PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
I don't see enough evidence to support the claim that god exists or is necessary to even be proposed. I'm still open to the idea, but not without some proof.
I can tollerate any theism up to the point where people begin to claim that without faith, there would be no reason not to go around murdering everyone (had that conversation once... never spoke to them again). I draw that line, because somewhere near that is the theism point of "I will kill you if I think my god wants it to be so." Everything else, believe what you want, just expect me to call you on it at times.
Not until I can load my memories into a robot body.
Nope again.
I'm more inclined to believe that there is life on other planets as we have observed life on one planet already. I'm not similarly inclined with gods since noone has ever demonstrated empirically any god.
Possible. I like them as far as a sci-fi element in stories... but as far as an explanitory mechanism, I don't see a reason for them (though I do lack serious training in cosmology). If there were, I'm more inclined to the serial universe model, in which the previous one collapsed and re-expanded to form ours.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
(1) Atheism can be both. Atheism and theism are terms used in a theological classification system that is primarily concerned with matters of belief. In the domain of belief, there are essentially three positions: (A) belief in the affirmative, such as "the universe was created through the conscious act of a being called god"; (B) belief in the negative, such as "the universe was not created through the conscious act of a being called god"; and (C) no belief on the matter at all. Theism is the classification category for people who fit (A). Atheism is the classification category for the others, (B) and (C).
(2) I do not know that the universe was not created through the conscious act of a being called god. I think cogent arguments can be made against many deity concepts--Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Elyon, and so forth--but I do not know of a way to prove that no god concept was involved at all. I am an atheist in the sense that I fit (C) but I do have a slight leaning toward (B).
(3) I have no problem at all with theism. My father believes Yahweh created the world in a week, flooded the Earth, commanded Noah to build an ark, and all that jazz. I talk to my father about the Bible all the time. My father doesn't put me in a position where I am forced with the question of whether to tolerate it or not. To say "I should tolerate X" is to say "X is very annoying and possibly dangerous but I should allow it anyway." If people didn't push their belief on others or try to mold politics in a way that is suitable to their ideologies, I wouldn't need to tolerate theism because it wouldn't be annoying and possibly dangerous.
(4) No, I do not. I think the notion of an afterlife arose mainly out of ignorance of the nature of death. People view it as this terrible thing, and I don't understand that view. Epicurus' argument is well founded, in my opinion. If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which doesn't exist when I do? If there is anything about death that I fear, it is the transition to that state, not the state itself. Also, I'm quite puzzled as to why someone would want an eternal afterlife. Could there be an infinite amount of facts to discover, infinite number of people to love, and infinite experiences to fill with joy those infinite years? I cannot fathom how such things could be true, which leads me to think of an eternal afterlife as consisting of eternal boredom and eternal sorrow.
(5) No, I do not. I cannot. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of what, exactly, a soul or spirit is supposed to be. People say it is immaterial. That is, it is not material. If it is not material, what is it? It's spirit or soul. What's that? It's immaterial. Okay, then what is it? Spirit and soul seem, to me, to be meaningless words conveying no clear meaning and pointing to no concrete (non-abstract) entity.
(6) Yes. I do think it is possible that there is other intelligent life on other planets. I believe in the possibility (our existence justifies the position that intelligent life is possible) but not the actuality. I will need to be presented with evidence to justify the belief that there are such beings.
(7) No. That is not to say I believe there are no other universes, but I haven't been presented with any reason to justify beliefing they are possible, let alone actually existing. Suppose we have four universes, and they're touching. You're left with a concave-diamond inbetween them. Inbetween the four universes there would be a space without a space dimension. Does it make sense to speak of spaces without space? Are there actually no spaces without space but actually things occupying that region? If you fill that space with circular universes, the same problem arises but now there are more gaps. Are there an infinite amount of universes? Or is there some concave-diamond shaped universe inbetween the circular ones? What in the world is a concave-diamond shaped universe and how would that work? The idea doesn't make much sense to me.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Okay, let me answer.
1. B
2. I compare the chances of god existing, to the chances of Santa clause existing.
3. I tolerate the theism that does not interefere with science, reality, or general life. Sadly, most religions, and all influential religions to date, do not coincide with any of the above. Therefore, most religions to date, are all unacceptable.
4. No.
5. No. Well, unless a parallel world exists. Perhaps that could COUNT as another "spiritual" World. But this is highly unlikely.
6. Definately. It would be egotistical not to.
7. Not until definate proof can be provided.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
What I find truly fascinating about Dawkins and his ilk (whom I agree with on several points, I should add) is their willingness to accept the implausible when it’s convenient for their argument. He writes: “The origin of life on this planet - which means the origin of the first self-replicating molecule - is hard to study, because it (probably) only happened once, 4 billion years ago and under very different conditions from those with which we are familiar. We may never know how it happened. Unlike the ordinary evolutionary events that followed, it must have been a genuinely very improbable - in the sense of unpredictable - event: too improbable, perhaps, for chemists to reproduce it in the laboratory or even devise a plausible theory for what happened.”
In other words, we don’t know how life got started. We may never know. So is the notion of some sort of higher power so unthinkable, given the general lack of understanding that Dawkins admits is part and parcel of this issue?
Another quote from "The God Delusion": “It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values…. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work.”
Dawkins and I agree: the universe is very, very, improbable. What Dawkins doesn’t seem (or want) to understand is that a reasonable, rational human being can look at this very improbability and come to a different conclusion about it than he has, one that includes the notion of a higher power.
And finally, there is this bit of musing: “Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe - everything we can see - is only one universe among perhaps billions. Some theorists postulate a multiverse of foam, where the universe we know is just one bubble. Each bubble has its own laws and constants. Our familiar laws of physics are parochial bylaws. Of all the universes in the foam, only a minority has what it takes to generate life.”
The “multiple universe theory” is hardly new. But as things stand right now, while it is certainly fascinating, there is scant evidence for it, and more importantly, no way whatsoever of proving it by somehow discovering those other universes. As soon as Dawkins uses words like “suspect” and “postulate”, what he’s really saying is: “I don’t know. It just kind of makes sense to me”.
But as a means of factoring God out of the equation, the “anthropic principle” is a self-serving argument. It is a variation on the old idea that if you have an infinite number of monkeys pounding away on an infinite number of keyboards, eventually they will produce Shakespeare. This is patent nonsense. An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on an infinite number of keyboards will produce an infinite number of broken keyboards. But, say the adherents of the “anthropic principle”, what if we had an infinite number OF infinite numbers of monkeys…, etc.
Many scientists embrace this idea, but there also are many who don’t. Both groups seem to agree on one thing: it’s impossible to prove. But it may be impossible to disprove. Just like the existence or non-existence of God.
Dawkin’s chief rebuttal to the so-called "argument from design" rests squarely on the anthropic principal, which itself only works if one accepts an idea of multiple universes which even its proponents state is empirically unprovable.
It is interesting to note that, in answer to my original question, the members of this group who responded either rejected the concept of mulitple universes altogether, or at most embraced it a very half-hearted way. So surely my belief in some kind of a higher power, the nature of which I in no way claim to know, is no stranger than the notion that our universe is one of billions. This speculation has no more evidence to support it than my belief.
So that said, is it so unreasonable to look at the universe, with all it’s complexity, efficiency, AND its implausibility (as even Dawkins admits), to SPECULATE about the POSSIBILITY of the existence of some higher power?
I look at the universe, and I surmise the existence Something Intelligent. You look at the same universe, and you don’t. Who can really say, given how little we truly know about it, who is right?
1. For ME it's MORE OF a case of choice a.
2. Chose A so....moving on
...
3. For me someone who is like agnostic theist (like an ex of mine) who leaned more to the thought of believing a god or gods or supreme being (s) could exist more than probably not is the only degree that's just barely acceptable to me.
4. If you mean believe is as you think or suppose in being possible then yeah.....I don't think or feel everything stops after you're thrown into the ground.
5. If you mean believe is as you think or suppose in being possible then kinda.
6. If you mean believe is as you think or suppose in being possible then yes.
7. not sure.
---George Carlin---
I don't think it's unreasonable when you agree there is no evidence for it. Atheists have a huge problem with those that claim to know the mind of such a higher power and try to impose their beliefs on others.
I agree with you, the answer is simply "I don't know." And as such I find it better to remain an atheist until some evidence comes along. Also I agree with the "weak anthropic principle" in that "We can only see a universe suited for life" so our view of reality is constrained by that.
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
1) a.
2) n/a
3) By tolerate do you mean not oppose? No, I don't think so. Any organization that is bent on influencing people and their opinions through mysticism and/or fear I oppose. This includes non-religions organizations.
4) No.
5) No.
6) Yes.
7) Yes, and I'll claim ignorance on the second part. I think the more we learn about this, the more we'll know about potential limitations and what is outside of the universe. Is a universe a grain of sand in something bigger? I don't know. I claim ignorance, but I find reading the the ideas fascinating.
1,2. I know there is no god as in creator. There is no reason for there to be a creator and no explanation for there to be a creator.
3. I can and do definately tolerate theism in others. Everyone has a right to believe what they like as long as they don't hurt others. The problem is that religion is intrinsically insidiously evil. I look on nice religious folk with a bit of sadness, as they are suffering from delusion disorder. I suppose an agnostic or deist who doesn't have their actions coloured by religion is the best sort of theist.
4. no
5. Spiritual as in supernatural? Not really, I suppose I am a bit agnostic, but I have seen no proof of it and therefore no real reason to believe.
6. Yes. I believe in the right circumstances it is inevitable for life to evolve. Statistically I think it is highly likely.
7. Yes, there are rational arguments for it, but it is conjecture, so I don't know about number. I haven't looked into it enough.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
..therefore Jesus.
That's how your line of thinking goes right? I've seen these arguments before, so I'm not going to go about refuting them, but I find it funny how theists will go to any stretch to find a gap for a God who is clearly nothing like the one they worship.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
#1 Halfway beteen A & B
#2 If God exists why did he only reveal himself to a small number of humans and not the whoe human race. If God exists (per Genesis) the universe being only 6000 years old yet seems to be 4.5 billion years old, therefore if God exists he would be either a con artist or a clown.
#3 Yes as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and stop trying to "save me".
#4 No
#5 No
#6 sceptical not enough info.
#7 possible as to the fininity or infinity not enough info
Personnaly I don't see any reason to even suspect the existence of a God.
Yes there is.
While I have no respect at all for young earth creationists, I can understand the agnostic/deist point of view, even though I find it to be a weak stance.
After my death, life will still go on earth (unless a nearby star goes supernova on our ass and kill us all). So yeah ok !
I believe in life after death.
If by spiritual you mean : A world were "souls" live into. Soul being what we feel and think ( personality, emotions, intellect and every cognitive phenomenon.)
Yes I do believe in that world... Simply because I live in it and I like to call that world : The Universe.
My observations tells me that it is possible for life to live on certain kinds of planets. I am here on earth. So why not ? Yes I think it is possible.
This is of course nothing more than speculations but why not ?
Who knows ?
Don't get me wrong, it as nothing to do with me believing that there actually is a multiverse. But I don't rule out this probability. Our universe exists therefore universes can exists, so why not more than 1.
How many ?
How the hell should I know that lol.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
In the assumed universe in which we assumedly exist, divine beings / omnipotent forces / magical deities cannot fit within the laws that it is established as having. So, no - 'God' does not exist within this assumed reality, because beings / forces like God cannot exist within it.
In this assumed reality, all of it's laws have proven quantifiable and measurable, and all things within it are governed by these laws. 'God' cannot exist within the laws of our assumed reality, so I know he is not here.
Certainly. Intolerance, I think, is largely the problem that most people have with theism in the first place - so it seems counter-productive to be intolerant of a person because of their theistic view.
That said, there is a difference between tolerating someone and accepting them as a whole and healthy human being, in my opinion, and I think many with firm theistic views would benefit from being seperated from the elements that leave them entangled (and, in so many cases, largely enslaved) by their beliefs (which often cease being mere beliefs, escalating into obsessions).
Our assumed realities laws, again, do not permit this. So it cannot exist here.
So the answer to question 4.
The laws of our assumed reality make this not only plausible, but extremely likely. Unfortunately, they also place any said life outside our realistic range for making contact / discovery, both time and distance considered.
Our assumed universe's laws permit the possibility, so yes, I know that the possibility is there.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
A. Most atheists will admit (however grudgingly) that if incontrivertible evidence were presented that proved beyond any doubt that a god exists, we would convert to that religion. We simply haven't seen evidence that stands up to serious scrutiny yet. A case for B can be made for any god that is given internally contradictory attributes (for instance, a god that is an invisible pink unicorn can be proven false because something invisible cannot also be pink). I could go on a long tangent about many gods as written in Earth religions falling into this category, but this isn't really the time or place.
My tolerance ends where negatively affecting the lives of others with theism begins.
I believe life on Earth will continue after my death. I do not believe that I will have any life after my death.
I do not, for the same reason I do not believe in gods. I occasionally dabble with the idea of a spiritual world in fiction because it can easily be used as an allusion to another concept, but I do not seriously consider its existence.
It's possible, yes. I've yet to see any proof of it, however. Had question 1 been phrased, "Do you believe in the possibility of a god?" or if this question had been written, "Do you believe in intelligent life on other planets?", the answers would have been identical.
See above. I am passingly familiar with string theory and quantum universes and such, but I don't know the material well enough to objectively state one way or the other. Quantum physics is, to put mildly, unintuitive, and I haven't been able to wrap my brain around the particulars.
It's "a" for a general god concept. Like I can't prove that the Universe was not created by a tooth fairy, it's "a" on that. On certain gods in which a Holy Book is offered and I can read about the god, interpret data, and understand the logical impossibilities, it is "b."
In fact, I've said before that I am more sure that Yahweh doesn't exist, than I am of my own existence.
Logical contradictions. Like for example a loving god that sends you to hell or creates AIDS. Yes I know there are "answers" and "excuses" for such love/evil contradictions, I recognize them as flawed.
I can tolerate people that don't take others down with them in their ignorance. A deist asserting with certainty a gods existence with supposed scientific proof is speaking jibberish, and dumbing people down. If the same deist is something like Capt. Pineapple (a deist on our site with a ton of posts) he can be tolerated.
Please understand, when I use "tolerate" I mean, I could hang out with the person, converse about a variety of topics, and not have an underlying stomach ache from his/her theological view. I don't condone harming anyone ever that has different beliefs than you, I think we should talk out our differences. When you say "tolerate" as it relates to me it's much more about ridiculing that which I think is absurd rather than harming the people who believe in it.
I'm so careful here because I feel as if this may have been your first loaded question. By the way... I didn't read any comments in the thread, and I may not have time to come back to see if you responded to my answers.
NO.
NO. If you use spiritual as a metaphor for describing, wonder, awe, amazement, and grand beauty than I see some "spirituality" in our Universe. However I proudly avoid the word as it is almost always used with a connotation of "God" and I think it confuses the issue being discussed. Metaphorically speaking this would be the closest thing I know to spiritual.
Yes. See Edwin Drakes equation.
Plug the data in the Drake Equation
N=R*fs*fp*ne*fl*fi*fc*L
DRAKE EQUATION
The Drake equation is a formula for estimating the possible number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. Most of the terms in this equations are unknown. In the equation, N is the number of civilizations, R is the average rate of star formation in the galaxy (about 20 stars per year ), fs is the fraction of stars that are suitable (about 0.1), fp is the fraction of stars with planets (about 0.5), ne is the mean number of planets that are located in a "habitable zone," where water exists in liquid form, fl is the fraction of these planets on which any life form evolves, fi is the fraction of places where some the life becomes intelligent, fc is the is the fraction of intelligent species who could communicate with us, and L is the lifetime (in years) of a civilization (this is quite uncertain). The equation was formulated by radio astronomer Frank Drake in 1961.
Yes. I believe that if there are multiple universes they could be counted and are therefore finite, but I could be wrong.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I am god and I am all that is. All I am is connected as one. The details are infinite.
Life as meaning consciousness is abundant every where. Does a rock or plant know everything? Yes. Can it communicte it to you? NO, unless you listen and study very hard.
Bible quote: "May those who have Eyes, See; and those who have Ears, Hear."
Poetry in the name of the Moses/Jesus school of midrash metaphorical, - poetry and more poetry.
THEN CAME SCIENCE ! Then electicity and the industrial age, then Y2K.
The 7 modes in music, are poetic perfection but hardly anyone gets it either, even some of the funniest players that freakwent here.
God ? That would be me ...... all of it, I don't keep track of the details, too many .... too few visions and words of ours to communicate ..... but we are working on it , it's this evolution , in this dimension, we god as you, exist in this part of atomic consciousness.
Touch yourself, and another, consult a mirror .... fear not ....
, no worrys, love ya, GOD as U )))) G = U , a simple equation.
Test it ....
add beer .... talk with the moon .....
Atheism Books.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
1. Sorry to split the difference, but here I go. Mostly A, but that doesn't quite go far enough. It's that there isn't enough evidence, but there isn't enough evidence to believe a lot of things that still may be likely. It's not merely a question of belief, it's a question of probability. Does the existence of God provide a logical answer to any question? Is it a good hypothesis? And no, it is not a good hypothesis because it doesn't make logical sense. So it's more B, I know there is not a God, just like I know there are no leprechauns. OK, sure, in some remote corner of space, I suppose, there *might* be leprechauns, but it doesn't make sense to say anything other than 'no, there are no leprechauns,' because the evidence is overwheimingly against such a thing.
2. Er, see above.
3. Wow, lots of undefined terms here. Does anyone have a right to think whatever they want. Absolutely. However, a literal belief in a an outside entity that influences your behavior is, in a social context, problematic. Since we all live in a social setting, I think any irrational 'belief' is potentially problematic. Therefore, while I certainly 'accept' anyone's belief, I do not accept anyone's belief-motivated actions when they affect someone else. Since none of us live perfectly isolated lives, this pretty much means everyone whose beliefs form some dictate of action or behavior.
4. I know there are some (though precious few) things that haven't been able to be explained by science (yet), but no, I do not, for the same reasons as number one.
5. Same answer as above.
6. I find it statistically improbable that, given the vastness of the universe, Earth has the only sentient being in existence. That does not mean I believe in anything, but I admit that we just don't know, and possibly never will.
7. I believe there have been some discoveries demonstrating this within quantum physics, so (assuming I am correct in that assertion) yes.
Cheers!
_________________________________________________________
"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."
A see no evidence for God or anything supernatural. I know that God doesn’t exist the same way I know our Sun isn’t a God. They are both ancient myths but I admit that I could be proved wrong in the future on both accounts.
See above
I tolerate religion as long as it doesn’t affect our planet. Sadly, almost all religions affect the world in a negative way. Keep it to yourself and I’ve no problems.
Nope
No, although people can have ‘spiritual’ experiences that have nothing to do with the supernatural.
There is life on our planet so I’d imagine there could be life somewhere else due to the sheer vastness of our universe.
Not sure about this one. There are many unanswered questions about our universe that I believe will be answered by science in the future. It may take thousands of years before we can even begin to answer that one. Ask your descendants to ask mine in about 5k years!
1. a.) "I don't see enough evidence for the existence of God, therefore I don't believe in one"
I choose A.
3. I can tolerate theists. In fact, I have a theist friend. I find them silly, but heck. I am okay with the harmless kinds of theism.
4. No.
5. No.
6. Yes.
7. Yes, I suppose there's some sort of a chance. Finite or infinite, I don't know. I'd rather just believe in stuff I see and things that are proven than think of things I have no way of knowing.
1)a
2) N/A
3) I tolerate all levels of theism as long as they refrain from the use of force to spread their beliefs. I do not respect theists much nor am I accepting of them
4) No
5) No
6) Yes
7) Yes. A finite amount.
1. b, I know God doesn't exist.
2. It's a nonsensical term. If any theists disagree, I ask them to prove that I am wrong - not that I MIGHT be wrong. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The extent of my claim is simply this: the Theist may think they have invented a definition of God that can exist, but they have no way of knowing if they are even close to the mark. They have no possible way to verify their claim, and thus, their claim is nonsensical. They are welcome to show how I may be wrong.
3. No. Again, the term "god" is meaningless. It is as meaningful as any other term I invent for a collection of random qualities. ("prideful, invisible and democratic is called "Tegry" - does this mean something exists as an entity? If I claim there is such an entity, I am under the obligation to not only show that it COULD exist, but that I would actually have a way of knowing it does exist. I would not blame you for not believing in my invisible friend, Tegry.)
4. No, life has a pretty standard definition and for humans it includes having a body (consciousness, heart beat, or, at least, some sort of biological activity.). Being dead is the opposite of alive. It doesn't make sense to claim that there is life after death. It is wishful happy-talk.
5. You said it! "Lack of a better term". What exactly are you talking about? Perhaps define it and show how you would know it exists. Does the Subnatural exist? Now that I just mentioned it, do you feel that it may? Why?
6. Yes, its possible. Seemingly likely, but also likely that we, as a species and planet, will never know.
7. Yes, its possible but I wouldn't know. However, I know what a universe is, I know that at least one can exist and so it wouldn't be a stretch to think more may exist. Are there a billion Slinkies in the world? How about a billion and one? Sure, its possible.
I wouldn't know if there are infinite number of universes or not. I would assume not, but I could just as easily persuaded otherwise.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
I fall under B, depending on your definition.
There are no coherent/valid and useful definitions of a god in the context of explaining existence. There is an uncommon definition which might be said to exist, which is "a being worthy of worship," which I oppose on principle though.
People are free to believe what they want, but if it hurts me or society in general, then live and let live doesn't work. I take everything on a case-by-case basis.
Not absolutely denying the possibility, but no.
Not absolutely denying the possibility, but no.
Yes.
Are other universes possible? Probably. Finite or infinite? I know nothing about these hypothetical universes, but I don't believe in infinity.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
1.) Not enough evidence to believe in a god.
3.) possibly some form of deism. I know deism has been refuted by many atheists over the years but this is an "if" question.
4.) well I am going to be cremated and scattered on my land back in Illinois, so I will come back as part of a duck, maybe a maple tree and quite possibly gray tree squirrel.
5.) Not enough evidence to support any spiritual world
6.) If there is intelligent life here then I would say that there is a possibility for intelligent extra-terrestrial life elsewhere. We have a great example on this planet that it's possible so be more common than we think it is. However, still not enough proof to say with 100% certainty.
7.) Not enough evidence to support, but I like the idea. I mean why have a hundred billion galaxies and only one universe. Nature has a tendency to produce fractals but until there is some consensus within the scientific community I will go with one for right now.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Hi!
BTW, also a first-time (theist) poster on this forum, so be gentle! =)
When I come across statements like 'that evidence is immensely weighted against God' I wonder what the criteria for "evidence for God" would be. Is it defined anywhere what would constitute evidence for God and what would not? Who gets to define that? I mean, I do not find any scientific explanation on anything is actually able to refute the existence of God. All it can do is simply suggest (perhaps prove is too strong a word here) that nature operates in a demonstrably predictable way under given constraints. What I have observed is that some atheists then interpret this science as suggesting that God doesn't exist. Isn't it more accurate to say that it suggests that some previously-held definition of God is (probably) not correct?
What I perceive in these responses is actually not a rational response, but an emotional reaction to some idea which obviously causes some pain/frustration. It's almost as if there is some personal sense of vindication - a sense of self-righteousness (oh, the irony! =) ). Don't get me wrong - I'm not going on the defensive here, but if we're to have a rational argument then let's keep it as rational as possible.
Personally, I have very strong theist leanings. But I do find 'blind faith' very distasteful. I think it was very aptly put that 'We cannot absolutely prove that there is a God' (although that statement is not provable, being negative), but I would say that God could. Of course, the evidence suggests that He does not go marching down the high street with a big placard, but that does not discount the possibility that His reality can be known. It is certainly true that the non-existence of God can never be proven, since we do not possess the means to prove it, and if God doesn't exist, then He isn't around to prove it either.
I personally seek to validate my belief through "experiment", if I may call it that. Religion that brings no positive benefit is really not worth it.
I would be amongst the first to agree that people all too easily believe in any old thing, and that much religion today (of whatever creed) is "dangerous", but this is more a comment on people and their fragility and not the dogma/doctrine itself, IMHO.
Experiments for God:
I don't know what they would be, but the first few I would try:
1. Ask God if he exists.
2. Pray for Uncle Stu's leg to grow back so he can get his old job back and put food on the table for his kids. Or, that Aunt Sally rids herself of her paranoid schizophrenia so she can live a happier, more fullfilling life, instead of suffering the entire time.
3. Look for evidence: what would evidence of a god be? Large poop floating in space? Is that what planets are?
I'm with you. I have no idea what evidence you look for when you make up a term and declare it exists.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Whoever's defining god.
No emotional response here. There's often a lot of emotion in those who have recently deconverted from a religion, but many have either done so a long time ago, or never were religious. Don't paint atheists with a broad brush, because there's nothing other than a lack of belief that all atheists have in common.
False. If god exists, his existence is provable. Same if he doesn't exist. It's a common myth that you can't prove a negative. Any logician will tell you otherwise.
The means is called logic. Every definition of god I've seen (and I've seen a lot) has been disproven except, perhaps, the simplest one: Creator of the universe. That depends on your definitions of creator and universe.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
1. As far as atheism itself goes, is it a case of a.) "I don't see enough evidence for the existence of (for lack of a better word) God, therefore I don't believe in one". Or is it more like, b.)"I know for a fact that there is no God".
Both.
2. If your answer was (b.), how do you know?
First, there is no evidence for God. Second, there is no necessity for God. Third, there is no proposition for God that has been internally consistent, let alone consistent with the natural universe.
3. The term "theism" is a very broad one, ranging from the bible-thumping, full blooded arch-creationist, all the way to what Dawkins describes as "technically agnostic, but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God'" Is there any level of theism that is acceptable to you, not to believe in yourself, I understand, but that you could tolerate in another person?
I tolerate any personal belief in God. I even encourage it-- that is, the "personal" part. If you must believe in God, please keep it personal, and don't use it as an excuse to treat other people poorly. (Homosexuals should have the right to make the same mistakes in marriage as heterosexuals, for instance.)
In some, true faith is an admirable quality. However, that is extremely rare.
4. Do you believe in any form of life after death?
Absolutely! You continue on in the form of the works you have left behind. Not that any soul or part of your mind nor anything like that persists; rather, the only thing about life that matters (outside of enjoying every possible moment) is how you affect the world. If you leave behind good works, your positive influence continues, at least for a time. If you do harm, your negative influence continues, at least for a time.
As far as any mystical survival of essence beyond the moment of brain death-- no way. You're worm food.
5. Do you believe in, again for lack of a better phrase, a "spiritual world" of any kind?
If you mean some mystical magical happy world where souls meet to drink a pint of bitters: nope. If you mean, "Is there a psychological state that transcends the physical world to which you mind may retreat to seek peace," then: nope. Drop the word "transcends" and you might be on to something. But there is nothing transcendent, nothing "spiritual."
6. Do you believe in the possibility of intelligent life on other planets?
The possibility? Yes. Do I think it likely? Yes.
Does it matter to us? No. The vastness of space is a *big* barrier.
7. Do you believe in the possibility of multiple universes? If the answer is yes, is the number of universes finite or infinite?
The possibility? Yes. As we don't have any substantive model for the possibility of multiple universes, I'd say the second half of the question is unanswerable.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
1. A
2. N\A
3. By religious ideals of tolerate, I tolerate all theists. To take off my smartass hat, I usually only question or challenge those whom I find particularly harmful or hypocritical.
4. There is no evidence to support that memories, thoughts and emotions are stored and processed anywhere other than the brain, therefore when the brain dies, the "essence" of that person is gone.
5. no
6. absolutely, not only possibility, but probability.
7. Yes. No ideal really.
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
Both. Starting with the last part, I am unaware of any god-ideas that make the slightest bit of sense. In the case, then of every god I have ever heard of, I am sure there is no god.
Now back to the first part, if I ever encountered a coherent god-idea (either my own or someone elses's) I would have to allow that it may or may not exist. At that point I would continue to ACT as if it doesn't exist even if it does until I have a good reason to positively accept it.
Welcome.
A. There is a statistical [possibility] probability that all the oxygen molecules in the room I'm in could migrate to the far northeast corner of the room. (Brownian motion is after all, random). The chances of this are very, very slim. To the point I can say with confidence that it's impossible. As with a 'god'...possible, but not likely.
See A.
I have no choice but to 'tolerate' other people's viewpoints. I have no power or authority to change anyones beliefs. The question should be do I tolerate any level of theism in myself. No.
No. My legacy is my children and grand children.
No. The incorporeal and the non-existant are identical.
Yes. Life exists on this planet. Life exists because of the conditions present on this planet. We have evidence (mounting all the time) that similar conditions can and do exist in other places. Thus, the likelyhood is in my estimate very high.
On the other hand, magic has never been shown to work.
No noncorporeal being has ever been shown to exist here.
No act of special creation has ever been witnessed or recorded.
Here I have to plead 'I don't know'.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.