what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Sean

I maintain that there is a chance that he exists - albeit a minuscule chance from a reason-based outlook.

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. — Miguel de Unamuno

Originally Posted by Sean

More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.

religion <> spirituality
While religion is a social entity, spirituality is not. Spirituality is personal, developed be each of us, or not, on our own.
My spirituality enables me to deal with the questions I can answer, and which actually matter. It better enables me to live in the here and now, instead of life's distractions that are of no true consquence.

Originally Posted by froopy seal

I think every human more or less knows what's right and what's wrong. We're just too lazy and egoistic to follow that knowledge.

No. . . While everyone of us, save the psychopath/sociopath, knows right from wrong.
It is FEAR that leads us to fall short of our ideals. Driven by various forms of subtle, corrosive, self-centered fear, we fall into sloth, greed, envy, pride, gluttony, lust and anger.
This fear is present in all of us to some degree.

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

One thing I've learned about atheists is how many of "those" kind use science to legitimize their own style of bigotry and/or racism . . .

Exactly. The closed mind can rationalize myopia by arguing either for, or against, dogma.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. — Miguel de Unamuno

I wouldn't call my acknowledgment that there's a miniscule chance god exists "doubt", because I flat out do not believe there is a god. Really, it's just practical acceptance of the fact that god's existence/non-existence simply can't be proven. And it probably never will be either, given the fact that god has been perfectly constructed by believers to be exempt from any and all methods of scrutiny.

I just had a brief debate with a religious girl on another website in which she asserted that the complexities of the human body proved God's existence, because nothing that complex could possibly have come into being without the involvement of a "creator". I noted that if this was so, then that creator would presumably have to be at least as complex as humans if not moreso. I then asked her if a being's complexity inherently necessitated a creator, wouldn't that creator's complexity also necessitate a creator of their own? Her answer was that no, it didn't, because the nature of God is outside our realm of understanding. This is the kind of argument I always see. If you apply any logic or scientific method to the concept of "God", it simply gets brushed aside as irrelevant.

So believers will likely always update their descriptions and definitions of god so that he/she/it can never be disproven through human knowledge or understanding. As such, folks like myself will always just have to acknowledge on a philosophical level that sure - maybe there's a god, but I'm extremely confident that there isn't. Just like we all could actually be living in the Matrix....

[myrrh]

Originally Posted by Sean

I just had a brief debate with a religious girl on another website in which she asserted that the complexities of the human body proved God's existence, because nothing that complex could possibly have come into being without the involvement of a "creator". I noted that if this was so, then that creator would presumably have to be at least as complex as humans if not moreso. I then asked her if a being's complexity inherently necessitated a creator, wouldn't that creator's complexity also necessitate a creator of their own? Her answer was that no, it didn't, because the nature of God is outside our realm of understanding. This is the kind of argument I always see. If you apply any logic or scientific method to the concept of "God", it simply gets brushed aside as irrelevant.

Actually, logic would dictate that a Creator can not be created. For if He was created, He could then not be the Creator. Therefor, for a Creator to exist, He would have to have always existed; ie being eternal.

That is logic in it's simplest.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by myrrh

Actually, logic would dictate that a Creator can not be created. For if He was created, He could then not be the Creator. Therefor, for a Creator to exist, He would have to have always existed; ie being eternal.

That is logic in it's simplest.

A being that transcends time. . .

We are three dimensional beings, our experience is over the fourth dimension of time. the only thing we can know is the 'right now' - see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I can know where something is x or how fast its moving Δx / Δt, but I can't know both, as my perception of time is discrete.

God is a four dimensional being with an experience that is beyond our comprehension.

the cross section/shadow of a point - dim(0) - is null. . .
the cross section/shadow of a line - dim(1) - is a point - dim(0)
the cross section/shadow of a plane - dim(2) - is a line - dim(1)
the cross section/shadow of a solid - dim(3) - is a plane - dim(2)
the cross section/shadow of God - dim(4) - is the material world - dim (3)

[Andrea]

Cool!
Sounds like 5 dimensions to me whether the cross section/shadow of a point - dim(0) - is null or dim(0), probably because math is not my strong point

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

Actually, logic would dictate that a Creator can not be created. For if He was created, He could then not be the Creator. Therefor, for a Creator to exist, He would have to have always existed; ie being eternal.

That is logic in it's simplest.

And yet it's still logic that necessarily falls outside the realm of human comprehension, because as soon as any reality-based logic is applied to the concept of god, the entire idea comes crumbling down.

[myrrh]

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite.

However, I don't see that as being an issue because the result of using logic leads us to the point that there must be something that always existed. Otherwise, one would have to say that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by myrrh

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite.

Ummmmmm... no.

How long is the coastline of england? Australia? Oahu?

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Ummmmmm... no.

How long is the coastline of england? Australia? Oahu?

that's a silly question. you seem to be grasping here.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite.

That's not quite accurate. Yes, eternity is something we can't comprehend, but so is the concept of an eternal, conscious, omnipotent being that knowingly created the entire universe.

Originally Posted by myrrh

However, I don't see that as being an issue because the result of using logic leads us to the point that there must be something that always existed. Otherwise, one would have to say that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.

This is true, but there's no scientifically valid evidence that what has always existed is an all-knowing, all-powerful, mythical entity.