I'm an atheist

[MarcusOfLycia]

Again I would not go as far as to call something outside our measurable science as supernatural. Just because we do not understand it doesn't mean we have to put in away in the god file.

Its not that what I was talking about is not measurable now and could be measurable at some point in the future. Its that it can -never- be by its own definition (something outside the physical universe). If something like that (supernatural) isn't considered supernatural, then we either have completely different definitions or you aren't actually accepting the -possibility- of something supernatural (which you later say you do).

When you mention that you find meaning in things because 'it stimulates [your] brain', I hope you can understand how that is merely an illusion of meaning. It would be no different than me writing a program that had simulated creatures in it, and when the did things it merely flagged a 'meaning' variable of some kind. My point wasn't that there wouldn't be an illusion of meaning in an atheistic worldview, but that that's all it would be (and there would be no consciousness either, since it would also be an illusion).

[jlay]

Inducer.

A better way to put the Christian position is to say, without God, your life has no inherent meaning. Of course your life has meaning to you. You are self-aware, and therefore it has meaning. My question is, so what? If there is nothing beyond the material world, then what kind of meaning is that? Illusory if you ask me.

It's odd that you contend that things are random, when we in fact see order. Without order, you would not be. DNA contains a library of information. If there wasn't order at the molecular level, nothing would hold together. If there wasn't order in our solar system, life would not be possible. Randomness does not create and organize information. If everything is random, then so is your existence. Your non-existence could be just as likely a possibility. Yet you contend there is meaning to your life. Are you contending that you are not merely the product of evolution (random chance)? Because if evolution is all there is, then you are the product of meaningless chance.

It went from a "man" living up in the clouds in heaven to a being outside of our possible existence, possibly existing in another dimension or out of phase of our perception. My point is that as our understanding of this universe changes, people realize that their interpretation of god has to change now to fit the current ideas of the time - otherwise god doesn't make sense.

Can you please provide some scholarship how this is true within the Judeo/Christian monotheistic faith?

that is meaningful to me because I am cleaning my house. I am going to do the best possible job I could for those two tasks.

So what? Why is there meaning in this. Why is there more meaning in this, than just sitting on your butt, and half-arsing it. If everything is random then how is there a 'best' to attain?

[Gman]

Evolution is also not meant to account for the existence of life just a mere transformation of life. How life began is quite an interesting topic from a molecular biologists point of view.

Sure that is what many say, but you will never be able to divorce philosophy from science. Science and philosophy at some point MUST conflict. Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design' is a perfect example how evolution and philosophy mix.

It is true that we have not truly understood how it first started but we are close. We can now synthetically make cells in the the lab by copying existing "blue prints" -imitation. A first step to understanding. Next, will come creation. We can already create bacteria that do particular tasks that we program them to do. The final step would be to create a cell from nothing and watch it grow.

WE can create bacteria? This is an argument for Intelligent Design, not naturalism.

Again I would not go as far as to call something outside our measurable science as supernatural. Just because we do not understand it doesn't mean we have to put in away in the god file.

Likewise, just because we do not understand it doesn't mean we have to put in away in the evolution file either..

I guess all I am trying to say is that we just don't know. Just because I do not personally believe in a Christian god doesn't mean I do not believe there is a possibility of a being outside my perception of him.

One more thing, I was actually surprised to find a site like this and to see how the perception of god has evolved. It went from a "man" living up in the clouds in heaven to a being outside of our possible existence, possibly existing in another dimension or out of phase of our perception. My point is that as our understanding of this universe changes, people realize that their interpretation of god has to change now to fit the current ideas of the time - otherwise god doesn't make sense.

Our understanding of God may change, but God Himself NEVER changes.. I would suggest you go back and try to understand His truths more...

[inducer]

My point is this: people who claim that god exist make up stories to fit the situation. When you can't explain something you say "god did it". Plain and simple. The same way people who claim god does not exist "make up stories" and say "science can explain this". I do not understand how you cannot see the circular argument that has been created.

Ill explain. You experience something "supernatural" or unexplainable and you conclude that because there is no way to understand what has happened there must be some unseen force at work - lets call him god. Next, you internalize the notion of god and use it to explain everything to the point of explaining god itself. Because you cannot grasp the concept of god you conclude that its just god. You are stuck in a loop where god explains everything and everything explains god.

The difference between believing in a god or not believing in god (i.e. science) is that scientists do not make absolute claims unless there is evidence to support them. If they cannot provide enough evidence (be careful here, i did not say proof) for something they simply say just that. This allows the break in the circle. If you can't explain something then just leave it at that. We do not know everything. This loop argument does not allow people to be open to the fact that god could not exist. There seems to be only one way to break a loop argument of this sort and it is to provide an alternative explanation that is logical.

A woman living 2000 years ago would at some point believe that god makes lightning or clouds. A valid claim? Her perception / understanding of the world is somewhat primitive yes? Her belief at the time is perfectly valid, she cannot fathom or understand how lighting and clouds are formed so she thinks they are an act of god. At the same time she probably believes that god lives up in the clouds - that may be her interpretation of heaven.
Fast forward now 2000 year later. A modern woman now understand that clouds are just little droplets of water, she can make her own clouds with the proper equipment. She can also understand how lighting is made and make it herself, given the right equipment. There is no doubt in her mind that god was not really responsible for those things. She also believes that god doesn't live up in the clouds in heaven because she has flown in an airplane and seen that heaven could not possibly exist in the clouds.

As you can see these ideas of god, heaven and the world evolved over time.

The same modern woman can be found asking herself - "but where does the water in the little droplets come from to make clouds?" - god must have created that. Or she might wonder how the universe was made. The more she learns that things can be explained without god the more sophisticated her interpretation of the bible has to be to "fit" and explain current phenomena.

As you can see, this argument can go on forever. I don't even need to write this because I already know the responses I am going to get. For example, "well god created everything so even though she can start the process of making lighting the actual lighting is created by god." "The universe was always created by god and everything in so even though she can explain it scientifically it doesn't change the fact that god put all these laws of physics in the universe to create it... we are just discovering these laws that god created." This type of argument leaves no room for anything but god. Therefore, until someone realizes that no one can argue with this closed loop /mind there is NO POINT in having any further discussion about any topic related to god. Even if aliens land tomorrow in central park New York and claim they are the creators of man kind - I am sure someone will find a passage in the bible and interpret it to "fit" the situation.

I haven't heard one "Christian" say they were open to the fact that god could not exist.

[Kurieuo]

The difference between believing in a god or not believing in god (i.e. science) is that scientists do not make absolute claims unless there is evidence to support them. If they cannot provide enough evidence (be careful here, i did not say proof) for something they simply say just that. This allows the break in the circle. If you can't explain something then just leave it at that. We do not know everything. This loop argument does not allow people to be open to the fact that god could not exist. There seems to be only one way to break a loop argument of this sort and it is to provide an alternative explanation that is logical.

Ignoring that many great scientists have believed, or believe, in God... and that "not believing in god" is not equivilant to "science" but rather a philosophical position of "Atheism"...

If adherents of "Philosophical Naturalism" (apparently the equivalent of "scientists" to you) do not make absolute claims unless there is evidence to support them, then I wonder how "junk dna" became so accepted.

And if those who believe in God are happy with a "god did it" approach void of an evidence basis, then I guess it makes sense then that:

• many Christians theorised and proved heliocentricism and fathered much of modern astronomy
• it was a Christian who developed the experimental method on which all modern science is based
• it was a Christian who proved pressure and vacuum and invented the hydraulic press, against popular science of the day which preferred to believe an "invisible matter" was involved.

A woman living 2000 years ago would at some point believe that god makes lightning or clouds.

That's a bit sexist isn't it? Which women or woman living 2000 years ago did your lecturer tell you believed this?

A valid claim? Her perception / understanding of the world is somewhat primitive yes? Her belief at the time is perfectly valid, she cannot fathom or understand how lighting and clouds are formed so she thinks they are an act of god. At the same time she probably believes that god lives up in the clouds - that may be her interpretation of heaven.

Sound like a nice bedtime story that was given to you, of the category "strawman".

Fast forward now 2000 year later. A modern woman now understand that clouds are just little droplets of water, she can make her own clouds with the proper equipment. She can also understand how lighting is made and make it herself, given the right equipment. There is no doubt in her mind that god was not really responsible for those things. She also believes that god doesn't live up in the clouds in heaven because she has flown in an airplane and seen that heaven could not possibly exist in the clouds.

And yet 2000 years later, many theologians (and people at large I'm sure) believe God did not only create, but sustains His creation. It is interesting our universe is governed by laws quite stable and predictable rather than chaotic and entirely random.

Otherwise, as for our modern understanding. We do understand why an apple falls from a tree too (gravity), and where gravity comes from, what gravity is, and where our universe comes from, and why it seems so anthropomorphic.

As you can see these ideas of god, heaven and the world evolved over time.

According to your story. I'm yet to see the "evidence" to believe this story.

I haven't heard one "Christian" say they were open to the fact that god could not exist.

One reason is likely because we are not just talking about the existence of God, but rather the existence of a personal God.

If we believe we have experienced God in a personal way, and see the evidence clear as day having a proper disposition and correct alignment of rational faculties, then it is kind of hard to deny His existence.

However, it is possible that God does not exist. In which case, we Christians are to be quite pitied. Thanks for caring.

[jlay]

My point is this: people who claim that god exist make up stories to fit the situation. When you can't explain something you say "god did it".

Sure people do that. People also attribute things to aliens, ghost and other superstitions. People also counterfeit money. That doesn't mean the genuine doesn't exist. If you like we can set asside all past religions and discuss the existance of God just from what we are able to observe today. No religious text. Is that OK?

A woman living 2000 years ago would at some point believe that god makes lightning or clouds.

this is a form of historical snobbery. It assumes that just because people lived long ago that they were stupid, and attributed everything to superstitions. The fact is that people today are just as superstitous as they have every been. Yes, you can certainly examine many religions and spot obvious superstition and legend. Are you willing to examine the claims of the bible without your predispositions and prejeudices?

I haven't heard one "Christian" say they were open to the fact that god could not exist.

Are you open to the idea that your brain doesn't exist. You've never seen it. Of course you have expereinced it, so you therefore KNOW it exist despite the lack of tangible evidence. Also, there are several of us here who came from believing God did not exist. We have several former atheists who post.

The difference between believing in a god or not believing in god (i.e. science) is that scientists do not make absolute claims unless there is evidence to support them.

No scientist is above reproach. They all use philosophy. In fact, your statement is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical one. Evidence never makes claims. People do, and that my friend is philosophy. Every scientists examines the evidence from their philosophical bias.

[Gman]

My point is this: people who claim that god exist make up stories to fit the situation. When you can't explain something you say "god did it". Plain and simple. The same way people who claim god does not exist "make up stories" and say "science can explain this". I do not understand how you cannot see the circular argument that has been created.

Ill explain. You experience something "supernatural" or unexplainable and you conclude that because there is no way to understand what has happened there must be some unseen force at work - lets call him god. Next, you internalize the notion of god and use it to explain everything to the point of explaining god itself. Because you cannot grasp the concept of god you conclude that its just god. You are stuck in a loop where god explains everything and everything explains god.

Many say that the belief in God is just an argument from ignorance, you can’t prove that it’s not true so it must be true. This is the classic God of the gaps argument. We don’t know how it works yet so we say God did it. But we see this true with Darwinism all the time also with the origin of life, the origin of the phyla, the decent of man, in other words we don’t know how it works yet, but we are going to say that evolution did it. So there is no difference between God of the gaps and evolution of the gaps. We say it’s not testable; clearly you can’t take bunch of non-living chemicals, expose it to the right conditions and get a cell to come out. It’s something that took place in the past, we can’t test this. We can’t take a reptile, and expose it to radiation or gama rays, and get it to grow feathers. Basically Design and Darwinian evolution are not technically testable. This is not science vs religion, this is a battle between two different fundamental philosophies. Two different world views.

The difference between believing in a god or not believing in god (i.e. science) is that scientists do not make absolute claims unless there is evidence to support them. If they cannot provide enough evidence (be careful here, i did not say proof) for something they simply say just that. This allows the break in the circle. If you can't explain something then just leave it at that. We do not know everything. This loop argument does not allow people to be open to the fact that god could not exist. There seems to be only one way to break a loop argument of this sort and it is to provide an alternative explanation that is logical.

Well that simply isn't true... You could argue that absolute claims are not being made, for example, in the fields of molecular biology, but man will always impose their philosophical views into it.. Philosophy and science must conflict. Science and philosophy deal with the same thing. The origin of life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. Again, read Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" or Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design." Issues raised by absolute claims will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. Darwin as well on various occasions posed theological and philosophical questions on evolution. You cannot escape it..

A woman living 2000 years ago would at some point believe that god makes lightning or clouds. A valid claim? Her perception / understanding of the world is somewhat primitive yes? Her belief at the time is perfectly valid, she cannot fathom or understand how lighting and clouds are formed so she thinks they are an act of god. At the same time she probably believes that god lives up in the clouds - that may be her interpretation of heaven.
Fast forward now 2000 year later. A modern woman now understand that clouds are just little droplets of water, she can make her own clouds with the proper equipment. She can also understand how lighting is made and make it herself, given the right equipment. There is no doubt in her mind that god was not really responsible for those things. She also believes that god doesn't live up in the clouds in heaven because she has flown in an airplane and seen that heaven could not possibly exist in the clouds.

As you can see these ideas of god, heaven and the world evolved over time.

The same modern woman can be found asking herself - "but where does the water in the little droplets come from to make clouds?" - god must have created that. Or she might wonder how the universe was made. The more she learns that things can be explained without god the more sophisticated her interpretation of the bible has to be to "fit" and explain current phenomena.

Belief in God is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. Christianity did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of a belief. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this Biblical prediction.

As you can see, this argument can go on forever. I don't even need to write this because I already know the responses I am going to get. For example, "well god created everything so even though she can start the process of making lighting the actual lighting is created by god." "The universe was always created by god and everything in so even though she can explain it scientifically it doesn't change the fact that god put all these laws of physics in the universe to create it... we are just discovering these laws that god created." This type of argument leaves no room for anything but god. Therefore, until someone realizes that no one can argue with this closed loop /mind there is NO POINT in having any further discussion about any topic related to god. Even if aliens land tomorrow in central park New York and claim they are the creators of man kind - I am sure someone will find a passage in the bible and interpret it to "fit" the situation.

I haven't heard one "Christian" say they were open to the fact that god could not exist.

Actually you are right about one thing here.. God is both male and female, but when God creates, God is known as El Shaddai or the feminine side of God. Shaddai meaning fertility.

A dogmatic belief is unhealthy. This over arching explanatory model is so much hand waving, well evolution did at that, we don’t understand how but it’s going to do that. Well that isn’t science, that’s just a verbal place holder. Many people argue that methodological naturalism is necessary because scientists who followed it have made valuable discoveries. That is true, but it is also true that scientists who did not follow it like Isaac Newton, who assumed that God was the designer, for example have also made valuable discoveries.

The scientific method is raw science also called (methodological naturalism), however when you say Darwinian evolution (DE) did it or intelligent design (ID) did it, these statements are pretty much neutral to science. It’s really not going to hurt or change how science is done if we talk about ID or DE in the classrooms. Maybe a different philosophical idea, but not how science is actually done. If you said that an intelligent designer did it, wouldn’t you be curious to know how he did it like how naturalism may have done it? Basically you just go back to doing science again although the different philosophical premises or alternatives have changed. It really doesn’t matter.

[robyn hill]

It is interesting how much my perspective has changed over the years of studying science and Christianity. I remember in my college days, before I started investigating science and origins of the universe, I would read Christian forums and think, Wow, they really do sound ignorant and naive. The last 20 years have been revealing. Now when I read atheist comments, I tend to feel the way I used to feel after reading Christain comments. Atheist logic is flawed. Atheism claims there is no possible God, yet organized energy is the reason we exist. If energy can collectively accomplish tasks, why not the possibility of God? Atheists claim to believe in evolution, yet deny the possiblity of a higher power. So the buck stops here on our planet? Atheist logic is contradictory. I understand agnosticism, and was agnostic myself until after studying the historical and prophetical sides of the bible, in addition to studying the sciences. But when atheists use science to deny a creator, they are making claims without proof OR evidence. Atheists might say we don't have proof either,but we DO have evidence which is more than I can say for the atheist philosophy. If we can see, here on earth, evidence of energy organized in such a way to provide life, cycles, systems, efficiency, why would that not be possible in another form beyond us? If atheists believe in evolution, and consider the age of our universe, why wouldn't it be possible for something to be more intelligent and evolved? I don't think atheism has a solid leg to stand on.

[robyn hill]

One more thing, I was actually surprised to find a site like this and to see how the perception of god has evolved. It went from a "man" living up in the clouds in heaven to a being outside of our possible existence, possibly existing in another dimension or out of phase of our perception. My point is that as our understanding of this universe changes, people realize that their interpretation of god has to change now to fit the current ideas of the time - otherwise god doesn't make sense.inducer
Newbie Member

Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:09 am
Private messageE-mail inducer

You say we change God to fit our times...actually our times change and God still fits. its interesting you say the perception of God has evolved. God has remained the same, after all the bible has remained the same. It is actually the world that has changed. How can the bible and the changing world coexist unless the bible is true? Yes, Life has changed remarkably yet the bible has not been disproven, nor has it changed. Also, just food for thought, the bible says that in the last days knowledge about these things will increase. Chemists, physicists, cosmologists, are many who have come to Chrisitanity through their studies of science. These scientists used convergent thinking to draw the conclusions that there is a God. In other words, not the other way around where they looked at the bible and then reached their conclusions. The evidence led them to their beliefs.

[robyn hill]

If a student walked into a classroom and sat down at a desk, could a test create itself? Could a tornado hit the room and suddenly create a test on the desk? Our logic tells us no. Yet,that is what the atheist philosophy teaches. From the moment we are born until the day we die, the world is like a giant multiple choice test. Did we create these circumstances or were they here before we were? The circumstances that lead us to make logical decisions were all here before we were. The circumstances were presented to us and we responded, not the other way around. How could a giant test with definite right and wrong answers randomly occur? How did it become systematically organized , how are there answers that are right and wrong? Logic, right and wrong decisions, were put into motion long before human beings were. Unless you believe a test could create itself, there is no other alternative then reasoning its orinins were from a creator.

[jlay]

Robyn,

I think we are still suffering the repurcusions of anti-intellectual Christianity. Fortunately we are coming out of that age. But I think it is where a lot of the oft-answered objections we hear today found traction.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Robyn,

I think we are still suffering the repurcusions of anti-intellectual Christianity. Fortunately we are coming out of that age. But I think it is where a lot of the oft-answered objections we hear today found traction.

I always found it interesting that there are atheists today who think that Christianity is a shallow worldview with not much backing it except superstition. After studying Christian history a bit, its amazing how many brilliant minds were involved in it. Every day I hear about another scientist or mathematician who was a Christian. The scholastic movement too was far more intellectual than the 'new atheist' movement. Going all the way back to the first centuries of Christianity, there are brilliant minds who have answered things ranging from the 'problem' of evil to practical, observable evidences of God.

I think if there's been an 'anti-intellectual' Christianity, its mostly because we don't seek some of the wealth of knowledge that previous Christians developed. I think that's a shame, because we always think about wanting to be remembered ourselves, yet we don't remember those before us.

[narnia4]

Robyn,

I think we are still suffering the repurcusions of anti-intellectual Christianity. Fortunately we are coming out of that age. But I think it is where a lot of the oft-answered objections we hear today found traction.

That's a good point, imo there were years where Christians didn't feel the need to answer the "hard questions". Even if some/most/all of them (problem of evil, for example) were answered hundreds of years ago, sometimes you need a "modern voice" that can speak in a way that people can understand. Some of the Christian movements in the 60's and 70's were based almost entirely off of emotional experience and lacked powerful intellectual voices, indeed as the word "anti-intellectual" indicates, a few even shunned and condemned intellectualism. Then there was the time of the "tv preachers" that's still having some bad repercussions. That's not to say that there wasn't good work being done there, but there's a better base of Christian apologists and intellectuals today then there has been for a long time imo. I don't think we've seen the full effect of this movement yet.

http://www.rzim.org/usa/rzimnews/tabid/ ... fault.aspx

Here's a short article about some research about "Who is impacting the Evangelical mind?" and I think it could apply to Christian intellectualism in general. Society at large has still largely ignored this, but guys like Ravi Zacharias are doing tremendous work today. He's had packed seminars in places like the University of Michigan for days with teachers and students giving him standing ovations at the end of his talks. Stuff like that's always encouraging for me to see, signs that we're actually engaging the world.

[jlay]

Yes, Ravi brings it. He is a brilliant mind. And there are many like him emerging.

[Christian2]

So why should I believe in the christian god, or in any god?

It seems to me you are not too interested in an answer to your question since you have not kept up with the responses.