Why do you not believe in god(s)?

[Rising Sun]

Mmmmmmh, food. (drools)

[fissiparity]

You said evolution wasn't a fact (it's both fact and theory) I've just given you an example of a transitional fossil between species. No creationism, ascended masters or doughnuts are necessary.

[Evren]

I was raised non-denominationally (is that a word?) Christian. And I belived in all of it for years, then I got really mad at the church because they abused me. I was never mad at God.

But later I started thinking about god and what I believed and I started discovering some major plot holes. Like god often says in the Bible that jealousy is a sin, however he often describes himself as a jealous god. Also he kicked Lucifer out of heaven because he was upset that god loved humans more than him and he rebelled, which is just bad parenting. You should always talk to your older kids about how you still love them if you get a new baby ;).

I basically came to the conclusion that if there is a god, he isn't the nicest person in the world, and he makes some very human mistakes. All of which isn't nesscecarilly a bad thing, but it doesn't really inspire worship.

So at this point I don't really care, I get terrible anxiety about the idea of going to a church service, although I miss Christmas Eve candle light service. If he's real, if he isn't real, it doesn't really bug me.

[Guest]

You said evolution wasn't a fact (it's both fact and theory) I've just given you an example of a transitional fossil between species. No creationism, ascended masters or doughnuts are necessary.

It doesn't disprove that god created a world with dinosaurs evolving into archeopteryxes evolving into birds.

As for "evolution is a fact"...

1) You're wrong, it's not. Please inform yourself on how science actually works.

2) Your linked article is irrelevant to the task set before you, "disprove involvement of god". Even if evolution were a fact and your article proved it (hint: neither is the case), you avoided the actual question.

Until you can disprove god - and that burden of proof is on you, it's intellectually dishonest to deflect it to theists, who have no need to prove you anything - you do not have a stronger theory than theists do. Good luck on that proof, you will need it. To the best of my knowledge, humanity - including people smarter than either you or me - has consistently failed at that task for centuries and millennia, and the best guess is, they will keep failing at it until our species dies out.

TL;DR - scientism dumb.

[fissiparity]

Show me a peer reviewed article which explicitly states evolution is not both a fact and a theory. You can't seem to comprehend that its both.

I could make a better argument for a creator than you have with your inane ramblings. E.g. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's what Stephen Hawking said about the possibility of God;

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

[Nidwin]

Evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a fact, that helps us find answers to some of the questions how life changes and/or evolves on our planet. It's also known that it isn't the only "process" how life changes and/or evolves on our planet as in natural selection versus artificial selection.

Proving or disproving the existance of gods is pointless and a waste of time and resources as this is plainly impossible.

For the ping pong game of the burden of proof I consider this something on the level of kindergarden gameplay.

[fissiparity]

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts

[Guest]

Oh, "inane ramblings". Sweet.

Whatever. This is the same arrogant condesenscion and outright refusal of criticial thought and logic that I've seen from atheists all too many times. Sorry, I'm too smart to convert to your faith - it's centuries behind the times, and is incompatible with scientific thought and simple logic.

* makes yet another notch on the "never trust a vocal atheist, and don't attempt a reasonable debate with them" stick. It's a long, long stick. *

[Telecaster68]

The other element of a theory being more than just a random idea is that it makes predictions which can be proven (or more importantly disproven)by observation. Evolution had done this time and time again.

[Rising Sun]

Here's what Stephen Hawking said about the possibility of God;

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

I've seen atheist physicists equate "vacuum" (and various other things in physics that are obscure to the public) with "nothing" too many times to not think that they're intentionally dishonest just in order to preserve their personal beliefs. I don't see why an exception should be made for Hawking. Or for anyone.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, Mysticus. The burden of proof here is that gods exist despite far more actual evidence to the contrary.

[Rising Sun]

There's no evidence of anything. (Unless if you're talking about the kind of God described by Spinoza, in which case "if I exist, God automatically exists")

[Zerο]

Chances are they're using terms like that to simplify their argument. If you were Hawkins, would you expect more than 0.01% of people to understand WTF you're talking about if you're using all the appropriate technical terms and ideas? At a certain point, it's not even worth the effort.

[Guest]

Here's what Stephen Hawking said about the possibility of God;

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

I've seen atheist physicists equate "vacuum" (and various other things in physics that are obscure to the public) with "nothing" too many times to not think that they're intentionally dishonest just in order to preserve their personal beliefs. I don't see why an exception should be made for Hawking. Or for anyone.

To be fair, Hawking is one of the few minds great enough that I can assume he's more thinking of "bubbles in quantum foam" than of what non-genius people would call "vacuum"... an area where I've heard that there is some mathemathical proof for the possibility (!) of universes (note the plural) emerging out of literal nothingness.

(No, I do not claim to have actually understood that proof. I'm pretty smart, but nowhere close to the level of Hawking or Einstein.)

I can safely acknowledge that, because neither Hawking nor anyone else is anywhere closer to disproving god(s) than any other human being has been. Even he's not smart enough to go beyond what's neuroanatomically and epistemologically impossible for our species.

[Rising Sun]

@ Zero : Except that he's mixing two different things that are radically different and incompatible. What he's talking about is not nothing. Which automatically invalidates the argument. I'd prefer to see something logically consistent, should that be obscure to people who never studied physics.

And I'm quite skeptical about the idea of something coming from nothing. Unless if we have completely different notions of "nothingness". It's not even as if mathematics could truly define something that by definition doesn't exist. If you can define it, it exists. If it exists, it's not "nothing".

[Zerο]

@ Zero : Except that he's mixing two different things that are radically different and incompatible. What he's talking about is not nothing. Which automatically invalidates the argument. I'd prefer to see something logically consistent, should that be obscure to people who never studied physics.

Once again, what you prefer has nothing to do with makes the most sense for him. If I felt like I was speaking gibberish to get my point across, I sure as heck wouldn't waste the effort.

[Rising Sun]

My point is that his argument is a personal belief. Any verbal argument can be shown to be personal belief only. And things will always be that way.

[nanogretchen4]

I agree that the burden of proof is on the person making a supposedly fact based or falsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim is an opinion and should be treated as such.

The invisible squirrel argument works well as long as an atheist is arguing with someone who wants to persuade the atheist to believe in God. Lack of evidence is a great defensive argument, but a poor offensive one.

As soon as the atheist goes on the offensive and tries to persuade others that they shouldn't believe in God, the atheist starts making claims that need to be supported, and then the atheist has to do most of the work. If you tell someone that they shouldn't believe in God, they could simply ask why and then sit there in serene silence until you talk yourself hoarse. And then they could cheerfully announce that their views haven't changed in the slightest, because all you've been doing is trying to argue someone out of a subjective opinion.

As for the issue of natural selection, it's completely tangential to the point under discussion. When several people enthusiastically endorse natural selection yet don't convert to atheism on the spot, that seems to illustrate that acceptance of scientific evidence and belief or disbelief in God are two entirely different issues. Creationism is a straw man.

If an atheist claims that others should not believe in God because belief in God leads to negative consequences, that is a claim requiring supporting evidence, unless the atheist wants to claim that this is an entirely faith based doctrine of their religion, in which case everyone else can just smile and nod politely.

[m4rble]

Show me some evidence that God set up evolution?

Show me evidence that he didn't.

The burden of evidence is on you I'm afraid as it is you making extraordinary claims and as we know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

ffs

[m4rble]

You said evolution wasn't a fact (it's both fact and theory) I've just given you an example of a transitional fossil between species. No creationism, ascended masters or doughnuts are necessary.

You're misrepresenting your opponent's argument again.

you do not have a stronger theory than theists do

While it might not make sense to quantify the strength of an argument, if I had to make that assessment I would say that the people who argue that their mind is alone in the universe have a stronger argument than people who do not because that view solves a lot of philosophical problems. Still, I don't believe that argument.

[fissiparity]

If God or Logos created a complex universe then would it not take an even more complex entity to have created God?

Physics isn't my strongpoint although reading about String and M theory has not made me pause and exclaim "Religion was right all along!" Evolution and natural selection do not require the intervention of a creator and I'd speculate that when (not if) physics produces its equivalent of Darwin and 'On The Origins of the Universe' a creator will be unwarranted. If not then we will have to amend our model of the universe accordingly and all become Gnostics.

[nanogretchen4]

I agree that God is entirely unnecessary to explain the natural universe. Science can explain many things now and will probably be able to explain even more things eventually. And for anything that remains unexplained, the words, "I don't know" are not actually lethal.

It's almost as if people might have some totally different reason for choosing religion.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

I could perhaps believe if god(s) were the Ultimate Artist. Someone who painted beauty onto the Universe, who I think would have said "Behold! Tell Me what you think. Be with me and don't worry about my judging you, as I have created what made you so you can be an Artist unto yourself."

And who wouldn't tolerate the religious elites drawing a moustache on a Mona Lisa. Or hate and bigotry projected as holiness onto outgroups. Who throw down the brush and pick up the sword.

[Guest]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, Mysticus. The burden of proof here is that gods exist despite far more actual evidence to the contrary.

1) There has been no evidence ever provided for the absence of gods. None whatsoever. (If so, cite it. No, evolution is quite obviously not evidence in any way, shape, of form.)

2) The claim is "god(s) do(es) not exist" (before you knee-jerk try to deny this, read fissi's posts again - I am 100% correct that this is the positive claim being made), and as gretchen correctly said above, this claim is made with the objective to convert people to atheism. So the burden is evidently and obviously on atheists, not on theists, because theists never make that claim, by definition. You need to prove nonexistence, or learn to stay a good bit more humble, accepting that your atheist faith is no better than any other religious faith in the world. (And if you want to babble something about "not playing baseball" now - please, friend, just don't. Spare yourself the indignity.)

I'm fed up with the "H-we do not need to give evidence, H-we have Science" (a grotesquely stupid stance, to start with), but then getting into a huff when getting shoved a Bible (or other sacred scripture) into their face, and thereby being presented with more evidence than they ever bothered to give, and still not admitting "sorry, our bad" with egg on their face. It's arrogant and hypocritical, and you only have your own group to blame for the fact that when I hear someone call themselves an atheist, I tend to think quite a bit less of them until they prove they aren't bigoted fools with big egos.

Because, sadly, evidence has proven me right in that assumption over and over again, a frustratingly large amount of times, which makes me all the happier about the cases when an atheist breaks the mold and actual shows capability for critical thought, rejects scientism, and some good old fashioned realistic humility. These folks do exist, yes. However, looking at atheists debating on the internet, they seem to be in the minority - they're usually the folks who don't suffer from a compulsive need to constantly bring up their atheism as a form of SmartCard^TM, nor to constantly belittle theistic beliefs.

I agree that God is entirely unnecessary to explain the natural universe.

Certainly not for me. The explanation starts with believing that it's there to start with. I've found that I do need god for that - without god, no universe; without universe, no science.

If even one person needs the god axiom, it's not unneccessary.

[RK800]

[Anthracite_Impreza]

You're not getting this are you? I point you to Telecaster's invisible squirrel metaphor. You do not need to prove non-existence or you'd have to prove wrong every single non-existent thing there could ever be, and that's just stupid. It is not arrogant to state there is no god(s) when there's no bloody proof in the first place; that'd be like calling me arrogant for not believing in the invisible squirrel (who shall hereafter be called Bob)!

[Guest]

Oh no, it's quite clear that you're the one who's not getting it.

But since Quantum already got the popcorn (which is rarely a good sign ^_^ ), and I'm tired of retreading the same old discussion with ever different participants, who always fail to either grasp or honestly acknowledge the same old flaws in their narrative - and even more so, because this isn't the right thread for it in the first place, and the only point I came here to make, namely not to idolize Dawkins, whose best years are long since past and predate his ramblings on religion, has solidly been made - I'll decline further discussion of it at this point.

[Truth and Lies]

I just don't. However, as long as folks aren't trying to press their beliefs on me or doing harm to others in the name of their religion/god(s), do what they may and I'll just sit here drinking my cocoa and attending church with my mother only when there's a blood drive going on.

[m4rble]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, Mysticus. The burden of proof here is that gods exist despite far more actual evidence to the contrary.

1) There has been no evidence ever provided for the absence of gods. None whatsoever. (If so, cite it. No, evolution is quite obviously not evidence in any way, shape, of form.)

2) The claim is "god(s) do(es) not exist" (before you knee-jerk try to deny this, read fissi's posts again - I am 100% correct that this is the positive claim being made), and as gretchen correctly said above, this claim is made with the objective to convert people to atheism. So the burden is evidently and obviously on atheists, not on theists, because theists never make that claim, by definition. You need to prove nonexistence, or learn to stay a good bit more humble, accepting that your atheist faith is no better than any other religious faith in the world. (And if you want to babble something about "not playing baseball" now - please, friend, just don't. Spare yourself the indignity.)

I'm fed up with the "H-we do not need to give evidence, H-we have Science" (a grotesquely stupid stance, to start with), but then getting into a huff when getting shoved a Bible (or other sacred scripture) into their face, and thereby being presented with more evidence than they ever bothered to give, and still not admitting "sorry, our bad" with egg on their face. It's arrogant and hypocritical, and you only have your own group to blame for the fact that when I hear someone call themselves an atheist, I tend to think quite a bit less of them until they prove they aren't bigoted fools with big egos.

Because, sadly, evidence has proven me right in that assumption over and over again, a frustratingly large amount of times, which makes me all the happier about the cases when an atheist breaks the mold and actual shows capability for critical thought, rejects scientism, and some good old fashioned realistic humility. These folks do exist, yes. However, looking at atheists debating on the internet, they seem to be in the minority - they're usually the folks who don't suffer from a compulsive need to constantly bring up their atheism as a form of SmartCard^TM, nor to constantly belittle theistic beliefs.

I agree that God is entirely unnecessary to explain the natural universe.

Certainly not for me. The explanation starts with believing that it's there to start with. I've found that I do need god for that - without god, no universe; without universe, no science.

If even one person needs the god axiom, it's not unneccessary.

Wow, this got intense.

[Guest]

Wow, this got intense.

Fiercely challenging humbug since at least 1979. (I was a weird kid. No longer a kid, still weird.)