Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[Nepenthe]

Really, to nontheists, all this is a matter of grand human curiosity. I do not see what the problems are for those with Faith. Your Belief is beyond and otherwise, is it not? And if not, then why do you bother? It is really just that simple.

Ethics, well…you accept us, we accept you, we’re all such good friends here, and that’s what all that’s about. Would you deny the wise scholars your wisdoms? I do hope not, since they’d never deny anyone for the sake of either science OR medicine, or mere life, and my family is long and historic in such fields…such matters are never light.

I, unlike Mirdath, was raised with no religion, and no concept of class or racial or sexual roles either. And while my parents were no model, that, I think, they got that much right, and I thank them every day from my heart. I do not understand all the fighting, the needless misery and hate; why do you do this? Is it in the name of your gods? Please stop, and if you cannot, then WHY? Your own God has asked you, so why?

Pardon me, I hope you will – I am a simple heathen, no sophisticate as Mirdath is (I should go easy here, since I know your scriptures pretty well too). But I cannot understand the cruelty and mistrust. What is it you have to lose? What do you fear? And if you fear, where is your faith?

I fear all the time, but I go on, with no gods or demons. Theists…why are you not nontheists? I do not understand, and I am sorrowful if we are that alien to each other.

 

[Suat]

Suat’s was, just, kind of unintelligent and worthless to the argument.

See, I think that you are missing the point Moe. You seem to think that it takes an incredible amount of faith to admit that we do not know all the answers at the moment. Sure, the ultimate answer may be god, but it also may be something that is not supernatural. Most of us non-theists would place our bets on the non-supernatural explanation simply because that is how things have progressed over the years. Everything that we see around us has been attributed to some form of god since the beginning of history. As we learn more about the natural world, the areas that the various gods are responsible for become smaller and smaller. There is little evidence that there is a need for them as far as natural explanations go. That is how it should be, the natural and the supernatural worlds are two entirely different things. Nothing in the natural world can ever give evidence for the existence of your god. Nor can it disprove any god, trying to argue otherwise is useless.

Perhaps you can answer me a question. If you believe that it is impossible for the universe to have existed infinitely, then why do you believe that your god could have existed for all eternity? If you believe that your god did not ‘come into being’, then why can you not believe that the universe also did not ‘come into being’? It seems that you just define the universe in such a way that it must have a god while defining your god in a different way. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that your definition of either is correct.

Both sides have unanswered questions. My side is honest and gives the ‘I do not know (yet)’ answer. From the way your posts are written, I can only assume that your side prefers to convince people with belittling and insults instead of honesty or reason. I hope that not all theists are like you, unfortunately my experiences with this board have shown me that too many people who profess to be committed Christians are unable to put their basic beliefs into practice.

 

[cpayne]

See, I think that you are missing the point Moe. You seem to think that it takes an incredible amount of faith to admit that we do not know all the answers at the moment. Sure, the ultimate answer may be god, but it also may be something that is not supernatural. Most of us non-theists would place our bets on the non-supernatural explanation simply because that is how things have progressed over the years. Everything that we see around us has been attributed to some form of god since the beginning of history. As we learn more about the natural world, the areas that the various gods are responsible for become smaller and smaller. There is little evidence that there is a need for them as far as natural explanations go. That is how it should be, the natural and the supernatural worlds are two entirely different things. Nothing in the natural world can ever give evidence for the existence of your god. Nor can it disprove any god, trying to argue otherwise is useless.

Perhaps you can answer me a question. If you believe that it is impossible for the universe to have existed infinitely, then why do you believe that your god could have existed for all eternity? If you believe that your god did not ‘come into being’, then why can you not believe that the universe also did not ‘come into being’? It seems that you just define the universe in such a way that it must have a god while defining your god in a different way. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that your definition of either is correct.

Both sides have unanswered questions. My side is honest and gives the ‘I do not know (yet)’ answer. From the way your posts are written, I can only assume that your side prefers to convince people with belittling and insults instead of honesty or reason. I hope that not all theists are like you, unfortunately my experiences with this board have shown me that too many people who profess to be committed Christians are unable to put their basic beliefs into practice.

As Aquinas pointed out, following Aristotle, it is not logically impossible that the universe has eternally existed. However, he believed the universe had a beginning because the Bible says it did. (And turned out to be correct.) Whether or not the universe could have eternally existed is not the point; the point is whether or not a contingent universe can exist without a cause.

Why doesn’t this apply to God? Well, our experience of the natural universe reveals it to be contingent, and therefore requiring a necessary cause. The necessary cause itself can’t be part of the natural universe, or it also would be contingent, not necessary. When we speak of a necessary cause of the natural universe, not itself part of the natural universe, we use the word God. Of course, this Cause has revealed Himself much more fully by other means. (Incarnation, Church, Scripture, etc.)

 

[Mirdath]

No, see, that’s the reply of an Ordinary Agnostic (not to be confused with the Ornery Agnostic). Well, Mirdath’s reply was, that is. Suat’s was, just, kind of unintelligent and worthless to the argument. But I digress. As you’ll notice, my question was directed towards Athiests, who do in fact claim to know.

At base, there is little difference between a strong agnostic (me) and a weak atheist (one who doubts the existence of God but does not make the statement – of faith, yes – that there undoubtedly is none). And even strong atheists do not necessarily claim to know how the universe came into being; they simply deny that the cause was divine.

I think what you’re meaning to say is that you haven’t heard any real scientific evidence that does NOT point to a Creator yet, who, for our purposes, we’ll call God.

A Creator is one explanation that has been advanced; however, it is entirely experimentally unverifiable and violates Occam’s Razor in its introduction of a new variable where it does not, as yet, seem to be needed.

Evolution (micro, not the horribly unscientific macro), Big Bang, radioactive decay, the list goes on (see previous post)… all point to this intelligent God.

They point to something bigger than we mere humans are, yes; but why are you so sure this is truly a God? Why so sure it is self-aware, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent?

Sheesh, even amoebas contain as much information as over 1000 encyclopedias (this according to Richard Dawkins, mind you). And all of this came from nothing?

As I said, we don’t know… yet. And there are honestly many bigger fish to fry. We’re here. Let’s do something about it.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

I belittled! I insulted! Who knew?

Look Suat, to say your side is honest is simply false. Firstly, you say you’re an Atheist, yet profess the beliefs of an Agnostic (“We just don’t know yet!!”). Secondly, to say that there is not enough evidence that points to something intelligent outside of our realm of natural laws (and may I ask, where did those natrual laws come from anyway?), as I’ve shown in my previous posts, is absurd. From us humans observing thousands of years of history on this Earth, we know that something does not come out of nothing, nor does order come from disorder. Sadly, even after so many years, I think you Athiests (or Agnostics) should do a little more observation there. And sure, we know now that lightning doesn’t come directly from God, nor is the world flat, but this is not a “God of the Gaps” discussion, my friend. May I also add that you claim that the supernatural world could never give evidence to this natural world, yet how do you know that? Obviously, we now know you’re wrong, but the statement is self-defeating, because, according to you, we can never know anything about the supernatural world, yet you know it cannot give evidence to us pro-itself. Come on, Hume!

That the universe is eternal is fine to believe logically and philosophically, but not in reality. We now know, scientifically (your most important religion), that the universe did NOT have a beginning (Big Bang), nor is it infinite (Kalam Cosmo, Second Law of Thermodynamics). So that argument doesn’t hold up. And since we can’t have a creator who is inside the natural world, or else he TOO would need a creator, there must be on OUTSIDE the natural world, SUPERNATURALLY. We call this creator, God.

To your last paragraph of complaints, stop being so touchy-feely.

Off to work!

 

[HeyMoe1287]

At base, there is little difference between a strong agnostic (me) and a weak atheist (one who doubts the existence of God but does not make the statement – of faith, yes – that there undoubtedly is none). And even strong atheists do not necessarily claim to know how the universe came into being; they simply deny that the cause was divine.

“A strong agnostic”… one who is SURELY unsure. I like that . And there are PLENTY of athiests who claim to know. What I am trying to find is what their alternative beliefs ARE, if they are unwilling to accept the most obvious one (which they are).

A Creator is one explanation that has been advanced; however, it is entirely experimentally unverifiable and violates Occam’s Razor in its introduction of a new variable where it does not, as yet, seem to be needed.

One explanation, and the most, obvious logical explanation. As for Occam’s Razor… easiest solution is probably the right one. Something came from nothing? Uncreated Intelligent Being created something? You tell me.

They point to something bigger than we mere humans are, yes; but why are you so sure this is truly a God? Why so sure it is self-aware, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent?

Woah woah… jumpin’ the gun there. Let’s all get on the same page that there IS a creator before we start defining “it.”

As I said, we don’t know… yet. And there are honestly many bigger fish to fry. We’re here. Let’s do something about it.

Let’s.

 

[Mirdath]

One explanation, and the most, obvious logical explanation. As for Occam’s Razor… easiest solution is probably the right one. Something came from nothing? Uncreated Intelligent Being created something? You tell me.

Not so. The Razor is not ‘take the easy way out’ but ‘minimize the number of unnecessary variables’. The necessity of God is not satisfactorily proven, and a deity is the variable to end all variables – a deus pro machina, if you will. While we may not currently know alternate explanations, that in no way means they don’t exist.

Woah woah… jumpin’ the gun there. Let’s all get on the same page that there IS a creator before we start defining “it.”

One can’t really have the first without the second in this case. Most arguments for the existence of God assume qualities: necessity, omnipotence, immutability, perfection. Are these qualities all needed by a Creator?

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Not so. The Razor is not ‘take the easy way out’ but ‘minimize the number of unnecessary variables’. The necessity of God is not satisfactorily proven, and a deity is the variable to end all variables – a deus pro machina, if you will. While we may not currently know alternate explanations, that in no way means they don’t exist.

Every explanation tries to “end all variables,” as you say. That’s the whole point. An Intelligent Being just happens to do a good job at it (another plus). And the necessity of God is proven, because it answers all of the questions that athiests just can’t answer. And they will keep trying, I assure you, until they think they can. Heck, some go as far as to say ALIENS planted us here before they will accept God as even a POSSIBLE solution. I know, I know. It’s quite sad.
The fact is, athiests must believe that order came from chaos, personality from non-personality, structure and natural laws from absolutely nothing. Sounds like Occam himself would even see an Intelligent Being (God) as a necessity.

One can’t really have the first without the second in this case. Most arguments for the existence of God assume qualities: necessity, omnipotence, immutability, perfection. Are these qualities all needed by a Creator?

One outside of our natural realm, yes. Obviously. The only “omni” my argument doesn’t get into is omnibenevolence.

 

[cpayne]

That the universe is eternal is fine to believe logically and philosophically, but not in reality. We now know, scientifically (your most important religion), that the universe did NOT have a beginning (Big Bang), nor is it infinite (Kalam Cosmo, Second Law of Thermodynamics). So that argument doesn’t hold up. And since we can’t have a creator who is inside the natural world, or else he TOO would need a creator, there must be on OUTSIDE the natural world, SUPERNATURALLY. We call this creator, God.

Did you mean to say the universe DID have a beginning, not “did NOT” have a beginning?

 

[freesoulhope]

‘We don’t know (yet)’ doesn’t require faith of any sort.

Lets just take this argument to its logical conclusion: If the world has a beginning, then, for the world to come in to being, the world would have to come in to being “by itself”, from absolutely “nothing”. Now let’s see what the atheist is asking us to believe here; better yet let’s first define what “nothing” is. If there is absolutely “nothing”, then there is nothing upon which something can be brought into being, neither can it be caused by something that already exists in some shape or another. You have to agree with that, otherwise, it must be that the atheist wants me to believe that a miracle happened with out a miracle worker. When one honestly looks at the evidence, although one might find it hard to conceive what it would be like to be a timeless God, one cannot rationally conclude that it would be more rational that one should entertain a miracle, that can be performed by “absolutely nothing” without the necessity of time and space; as we all know that, there was no before. This I wishful thinking entertained by those who do not want to believe in God; more specifically the God of Christianity. We can say that we don’t know, so far as we are “scientist”, but as rational human beings, it only takes common sense to realize that a “super nature”, which transcends time, space and matter, is the only possible, reasonable conclusion. I can say “I don’t know” when there is nothing upon which one can draw a logical conclusion about something, but one can logically draw the conclusion that the only possibility that is allowed by the scientific evidence, is an intelligent transcendent creator/super nature.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Did you mean to say the universe DID have a beginning, not “did NOT” have a beginning?

Yes, I DID mean DID. Good eye, Cpayne

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Lets just take this argument to its logical conclusion: If the world has a beginning, then, for the world to come in to being, the world would have to come in to being “by itself”, from absolutely “nothing”. Now let’s see what the atheist is asking us to believe here; better yet let’s first define what “nothing” is. If there is absolutely “nothing”, then there is nothing upon which something can be brought into being, neither can it be caused by something that already exists in some shape or another. You have to agree with that, otherwise, it must be that the atheist wants me to believe that a miracle happened with out a miracle worker. When one honestly looks at the evidence, although one might find it hard to conceive what it would be like to be a timeless God, one cannot rationally conclude that it would be more rational that one should entertain a miracle, that can be performed by “absolutely nothing” without the necessity of time and space; as we all know that, there was no before. This I wishful thinking entertained by those who do not want to believe in God; more specifically the God of Christianity. We can say that we don’t know, so far as we are “scientist”, but as rational human beings, it only takes common sense to realize that a “super nature”, which transcends time, space and matter, is the only possible, reasonable conclusion. I can say “I don’t know” when there is nothing upon which one can draw a logical conclusion about something, but one can logically draw the conclusion that the only possibility that is allowed by the scientific evidence, is an intelligent transcendent creator/super nature.

Nicely put. Especially the part about Athiests not WANTING to believe… just one of the many reasons we hear of crazy “alternative explanations,” like spontaneous generation or panspermia (who created the aliens?) or infinite universes (where did THEY come from?), all with no real scientfic, or even philosophical evidence. You know what they have to have a lot of to believe in these things? A BUTTLOAD of faith! More than you or I could muster.

 

[Suat]

I belittled! I insulted! Who knew?

Sarcasm too?

Look Suat, to say your side is honest is simply false. Firstly, you say you’re an Atheist, yet profess the beliefs of an Agnostic (“We just don’t know yet!!”).

No, I profess the beliefs of a rational (aka ‘weak’) atheist. That is, I do not believe in the supernatural and I also think that it has a high probability of not existing. However, I also know that we cannot ever ‘know’ whether or not the supernatural exists. If you are trying to show that you actually are honest (or more honest than I am), then please do get the definition of atheist correct. That includes the distinction between the two extremes of atheism (strong and weak).

Secondly, to say that there is not enough evidence that points to something intelligent outside of our realm of natural laws (and may I ask, where did those natrual laws come from anyway?), as I’ve shown in my previous posts, is absurd.

Where? All you keep did was define the universe in a way that required the existence of a god without giving any evidence as to why your definition was correct. Well, that and pointing to natural things and saying ‘see, so there must be a god!’.

From us humans observing thousands of years of history on this Earth, we know that something does not come out of nothing, nor does order come from disorder. Sadly, even after so many years, I think you Athiests (or Agnostics) should do a little more observation there.

Order can come from disorder as long as the system is not closed. I have never really understood this ‘something from nothing’ argument. Why assume that there was nothing to begin with or that there ever was a beginning. Doing so shows a lack of understanding about the nature of time in my opinion.

And sure, we know now that lightning doesn’t come directly from God, nor is the world flat, but this is not a “God of the Gaps” discussion, my friend.

How so? Simply because we understand those things with our current level of science and not the rest?

May I also add that you claim that the supernatural world could never give evidence to this natural world, yet how do you know that? Obviously, we now know you’re wrong, but the statement is self-defeating, because, according to you, we can never know anything about the supernatural world, yet you know it cannot give evidence to us pro-itself. Come on, Hume!

Umm…are you even trying to make sense anymore?

That the universe is eternal is fine to believe logically and philosophically, but not in reality.

Contradiction. If something can be believed logically then it normally applies to reality as well.

We now know, scientifically (your most important religion), that the universe did NOT have a beginning (Big Bang), nor is it infinite (Kalam Cosmo, Second Law of Thermodynamics).

I think you meant that the universe did have a beginning. And I agree, the universe as it currently exists had a beginning. The big bang. Time did not exist (at least in the form we know it) until the expansion of the universe. So, I am not yet convinced that it is possible to talk about a period before the big bang anymore more than it is feasible to talk about a place south of the south pole. Yes, we can speak the words and ask where the place is, but does the concept make any sense?

The second law of thermodynamics only applies after the big bang and within closed systems, before then our laws current understanding of physics is not suitable.

So that argument doesn’t hold up. And since we can’t have a creator who is inside the natural world, or else he TOO would need a creator, there must be on OUTSIDE the natural world, SUPERNATURALLY. We call this creator, God.

Yeah, not convinced. See above.

To your last paragraph of complaints, stop being so touchy-feely.

Ah, another attempt at an insult?

 

[Gareth]

Not really too sure where you’re going here either, but I think since we’re both “arguing hard,” it would be necessary for me to interpret that you also have a few more embelishments to tack on. Or would that just be abusrd?

Lets say you managed to convince us that the universe had a creator, and you proved this to everyones satisfaction. What then?

Then you’ll trot out belief after dubious belief, getting more and more ridiculous by the minute, about why your particular form of theism is the **only **valid one.

As evidence you’ll use the history of a religion rife with corruption and forgery. You’ll even support these beliefs from a book, you reject portions of the historical accuracy of.

Maybe there’s a creator, but for you this is just the beginning

You wouldn’t be happy until we accept every last superstitous, law of nature breaking, bigoted, guilt ridden, I’m gonna live forver, fearful article of your faith.

We don’t know wether the universe was created or not, it still unknown. On the other hand you ‘*know’ * so very much more…

 

[cpayne]

You wouldn’t be happy until we accept every last superstitous, law of nature breaking, bigoted, guilt ridden, I’m gonna live forver, fearful article of your faith.

I think you left out pederastic, Mary-worshipping, and ring-kissing. Or are those just assumed?

 

[Gareth]

I think you left out pederastic, Mary-worshipping, and ring-kissing. Or are those just assumed?

No that would be bigoted. It isn’t assumed either.

I’m not being anti-catholic, that’s not what this is. If you look at the list of things I mentioned, they apply to all the main forms of theism. Not just Christianity and definitly not just Catholicism,

 

[HeyMoe1287]

– Order can come from disorder as long as the system is not closed. I have never really understood this ‘something from nothing’ argument. Why assume that there was nothing to begin with or that there ever was a beginning. Doing so shows a lack of understanding about the nature of time in my opinion.
– If something can be believed logically then it normally applies to reality as well.
– I think you meant that the universe did have a beginning. And I agree, the universe as it currently exists had a beginning. The big bang. Time did not exist (at least in the form we know it) until the expansion of the universe. So, I am not yet convinced that it is possible to talk about a period before the big bang anymore more than it is feasible to talk about a place south of the south pole. Yes, we can speak the words and ask where the place is, but does the concept make any sense?
– The second law of thermodynamics only applies after the big bang and within closed systems, before then our laws current understanding of physics is not suitable.

– Then you’ll trot out belief after dubious belief, getting more and more ridiculous by the minute, about why your particular form of theism is the **only **valid one.
– You wouldn’t be happy until we accept every last superstitous, law of nature breaking, bigoted, guilt ridden, I’m gonna live forver, fearful article of your faith.

– I think you left out pederastic, Mary-worshipping, and ring-kissing. Or are those just assumed?

Brothers and sisters in Christ: I give you atheists (well, minus the one very unsure, quite sensitive agnostic). Could I just leave it there with a “'nuff said?” Sure. But they demonstrate a great point here worth noting. Believing in a Creator is not something atheists CANNOT do, but rather, something they don’t WANT to do. This is a matter of will, not intellect.

I can spat out all of the intellectual information in the world, like the fact that the Big Bang is believed by every educated scientist out there, and that it is a fact that there was no time or space before that event, or the fact that nature has never observed order following chaos in a natural way without an intellectual someone or something guiding it. Or how about the Anthropic Constants? There are over 100 of these fine-tuned, life-enabling constants: Oxygen level, moon-earth gravitational interaction, carbon dioxide level, gravity, the rate of the expanding universe, and the 23 degree axil tilt of the earth, just to name a few. Life: life that has been observed to arise only from existing life (it has never been observed to arise spontaneously) and consists of millions of volumes of empirically detectable specified complexity (and is, therefore, more than just the nonliving chemicals it contains). See my other posts for more. But all of this information doesn’t matter, and “alternative explanations” are cooked up. Panspermia, alternative infinite universes, and spontaneous generation are among them. Others object by saying we can never “know,” playing with words and refusing to use scientific observation (Suat does this wonderfully). These sad theories, with no scientific basis, are examples of ways in which atheists will scrounge around frantically searching for anything that will go against Intelligent Design.

So why is it that atheists (and agnostics) don’t like to accept the fact that almost all, real scientific evidence points to a Creator? I’m not positive, but I do have a few guesses. For one, it causes them to lose pride. They don’t want to deal with the fact that they, although human in species, aren’t the highest, most intellectual beings, and that they are looked down upon. This humbles them, and that’s not a good feeling. Secondly, they now have a moral obligation that wasn’t there before. I’m not saying all atheists (or agnostics) are immoral, by any means, but now there are consequences if they’re not (excluding the ever-popular “Karma”). For without a God, everything is lawful. My third guess is that they don’t want to go about finding which religion is the true religion in which the Creator communicates with his creation. Gareth and Cpayne demonstrate this beautifully by deciding to mock it instead. My final guess is that they just don’t like Christians and would rather not associate themselves, also beautifully demonstrated by Gareth and Cpayne. But hey, we’re the only ones who believe in Intelligent Design, right? We’re the ones who are pushing the hidden agenda, right? Wrong.

So, is there any hope for atheists? Of course, but we must pray that the Spirit of the One who created them, will also guide them

 

[Mirdath]

Believing in a Creator is not something atheists CANNOT do, but rather, something they don’t WANT to do. This is a matter of will, not intellect.

If I could believe in a Creator, I probably would. It’s not for lack of trying, either. I spent years trying; it didn’t work.

So, I lack the capacity for faith. Honestly, I can’t be bothered to agonize much any more over my dubious failing in that regard, and I think that’s what gets to you and many other theists more than the lack itself.

These sad theories, with no scientific basis, are examples of ways in which atheists will scrounge around frantically searching for anything that will go against Intelligent Design.

Who’s scrambling? You’re the one bringing out theory after theory.

For one, it causes them to lose pride. They don’t want to deal with the fact that they, although human in species, aren’t the highest, most intellectual beings, and that they are looked down upon. This humbles them, and that’s not a good feeling.

I do not believe a single non-theist here has claimed to be the highest form of life, the apex of Being, the tippest of the material top. I certainly have not; and while I’m plenty vain, that’s just because I am that good – but it does not make me the best.

As for humility, may I say: physician, heal thyself.

Secondly, they now have a moral obligation that wasn’t there before. I’m not saying all atheists (or agnostics) are immoral, by any means, but now there are consequences if they’re not (excluding the ever-popular “Karma”). For without a God, everything is lawful.

Oh no, not this again. Fantastically untrue and unfounded; there is no lack of moral foundations that require no God. Social contract theory, the categorical imperative, even the Golden Rule as expressed by many philosophers and moralists (including Jesus) – none of those need God to work. And while eternal consequences may be missing, are there not temporal consequences to every action?

My third guess is that they don’t want to go about finding which religion is the true religion in which the Creator communicates with his creation.

How would one be able to determine this? It may be the first guess which hits on or near the target, though I’d argue that it’s less ‘want’ and more ‘capability’.

My final guess is that they just don’t like Christians and would rather not associate themselves, also beautifully demonstrated by Gareth and Cpayne.

I have met many Christians (and other theists) who were credits to their faiths, and many who were not. The maxim ‘Jesus, save me from your followers!’ rings true far too often. But I have no issues associating with Christians in general. And cpayne is a fine example of Protestantism, a scholar and a gentleman – with a wicked sense of humor

So, is there any hope for atheists? Of course, but we must pray that the Spirit of the One who created them, will also guide them

Um, I’ll be praying to Darwin and Hobbes for you to see the light, I guess?

 

[MerryAtheist]

I’m not positive, but I do have a few guesses. For one, it causes them to lose pride. They don’t want to deal with the fact that they, although human in species, aren’t the highest, most intellectual beings, and that they are looked down upon. This humbles them, and that’s not a good feeling.

I can stand upon a high hill on a clear, dark night, witnessing a small slice of the vastness of the universe and realize that I am a mere speck of animate matter, a brief glimmer of consciousness that is of no account, and that I am only alive in this momentary flash in time because of some cosmic accident in the midst of an uncaring and overwhelmingly lethal universe.

As a believer, you can stand on that same hill, witnessing the same small slice of the universe, and imagine that out of the immense span of light years, millions of galaxies with trillions of stars racing through time and space, that there exists a non-material being who is aware of every atom, who created and sustains every quark, and yet is concerned for your welfare, listens to your thoughts, altered the physical rules of procreation that it created so that it could let itself be killed to pay the penalty of a rule that it created (but chose not to alter) so that you could live forever after you die.

Tell me again who is the conceited one here.

 

[freesoulhope]

I can stand upon a high hill on a clear, dark night, witnessing a small slice of the vastness of the universe and realize that I am a mere speck of animate matter, a brief glimmer of consciousness that is of no account, and that I am only alive in this momentary flash in time because of some cosmic accident .

Do you have evidence for this unhappy belief that you are professing?