Well, I can prove my mother exists. Ditto for my father. That is, I could prove it to any reasonable standard, including, no doubt, in a court of law.
As to whether I love them, or they love me, or they love each other–well, there’s a lifetime of statements and actions testifying to that effect. It’s not like any of us are having to make some dramatic “leap of faith” there.
there ARE people who believe love is nothing more than a human mechanism to ensure your genes are carried on…could my sisters dog love its pups?
how would i prove to them that love exists? i mean i would catch a bullet for my Dad. but what would that prove? some would say stupidy…
Just because we have an idea of why something exists does not make it any less real.
At any rate, God is–in the beliefs of Western monotheists–a person, a conscious willful entity who does things and communicates to other persons. Which is why I point out that, whatever metaphysical debates we could get into about whether or not my mother really loves me, I am quite confident of the simple fact of her existence. Questions like “Does God love us?” or “Is God just?” logically speaking can’t even really be addressed until we have established whether God even exists or not. (Of course as a practical matter, the Problem of Evil and the Existence of God tend to get tossed willy-nilly into the same debates.)
Is the atheist guy capable of beginning a response with something other than “good uestion”? 
Just wanted to toss in that I have begun considering myself and presenting myself to others as a humanist rather than an atheist, to define my views in terms of something I believe in rather than by what I do not believe in. Call yourself a rational humanist if you wish to leave no doubt.
Also, my lack of belief in the supernatural does not render me incurious about religion. Yesterday my kids and I attended a Native American equinox celebration in Uptown. In Chicago, there is a council on world religions that is coordinating celebrations throughout the year on holy days from various faiths. Coming up is Sukkoth. Later ones range from Christianity, to Jainism, Sikhism, etc. Kind of a neat little DIY comparative religion course. Oh yeah, it is free and they served food too! Venison and buffalo. Yum!
I’m not sure if I can articulate this properly, but I think one of the points the OP is trying to make is that there is a difference between active acceptance or rejection of theism and simply “not believing”. For example, if no one had ever come up with the idea of god, or received divine knowledgeor whatever, and the the word and concept of god did not exist, my world view would be pretty much the same as it is now. I see the universe and I try to decipher how it works, and the question of whether there is or is not a god does not really come into it. Everything I see seems to work fine without a god. Why do we need one? Who ordered that?
I don’t know what’s so hard about this – I love my mother, and the proof is in my actions to her and my words about her. If I didn’t love her, why would I buy her presents for her birthday, or get angry at people who belittle her, or help her with errands around her house?
Note that proving that I love something does not prove whether that something exists, however. I can prove mom exists by taking you over to meet her; folks who believe in a god can’t prove his/her/its existence by doing the same.
So, are you totally “out”? Have you told your family? Your co-workers? Aren’t you concerned that many people believe you are going to burn in hell?
I’ve never been to one, but I did attend a “freedom rally” at the state capitol here in Nashville a few days after the attack. there was plenty of flag-waving and song-singing, but there was also a lot of Christian preaching and praying too. It didn’t offend me, I just respectfully kept quiet, bowed my head and held hands with my neighbors at the appropriate time, but I didn’t say “amen” or recite the lord’s prayer (and not just because I didn’t know the words )
What bothered me was the lack of regard to any other religions, particularly Islam. It would have been nice at least for them to note that there could be people of other faiths in the crowd, but that doesn’t make them the enemy. It’s been said before, but it needed to be said right there and then, too.
Not ten minutes after the rally was over, I saw a Muslim woman walking downtown, and I wondered what she would have thought of the rally.
In further answer to your question, even as an atheist I was very happy that the service at the National Cathedral included Judaism and Islam as well as Christianity in the proceedings.
No. I’d be concerned if I were actually going to burn in hell, but since there’s no such thing as hell, why should I worry?
–Cliffy
I don’t tell anyone I’m an atheist unless they ask me, and then I have no problem whatsoever telling that person. My family is not religious anyway, so that is not a problem. I understand some people think I’m going to burn in Hell, but I don’t particularly care, since I don’t believe in Hell.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Cliffy *
**
Discrimination. In the United States, something like 95% of the population believe in God. Since athiests are such a small minority, with a belief system diametrically opposed to all other belief systems, it seems reasonable to assume we could be discriminated against.
How can the existence of the Bible (, Koran, Torah etc.) be explained if there’s no such entity as God?
Who was Jesus then? (if we assume he existed in the same way we assume Julius Caesar, say, existed)
What effect would it have on your beliefs if extraterrestrial life were found?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IJGrieve *
- How can the existence of the Bible (, Koran, Torah etc.) be explained if there’s no such entity as God?/quote]
You’re kidding, right?
There are many people who have tried to make an impact on their religions by changing doctrine in a way they think is appropriate. (Jerry Falwell and Robert Drinan come to mind in the present.) Jesus was one of these guys who was enormously successful is developing a following.
**
Intelligent extraterrestrial life is conclusive proof that the Christian God does not exist. I don’t want to get into a debate, but the fact that only people with the knowledge of Jesus can be saved means that entire species of aliens are doomed to hell, even if they would have accepted Jesus had they but known. That’s inconsistent with the idea of God sending his son specifically to save the mortals.
–Cliffy
What is there to explain? Some guys wrote some books.
Jesus was a all around nice guy.
None whatsoever. I think it would probably be the most important scientific discover ever. It would be extremely cool.
Well, the only thing that would do would be strengthen my beliefs, what else? I’d rather ask that question of a creationist who believes we are the only ones in the Universe because that’s the way God made it, Bible says so.
[sub]Actually I’d rather not ask that question because I hate these kinds of debates. But I wouldn’t mind being a fly on the wall when one of these people is presented with indisputable proof of alien life![/sub]
Maybe it doesn’t, but it leaves a gaping hole where God-mongers can just walk right in.
The simplest answer I have been able to come up with regarding the beginning of the Universe is this:
Nothing is unstable. (That’s Nothing with a capital “N”).
This instability leads to something (matter) and the Universe starts from there.
I’d just like to put this Invisible Pink Unicorn argument to bed if I may. I see it raise it’s ugly, horned head every time this kind of discussion comes up.
There is no evidence whatsoever for an Invisible Pink Unicorn whereas there is some evidence for a god.
Belief in a deity does not equate to belief in Unicorns, Tooth Fairies, Santa Claus or any other non-existent entities.
Lemur866 said
I would also like to put the Occams Razor argument to bed. There are phenomena that cannot be explained by known science - the very existence of the Universe being one such thing.
God may be required in order to explain the first cause. The argument that from nothing can come nothing.
Anyway, my question for Atheist Guy is:
I agree with you regarding extraterrestrials but supposing incontravertible proof of the existence of ghosts were discovered.
What effect would this have on your beliefs?
If something is proven incontravertibly then I don’t really have a choice. To continue a belief when presented with incontrovertible proof of the opposite would be faith, which isn’t my bag, baby.
Yes but if there were proof of supernatural beings (ghosts). Would that cause you to believe there is a greater chance of there being a god?
What if there wasn’t proof of ghosts but you saw one yourself?
I mean you saw one when you weren’t half asleep or drunk or anything else. This ghost comes up to you and says “Hi, Im a ghost. Pleased to meet you” and then walks away through a wall. Rattling chains or whatever it is they do.
Would this make you think god is more likely to exist or would you think the existence of ghosts does not necessarily mean that god exists?
I don’t believe that your evidence (whatever it is) that God exists is compelling. For instance, there is evidence that the Earth is flat. If you go outside and look around, the Earth looks flat. You can walk and walk and walk and you never start to curve over. And people in Australia don’t live upside down! So there is evidence that the Earth is not a sphere, but rather is flat. But of course, that evidence can easily be controverted, and explained in other ways.
Yes, the Universe is orderly, yes the Universe must have had some first cause. But ascribing this to “God” doesn’t make any sense either. Why not ascribe it to “Zbrkq”? That’s a word I just made up, and it is the reason the universe exists and is lawful. It explains exactly as much as the word “God”.
My point is that the word “God” doesn’t help us understand the universe, and more than “Zbrkq” does. And it can actually be confusing, since we might imagine that we already know some attributes of God, when of course we don’t. If we define God as an uncaused first cause and the source of lawfulness in the universe people will often get confused and assume that this entity has some relationship to various entities described in various holy books of various sorts. Of course, this would not logically follow, given our definition. But many people would mistakenly believe it did. And since the purpose of language is to communicate rather than obfuscate, I would suggest that we use a different word.
An uncaused first cause has nothing to do with life after death, salvation, heaven, hell, angels, moral codes, or the existance of human life. But if we call the uncaused first cause “God” then we imply that it does. Different connotation.