Atheists!

[MelanieAnne]

Yes. We can observe both the watch builder and the watch. They share parts actually. They are part of the same universe.

Religiously, though, you are stating something else, namely that the builder needs a builder too. Okay. So if a god is a builder why doesn’t a god need a builder too? See the contradiction?

If a god isn’t built, which I’m pretty sure is your claim, then your watch builder and the rest of the “built” universe have come from that which is “unbuilt,” namely this alleged god. So religiously speaking, the claim is that that which is built can only come from that which is “unbuilt.” It’s an inescapable conclusion for anyone asserting a creator or ultimate builder.

So I see no need to think gods are around building things, nor any evidence to take these story characters literally. A universe, that we both agree clearly exists, is all that is necessary. It makes sense both religiously and observationally.

OK, I’ll give you credit for answering that. And answer me this ~

When was the last time you saw all the parts of a watch come together by themselves to make the watch? I suspect the answer is “never”.

The problem is in your assumption that someone had to make the one who made the watch. The Creator is the Creator. The Creator doesn’t need to have a Creator. God is God.

 

[crowonsnow]

When was the last time you saw all the parts of a watch come together by themselves to make the watch? I suspect the answer is “never”.

Well, Yes. We can conclude that watches do not spontaneously assemble within human lifetimes. That is at least consistent with all our observations. It took much longer just for basic matter as we know it to assemble. But we can observe that it did.

The problem is in your assumption that someone had to make the one who made the watch. The Creator is the Creator. The Creator doesn’t need to have a Creator. God is God.

I’m certainly not assuming that. I’m observing that both watch and maker exist. I’m not invoking any creationist double standards.

Creationists are the ones making assumptions beyond that, and as I’ve pointed out, this is when their conclusions become inconsistent with their observations, and their whole argument becomes self-contradictory. Having shown itself to be self-contradictory, a double standard gets invoked, which is a *de facto *admission of its failure to explain

 

[MelanieAnne]

Science doesn’t have an explanation either. Isn’t that handy?

 

[crowonsnow]

Science doesn’t have an explanation either. Isn’t that handy?

An explanation for what? The existence of the universe?

Science is not nihilistic and nor can it have double standards. Its theories must be consistent in explaining observed behavior. It cannot be self-contradictory. Therefore it observes that the default setting of the universe is to exist, and this is what all our observations reveal.

Would you say that we’re in agreement with regards to the OP, namely that that which is built can only come from that which is unbuilt? That seems to be the case from my perspective. Your religious dogma is identical to my scientific conclusion, with the exception that you add another variable you call a god.

I don’t see the god variable being that important. To me it’s like the ether in terms of the propagation of light. It’s a neutral variable in terms of explaining observed behavior.

 

[AnAtheist]

For some reason the thought always goes back to God. Whether denying or accepting they do believe. They talk about Him an awful lot for Him not to exist.

Well, it is not that our thoughts go back to some god that frequently, but to the people believing in those, who try to impose their god’s laws upon us. Or who steer planes into skyscrapers.
If people could manage to leave each other alone with their beliefs there would be no need for atheists thinking about religion at all - apart from the indulgence in myths.

 

[drpmjhess]

Scientists have no clue how the brain works, but we do know that it works somehow. … Scientists cannot even predict the weather on our planet and we are supposed to trust them on the String Theory? Even if the string theory were true, it does not disprove God. It would just prove a unique way in which God is governing the world.

Not true. Neuroscientists have a very good and increasing understanding of how the brain works. And meteorologists at least in my part of the world have a very strong record of accuracy in weather prediction.

Petrus

 

[joeybaggz]

Being a Catholic on a Catholic forum, I’m going to stick my neck out and offer an argument for their (the atheists) position.

I’ve lurked on a couple of religion forums around the internet. In listening to the atheists discuss/explain/rant/ and rave about their beliefs and why they hold them, a few things become clear. Their are several types of atheists:

One - Those who believe categorically and adamantly that there is no God. They are so hardened in their beliefs, and bitter given the attacks of believers who call them foolish or ignorant that they use words like liars, lunatics, ignorant, child-like, stupid, etc. etc to attack those who disagree with them.

Two - Those who believe there is no God because He/She cannot be proved by observable, repeatable scientific methods. God can’t be put under a microscope and be observed like any organism. However, this group states they could come to believe if God were one day to be proveable by some scientific means.

Three - Those who believe there is no God for the reasons stated in # two, plus, having been ‘exposed’ to the teachings of the Bible and religion and religious people in general, they find the support for the existence of God, ridiculous given the inconsistencies and what they perceive to be outright falsehoods by the Bible. And add to that the activites of ‘religious’ people throughout time, from the wars, battles, and conflicts of the old testament right up to the flying of planes into buildings by fanatics in the name of God.

As to the first group, everyone is given intelligence and free will to choose what they wish to believe. Should they not be allowed their beliefs, and not demonized by others. From the Christian perspective, their relationship with God is their own choosing. Let them choose, and let them alone.

As to the second group, well, the CC teaches that true science and true religion are never incompatible. Thomas Aquinas in writing his Summa Theologiae came to the point that he finally realized that the finite mind cannot “understand” the mind of the Infinite. Will scientific investigation and discovery one day lead a scientist to the same conclusion? Who knows. The Christian is open to divine revelation, it is ongoing, teaching us more about our relationship with the Divine. Shouldn’t an atheist who holds the position that science teaches us more every day be given the same consideration? And given that position, should we not respect that, while they choose not to believe at present, they are open to the possibility of future discovery. After all, George Carlin, the comedian, once asked the question, “Do you think that God considers the atheist, simply the loyal opposition?”

As to the third group, maybe before we castigate their beliefs, might we not do a better job explaining our own, and come to the point where we live them out in a better fashion, more consistent to what we say we believe. Are atheists of this bent, a necessary mirror believers need to see the problems presented by their own actions? After all, there is some truth to the saying that, “to some people, you will be the only Bible they ever read.”

My two cents.

 

[drpmjhess]

For the sake of argument let us say that evolution is real and the big bang began everything.

Who says that the Big Bang began everything? The evidence for the origin and expansion of the universe from a singularity is enormous, but I know of no cosmologists who think the Big Bang was uncaused. They simply have no evidence for what the cause was.

 

[Filius99993]

Who says that the Big Bang began everything? The evidence for the origin and expansion of the universe from a singularity is enormous, but I know of no cosmologists who think the Big Bang was uncaused. They simply have no evidence for what the cause was.

Newton’s Laws…

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Is the idea of God soooooo difficult to comprehend? If we can comprehend it, then he does exist… or so says my man Descartes.

If we did evolve from apes, who have no belief in God, why would we need to make the transition from no god to God to no god? Are atheists really better than the rest of us?

Just to keep you on your toes…

 

[drpmjhess]

If we did evolve from apes, who have no belief in God, why would we need to make the transition from no god to God to no god? Are atheists really better than the rest of us?

How do you know apes don’t believe in God?

 

[rossum]

How do you know apes don’t believe in God?

I personally know many apes who do believe in God.

rossum

 

[Filius99993]

I personally know many apes who do believe in God.

rossum

Same here… lol. Mind powers.

Um, I meant God+Dogma. Apes dunt have religion. I know I didn’t clarify, but there is no way we could have achieved morality with out religion. And Atheism does away with it. So, again, why would we need to digress to a state of secularism, when that is what apes do? Hmmm…

 

[drpmjhess]

Apes dunt have religion. I know I didn’t clarify, but there is no way we could have achieved morality with out religion. And Atheism does away with it. So, again, why would we need to digress to a state of secularism, when that is what apes do? Hmmm…

How do you know apes have “digressed” (whatever that means) to secularism? From what religion have the “digressed”? Is there evidence to support this?

 

[rossum]

Same here… lol. Mind powers.

Um, I meant God+Dogma. Apes dunt have religion. I know I didn’t clarify, but there is no way we could have achieved morality with out religion. And Atheism does away with it. So, again, why would we need to digress to a state of secularism, when that is what apes do? Hmmm…

I suspect the you missed my point. In scientific terms, “ape” means a member of the Hominidae. All humans (Homo sapiens) are members of the Hominidae and hence all humans are apes. We have all the characteristics of the Hominidae: our tail is merely a stub of bones that don’t even protrude outside the skin. Our dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a “Y” shaped crevasse. We have a dramatically increased range of motion in our shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait. All of these are characteristic of the apes and are only found all together in the apes.

All humans are apes. Since I know many humans who believe in God therefore I know many apes who believe in God, many primates who belive in God, many mammals who believe in God and so forth.

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly.

rossum

 

[AnAtheist]

there is no way we could have achieved morality with out religion.

I am pretty sure that mankind or human societies resp. had a moral code before religion was invented, and I am pretty sure we will still have one if or when religion is long forgotten.

 

[Skavau]

tGette:

Atheists, I am not here to talk about Christianity or any other religion. I want to know exactly why you do not believe there is a Supreme Being.

Hello tGette

I do not believe there is a ’ Supreme Being’ (described to be God) because I honestly see no evidence of a supreme being and consequently no reason to perpetuate the existence of such a supreme being.

tGette:

Whether this God is all-good and all-loving or He is the “Evil Genius” taught by many philosophers, why do you find it so hard to comprehend something created everything?

I don’t.

I understand it. I just do not believe in a being that ‘created everything’ because I find it self-contradictory and devoid of any objective evidence.

tGette:

For the sake of argument let us say that evolution is real and the big bang began everything. What created the means necessary for the Big Bang to take place?

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a God.

And scientific knowledge before the Big Bang is at best sketchy, and it is at worst empty. This does not however give one reason to presume a God of the Gaps.

tGette:

Why do you look at a car and know that there was something involved in the creation of it and that it did not simply fall together by chance and at the same time think that trees are a mistake?

Because we know the origins of a car. We created cars. We designed them and continue to maintain them. We do not know the origins (if indeed, any origins at all) of the universe.

And you’re operating on a grave misunderstanding. No Atheist entertains the notion that we are here through chance and no Atheist thinks that trees are a mistake.

tGette:

You are alive and have the ability to disprove there is a God yet you have the audacity to think there is no God that created you and gave you the ability to disprove Him. There is no God who gave you this ability?

First of all, you cannot disprove or falsify a negative. I cannot disprove God anymore than you can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Second of all, your argument is circular. It presumes the existence of God in its premises and then concludes the same.

tGette:

Remember: YOU ARE ALIVE! There had to be something that made that possible. Again, if this was random chance, what was it that caused this?

Yes.

My parents engaged in some ‘extra-curriculum’ activity and I am the result. It was neither random chance nor impossible.

 

[Skavau]

c659:

For the Atheist on this site in the area of your soul I will pray for you.

Hello c659.

And thank you. It shows a degree of altruism.
c659:

For you have knowledge of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritand have rejected Him and if continuing on this route will only lead you to darkness.

I have not rejected anything - only disbelieved in a certain presumption. My disbelief in the trinity is on equal footing as to your basis for disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
c659:

If I am wrong that God exists then I have lost nothing.

On the other hand if you are wrong that God does not exist then you have lost everything.

You must be familiar with Pascal’s Wager. Although that is not a good thing. I will repost responses I have made to it in the past.

Pascal’s Wager is a completely flawed and dishonest argument. First of all, the assertion that there is more to gain by simply being a Christian over an Atheist or Agnostic has absolutely nothing to do with wherever Christianity is true or not. All you are doing is attempting to give a reason to believe based on fear. You are advocating that an individual should believe X because of Y. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Do you also think it is honest to believe in something because if it is true then a God will damn you to hell for all eternity? I would only be believing through fear rather than sincerity. It also does not guarantee belief. If I came to you and said that you should become a Muslim because it is the safer option in the afterlife, would you be convinced of the truth claim of Islam? You likely would not.

The main flaw in Pascal’s Wagers basis comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If various Islamic sects are correct then you might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.
c659:

Atheism as a whole is a bad bet.

You cannot measure belief by ‘betting’. It negates the entire purpose.

 

[Skavau]

FaithOfAbraham:

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are mainly two types of so-called atheists.

On believes there is God but is just in so much denial that he is hardened to it and fights to keep convincing himself and everyone else that there is none.

The other certainly believes there is God but is simply lying about lack of belief to deceive on behalf of working for Satan.

So I take what they say about their atheism with a big grain of salt.

Hello FaithOfAbraham

I take what you say as a sign of extreme close-mindedness and an inability to see through the premises of your own interpretation of your own beliefs. There are for the most part ‘two kinds of Atheists’, as you say.

I however completely disagree on what those ‘two kinds of Atheists’ actually are. They are Soft and Hard Atheists. A Soft Atheist is someone who disbelieves in God and a Hard Atheist is someone who believes there is no God. There is a world of difference between the two, a Soft Atheist is somewhat apathetic and a Hard Atheist is assertive.

But back to your points: Why precisely do you doubt that someone can sincerely disbelieve in God?
Claire From DE:

I can understand someone being an agnostic, not knowing whether or not there is a God. But you have to have a lot of faith to be an atheist! You have to believe that you can know there is no creator It is totally unscientific. It cannot be proven that there is no God. So an atheist has to have a lot more faith than a believer. A believer usually has some reason for his belief in something. Someone he trusts has told him. He has investigated the background of his faith, etc. But to believe in nothing must be much more difficult than believing in something.

Hello Claire

Your understand concerning Atheism needs some serious updating. First of all, there is nothing in the definition of Atheism which compells an Atheist to ‘believe in nothing’. Atheism is only a contention with the existence of God, not everything else. What you are describing can be more closely attributed to Nihilism.

Second of all - yes, God cannot be disproven. But so what? Thor, Odin, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster equally cannot be disproven. Nothing can be disproven and nothing can ultimately be falsified. All we have is reason and evidence. It is the claim of theists that God exists and consequently the burden of evidence to rests on theists. The fact that something cannot be disproven is not valid reason to believe in it. The fact that something has no evidence for it is though, valid reason to disbelieve in it.

 

[Skavau]

FaithOfAbraham:

You don’t even have free will, all those little neurons in your head make all your decisions for you, you don’t cause them to do what they do. You are utterly controlled and helpless to the forces of nature. So the sum total of that is your God, you need no further proof of that. You already believe it, you are just in denial that you are helpless and out of control of anything, God controls it all. Even when you die.

This line of reasoning makes no actual sense. Even if everything in your premises are taken to be true - ‘Having no control’ is not evidence of the existence of God.

Moreover, your own argument defeats free-will and consequently defeats any choice in whether one is a Catholic or an Atheist and therefore what someone believes in is essentially, the result of those ‘neurons’. You have nullified your own world view.

 

[MelanieAnne]

All of this “objective observation” business may be very valid as far as it goes. But I have found that Atheists are some of the most cantankerous, cranky, and generally unhappy people to be around. All the time. Those I have come in contact with seem to grow more and more opinionated with age, do not appear to engage in self-examination EVER, and selfish self-indulgence is the order of the day for them. It may work for them in their life, but it does not work well for those who have to endure their presence.

Of course, my experience with Atheists is not large, nor is my “survey” a scientific one, it is merely anecdotal, but there you are. As a group, not a happy one, and often rather gloomy company too.