Ask an Atheist!!!

#461

Yes just so.

Incredible claims need incredible evidence?

I find the topic hard to wade through for some of it, and other parts of it are a given really.

Thanks for your answer, as it is honest and reasonable.

It would be hard to know what to accept, but it is worth asking, because what if the evidence is around us, but we simply can not see it. I think study of the natural world through science answers many questions. We live in a physical world, and so, is it reasonable to believe something that cannot backed up with physical evidence?

We each have to decide.

Personally, I like science because given my A.D.D mind, it cuts through a lot of static regarding what to believe. “Here is the study, and this is what it says” It makes things neat and simple. That razor concept is a good one.

Cheers

(I have house work to do… Bleh)

Quote:
Originally Posted by russilker
“Am I making sense? You can’t say G-d is good or evil because your definition of G-d, Good, and Evil is most definitely different than somebody else’s, and in addition to that your definition of those words probably changes as time progresses.”

How very Taoist of you. Definition is exactly one of the problems with this topic. Even when one says they are an “evolutionist”, there are different slants to it. Methodalogical naturalism, verses… (Trying to remeber - they are both evo, but they have different takes on it)

[COLOR=‘Red’]CatzEyes93 ADDED :

Did it again. So sorry, I am trying ot break the double post habbit… I just do not know how to delete a second post, if I start one while having a brain skip… Does anyone know?

#462

Considering what we see has evidence to back it up, I’m going to go with evidence versus supposition.

If something has no physical evidence whatsoever, is it real? Is there really an invisible undetectable dragon living in my oven that cooks my food? Or is it the heating element at the bottom that gets real hot when you pump electricity through it?

I’m going to go with the heating element.

#463

edit original post to include second post.

edit second post to say “oops” (or something else basic and non topic… my fav was ~burp~)

report second post requesting delete.

Moderator sees report and deletes as needed.

WIN~!

#464

Thank you very much. I really am trying not to do this. Last forum I was on, it was standard to post one answer for each person you were addressing.

Bleh.

My bad.

“I’m going to go with the heating element.”

Hahaha Lol.

Yup.

Though the dragon shtick could prove interesting…

#465

So, you can accept something as being true even if it’s not. That’s why I can understand people who don’t “accept something as being true” nor refuse it as being false. I, for example, don’t accept the Big Bang theory, but consider such possibility.

No problem :slight_smile:

I understand “God” as a higher being which we are somehow connected to, has the skills to affect physical laws but it’s not omnipotent, and has much more higher understanding of the universe from us but it’s not omniscient (I repeat that I don’t see evidences that such being exist).

I don’t know it either, I have only some assumptions (knowledge = gnosis, right?).

It would simply ignore it. But if you showed it a thousand bowls of soup it would mistake it as triangle after training.

#466

I can accept something false as being true. I’d be wrong, of course. The BBT, however, has a lot of evidence for it and there’s currently absolutely no evidence for anything else.

This is different from conventional definitions of “God”.

Even though it’s not a triangle? That’s the problem, isn’t it? If one does not have concrete definitions for things, then you might as well say, “Microwave chair Steven on mimsy flower for Hershey plastic hall Satan, but cell flight twelve fantastic Rickroll.”

All perfectly valid words, but a gibberish sentence if you don’t know what each word means in this context and only have your preconceived definitions.

Let’s put it this way: The gods, as defined by man, have not been shown to exist and the ones that haven’t been defined might as well be twelve fantastic Rickroll to Hershey the mimsy plastic Satan hall.

#467

Just hopping in to say this:

Yet polytheism was as widely held a belief as monotheism is today - and it had been around longer.

I feel that’s a good argument against belief in any god, because it shows how trivial and subjective such beliefs are.

#468

Polytheism is still widely held today. India?

#469

Why don’t you?

#470

I don’t think hes familiar with dark energy, the cosmic inflation, the expansion of the universe, black holes and gravitational singularities, gravity, strong/weak nuclear force and electromagnetism.

What more evidence do you need…

#471

Not to mention red shift.

#472

Yes, currently there is none. Half millennium ago there wasn’t evidence that Earth circle around the Sun and not vice versa, look how they all were wrong. EDIT: Never mind, look at the last sentence.

So what? I adjusted this definition to my knowledge and believes, I did the same thing as Christians, Jews, and Muslims. And please remind me, does Bible say anything about God being omnipotent and omniscient?

Why do you think that there can be only one right definition of God? Everybody understand God differently.

My mistake, I was thinking rather about the theory that before the Big Bang there was nothing. Big Bang theory itself doesn’t say anything about what preceded it.

#473

First of all it was known more than 3 thousand years ago that the Earth was round.
Second of all our technology and bases for scientific testing is actually new.
People in the past did not have the method that we have today for determining fact from fiction.

Also just because there is no evidence does not mean you can just fill in the blank with anything.
Making assumptions usually require evidence and there is no evidence for god. At the time the concept of god was made people had a reason to those assumptions and that was their curiosity to how things work for which they had no knowledge about.

But now with our understanding and science and the use of the scientific method it is rather silly to keep assuming their is a god when there is no evidence. All you do is push him further away from the any natural explanation and make it harder and harder to want to test for it’s existence.

And there is a theory that has good solid evidence supporting it that points to a universe that is flat, has a total of zero energy, and only requires the natural process of quantum fluctuations to expand space and create the big bang and the universe as we know it.

If you want I can make a thread about that. I would try to dumb it down and make the explanation easy to follow for those who have little knowledge in astronomy, cosmology, physics and quantum mechanics.

Oh and I never did explain my position in this topic.

I am an Atheist Agnostic.

I do not believe in god but I do not claim to have knowledge of this.

because it is impossible to have knowledge of something’s non-existence…because it doesn’t exist.

I am an Atheist because there has not been sufficient, or rather no evidence of a god described by any of the people I have met.

Atheism is the default position and everyone is born an atheist and will remain one until they are convinced, either by brainwashing or by something they feel is evidence enough for them (whether it is correct or not).

I have not been convinced.

#474

No, the evidence was there, we just hadn’t caught on yet.

#475

I don’t think this is right. If you could somehow communicate with an infant, I doubt they’d tell you that they believe Life was created by the random interaction of chemicals in primordial sludge.

#476

What is funny is the hypocrisy of the “just haven’t found evidence yet argument”.

Supposedly there is this god who created everything and interacts with us humans on a day to day bases and yet we cannot detect him…

And the weirdest part is somehow humans are able to determine what this god wants, how he created the universe, and what he has physical done in the past…

Yet the greatest technology known to man cannot find one speck of evidence of any of these claims.

I hope there are no creationists in this forum…they really drag down an argument to complete idiocy.

Like despite Evolution being a fact and there being over 240,000 peer reviewed articles, they still deny it.

#477

That is not atheism.

Atheism is just the disbelief/non-belief in a god whether that be because you have no knowledge of this concept or you simply are not convinced.

Atheism is nothing more than that. It does not determine someone’s scientific position on any topic.

#478

The specifics don’t matter, It was just an illustrative example of my idea of the infant mindset. If the guy I was replying to had said “everyone is born agnostic” then that would be an arguable position, but the “born atheist” angle doesn’t hold water at all. It’s active disbelief that its highly doubtful an infant would have.

#479

Babies, when born, no almost nothing, they don’t know what religion means, nor what a giraffe looks like etc.
They are born Atheist, but not because of their choice, but because they have not been taught what other people believe.

#480

atheism is the active disbelief in a god, it’s literally impossible for an infant to be atheist if he “doesn’t know what religion means.”

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.