I'm an atheist

[Gman]

If a student walked into a classroom and sat down at a desk, could a test create itself? Could a tornado hit the room and suddenly create a test on the desk? Our logic tells us no. Yet,that is what the atheist philosophy teaches. From the moment we are born until the day we die, the world is like a giant multiple choice test. Did we create these circumstances or were they here before we were? The circumstances that lead us to make logical decisions were all here before we were. The circumstances were presented to us and we responded, not the other way around. How could a giant test with definite right and wrong answers randomly occur? How did it become systematically organized , how are there answers that are right and wrong? Logic, right and wrong decisions, were put into motion long before human beings were. Unless you believe a test could create itself, there is no other alternative then reasoning its orinins were from a creator.

True Robin.. Of course many secularists don’t debunk religion or deny it as false directly. So what do they do? They simply assign it to the value realm which takes it out of the realm of true and false altogether. Of course secularists say they respect our beliefs, and at the same time they deny it has any relevance to the public "scientific" realm.

The problem here is that the atheists assign creationism to a non-testable format while not realizing that their own religion, in this case, atheistic evolution, is also not testable in many cases too.. It's just a belief system.. A religion.

[kopepod]

Science aims, and often succeeds in, finding precise answers to questions concerning the physical universe. These proofs are open to testing by anyone with enough interest and resources to carry out these tests.

There is no proof that there is a God. However, the theory of God's existence is not open to testing. Religion requires faith alone. Indeed many theists believe that even bringing God's existence into question is heresy.

Science by its nature is enquiring. Religion, by its nature, is the opposite.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Science aims, and often succeeds in, finding precise answers to questions concerning the physical universe. These proofs are open to testing by anyone with enough interest and resources to carry out these tests.

There is no proof that there is a God. However, the theory of God's existence is not open to testing. Religion requires faith alone. Indeed many theists believe that even bringing God's existence into question is heresy.

Science by its nature is enquiring. Religion, by its nature, is the opposite.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is all the same guy with different accounts posting once with each account to make it look like more people take the position he does.

This idea of science and religion is severely flawed. I challenge whoever you are to read some of the great theologians of Christian history. Seriously, read the first four pages of Augustine's Confessions and tell me that he doesn't "inquire" about his religion. Science is merely a method of obtaining information based on empirical and testable methods. It by no means should -ever- attempt to make itself the only method to determine Truth, as that would have to be empirically tested (an impossible and meaningless feet), and doesn't even make sense for those things that are not empirical or testable.

On the opposite side, there are many scientists who are only open to inquiry if it fits their worldview. It's a natural human tendency. I think you'll find, however, that there are plenty of inquiring Christians who may not appear so merely because they've already obtained some answers and don't want to keep having to 'answer' the same objections over and over again (it really gets old really fast).

[jlay]

Science aims, and often succeeds in, finding precise answers to questions concerning the physical universe.

Science doesn't aim anything. Science is a concept. It is not a thing with a mind. Science is a method of understanding causes in the physical universe. Anyone, including Christians, can and do use scientific methods.

These proofs are open to testing by anyone with enough interest and resources to carry out these tests.

Amen!

There is no proof that there is a God.

Is that a scientific statement? No. It is a philosophical statement. A very poor one at that. Of course there is evidence for God. Whether or not that evidence 'proves' anything to you, is really not a scientific question. So, I assume that you have given a good study of the cosmoligical argument, the teleological argument, the Kalaam arguement, and the moral argument? We all look forward to a report from your findings on why you have rejected these as evidence for the existence of God.

However, the theory of God's existence is not open to testing.

If it is a theory, it most certainly is. In fact the Christian scriptures would beg to differ with you here. John 14:21

Religion requires faith alone.

According to who? Can you verify that scientifically? Of course you can't. You are making a statement about religion that isn't true. Not even close.

Indeed many theists believe that even bringing God's existence into question is heresy.

And what is your point?

Science by its nature is enquiring. Religion, by its nature, is the opposite.

Really? Are you lumping all faiths into one category called 'religion' and then applying a blanket statement to all of them? Is that reasonable? Is it accurate? No. And you are implying that people of religion are excluded from using scientific method. Isn't that kind of snobbish? Well it is most certainly false. And further, science doesn't have a 'nature.' Science helps us to investigate that nature of things.

You know, you really ought to put your own BELIEFS to the same scrutiny that you attempt to put to 'religion.' It is apparent you haven't. As I have shown you are simply regurtitating fallacious objections that you've heard, accepted on faith, and haven't bothered to see if they even hold up to what they are trying to claim.

[kopepod]

'Really? Are you lumping all faiths into one category called 'religion' and then applying a blanket statement to all of them? Is that reasonable? Is it accurate?'

- Yes, I am. Yes, it is reasonable. Yes, it is accurate.

'You know, you really ought to put your own BELIEFS to the same scrutiny that you attempt to put to 'religion.'

- Religions exist with a conclusion attached to them. This conclusion is that God exists. Scientific enquiry is a METHOD which involves constant scrutiny of the conclusions one finds.

'On the opposite side, there are many scientists who are only open to inquiry if it fits their worldview.'

- Such a stance is not truely scientific. Can you name any of these scientists please? Are these the religious 'scientists' by any chance?
Science does not exist to disprove that God exists. There is simply no evidence turning up to back up the existence of God. If evidence for the existence of God turned up, I would become a believer.

I have read the Bible, Old and New Testament from beginning to end. Nothing in the Bible proves God existence. There are morally appealing parables therein, however there are many other sources from which moral lessons can be learned.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is all the same guy with different accounts posting once with each account to make it look like more people take the position he does.

- I am not a guy and I am separate from the other people posting here.

[zoegirl]

Interesting about the morally appealing....with no basis for morality, atheism simply relies on what is appealing? So a murderer or a rapist, upon finding their activities morally appealing...is justified in their actions.

[MarcusOfLycia]

It just seemed likely that it might be the same person since three or so posts were done by new users who then never followed up. Didn't mean to accuse you of anything more than state that it was odd to see.

The fact that you want to lump all faiths together, that you have never encountered a scientist who uses things other than science as parts of their worldview, or that you think you are somehow above the idea of a worldview (I call mine the Christian worldview, for instance), makes it hard to know if its worth discussing this stuff. Are you open to honest intellectual discussion about this stuff, or do you already have your mind made up? You say that if evidence appeared to 'prove God's existence', then you'd believe it. Is that really the case? And, if so, what evidence and how much would it take?

[jlay]

- Religions exist with a conclusion attached to them. This conclusion is that God exists. Scientific enquiry is a METHOD which involves constant scrutiny of the conclusions one finds.

What is your point? Every worldview exists with conclusions attached to them. There is no nuetral ground. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible as evidence is akin to asking a person to abandon air as a means of breathing. Atheism, naturalism, materialism, etc. exist with conclusions attached to them. So, are you including them in your category of 'relgion?"

- Yes, I am. Yes, it is reasonable. Yes, it is accurate.

Sorry, but it is fallacious, and you've failed to demonstrate otherwise. I've already shown that your 'conclusions' premise is faulty, and predjudiced. Any basic study of religion will show that all religions are not the same, nor do religious conclusions prevent anyone from being able to follow scientific method.

I have read the Bible, Old and New Testament from beginning to end. Nothing in the Bible proves God existence. There are morally appealing parables therein, however there are many other sources from which moral lessons can be learned.

Good, then you know that the Christian bible is a collection of historical documents, verified by actual history and archeology, with real people, real places. etc. Evidence doesn't actually prove anything. It isn't like math. But it can support. The worldview that we interpret evidence from is what matters. If your presuppositions are wrong, then your worldview is wrong. So, you've given study to all the prophecies in the bible? It's historical accuracy? The four arguments I listed in my previous post? There is absolutely no point in reading the whole bible if you don't stop at the 1st verse of the 1st chapter. "In the beginning God created." What does the evidence support. A beginning, or no beginning?
What is more reasonable. That nothing begat nothing, and all space time and matter suddenly appeared. Or that a non-created, transcendent, powerful, intelligent agent created?
Is it reasonable that information, such as the code we find in DNA originated out of random, meaningless, chance processes? No one in their right mind would ever subcribe information to anything other than an intelligent mind. Yet, for your worldview to be true, this is exactly what you have to do.

And what does your comment about moral lessons have to do with whether the bible is true or not. The bible says that morality is written on the heart of man. So, it would make sense that people would have morals even apart from the bible. That supports my position not yours. If the universe is random chance, then why is there anything, much less morality? You can't appeal to morality without the Christian God. Without God, morals are just arbitrary and there is no reason to appeal to them as having any real merit or intrinsic value.

[DannyM]

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
Dawkins, River out of Eden, pg133.

A good description of the atheistic worldview. And a complete statement of faith. No real morality, no real good, no real evil, no real design. You see, it's all an illusion. Have we ever come across a more incoherent religion. . .

[kopepod]

To Zoegirl - In your reply you try to associate atheists with murder and rape. This is unfair and irresponsible. Empathy and compassion seem to be sources of decent behaviour. I cannot tell you if empathy and compassion are an integral part of human nature as I do not know. I am no expert in this area. Some report I read highlighted a study that pyscopaths lack empathy and compassion. Did they learn to be pyscopathic or are they born that way? I do know that decent/kind people can be found amongst religious and the non-religious groups. Those with less welcome behaviours can be found in both groups too.

DannyM - Don't expect science to behave like religion. It is not an 'incoherent religion'. It is not a religion. Personally I'm not worried about there being no meaning in the physical environment. One can still live a meaningful interesting life without religion and I do.

Jlay - You do not understand science. It does not exist with conclusions attached to it. For example - not all scientists agree with the standard big bang theory. It is still under scrutiny.

'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. If God designed the universe or universes then who/what created God? Its an old one but a valid one. I'm sure you have all heard it before and have your answer ready.

'Every day I hear about another scientist or mathematician who was a Christian'
- or a muslim (fine muslim mathematicians too). Nearly everybody in the western world was Christian until very recently. The Christian church held a lot of sway over people's lives and people were sometimes tortured and executed for heresy. Galileo was shown the thumb screws. Most people would commit any art or science to God under those circumstances. Many developments in philosophy, agriculture, art, science were made by pagans. Does that mean that Dionysus exists or that Athena inspired research? People, such as Newton lived during religious eras. Would they be Christians if they lived today?

Marcus - I said, if there was enough evidence to convince me I would convert. You ask how much evidence. I don't know in what form that evidence would arrive, if it was ever to transpire.

In the meantime I am hopping out of this discussion folks. I've been accused of not keeping up the with responses. I would need to spend too much time at this computer to do that; certainly more time than I can afford. I've thrown a few suggestions into the mix. Make of them what you will. Thank you for your responses. Some, I feel, were rather more meaningful than others.

[Gman]

Science aims, and often succeeds in, finding precise answers to questions concerning the physical universe. These proofs are open to testing by anyone with enough interest and resources to carry out these tests.

There is no proof that there is a God. However, the theory of God's existence is not open to testing. Religion requires faith alone. Indeed many theists believe that even bringing God's existence into question is heresy.

Science by its nature is enquiring. Religion, by its nature, is the opposite.

Likewise macro evolution is NOT open to testing either... When scientists look back and use reverse engineering it’s obvious after the fact. Evolution doesn’t tell scientists what experiments to run. It’s a disective system. You get specific mutation then try to reassemble it to see how the parts interact. When we invoke Darwinian thinking, its always after the fact. It doesn’t give you any predictive power. We don’t always know why.

Science then is used to describe reality, an accurate description of reality. And implicit in that is that it will make predictions about what reality is like, and that when someone else has a different interpretation of what reality is, then you should be able to test the one opinion against the other. In other words, which interpretation more accurately describes reality?

[Gman]

'Really? Are you lumping all faiths into one category called 'religion' and then applying a blanket statement to all of them? Is that reasonable? Is it accurate?'

- Yes, I am. Yes, it is reasonable. Yes, it is accurate.

Well I hate to break the news to you but EVERYONE is religious.. Even the athesists.

'You know, you really ought to put your own BELIEFS to the same scrutiny that you attempt to put to 'religion.'

- Religions exist with a conclusion attached to them. This conclusion is that God exists. Scientific enquiry is a METHOD which involves constant scrutiny of the conclusions one finds.

The naturalistic religion certainly CANNOT base itself of the scientific method either.. In the words of Denyse O’Leary..

“Many people go on from methodological naturalism to the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is the view that there in fact no God and that the universe came about by chance. In other words, this philosophy does not treat these ideas as a working science assumption but insists on them as a fact. In addition, some people go way overboard and adopt a point of view called scientism. They think that anything that cannot be discovered through the scientific method cannot be true. However the scientific method was developed to enable scientists to research nature effectively. It was not intended to replace other methods of knowing, such as artistic or moral vision.” – Denyse O’Leary

'On the opposite side, there are many scientists who are only open to inquiry if it fits their worldview.'

- Such a stance is not truely scientific. Can you name any of these scientists please? Are these the religious 'scientists' by any chance?
Science does not exist to disprove that God exists. There is simply no evidence turning up to back up the existence of God. If evidence for the existence of God turned up, I would become a believer.

Well that is a crock. You simply cannot divorce philosophy from science.. . So where true ID proponents are criticised for not stating the designer (a philosophical and even theological affair), those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions

-I have read the Bible, Old and New Testament from beginning to end. Nothing in the Bible proves God existence. There are morally appealing parables therein, however there are many other sources from which moral lessons can be learned.

Really? Did you read the Book of Genesis? If you were to read it, you would find that it is making claims about our known world. AND, there are patterns to it that have scientific implications.

The Scientific Proof For Genesis

[zoegirl]

To Zoegirl - In your reply you try to associate atheists with murder and rape. This is unfair and irresponsible. Empathy and compassion seem to be sources of decent behaviour. I cannot tell you if empathy and compassion are an integral part of human nature as I do not know. I am no expert in this area. Some report I read highlighted a study that pyscopaths lack empathy and compassion. Did they learn to be pyscopathic or are they born that way? I do know that decent/kind people can be found amongst religious and the non-religious groups. Those with less welcome behaviours can be found in both groups too.

You're confusing *being a moral person* with *being obligated to be moral*. I know plenty of atheists that are moral and very nice people. I am not associating rape and murder to only atheism. What I AM associating is atheist philosophy with being true to it's own assertions. Atheism does not obligate ANY morality whatsoever. You are a moral person. Great. You find morality pleasing and appealing. Wonderful. What is rather hypocritical is for you to declare that any one moral stance is better than another.

All that being said. Atheism (as DAnny's quote wonderfully expresses), as a worldview does not OBLIGATE a person to any morality whatsoever. Morality as it stands now, according to atheist philosophy is simply a current evolutionary solution. Mankind's ancestors, according to evolutionary models, raped the women in their groups as a way of ensuring reproductive success. This is morally neutral. If, in 500 years, rape became acceptible, then it is also morally neutral.


Dawkins, as obnoxious as he is, at least is honest about his own worldview.

DannyM - Don't expect science to behave like religion. It is not an 'incoherent religion'. It is not a religion. Personally I'm not worried about there being no meaning in the physical environment. One can still live a meaningful interesting life without religion and I do.

I am sure that you think you do (and I'm sure that you are a very nice person)....I don't think you understand the implications of your own worldview, however.

Dawkin's quote strikes at the heart of atheism, for if there is no meaning, there is not reason to behave according to the current societal rules. "Being nice" although....nice, isn't inherently *good* or better than not being "nice". Being greedy, mean, quick tempered, obnoxious, or sexually perverse is nothing more than social mores that are fashionable right now.

Morality comes down to "tit for tat" social interactions or the results of feel-good neurotransmitters. And hey, that's nice....but so what? Getting flooded with serotonin when I'm nice is nothing more than genetic trickery that can change over the years with different selective advantages.

[Byblos]

Jlay - You do not understand science. It does not exist with conclusions attached to it. For example - not all scientists agree with the standard big bang theory. It is still under scrutiny.

'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. If God designed the universe or universes then who/what created God? Its an old one but a valid one. I'm sure you have all heard it before and have your answer ready.

I'm sure J will have his own answer but I wanted to address this point specifically nonetheless. Of course there is an answer ready, because it is simply fallacious to ask the question to begin with, so no it is not a valid question. You see by asking such a question: 'who created God' right off the bat you start from a false assumption, that being that EVERYTHING that exists must have a creator. Here's the syllogism if it helps:

1- Everything that exists must have a cause
2- God exists
3- Therefore God must have a cause

The argument (and the question based on it) fails because 1- is a false assumption. If anything we (theists, and particularly Christians) argue the exact opposite. We certainly do not maintain that everything must have a cause. What we do maintain is that there must be at least one uncaused cause, otherwise nothing would get started to begin with or we get into an infinite tailspin (with all kinds of reality-denying contradictions that would entail).

So start from the correct assumption that at least one uncaused cause must exit then you will see that the question 'who created God' is invalid, meaningless.

[jlay]

Byb,
That pretty much works for me. The appropiate premise would be more like.....
1. Everything that began has a cause.

If he had taken the time to read thouroughly, he would have seen I've already said, "Or that a non-created, transcendent, powerful, intelligent agent created?

Jlay - You do not understand science. It does not exist with conclusions attached to it. For example - not all scientists agree with the standard big bang theory. It is still under scrutiny.

Can you please give evidence of this genetic mechanism that allows scientists to not have conclusions? Of course you can't. I never said science had conclusions. Of course it can't have conslusions. It is not a thing with a mind. It is a method employeed to test and understand causes. And the people, no matter how noble they may be, have presuppositions. Period.
Friend, it is really hard for me to take your criticisms of my understaning of science seriously when you obvioulsy are the one who has a hard time understanding science. As evidenced by the fact that you keep ascribing qualities to it, as if it were a being. Such as, "Don't expect science to behave like religion."

'Every day I hear about another scientist or mathematician who was a Christian'
- or a muslim (fine muslim mathematicians too). Nearly everybody in the western world was Christian until very recently. The Christian church held a lot of sway over people's lives and people were sometimes tortured and executed for heresy.

This is another logical fallacy. Called an irrelevant appeal. It would be akin to my claiming that Christianity is true because the majority of people are Christian. A very emotional appeal. To imply that great minds would abandon Christianity if only it wasn't for someone holding their thumbs in a vice.