Ask an Atheist!!!

#1301

Try not to say “That’s what most atheists think” because ‘atheists’ do not think alike at all except for their lack of belief in deities. Many atheists and many religious people see no problem with religion and science existing in concert with each other. I don’t see any problem with it. If that’s what you want to believe, more power to ya. :slight_smile:

I don’t particularly see the world or universe as “perfect” to be honest. It just is. It’s like a puddle. The hole isn’t perfect for the volume of water in the hole but the other way around. We are ‘formed’ (though that’s a bad word but I don’t know a better one) to fit our environment.

I don’t know what you mean by your “another question”. Can you elaborate a bit more? Remember, don’t ask “Do atheists think” as if we’re some monolithic group with exactly the same beliefs. Just ask what we, as individuals, think. “What do you think…” or “What is your opinion on…” rather than “What do atheists think…”

#1302

My opinion: we do not need a deity to have an origin. It just adds one more thing to the chain, which you can keep doing indefinitely.
Life isn’t “perfect”. It’s the result of evolution, which by definition shapes life to fit its environment.

As for motivation, isn’t the wish to improve yourself, those around you, and the world as a whole, motivation enough? How about the will to learn about the world? To express yourself through art and share it with others?

I don’t think that god “isn’t the real thing.” I simply don’t believe in god because I see absolutely no reason to. That definitely doesn’t mean there needs to be something else to take its place. It simply isn’t there.

I seriously suggest you watch the series of youtube videos MaxTheLimit linked the latest of. It explains almost any question you could ask an atheist quite well.

#1303

My another question was basicly the same as the one where I asked for an alternative but a little bit different.
So, what do you think this mystery is like and why can’t it be the deity I am thinking of?

#1304

Why can’t it be a leprechaun?

I don’t mean to sound rude or insensitive, but it’s the exact same question. There is no evidence for either of them, and no more reason to consider either more than the other.

Edit: read max’s reply instead of mine :stuck_out_tongue: /

#1305

It’s not that a god can’t exist. It’s more that there is no evidence or indication that a god exists. Without evidence a god is no more likely than the infinite counter possibilities.

To say you don’t know so it could be x is creating a hypothesis out of ignorance. You don’t know, and that is where you stop until you have some evidence. Otherwise you are just imagining unsupportable possibilities, and there is no limit to what they may be. An infinite number of possibilities…why should god be the right one? Without evidence it can’t be supported.

I don’t know what the answer to some of the great mysteries are. But if we as a species is going to find out, it’s going to be through investigation of observable evidence. It’s not going to happen through any sort of worship, or presumption.

#1306

Like others have said, why must we know the alternative? Some Physicians might have some theories about that, but we are just humans, we can’t simply know everything.

Now, someone invents the concept of God - which is just a fucking super human with incredible knowledge and power - and that makes it true? Just because it makes sense? Just because it fits?

Think about ancient people. They invented gods to explain the events in nature - winter, thunders, light, darkness, heat, cold. And the story they created fits perfectly and explain a lot of stuff. You might as well reject science and believe on some “improved” version of any of those theories.

If you accept the concept of existence to the existence of rules, then the rules themselves have no material and exist. Although they are not “things”, “energy fields” or anything of that shit - they are just what they are, rules.

If, OTOH, you don’t accept the concept of existence to the existence of rules, then there might be nothing that exists without material. Again, just because there might be, it doesn’t mean I’m going to theorize the existence of a lot of immaterial shit without evidences or reasons to back it up.

Excuse me, but what do you mean by “can’t really understand the endlessness of numbers”? Actually, mathematics deals with that concept very well. If by that you mean that we cannot imagine something that is infinite, that is true, but, then, why do we need to imagine it?

Why there exists the fucking need to explain every tiny little thing there is in the universe? Why can’t you simply say “I don’t know the answer”, instead of creating a lot of bullshit to explain the answer? You seem not to be able even to acknowledge the fact that you can’t know the answer without creating a theory explaining why you can’t know the answer.

#1307

Psychology and Sociology would disagree with that.

#1308

Surely you mean physicists? Or perhaps these are some particularly philosophical general practitioners? :stuck_out_tongue:

But all douchebaggery aside, yes, I think it’s hubris to assume that this is a question to which we should know the answer. I’d rather die trying to figure it out, but still be unsure, than just make something up based on my gut feeling and pretend it had any validity. Just because there are blank spaces on the map doesn’t mean there are no continents there (or whatever the saying is…)

#1309

But just because there’s blank spaces on the map doesn’t mean that continents ARE there, either.

#1310

:blush: Yeah, physicists.

#1311

That wasn’t really my point, but if I have to defend the analogy then OK. The day I see evidence for a god, I’ll start believing in one. Until then, it’s just a blank space on the map, and all we can do is go on the evidence we have, which has been rapidly removing places for such a being to hide for the last two centuries.

My point was that just because we don’t know the answer to something, that doesn’t mean there is no answer, and that no answer is always preferable to a made-up answer.

#1312

Agreed. However, if someone insists that they have the evidence that there is something there because some guy wrote about it many years ago…but there’s absolutely no evidence of it ever existing…

I’m just curious as to how they can separate, in their mind, between, say, Harry Potter and the Bible. Why is one actually “real” (God) and the other is “fictional” (magic spells) if both have exactly the same evidence: None?

I’ve never been able to figure that out, to be honest. How do they separate fantasy from reality?

#1313

I kind of like the map analogy when referencing our knowledge. We have this grand detailed map. There is some detail lacking, but it gets more detailed all the time.
There is blank spots on this map as well. There are people who say there is an amazing thing in these blank spots. But as the holes become fewer and fewer, and there is nothing like what those people said, but rather more interesting map stuff, nothing you wouldn’t expect to find on the map. We will never completely get rid of the blank spots, but as we fill up more and more, create more and more detail, without evidence of anything non usual map stuff, then to me it seems more an more likely that the map is just one hell of an amazing map.

I’m sure someone could elucidate the metaphor better than me though.

#1314

That’s a good question. Although I am not an atheist I will try to answer it in a few days.

#1315

nobody asked you, read the thread title

#1316

Hey, everyone here must have the chance to say anything, even if that sounds stupid.

Going back in the discussion a little bit:

This theory is in Wikipedia as well, with lots of sources. It looks like it is not just some bullshit theory like Zeitgeist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Early_history_of_Yahweh_worship

#1317

What is your strongest argument against god? I won’t answer to anything so you can keep it short if you want.

#1318

There is zero evidence for any sort of god. In fact there seems to be an indication from observation that the universe isn’t designed FOR us, so any possible god wouldn’t be a theistic god, but rather a deistic god. Since there is no evidence of a deistic god, then assuming there is one amongst the infinite other possibilities would be silly. What is the definition of ‘god’ are you referencing? I would need to know that before addressing the question.

#1319

The god I am referecing to is not bound to anything he created (Space and Time).
Therefore he is not imaginable and is not restricted in any way. His thoughts are not known besides that what he told us about them.
There is more but I think this is enough.

#1320

Does the god you reference interact with this universe he supposedly created?

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.