So you have faith in a science that you don’t fully understand to arrive at the conclusion that there’s no God. Well…I prefer to have faith in God.
If I have faith it is conditional and based on solid evidence-that way, if evidence to the contrary is brought forth I can adjust my “faith” to fit whatever the new reality might be. This beats the hell out of a blind faith in something for which there is no evidence, and which requires you to reject any evidence that goes against said blind faith.
Post objective evidence for your ‘God’ please.
The default assumption is that ‘No God(s) Exist’ - it is up to you to provide evidence of its existence.
If you cannot - you can ‘believe’ it all day long - but that does not make it so.
Secondly - provide objective evidence that your ‘version’ of God is superior to all the other ‘Gods’ that are out there.
If you cannot - why should we except your deity as being the correct one?
Lastly - (and this goes back to proof 1) - If you would not accept ‘belief’ for vampires, unicorns, big foot, etc - without objective evidence - why should we accept your ‘God’ based on the same LACK of evidence?
I have ‘faith’ in science as a never-ending self correcting method whose ‘truth’ is constantly demonstrated by its products. From ipads to atom bombs, from anti-biotics to genetic engineering. Science works.
As opposed to your ‘faith,’ which is nothing more than a lazy acceptance of a fairy tale that happened to be socially sanctioned in your formative years and produces nothing.
Okay - religious wars and exciting games of pass the altar boy. I’ll give you those two.
:sigh:
This was already pointed out many times before:
Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith ignores observation, otherwise it would not be faith or Religion.
And once again, I do not need to understand the science behind flat screens, but you and I can see them work every day. Science is like a rain that falls on both the just and the unjust, believers are not just the ones that get wet.
Can you translate please ?
Reality is what happens whether you believe in it or not-those that ignore it tend to be unpleasantly surprised by it.
No; I have trust in science, which has again and again proven how effective it is, and how it corrects its own mistakes over time. Not faith; faith is madness, faith is the denial of reality.
Sorry, but I just can’t help it:
My answer is “I don’t know”. I am a real atheist. BTW, another possibility is that it always existed. I admit that’s no less absurd than coming into being spontaneously.
I find a difference between making an assumption and not making an assumption. I find difference between having a belief and not having a belief.
If I have a belief, I can make a contrary assumption, for argument’s sake.
If I do not have a belief, I can make an assumption or not. The results are different. Consider constructing a proof in logic (pedicate calculus). The results can be dramatically by making and using an extra assumption. This is true even if you believe the assumption.
Here’s an example. Is my dog outside? I don’t know. That does not mean I assume he’s inside. I assume he’s either inside or outside. I assume gods either do or do not exist. I do not have any belief that they do.
No two of these statements are equivalent. Some may intersect with others:
- I am certain that gods do not exist
- I believe gods do not exist
- I assume gods do not exist
- I do not believe gods exist
And then there’s this, which is nearly equivalent to the last:
- I do not know whether gods exist
Bingo. We don’t know that nothing existed before it. All we know is that current theories predict (with considerable precision) that we can’t say very much about what happened before, or at the time of, the big bang. (Evidently, according to The Fabric of the Cosmos, we do know that if the universe is infinite now, it was then, and if it’s finite now, it was then. No doubt there are other facts we can infer. But mostly, we know it’s a “singularity” that hides most details about what came before.)
====
But let’s give pchaos the benefit of a doubt, that perhaps he’s not expressing himself well. Let’s say we all (including him) agree on a definition of an atheist. After all, that’s semantics. Instead, let’s imagine he’s trying to understand atheists. In that light, his OP makes sense and is not non-sequitur.
True, an atheist doesn’t have to have a cosmology. But for atheists who do think about cosmology, how do we explain the origin of the universe?
It’s a reasonable question, but it begs the question about how religious people explain the origin of God.
IMHO, the fact that there is anything at all is unexplainable. It’s the ultimate (or more correctly, the primary) absurdity. Religion can’t explain it. Science can’t explain it. But it’s undeniable, so deal with it!
It’s also possible that science might someday explain it. Some suspect that eventually we’ll reach the point where we understand that our universe is the only possible reality. But I don’t see that “only possible” implies “must exist”.
Regarding ethics: when we don’t simply subscribe to someone else’s ethic, we have to choose one for ourselves. (Of course, even choosing to subscribe to someone else’s is a choice, even if that someone else is God.) Is it easy? Nope. But we manage.
Finally, we’re not worried about the negative connotations some may feel about the word atheist (or if we do, we can say we’re agnostics). In any case, calling ourselves something completely different (empiricist) isn’t a solution.
So you hold that over 3/4 of the Americans that claim to have faith in God are mad ?
Maybe we have a word problem, can you please define “mad” for me ?
Americans.
I’m not too sure about that other 1/4th either.
Until Der Trihs gets here, may I have a shot at this one?
Mad= barking-mad, crazy, ooky-chooby, flip city, totally bonkers, full-on nutjob insane, lost it and it ain’t comin back, de-ranged, toys in the attic, psycho, alienated from reality.
Is that sufficient? N.B.: this only applies to people who claim to believe in invisible, intangible beings for whom there is no falsifiable evidence. Everyone else is fine, for the most part.
Hmm… Processing…Consistent…Ready>
You forgot “…and takes orders from said invisible, intangible beings”
That’s how a good chunk of the rest of the world sees us. My daughter’s boyfriend is German. His mother was quite concerned about our religion, given that the news tells her that large numbers of Americans are wacko. She was quite relieved to hear we believed even less than she did.
What are the large numbers of Americans whose faith tells them that God created man in our present form if not nuts?
I was kind of expecting Him. But a Seraph is also fine.
So you think that believing in an unfalsifiable proposition is madness.
I understand that you take orders from the tangible, visible Own Self
Yes, on anything touching their religion. They willfully deny reality, and harm both themselves and others in the process.
I think it’s reasonable to contend, doubleminus, that if I claimed that my cat communicated with me psychically and told me how to be a good person and live a good life, then I’d be considered at least a bit kooky even though there is more evidence for my claim than most religious ones: if you want I can show you a picture of my cat.
Except this is exactly the opposite of what I said. I don’t have any “faith” that science has, or can, explain the origin of the universe. It might very well be that science will not, or cannot explain the origin of the universe. The human species may never understand why and how the universe exists.
But I certainly don’t think that, just because we can’t explain the origin of the universe scientifically, that the logical alternative is to say that God created the universe. Because, you know, if we can’t explain the universe, calling the mysterious and unexplained origin of the universe “God” doesn’t explain the mystery, it makes it worse. What is this “God”? What is it like? Where did God come from? What qualities does God have? What method do we use to find out things about God?
In other words, what is the purpose of labeling the mystery of the universe with the name “God”? What do we learn from this that we didn’t know before? We know nothing more, we could name it “Spantokrozillits” instead, a totally meaningless random name I just made up, and we’d have the exact same information we would have if we named it “God”.
My understanding of my place in the Universe does not depend on speculative scientific theories about how the universe formed, interesting though this speculation is. I’d still be the same bipedal mammal, have the same brain, have the same human needs, and so on. Whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth is important if we want to understand orbital mechanics, but if we suddenly learned tomorrow that the Sun goes around the Earth it wouldn’t affect human ethics, or how we treat each other, or how we’re supposed to live our lives, or the human condition.
See, this is what you want to smuggle in with labeling the origin of the universe “God”. If we can’t explain the Big Bang, then the only alternative is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as written down in the Bible.