do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?

[Sigma Prime]

If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.

Well, unlike you smart people who know all these facts, I live in a world of sense and perception. I'm too stupid to know perfectly well what the eternal truth is. Excuse me for having an opinion. I will crawl back into my cave and draw idle pictures on the walls. Durrrrrrrrrrrr.

Only the most watered-down, deistical version of "God" can POSSIBLY be defended in modern times. The traditional, Judeo-Christian God is obviously ridiculous.

It is dishonorable to claim that you have proven that the traditional, Judeo-Christian god exists simply because I haven't disproven the existence of some shadowy, aloof figure that is inherently invisible to human perception.

Look, if you want to practice "blind faith," so you can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that's one thing.

Trying to discredit MY views using blatantly mendacious arguments is quite another.

In most of the USA, the only excuse I need for being an atheist is that I am not interested in having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In fact, this is the ONLY premise on which I would EVER choose to "get religion," under ANY circumstances. I would not accept your god-head as ANYTHING other than inherently ridiculous unless YOU could persuade ME, using the BEST examples of evangelizing, that I want to have a fulfilling, personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Trying to insist that I have some kind of atheistical religion just because I say that I have NO reason to believe that your god exists is just offensive. It does NOT make me interested in religion. It only makes me feel combative and resentful.

Religion is not just a belief, at least not as far as Christianity is concerned. To be a Christian is EXACTLY having a personal relationship with Christ, or it is seeking out His unconditional forgiveness to absolve us of our sins.

Religion, properly, is not a thing of the intellect. It is a thing of the heart.

That's what faith IS. It's choosing to accept where our heart leads us IN SPITE of the protests of our intellect or powers of empirical reasoning.

Faith is belief without calculation. It is acknowledgement without questioning. Faith in Jesus Christ is more like faith in the loyalty of a friend than believing that the world is round rather than flat.

If you can convince me to want your Jesus Christ as my best buddy, then you might be able to change my atheism. Anything that falls short of that, though, just won't be the same. Trying to persuade me on any other grounds is just going to wear on my patience and eventually piss me off.

Got that?

I'm not ignorant about what Christianity actually IS. It offends me a whole lot when Certain Inconsiderate People assume that I am. I just have a different set of values. They're at least as strong as your values, though, and they are just as good.

[lisagurl]

people tend to just believe in one of these supreme beings and maintain the atheist/agnostic-style position with regard to all the other gods.

The word atheist is used by people to describe someone that does not believe in their God. Christians were called atheists by the early Roman Jews.

Agnostics are not Atheists because they do not believe that any God does not exist they only want proof.

[Sigma Prime]

Lisa, if you are an agnostic rather than a Christian, that rant was directed in a general direction, not personally at YOU. In fact, that applies either way. I have very strong, firm views on the subject of religion. I have certain premises on which I would accept religion, none of them based on syllogistic proof. I want to drive this point home quite clearly.

[lisagurl]

Deductive reasoning does not offer the physical proof of inductive reasoning with facts.

[Sigma Prime]

Umm...it is a fact that we simply DON'T have the information as to HOW the universe came to be. We can theorize and speculate, but the fact is that we JUST DON'T HAVE that information. God does not exist because what ACTUALLY exists is a dearth of sufficient information. This does not make me an "agnostic," and I refuse to call myself one. This would just be an implicit "maybe" to the belief that the universe was created by a god. There is no "maybe" in there. We absolutely DON'T HAVE that information. You can't just take a dearth of infomation and superimpose any belief onto it you want to. It doesn't work that way. The origin of the universe is a mystery, and the only good tools we have for ATTEMPTING to explore it are in the theoretical mathematics.

Personally, I don't believe that "theism" has anything to do with religion. It's a bunch of quibbling nonsense designed as an excuse to slander and ridicule atheists and agnostics. It's bull hockey. I absolutely despise people who call themselves "theists." I have found them to be rude and arrogant. They exercise an obscenely intellectually superior attitude, even though they are prone to the most mendacious kinds of attacks.

The GOOD Christians I've known are NOT theists. They are just decent people who feel that they have found something special, and they want to share it out of love. I see them as largely beneficial people. I have not met very many of them that I can HONESTLY say I don't like. I get along with them beautifully. I tend to be very affirming and supportive of their faith. I LOVE a Christian. They are nice people, for the most part.

[lisagurl]

God does not exist because what ACTUALLY exists is a dearth of sufficient information.

So what you do not know does not exist?  How about radio waves that have been in the universe for billions of years? 300 years ago no one knew that they existed but they were there. Lack of knowledge does not mean there is no knowledge.

We can imagine other dimensions then there are things we can not even imagine that will be the knowledge of the future if the past is any example.

[Sigma Prime]

So what you do not know does not exist?  How about radio waves that have been in the universe for billions of years?

The radio waves may have existed, but it would have been perfectly correct to ridicule a person for suggesting any such thing, especially if that person could provide no evidence for this belief. In fact, it is improper for ME to state that radio waves exist, either. It is scientific DOCTRINE that radio waves exist, but it would be an outright lie if I treated this belief as if it were supported by direct empirical evidence. The only thing that I "know" about radio waves is that a relatively trustworthy source assures me that they exist. My belief in their existence hinges completely on my trust in this source. I don't expect EVERYBODY to be able to HANDLE that level of ambiguity, but that's the slant I take on it.

I have studied the sciences, and this is the reasoning that we are taught. When you state practically ANYTHING that you did not observe personally, you are REQUIRED to admit that this statement is based on something that you read elsewhere, NOT on something that YOU personally know. If you went too far in making claims that you have not verified the origin of, then you will be laughed completely out of your entire field; and trust me, competition is fierce in the sciences. It's a really hard-knock universe, which is ONE of the reasons I bowed out and decided to pursue something less stressful, at least while I'm going through transition.

I feel perfectly justified in ridiculing an arrogant theist. However, a Christian is different; a Christian embraces absolute, blind trust in Jesus Christ. That's where all those "warm fuzzies" actually come from. I could take a few guesses as to the biology behind it. That's not the point, though.

The point is that the origin of the universe is largely a mystery. We have a few mathematical models suggesting how it MIGHT have come to be, but THAT'S IT. Besides that, we have a few dusty, old creation myths and a few weird-ass fringe notions.

Want me to take a guess as to where the universe came from? I'll give you my best shot. I don't have any real support for it, though. I think that calling whatever force created the universe "intelligent" would be a little bit like saying that a swollen, bloated red giant is a little bit larger than an army ant. That's my guess, and it's just as good as anyone else's Oscar Meyer balogna. Frankly, I don't have more grounds for saying this than suggesting that a black dragon named Morgoth created the universe. I like my idea better, though, because it makes my titties feel all tingly. Opinions on where the universe came from are like buttholes: everybody has one. But you know, at least the people who are out there putting together mathematical models are TRYING to do some serious detective work.

[Arch]

people tend to just believe in one of these supreme beings and maintain the atheist/agnostic-style position with regard to all the other gods.

The word atheist is used by people to describe someone that does not believe in their God. Christians were called atheists by the early Roman Jews.

Agnostics are not Atheists because they do not believe that any God does not exist they only want proof.

I don't even know what you're doing in this post, and it's a waste of time for me to try to figure it out. But you might want to invest in a good pair of water wings.

I'm bowing out of this conversation, if one can even call it that.

[stacyB]

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The problem with the folks who say "if there is a god then I need proof" is that there is no way to validate the proof. No matter what argument you want to make that its possible to prove a fact, quantum physics has already demonstrated that such facts can easily be dismissed and replaced by new facts that are poorly understood, if they are understood at all.

If thats the case, why do so many humans choose to believe in some power (call it god if you like) that governs the universe in a spiritual way that belies logic? And why are so many hell bent on dismissing the whole thing as opium for the masses?

I think the answer is both sides are struggling to make sense of their own existance. So why would any omnipotent power be impressed with those that refuse to believe over those that blindly believe? Each side is expending the same effort and energy in a common goal that each denies is in lockstep with the other.

Maybe science is guided by some supreme power... or maybe science is the big cosmic joke played on humanity as we try to ascribe meaning to what may be tantamount to some arbitrary sequence of random events. The real truth is there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. Whats so fascinating is not which answer is correct, but why so many debate the answer?

We both sit down at a diner, and the waitress sets down a piece of toast with an egg on top. You see the image of the virgin mary, I see porn star Bree Olson. Anyone else listening would conclude we are both nuts, its a f***king piece of toast. Thats pretty much how most pro/anti god debates go.

[Alyssa M.]

quantum physics has already demonstrated that such facts can easily be dismissed and replaced by new facts that are poorly understood, if they are understood at all.

This is false.

I gather you are talking about the Uncertainty Principle, which is simply the application of a theorem from Fourier analysis to the mathematical description of QM (using eigenstate expansions in the Schroedinger picture, the way you usually hear it described; though the Heisenberg picture is equivalent, if harder to visualize). Classical QM as well as its extension, Quantum Field Theory are deterministic theories.

[lisagurl]

especially if that person could provide no evidence for this belief

You never quested the existence of radio waves? You never built a coil and generated them and measured them/ I feel sorry for you missing experience. Do not take people's word for anything it all has a probability.

[Sigma Prime]

You never quested the existence of radio waves? You never built a coil and generated them and measured them?

Actually, I have. I found it very boring. I was just trying to illustrate a point. If I had not, then reporting that I know empirically that radio waves exist would make me a liar. Even though I have, I should accept the limitations in my understanding.

Do not take people's word for anything

I tend to take a person's word on something if I trust that particular person. In fact, emotions like trust are more entertwined with our thought processes than most of us like to admit.

it all has a probability.

Ah, do you remember quant lab? Did you have one of those TAs who would figuratively beat you with a cane if you showed so much as ONE extra zero following your decimal? Mine said, "You are a liar. Based on your measurements, you do not know that that zero belongs there. This is completely wrong." Well, the idea of significant figures relates to my point regarding the subject of this discussion. When I encounter a very arrogant theist, I use the same types of remarks. If an arrogant theist says, "I know that God exists," I say, "You are a liar. You have no basis for this statement." Even if the Christian God, Yahweh, actually DID exist exactly according to what is written in the KJV Bible, this person would STILL be a big, fat liar.

However, it is different when a Christian says, "I have a high level of faith in the Bible," then claims that God exists. In that case, I and another scientist simply disagree on the reliability of a certain piece of standard literature. At some point, even the best scientist has to invest some amount of trust in a piece of standard literature that he/she can ONLY trust because a TRUSTWORTHY individual has assured him/her that it is reliable.

The difference is that Christians report their sources, and they explain, with complete honesty, what motivates them to TRUST these sources. To me, that is the difference between a big, fat liar and someone who practices religious faith.

[Dana Lane]

A Christian walks down the street and sees a woman on her knees, looking up to the sky with her hands together as she is praying and the Christian says 'good Christian".  The Christian walks down a bit further and sees a guy on his knees talking to a wall and says "crazy person". 

[lisagurl]

In fact, emotions like trust are more intertwined with our thought processes than most of us like to admit.

Emotions are faked many times such as acting and social manipulation.  Look at marketing and entertainment.

The spiritual feeling that many people get is difficult to explain. They do have something in their reality but a fMRI only shows less activity in the part of the brain that feels self. So with less self feeling someone can feel open to the universe.  Religion gives a explanation to gullible people and through proving methods and traditions enhances and promotes that spiritual feeling.

Throw in ethics and morals and a leader to control it all and you have God. It is imposable to tell people that their understandings have other non-magical explanations because it is very real to them. People need a form of hope and God gives it to them. I am fine with that but it is not evidence to me as I do not care about emotions or hope.

[Sigma Prime]

The spiritual feeling that many people get is difficult to explain. They do have something in their reality but a fMRI only shows less activity in the part of the brain that feels self. So with less self feeling someone can feel open to the universe.  Religion gives a explanation to gullible people and through proving methods and traditions enhances and promotes that spiritual feeling.

Which is one of the reasons I've never had the capacity for religious experiences. I have an incredibly strong sense of self. It goes with the Asperger Syndrome!! In fact, one of the reasons I used to be so messed-up was that my sense of self tended to overshadow and overpower my attachment to reality. I was a real space cadet!

People need a form of hope and God gives it to them.

Whereas I have a self-destructively tenacious personality that is all but incapable of the feeling of hopelessness. However, I DO spend a lot of time feeling a little bit like my self-awareness could just FLOAT, up and AWAY from my body, and then I'm like "WHEE! I feel like I am FLYING! Hooray!" That's why I used to go everywhere I went SKIPPING instead of walking! AND STILL DO!!!! I also have difficulty focusing on anything when I'm like that. I'm too floaty. HEY!!!! You know, maybe that's why I have such a poor sense of direction!

I think that another thing that drives people to take up religion, though, is that they have difficulty coping with ambiguity. They can't deal with moral ambiguity, so they need their "morals" written down somewhere to reassure them. They can't handle NOT KNOWING what's in store for them after they die, so they have to PUT something there. It's impossible to imagine what it would be like to NOT EXIST (trust me, you can't), so they have to have some sort of "afterlife" scenario. I tend to think that atheists are likely to have an easier time of dealing with ambiguity.