Any Atheists in the House?

[Mr Pheer]

Study the complexity of an eyeball.

May we use one of yours?

[OverdueNudes]

Your several pieces of evidence are just ideas that you think help strengthen your faith. We're talknig about evidence OF Gods, not evidence of theories about Gods. Are YOU even paying attention?

[smutnut]

"we are really not that complex"
^^^ That is probably one of the most ignorant things you've written in your entire life. Study the complexity of even a single cell. Study the complexity of an eyeball. Study the complexity of just about any life form whatsoever.

I think I understand you now. You're smart. Everything is complex. Thus there is a God. Simple really. good night. Really this time.

[Grapesoda]

Atheism is an extreme determination that nothing else that matters that is a higher power could possibly exist. Agnosticism is the denial of responsibility.

It basically comes down to - what the fuck does it really matter? if you think God is supreme why even bother praying. He can't answer your prayers because he has bigger plans than you.

the bible says we can't understand God's ways yet there are churches everywhere making you commit to things we can't understand.

I say it is all irrelevant. If God exists, he doesn't matter to your everyday life no more than the daily life a a single cockroach should matter to you. It can't. It's just semantics within our own logic.

It's really that simple be you left or be you right...

prayer might not get you a parking spot or a ticket to concert BUT prayer can alter human emotion and perception, AND changing your emotion and perception can change YOUR life AND if something must change in any given 'human' circumstance it might as well be 'you'. pretty simple really...

[Donny]

Then what does it even matter. You are pulling your own God out of your ass and wanting us all to worship him. I don't get it.

Where have I said that? This thread, as I've repeated many times, discusses the existence of God. Personally, I lack the missionary drive to convert anyone to my religious beliefs. I really don't care whether or not you choose to be a Christian or a non-Christian. But the existence of God is not a religious belief. I love debating such things.

I also love debating Christianity, but that would be a new thread. Perhaps I'll start that thread once this one has run it's course.

I promised my little cousin we'd watch an episode of Vampire Diaries before she has to go to bed, so this has to be my last post for now or it'll be too late to keep that promise. Thanks for being civil. I've enjoyed our discussion so far.

[Grapesoda]

Three dimensions of nature that point to the existence of God:

1. The fact that nature obeys laws.
2. The dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.
3. The very existence of nature.

WHY does rational thought exist? WHY does nature obey laws? WHY do subatomic particles exist? WHY does life itself exist? Chemicals combine together, sure. But LIFE is not attained by combinations of chemicals. Self awareness is not attained by combinations of chemicals. How did LIFE come from non-life? And WHY did reproduction begin?

There is no proof for this, on either side.

Why are the laws of nature so precise, universal and tied together? Why does the universe even bother to exist? Einstein called the answer to questions like this ?the mind of God?. That?s how he explained it. And before you say Einstein didn?t believe in God, here is a quote from him:

"I?m not an atheist, and I don?t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn?t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.?

Einstein also said, of atheists, ?What really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of their views.? He renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. He very much believed in a ?superior reasoning force,? a ?superior mind,? an ?illimitable superior spirit? and a ?mysterious force that moves the constellations?, of which he was speaking about God. There are many well known scientists who believed the same way.

Even Charles Darwin was a theist. He wrote:

"[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Many modern day scientists reflect this exact same belief.

if you must use this much text to try and explain or justify a 'god' you are definitely playing mental hopscotch with yourself... in my expereince, the more text, the less substance

[Grapesoda]

It's like reading the Greek Myths which are much better written.

Christianity is based on Greek myth, and the Greek part takes place in the Catholic Church between young boys and priest

[Phillipmcd1]

Which scientists are we talking about? Biologists or physicists? Because biologists don't really study complexity, and there are a lot of physicists who believe in the existence of God. FYI: Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin both believed God exists.

American National Academy of Sciences, only 7% believe in a God. I also have a study that shows that prayer has the same results as chance, in some cases worse than chance but you didn't go there so I'll shut up about that. And Darwin was agnostic, he didn't convert on his deathbed.

Darwin said "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." He agreed that Christianity was "not supported by the evidence", but he had reached this conclusion only slowly.

The "Lady Hope Story", first published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were rejected by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.

[buzzard]

God is a hydra headed word.
Reality exists. Existence exists. No other explanation needed.
To ask who created existence is an infinite regression question.

Existence exists. Always has and always will.

Why put a mythical GOD in place of reality?
If you do and you're honest, then you should also ask who created god.
.

[xholly]

You miss something: even if the universe kept expanding and contracting on itself, starting over and over again, there has not been enough time in THIS version of the universe for the complexities of our existence.

what makes you say this? there has been exactly enough time for the universe to evolve to the point we observe around us.

the monkeys writing shakespere is used as an example of infinity.

[Vjo]

If "you" (each of 7 billion people) on ave pray or think of God for 5 seconds/day then every second of every day 100,000 prayers or thoughts are being fired off to God.

Just kind of fun with numbers.

So I figure IF there is a God he is tired of us and surely things are not as simple as the Catholic church says where we all sit around and pray ect all day. That is way too simplistic besides..

do you really want to spend the rest of eternity with your relatives or even people in general?

I am afraid we are but like the deer, the flowers and the trees. Just biology that is advanced at different rates and which decays at different rates.

But I WANT to believe.

[jimmy-3-way]

Three dimensions of nature that point to the existence of God:

1. The fact that nature obeys laws.
2. The dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter.
3. The very existence of nature.

WHY does rational thought exist? WHY does nature obey laws? WHY do subatomic particles exist? WHY does life itself exist? Chemicals combine together, sure. But LIFE is not attained by combinations of chemicals. Self awareness is not attained by combinations of chemicals. How did LIFE come from non-life? And WHY did reproduction begin?

There is no proof for this, on either side.

Why are the laws of nature so precise, universal and tied together? Why does the universe even bother to exist? Einstein called the answer to questions like this ?the mind of God?. That?s how he explained it. And before you say Einstein didn?t believe in God, here is a quote from him:

"I?m not an atheist, and I don?t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn?t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.?

Einstein also said, of atheists, ?What really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of their views.? He renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. He very much believed in a ?superior reasoning force,? a ?superior mind,? an ?illimitable superior spirit? and a ?mysterious force that moves the constellations?, of which he was speaking about God. There are many well known scientists who believed the same way.

Even Charles Darwin was a theist. He wrote:

"[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

Many modern day scientists reflect this exact same belief.

Is this an invitation to share my thoughts on what I believe to be evidence of an intelligent First Cause (God)? If so, I'm happy to do so.

One particularly powerful bit of evidence for God from a theist?s perspective is the very fact that you and I are having this conversation to begin with. Richard Dawkins (the famous atheist evangelist) can?t explain why we are capable of rational thought, nor why our minds are capable of logic and order. I see the mind as glowing evidence of a creator. You do not. I see emotions as evidence of a creator. You do not. I see mathematical formulas as evidence of a creator. You do not. And do it goes, and so it goes.

So many atheists make the same mistake as the likes of Richard Dawkins:
You?re seemingly unaware that logical positivism was discarded in the 50s, by the very scholars who brought the concept into existence in the first place.

In case you don?t know what that term means, here is a web definition of logical positivism:
?A form of positivism, developed by members of the Vienna Circle, that considers that the only meaningful philosophical problems are those that can be solved by logical analysis.?

God is indeed a philosophical debate.

From a book by Antony Flew?s:
?[Atheist Evangelists like Dawkins] show no awareness of the fallacies and muddles that led to the rise and fall of logical positivism? It would be fair to say that the ?new atheism? is nothing less than a regression to the logical positivist philosophy that was renounced even by its most ardent proponents. In fact, the ?new atheists,? it might be said, do not even rise to logical positivism. The positivists were never so naive as to suggest God could be a scientific hypothesis-they declared the concept of God to be meaningless precisely because it was not a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins, on the other hand, holds that ?the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question?? I seek to show that our immediate experience of rationality, life, consciousness, thought, and the self militate against every form of atheism, including the newest.?

One problem, in my opinion, is that so many of you so-called ?atheists? are so far opposite from scientific minds that you revere the word ?scientist? as if such a person holds the keys to knowledge. That?s simply not correct. God is not a scientific discussion. God is a philosophical discussion.

This next quote comes from John D Barrow, who is an English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician. He is currently Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He obtained his first degree in mathematics and physics from Van Mildert College at the University of Durham in 1974. In 1977, he completed his doctorate in astrophysics at Magdalen College in the University of Oxford. He did two postdoctoral years in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, he?s not an idiot.

Of Richard Dawkins he said:

"You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you?re not really a scientist. You?re a biologist [to Barrow, biology is little more than a branch of natural history - now let's continue the quote]. Biologists have a limited, intuitive understanding of complexity. They?re stuck with an inherited conflict from the nineteenth century, and are only interested in outcomes, in what wins out over others. But outcomes tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe.?

The biggest problem for those who don't believe in an intelligent First Cause is that they cannot explain complexity.

Best part about being an atheist?

I've never wasted one second of my precious, short life thinking about stupid circular arguments to convince believers not to believe.

[Evil1]

How come adults stop believing in Santa but not all stop believing in Gods? Santa has thousands of books and songs too. This is bullshit. SAVE SANTA!!!

Crutch for the emotionally fragile that are incapable of dealing with the possibility that human death could actually be the end. You have to admit it sure sounds good, grandma and grampa waiting for you in heaven where you get to spend eternity in paradise, it's easy to see how thats appealing to those less evolved. Of course the only way to get there oddly enough is to accept jesus at church, do exactly what they say, and hand over money (and small male children) weekly.

[Evil1]

"we are really not that complex"
^^^ That is probably one of the most ignorant things you've written in your entire life. Study the complexity of even a single cell. Study the complexity of an eyeball. Study the complexity of just about any life form whatsoever.

Study the complexity of Cerns Large Hadron Collider!

Oh shit! sorry, man made.

[raymor]

Ok lets take the amtrack test. We meet on some train tracks, you use jesus to survive, just stand there and pray. ill go with science, science tells me if I get the fuck off the track I'll be fine. After I find where your head rolled off to we can discuss the results.

Or do you not have faith in your god? Cash the fuckin check your mouth writes.

You have faith in the laws of physics. I too have faith in those same laws. If I have faith in the creator of those laws, I will have faith in the laws he created, will I not? The ancient writings, including the Bible, tell me to be mindful of natural law (physics).

You forget the Bible is full of things like the sanitary way to butch meat, draining the blood and all, don't eat shellfish if refrigeration hasn't been invented, don't start a project without without planning ahead, etc. "Don't stand on train tracks" would fit right in.

"Thou shalt not screw thy neighbors wife, for thou neighbor mighteth kick thine ass." You didn't think all that was arbitrary did you? Most of the biblical admonishments are pretty much warnings to pay attention to things that can hurt you, like trains, seductive evil women, etc. That's why so many of them take the form "the wise man does this, the foolish man does that." "The wise man stays clear of trains, the fool gets drunk on the tracks" would fit right in.