I’m not SentientMeat, who is perfectly capable of answering this on their own, but I’d say that some small sliver of evidence would be a good start down that path.
That’s a great question. First, there is the argument that if there is a God , being God, he must be a perfect being and therefore, infallible.
Second, maybe they are wrong and God is not infallible and all-powerful. Maybe he’s just more powerful (I would thiink that would be safe to say), and we can’t say anything about his level of fallibility.
Again, very interesting question.
What attitude would that be, exactly?
I appears that Uzi was responsing to a point made by ME? If so, he was in error. I have never on these boards argued for the existence of any particular strain of God. I am willing to defend a position I stated, not one I did not state. How is this sophistry?
And, just so you know, the probability that I am arguing for the existence of the Christian God is zero. Hope that helps.
I’m sure thater’s a lot of truth in that. Though that wasn’t the attitude I was alluding to in your cite.
Forget sliver. I’m curious if there is ANYTHING that would convince him that there is a God.
Hubris. Arrogance. Intransigence. An unwillingness to accept they might be wrong. Much of the same attributes that many find so distastful in rabid fundementalists.
While some of the entries on GIGObuster’s list might be debateable, am I the only one who noticed that Charles Schultz was on there? If we’re going to stretch the definition of “atheist” so far as to include Schultz, then this whole debate is unnecessary, since by that standard, everyone in the country except Pat Robertson and Jack Chick is already an atheist.
Oh, that I can see. If someone said they were the “truth”, I’d probably question their integrity myself.
I still don’t see what that has to do with the majority of Americans not trusting atheists, though. They’ve never seemed put off by that attitude by others.
I have a sneaking suspicion that many people, when responding to that poll, had an absurd caricature of what an atheist is in mind. Maybe they’re thinking of someone who actively agitates against religion or someone who might be a communist, rather than someone like me who just doesn’t think of religion at all. It’s not a part of my life in any way, and I have no interest in disuading anyone from abandoning their religious beliefs. I’m happy to celebrate Christmas and have no problems saying “group grace” if I’m a guest for a meal in someone’s home. If I’m at a Catholic wedding, I won’t take communion, but that’s more out of respect for the religion (I don’t think the priest would want me to take communion, as a non-believer) than a sense that I need to stand on principle and not participate.
I suppose there is a subset of atheists who are anti-religion, and who will make a point of being confrontational about it, but my guess is they are a tiny minority within the atheist minority. It’s probably that type of actively anti-religious atheist that many people have in mind. They may have never met an actual atheist or at least anyone who talks about being one.
Multiverse theories do no require a “start.” That’s the beauty of them. Your “tenet of causality” does not exist in science. On the quantum level, we now know that matter can indeed arise spontaneously from nothing. The Cosmological argument is scientifically defunct.
You could start by showing me a single thing in the universe which cannot be explained without magic.
And causality is itself being questioned by those hypotheses.
Not that I can imagine, since it could just as easily be evidence of a Matrix or whatnot. My brain could, I suppose, be physically reconfigured into “theism”, but that would be something of a cheat (and would arguably not be me any more.)
Another good point. No doubt comfort with one’s own group an fear of “others” plays a role.
You wouldn’t be allowed to if you wanted to. Communion can only be taken after you’ve been baptized, confirmed and gone to confession.
I knew that, that was the reason I added Agnostics and unbelievers when mentioning the list, the Atheists in SF may have other evidence, but I did remember that not all of the people in the list were so strict in their Atheism or Agnosticism.
How many were there in the beginning? Why? How many now? What caused the first one(s) into existence? Why is there not simply nothing?
Those are questions that come up, but can we avert a hijack. We noth know this has all been discussed before.
It is my understanding that the quantum mechanics you’re discusing here talks to the movement of matter from one place to another, not the creation of it.
So whatever I show you that would go to prove a being that operates outside the laws of the universe, you will attribute to magic? I’m fine with that. Though, at that point, I’d ask if you were more or less open to the idea of a God.
What else plays a role? I honestly haven’t seen anyone come up with any good reason whatsoever, but I’d be happy to hear one.
I think some things have been mentioned. Hubris is one, both as it describes a person’s intransigence and his refusal to acknowledge/accept something greater than himself. The morality issue is another one. Some people who take their morals from religion are wary of those who profess no religion, equating it with an absence of a morals.
Attention: People of Religion
I know there are posters on this board that have more of a discomfort with atheists than I. I urge you to weigh in. The OP has opened the door for helpful dialogue. I practice no religion, and would be interested to hear your responses.
Except that has nothing to do with being an atheist. An atheist can belive in souls ( I don’t, but others do ); they just can’t believe in a god.
Yup. For that matter, there’s more “weight” behind the existence of Yoda, since we’ve actually seen images of him.
A statement that leads directly to atheism, since part of those “interpetations” is that a god exists.
Not many of the good ones. God is not a scientificly proven ( or scientifically evidenced ) concept, so it’s bad science to use gods as an explanation for anything.
When your opponents are wrong to the point of being silly, keep trying to force their beliefs down everybody’s throat, and use those beliefs as an excuse to commit atrocites - it’s hard not to have an “attitude”.
God(s) hardly qualify, since that just pushes the question back to “what made God ?”. If the answer is “He always existed” or “He made himself”, you could say the same about the universe (s) without invoking an entity we have no evidence of the existence ( or even the possibility ) of. God is an unnecessary hypothesis, as well as a foolish and nasty one.
You’re describing theism, not atheism; without those, religion couldn’t exist.
Virtual particles appear from"empty" space. According to some theories, all matter in the universe was created this way.