I am an atheist

[Jacafamala]

I am not looking for a god.
I have recently discovered that I have very few theists in my life. I would like to better understand what causes belief (be it belief in Yahweh, Allah or a perpetual motion machine).
I was raised as a catholic, but it never ‘took’. I compare it to *my *Santa memories. I don’t remember ever *believing * in Santa, but I do remember planning to hide my knowledge about his being a myth in order to get all the ‘Santa’ presents. To me this suggests that I did at one time believe in Santa, but learned later that it was made-up.
I don’t remember actually *believing *in Yahweh, though I think I must have at some point in my life.

I don’t think I ever disbelieved in God. I think I always knew he had to be there. For me, it would have taken more faith to have been an atheist. It would have taken more faith to believe in something from nothing. It would have taken more faith to believe in a universe as complex as ours being out of sheer coincidence.

But I still didn’t know who–or what–God was. To know God, I found that I must seek God.

 

[awfulthings9]

Sorry, my post messed up and it won’t let me edit. Now I’m out of time and will respond in an hour or so. Take care.

 

[Crumpy]

I don’t like vista too much, but I like games.

Did you see the latest Apple commercials for MacIntosh? They show the pudgy PC guy switching back to Windows XP from Vista, or something like that.

Obviously, Microsoft really needs the money, to make all that software that we’ve invested in to now be obsolete.

I got suckered in to buy a Vista laptop. Yeah, I couldn’t install older software, especially Microsoft products, like Visual Basic. Right off the bat, there’s a popup that says that software is not compatible.

I have a glimmer of an idea why. I know that ten years ago, the standards for C++ were changing, and some of the utilities were later going to run opposite to the previous versions. So, the nerds were winning back then, and they’re winning again, too. Job security and income for them.

I think that next time, my computer will be a Mac.

 

[Jwlynas]

You had a grizzly bear survival kit?
I know its probably essential but still, wow…What does that include?

Is it just me who is impressed by this, as well as A’s reasoning.
Intelligent arguments mixed with the occasional humourous aside.

Welcome to the Forum A

I hope you find answers to your questions, whichever ones they be.

 

[_A]

I don’t think I ever disbelieved in God. I think I always knew he had to be there. For me, it would have taken more faith to have been an atheist.

The atheist position, being a lack of belief, requires no faith.

It would have taken more faith to believe in something from nothing.

How was your god created? Something from nothing?

 

[_A]

Did you see the latest Apple commercials for MacIntosh? They show the pudgy PC guy switching back to Windows XP from Vista, or something like that.

Obviously, Microsoft really needs the money, to make all that software that we’ve invested in to now be obsolete.

I got suckered in to buy a Vista laptop. Yeah, I couldn’t install older software, especially Microsoft products, like Visual Basic. Right off the bat, there’s a popup that says that software is not compatible.

I have a glimmer of an idea why. I know that ten years ago, the standards for C++ were changing, and some of the utilities were later going to run opposite to the previous versions. So, the nerds were winning back then, and they’re winning again, too. Job security and income for them.

I think that next time, my computer will be a Mac.

I had considered a Mac, but just bought a vista notebook. Half the price of a Mac, and both will be obsolete in a few years. Wish me luck.

 

[_A]

You had a grizzly bear survival kit?
I know its probably essential but still, wow…What does that include?

Is it just me who is impressed by this, as well as A’s reasoning.
Intelligent arguments mixed with the occasional humourous aside.

Welcome to the Forum A

I hope you find answers to your questions, whichever ones they be.

A grizzly survival kit is mostly knowledge - and a 12 guage with buckshot (or slugs, if you are really confident about your aim under duress).
Making a lot of noise is good, so bells are a good thing…not carrying smelly food, and clean camp rules are also useful.
Radio’s, first aid kits and a loud air-siren are sometimes in my pack, too.
Really, mostly the best stuff is knowledge. Readreadread!

 

[_A]

You had a grizzly bear survival kit?
I know its probably essential but still, wow…What does that include?

Is it just me who is impressed by this, as well as A’s reasoning.
Intelligent arguments mixed with the occasional humourous aside.

Welcome to the Forum A

I hope you find answers to your questions, whichever ones they be.

Also, thank you for the compliments. I try to keep the temperature down in here, which might explain some of my attempts at humour.

 

[awfulthings9]

You are saying that this is not falsifiable? Hmmm…seems to me that if you simply demonstrated a lack of gravity, that statement would be falsified.

Not so. If we were on a space shuttle and I demonstrated a lack of gravity, you would simply assert that gravity exists, but is only noticeable in bodies of great mass, such as a planet or star. Once you did so, you would be changing the statement. I could also always claim that gravity exists elsewhere than where you conducted the experiment.However, there are many statements concerning gravity which are falsifiable that, when combined with human reason, point to that conclusion.For instance: Things always fall toward the earth. Ultimately, though, a statement about the existence of gravity relies upon a conclusion drawn by human reason from these evidences.Likewise, while the statement “God exists” is not, itself, falsifiable, there are many statements about God that are. For instance, “Christ’s body was resurrected.” In theory, this is falsifiable. After all, were you to produce a corpse or documents to the contrary, you would have shown the falsification of it. Keep in mind I’m not arguing that particular point, but showing that your claim that statements about God are not falsifiable are straw men. Some statements about God are not. Others are. However, keep in mind much of our proof is historical, and the idea of falsification does not generally enter into historical evidence. After all, if I claimed that Kubla Khan existed, you would not ask that I provide a falsifiable claim. Which is why I asked for clarification of other evidences you would accept. You didn’t answer that.

Falsifiable in 2001 years (and perhaps by other methods).

I agree, which is why I said it was falsifiable “in theory”. However, the probability that nobody who is living then will care about our little theory from 2008, which was based on no substantial evidence other than a chatroom discussion means that “in practice” it is not falsifiable. The difference between theoretical and practical applicability is very important in science. I can point you to literature on the subject if you would like to understand it better.

I don’t understand either example. They both seemed falsifiable to me.

That’s the problem with your claim.

For something as ordinary as the theory of gravity, (theory of falling bodies) I only need some evidence of things falling ‘down’ to trust and use that theory.

Not so. I could claim they were not being pulled by gravity, but being propelled away from space. Or that they had intrinsic desires to connect with the earth and moved by an unseen propulsion. Or that a trickster God was keeping us bound to earth so that we are limited in our experience. Or that a benevolent God is keeping us bound here, close to food, shelter, and companionship.

For something as extraordinary as the theory of a god, I need extraordinary evidence.

And I have no problem providing it, but I am questioning the definition you provide of evidence. I am questioning the absolute qualifier of falsifibility.After all, would you consider this theory valid:"All theories must be falsifiable to be valid."If so, please tell me how you would falsify it. If not, please explain why you hold to it so strongly. If the answer is because it is a proposition that is outside the bounds of science, I would answer the same for much of the evidence (historical, logical, supernatural) evidence of God.

 

[Jacafamala]

The atheist position, being a lack of belief, requires no faith.

I think it does. I’m reading the most interesting book at the moment entitled, God the Evidence. Ever heard of it, A? Patrick Glynn, the author has a chapter on the "Not-So-Random Universe. He writes about Hoyle’s notion of the universe needing to know in advance later outcomes. For example, an oak tree is the final cause of the path of growth that begins with an acorn.

How was your god created? Something from nothing?

God is eternal. God wasn’t created, however we do know that the universe had a beginning.

It’s interesting, A, but in general have you noticed that people who have faith in God fair better health-wise? It’s a fact many physicians will attest to. That’s because we’re hard wired for faith, for friendship with God.

 

[Valke2]

You are saying that this is not falsifiable? Hmmm…seems to me that if you simply demonstrated a lack of gravity, that statement would be falsified.
Falsifiable in 2001 years (and perhaps by other methods).
I don’t understand either example. They both seemed falsifiable to me.

For something as ordinary as the theory of gravity, (theory of falling bodies) I only need some evidence of things falling ‘down’ to trust and use that theory.
For something as extraordinary as the theory of a god, I need extraordinary evidence.

Since the “theory” of God encompasses and exceeds all known reality, it must fail the concept of falsifiability. But that’s really a red herring when we are questioning whether God exists or not. Because if it were somehow falsifiable, and you were unable to prove it wrong, I would not expect you to be convinced that God exists. It is not proof of God that we are looking for, in the scientific sense. If such proof were available, I would probably be more likely to reject God than accept Him.

I think it is misleading to say “prove to me that God exists, and I will believe it.” I think it would be more accurate to say ‘prove to me that God exists, and I probably will still not believe it’.

 

[notself]

I think it does. I’m reading the most interesting book at the moment entitled, God the Evidence. Ever heard of it, A? Patrick Glynn, the author has a chapter on the "Not-So-Random Universe. He writes about Hoyle’s notion of the universe needing to know in advance later outcomes. For example, an oak tree is the final cause of the path of growth that begins with an acorn.

You have a cycle of existence here, not a linear one; that is a cause and effect cycle of the oak tree causing the acorn and the acorn causing the oak tree. Some would refer to it as the old question of which came first the acorn or the oak tree?

God is eternal. God wasn’t created, however we do know that the universe had a beginning.

Science suggests a hypothesis that the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. But this hypothesis states that the Big Bang began with a Singularity. There is no scientific explanation for the beginning of the Singularity. It is just as probable that existence is eternal.

I am not trying to argue, I am just pointing out that there are other explanations for things.

It’s interesting, A, but in general have you noticed that people who have faith in God fair better health-wise? It’s a fact many physicians will attest to. That’s because we’re hard wired for faith, for friendship with God.

Can you provide links to scientific studies of this relationship between health and religious belief?

 

[Beachcomber]

Hello, A,

My dad was an atheist. You seem much more fun to be around than he was at times. Glad you’ve joined us.

 

[Jacafamala]

notself wrote:You have a cycle of existence here, not a linear one; that is a cause and effect cycle of the oak tree causing the acorn and the acorn causing the oak tree. Some would refer to it as the old question of which came first the acorn or the oak tree?

It’s an example (from Aristotle), and not a perfect one. But his point, and the main point of the chapter is summed up when the author quotes the astronomer, Fred Hoyle:

All that we see in the universe of observation and fact, as opposed to the mental state of scenario and supposition, remains unexplained. And even in it’s supposedly first second the universe itself is acausal. That is to say, the universe has to know in advance what it is to be before it knows how to start itself. For in accordance with the big bag theory, for instance, at a time of 1.e+44 seconds the universe has to know how many types of neutrino there are going to be at a time of 1 second. This is so in order that it starts off expanding at the right rate to fit the eventual number of neutrino types.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist. Not even close.

Science suggests a hypothesis that the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. But this hypothesis states that the Big Bang began with a Singularity. There is no scientific explanation for the beginning of the Singularity. It is just as probable that existence is eternal.

God is eternal; He’s always been. So in as much as He has existed throughout eternity, the theory could possibly fit with my theology.

I am not trying to argue, I am just pointing out that there are other explanations for things.

That’s fine. I’m good with that. It keeps me thinking.

Can you provide links to scientific studies of this relationship between health and religious belief?

Yes, I can. It’s in the book, I’m reading by Patrick Glynn, the book I referred to earlier. They are all substantiated from various journals such as The Journal of Chronic Disease, and the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and others. But for now, my family and I are off to my sister’s house for turkey dinner. So I’ll get back to you on that. Have a very Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[notself]

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist. Not even close.

God is eternal; He’s always been. So in as much as He has existed throughout eternity, the theory could possibly fit with my theology.

Have a very Happy Thanksgiving.

Perhaps God is the Singularity.

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well all on this board.

 

[mark_a]

Hi there, I am an atheist. I enjoy computers, astronomy, chess and fishing.
.

What kind of fishing do you like?

 

[_A]

Not so. If we were on a space shuttle and I demonstrated a lack of gravity, you would simply assert that gravity exists, but is only noticeable in bodies of great mass, such as a planet or star. Once you did so, you would be changing the statement. I could also always claim that gravity exists elsewhere than where you conducted the experiment.However, there are many statements concerning gravity which are falsifiable that, when combined with human reason, point to that conclusion.For instance: Things always fall toward the earth. Ultimately, though, a statement about the existence of gravity relies upon a conclusion drawn by human reason from these evidences.Likewise, while the statement “God exists” is not, itself, falsifiable, there are many statements about God that are. For instance, “Christ’s body was resurrected.” In theory, this is falsifiable. After all, were you to produce a corpse or documents to the contrary, you would have shown the falsification of it. Keep in mind I’m not arguing that particular point, but showing that your claim that statements about God are not falsifiable are straw men. Some statements about God are not. Others are. However, keep in mind much of our proof is historical, and the idea of falsification does not generally enter into historical evidence. After all, if I claimed that Kubla Khan existed, you would not ask that I provide a falsifiable claim. Which is why I asked for clarification of other evidences you would accept. You didn’t answer that.I agree, which is why I said it was falsifiable “in theory”. However, the probability that nobody who is living then will care about our little theory from 2008, which was based on no substantial evidence other than a chatroom discussion means that “in practice” it is not falsifiable. The difference between theoretical and practical applicability is very important in science. I can point you to literature on the subject if you would like to understand it better.That’s the problem with your claim.Not so. I could claim they were not being pulled by gravity, but being propelled away from space. Or that they had intrinsic desires to connect with the earth and moved by an unseen propulsion. Or that a trickster God was keeping us bound to earth so that we are limited in our experience. Or that a benevolent God is keeping us bound here, close to food, shelter, and companionship.And I have no problem providing it, but I am questioning the definition you provide of evidence. I am questioning the absolute qualifier of falsifibility.After all, would you consider this theory valid:"All theories must be falsifiable to be valid."If so, please tell me how you would falsify it. If not, please explain why you hold to it so strongly. If the answer is because it is a proposition that is outside the bounds of science, I would answer the same for much of the evidence (historical, logical, supernatural) evidence of God.

The main point I have been making about falsifiability is that there is simply NO EVIDENCE which the catholic church would accept as proof that their god hypothesis is incorrect. That in itself is telling. The theory of gravity is completely open to being disproved. The theory of relativity is also open to being disproved. In fact, if you proved either wrong, your proofs would be welcome and celebrated.
How could someone prove you wrong about your god?

 

[johnnydigit]

what does it for me is the astronomical probability of the events that needed to occur for me to be sitting here typing on a screen. it’s about as probable as me winning the lottery, not just once, 5 times, or 10 times, but say 700 times. now if that isn’t already stupidly absurd, how about if it needed to be 700 consecutive times in a row? “well if it’s possible, it’s possible. we got lucky.”

i liked reading the practical examples and testimonies at
www.doesgodexist.org

this one i haven’t read through but it has more scientific examples allaboutcreation.org/does-god-exist.htm

i kept denying and denying and offering the “luck” that we had, but then i realized just how many zeros were in the probability of us becoming who we are without God (think of the highest number imaginable)… so an uncaused cause… no matter how far you go back in the universe, there will always be an unknown cause before it - that is God.

if you’re not ready to think about the origin of existence, then you’re just not ready for God.

 

[_A]

I think it does. I’m reading the most interesting book at the moment entitled, God the Evidence. Ever heard of it, A? Patrick Glynn, the author has a chapter on the "Not-So-Random Universe. He writes about Hoyle’s notion of the universe needing to know in advance later outcomes. For example, an oak tree is the final cause of the path of growth that begins with an acorn.

I don’t get your point. An acorn wouldn’t know anything…nor would an oak.

God is eternal. God wasn’t created, however we do know that the universe had a beginning.

We know this? No we do not. The universe could be eternal…bang and shrink, over and over…If your Yahweh wasn’t created, what makes you think the universe had to be?

It’s interesting, A, but in general have you noticed that people who have faith in God fair better health-wise?

An amusing bit of research done by the Templeton Institute showed that people who were being prayed for and knew it, fared worse in recovery from heart surgery.
I have met plenty of healthy atheists…just where do you get the idea that being healthier because of belief has anything to do with the existence of a god anyway?

It’s a fact many physicians will attest to. That’s because we’re hard wired for faith, for friendship with God.

If we are hard wired for this, how come I don’t have any? Where are the wires? You make some interesting statements, but I prefer evidence.
That is why I don’t believe. Believing with no reason would be dishonest.

 

[_A]

Since the “theory” of God encompasses and exceeds all known reality, it must fail the concept of falsifiability. But that’s really a red herring when we are questioning whether God exists or not. Because if it were somehow falsifiable, and you were unable to prove it wrong, I would not expect you to be convinced that God exists. It is not proof of God that we are looking for, in the scientific sense. If such proof were available, I would probably be more likely to reject God than accept Him.

I think it is misleading to say “prove to me that God exists, and I will believe it.” I think it would be more accurate to say ‘prove to me that God exists, and I probably will still not believe it’.

I never suggested that I would believe…I don’t believe things. It gets in the way of learning.