Ask an atheist

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are you an athiest because you feel we have accurate and complete enough knowledge of the Universe and God in order to rule out the existence of one

Not even close.

or
Are you an athiest because we don't know enough about God to justify his existence?

That's one thing. But I'd rather put it the other way around, I've seen no scientific or objective evidence suggesting there is one, and never felt any personal evidence for one. So, if there is none, there's nothing to know enough about. If there is, I'm an atheist because I don't know enough about God to justify his existence.

I get a feeling that if there was no conscious inteligent force behind the evolution you would get some giant bugs running around ultimately killing themself off and destroying everything else rather than "fragile and subtle" humans in spite of their brains...

I'd say, don't settle for a feeling. Look for information about Evolution to see whether your hypothesis sticks.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Not even close.
I'd say, don't settle for a feeling. Look for information about Evolution to see whether your hypothesis sticks.

You know what I am doing is yoga. So unfortunately or fortunately certain feelings as a source of knowledge have more value for me than most of information. But thx.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You'll never know the pain it causes me not to post a youtube clip of "More than a feeling" from Boston.

(I bet you got it stuck in your head now though)

 

[Flying Pig]

You know what I am doing is yoga. So unfortunately or fortunately certain feelings as a source of knowledge have more value for me than most of information. But thx.

Feelings are fine when there's nothing better to go on, but using your 'feelings' to shape your opinions when they run contrary to everything known about something? That doesn't strike me as a very wise position, and it's certainly not one that I think God, from my own perspective, would approve of - he made this world as it is, so to use his name in trying to say it's put together in some other way sounds rather wrong.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Feelings are fine when there's nothing better to go on, but using your 'feelings' to shape your opinions when they run contrary to everything known about something? That doesn't strike me as a very wise position, and it's certainly not one that I think God, from my own perspective, would approve of - he made this world as it is, so to use his name in trying to say it's put together in some other way sounds rather wrong.

I am sure you have noticed I have writen certain feelings...
We all want to know God if he exists. Can it be done just through reasoning? Not likely. Can we know Him through some sort of mental activity? It seem so but it has to be probably under some special conditions. Also it may even be able to know Him through feelings. But again the ordinary emotions (human love) will not do.
This is what yoga tels you and what should be the ultimate aim of every religion.

From my own perspective God wants you to use a comon sense. But to be heavily attached to either ordinary feelings or unillumined reasoning will probably diminishes your chances of knowing your own true existence - soul.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You'll never know the pain it causes me not to post a youtube clip of "More than a feeling" from Boston.

(I bet you got it stuck in your head now though)

Divine...

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Well into evolution debate I see.
If I may interrupt, I'd like to ask a question from atheists in the US.
I've heard rumours that being an atheist in the US is in some way controversial. Have you experienced any of this personally?
Has you lack of belief led you to uncomfortable situations, social problems or even worse?
Or maybe this is only an issue in some parts of the US?

Disclaimer: only read the first six pages and the last page, so if was covered in between, my apologies.

It can be awkward around believers if one is an apostate like me. I sometimes sense a great deal of insecurity in other people about it. Others, not so much. The latter I still maintain as friends. I don't ever plan to tell my parents; I don't feel like dealing with all the screaming and crying. Actually, I think they're more afraid of me being a leftist than an atheist. Try and wrap your brain around that one.

Anyway, as far as "anything but an atheist," I think it has to do with atheism being almost alien to many Americans. However, I suspect most people probably lie about their religious affiliations on the census. More people are unbelievers than some people would like to accept.

 

[emzie]

I'm going to make the same objection I made at a cosmological scale: there's no reason these arguments work against a creator, just a particular type of creator. It is true that a creator is unlikely to be a micromanager of biology.
However, many humans, myself included, find the wonderful symmetry of evolution to be far more pleasing then the symmetry of nice straight nerves, and I find no reason a creator wouldn't either.

Well then you're just returning to an unfalsifiable statement that has no place in a discussion about science.

I suppose I should get around to asking a question, because that's what the thread is for, and get at what my real issue is:
Are you an athiest because you feel we have accurate and complete enough knowledge of the Universe and God in order to rule out the existence of one,
or
Are you an athiest because we don't know enough about God to justify his existence?

I'm an atheist because I see no good reason to not be. Well, that's not quite true. I like the idea of agnostic theism (I believe because I find it comforting) but I can't ignore the fact that I just don't believe in the first place.

Anyway, I'm an atheist because any diety that's compatible with nature as observed is a distant, non-interventionist god. It's like believing there's a multiverse. It's unknowable to us, so I don't see much point pondering the details of it.

Well into evolution debate I see.
If I may interrupt, I'd like to ask a question from atheists in the US.
I've heard rumours that being an atheist in the US is in some way controversial. Have you experienced any of this personally?
Has you lack of belief led you to uncomfortable situations, social problems or even worse?
Or maybe this is only an issue in some parts of the US?

Disclaimer: only read the first six pages and the last page, so if was covered in between, my apologies.

In my experience (having grown up in the US, more or less in the south), there's a difference between not being religious and being an atheist. I never hid the fact that I didn't believe in God, but people would talk about atheism as if I were not an atheist.

In fact, I'd say the term "atheist" for many means people elsewhere, or anti-theists.

 

[Leoreth]

Are you an athiest because you feel we have accurate and complete enough knowledge of the Universe and God in order to rule out the existence of one,
or
Are you an athiest because we don't know enough about God to justify his existence?

It's more of the latter, but I don't like the way it's worded to completely agree with it.

I think the existence of a creator God is consistent with our universe, but in no way necessary. I am certain that if something or someone created our universe, it's certainly not watching us while making sure we obey an arbitrary set of morals, and while setting up a fitting afterlife for us.

In my opinion these things should be kept apart but often it seems to be it isn't. Many religious people act like creator-God automatically implies not only moral-God, but their moral-God.

You could probably file me more as an agnostic than an atheist, but to me the distinction doesn't really matter because in either case I won't bother to live my life according to one being that may or may not exist.

I am happy to adjust my believes...

I get a feeling that if there was no conscious inteligent force behind the evolution you would get some giant bugs running around ultimately killing themself off and destroying everything else rather than "fragile and subtle" humans in spite of their brains...

It seems you misunderstand what "survival of the fittest" means. It doesn't necessarily mean "stronger and tougher". It means being able to fill out a biological niche.

 

[Millman]

If someone asked for physical, verifiable proof would you shut down the topic that provides it?

 

[Ayatollah So]

But now you [Clement] seem to be engaged in a more manic accusatory blast at everyone who is not depressed about the implications, and seem to think everyone has failed if they can't offer you a pat explanation for the hole in your whole.

I second that emotion.

If you can't establish the Optimum, how can you establish what is beneath it.

Human psychology is such that we know vastly more than we know we know, and vastly to the Nth degree more than we know how we know.

I don't know who the tallest person in the world is, nor how tall they are, but I know that none of the people I know are that person.

A lot of principles that look like prerequisites of knowledge ... just aren't.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not even close.
That's one thing. But I'd rather put it the other way around, I've seen no scientific or objective evidence suggesting there is one, and never felt any personal evidence for one. So, if there is none, there's nothing to know enough about. If there is, I'm an atheist because I don't know enough about God to justify his existence.

I would include lack of physical confirmation of god as a form of lack of knowledge of god.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't know who the tallest person in the world is, nor how tall they are, but I know that none of the people I know are that person.

That is because we can agree what tall is. You don't need to know what the actual tallest person is, but we might be able to agree on the tallest hypothetical person, and what they look like.
I doubt any consensus on what the most virtuous of all worlds is even possible.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, it's probably not practically possible. But we don't need to know best in order to know better. I don't know what (objectively) the 'tastiest healthy meal' is, but I do know that mother's milk is better for babies than kerosine. The claim appears to be that the world is the most virtuous, the counter-claim is NOT that I know the actual more virtuous, but that I have a good reason to believe that this world is NOT the most virtuous.

So, for example

However, many humans, myself included, find the wonderful symmetry of evolution to be far more pleasing then the symmetry of nice straight nerves, and I find no reason a creator wouldn't either.

You can be impressed by the dance of evolution, but it's a big stretch to say that it should be pleasing. Evolution requires massive amounts of suffering (both emotional and physical). It produced humans after 10s of millions of years of agony. How can that be pleasing? It can be impressive, but it should not be pleasing. This is especially true if we suggest that humans were some type of 'goal' of evolution.

Compare this to the pleasure of watching a good horror movie. You can be impressed by a good horror movie. You can even enjoy it. But if you found out that the movie was made by actually torturing people to death, you should be horrified.

Being 'pleased' by a Creator who caused agony in trillions of animals in order to create you seems to be morally worrisome. Especially when there's the possibility of just creating an actual movie in which 'no animals were harmed in the filming of'.

And if you discount animal agony too far (how far is too far?), it becomes obviously a moral error. If the faith exacerbates that pleasure, then there's a real problem with the faith.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It seems you misunderstand what "survival of the fittest" means. It doesn't necessarily mean "stronger and tougher". It means being able to fill out a biological niche.

Yes, obviously, the biological niche is inteligently being filled by an uninteligent species...
Another question puzzles me, why the brain (mental capacity) is strongly developed by only humans. That also is a sign/ evidence of some sort of guiding force.

What are we getting in the course of evolution? Obviously you cant say we are getting stronger(in a sense of row physical power) species but it seems we are getting more conscious species.
First you get organism with only a sense of touch, and then it slowly develops up to humans with five senses and strongest developed mental.
Now the questions could be who has it designed that way and can you have some more developed consciousness without having it at the start of the evolution in the first place?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Now the questions could be who has it designed that way and can you have some more developed consciousness without having it at the start of the evolution in the first place?

Not a question for this thread I'm afraid since you assume an intelligent designer. And you already made it clear you didn't want to learn about evolution, because that would mean relying on information instead of feeling. So, I, and others no doubt, would gladly address you but you'll have to accept a conversation based on information. Otherwise the discussion is pointless.

About consciousness. Different animals have different levels of consciousness. It's not us have a certain level, animals have a different uniform level.

 

[Algeroth]

What are we getting in the course of evolution? Obviously you cant say we are getting stronger(in a sense of row physical power) species but it seems we are getting more conscious species.

Yes we are. But what does the fact of culture to do with atheism?

First you get organism with only a sense of touch, and then it slowly develops up to humans with five senses and strongest developed mental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#The_senses
Also, the unicellular organisms have pretty developed senses of smell and taste

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, obviously, the biological niche is inteligently being filled by an uninteligent species...
Another question puzzles me, why the brain (mental capacity) is strongly developed by only humans. That also is a sign/ evidence of some sort of guiding force.

Why? It turned out it worked well for us, so it continued to develop even further. It's like asking "why the neck is strongly developed by only giraffes". Additionally, intelligence is no on/off switch. There are different species with wildly varying degrees of intelligence. Crows, dolphins and apes are only the most widely known examples for this.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Not a question for this thread I'm afraid since you assume an intelligent designer. And you already made it clear you didn't want to learn about evolution, because that would mean relying on information instead of feeling. So, I, and others no doubt, would gladly address you but you'll have to accept a conversation based on information. Otherwise the discussion is pointless.

About consciousness. Different animals have different levels of consciousness. It's not us have a certain level, animals have a different uniform level.

So atheism means to have no feelings? Thats an interesting piece of information...
I have clearly said that at times certain emotions can have more value than reasoning I do not look down upon intelect or scientific information.
I understand you see the further discussion pointless which is all fine with me.



On lighter note: I have found this wonderful prayer witch may be useful to believers(at times) or atheist(just to be on the save side) alike:

O God, if there is a God,
Save my soul, if I have a soul.

 

[Leoreth]

So atheism means to have no feelings? Thats an interesting piece of information...

That's such a deliberate misunderstanding that I know any further discussion with you will be worthless.