Deep into Atheism

K

Kasparov

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
Atheists: what makes you believe you are right?
Actually most Atheists will always find that they are wrong about many things, the continuous self questioning, examining evidence, new discoveries, etc... will lead Atheists to simply change and adapt once he/she discovers an idea to be mistaken, absolute truth does not really exist. I also do not like the idea of grouping "Atheists" as every Atheist is different than the other, I prefer call myself a Human, the default state in which i was born, people simply label me as an Atheist because I do not believe in God, this label is imposed on me by organized religion while in truth all humans are born with no religion or belief & its the brainwashing they receive since childhood that shapes most religious attachments later in life.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    Actually most Atheists will always find that they are wrong about many things, the continuous self questioning, examining evidence, new discoveries, etc... will lead Atheists to simply change and adapt once he/she discovers an idea to be mistaken, absolute truth does not really exist. I also do not like the idea of grouping "Atheists" as every Atheist is different than the other, I prefer call myself a Human, the default state in which i was born, people simply label me as an Atheist because I do not believe in God, this label is imposed on me by organized religion while in truth all humans are born with no religion or belief & its the brainwashing they receive since childhood that shapes most religious attachments later in life.
    True. But the question can be reformulated to, what makes you believe that the "atheist" methodology that you described (not believing in a God and constant questioning) is the right one versus believing in a creator and a God. How can you claim believing in a God wrong?
     
    K

    Kasparov

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    True. But the question can be reformulated to, what makes you believe that the "atheist" methodology that you described (not believing in a God and constant questioning) is the right one versus believing in a creator and a God. How can you claim believing in a God wrong?
    I also do not believe in Santa clause, Thor, Superman, and Godzilla, so what makes following evidence, using logic, self questioning, etc right vs. believing in any of these entities with no proof ? I think believing in God is wrong from a moral prospective, as any human believing in God is actually running away from responsibility, shutting his/her minds to countless possibilities, laying all on God when things go right or wrong, waiting for God to bring justice. Let us review human history, what has religion brought to the table ? unfortunately not much, where science on the other hand has improved human life significantly, let us take it from the collective human experience of the past 5000 years till now, nations that adopted science and civil law in place of religion are prospering while countries that follow religious law for some reason are always miserable. To end my note I do not believe in absolute right or wrong, as in the end our own reality might not be so real after all, I can judge through my senses & brain which can always be playing tricks on me, to the best of my human ability i would say believing in God is anyone's right, although I find it silly but i cannot disprove the existence of God 100%, absolute results do not really exist .
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    I also do not believe in Santa clause, Thor, Superman, and Godzilla, so what makes following evidence, using logic, self questioning, etc right vs. believing in any of these entities with no proof ? I think believing in God is wrong from a moral prospective, as any human believing in God is actually running away from responsibility, shutting his/her minds to countless possibilities, laying all on God when things go right or wrong, waiting for God to bring justice. Let us review human history, what has religion brought to the table ? unfortunately not much, where science on the other hand has improved human life significantly, let us take it from the collective human experience of the past 5000 years till now, nations that adopted science and civil law in place of religion are prospering while countries that follow religious law for some reason are always miserable. To end my note I do not believe in absolute right or wrong, as in the end our own reality might not be so real after all, I can judge through my senses & brain which can always be playing tricks on me, to the best of my human ability i would say believing in God is anyone's right, although I find it silly but i cannot disprove the existence of God 100%, absolute results do not really exist .
    You also forgot the fear and violence factors which is the main driver of organized religions.

    Humans believing in God, you said, run away from responsibilities ..

    but I said it before and I repeat it, Humans have a big Ego and are very aware of Death, which makes them anxious. Believing in a God that will pamper them in a paradise has been the carrot used by all religions.

    And their stick is eternal fire, what more can you create to make someone believe? Fear .... fear

    Are religions then any different from dictators?? :p in any dictatorship, you don't believe and obey you die ...

    The Same exact tactics are used by Religions and dictators. While of course .. a propaganda to qualify the dictator or God as just, loving, caring ...
    It makes a lot harder to overthrow the dictator when both fear and compassion are used !!
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The OP commits a common misconception about atheism. Atheism is not a belief or a religion, and atheists are not a uniform group of people who share the same beliefs, e.g. the same moral standards. One of my favorite authors and contemporary critics of religion, Sam Harris, writes in his book Letter to a Christian Nation:

    "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

    That summarizes my view on atheism. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of unjustified and unverified dogmatic claims that are made by religion. It is the rational and reasonable position to hold -- why would anyone believe something without evidence?

    He adds:

    "I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs."

    Two books by Sam Harris are a must-read, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. I have posted an excerpt from The End of Faith here, if you're interested.

    Other misconceptions about atheism are addressed in this brilliant piece by Sam Harris.

    [fieldset="10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism"]By Sam Harris

    1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

    On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

    2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

    People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

    3) Atheism is dogmatic.

    Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

    4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

    No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

    The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

    5) Atheism has no connection to science.

    Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

    6) Atheists are arrogant.

    When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

    7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

    There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

    There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

    8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding

    Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

    From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

    9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

    Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

    In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

    10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

    If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

    We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.[/fieldset]
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Actually most Atheists will always find that they are wrong about many things, the continuous self questioning, examining evidence, new discoveries, etc... will lead Atheists to simply change and adapt once he/she discovers an idea to be mistaken, absolute truth does not really exist. I also do not like the idea of grouping "Atheists" as every Atheist is different than the other, I prefer call myself a Human, the default state in which i was born, people simply label me as an Atheist because I do not believe in God, this label is imposed on me by organized religion while in truth all humans are born with no religion or belief & its the brainwashing they receive since childhood that shapes most religious attachments later in life.
    Welcome back! :) Wen hal ghaybe?
    Yes, I agree that atheists (most) don't consider themselves to hold the truth. And we're totally ok with that. We realize we may never ever know, but so what? If someone wants to impose on us a beleif system for God, Santa Clause, or Thor, they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So far, in all of humanity's history, we haven't seen a single religion that does that.

    I would also like to add, since we're in Ramadan now, that this holiday used to be a pagan one. Similar to Christmas, December 25 was a pre-Christian Roman holiday. So this "goodness" and "feeling with the poor" that many religious people claim really came from folks who they accuse as Kuffar! LOL.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I already hinted in my previous post that not all atheists are the same! One is bound to find ignorants and a**holes everywhere.

    However, if you want to quote science in your arguments, it won't work out when you push some assumptions and label them scientific!
    Same as there are atheists who pretend to know science, there are religious or believers who pretend the same as well!



    I explained above what differentiates a scientific theory, from a scientific hypothesis, from non-scientific ideas and assumptions!

    The theories explaining the source of gravity you are referring to, are very well mathematically tested, and above all constructed using the scientific method, which sets a certain guidelines to follow (in general): make observations, analyze them mathematically, then construct a hypothesis. From there the experimental phase will start to comparisons will be made. Further experiments with the aid of simulation techniques might be performed as well. With the precise considerations of special conditions and exceptions.
    Only then a scientific theory could be approved!

    So it's not up to you or just anybody to label a theory as scientific or not! It depends on the work done and authenticity of this work and the approval of the experts in the respective fields!

    Back to the different gravitational theories, we haven't developed yet the needed technology to test these theories physically in order to know the correct one.

    What you are suggesting about an orchestrator or creator have zero relation with science or any scientific work!

    What is your major if I may ask? Because from what you stated, it seems that either you playing us for fools or lacking some basic scientific knowledge!



    The sequence you quoted above is literally some random assumption that is based on zero observation or any collected information.
    And moreover, it tells nothing!

    You seriously need to study the theory of probability well or over again to know what it is about and when to be used!



    We still don't know why the gravity is there and why it is such a weak force! And we might never know as it is very well possible that there is no reason or purpose for the existence of gravity! It could turn out, which is most likely, that quantum gravitons and the resulting gravitational field is just a result of a certain quantum interaction.

    When Newton observed that Apple falling from the tree, the first question it occurred to his mind was why is that apple falling straight downward.
    But what he was after is how is that happening! According to what mechanism and rules? And that is what he worked on for is life time!

    Well do you simply accept to debate someone on a certain subject without knowing that someone's stance or take on the subject?
    it does not require that much reasoning. the universe/multiverse we live in either spun out of nothing or was created by a Creator. which makes the idea of God a very scientific one. can you refute that argument? you simply choose to believe the universe sprung out of nothing, just like others choose to believe it was created, without any definitive proof to either. you are not much different from religious people.

    i fail to see what my credentials have got to do with our conversation, you should control your enthusiasm a bit. the set of events that has lead to intelligent life is not something that is favored by randomness, in fact its chances are so minuscule that we have no clue if life, not intelligent life, exists elsewhere other than on our planet, that's how minuscule that probability is, and even if life existed on other planets, it still wouldn't refute the idea of a Creator.

    on a side note, how would my set of beliefs impact your perception of the world? you should present your perspective, not offer me an answer that fits mine. i have told you my stance on the subject, you can read it in few lines above. i do however want to point out that you should not have asked this question, because it delineates a willingness to pigeon whole people, and it hints to a perception of Faith that does not differ much from that of fanatic zealots.
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    nothing's new here folks (despite what the subscribers of that ideology may positively keep on saying or believing about themselves), in fact it's as ancient as the first hominids (maybe before)

    there were those people of the ancient past who used to worship the creation instead of a creator (denying a creator, or claiming that the creation is itself a/the creator, or there is no creation/creator, creators that are part of creation, etc.. however they used to put it they'd be falling into ascribing to creation(or to their reality) what others might ascribe to the creator)

    some of them have evolved into explicitly worshiping a creator (or not the creation), (or anything beyond what they could ever fully grasp/attain), (etc) ) while others remained in the former state,

    Those who remained were called pagans, nothing was so wrong in that, yet some of these were additionally called fools for they denied being pagans, and denied also (explicitly/implicitly) the existence of a creator, and are still managing themselves with this particular absurdity till these very days

    guess who they are ? :icon10:

    :p

    note: by saying 'people' i can also mean one person entertaining/passing through all of the mentioned states, anytime
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    it does not require that much reasoning. the universe/multiverse we live in either spun out of nothing or was created by a Creator. which makes the idea of God a very scientific one. can you refute that argument? you simply choose to believe the universe sprung out of nothing, just like others choose to believe it was created, without any definitive proof to either. you are not much different from religious people.

    i fail to see what my credentials have got to do with our conversation, you should control your enthusiasm a bit. the set of events that has lead to intelligent life is not something that is favored by randomness, in fact its chances are so minuscule that we have no clue if life, not intelligent life, exists elsewhere other than on our planet, that's how minuscule that probability is, and even if life existed on other planets, it still wouldn't refute the idea of a Creator.

    on a side note, how would my set of beliefs impact your perception of the world? you should present your perspective, not offer me an answer that fits mine. i have told you my stance on the subject, you can read it in few lines above. i do however want to point out that you should not have asked this question, because it delineates a willingness to pigeon whole people, and it hints to a perception of Faith that does not differ much from that of fanatic zealots.
    DA, please allow me to butt in.

    On the question of weather the universe was created out of nothing, or created by a Creator, scientific reasoning will lead you down the path of if being created out of nothing, i.e. complete randomness. This is because if you say there's a Creator, then who created the Creator? Also, when you consider the infinite amount of time it took for the universe to spark into existence, the randmoness theory begins to make sense. There is no proof, but from the evidence I gather with my senses, randomness is the sound theory.

    You say the set of events that randomly lead to intelligent life are too low, even implying that it only exists in our planet. First of all, do you know how big our universe is? We are in a solar system that exists in the Milky Way galaxy. This galaxy has billions of stars. Our sun is one of them. Do you know how many other galaxies there are? Billions. So when you take the sample (universe) and see that there are billions ot the power billions of stars, randomness of 0.0001% chance to have intelligent life becomes probable. In fact, so probable that there may very well be thousands of advanced civilizations in our universe. You'll say we haven't made contact yet... Yes, that's true, but if you consider the amount of time we started to look for inteligent life (since the 1960's I think), it's like taking a cup of water from the ocean and claiming that this is proof there's no fish in the oceans because there's no fish in your cup.

     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    DA, please allow me to butt in.

    On the question of weather the universe was created out of nothing, or created by a Creator, scientific reasoning will lead you down the path of if being created out of nothing, i.e. complete randomness. This is because if you say there's a Creator, then who created the Creator? Also, when you consider the infinite amount of time it took for the universe to spark into existence, the randmoness theory begins to make sense. There is no proof, but from the evidence I gather with my senses, randomness is the sound theory.

    You say the set of events that randomly lead to intelligent life are too low, even implying that it only exists in our planet. First of all, do you know how big our universe is? We are in a solar system that exists in the Milky Way galaxy. This galaxy has billions of stars. Our sun is one of them. Do you know how many other galaxies there are? Billions. So when you take the sample (universe) and see that there are billions ot the power billions of stars, randomness of 0.0001% chance to have intelligent life becomes probable. In fact, so probable that there may very well be thousands of advanced civilizations in our universe. You'll say we haven't made contact yet... Yes, that's true, but if you consider the amount of time we started to look for inteligent life (since the 1960's I think), it's like taking a cup of water from the ocean and claiming that this is proof there's no fish in the oceans because there's no fish in your cup.

    There is no butting, your input is always appreciated :)

    causality implies that it is literally impossible for the world to have sprang into existence out of nothing. from a scientific perspective this theory is equally challenging as the concept of God itself. it remains that our senses, our thoughts, and our methods have evolved to adapt to our observable universe and the dimensions that we perceive with our senses and faculties, and so did our set of scientific methods, laws and notions. so in fact, as things stand at the moment, to say the wold came out of nothing is itself the biggest defiance against science. because it simply defies the scientific rules as we know them.

    and it remains a fact there is no conclusive scientific evidence to prove or disprove God. hence the term faith. and you can rest assured that as far as the idea of God is concerned, both its supporters and its opponents stand on equal grounds, some find themselves more at ease with randomness, others find themselves more at ease with purpose.

    now with regards to the probability of intelligent life, intelligence may be the inescapable result of organic or even inorganic life forms, given the ability of the DNA to evolve and encode its needed data. but it is not simply the size of the universe, nor the number of planets, it is rather the infinitesimally small chance that everything is readily available for life to spring. and yes, life didn't appear on earth until it was 3 billion years old, but that makes it even more rare and precious. so what gave these sequences of atoms and molecules their properties to cling together and grow, and become alive, first in unicellular, then in multicellular organisms, and then comes awareness, and the "me" and so on. i am very well aware of the vastness of the universe, roughly there exist between 10 to the power 23 stars in the observable universe. that's this number: 1000000000000000000000000. the number may appear to be huge, but in reality the probability of life springing out of random is still tiny and minuscule. this is not a quantifiable quantity.

    so to summarize, and to make things simpler,why would we claim certainty in whether the universe sprang out off nothing or whether it was created? even though both theories equally defy science, and there is no third option, either this or that. the simpler answer is that we do not know. faith is required to embrace any of these two theories, which makes atheists either lacking scientifically, or similar to other believers.
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    it does not require that much reasoning. the universe/multiverse we live in either spun out of nothing or was created by a Creator. which makes the idea of God a very scientific one. can you refute that argument?


    Yes of course I can refute that!
    You totally omitted two big factors:

    - When we say the universe sprung out of nothing, it is not meant that the philosophical nothing that may exist only in our imagination!
    What is meant by nothing is the absence of something. That is the absence of any matter or non-matter!

    We know by now that empty space isn't empty as we first though. It's full of dark energy and quantum fluctuations! And prior to the big bang, the whole space could have been eternally in that form.
    So the big bang could have happened due to a certain quantum interaction that was bound to happen at some time, regardless of how improbable it is to happen.

    And an eternal form of a universe which could very well make room for events such as the big bang, won't need any creator to help in such "creating" events!

    - The various theories of the multiverse. The most mathematically stable and correct being the string theory!
    This suggests that our universe is one of infinite set of universes that have been eternally been springing out and dying throughout time! Each universe would have its own characteristics and set of physical laws. These universes exist in a multi-dimension space parallel to each other!
    And same as natural selection, some universes are bound to die young, some after a certain time, and some would go eternal.

    There are literally no reason to come out with an imaginative creator of unknown nature and state!
    Simply as no evidence ever lead in that way. And also this would raise even tougher questions about the purpose of that being, and its characteristics!
    Why is it there? What's the purpose in creating this universe or other universes as well? What is the purpose of a second eternal life for humans if there are any of the sort? What is the purpose in creating anything or any shape or role? etc..
    And if we are taking that much time to comprehend how our universe work and how it started, then studying a being which we can't feel or see or know anything of, and which is supposed to be more complex that its creations including the universe, is literally pointless!


    you simply choose to believe the universe sprung out of nothing, just like others choose to believe it was created, without any definitive proof to either. you are not much different from religious people.
    DA, I'm really stunned that you are pushing these arguments against us! Are you doing it in purpose to pull some answers in a Q&A form, playing the devil advocate, or are these seriously your own arguments?

    Anyway, I don't believe in anything!
    I only analyze what is likely and what is unlikely!
    What is reasonable, and what is wishful thinking or some imagination's work that has no basis in science nor bear any credibility or the slightest of evidence or proper argumentation!

    There is no shame at all that I don't know and can't know the answer for a question!
    I prefer this state over making stuff up and believing in them deeply that would affect my way of life and the others!

    I don't rule out the existence of any supernatural dimension or being. However, while I'm working on it, I can't believe in the existence of anything without evidence and certainly of it existence!

    To me, our current man made religions served as good systems and step forward for mankind at the time. Now we know these are morally and scientifically outdated systems.
    So I live my life as an atheist in the absence of any deity or credible system pointing to a supernatural realm. But in my mind I'm agnostic about everything that is not certain!

    The moment we get any single shred of evidence about any deity or creator, and a set of guidelines that might be meant to abide by, I will admit that and abide!
    So far, nothing of the sort exists other than in our imaginations. And evolution has taught us that humans are prone to such hallucinations by nature. We inherited such genes from our ancestors. So it is not even easy to control our minds regarding this issue.

    Moreover, science has been leading us to very likely scenarios where the universe could exist without any creator.

    i fail to see what my credentials have got to do with our conversation, you should control your enthusiasm a bit. the set of events that has lead to intelligent life is not something that is favored by randomness, in fact its chances are so minuscule that we have no clue if life, not intelligent life, exists elsewhere other than on our planet, that's how minuscule that probability is, and even if life existed on other planets, it still wouldn't refute the idea of a Creator.
    Again you are keen on quoting science yet failing to do so!
    What is special about intelligent life and about humans in specific? You are the one pushing to give things more significance than they bear!

    Life on Earth is just another form of matter. Which exists in about 3% of the universe! The rest being 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter.

    So if it's true that the probability is extremely low for events to occur in a certain sequence leading to this form of life we have on Earth, then there you have: a very live example of that! Us! The Earth and the whole life on it.
    We are situated in an insignificant corner of a huge galaxy, part of a solar system, one of billions of others across the observable universe!
    We live in an expanding universe where galaxies are moving farther apart at an exponential rate. And we rely on star which is bound to die in billions of years, but first will enlarge to suck us our planet in five billions years. And even before that, in one billion year, that sun will be enlarged enough to destroy any form of life on the planet!
    The observable universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years since its inception. Our solar system is 6 billions years old. Our planet is 4.5 billions years old. Life is about 3 billions years old and multicellular life is about 500 millions to 1 billion years old.
    Certain forms of this life have evolved others not. And others went extinct.

    We evolved under the process of natural selection where as a species of the genus Homo, we are one of 11! Ten others went extinct. We are of family Huminids which chimps and gorillas also belong to and still exist. Remains and evidence of some huminids which all three of us descended from exist. And we go further and further back climbing the tree of life till we reach the last common ancestor.

    What makes us as humans that special in that sense? What makes intelligent life any special? What makes life in Earth any special?
    I mean what significance this all bears except that Earth is the only planet we know so far to host such form of matter, and we are the only homo-sapiens we know of.. It's special in the sense that it's unique so far. But is there any significance to all? None.

    on a side note, how would my set of beliefs impact your perception of the world? you should present your perspective, not offer me an answer that fits mine. i have told you my stance on the subject, you can read it in few lines above. i do however want to point out that you should not have asked this question, because it delineates a willingness to pigeon whole people, and it hints to a perception of Faith that does not differ much from that of fanatic zealots.
    Your set of beliefs could my perception of the world by possible learning new information from you, no matter how probable or improbable that is.
    Besides, it's same as you are enjoying your right to question my way of life and the ideas I am convinced in, I think I should enjoy the same right to make it a fair game.

    You are posing questions and arguments against atheism. It makes sense to pose some questions and arguments back against your beliefs to make it easier address these questions and arguments of yours.
    You are trying to use probabilistic, contraposition, and contradiction proofs. Though failing in proving anything so far.

    I may as well try the same against your own perception of the world a well. I need to know what that perception really is first.
     
    K

    Kasparov

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Welcome back! :) Wen hal ghaybe?
    Yes, I agree that atheists (most) don't consider themselves to hold the truth. And we're totally ok with that. We realize we may never ever know, but so what? If someone wants to impose on us a beleif system for God, Santa Clause, or Thor, they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So far, in all of humanity's history, we haven't seen a single religion that does that.

    I would also like to add, since we're in Ramadan now, that this holiday used to be a pagan one. Similar to Christmas, December 25 was a pre-Christian Roman holiday. So this "goodness" and "feeling with the poor" that many religious people claim really came from folks who they accuse as Kuffar! LOL.
    Thanks, I have been following the forums daily but not posting as I am bored of political debates, but this subject interests me a lot, as most Atheists I always learn new things in such discussions.
     
    Republican

    Republican

    Legendary Member
    I didn't know where to put my post, in here, in the christianity or the islam thread. Then i decided that this is the best place (by feeling). I would like to draw a picture to support my theory but i never understood how i can upload a photo from my pc to this forum

    GOD Christianity + Islam + Jewish + Bouddhism + Chamanism + etc.

    - Every religion knows one part (face) of GOD but do not know “all” GOD.

    - The problem is that every religion think that it covers all GOD scope and it is the true road to GOD (religions big ego).

    - But who is GOD and what he really wants? We don’t know, therefore the Atheist refuse to speak about it because they don’t understand him since he speaks different languages and often contradictory. So they prefer to ignore him but they still believe that he exists some how




    All the religion discussion can't be done unless it takes in consideration the human being nature and spiritual capabilities. otherwise it is speculation
    This is definitely not what an atheist is about. That is the definition of an apatheist or a pantheist.
     
    K

    Kasparov

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    it does not require that much reasoning. the universe/multiverse we live in either spun out of nothing or was created by a Creator. which makes the idea of God a very scientific one. can you refute that argument? you simply choose to believe the universe sprung out of nothing, just like others choose to believe it was created, without any definitive proof to either. you are not much different from religious people.


    your assumption is that there is a beginning and end point for our universe as you measure things based on time as you feel it, in reality for all we know there might not be a beginning point and the universe existed always (in cycles, collapsing and expanding with every bigbang), actually what is "nothing" ? think about it, try to imagine "Nothing", you can't, In reality there is always something .

    and I do not understand what you mean by "the idea of god is very scientific", what do you mean by a scientific idea ?
     
    K

    Kasparov

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter

    and it remains a fact there is no conclusive scientific evidence to prove or disprove God. hence the term faith. and you can rest assured that as far as the idea of God is concerned, both its supporters and its opponents stand on equal grounds, some find themselves more at ease with randomness, others find themselves more at ease with purpose.
    .
    There is no conclusive evidence to disprove Thor either . Science does not disprove as a matter of fact you cannot disprove anything, you can only prove something, so the burden of proof is on you here. and by the way which God are you talking about ? there are like 2600+ different God's from different religions, can you give us some idea of the God you believe in ?
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    Actually most Atheists will always find that they are wrong about many things, the continuous self questioning, examining evidence, new discoveries, etc... will lead Atheists to simply change and adapt once he/she discovers an idea to be mistaken, absolute truth does not really exist.
    This fact is even worth a separate thread!
    I wanted to make a dedicated post only about this one.

    It's really important to note that in science we change our opinions and views and new information comes!
    We are inconstant learning mode. Certainty has no place in science. It's important to keep evolving and changing as we learn new facts.

    The ability to live in a way capable of changing one's mind is very important and not easy to do!
    Many humans fail completely to do so!

    We are egoists by nature. And to control this trait it takes some practice and efforts.

    people simply label me as an Atheist because I do not believe in God, this label is imposed on me by organized religion while in truth all humans are born with no religion or belief & its the brainwashing they receive since childhood that shapes most religious attachments later in life.
    Another post I wanted to make about forms of atheism. But since you also mentioned this, it is important to note how atheists divided into categories:

    - Implicit atheism: The state where a human is not aware of or has not been exposed to any theistic belief. Newborns are implicit atheists. Or cavemen in some isolated places in the world are another example.

    - Explicit atheism: The state where a human is aware of his atheism. When a human can define what atheism is and convinced of it.

    - Weak/negative atheism: It is the state of non-theism.

    - Strong/positive atheism: It is the state of positive affirmation of the non-existence of deities.

    And here is a diagram to show the relation between these categories:



    Many atheists would rather to label themselves as anti-theists. Or agnostics living their lives as atheists.
    No intellectual individual would claim "I know there is no god or deity".

    Atheism in general think that it is very improbable that there is any god, and that's why they live their lives as if none exists.
    One day we might know for sure. But we might also never know.
     
    Republican

    Republican

    Legendary Member
    Let's suppose the formation of the universe was a series of mutually-exclusive events E1, E2, E3, ...Ei (where i is a natural number and i > 3).
    The probability of all these events to happen by chance is P = E1 x E2 x E3 x ... x Ei ≈ 0 (where ≈ means approx equal).
    Lets suppose P = ε, where ε ≈ 0, acording to the laws of probability, E, which is the series of the events mentioned above, is considered to be so low probable that it is considered impossible.

    This is how I see it.
    Occam's razor can solve your theistic problem)))
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
    I love this quote by Sam!
    I'm a fan of his work as well.

    I recommend his latest book, Free Will.
    I admit he puts forward one very well thought argument, and hard to swallow at the same time!
    The notion that free will doesn't exist is disturbing when one thinks about it for the first instance.

    I will open a thread to discuss this subject when I'm due with the book.
     
    Top