Hey guys, I'm 24 years old, became atheist a few months ago. I've been agnostic for most of my life (but leaning toward theism), but raised in a Christian family. Anyway, why did you become an atheist?
For me, I think evolution is by far the strongest thing in favor of atheism. I'm a biology student, and after learning about how genetics work, and how DNA molecules behave during sexual reproduction, it suddenly became much more plausible and believable, in my mind, that purely natural processes could turn a self replicating molecule into all life we see today. In fact, after taking a genetics class, I realized that it's impossible for evolution to not occur, and evolution is constantly occurring today on Earth. I have faith that molecules following chemical and physical laws were required to turn regular molecules into self-replicating molecules, and I have faith that physicists will eventually discover how the Big Bang occurred.
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. Anyway, why did you guys become atheists?
There is a thread or three floating about with our variably tragic life stories.
I was born atheist and it never changed, it's really that simple.
As for the title question, is religion not reason enough to turn atheist?
I'm typing from my phone but in brief I disagree and don't see evolution as against god..I've explained why in another thread not too long ago
There is no argument for atheism per se .. Just a lot of arguments against theism being a insupportable position
I didn't become an atheist, I've always been one. I've never believed in god. It simply never made any sense to me. As a kid I was exposed to a variety of religions and they all seemed equally unlikely. It's pretty hard to go into a mosque, churches of various denominations, temples, and so on, and believe that any one of them has a lock on the truth. I've simply never understood the need for, the belief in, or the appeal of a god belief.
My father was a secular humanist who taught math and science. He grew up in a catholic family, but gave it up as a teenager when the priest tried to tell him what he could and could not read. My mother was raised a lutheran and gave it up when they said she shouldn't ask questions. In both cases, they felt very strongly that any religion that couldn't tolerate questions or other viewpoints couldn't possibly have the truth behind them.
I agree with them.
I've always been an atheist, never believed in a living god and never really bothered about religion. Then I met a few theists and everything changed...
From not really bothering or caring about religion I became opposed to such beliefs and the way they make people think. It escalated from there.
I'm totally agnostic towards deistic gods, though. It's just the theistic ones that aren't supported by neither evidence or the power of theist's arguments that I'm much quicker to reject.
The strongest arguments in favour of atheism IMO are simply the rebuttals to the theist's best arguments. There's nothing else to go on, it's not like trying to disprove something that exists.
That coupled with the fact that people are extremely fallible and psychologically prone to being religious. The fact that it's also a result of cultural and geographical upbringing and indoctrination doesn't help their side either. Theistic versions of their gods look too human to be taken seriously, and in many aspects just like the believers themselves. Also, evolutionary psychology just makes way more sense than a theists claims. Of course that implies that even true believers are mistaken...
I use the term "3A" to refer to either (a) any person whose thinking combines elements of atheism, agnosticism, and apatheism; or else (b) the big tent community of all atheists, all agnostics, and all apatheists.
I'm 3A. My personal need to think clearly made me so.
First, I'm antifaith, not merely with regard to the supernatural, but in any and every conceivable context. Absent empirical verification or logical necessity, I believe nothing, however much I may suspect.
Second, I'm a hard agnostic, as it is obvious to me that it is impossible to empirically verify that we live in a created universse, and equally impossible to demonstrate the logical necessity that we do so. Empirical verification depends on our senses and/or our instruments, and our senses and our insruments can only apprise us of creatures. Anything that is not a creature cannot be known by our senses or our insruments. Thus we cannot empirically verify the Creator, even if such exists. Meanwhile, brilliant minds have tried for millennia to demonstrate the logical necessity that we live in a created universe, and none of them have succeeded. At some point, repeated failure implies impossibility. I think, after millennia, we have reached that point.
A hard agnostic who is antifaith can only be an atheist.
I'm also a practical person. In any life that ends after mere decades and has no seqel, time spent worrying or speculating about something we can never empirically verify or logically demonstrate is time wasted. So of course, inevitably, I'm an apatheist.
I'm an a-the-ist in the same way I'm an a-fairy-ist. No evidence, no dice.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 24, 2011, 04:16:27 AM
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.
I challenge this point. For purposes of full disclosure, I'm a Christian who accepts evolution. Why could a creator God not set the original conditions of the cosmos, including natural laws that guide the evolutionary process? And then why could that creator God not manifest himself in some manner to conscious, intelligent creatures such as us who ultimately evolved according to the laws the creator instituted?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 24, 2011, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 24, 2011, 04:16:27 AM
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.
...Why could a creator God not set the original conditions of the cosmos, including natural laws that guide the evolutionary process?...
I know a fair number of liberal/moderate christians who believe this. That god set things in motion, but isn't the micro-manager that conservative fundamentalists believe in. They also say the bible is allegorical rather than literal. Personally, if I believed such, I think I'd toss out the christian structure and just go with whatever made sense to me individually, but since I don't really understand god belief at all, I could be missing something.
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?
Why an exercise in futility? This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 24, 2011, 04:16:27 AM
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. Anyway, why did you guys become atheists?
What if someone says they don't base their belief in god on empiricism, but intuition alone? Do you believe that intuition alone would not be a valid source of knowledge?
But, why do you believe that empiricism is a valid source of knowledge? At some point you must have made the assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms that you base this belief on.
So then what do you base that assumption on? Maybe personal experience, maybe a choice, maybe intuition alone.
Wouldn't it seem than that intuition would be a valid source of knowledge?
Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*. Theism on the other had, people usually don't find any need to reason why they believe in a god, they often just say, it's intuitive....
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 06:29:48 PM
...Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*...
Not for me it isn't. Atheism isn't a choice at all. It's a fundamental belief that I feel down to my core. Any logical justification for it is simply trying to explain after the fact to people who don't understand me. My lack of belief probably boils down to experience, which includes observations of nature and science and the actions of religious people. But that all adds up to a subconscious belief that had no particular first moment. I've never believed in god. Religion has never made any sense to me at all, even as a child. How can one make a choice to believe in unicorns when unicorns are obviously a fabrication? I see no substantive difference between gods and unicorns. And I never have.
Quote from: Traveler on December 24, 2011, 07:10:14 PM
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 06:29:48 PM
...Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*...
Not for me it isn't. Atheism isn't a choice at all. It's a fundamental belief that I feel down to my core. Any logical justification for it is simply trying to explain after the fact to people who don't understand me. My lack of belief probably boils down to experience, which includes observations of nature and science and the actions of religious people. But that all adds up to a subconscious belief that had no particular first moment. I've never believed in god. Religion has never made any sense to me at all, even as a child. How can one make a choice to believe in unicorns when unicorns are obviously a fabrication? I see no substantive difference between gods and unicorns. And I never have.
Ok. So then for you it's a fundamental belief that you feel down to your core, which sounds like what I would call intuition. So then you accept your intuition to be telling you a truth about this, and so some religious people do the same thing...
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 07:20:12 PM
Ok. So then for you it's a fundamental belief that you feel down to your core, which sounds like what I would call intuition. So then you accept your intuition to be telling you a truth about this, and so some religious people do the same thing...
I'm actually a big fan of intuition. As an artist it stands me in good stead. As for truth? I don't know for certain what the truth is. By the terms I've seen on this board I'm an agnostic atheist, or perhaps more an apatheist. I don't believe in god. I don't insist that I know the truth about it. And it doesn't really matter to me. If evidence comes along and I change my mind, so be it. I live my life as best I can with what I've got.
The difference between myself and many of the religious people I know (especially fundamentalists) is that I don't believe there is only one correct path through life. As long as religious folks don't stomp all over my country's laws, or on my rights and freedoms, they can believe anything they want. Right wing christians in the US don't accord me the same respect.
I've never been a theist.
Was very surprised when I first came to this forum and heard the best arguments the theists had.
The arguments were very poor philosophical, logical arguments e.g. the cosmological argument, which wholly relies on assumptions and lack of knowledge rather than positive knowledge.
All the theistic "evidence" relies on making the metaphysical realm (concepts) consistent with no tie in to anything physical, nothing ever provable or testable. The scriptures (anecdotal stories) are interpreted well beyond the stories resulting in an interpretation that no longer resembles the scriptures.
It seems people often want an afterlife, or want rules to help them be a good person. They also get confused about the realisation of the self and the emotions they have, to them the posed answers from theistic religion helps them make sense and sounds much more romantic than the cold stories of animated atoms presented by atheist stance.
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?
It wouldn't be futile if he has a purpose in doing it. Furthermore, a creator God is not necessarily omniscient, especially when it comes to the actions of sentient creatures such as ourselves. Such a God might see the end result but exactly how it gets there might be unknown.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 24, 2011, 06:13:10 PM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?
Why an exercise in futility? This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.
I can't help thinking that a being of such awe and grandeur might have better things to do....
But then... I'm not a god, so I don't know how they get their lulz....
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 24, 2011, 08:29:53 PM
It wouldn't be futile if he has a purpose in doing it. Furthermore, a creator God is not necessarily omniscient, especially when it comes to the actions of sentient creatures such as ourselves. Such a God might see the end result but exactly how it gets there might be unknown.
Doesn't the common or garden variety god of our major religions have omniscience fitted as standard? Maybe it has to be subtracted from Him in order to make the point work.
I guess that would mean a great many religious people having to redefine what it is their god is and does in terms of omnipotence and omniscience unless they retreat into some sort of deism. As ever, the definitions need to be handily fitted with castors. :)
It's a bit of a bizarre topic.... :P
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 06:29:48 PM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 24, 2011, 04:16:27 AM
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. Anyway, why did you guys become atheists?
What if someone says they don't base their belief in god on empiricism, but intuition alone? Do you believe that intuition alone would not be a valid source of knowledge?
But, why do you believe that empiricism is a valid source of knowledge? At some point you must have made the assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms that you base this belief on.
So then what do you base that assumption on? Maybe personal experience, maybe a choice, maybe intuition alone.
Wouldn't it seem than that intuition would be a valid source of knowledge?
Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*. Theism on the other had, people usually don't find any need to reason why they believe in a god, they often just say, it's intuitive....
I trust my intuition, it's served me well in the past, but I don't rely on it alone. The reason I don't believe in gods is the same why you don't believe in unicorns (I'm guessing I'm safe to make that assumption about you). It's not a choice. You don't just suddenly decide to believe in unicorns and boom, there you have it - you're an unicornist.
Some theists I've talked to on other forums have said that they can't imagine their worlds with out god. Their gods are very self-evident to them, and can't fathom how anybody can be an atheist.
Gods to me are not self-evident, just as unicorns aren't to you.
And that's where theists come in. All I have to go on are their claims of what their gods are like, and all their claims are lacking. They're better explained and make more sense when analysed psychologically and scientifically. They try to fit their explanations into a picture to try and explain it to the best of their ability, but they'r emore like non-ansers than actual answers.
One example to illustrate my point: the myth of Hades and Persephone.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/mythology/hades-takes-wife-persephone.html (http://www.infoplease.com/cig/mythology/hades-takes-wife-persephone.html)
It explains the changing seasons, in elaborate detail...but does it?
To anybody who knows basic geology, astronomy and why the Earth goes through those seasons, it's a ridiculous claim. It's elaborate, it explains why the seasons change, but it's a non answer. You could basically make up any story and have it just as explained: http://www.shmoop.com/persephone-demeter-hades/similar-myths.html (http://www.shmoop.com/persephone-demeter-hades/similar-myths.html)
God did it is essentially the same. Unless you can demonstrate with more understanding, some claims can be dismissed without second thought. Maybe it is a bit of arrogance...but just a bit ;)
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 24, 2011, 06:13:10 PM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?
Why an exercise in futility? This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.
I can't help thinking that a being of such awe and grandeur might have better things to do....
Oh, you meant an exercise in futility for God, not for us. Gotcha.
For an omniscient being, the universe fully known in all space and all time might be like a splendid work of art, pleasant to contemplate. If omnipotent as well, this being would presumably enjoy our agonies as much as our ecstacies.
Omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love cannot co-exist in the same being, given the reality of suffering. One of the three attributes must be dropped, lest logical consistency be violated. I often wish someone would propose an omniscient, omnipotent God who doesn't in the least love us. Or an omniscient God of perfect love who isn't omnipotent and who thus is doing the best it can, woefully inadequate as that best might be, especially for the many, many creatures who have suffered the torments of life at its worst. At least these religions wouldn't offend me from a logical perspective, however much they might offend me from an empirical one.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 24, 2011, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 24, 2011, 04:16:27 AM
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.
I challenge this point. For purposes of full disclosure, I'm a Christian who accepts evolution. Why could a creator God not set the original conditions of the cosmos, including natural laws that guide the evolutionary process? And then why could that creator God not manifest himself in some manner to conscious, intelligent creatures such as us who ultimately evolved according to the laws the creator instituted?
You do understand that if we go back 3.8 billion years ago, and let evolution occur again, the outcome could be totally different right? We might all be 2 feet tall with four arms and four legs. We might only be the 2nd most intelligent species with the smartest species being a dolphin like species underwater. There might have been many extinctions and life on earth today would consist of only bacterial life.
The only reason we exist is because a fish walked on land and because an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Also, no intelligent mind would create life through evolution. Here are the reasons:
1. Creates strong appearance that the creator doesn't exist, meaning he'd have to know that by using evolution few people would believe in him once humanity discovers evolution.
2. Evolution is cruel and requires mass death.
3. Evolution is wasteful.
4. Evolution results in suboptimal design since you can only make tiny changes to what's already there and can't go back to the drawing board.
Evolution makes perfect sense if it's not God-guided and its purely natural mindless processes. It makes little sense if it was a tool used by a God with the specific goal of creating humans. Also, if he guided it, then why is it that we can observe it in the lab and it appears to be a mindless natural process?
Also, let me add, that randomness is a real phenomena in nature. For example, it's random whether you're born male or female, just like a coinflip. Mutation frequencies are also random.
Also, genetic drift is random. And say you have a mouse and it's heading down a path towards a wall. Once it hits the wall, it's random whether the mouse moves left or right.
And randomness drastically affects evolution. Random means unpredictable and uncontrollable, therefore God can't control evolution therefore if he exists he's completely unimportant and may not even be aware that we humans exist.
Quote from: Stevil on December 24, 2011, 07:54:54 PM
I've never been a theist.
Was very surprised when I first came to this forum and heard the best arguments the theists had.
The arguments were very poor philosophical, logical arguments e.g. the cosmological argument, which wholly relies on assumptions and lack of knowledge rather than positive knowledge.
All the theistic "evidence" relies on making the metaphysical realm (concepts) consistent with no tie in to anything physical, nothing ever provable or testable. The scriptures (anecdotal stories) are interpreted well beyond the stories resulting in an interpretation that no longer resembles the scriptures.
It seems people often want an afterlife, or want rules to help them be a good person. They also get confused about the realisation of the self and the emotions they have, to them the posed answers from theistic religion helps them make sense and sounds much more romantic than the cold stories of animated atoms presented by atheist stance.
A common theist argument is one's like you described, that it would be awful if God does not exist therefore he must exist. Well, if the reason you believe is because it makes you happy and not because it's true, why not just take drugs instead?
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 06:29:48 PM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 24, 2011, 04:16:27 AM
I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution. By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. Anyway, why did you guys become atheists?
What if someone says they don't base their belief in god on empiricism, but intuition alone? Do you believe that intuition alone would not be a valid source of knowledge?
But, why do you believe that empiricism is a valid source of knowledge? At some point you must have made the assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms that you base this belief on.
So then what do you base that assumption on? Maybe personal experience, maybe a choice, maybe intuition alone.
Wouldn't it seem than that intuition would be a valid source of knowledge?
Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*. Theism on the other had, people usually don't find any need to reason why they believe in a god, they often just say, it's intuitive....
I think science is by far the best way to find truth. People who think they have found truth on intuition alone are probably wrong IMO. If your intuition is different from someone else, which is common since it's intuition, then only one of you can be right. Of all the religions in the world, they all can't be right. There's only one truth out there and it's the same truth for every single human being. Science can find truth because of the peer review process and very rigid procedures. If you're in China and pick up a scientific journal written by Americans, you can follow their procedure and you should get the exact same results. Also, I don't think scientists have a hidden social agenda like religious people do, so the truths scientists uncover aren't biased. So I believe scientists when they say evolution is true and the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old and life first appeared 3.7 billion years ago, and everything science tells me makes me think "the universe makes perfect sense if there is no God and mindless processes produced everything".
The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process. Looks a bit more like deism to me, but these beliefs do overlap in some cases.
There's one book call 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth Miller (who is a Catholic and was an expert witness fighting against teaching ID in the Dover Trails.) I haven't read it though, I just thought I'd mention it.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2011, 03:47:14 AM
The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process.
I figure trilobites were the purpose. God saw the trilobites, was satisfied, and went away to do something else, without bothering to hit the off switch on the experiment.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 25, 2011, 12:00:39 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2011, 03:47:14 AM
The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process.
I figure trilobites were the purpose. God saw the trilobites, was satisfied, and went away to do something else, without bothering to hit the off switch on the experiment.
Nope. I strongly disagree, had to be the dinosaurs and T-Rex in particular. ;D
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 25, 2011, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 24, 2011, 06:13:10 PM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 24, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?
Why an exercise in futility? This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.
I can't help thinking that a being of such awe and grandeur might have better things to do....
Oh, you meant an exercise in futility for God, not for us. Gotcha.
For an omniscient being, the universe fully known in all space and all time might be like a splendid work of art, pleasant to contemplate. If omnipotent as well, this being would presumably enjoy our agonies as much as our ecstacies.
Omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love cannot co-exist in the same being, given the reality of suffering. One of the three attributes must be dropped, lest logical consistency be violated. I often wish someone would propose an omniscient, omnipotent God who doesn't in the least love us. Or an omniscient God of perfect love who isn't omnipotent and who thus is doing the best it can, woefully inadequate as that best might be, especially for the many, many creatures who have suffered the torments of life at its worst. At least these religions wouldn't offend me from a logical perspective, however much they might offend me from an empirical one.
I hear that! :)
Quote from: yodachoda on December 25, 2011, 03:06:53 AM
You do understand that if we go back 3.8 billion years ago, and let evolution occur again, the outcome could be totally different right? We might all be 2 feet tall with four arms and four legs. We might only be the 2nd most intelligent species with the smartest species being a dolphin like species underwater. There might have been many extinctions and life on earth today would consist of only bacterial life.
I don't know if this is true or not. It is a hypothesis, and one that cannot be tested, since we cannot go back 3.8 billion years. There are atheists on this board that argue in favor of determinism, which essentially means that given the original conditions that did exist, this outcome was predictable, if we had access to all knowledge. I'm inclined to accept determinism within certain parameters. I think that once human beings came on the scene, that it is not always possible to determine what they will do, even if one had access to all knowledge. But that's another topic. My rebuttal to your position is that all you have given is an untestable hypothesis.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 25, 2011, 03:06:53 AM
The only reason we exist is because a fish walked on land and because an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Also, no intelligent mind would create life through evolution. Here are the reasons:
1. Creates strong appearance that the creator doesn't exist, meaning he'd have to know that by using evolution few people would believe in him once humanity discovers evolution.
2. Evolution is cruel and requires mass death.
3. Evolution is wasteful.
4. Evolution results in suboptimal design since you can only make tiny changes to what's already there and can't go back to the drawing board.
Again, you have given an untestable hypothesis. I am not so sure that an intelligent mind would not use evolution. In fact, it may be that a world in which there is stress and conflict is the only way in which to develop creatures with a moral sense. That may be a limitation on the creator. So the initial conditions were set, and the creator's purpose was to create people just like us, something that can only occur through evolution. Perhaps we are the cake he intended to bake, and he had to put the mixture in an oven to do it.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 25, 2011, 03:06:53 AM
Evolution makes perfect sense if it's not God-guided and its purely natural mindless processes. It makes little sense if it was a tool used by a God with the specific goal of creating humans. Also, if he guided it, then why is it that we can observe it in the lab and it appears to be a mindless natural process?
I disagree that it makes little sense if it was a tool used by God. If the current world is what he intended, with sentient creatures placed under the stress of seemingly random events so that they would develop a moral sense, then he accomplished his goal. What we have is a process that resulted in intelligent creatures, who generally have a sense of morality and right/wrong, the majority of whom have faith of some kind in a god, and who can have interesting discussions like this. If the creator determined that this is the only way to create beings like us, just as there may only be one particular way to bake a cake, then he accomplished his purpose.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 25, 2011, 12:00:39 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2011, 03:47:14 AM
The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process.
I figure trilobites were the purpose. God saw the trilobites, was satisfied, and went away to do something else, without bothering to hit the off switch on the experiment.
No purpose ever, not from the beginning of life till now. It's all about the best solution that came from dynamic systems. Pure results.
This of course makes the whole 'created in god's image' idea kind of unlikely, since that indicates purpose. Unless this god already knew that something like us would walk the planet for the blink of an evolutionary eye.
Like I said before, I think this idea is much more compatible with deism. Reconciling it with a sophisticated theistic belief can be tricky.
Bruce, do you place much weight on the idea of original sin and how do you reconcile it with evolution? I think you might have already answered this but my memory isn't what it used to be. :(
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2011, 06:18:51 PM
Bruce, do you place much weight on the idea of original sin and how do you reconcile it with evolution? I think you might have already answered this but my memory isn't what it used to be.
Mine either. Original sin is a theological construct which began with Paul. For him, that was his way of reconciling the Old Testament with the Christ event. I'm not as bound to the OT as Paul was, not being a Jew, so it's easier for me just to say that the folks who were writing the OT had an experience of God, but misinterpreted a lot of what those experiences mean. Jesus moved past the OT pretty quickly, basically doing away with it in his New Covenant. So original sin is not that big a deal for me. I think the Adam/Eve metaphor is speaking about what happens in each individual life, not so much an historical event that led to the fall of all human kind. We all start off innocent, lose our innocence in our own encounter with the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and then experience the separation that takes us out of the "garden." Thus, the conflict between people and with their environment. Jesus offers individual redemption, taking our concept of sin into himself and removing it so that there is peace between God and man ("Peace on earth, good will to men" by the way - Merry Christmas!). So, in short, I don't view the "fall" as an historical event as much as an individual condition.
I guess I'm an explicit atheist and I made this topic for explicit atheists. Explicit atheism means you were presumably raised in a religious family and consciously rejected God. I want to know the strongest reason why you decided to reject him. For me, it's simply the plausibility that 100% natural processes acting over 3.8 billion years are sufficient to turn a bacterial colony into humans and all other life.
I've always been an atheist, but like I said earlier, I don't see why evolutionary theory and some sort of belief in god to be incompatible. It wouldn't be like regular theism, though, much less a literal interpretation of the creation of the universe. It tends to looks more like deism with theistic elements...the two can and do overlap depending on who you talk to. Ecurb's description looks more reasonable than most.
For instance, instead of saying that there is a god who dictates what morals are, reconciled belief would look more like mankind having evolved, and the capacity to be moral along with us (which is the case). Doesn't say much about objective morality, though.
Other ideas that haven been mentioned is that we are the first created results (at least to our knowledge, not going to postulate the existence of intelligent aliens here) who, as a species, have achieved some forms of religions. That means something to people who believe in that...
Anyways, I'm an accomodationist. I think that evolutionary theory is only incompatible with a more literal interpretation of religious scriptures.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 26, 2011, 07:33:43 AM
Anyways, I'm an accomodationist. I think that evolutionary theory is only incompatible with a more literal interpretation of religious scriptures.
I would love to meet someone whose view of God is derived exclusively from extrapolations that start from nature. This God would favor scenarios of novelty, challenge and opportunity; creatures getting what they can take and keeping what they can hold; winners taking all and winning methods proliferating; with no particular preference for either the solitary life strategy or the communal one, nor for either selfishness or altruism, but only for that which succeeds over that which fails. Call this
the Jungle God.I would also love to meet someone who believes in God and likewise emphatically agrees that in nature the unlikely is not impossible; that in nature all it takes for an unlikelihood to become inevitable is a sufficient number of attempts; and that until something is discovered that scientists and mathematicians agree is impossible, the God hypothesis has no objective defensibility and so at best can be a symbol for elements of the real, to whom fidelity is given for the wisdom it encourages, a theology we could call
Symbolism.Any Symbolist who professed fidelity to the Jungle God would seem to me to be operating from an intellectual integrity that was admirable.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 26, 2011, 07:33:43 AM
I've always been an atheist, but like I said earlier, I don't see why evolutionary theory and some sort of belief in god to be incompatible. It wouldn't be like regular theism, though, much less a literal interpretation of the creation of the universe. It tends to looks more like deism with theistic elements...the two can and do overlap depending on who you talk to. Ecurb's description looks more reasonable than most.
For instance, instead of saying that there is a god who dictates what morals are, reconciled belief would look more like mankind having evolved, and the capacity to be moral along with us (which is the case). Doesn't say much about objective morality, though.
Other ideas that haven been mentioned is that we are the first created results (at least to our knowledge, not going to postulate the existence of intelligent aliens here) who, as a species, have achieved some forms of religions. That means something to people who believe in that...
Anyways, I'm an accomodationist. I think that evolutionary theory is only incompatible with a more literal interpretation of religious scriptures.
I'll never understand how people say things like "I don't see how evolution at all affects whether God exists or not." This is complete BS IMO. Evolution is the first and only scientific theory so far (well besides maybe the big bang theory, but this is somewhat compatible with God unlike evolution) that drastically affects the God hypothesis IMO. If evolution is true, then the chance of God existing is like .000000001% IMO. It's the exact same % as the probability that time traveling invisible intelligent unicorns are working inside the sun to keep it pumping out energy. The probability of that is like .0000001% and the probability that it is mindless nuclear chemical reactions inside the sun, like scientists say, is 99.99999%.
Remember, the whole idea of God is he is a creator and he's a being with a mind. That's kinda an important point, and I'm talking about this type of God, not a deistic God. Evolution is by definition a mindless process. If we were created by a mindless process with no purpose or foresight, then how does a creator God, who must have a mind and have foresight, have anything to do with us?
I think there's a type of confusion here regarding the term evolution. When I say evolution, I don't mean "change over time". I specifically mean Darwinian evolution, which is a mindless process of the non-living environment naturally selecting who lives and who dies. The word mindless is key, and I think many people accept evolution but they don't accept the mindless part. They look at a human being and it's too difficult to believe something mindless could create it. But indeed, evolution is no more mindful than water is mindful when it turned some rock into the grand canyon by traveling over the grand canyon over billions of years. The mind that guides evolution is no more conscious than the mind of cold weather that selects woolly mammoths to survive in the ice age and that selects hairless mammoths to die in the ice age.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 26, 2011, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 26, 2011, 07:33:43 AM
I've always been an atheist, but like I said earlier, I don't see why evolutionary theory and some sort of belief in god to be incompatible. It wouldn't be like regular theism, though, much less a literal interpretation of the creation of the universe. It tends to looks more like deism with theistic elements...the two can and do overlap depending on who you talk to. Ecurb's description looks more reasonable than most.
For instance, instead of saying that there is a god who dictates what morals are, reconciled belief would look more like mankind having evolved, and the capacity to be moral along with us (which is the case). Doesn't say much about objective morality, though.
Other ideas that haven been mentioned is that we are the first created results (at least to our knowledge, not going to postulate the existence of intelligent aliens here) who, as a species, have achieved some forms of religions. That means something to people who believe in that...
Anyways, I'm an accomodationist. I think that evolutionary theory is only incompatible with a more literal interpretation of religious scriptures.
I'll never understand how people say things like "I don't see how evolution at all affects whether God exists or not." This is complete BS IMO. Evolution is the first and only scientific theory so far (well besides maybe the big bang theory, but this is somewhat compatible with God unlike evolution) that drastically affects the God hypothesis IMO. If evolution is true, then the chance of God existing is like .000000001% IMO. It's the exact same % as the probability that time traveling invisible intelligent unicorns are working inside the sun to keep it pumping out energy. The probability of that is like .0000001% and the probability that it is mindless nuclear chemical reactions inside the sun, like scientists say, is 99.99999%.
Remember, the whole idea of God is he is a creator and he's a being with a mind. That's kinda an important point, and I'm talking about this type of God, not a deistic God. Evolution is by definition a mindless process. If we were created by a mindless process with no purpose or foresight, then how does a creator God, who must have a mind and have foresight, have anything to do with us?
I think there's a type of confusion here regarding the term evolution. When I say evolution, I don't mean "change over time". I specifically mean Darwinian evolution, which is a mindless process of the non-living environment naturally selecting who lives and who dies. The word mindless is key, and I think many people accept evolution but they don't accept the mindless part. They look at a human being and it's too difficult to believe something mindless could create it. But indeed, evolution is no more mindful than water is mindful when it turned some rock into the grand canyon by traveling over the grand canyon over billions of years. The mind that guides evolution is no more conscious than the mind of cold weather that selects woolly mammoths to survive in the ice age and that selects hairless mammoths to die in the ice age.
green=
devils god's advocate.
My god is all powerful, all knowing.
In a time past beyond your imagining he set the universe in motion. Comets striking Jupiter don't surprise him, it's how he planned it. The grain of sand between your toes, he can tell of the ancient stars he created so it would be there. I don't know if the abiogenesis which led to us occurred on Earth or Mars or elsewhere, but he does and he intended it to and he planned for it to lead to you.
God lets his presence be known but humans have always had trouble comprehending its grandeur. Most of us have always known he was there, some have tried to describe his grandeur but we always fall short. You say the misconceptions of ancient men undermines the truth of god, no it merely illustrates the fallibility of man.
I could do an equally airy fairy defence of a pantheist or deist god, there other gods besides Yahweh.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 26, 2011, 07:42:54 PM
Evolution is by definition a mindless process.
No it isn't. Evolution, by definition, is a change in the gene pool of a population over successive generations via the processes of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Science assumes mindlessness but that's different from demonstrating it. Mindlessness is neither empirically verifiable nor logically necessary. Mindlessness is taken as axiomatic because the theory of evolution can accommodate it, and a commitment to Occam's Razor favors it.
Out of Occam's Razor comes atheism. Atheists reject the God hypothesis because it isn't needed to explain current data, and any hypothesis that isn't needed and which postulates elements otherwise indiscernible is rejected out of hand. The theory of evolution is what makes the God hypothesis unnecessary. It doesn't disprove the God hypothesis. It merely makes it unnecessary. Occam's Razor then cuts the hypothesis away so we can discard it.
Believers who accept the theory of evolution deliberately defy Occam's Razor and posit God for reasons having nothing to do with the data. They posit God because they allow emotion to dictate belief. This is their great error. They don't understand the respective roles of emotion and reason. Emotion rightfully has the last word in the values domain, and reason, rightfully, in the beliefs domain. Improper mixing gives us emotional beliefs or allegedly objective values, both delusional.
Nevertheless, if an invisible super-being was manipulating the mutation processes on land and sea by act of will, the theory of evolution would remain true, nor would its truth be compromised even in the slightest. This is what believers hang their hat on, because they like their hat - it feels good on their head.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 27, 2011, 02:10:08 AM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 26, 2011, 07:42:54 PM
Evolution is by definition a mindless process.
No it isn't. Evolution, by definition, is a change in the gene pool of a population over successive generations via the processes of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Science assumes mindlessness but that's different from demonstrating it. Mindlessness is neither empirically verifiable nor logically necessary. Mindlessness is taken as axiomatic because the theory of evolution can accommodate it, and a commitment to Occam's Razor favors it.
Out of Occam's Razor comes atheism. Atheists reject the God hypothesis because it isn't needed to explain current data, and any hypothesis that isn't needed and which postulates elements otherwise indiscernible is rejected out of hand. The theory of evolution is what makes the God hypothesis unnecessary. It doesn't disprove the God hypothesis. It merely makes it unnecessary. Occam's Razor then cuts the hypothesis away so we can discard it.
Believers who accept the theory of evolution deliberately defy Occam's Razor and posit God for reasons having nothing to do with the data. They posit God because they allow emotion to dictate belief. This is their great error. They don't understand the respective roles of emotion and reason. Emotion rightfully has the last word in the values domain, and reason, rightfully, in the beliefs domain. Improper mixing gives us emotional beliefs or allegedly objective values, both delusional.
Nevertheless, if an invisible super-being was manipulating the mutation processes on land and sea by act of will, the theory of evolution would remain true, nor would its truth be compromised even in the slightest. This is what believers hang their hat on, because they like their hat - it feels good on their head.
I'm pretty sure Darwin himself said the mind behind evolution is no more mindful than the mind behind the water that carved the grand canyon from rock. And he basically invented the term evolution (Darwinian evolution to be specific), so when he says it's mindless I think it's mindless. Also, we can observe natural selection ourselves and we can see evolution in the lab. It looks mindless. There's not a hint of any supernatural intervention. When we pollute a forest full of brown moths, making the trees black, it strongly appears like hawks/predators attacking brown moths but not white is a mindless process. There's no hint that a deity is telling the hawks to attack the moths that are conspicuous and not the ones camouflaged. It seems like the hawks/predators simply select the black moths because they don't even notice or see them.
You said mindlessness can't be tested, but what about a random process? The outcome of a random process is, by definition, uncontrollable and unpredictable therefore a deity can't control the outcome. Genetic drift, mutation, and genetic shuffling/recombination are random. These three are part of evolution.
I'm going to use green for this too:
I know that Kenneth Miller, who is a theistic biologist, says that he even finds it offensive that someone could suggest that his god interferes with evolution. He was even an expert witness in the Dover Trail, against ID, which says that there were some steps in the evolutionary process that are too complex to have evolved and had to have a god give it a little nudge.
An omniscient theistic god would've known the result of not only evolution but all other environmental and random factors that have and will occur, so actually for such a being there wouldn't be much of a differentiation between "result" of a process and "goal" of that same process. Direct interference is actually not necessary.
As for deistic gods, those are deterministic. God sets up the dominoes, flicks the first one over and doesn't interfere in the domino effect that takes hold after that one event. I don't see how such a scenario would be any different from one we experience though.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 27, 2011, 04:04:32 AM
I'm pretty sure Darwin himself said the mind behind evolution is no more mindful than the mind behind the water that carved the grand canyon from rock.
I've been googling for anything resembling this quote and can't find such a thing, except from the likes of Dennett. Please provide it if you can.
In any case, it's important to distinguish between science and philosophy. For example, Darwin said -
(1) "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars."
(2) "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature!"
(3) "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
All of that is philosophy, not science. Who says God can't be malevolent, impotent, clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, cruel, blind, or indifferent? Certainly science says nothing of the kind. Science says, "God? Sorry. No data."
Darwin also said this: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."
Science, when allowed to stick to its knitting - to happily mind its own business - is apatheistic, ignoring everything but the empirically verifiable and the logically necessary, God being neither. Science only ventures into atheism when forced to do so by assailants who want to force alien perspectives like Christianity onto a discipline that would lose all integrity if made to accommodate what it should never even be made to consider. A book that contained every scrap of scientific knowledge and every drop of properly scientific hypothesis would not, in all its pages, even once mention the name of God, not even to debunk the concept. Only in defending itself against alien invaders, such as the Intelligent Design people, does science find itself bereft of any alternative but to say, "No, no God, no design, not here, not in our discipline, not where only the empirically verifiable and the logically necessary are entertained."
I say all this as one whose hard agnosticism and hard antifaith position coalesce into an inevitable and inescapable atheism. But all of that is an extrapolation from science, and the successes of science, rather than being scientific in and of itself. Science just wants the God people to leave it the hell alone.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 27, 2011, 04:04:32 AM
You said mindlessness can't be tested, but what about a random process? The outcome of a random process is, by definition, uncontrollable and unpredictable therefore a deity can't control the outcome. Genetic drift, mutation, and genetic shuffling/recombination are random. These three are part of evolution.
A so-called "random" future is one we humans can't predict because we lack sufficient knowledge of the present. When I say a process is random, I'm saying no human is controlling that process, and no human can predict its outcome in advance, because no human has sufficient knowledge of the present so as to support an ironclad prediction. I'm not saying a damned thing about the universe, or nature, or reality. If I was standing in a room with you and holding a penny in my hand, and you knew enough about my body and my history, and enough about the atmospherics and geometries in the room, you could predict infallibly whether my next toss would come up heads or tails. All is causality. Outside of causality, nothing.
What is the strongest argument for MY atheism?
I do not "believe" in the super/unnatural. Simple as that.
The strongest argument is, in response to a religious claim, simply replying, "Prove it."
Quote from: yodachoda on December 25, 2011, 03:06:53 AM
1. Creates strong appearance that the creator doesn't exist, meaning he'd have to know that by using evolution few people would believe in him once humanity discovers evolution.
On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859
Quote
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
From http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
I'm not sure how accurate the above statistics are, I got then from the first site Google hit. Regardless of whether there spot on or not it goes to show that in the 150 years or so since On the Origin of Species was published there are more then a "few people" who still believe.
Quote from: Crocoduck on December 27, 2011, 10:22:05 PM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 25, 2011, 03:06:53 AM
1. Creates strong appearance that the creator doesn't exist, meaning he'd have to know that by using evolution few people would believe in him once humanity discovers evolution.
On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859
Quote
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
From http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
I'm not sure how accurate the above statistics are, I got then from the first site Google hit. Regardless of whether there spot on or not it goes to show that in the 150 years or so since On the Origin of Species was published there are more then a "few people" who still believe.
Yeah but many many people don't accept evolution as true despite the piles of evidence from many different fields and professions supporting evolution. Evolution made Darwin and most evolutionary biologists atheists, and learning evolution made me an atheist.
How important was the literal account of genesis to you before you learned about evolution?
Support for evolution by religious bodies
Buddhist 81%
Hindu 80%
Jewish 77%
Unaffiliated 72%
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline Protestant 51%
Muslim 45%
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witnesses 8%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Support_for_evolution_by_religious_bodies
To summarize the above....the more fundamentalist a religion the less likely they are to accept evolution.
Usually those who don't accept it as true simply haven't actually seen the evidence...this is a problem that is probably mainly specific to the US. I actually have yet to come across someone who rejects evolution yet actually understands it even on the most basic levels.
In the US there is about a 50/50 split between those that accept evolution and those that don't. I think this just means that half of the population, for whatever reason, hasn't cared to fill in what their backwoods science class left out...those from bigger cities and especially those who attended university are much less likely to view evolution as controversial even if they are a believer.
Really, I think it's a bad idea to push an argument that evolution=no god as that just makes it even harder to get real science in small town science classes. Especially since it doesn't logically follow that a god couldn't exist that utilized evolution as a creation tool....evolution only conflicts with very specific interpretations of very specific religious texts (mainly fundamentalist Christianity).
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
I'm typing from my phone but in brief I disagree and don't see evolution as against god..I've explained why in another thread not too long ago
There is no argument for atheism per se .. Just a lot of arguments against theism being a insupportable position
This I don't agree with. What you are basically saying is that atheism does not have to be proven. It's the old "Santa Claus doesn't exist and I don't have to prove he doesn't exist to know it" argument.
We have two sides of an argument where the answer is truly an unknown (Not yet proven)
God Exists
God does not Exist
Theists cannot prove God exists
Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist
Agnostics just don't give a F, but they know enough to say they don't know for sure.
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 29, 2011, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
I'm typing from my phone but in brief I disagree and don't see evolution as against god..I've explained why in another thread not too long ago
There is no argument for atheism per se .. Just a lot of arguments against theism being a insupportable position
This I don't agree with. What you are basically saying is that atheism does not have to be proven. It's the old "Santa Claus doesn't exist and I don't have to prove he doesn't exist to know it" argument.
We have two sides of an argument where the answer is truly an unknown (Not yet proven)
God Exists
God does not Exist
Theists cannot prove God exists
Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist
Agnostics just don't give a F, but they know enough to say they don't know for sure.
being an atheist doesn't automatically mean one is taking the position that god doesn't or can't exist....it's the position of not having a belief in god. Both atheist and theists can fall into the agnostic range.
I don't even think it's possible to be a pure agnostic for an extended period of time as that would pretty much require avoiding having any kind of opinion on the topic.
Quote from: Whitney on December 29, 2011, 03:26:38 PM
Both atheist and theists can fall into the agnostic range.
I think both atheists and theists are actually agnostic, although members of both categories may subjectively feel that they know whether or not God exists. For theists, the very concept of faith requires agnosticism. If you truly "know" something as a fact (and not just have a subjective assurance of something), it doesn't involve faith or belief anymore. I don't have to "believe" that 2+2=4 or that elephants exist - I know these things. I don't think anyone can say that either way regarding God.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 29, 2011, 03:26:38 PM
Both atheist and theists can fall into the agnostic range.
I think both atheists and theists are actually agnostic, although members of both categories may subjectively feel that they know whether or not God exists. For theists, the very concept of faith requires agnosticism. If you truly "know" something as a fact (and not just have a subjective assurance of something), it doesn't involve faith or belief anymore. I don't have to "believe" that 2+2=4 or that elephants exist - I know these things. I don't think anyone can say that either way regarding God.
This is a great comment. Perfectly put. I have struggled in the past mo make a similar point on this forum but have been unable to do it as eloquently as this.
Quote from: Whitney on December 29, 2011, 03:26:38 PM
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 29, 2011, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
I'm typing from my phone but in brief I disagree and don't see evolution as against god..I've explained why in another thread not too long ago
There is no argument for atheism per se .. Just a lot of arguments against theism being a insupportable position
This I don't agree with. What you are basically saying is that atheism does not have to be proven. It's the old "Santa Claus doesn't exist and I don't have to prove he doesn't exist to know it" argument.
We have two sides of an argument where the answer is truly an unknown (Not yet proven)
God Exists
God does not Exist
Theists cannot prove God exists
Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist
Agnostics just don't give a F, but they know enough to say they don't know for sure.
being an atheist doesn't automatically mean one is taking the position that god doesn't or can't exist....it's the position of not having a belief in god. Both atheist and theists can fall into the agnostic range.
I don't even think it's possible to be a pure agnostic for an extended period of time as that would pretty much require avoiding having any kind of opinion on the topic.
Isn't that the point? The only way to live in harmony is to NOT have an opinion on an unprovable (Existence of God) when some people believe 100% and some people do NOT 100%.
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 29, 2011, 05:37:49 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 29, 2011, 03:26:38 PM
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 29, 2011, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
I'm typing from my phone but in brief I disagree and don't see evolution as against god..I've explained why in another thread not too long ago
There is no argument for atheism per se .. Just a lot of arguments against theism being a insupportable position
This I don't agree with. What you are basically saying is that atheism does not have to be proven. It's the old "Santa Claus doesn't exist and I don't have to prove he doesn't exist to know it" argument.
We have two sides of an argument where the answer is truly an unknown (Not yet proven)
God Exists
God does not Exist
Theists cannot prove God exists
Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist
Agnostics just don't give a F, but they know enough to say they don't know for sure.
being an atheist doesn't automatically mean one is taking the position that god doesn't or can't exist....it's the position of not having a belief in god. Both atheist and theists can fall into the agnostic range.
I don't even think it's possible to be a pure agnostic for an extended period of time as that would pretty much require avoiding having any kind of opinion on the topic.
Isn't that the point? The only way to live in harmony is to NOT have an opinion on an unprovable (Existence of God) when some people believe 100% and some people do NOT 100%.
Everyone is going to have an opinion. The key to harmony is not to require everyone else to agree with your opinion.
The strongest argument for atheism is simpy that there are no good (read:empirically proven) arguments for deieties.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 06:04:03 PM
Everyone is going to have an opinion. The key to harmony is not to require everyone else to agree with your opinion.
exactly.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 06:04:03 PM
Everyone is going to have an opinion. The key to harmony is not to require everyone else to agree with your opinion.
What's the fun in that? :D
It tends to be like that in everything that is based on opinion. Be it religious beliefs or how to go about getting something done at work. Everyone has an opinion which to them is "right" and know the "right" way to do things, and the funny thing is - they're all right!
Some more "right" than others.
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 29, 2011, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 06:04:03 PM
Everyone is going to have an opinion. The key to harmony is not to require everyone else to agree with your opinion.
What's the fun in that? :D
It tends to be like that in everything that is based on opinion. Be it religious beliefs or how to go about getting something done at work. Everyone has an opinion which to them is "right" and know the "right" way to do things, and the funny thing is - they're all right!
Some more "right" than others.
If people are open to discussing rather than trying to win an argument then it leads to interesting exploratory discussion.
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:25:47 PM
If people are open to discussing rather than trying to win an argument then it leads to interesting exploratory discussion.
That's right. And it usually takes some time before people can understand the other person's position, so you have to invest a little effort and energy. One problem we have in modern communication is that we all used to one-liners and sound bites, and just sitting down and talking to other people for an extended period is difficult. Real communication is becoming a lost art, I'm afraid. We want to categorize and jump to easy conclusions too rapidly.
Some of that has to do with self-doubt, lack of confidence, and feelings of inferiority, I think. If someone else disagrees with us, we get personally offended and think we have to defend our position at all costs.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 08:33:54 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:25:47 PM
If people are open to discussing rather than trying to win an argument then it leads to interesting exploratory discussion.
That's right. And it usually takes some time before people can understand the other person's position, so you have to invest a little effort and energy. One problem we have in modern communication is that we all used to one-liners and sound bites, and just sitting down and talking to other people for an extended period is difficult. Real communication is becoming a lost art, I'm afraid. We want to categorize and jump to easy conclusions too rapidly.
Some of that has to do with self-doubt, lack of confidence, and feelings of inferiority, I think. If someone else disagrees with us, we get personally offended and think we have to defend our position at all costs.
Partly because many people realize that some positions they hold if they looked closely enough...would melt away along with their merits. Kind of like the person raised a Christian that examined his positions on religion and realized they were not his own. I won't name any names though. 8)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2011, 06:09:41 AM
How important was the literal account of genesis to you before you learned about evolution?
Not important at all. I grew up in a Christian family that didn't believe in a literal interpretation. They believed the 7 days could be symbolic for a couple million or billion years.
When I first heard about evolution, all I knew was it was "change over time of species". I thought, "OK, no problem, no reason why God couldn't create by changing a species.
Then I really learned how evolution works, and IMO it's not compatible with a God at all. The reasons are: (1) It's a stupid way to make life if he exists and guides it. It's wasteful, cruel, results in suboptimal design, requires mass death, is slow. And (2) we exist today because of ancient contingent events. If an asteroid didn't hit Earth to kill off the dinosaurs a few million years ago, then we wouldn't exist today. Evolution also requires chance, so we are an accident and if we went back 3.8 billion years and did evolution again, we almost certainly wouldn't exist today.
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 29, 2011, 06:28:09 PM
The strongest argument for atheism is simpy that there are no good (read:empirically proven) arguments for deieties.
I can't really relate to this because I was brought up in a religious family. I lived most of my life believing he exists, and it took a powerful argument to convince me he probably doesn't exist. So I started out assuming exists, and needed evidence he doesn't. If you grew up in an irreligious family, it's probably the reverse. You seem like you grew up in an irreligious family, m i rite?
So this question, "strongest argument for atheism?" is directed toward people who started off assuming God exists before becoming an atheist.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 30, 2011, 02:16:17 AM
So this question, "strongest argument for atheism?" is directed toward people who started off assuming God exists before becoming an atheist.
No-one is born theist, but I can see how after believing something for a long time, it can be difficult to "break the habit".
I imagine if I was asked to accept that the Earth wasn't round, I'd demand proof... Turning one's world view upside-down should not be done on trust alone, those be my two ears.
I listened to a pretty good podcast this afternoon that dealt with a lot of what we have been talking about in this thread. It was an interview with Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. It's on the For Good Reason site and the show is produced in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation.
http://www.forgoodreason.org/eugenie_scott_evolution_skepticism_and_atheism (http://www.forgoodreason.org/eugenie_scott_evolution_skepticism_and_atheism)
Quote from: Asmodean on December 30, 2011, 02:29:39 AM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 30, 2011, 02:16:17 AM
So this question, "strongest argument for atheism?" is directed toward people who started off assuming God exists before becoming an atheist.
No-one is born theist, but I can see how after believing something for a long time, it can be difficult to "break the habit".
I imagine if I was asked to accept that the Earth wasn't round, I'd demand proof... Turning one's world view upside-down should not be done on trust alone, those be my two ears.
I think I was basically "born theist". Not literally, but I was taught theism and biblical stories during sunday school from such an early age that I don't even remember a time when I was a kid when I doubted God exists.
Quote from: yodachoda on December 30, 2011, 02:58:06 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 30, 2011, 02:29:39 AM
Quote from: yodachoda on December 30, 2011, 02:16:17 AM
So this question, "strongest argument for atheism?" is directed toward people who started off assuming God exists before becoming an atheist.
No-one is born theist, but I can see how after believing something for a long time, it can be difficult to "break the habit".
I imagine if I was asked to accept that the Earth wasn't round, I'd demand proof... Turning one's world view upside-down should not be done on trust alone, those be my two ears.
I think I was basically "born theist". Not literally, but I was taught theism and biblical stories during sunday school from such an early age that I don't even remember a time when I was a kid when I doubted God exists.
My mother used to brag that I when to church 3 days after she brought me home from the hospital.
Quote from: Crocoduck on December 30, 2011, 03:22:01 AM
My mother used to brag that I when to church 3 days after she brought me home from the hospital.
...And yet here you are, with a crocoduck avatar. :P
Quote from: yodachoda on December 30, 2011, 01:56:48 AM
Then I really learned how evolution works, and IMO it's not compatible with a God at all. The reasons are: (1) It's a stupid way to make life if he exists and guides it. It's wasteful, cruel, results in suboptimal design, requires mass death, is slow. And (2) we exist today because of ancient contingent events. If an asteroid didn't hit Earth to kill off the dinosaurs a few million years ago, then we wouldn't exist today. Evolution also requires chance, so we are an accident and if we went back 3.8 billion years and did evolution again, we almost certainly wouldn't exist today.
If we take the Judeo-Christian God...one that is not shy towards blood sacrifices...and imagine that he set up a series of dominos where he could knock over the first domino that created an evolving chain of events then that's how I see "natural" evolution and God as compatible. Of course, anytime you invoke the supernatural you have to allow for occasional tinkering...a theist could think that god uses evolution for most life but from time to time performs a miracle or two to make a certain person exist for some kind of plan. Really, the stars actually being big balls of gasses and not just shiny dots seems like a stronger proof against the human-centered gods (though still not solid)....why make all that extra stuff for no-one?
Quote from: Whitney on December 30, 2011, 03:00:30 PM
why make all that extra stuff for no-one?
I think the scientific community is quite happy with all this "extra stuff". ;)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on December 30, 2011, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 30, 2011, 03:00:30 PM
why make all that extra stuff for no-one?
I think the scientific community is quite happy with all this "extra stuff". ;)
lol, true
I guess the universe could be considered just a big toy for people to explore, play with, and enjoy.
Quote from: Whitney on December 30, 2011, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on December 30, 2011, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 30, 2011, 03:00:30 PM
why make all that extra stuff for no-one?
I think the scientific community is quite happy with all this "extra stuff". ;)
lol, true
I guess the universe could be considered just a big toy for people to explore, play with, and enjoy.
Maybe God likes watching things explode and the universe is like a big action movie to him. ;D
Quote from: yodachoda on December 30, 2011, 02:16:17 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 29, 2011, 06:28:09 PM
The strongest argument for atheism is simpy that there are no good (read:empirically proven) arguments for deieties.
I can't really relate to this because I was brought up in a religious family. I lived most of my life believing he exists, and it took a powerful argument to convince me he probably doesn't exist. So I started out assuming exists, and needed evidence he doesn't. If you grew up in an irreligious family, it's probably the reverse. You seem like you grew up in an irreligious family, m i rite?
So this question, "strongest argument for atheism?" is directed toward people who started off assuming God exists before becoming an atheist.
Well, you shoot yourself in the foot right off the bat, with the assumption that something exists without evidence, but I see what you mean.
If we were to assume the existence of a god, for examle Yahwe, we could ask why he hasn't interracted with the world in any overt way since the iron age.
In the bronze/iron age: Big-ass miracles with floods, raining fire and angels all over the place.
Modern day: Not so much...
Why did he go covert all of a sudden?
It depends on who you ask, any major event in the world could be considered a miracle if looking at it through Christ colored lenses. earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, hurricane Katrina, the Arab spring, the death of Gaddafi the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Depending on who you ask all of these things could be interpreted as miracles from god. If we look at the bible as a tome of myths loosely based on history then just imagine what the bible would look like had it been penned in the 20th century. There would have been major wars, plagues, the rise and fall of both great and terrible leaders, revolutions, famine, the end of certain diseases and the birth of modern medicine, the rise of mass communication and information distribution. What a book of myths this would be especially if we assigned a god or gods the responsibility of these actions. Just imagine the pantheon of modern gods:
Manhattanos: The god of war and weapons directly responsible for guiding the invention of naval aircraft carriers and the construction of the alpha weapon the atomic bomb.
Virulius: The goddess of Disease, responsible for plagues of smallpox, diphtheria, cholera and HIV
Vaccinius: The arch rival of Virulius. Once married, Virulius and Vaccinius ruled over the land of microscopic parasites. The worked in tandem to bring justice to the world by brining plagues to populations that did not honor the gods. Jealousy eventually fractured their union and Virulius sought the destruction of mankind. Vaccinius took it upon himself to set right whatever wrongs were caused by his disgruntled and vengeful ex wife, giving man the secrets of cures and vaccines to the plagues designed by the evil Virulius.
The Brothers Seismontous and Tsunamus: Gods of Earthquakes and Tsunamis
Phonisis: Goddess of telecommunications
Broadbandilus: god of High Speed data connections...all hail Broadbandilus, for without him this forum would not be possible!
That is a very interesting thought on the origin of gods. Not to mention quite funny the way you phrase it.
I guess that shows how we have (some of us at least) evolved past this basal need for a "great cause" for our misfortunes.
If I knew everything before anything happened, I'd be tempted to kill myself as my life would be so boring and tedious.
Do Christians put themselves in god's shoes and try and work out what life would be like for an all knowing, perfect god?
I think it would be horrible.
Quote from: Stevil on December 30, 2011, 08:34:54 PM
If I knew everything before anything happened, I'd be tempted to kill myself as my life would be so boring and tedious.
Do Christians put themselves in god's shoes and try and work out what life would be like for an all knowing, perfect god?
I think it would be horrible.
One of the greatest rushes you kan have is the thrill of understandig, of learning something you did not already know. Breaching the veil of the unknown.
I pity the person who stops looking.