Why atheists are starting their own global church

[Eastoff]

Although that lyric really never made a whole lot of sense to me from an atheist point of view because if death is simply turning off a light bulb, then I guess dying won't tell us anything at all.

You summed it up!

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Wow great post! Repp'd!

Well at least I tried! "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to e_blazer again."

that was a great post, I will be happy to do it for you, Mags..repped

 

[Further]

Hey, cran, here's where I think that you're off the mark in your thinking. I disagree with your statement that faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. That puts belief in God in the light of believing in Santa Claus or, as message board atheists love to use, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rather, I believe that true faith is looking at human existence in this universe with open eyes, assessing the order of the universe, the physical laws, the incredible amount of information that is necessary for the formation of even the simplest of cells, and making an assessment that it is more likely that an intelligent, outside causative force is likely behind our existence than sheer time and random chance. Certainly that assessment involves being willing to accept that there are limits of what can be known and ultimately knowing that there cannot be a proof of God's existence in terms of a logic equation. But is an atheistic view on this any better? The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist. Not exactly a valid argument from a logic standpoint either.

I kind of like this quote:





I understand where you're coming from on this and I hope that I've never given you the impression that I think there is any need for you to justify your lack of belief in God. We're all faced with the fact that we look at two basic facts that we can never wholly explain: 1. The universe exists through factors that we will never be able to fully understand; and 2. There is life within the universe when there is no logical explanation as to how or why that should be so. I choose to believe that there is a God behind it all. You choose to believe that billions of years and random chance is sufficient explanation. I have found peace and comfort in my faith, in my prayer life, in my church community, and in the Bible.

I guess ultimately it comes down to the Blood Sweat and Tears lyric:



Although that lyric really never made a whole lot of sense to me from an atheist point of view because if death is simply turning off a light bulb, then I guess dying won't tell us anything at all.

e_blazer, I was going to stay out of this type of discussion for a couple weeks, but your post was so well written and honest I decided to chime in.

First, my opinions are different than many atheists in that I don't have any issue with God of the Gaps, meaning belief in god that doesn't contradict known facts. So belief in God is fine as long as the belief has room for scientific discovery of the natural world, like age of the universe. I don't believe in god of the gaps, but it have no issue with others believing this.

Second, I believe you misstated what the majority of atheists believe. You said "The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist. ". Most atheists would agree with the first part 'there is no proof of god', but your conclusion is not correct. We do not conclude 'he or she must not exist'. The conclusion is close, not not quite that. It's more along the lines of ' there is no proof, therefor I do not believe'. We don't know god doesn't exist, just that without some evidence there is not a reason to form the belief.

By the way, you and I both share total awe of our world, from the beauty of a sunset to the astonishing complexity of life. We just differ over the cause.

That's all, I enjoyed your post.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey, cran, here's where I think that you're off the mark in your thinking. I disagree with your statement that faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. That puts belief in God in the light of believing in Santa Claus or, as message board atheists love to use, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Though you disagree, the truth is belief in God is in the light of believing in Santa Clause, etc.

 

[e_blazer]

Though you disagree, the truth is belief in God is in the light of believing in Santa Clause, etc.

Several smartass quips come to mind, Denny, but I'll just say that you have much more faith in the power of randomness than do I.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Several smartass quips come to mind, Denny, but I'll just say that you have much more faith in the power of randomness than do I.

thats an easy call, lol, he runs this freak show..

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Though you disagree, the truth is belief in God is in the light of believing in Santa Clause, etc.

What exactly does he think he said to dispute that? Cause I sure don't see anything.. All he did was explain what his faith is. Which happens to be believing in a higher power with no evidence. What a breakthrough!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

But is an atheistic view on this any better? The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist. Not exactly a valid argument from a logic standpoint either.

This is not what any atheist on this board has stated. Care to try again?

 

[e_blazer]

Second, I believe you misstated what the majority of atheists believe. You said "The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist. ". Most atheists would agree with the first part 'there is no proof of god', but your conclusion is not correct. We do not conclude 'he or she must not exist'. The conclusion is close, not not quite that. It's more along the lines of ' there is no proof, therefor I do not believe'. We don't know god doesn't exist, just that without some evidence there is not a reason to form the belief.

By the way, you and I both share total awe of our world, from the beauty of a sunset to the astonishing complexity of life. We just differ over the cause.

That's all, I enjoyed your post.

Fair enough.

 

[e_blazer]

This is not what any atheist on this board has stated. Care to try again?

Not really, but I'm happy to listen to your take.

 

[magnifier661]

What exactly does he think he said to dispute that? Cause I sure don't see anything.. All he did was explain what his faith is. Which happens to be believing in a higher power with no evidence. What a breakthrough!

Oh please explain your empirical evidence that the current science is accurate. I will be patiently waiting...

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Oh please explain your empirical evidence that the current science is accurate. I will be patiently waiting...

Exactly what current science are you referencing?

 

[magnifier661]

Exactly what current science are you referencing?

Of the beginning of the universe? What is singularity? Maybe proof of life ability to happen by chance?

 

[MarAzul]

I do not have a faith. I accept facts for which there is evidence. Faith is by definition belief in something for which there is no evidence. Faith is not repeat not disbelief in something for which there is no evidence. Would you say I am religious because I point out there is no evidence for astrology and therefore don't accept it?

I think the trouble is believers in a divine being can't see that non believers place their divine being in the same "bag" as all the rest. There MUST be something special about their god that is so self-evident that disbelieving it is also "faith" without proof. They would not say that about disbelief in Zeus. For me all gods are the same. And there is no evidence for any. Therefore I do not accept their existence and will not without evidence. Which there cannot be because, as numerous Christians have pointed out, the whole point of faith is acceptance without evidence. And I'm getting virtual laryngitis having to explain this over and over!

Atheist make up about 2.3% of the population. Most of the rest consider themselves members of some religion. Now the interesting thing is the vast majority of the atheist are feeling type people
who more ofter than not also consider their selves Progressives. Where as the T type people that do not consider them selves of religion also do not consider them selves atheist. Most of the Thinking type people can not
go there because it is too illogical. They usually call themselves Agnostic or Pantheist. Albert Einstein, an INTP and Kurt Gödel also an INTP are perhaps the foremost examples. Kurt Gödel even wrote a paper on
the lack of logic in being an atheist and improbability of evolution bringing forth life without a creator.

 

[Stephen Curry]

You must've missed the word church. You should look up the definition.

Not sure why but i found this funny.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Maybe the atheists want their own alter boys.

 

[Stephen Curry]

Maybe the atheists want their own alter boys.

Maybe but off topic your avatar is golden LOL made me laugh

 

[MarAzul]

Maybe the atheists want their own alter boys.

Or they want to be the alter boys.

 

[crowTrobot]

Rather, I believe that true faith is looking at human existence in this universe with open eyes, assessing the order of the universe, the physical laws, the incredible amount of information that is necessary for the formation of even the simplest of cells, and making an assessment that it is more likely that an intelligent, outside causative force is likely behind our existence than sheer time and random chance.

making a "more likely" probability assessment based on empirical evidence is science, not faith.

The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist.

straw man. regardless of whatever semantics you (or papaG or mags) feel you need to insist on, NOBODY SAYS THIS.

1. The universe exists through factors that we will never be able to fully understand;

two assumptions here.

1. the universe necessarily requires causal factors to explain its existence. nobody knows if this is true or not.

2. humans will "never" be able to understand the nature of the universe. nobody knows if this is true or not either. we don't know what the limits of our intellect or ability to test this subject will be in the future.

You choose to believe that billions of years and random chance is sufficient explanation.

straw man. atheists don't believe random chance is sufficient to explain anything. they think it's possible (or probable) that self-organizational principals such as evolution exist just as the natural state of things and intelligence is not required to explain complexity.

goddidit and random chance is a false dichotomy used as an excuse for belief by theists. there are other possibilities.

I have found peace and comfort in my faith, in my prayer life, in my church community, and in the Bible.

that's cool, but obviously what gives anyone peace and comfort doesn't necessarily have to correspond to objective reality.

 

[Stephen Curry]

making a "more likely" probability assessment based on empirical evidence is science, not faith.



straw man. regardless of whatever semantics you (or papaG or mags) feel you need to insist on, NOBODY SAYS THIS.



two assumptions here.

1. the universe necessarily requires causal factors to explain its existence. nobody knows if this is true or not.

2. humans will "never" be able to understand the nature of the universe. nobody knows if this is true or not either. we don't know what the limits of our intellect or ability to test this subject will be in the future.



straw man. atheists don't believe random chance is sufficient to explain anything. they think it's possible (or probable) that self-organizational principals such as evolution exist just as the natural state of things and intelligence is not required to explain complexity.

goddidit and random chance is a false dichotomy used as an excuse for belief by theists. there are other possibilities.




that's cool, but obviously what gives anyone peace and comfort doesn't necessarily have to correspond to objective reality.

Your Logic is amazing repped

 

[crowTrobot]

Kurt Gödel even wrote a paper on
the lack of logic in being an atheist and improbability of evolution bringing forth life without a creator.

what paper is that?

obviously it would be impossible to calculate the probability of abiogenesis unless you know exactly how it happened.

 

[magnifier661]

that's cool, but obviously what gives anyone peace and comfort doesn't necessarily have to correspond to objective reality.

Like atheism

 

[crowTrobot]

Like atheism

I don't find the notion of myself not existing after I die particularly comforting.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't find the notion of myself not existing after I die particularly comforting.

No, but many atheists I know tell me they feel great comfort to know "I know I don't need to live a theistic life".

But you still exist after you die. Your matter doesn't dissolve into nothing.

 

[MarAzul]

what paper is that?

obviously it would be impossible to calculate the probability of abiogenesis unless you know exactly how it happened.

Impossible for you perhaps but not Mr. Godel. I am sure you can find it.
It is in my book, Godel's Theory of Systems.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Of the beginning of the universe? What is singularity? Maybe proof of life ability to happen by chance?

Have you seen me talk about any of these things? If you think you have, you probably have me confused with someone else.

I generally don't concern myself with stuff like this. I'm really not all that "into" science. Does that mean I can't be an atheist?

 

[magnifier661]

Have you seen me talk about any of these things? If you think you have, you probably have me confused with someone else.

I generally don't concern myself with stuff like this. I'm really not all that "into" science. Does that mean I can't be an atheist?

Absolutely can be one. You are a true atheist!

 

[BlazerWookee]

What up folks? Good Morning everyone!

I decided for a couple weeks, I'm not going to get in any debates, I'm not going to defend anything. I may post if I find something interesting, funny or cool, but for a few weeks I won't go beyond that. Especially no politics.

Peace be with you brothers and sisters

I disagree.

Neener.

 

[crowTrobot]

Impossible for you perhaps but not Mr. Godel. I am sure you can find it.
It is in my book, Godel's Theory of Systems.

no. impossible by definition. if you don't know what happened you can't know what the probability of what happened is. the probability of abiogenesis is an empirical question, not philosophical or mathematical. Gödel would be no more an expert about this than I am. Also he was no different than anyone else who intellectually compartmentalizes their predisposition towards theism.

 

[magnifier661]

What up folks? Good Morning everyone!

I decided for a couple weeks, I'm not going to get in any debates, I'm not going to defend anything. I may post if I find something interesting, funny or cool, but for a few weeks I won't go beyond that. Especially no politics.

Peace be with you brothers and sisters

Join the dark side and we can rule the universe!