Riddle me this Athiests...

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Faith in what? I still don't get it. I don't see how you can believe or have faith in anything you can't define or comprehend.

I don't see why not.
Someone can have faith that their pc will work in a certain manner, even if they can't define or comprehend the mechanics behind it.

If you saw a ghost, and were absolutely 100% certain that is what you saw, then you have no need to comprehend how or why a ghost would exist, to believe in ghosts.

I can't accurately define my ''gut instinct'' nor can I fully comprehend it, yet its strike rate is high enough for me to have faith in it when it kicks in.

I don't see why it follows that you shouldn't have faith in something that consistently delivers certain outcomes, even if you are unable to understand how or why it does so.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

reply to post by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Someone can have faith that their pc will work in a certain manner, even if they can't define or comprehend the mechanics behind it.

That's digital electronics and quantum physics, not magic.

If you saw a ghost, and were absolutely 100% certain that is what you saw, then you have no need to comprehend how or why a ghost would exist, to believe in ghosts.

No, you cannot logically say it's 100% a ghost until proof supported by empiral evidence.

I don't see why it follows that you shouldn't have faith in something that consistently delivers certain outcomes, even if you are unable to understand how or why it does so.

If you cannot define or comprehend it, then you cannot be 100% sure of it. Perhaps if people didn't pretend that their opinion is the same as empiral evidence, we wouldn't be in the middle of these religious wars.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
I can't accurately define my ''gut instinct'' nor can I fully comprehend it, yet its strike rate is high enough for me to have faith in it when it kicks in.

So what you're basically talking about is a physiological response to something. Something you feel. Not a big Grandpa in the sky. Just a kind of odd feeling. I've actually heard that a lot. When people get right down to it, the "god" they believe in is just a kind of feeling.

Well, I have odd feelings now and then, but I don't believe that feeling is responsible for creating the universe, or whatever other strange, supernatural quality this "god" of yours might have.

You know what that feeling probably is? It's probably an old remnant of a psychological arousal response to uncertainty and unknowing. When our little monkey ancestors looked out into the dark jungle and couldn't see anything, they probably got a little anxious, because you never know if something is out there trying to eat you. Same thing with us. When we see vastness and try to comprehend it, we get anxious.

Anyway, this little feeling isn't much of a god, when you get right down to it. Nothing like the god people try and always fail to define and explain.

reply to post by Kandinsky



LOL. isn't that the same?

Originally posted by CHA0S
Bring me one science textbook which states God does not exist. At least Christians have a book (however laughable that may be) to back them up.

Christians do not have a "science textbook" to back them up. You are asking for a science textbook to counter "The Bible?" That makes no sense. If you want a bible that states there is no god, I have one of those. If you have science textbook that does explain a god exists, I would like to see that.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Like all relgions and beliefs, we atheists have our extremists. I dont give a damn about what you do or dont believe in, just stop critisicing us for our beliefs. Its only a small minorty that give us a bad name.

Dont generalise....PLEASE

^This, and as an atheist I have only ever spoken for myself.
As for providing evidence: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For me, I have not seen any evidence for god, and as a scientist I have no need to invoke spirits for explanations which work perfectly well without 'god'.

Reiteration: I am speaking for myself. I would never deign to speak for others.

Originally posted by System

Originally posted by havok
I am not Atheist, but I do want to add this.
I believe that the reason people denounce God is this:
Because they don't want to be held accountable for their actions.

I can't get any simpler than that.

I am an atheist and don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support it. I'm sure this is the same for most atheists. It has nothing to do with wanting to commit crimes and be sinful. That's just a Christian fantasy.

Agreed. A common (mistaken) belief held by the religious is that the non-religious have no fear of punishment for evil actions, and can therefore do whatever they want. So, apparently, the only thing stopping these religious people from going on killing and raping rampages is fear of Big Daddy God giving them a whuppin when he gets home from work. That's a cheery thought.

According to Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development, this is known as being stuck in the "good boy-nice girl" stage. Three out of seven, if you're keeping score. Check it out:

Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Well, it's good to know that atheists can run amok and kill people and steal and do all kinds of other horrible things without ever feeling the need to obey civil laws, have compassion or love for other people, or just basically treating people decently. Just like those bloodthirsty Buddhists, I suppose.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Blue Shift]

The world is too complex and works so well that I can't help but believe in a God/Creator.

Many of you look at the world and don't see a God/Creator.

Ever thought both ideas/beliefs could be wrong?

However the point I would like to make, and this point is taken from a book called the Tao Of Physics, is that: the world literally changes when we perceive it differently.

Although the scope of the book is beyond this post. It is a comparison between eastern mystical/religious concepts of the world and how physics, namely quantum physics is catching up with such concepts. Though the languages of eastern religion and science are different they are attempting to explain the same thing.

However, my point is the book explains that you create your reality; if you don't believe in a God/Creator for whatever reason; your world around you will reflect these beliefs. Just as I who believes will see reasons for a God/Creator everywhere.

Anyway, just my 2 pence.

I do however, think a lot of wasted time is spent debated either side of this argument. I sometimes think that people become peeved over the slightest thing because of their self-importance. "All you see is yourself apart from everything else." - Don Juan

Relax it's just a ride! – Bill Hicks

reply to post by CHA0S

No...I don't...but what I'm saying is, Atheists have no right to claim there is no God...and argue with "believers" that they are following a non-existent, imaginary being

You can't have it both ways. If Christians are allowed to claim God exists and go around telling people they will be damned to an eternal pit of torment forever for their disbelief than I have the right to burst that bubble by pointing out the BS that fills religion and the illogical self-contradictions of the Bible. If one has the right to express belief than one has the right to express a lack of belief.

however, when you see something amazing, something that seems to defy all logic, such as spirits, or telepathy, etc, how can scientists instantly conclude that it's non-existent nonsense

You're apparently fairly ignorant on how science works. Science is evidence based while faith is ignorance based. Its okay to be ignorant about some things, like how Dark Matter works or what came before the singularity but slapping a "God did it" to fill in the gaps doesn't help alleviate that ignorance. Also, science spent years testing absurd theories like blood-letting and alchemy and I assure you that studies into "telepathy" and "spirits" have been done. While I agree there may be something more to these phenomenon from a scientific stand-point there is not enough evidence to support their existence. Science is not allowed to work on faith. Faith is a matter of personal belief. I've had paranormal experiences myself but I wouldn't take those experiences and claim spirits or the paranormal as scientific fact the same way a religious person shouldn't take warm fuzzy feelings while praying as absolute proof of God.

The supernatural cannot, by definition, be proven by science and generally I find that any scientists truly interested in strange phenomenon/ cryptozoology are often scared off by the crazies. For instance, there's a good deal of people who believe in UFOs and have seen them (even I've seen one) but because of crazy people who go around talking about time-shifts, reptilians and Atlantean crystals science wouldn't touch UFOs with a ten foot pole.

So for now UFOs, cryptozoology and God are in the realm of faith until enough evidence can be found to prove they exist. At least we have footage of both UFOs and Bigfoot and such... I have yet to see photos of God.

I'm still holding out for the space penguins and if you think that there are absolutely no penguins in space than you must be arrogant.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

So, all they have to do is prove a negative? Sorry, but the default position is "there is/are no god(s)," since nothing shows existence of any deities except books written (and repeatedly translated) thousands of years ago

I'm sorry but the default position is not " there is/are no god(s)" the default position is " there is no known Empirically testable evidence to support gods"

Like prosecutors in court, believers have the burden of proof. Atheists can't prove there isn't a god any more than a defendant can prove that he didn't commit the crime. You show evidence that you were somewhere else? Perhaps it was manufactured. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken or liars.

You are correct here but you are also leaving something out.

When an atheist claims that there is no evidence to support the case of god they must first demonstrate that there is indeed no Evidence to support the claim. The Theist must show that there is evidence, and the atheist must refute with counter evidence. Obviously on metaphysical matters such as this it is not an easy thing to put to an empirical test. The most logical answer is to claim to not know of any evidence. You can't just say " no your evidence is wrong i refute it" without offering counter evidence or a reason why. That is what causes the main divide between Theists and atheists.

So lets say for example I were to say to you " i have personally met god" and you were to say to me " ok prove it" i would not be able to prove it to you without you having been there to witness it. Now naturally you would be skeptical, and for good reason, it is possible that i am lying, however you can not say to me " well you are probably lying, or it was a delusion, hallucination etc." without offering evidence to back up your claim that i might be lying.

The burden of proof is clearly on both of us at this point.
You can't make accusations and statements without offering evidence to support your claim, this applies to both sides of the argument. In a legal battle you have to offer evidence that the Defendent is guilty, and the defendent has to offer evidence that he is not guilty. Evidence can either be anecdotal evidence substantiated by eyewitness report or it can be hard empirical evidence. The burden of proof shifts between parties during the trial it does not rest solely on one party. Saying that it exclusively rests solely on the Theist simply because they were the first to make a claim is as absurd as saying it solely rests on the Atheists because they challenged the claim.

This was what really turned me off from gnostic-theism and even the softer forms of atheism. It's absolutely inane and irrational to assume that the burden of proof rests solely on one party.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

How does that mean he is not omnipotent? If he is willing to prevent evil then that implies that he has knowledge of it but is incapable of preventing evil. That does not mean he does not prevent evil because he lacks knowledge of it. Now it is a possibilty, but that is not the sole possibility. At least logically speaking. This could also mean he is not omnipresent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Again, possible, but not the only conclusion that can be drawn.
If her serves justice to those who are victims of evil be it post or pre-mortem then he is offering salvation, hence not making him malevolent, at least by our standards.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

A valid point, but the source of evil on our planet comes from man.

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Well we haven't really defined what god we are talking about. But we could call him god because he is either the driving force behind the universe, or because he was the initial creator.

reply to post by Trying Times

The world is too complex and works so well that I can't help but believe in a God/Creator.

So how do you account for the stuff that does not work well or is not complex, who exactly, created the crap ?

reply to post by DeathShield

A valid point, but the source of evil on our planet comes from man.

According to the judeo christian scriptures the source of evil is jesus, which indeed would be a logical conclusion if he is the creator of all that there is, was or will ever be.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
So what you're basically talking about is a physiological response to something. Something you feel. Not a big Grandpa in the sky. Just a kind of odd feeling. I've actually heard that a lot. When people get right down to it, the "god" they believe in is just a kind of feeling.

Well, I have odd feelings now and then, but I don't believe that feeling is responsible for creating the universe, or whatever other strange, supernatural quality this "god" of yours might have.

I think you misunderstand me; I'm not referring to my ''gut instinct'' in regards to belief in God, but in normal day to day life and activity.
I was just citing it as an example of how you can have faith in something without comprehending what the thing you have faith in actually is.
I don't know how or why my ''gut instinct'' works - and in the interests of honesty and fairness I'll say that it's not 100% accurate - but its success rate is high enough for me to rule out coincidence.

Your query that I was replying to was how could someone have faith in something that they can't define or comprehend. So I gave you that personal example.

reply to post by piedsniper


Care to make an example of anything in the natural world that doesn't work well? Is this perception based because one man’s treasure is another man’s gold. I was under the impression that things are there because they work well, otherwise they become extinct.

I might just like to add also that my belief in a God/Creator stems from a lot more than the complexity and the working of the universe.

However I don't wish to debate over this, as I was saying. It's all about perception. I only commented to mention the book which some might find interesting for the points it raises and because it might appeal to the scientifically minded whist also appealing to the more mystically minded.

reply to post by DeathShield

Obviously on metaphysical matters such as this it is not an easy thing to put to an empirical test.

As ever time will probably solve the problem, we can now empirically test viruses where as once disease was believed to be caused by demons .

Given enough time, a group of ants on a table eventually line themselves up and spell out the name colin. If your name was Colin and you happened to be the and observe this event as it occurred then you'd probably conclude that the ants were trying to communicate with you.

The weak minded often mistake a shadow for a spirit but never a tricycle.

Originally posted by john124
That's digital electronics and quantum physics, not magic.

It is. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that you can have faith in the pc performing the tasks that you expect it to without comprehending or being able to define how it does so.

Originally posted by john124
No, you cannot logically say it's 100% a ghost until proof supported by empiral evidence.

The question was about belief and faith. No empirical evidence is required.

Originally posted by john124
If you cannot define or comprehend it, then you cannot be 100% sure of it.

Why can't you be 100% sure of something that you can't define or comprehend ? If you came from a society without technology and turned a light switch on and off several times, wouldn't you be 100% sure that the light would continue to operate in that manner, despite not grasping or being able to explain how ?

reply to post by Trying Times

I was under the impression that things are there because they work well, otherwise they become extinct.

Apparently over 98% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct obviously they did not work that well ie are flawed. So much for the designer eh ?

Death in childbirth is common place obviously there is something not working here.

reply to post by piedsniper


Kudos to you, i'm now converted and I know longer believe in a Creator.

Night, i'm going to bed.

reply to post by Trying Times

I might just like to add also that my belief in a God/Creator stems from a lot more than the complexity and the working of the universe.

Well that narrows things down a bit, someone told you, you read it somewhere, god told you or you just choose to believe it because it fits your mindset.

Strangely enough few people report the most obvious way to confirm what they like to believe and that is simply that, this god popped in said hi and explained what he is all about.

If you knew anything about atheism, or religion for that matter, you'd know about the 7 levels. These were created by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, King of the atheists, and one of religion's most hated men. Whether you like him or not, you have to agree his 7 levels are correct. They are:

Level 1: Fundamentalist Christian, Creationist.
Level 2: Devout Christian, but not Joel Osteen.
Level 3: Everyday christian, probably understand evolution is a fact.
Level 4: Agnostic, indifferent.
Level 5: Not really sure about the idea of a god or not, leaning towards the nonexistance of one, but still undecided.
Level 6: Fairly certain there is no god, but obviously cannot prove it.
Level 7: 100% positive there is no god, without a shred of doubt in your mind.

I classify myself as a number 6, so does Dawkins, and I think most atheists would. I would be dumbstruck to find a number 7, as there is obviously no proof, which is the purpose of your thread. I am an atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I'm not so arrogant as to bash believers, because like them, I have no proof.

Although I don't take offense, I think you're very ignorant to say that "atheists aren't as smart as you think you are" because I don't believe you know or understand the majority of us. I'm an average college student, and have never claimed to be smarter than anyone.