Question to Atheists:

[Jeff7]

If the Universe didn't happen to be orderly, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

There may well be an infinite number of Universes out there - other Big Bangs going on all over the infinite expanse of nothingness beyond our own bubble of spacetime. Many of them might have been either too dense or too tenuous to form matter. Maybe their gravitational constant is different. If those places would be disorderly, then no intelligent life would arise to ask, "Why is this place so disorderly?"

We are simply a product of a place which happens to have certain properties. We look at it and give it the property of being "orderly."

I guess it's impossible to prove 100% that something doesn't exist. Burden of proof lies with proving that something does exist. I just don't see a need for a higher being to exist to bring the Universe into existence, anymore than I see a need for a higher being to be responsible for making light reflect off of my walls. They just happen to do that as an inherent property of the matter of which they are made.

 

[gopunk]

i don't deny it with 100% certainty, i just don't think it's the case. i also don't think any observed "order" is proof at all. it's frankly hard to imagine a world without any rules of any sort, where everything is random, so the existence of one tends not to impress me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Conky
What I've never understood about atheists is that they simply hate that others have any belief besides theirs.

AFAIC you can believe what ever you want as long as you don't insist that I have to adhere to your religious beliefs. If you can do that I couldn't care less what you believe.

Why do they care about making everyone atheists too if they are certain that God doesn't exist?

I don't. I don't have the time nor the inclination to try and change your beliefs. Now that doesn't mean I don't think they are ridiculous but then I expect that you think that me not believing in your religious views are just as ridiculous. I'm fine with that.

I'm a Christian and could care less if others believe in God or not but Atheists are not happy unless they can ridicule and belittle others who don't share their belief system.

All Christians should be like you. In fact most are and I haven't a problem with them

A real atheist would not care if others believed in God or not. People who insist that others must not believe in God suck worse than any biblethumper I've ever seen.

That's because the only Atheists you encounter are just like the Bible Thumpers, a bunch of Royal Pains in the Ass. From my vantage point though there are a lot more Asshole Bible Thumpers than there are Asshole Atheists and that's due to sheer numbers.

The only time you here from Atheists like me is when you try and insist that we adhere to your beliefs or when there are discussions regarding whether there is a God or not and the latter is just for the sake of discussion and exchanging views. However I can see where you might think we are "dissing" you because by rejecting your beliefs we are rejecting all that you stand for if you are deeply religious. That's the fault of your beliefs. Of course if you are not that vested in your religious beliefs then it should just roll off your back like water does a Ducks Back.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Descartes
Maybe you could actually present an argument? All you've given is rhetoric.

[edit]Oh, and educate yourself more about atheism, because your "100% certainty there is no god" isn't something espoused by many.[/edit]

That's kinda the definition of atheism. If you aren't 100% certain, that would make you agnostic...would it not?

That's true, but when you actually ask that question, you'll find that that's the case for nearly all atheists. You know Richard Dawkins, "Darwin's Rottweiler" as they like to call him? He's not technically atheist either.

When most people call themselves "atheist" they actually mean "sceptical agnostic", a practical atheism, not a theoretical one.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
But you are closed minded. You do not accept that there can be no god And as such you are not open, you are only open to certain possibilities and have already discarded ideas that you don't like.

The reason I know this is you ignored my first post. I already countered your proof by saying that it in no way proves anything more then the fact that at some point people thought apollo was responsable for the light we get every day.

Not accepting an argument does not make him close minded. It simply means you haven't presented enough evidence to make him change his mind. This 'close-minded' argument is just flat out ridiculous. What most people who call others 'close-minded' really want is for them to 'open' their mind, accept what they believe, and close their mind around it instead. And if they don't, he just calls them 'close-minded'.

We all have personal experiences and belief and form our opinions based upon them. Therefore, just because someone doesn't accept your argument doesn't make them close minded. It just means you didn't provide enough reason or proof to overcome the reason and experience they already had.

 

[piasabird]

The word "Created" in the Book of Genesis comes from Greek which if literally translated means "To Organize."

This is a difficult subject because to accept God means a person has to admit that they are not in charge. People are vain and try to imagine that they are the masters of their destiny.

Good and Evil are sometimes subjects that some people will try to tell you, They do not exist!. This is the biggest lie there ever was. People know when something nice happens. They know when someone smacks them that is not good. So they truly know what good and evil is. However, some people choose to do evil and or things which are considered bad because of some temporary gratification. I often have wondered why people think Alcohol is considered good. I guess these people never had a hangover, or have spent any time in jail after driving drunk. Many things in life seem good at the time, but are not really that good for you in the long-run.

Jesus had some interesting teachings. He said he came to set us free. Free is an interesting subject. Free means free to choose, but it also means free from addiction, free from slavery, and free to choose what is right and good. The question is often do live to live free, or do you work because you are enslaved by your addictions and you have to keep making money to pay for your addictions?

The biggest mistake an athiest can make is to assume religious people are simple-minded and ignorant. Having a belief in a God or in a higher power, that created the universe or many worlds does not make a person ignorant. Many people have entertained many differring views to explain life. Some say that it is a simple chemical reaction, that just became more complex over time and then evolved into man. Others say that aliens planted us here and check up on us once in a while.

I think that the chance that everything just happened by accident is the least likely. It is extremely hard to make life, and we still do not know how to do this from scratch. With all our knowledge, we still know only a little about how the human body works. If we were so smart we would find a way to prevent alzheimers. We were able to clone a sheep, so why cant we beleive that God could create us? Isnt this just a few steps in advancement ahead of where we are now?

I know I may not convince the Athiest to believe in God. But I feel that inside they know I am right and just dont want to admit that there is something else out there that is more important than they are. To me Athiests make themselves their own God!

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: A Casual Fitz

Originally posted by: irishScott

As for Jesus, Mohammad (sp? no insult intended), and every other religious icon, they definitely existed, and they were definitely great philosophers with a lot of good points to make.

Did you meet them or something?

Historical records show them as such, and I believe that the Bible, Koran, etc do contain their teachings. Just a mystified version of them.

There is no Roman record of Jesus.

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
If the Universe didn't happen to be orderly, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

There may well be an infinite number of Universes out there - other Big Bangs going on all over the infinite expanse of nothingness beyond our own bubble of spacetime. Many of them might have been either too dense or too tenuous to form matter. Maybe their gravitational constant is different. If those places would be disorderly, then no intelligent life would arise to ask, "Why is this place so disorderly?"

Yep. Actually, the "order equals god" argument is backwards. What would really be a good argument for the supernatural would be if the universe were totally chaotic and hostile to life and yet life still existed. If we had no naturalistic way at all of explaining how we were able to live and yet we still did - that would be a great reason to look at the supernatural as an explanation.

The fact that the normal workings of the universe produced life which is tuned to survive in that universe isn't all that remarkable by comparison.

And the "order equals god" argument ignores that the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life and guess what? Life doesn't exist there. They see that life exists in the small minority of places that make life not totally impossible, and from that conclude god did it. Seems like special pleading to me.

 

[McGyver]

the concept of god is man-made.

 

[skace]

If a god built this whole thing, he should have given cockroaches their own goddamn planet.

 

[Platypus]

Isn't this the 5th or 6th religion thread you've made recently?

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: irishScott

As for Jesus, Mohammad (sp? no insult intended), and every other religious icon, they definitely existed, and they were definitely great philosophers with a lot of good points to make. As for them being divinely inspired/influenced, I am seriously skeptical. And their magic tricks (walking on water and such) were utter bullsh!t.

Other than the Babble, there is no historical record of Jesus. If Muhammad existed, then everything I've read leads me to believe that he was nothing more than a <bleeping> <bleep>. (Note the edits: I don't want a jihad started against me).

Based on everything I've seen and heard throughout my lifetime, I find it logical to believe in nothing. I'm surprised that everyone else can so easily accept their holy books as THE word. And who gives a sh!t if you believe in "nature's god." Do you want a cookie? In the eyes of the righteous, you're no better than us "god denying, hate mongrel atheists."

I would also like to point out that I'm not denying sh!t. As I've posted in many atheist threads:

a-the-ism

without-god-belief

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. That's it.


In conclusion, I choose to live in my happy little world...not believing...and keeping to myself. I don't push my beliefs on anyone. I rarely talk about it unless I'm asked. I wish this could be said about a lot of people...

 

[mrkun]

Actually, most agnostics are atheists. If you don't believe in a higher power (theism), you're an atheist; it's that simple. This is what's referred to as weak atheism, while strong atheism actually denies the existence of a supreme being. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism aren't exclusive positions. (A)gnosticism is an epistemological position and (a)theism is an ontological one. Hence, it's certainly possible to be an agnostic theist (Kierkegaard is probably the best example). However, most agnostics aren't of this variety, and are therefore atheists.

Edit: I think it's impossible to not take a stance on the existence of a supreme being; so, people that claim agnosticism as though it were a substitute for taking a stance on theism/atheism are simply atheists that don't want to admit it.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: mrkun
Actually, most agnostics are atheists. If you don't believe in a higher power (theism), you're an atheist; it's that simple. This is what's referred to as weak atheism, while strong atheism actually denies the existence of a supreme being. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism aren't exclusive positions. (A)gnosticism is an epistemological position and (a)theism is an ontological one. Hence, it's certainly possible to be an agnostic theist (Kierkegaard is probably the best example). However, most agnostics aren't of this variety, and are therefore atheists.

An interesting contention, but effectively equivalencing agnostics and atheists seems to trivalize their differences in certainty. I believe the OP's real question was how aetheists can be 100% certain there is no "god". I also find it hard to understand how anyone can be 100% either way on the existence of some "god", so being uncertain (i.e. agnostic) seems like the only reasonable choice. I'm therefore more comfortable linking your "theists" and your "strong aetheists" together into a single group of irrational "true believers".

Edit: I think it is possible to be uncertain about the existence of a supreme being. I'll suggest that you do this by not letting your decisions/actions be influenced by either belief. I'm certainly not planning on going to church today, and I'm just as certainly not doing anything out a conviction that there is no "god" either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
I'm therefore more comfortable linking your "theists" and your "strong aetheists" together into a single group of irrational "true believers".

Hey that's fine as long as it makes you comfortable in your own beliefs:roll:

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: irishScott
How can you look at something like the Universe, with it's laws, rules, dimensions, shapes, and ORDER and deny, with absolute certainty, that there isn't a higher being behind it?
[/L]

How can you look at something like the Universe, with it's laws, rules, dimensions, shapes, and ORDER and deny, with absolute certainty that a thinking entity is responsible for it?

 

[ghostman]

By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish and not give something without asking for something in return. Yet there are many people throughout history (and even more today) who give with no thought of a reward, save the good feeling that comes from doing something good. And where does that feeling come from praetell? Once again it violates the laws of nature.

I normally don't respond to a religion thread when it has already grown this large, since chances are, what I have to say is usually stated in one form or another. And let's face it, few people are going to make it this far back into the thread.

But I felt compelled to address this particular point because you don't seem to see a flaw in your own reasoning. Your conclusion is that "a God must exist," providing the evidence that "By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish... Yet there are many people... who give with no thought of a reward." However, your evidence is based on an ASSUMPTION that "By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish." This is actually a fair assumption; in game theory, a "rational" person is someone who would choose the option that would be of the most benefit to himself. So, one would think, a rational person would never choose an option that will help another person (ex. Prisoner's Dilemma).

In reality, that game is too simple and the "laws of nature" (and not religion) likely defined morality. Through years or death and survival, it became apparent that working in groups increased the likelihood of survival. This is not a surprise, as we witness group activity in primitive animals as well (wolves, lions, fish, bugs). So, a rational person, knowing that survival is better than hoarding a good meal, would now choose the option to benefit the group. For groups to form, the members had to give up some of their "selfishness," knowing that other members had to do the same. Building on that, stealing from within the group or randomly murdering another group member undermines the group structure, so misbehaving members are punished. Depending on how advanced the animals are, we now have a society with the rules strictly defined...

So when you speak of these "people... who give with no thought of a reward," I'd say that they are actually getting a reward. They don't go through all the reasoning as above as it has grown innate to human behavior ("save the good feeling that comes from doing something good"). I volunteer, but not because He tells me to or to get on His good graces; I don't believe in God. I do it for the warm fuzzy feeling, which may ultimately translate to knowing that I'm helping society. Either that, or I'm an irrational being.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: irishScott

As for Jesus, Mohammad (sp? no insult intended), and every other religious icon, they definitely existed, and they were definitely great philosophers with a lot of good points to make. As for them being divinely inspired/influenced, I am seriously skeptical. And their magic tricks (walking on water and such) were utter bullsh!t.

Other than the Babble, there is no historical record of Jesus. If Muhammad existed, then everything I've read leads me to believe that he was nothing more than a <bleeping> <bleep>. (Note the edits: I don't want a jihad started against me).

Based on everything I've seen and heard throughout my lifetime, I find it logical to believe in nothing. I'm surprised that everyone else can so easily accept their holy books as THE word. And who gives a sh!t if you believe in "nature's god." Do you want a cookie? In the eyes of the righteous, you're no better than us "god denying, hate mongrel atheists."

I would also like to point out that I'm not denying sh!t. As I've posted in many atheist threads:

a-the-ism

without-god-belief

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. That's it.


In conclusion, I choose to live in my happy little world...not believing...and keeping to myself. I don't push my beliefs on anyone. I rarely talk about it unless I'm asked. I wish this could be said about a lot of people...

Incorrect. Many roman philosophers and historians wrote about Jesus. Among them Tacitus, Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Flavius Josephus and Gaius Suetonius.

Jewish records also exist.

I am agnostic, as I do not really think anybody can demonstrate the non-existence of a superior being, just like nobody can demonstrate the existence of it.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: mrkun
Actually, most agnostics are atheists. If you don't believe in a higher power (theism), you're an atheist; it's that simple. This is what's referred to as weak atheism, while strong atheism actually denies the existence of a supreme being. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism aren't exclusive positions. (A)gnosticism is an epistemological position and (a)theism is an ontological one. Hence, it's certainly possible to be an agnostic theist (Kierkegaard is probably the best example). However, most agnostics aren't of this variety, and are therefore atheists.

An interesting contention, but effectively equivalencing agnostics and atheists seems to trivalize their differences in certainty. I believe the OP's real question was how aetheists can be 100% certain there is no "god". I also find it hard to understand how anyone can be 100% either way on the existence of some "god", so being uncertain (i.e. agnostic) seems like the only reasonable choice. I'm therefore more comfortable linking your "theists" and your "strong aetheists" together into a single group of irrational "true believers".

Edit: I think it is possible to be uncertain about the existence of a supreme being. I'll suggest that you do this by not letting your decisions/actions be influenced by either belief. I'm certainly not planning on going to church today, and I'm just as certainly not doing anything out a conviction that there is no "god" either.

Atheists don't have to be 100% certain there is no God; that's what an agnostic atheist is. It would probably most useful to show knowledge as a line:


Certainty: knowledge of the existence of a supreme being


Uncertainty: no/insufficient knowledge of existence of supreme being


Certainty: knowledge of nonexistence of supreme being


I personally don't believe any supreme being exists, but I'm not 100% certain, nor do I believe I can prove it. Consequently, I fall into the agnostic atheist category. That's all it is. Like I said earlier, being uncertain doesn't necessarily make one an atheist, but it typically puts one in that category, since they won't affirmatively respond to the claim "I believe a supreme being exists" (anyone that does not answer "Yes" to that statement is an atheist.) You mentioned the "reasonableness" of positions, but I'm not discussing that; I'm only accounting for the spectrum of beliefs.


Edit: Bleh, the forums don't like my line formatting. Just imagine there's a vertical line with each "certainty" being the endpoints.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: Tango
Incorrect. Many roman philosophers and historians wrote about Jesus. Among them Tacitus, Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Flavius Josephus and Gaius Suetonius.

Jewish records also exist.

Everyone you listed was born after Jesus' supposed crucifixion, and their accounts have been questioned throughout history. That's why there is such an uproar regarding the discovery of artifacts that can prove Jesus lived in that time.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: Tango
Incorrect. Many roman philosophers and historians wrote about Jesus. Among them Tacitus, Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Flavius Josephus and Gaius Suetonius.

Jewish records also exist.

Everyone you listed was born after Jesus' supposed crucifixion, and their accounts have been questioned throughout history. That's why there is such an uproar regarding the discovery of artifacts that can prove Jesus lived in that time.

Of course they wrote later. You might want to wait until news spread from palestine to rome before somebody living in Rome could actually write about it. They started being interested in jesus when they met christians in Rome for the first time, causing quite a lot of noise.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp
The list of things that were once unexplained and attributed to "God" is so long, that people should really stop attributing the unexplained to the supernatural.

I'm not talking about the fact that some woman awoke from a coma or that a gun goes "boom". I'm talking the nature of the Universe here.

That's not what I am talking about either. But plagues, famines, earthquakes, volcanoes, motion of the planets, etc were all once attributed to gods only to be supplanted by a natural explanation. So I would be careful of saying anything can only be explained by the presence of a deity simply because it hasn't been scientifically explained yet.

Once again, all of those primitive comprehensions were based on the behavior of the phenomena, not the presence of order within and around them.

Once science can explain the presence of order in our Universe, and why it's laws are what they are, and how that can come out of a non-being, I'll drop the existence of a supreme being.

So you are a deist out of impatience?

No, as I am confident that I am right. My belief is that it is impossible for order to rise from a non-being.

Take for example, the fact that the Universe is governed by laws. What if these laws did not exist. Not that they're in a different from, but they don't exist. Period.

All that would exist would be pure chaos, or nothing. The fact that our universe has order means that absolute chaos is impossible, which means nothing is truly random. But if something is not random, then it must have a purpose. That purpose is dictated by a heiarchy of laws that ascend all the way to the creator of the laws. Who but a being can create a core law? Where else would these laws come from?

The only other answer is that they came from non-being materials, yet what determined these materials to from laws? You can create an infinite hierarchy of order out of this argument. Since the Universe is not infinite, there must be some supreme being.

Even infinite limits have solutions.

You aren't making any sense, because you connect dots that simply aren't there. If the laws didn't exist, there would just be a different universe, but it would still be there. You have no way of knowing if the laws we have are themselves a result of a random outcome. It's like looking at a coin on the ground, if it is heads, you can assume that someone placed it that way on purpose, or maybe that it simply fell that way.

No it's not, because the odds of it being that way are 50/50. What are the odds that a Universe such as ours arose randomly?

Let me rephrase a part of what I said:

Imagine a Universe without laws. You said it would simply be a different Universe. No sh!t. One with complete chaos or nothing. If there's some 3rd possibility I'm all ears.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: A Casual Fitz

Originally posted by: irishScott

As for Jesus, Mohammad (sp? no insult intended), and every other religious icon, they definitely existed, and they were definitely great philosophers with a lot of good points to make.

Did you meet them or something?

Historical records show them as such, and I believe that the Bible, Koran, etc do contain their teachings. Just a mystified version of them.

There is no Roman record of Jesus.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Why is a Universe of Order a more compelling argument of "God(s)" than a Universe of Disorder?

Order is lack of randomness, and lack of randomness shows purpose.

Ie: A satellite orbirts the Earth due to a few laws of physics, many of which are derived from other laws of physics, which are probably derived from even more fundamental laws of physics, and the cycle of derivation goes on until one reaches the core of all the derivation, the creator of which (I am of confident) is God.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp
The list of things that were once unexplained and attributed to "God" is so long, that people should really stop attributing the unexplained to the supernatural.

I'm not talking about the fact that some woman awoke from a coma or that a gun goes "boom". I'm talking the nature of the Universe here.

That's not what I am talking about either. But plagues, famines, earthquakes, volcanoes, motion of the planets, etc were all once attributed to gods only to be supplanted by a natural explanation. So I would be careful of saying anything can only be explained by the presence of a deity simply because it hasn't been scientifically explained yet.

Once again, all of those primitive comprehensions were based on the behavior of the phenomena, not the presence of order within and around them.

Once science can explain the presence of order in our Universe, and why it's laws are what they are, and how that can come out of a non-being, I'll drop the existence of a supreme being.

So you are a deist out of impatience?

No, as I am confident that I am right. My belief is that it is impossible for order to rise from a non-being.

Take for example, the fact that the Universe is governed by laws. What if these laws did not exist. Not that they're in a different from, but they don't exist. Period.

All that would exist would be pure chaos, or nothing. The fact that our universe has order means that absolute chaos is impossible, which means nothing is truly random. But if something is not random, then it must have a purpose. That purpose is dictated by a heiarchy of laws that ascend all the way to the creator of the laws. Who but a being can create a core law? Where else would these laws come from?

The only other answer is that they came from non-being materials, yet what determined these materials to from laws? You can create an infinite hierarchy of order out of this argument. Since the Universe is not infinite, there must be some supreme being.

Even infinite limits have solutions.

You aren't making any sense, because you connect dots that simply aren't there. If the laws didn't exist, there would just be a different universe, but it would still be there. You have no way of knowing if the laws we have are themselves a result of a random outcome. It's like looking at a coin on the ground, if it is heads, you can assume that someone placed it that way on purpose, or maybe that it simply fell that way.

No it's not, because the odds of it being that way are 50/50. What are the odds that a Universe such as ours arose randomly?

Let me rephrase a part of what I said:

Imagine a Universe without laws. You said it would simply be a different Universe. No sh!t. One with complete chaos or nothing. If there's some 3rd possibility I'm all ears.

You derive your idea of what law and chaos are from the observation of this universe. Therefore we cannot speculate on alternative order/chaos statii.