rather be rational and wrong than irrational and right. I do realize that is personal preference though. Not everyone values rationality.

[DarthWoo]

You seem to have it all figured out, do you? This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate". Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

Well, doing that would require a bit of time, but in the end, unless you have some really fringe beliefs, you'll only find that much of what you believe has ultimately been backed up by a great deal of peer-reviewed experimentation and research.

[Kalnos]

So, what's the difference between:

A. A militant atheist telling religious people their religion is bogus.
B. A religious person saying that they know their religion is true through faith/Bible, thus implying that every other religion is fictional.

I think it's pretty arrogant either way, really.

[Haly]

Because it's already been scrutinized, I imagine. That's why science is, well, science.

Well Korey's rant is shaky in a lot of places and pure conjecture in some (like "Our minds are primitive compared to what they will be like in a few million years", Really? A few million years?). He ignores a lot of social, economic and political reasons behind the dominance of Christianity versus, say, early shamanism in nomadic tribes.

Spouting the word "science" with self righteous indignation does not, in fact, make arguments scientific.

[GTP_Daverytimes]

And who created him?

The point of that statement is that we can keep going on and on and on and on and we will not come to a conclusion because WE DON'T KNOW. Many religious people will tell you that they know but the simple truth is that we don't know. Science tries hard to come up with an answer but fall's flat on it's face. In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against, that's why 80% of science is filled with theories. The things mentioned above leaves us with Faith, we do not know (for sure)but we have strong faith that there is a creator.

You seem to have it all figured out, do you? This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate". Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

This is exactly the same problem i had with many posters in the previous thread, they throw out words and will go the extra length to degrade your religious beliefs without any substantial argument that supports their beliefs. They simply say "their is no God, nuff said"

[Korey]

You seem to have it all figured out, do you? This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate". Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?

Because as an atheist, my "beliefs" are the default position to take based on observation and tests.

There's no need to debate or discuss Christianity or any other religion. If you're going to waste your time on random fictional things like that, then why not debate unicorns, leprechauns, or whether Voldemort is real or not?

I mean, there's more evidence for Harry Potter than Christianity. There, you have at least seven books instead of one.

[Cyan]

In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against...

Which parts?

[Haly]

Because as an atheist, my "beliefs" are the default position to take based on observation and tests.

This isn't true, at least not to my knowledge. Humans don't start out with ANY beliefs, they're formulated later on through life. There is no genetic code that says "okay you are of the belief that no gods exist".