Is it reasonable?

[clearscreen]

Is it reasonable...

...to think that something that exists may have been created?
...to think that a thing that was created was created by something?
... to think that the creator, if it exists, was/is greater than its creation?
...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?
...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished?
...to consider report after report of experiences that seem to differ from what is immediately observable as possibly, in some cases, being true and realizing that if even one of them is true, that there are realities other than that which is immediately apparent.
...to think the creator, if it exists, would demonstrate its existence by breaking the laws of its creation?

...to call someone a fool for believing there is a creator and something greater than the creation? Was Einstein a fool? Was Carl Sagan a fool? Is Stephen Hawking a fool? Is George W.... well, nevermind. It is obviously foolish to believe contradictions such as those contained in the Bible, but there are those who believe in a different kind of "god" than that in most religious texts - one that is perfectly reasonable to consider as an explanation for the origin and perpetuation of the universe and our "souls".

In my associations with atheists, I have noticed a few things:

- they seem to be quite intelligent.
- they are WYSIWYG people which can be refreshing in the largely deceitful and greedy society in which we live.
- they have debate skills that most lawyers would be proud of, able to make their case against any assertation that opposes their currently held view or objective.
- they are quite certain in their belief that nothing could exist outside of their narrow, subjective view of existence.
- they answer questions for which they have a ready, sometimes legitimate but often insulting reply, and usually skip the ones for which they have no answer.
- they have what might be called a "superiority complex", using sarcasm and denigrating positions that disagree with their own.
- they often harbor lifelong resentment for acts performed by ignorant, greedy and abusive people.
- they are not sure what free will is.
- they think it is possible that there really is a Santa Claus, since his non-existence cannot be proven.
- they have no requirement to prove their philosphical position since it is impossible to prove a negative, yet many spend hour upon hour defending it.
- they are not sure what their label is - calling themselves atheists when atheism is a denial of god, which would require proof, and instead saying they simply lack a belief in god, which is really agnostic atheism.

Thoughts?

[keyser_soze]

Thoughts? Yeah, you're a troll. Could you assert a BIT more?:rolleyes: But I will prophecy for you...This crap is SO going to be steam rolled. Perhaps if you rely on logical points in the future, they won't be quite as big a sitting duck.

[Barcode]

Hullo :)

Is it reasonable...

...to think that something that exists may have been created?

I don't think so -- I just don't attribute my existence to God. Define " created " -- I see it as being " created by naturalistic processes " as opposed to " created by the supreme being that controls the Universe."

...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?

Looking at the human race, this is in some doubt ....

...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished?

If evidence pointed to that fact of course I would consider it a reasonable point of view. Numerous studies strongly suggest our emotional awareness, or the things that constitute consciousness are dependent upon brain states and chemical reactions.

I don't require a vast amount of proof. One verifiable report of a person coming back from the dead, explaining there is something there -- and for the sighting/apparition or whatever to be verified by independent sources and stand up to scientific enquiry should suffice.

Of the billions of people who have died ... not a single person has reported back. In short, if there is life after death, then we don't know about it, and it's unreasonable to place faith in something that is wildly improbable based upon what we know.

...to consider report after report of experiences that seem to differ from what is immediately observable as possibly, in some cases, being true and realizing that if even one of them is true, that there are realities other than that which is immediately apparent.

Huh? I'm not sure that I follow. An individual can take LSD and report back that there is an alternative reality which they perceived due to altered brain states. How is this any different from somebody hallucinating another reality when they are on their deathbed and deprived of oxygen?

Both arise as a result of chemical deprivation. Just because an individual *perceives* something to be true, does not mean it does not have its origins within science and biology.

...to think the creator, if it exists, would demonstrate its existence by breaking the laws of its creation?

What laws in particular?

they have debate skills that most lawyers would be proud of, able to make their case against any assertation that opposes their currently held view or objective.

I for one sometimes read posts on this board and don't dare join in for appearing stupid. Yes, the ones I've seen discredit most orthodox explanations for God/religion quite well.

they are quite certain in their belief that nothing could exist outside of their narrow, subjective view of existence.

Certainty tends to be the preserve of theists in my experience .. " I'm certain God exists " etc. To be honest, I don't have a bloody clue ... I just don't see any sufficient reasons or evidence to suggest God exists outside of the human imagination.

they answer questions for which they have a ready, sometimes legitimate but often insulting reply, and usually skip the ones for which they have no answer.

That's human nature and not the preserve of atheism or theism. I've left out two of your points because I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to get into a debate about them. It means I need to research a little more. No big deal.

they have what might be called a "superiority complex", using sarcasm and denigrating positions that disagree with their own.

Sometimes. Same can be said of people with beliefs across the spectrum. I admit, if somebody thinks certain biblical events are true or if they think evolution is false ... then I may be inclined to give them short shrift.

There is a difference between being abrasive because someone disagrees with you and being abrasive because someone refuses to acknowledge *proven facts* about one or two things and goes into the realm of ignorance

they often harbor lifelong resentment for acts performed by ignorant, greedy and abusive people.

Not really. At least this atheist doesn't.

they are not sure what free will is.

Do theists? I freely admit some concepts baffle me. Again, this just means I need to learn more. I consider myself knowledgeable enough to refute the main arguments Christians tend to come out with .... I see no shame in admitting I need to learn and study. This board is one source of many I use.

Stick around and you may find it interesting too :)

they think it is possible that there really is a Santa Claus, since his non-existence cannot be proven./quote]

Uhmmmmm. I think perhaps you're confusing the analogy some of use of " you can't prove Santa doesn't exist " to theists when they make the claim " God exists."

I've never encountered an atheist who thinks Santa Claus is real.

[quote]they have no requirement to prove their philosphical position since it is impossible to prove a negative, yet many spend hour upon hour defending it.

It's good fun to converse with like minded individuals and gain a new perspective. There is not a requirement for people to do lots of things .... instead of playing computer games, watching tv or whatever .. the internet is how I choose to spend a lot of my free time.

What's the issue here?

they are not sure what their label is - calling themselves atheists when atheism is a denial of god, which would require proof, and instead saying they simply lack a belief in god, which is really agnostic atheism.

Well, I consider myself an atheist in regards to the Christian-Bible God. I consider myself an atheist regarding a God people claim is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient all at the same time.

Show me another concept of God, and I'd probably be a bit more flexible on the issue.

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Thoughts? Yeah, you're a troll. Could you assert a BIT more?:rolleyes: But I will prophecy for you...This crap is SO going to be steam rolled. Perhaps if you rely on logical points in the future, they won't be quite as big a sitting duck. You're calling me a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges? Oh, that was sarcasm - I get it. Yes, I could assert more.

Thank you Barcode for your thoughtful, uninsulting and reasonable replies. It's responses like keyser_soze's that give atheists a bad name to some people (I think the name is "asshole"). I'll get back to you when I have time.

[markfiend]

clearscreen:
Is Stephen Hawking a fool?

Are you implying that Stephen Hawking believes in God? Because everything I've read about and by him (which addresses this topic) indicates the exact opposite.

C'mon, you're not going to "win friends and influence people" with use of blatant falsehoods.

In my associations with atheists, I have noticed a few things:
A list of ad hominems, misrepresentations, and non sequiturs.

Can you not do better than this? If not, why should anyone pay attention to you?

[Satan]

Clearscreen, you are the 'asshole' here. You post a semi intelligent post with some blatant lies in it, and then you self destruct at the end by trolling what you term 'atheists'... If you were not so very biased from the get go, maybe YOU TOO could have an intelligent discussion here. Saying an atheist has a 'narrow subjective view'? I digress.

[clearscreen]

Stephen Hawking is a deist. My point is that one is not a fool for believing that which seems reasonable. It seems reasonable, probable to me actually, that the universe was created and that it was created by something intelligent. It seems reasonable to believe that souls persist after the death of the body, when I read about and actually know people who have had past life regressions and have known things that they would have no other way of knowing. The book "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, provides information about communications with souls who have progressed to a different level that is quite convincing and worth considering and is based on tests performed in a scientific manner. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and others taught concepts that are generally similar to each other's. While people, undoubtledly, have distorted much of what was reported,and they have the free will to do so, do you think they simply did not exist?

One has to use ones own mental and emotional filters to decide, given all the evidence, what seems right to oneself. There is a lot of evidence to consider and most people pick and choose that which fits in with what they have already decided. I understand that "atheism" is a philosophy of living and that birds of a feather flock together (on this BBS for example). Unfortunately, from my experience it seems that most atheists have a condescending, superior and insulting attitude towards those who believe in something which, in many cases, is reasonable to believe.

I already know it is not possible to prove the existence or non-existence of god as anyone defines it. While it is interesting and a good way to waste some time, the debate is ultimately pointless. To each his own.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Is it reasonable...

...to think that something that exists may have been created?


Yes, but the evidence points otherwise. I'll give you a clue: evolution.


...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?


That doesn't follow. The creator can be an impersonal force that just churns the creative process away blindly.


...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished?


We know, by default, that life and consciousness exist inside a physical body only. If you think otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you.


...to consider report after report of experiences that seem to differ from what is immediately observable as possibly, in some cases, being true and realizing that if even one of them is true, that there are realities other than that which is immediately apparent.


So if I take LSD and see a pink elephant, then it means there really is an underlying reality of pink elephants?


...to think the creator, if it exists, would demonstrate its existence by breaking the laws of its creation?


If you're talking about the Biblical creator, He is reported to have done so in the far past. How very unlucky for us not to be witnessing any such demonstrations today :boohoo:

And now for my questions:

1) What kind of theist are you? (ie detailed beliefs)

2) Why do you believe in what you believe?

[Barcode]

On the Stephen Hawking issue. You may want to read this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html

I've not read one interview/article where Hawking claims to believe in God -- rather God is just a metaphor for the " theory of everything " that physicists have been searching for ... if you have anything different, please feel free to share it.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by clearscreen
It seems reasonable, probable to me actually, that the universe was created and that it was created by something intelligent. It seems reasonable to believe that souls persist after the death of the body, when I read about and actually know people who have had past life regressions and have known things that they would have no other way of knowing.


No, those things are not reasonable. They have no evidence to back them up. They are based on one thing: wishful thinking. Everyone would like there to be an intelligent creator looking after the well-being of mankind, and everyone would like there to be a continuation of existence after bodily death. But believing those things doesn't make them so.


The book "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, provides information about communications with souls who have progressed to a different level that is quite convincing and worth considering and is based on tests performed in a scientific manner.


See here (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html) and here (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-hyman.html) for a refutation of Schwartz's "Afterlife Experiments" by CSICOP fellow Ray Hyman.


Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and others taught concepts that are generally similar to each other's.


No they didn't. You have to be blatantly ignorant of their writings (NT, Qur'an, Tripitaka respectively) to say such a thing.


Unfortunately, from my experience it seems that most atheists have a condescending, superior and insulting attitude towards those who believe in something which, in many cases, is reasonable to believe.


Atheists have a condescending, superior and insulting attitude towards faith of all kind, because faith of all kind deserves to be shamed out of existence in our day and age. We live in the Age of Reason and Science, and it's simply preposterous that ages-old faith is still ruling the minds of so many people. The time has come to abandon anthropocentric faith (http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/anthropocentrism.htm).


I already know it is not possible to prove the existence or non-existence of god as anyone defines it. While it is interesting and a good way to waste some time, the debate is ultimately pointless. To each his own.

So why post here? What did you hope to achieve?

[markfiend]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Stephen Hawking is a deist.
Have you any evidence for this claim? As I said, everything else I have read about or by him that mentions any "religious beliefs" say that he is an atheist.
My point is that one is not a fool for believing that which seems reasonable. It seems reasonable, probable to me actually, that the universe was created and that it was created by something intelligent.
That does not seem reasonable to me. It seems wildly improbable in fact.
It seems reasonable to believe that souls persist after the death of the body, when I read about and actually know people who have had past life regressions and have known things that they would have no other way of knowing. The book "The Afterlife Experiments" by Gary Schwartz, provides information about communications with souls who have progressed to a different level that is quite convincing and worth considering and is based on tests performed in a scientific manner.
Past life regression is (to be charitable) unconvincing. AFAIK most of the "famous" cases have been shown to be fraud or self-delusion. Hypnotic "recovery" of memories is thought by many professional psychotherapists to be de facto implantation of false memories.
Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and others taught concepts that are generally similar to each other's. While people, undoubtledly, have distorted much of what was reported,and they have the free will to do so, do you think they simply did not exist?
Well, there is considerable debate over whether any "Historical Jesus" did or did not exist. I would also argue that your "general similarity" will vanish under closer scrutiny of their individual (alleged) teachings.
One has to use ones own mental and emotional filters to decide, given all the evidence, what seems right to oneself. There is a lot of evidence to consider and most people pick and choose that which fits in with what they have already decided.
Most people, maybe, but a scientific worldview is to take all evidence and try to come up with explanations that fit. Your characterisation would seem to me to fit an irrational (theist?) worldview more accurately.
I understand that "atheism" is a philosophy of living and that birds of a feather flock together (on this BBS for example). Unfortunately, from my experience it seems that most atheists have a condescending, superior and insulting attitude towards those who believe in something which, in many cases, is reasonable to believe.
Wrong. Atheism is not a "philosophy of living", it is a lack of belief in God(s). I suppose my attitude may come across as "condescending, superior and insulting", but I have yet to be given a reason why gods are "reasonable to believe" in.
I already know it is not possible to prove the existence or non-existence of god as anyone defines it. While it is interesting and a good way to waste some time, the debate is ultimately pointless. To each his own.
Proof? Some evidence would be nice.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by clearscreen
My point is that one is not a fool for believing that which seems reasonable.

It is not foolish to believe that something which seems reasonable might be true. That is, in fact, pretty much the definition of reasonable. It is, however, foolish to believe that a claim is true based solely on the fact that the claim seems to be a reasonable one.

Lots of reasonable claims are false. In order to separate what is true from what merely could be true, we need to gather and evaluate evidence. Without sufficient evidence to prove that something is most likely true, it most certainly is foolish to believe that it is so.

I already know it is not possible to prove the existence or non-existence of god as anyone defines it. While it is interesting and a good way to waste some time, the debate is ultimately pointless. To each his own.

This is nonsense. Why should god be exempt from the normal rules of evidence and standards of proof? We prove that things do and do not exist all the time. Often, proof to a certainty is not possible but, in most of those cases, it is still possible to provide proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you define god such that it is not possible to investigate whether such a being does or does not exist, then you cannot prove its existence or lack thereof because it is impossible to find evidence that would lend weight to either possibility. But this also makes the definition irrelevant. If you cannot find even the tiniest scrap of evidence that shows that a thing does exist, then what is the difference whether it exists or not?

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by Barcode
On the Stephen Hawking issue. You may want to read this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html

I've not read one interview/article where Hawking claims to believe in God -- rather God is just a metaphor for the " theory of everything " that physicists have been searching for ... if you have anything different, please feel free to share it.
"Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism." http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

[Heathen Dawn]

What does this Argument from Hawking serve? It certainly doesn't prove there is a god. It doesn't even prove that smart people can believe in a god. Scientists who believe in god are just compartmentalising their disciplines. Science does not support theism. Maybe Deism, so if you want to be a Deist, that's fine. But the Abrahamic interventionist theisms are daily refuted by the evidence.

Again: what are your beliefs, in detail? We can't get down to an argument about God before you define what you mean by "God".

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Atheists have a condescending, superior and insulting attitude towards faith of all kind, because faith of all kind deserves to be shamed out of existence in our day and age. We live in the Age of Reason and Science, and it's simply preposterous that ages-old faith is still ruling the minds of so many people.Ever heard of new-age religions?

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"When the solution is simple, God is answering."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."

All by Albert Einstein

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Ever heard of new-age religions?


Are you a New-Ager then? Still a load of unevidenced nonsense, but much better than the three evil Abrahamic religions.


<Einstein quotes>


Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. He was either a pantheist or a deist. Einstein said:


It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

[Philosoft]

Can I assume we're all through calling each other "asshole"?

[exi]

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for
the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." -Albert Einstein, from "The World As I See It".

Wow, this quoting thing is easy!

[Jobar]

Welcome to Internet Infidels, clearscreen. Some advice: if you want people- any sort of people- to respond to you reasonably and not emotionally, you should not open your dialog with statements like

- they are quite certain in their belief that nothing could exist outside of their narrow, subjective view of existence.
- they answer questions for which they have a ready, sometimes legitimate but often insulting reply, and usually skip the ones for which they have no answer.
- they have what might be called a "superiority complex", using sarcasm and denigrating positions that disagree with their own.
- they often harbor lifelong resentment for acts performed by ignorant, greedy and abusive people.

In this forum, we discuss subjects which lots of people of all beliefs or lack thereof, find very emotional. Even if some of what you say is true- and I do not deny that some of it is- stating it in such a baldly confrontational way is *not* conducive of friendly interaction. You can disagree with us all day long, and if you stay polite to us, we will stay polite to you. In fact the rules of this forum, and the ones like me who enforce those rules, require just that.

If you have questions for atheists, or want to post something which you feel is a valid argument for God(s)' existence, you're in the right place. However, if you want to just insult people, you are not. Jobar, moderator.

[jfryejr]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Ever heard of new-age religions?

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

This is out of context with the speech in which it was given.It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being...But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling...springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
Emphasis mine. A scientist's faith is based on the laws of the universe being rational and explainable by reason. Religion is that which directs man to the "greater" good, not to a deity.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (“Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, Dukas & Hoffman, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the harmony of all being.
(Schilpp, P. Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969, p103)

“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusive human concern with no superhuman authority behind it”. (“Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, Dukas & Hoffman, 1954).

"I'm not much with people, and I'm not a family man. I want my peace. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomena in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." (Clarck, R. The Life and Times of Einstein. New York: The World Publishing Co., 1971, p18-19)

“The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” (Iain, P. Science, Theology and Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982, p57)


"When the solution is simple, God is answering."This is a joke...literally. It was Einstein making a joke. He believed in simplifying things as far as they could be simplified, but no further. When you went to an explanation that was too simple, it amounted to stating that, "Oh, it must be God."

"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."Once again, if you would read the text before you post snippets of quotes, you would be much more enlightened about the man's "religious" views.

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear--that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the
single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.from The World as I See It

Now that we've cleared Einstein's name from the list of the non-rational and unreasonable...who cares what Einstein's religious views were? Why should I believe something just because Einstein believed it? Even if he did believe, where is his proof?

You still have yet to explain the reason you think it rational to believe in a supreme creator (who, by the way, wasn't created?). You were called a troll because you merely offered assertions
[as·ser·tion n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion]Emphasis mine.

Trolling, in my opinion, is defined more by intent. I don't think you necessarily intended to act as a troll. I think the offensive part of your post is the sweeping generalizations stated about Atheists. What exactly is your experience with Atheists? How many have you known? What length of time?

Are there no sarcastic theists? Are theists not arrogant in assuming everyone who doesn't believe as they do will burn in hell? Are theists not narrow minded in believing only their way is the right way? Do Atheists go door to door to impel others to their viewpoint? Do theists who believe in an inerrant Bible lack "reason" when they are shown the errors in the Bible? The list continues of questions could continue at great length.

To quote someone with whom you might be familiar:

Luke 6:42 (RSV) Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.

Almost every trait you used to generalize Atheists, excluding (especially) the ability to argue well :D, could be applied to theists. The largest difference is that Atheists* recognize emotional cognition of "facts" doesn't make them facts. Something feeling "right" doesn't make it so. A personal feeling isn't proof for God. The god of the Bible allegedly offered objective proof for his followers in the form of miracles. I have yet to see a miracle, therefore I have yet to see proof of God.

*I don't, and can't, speak for all Atheists.

[BioBeing]

Is it reasonable...

...to think that something that exists may have been created?
Something? What type of something? People make things, so yes, somethings are created.

...to think that a thing that was created was created by something?
Yes. If I see an inanimate object that appears to have been made by human hands, then, knowing that humans make things. it is safe to assume that it was probably made by humans.

... to think that the creator, if it exists, was/is greater than its creation?
A human is more intelligent than an inanimate object, yes.

...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?
Humans have intelligence, yes.

...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished?
Can that life energy be measured by any means? To the best of my knowledge, it cannot. Thus, it is not reasonable to assume that it does continue. Awareness and intelligence are facets of life, and thus in the absence of life cannot exist either.

...to consider report after report of experiences that seem to differ from what is immediately observable as possibly, in some cases, being true and realizing that if even one of them is true, that there are realities other than that which is immediately apparent.
The key here is probably the word “immediately”. Most reports of things not immediately obvious (observable) become obvious on reflection. For some, the simplest solution is to simply say “I don’t know”. If any supernatural phenomena (for example, the existance of ghosts) could be shown to be real, then yes we have to consider than maybe some of the others were too. However, it is my experience that NONE of the “supernatural” claims that have been investigated (and there have been many such investigations) have born out. Thus, the onus is on the one making the extraordinary claim to back it up with verifiable evidence. Bottom line – no, it is not reasonable to assume anything out of the ordinary.

...to think the creator, if it exists, would demonstrate its existence by breaking the laws of its creation?
The human creator of the items we were talking about above? I don’t think s/he actually created any “laws”. Even human scientists can only describe physical laws, not create them. What creator were you talking about?

...to call someone a fool for believing there is a creator and something greater than the creation?
Again – it seems we are not talking human creators anymore.

Was Einstein a fool? Was Carl Sagan a fool? Is Stephen Hawking a fool? Is George W.... well, nevermind.
Others have countered this.

It is obviously foolish to believe contradictions such as those contained in the Bible,
OK, we agree on this ;)
but there are those who believe in a different kind of "god" than that in most religious texts - one that is perfectly reasonable to consider as an explanation for the origin and perpetuation of the universe and our "souls".
How is this god defined? How does one know anything about this god if it is not revealed in some religious text? It sounds to me like its just a made up god concept, so I would say that it is not reasonable to consider it.

In my associations with atheists, I have noticed a few things:
Cut the stereotyping if you want discussion here please.

[clearscreen]

Sorry about the stereotyping. My experience with atheists lies on another BBS and with a few people I know and I have gotten some pretty insulting responses from some of them. I have a view of God, but no proof. When I have described my ideas about God to atheists I have usually been met with insults and name-calling so I decline to describe it. I understand your points perfectly. Why I cannot let go of the idea that there is a god and that I will not cease to exist after my body dies, I can't really say. Perhaps it's brainwashing, perhaps it's built-in to me. Mainly, it just makes sense to me based on all I have seen, heard, thought and done. However, even in the absence of proof, I feel my beliefs affect my life in a positive way and that they are not unreasonable or foolish. Somehow I still manage to function pretty well as a husband, father, employee, musician and other things despite my belief in a god that may or may not exist.

[CX]

What's a "soul"?

[beastmaster]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Is it reasonable...

...to think that something that exists may have been created?
...to think that a thing that was created was created by something?
... to think that the creator, if it exists, was/is greater than its creation?
...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?
...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished? If there were substantial credible evidence for any of these claims, then I would agree that the supported claims are reasonable.

Originally posted by clearscreen
Is it reasonable...

...to consider report after report of experiences that seem to differ from what is immediately observable as possibly, in some cases, being true and realizing that if even one of them is true, that there are realities other than that which is immediately apparent. Not sure I catch your meaning.

Originally posted by clearscreen
Is it reasonable...

...to call someone a fool for believing there is a creator and something greater than the creation? If there were substantial credible evidence to support these beliefs, then the person is not a fool. To believe *without* such evidence is the functional equivalent of foolishness, IMO.

Originally posted by clearscreen
Was Einstein a fool? Was Carl Sagan a fool? Is Stephen Hawking a fool? None are fools. Nor are any of them infallible. I am open to the possibility that Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan held one or more foolish ideas during their lifetimes.

Originally posted by clearscreen
It is obviously foolish to believe contradictions such as those contained in the Bible, but there are those who believe in a different kind of "god" than that in most religious texts - one that is perfectly reasonable to consider as an explanation for the origin and perpetuation of the universe and our "souls". Fantastic! Let's hear it.

Originally posted by clearscreen
In my associations with atheists, I have noticed a few things:

- they seem to be quite intelligent.
- they are WYSIWYG people which can be refreshing in the largely deceitful and greedy society in which we live.
- they have debate skills that most lawyers would be proud of, able to make their case against any assertation that opposes their currently held view or objective.
- they are quite certain in their belief that nothing could exist outside of their narrow, subjective view of existence.
- they answer questions for which they have a ready, sometimes legitimate but often insulting reply, and usually skip the ones for which they have no answer.
- they have what might be called a "superiority complex", using sarcasm and denigrating positions that disagree with their own.
- they often harbor lifelong resentment for acts performed by ignorant, greedy and abusive people.
- they are not sure what free will is.
- they think it is possible that there really is a Santa Claus, since his non-existence cannot be proven.
- they have no requirement to prove their philosphical position since it is impossible to prove a negative, yet many spend hour upon hour defending it.
- they are not sure what their label is - calling themselves atheists when atheism is a denial of god, which would require proof, and instead saying they simply lack a belief in god, which is really agnostic atheism. I suppose that each of these statements may hold true against at least one atheist. I disagree that atheism is characterized by any of these qualities. Unless you have a concern about a specific atheist, I would think it best to focus on the merits of atheism rather than the personalities of unidentified atheists.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by clearscreen
I have a view of God, but no proof.


That's OK, no-one has. At least you're honest.


When I have described my ideas about God to atheists I have usually been met with insults and name-calling so I decline to describe it.


Pity. I'm interested in what people believe. Comparative religion is a long-standing hobby of mine.


Why I cannot let go of the idea that there is a god and that I will not cease to exist after my body dies, I can't really say. Perhaps it's brainwashing, perhaps it's built-in to me.


Perhaps it just makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't harm people (including yourself) with those beliefs.


Mainly, it just makes sense to me based on all I have seen, heard, thought and done.


Have you had an experience of God? Have you ever been able to converse with Him? I ask this, because my non-experience of God and my inability to conserve with him were important factors that contributed to my abandonment of fundamentalism (I was an Orthodox Jewish fundie).


Somehow I still manage to function pretty well as a husband, father, employee, musician and other things despite my belief in a god that may or may not exist.

No-one here suggested otherwise. It is just a few hardcore theists, who sacrifice this life and this world for an invisible God and a conjectured afterlife, that cause all the trouble. Abrahamic theists, who have Abraham as their role model, who obeyed God's command to murder his son instead of being a moral person.

Love life. Passionately, ecstatically - all life.

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Sorry about the stereotyping. My experience with atheists lies on another BBS and with a few people I know and I have gotten some pretty insulting responses from some of them.
Some theists here behave the same way. People are people, whatever claims they may make about superior morals.
I have a view of God, but no proof. When I have described my ideas about God to atheists I have usually been met with insults and name-calling so I decline to describe it.
One of the problems of discussing “god” is that each theist has their own idea of just what that means. I assume you are not a christian (at least, not a fundie), but even within Christianity there are MANY possible interpretations of what “god” is. I understand your reticence, but if you truly wish to debate in this forum (which happens to be termed “Existence of God(s)”) we are going to have to know what we are debating.

You asked “Is it reasonable to call someone a fool for believing there is a creator and something greater than the creation?” While I do not believe that it is reasonable to believe in a creator of any kind, it is hard to call someone a fool for doing so. “Ridicule the belief, love the believer” --- hmmmm that’s not quite right. People have all sorts of reasons for believing. Comfort, security and tradition to name a few. If you are going to post here, do so in a reasoned way (as I think your last post shows you are capable of doing) and, while your arguments may get shot down, it doesn’t mean that you personally are getting shot down. ;)

I understand your points perfectly. Why I cannot let go of the idea that there is a god and that I will not cease to exist after my body dies, I can't really say. Perhaps it's brainwashing, perhaps it's built-in to me. Mainly, it just makes sense to me based on all I have seen, heard, thought and done. However, even in the absence of proof, I feel my beliefs affect my life in a positive way and that they are not unreasonable or foolish. Somehow I still manage to function pretty well as a husband, father, employee, musician and other things despite my belief in a god that may or may not exist.
Maybe you could be just as good a person without your belief in god??? It is possible you know!

So is your belief in a god a result of a desire to believe, or have you had a subjective religious experience? Do you just want to believe that this is not all there is? To me, everything I have heard, thought and read suggests just the opposite to you. Somehow the universe formed, our solar system and planet formed, life started, we evolved. Adding a supernatural entity on top of that is simply superfluous. It leads me to ask, well if the universe is so damn complex it couldn’t happen all by itself, why is a god so intelligent that he could make all this stuff any more probable?

Anyway – welcome. Take the time to look around, read, and ask questions…

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by clearscreen
...to think that something that exists may have been created?

What does it mean to "be created"? Materialized out of vacuum? Assembled from raw materials? What do you mean?

..to think that a thing that was created was created by something?

That would be answered by defining "to be created".

... to think that the creator, if it exists, was/is greater than its creation?

Was Einstein's mother greater than he was? What do you mean by "greater?"

...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?

Does a sperm or egg have intelligence?

...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished?]

There seems to be no compelling reason to believe such an extraordinary thing. I answer NO.

...to consider report after report of experiences that seem to differ from what is immediately observable as possibly, in some cases, being true and realizing that if even one of them is true, that there are realities other than that which is immediately apparent.[

You mean like fictional stories? I have read many accounts of fictional events. Do those count?

...to think the creator, if it exists, would demonstrate its existence by breaking the laws of its creation?

Which brings you back to the "define be created" question.

...to call someone a fool for believing there is a creator and something greater than the creation?

If there is no reason to believe such a thing, yes. Cute questions containing ill-defined terms do not constitute a compelling reason. [insult deleted]

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by clearscreen
All by Albert Einstein

We don't worship Albert or follow his "teachings." Einstein's theories have been and still are subjected to the same rigorous examinations as any graduate student's would be, were the student to posit something as sweeping as General Relativity. Einstein (or Darwin) could renouce the theories they are credited with, and thereby become fools. But that would do nothing to impeach the theories themselves, which stand on their own merits and the body of evidence and experimental results that follows from them.

If only religious disciples would hold up their leaders' teachings and pronouncements to the same rigor...

[Infidelettante]

quote: Clearscreen
Sorry about the stereotyping. My experience with atheists lies on another BBS and with a few people I know and I have gotten some pretty insulting responses from some of them. I have a view of God, but no proof. When I have described my ideas about God to atheists I have usually been met with insults and name-calling so I decline to describe it.

It is a denial of your self to be silent in the face of unjust criticism. You should learn more about your own belief system to counter such criticism and work to become more assertive in response to insults and name calling.

I understand your points perfectly. Why I cannot let go of the idea that there is a god and that I will not cease to exist after my body dies, I can't really say.

The truest test of a spirituality is that it fits its’ owner. What exactly do you believe? Are you comfortable in your belief? Do you question important parts of your belief? If those parts were found to be wrong would it invalidate your entire system of belief? What would you do if this happened?

Is it important that others share your belief? Is it important that your belief have a historical basis? Do you think it is wrong to create or adapt your own religion without reference to revealed doctrine or the teachings of the major religions?

Perhaps it's brainwashing, perhaps it's built-in to me. Mainly, it just makes sense to me based on all I have seen, heard, thought and done. However, even in the absence of proof, I feel my beliefs affect my life in a positive way and that they are not unreasonable or foolish. Somehow I still manage to function pretty well as a husband, father, employee, musician and other things despite my belief in a god that may or may not exist.

Would your character change drastically if you had no religion? My guess is it would not. Would your sense of your own worth change drastically if you had no religion? Again I would think not.

This is not a ploy to get you to reject your religion {whatever it is}rather it is a opportunity to understand that a great deal of what your are as a person comes from your own essence and not from your religious beliefs. It is a chance to bring balance to your spirituality.

I encourage you to delve into the vast library of human religious thought and choose those that fit you well and wear them openly and without embarrassment.

I encourage you to travel deeply into your heart and find what is there to love. And to fear. And to release and to tame. Then look into the world and find in it what mirrors your understanding of self and make that your religion.

Welcome Clearscreen and do stick around awhile.

JT

[clearscreen]

I believe there is something that created the universe and probably other levels of existence. Why? In a relative universe that consists of here and there, before and after and beginnings and ends, a beginning (creation) is consistent. The big bang and the expansion of the universe also indicate a beginning and a starting point. Also, I observe design and intelligence in everything I see. Where god came from, I cannot answer other than I suspect there are levels of existence that are non-physical and thus do not conform to the principles of relativity or space and time.

I also believe our souls transition to another, non-physical level of existence when our bodies die. I have heard too many accounts of communications with spirits and knowledge of things unknowable (indicating reincarnation) and NDEs to discount them all. If only one of them is true, then afterlife and beforelife (it's a new word I just created) exist. Your quotes discrediting one or several accounts does not make them all false.

To me, god is not a specific, separate entity but rather some sort of creative force or intelligence that exists in all things on all levels. It is not judgemental, needy or punishing. It does not intervene when you supplicate. It is all that is and it is a ubiquitous power that can be accessed.

There is no devil and no hell. I agree that the god of most religious texts is absurd and fairy tale-like and I can see why you have problems with most organized religions. So do I. They are obviously distorted by the theocracies of the time in an attempt to control the people through fear. I belong to a Unity church that does not take literally most of what is in the Bible. It is loosely based on the positive teachings of Christ and is similar to UU.

My concept provides (for me) explanations for many of the seemingly bad or unfair aspects of life. My wife and I had a stillborn son. Why? Is that the only chance he gets? If souls are eternal, my son is not dead and the failure of my wife's cervix to stay closed (which was caused by a pregnancy drug her mother took) does not end his existence or the evolution of his soul. Why are some people born with birth defects? There are lessons to be learned and progress to be made in adversity and that particular existence is not, in my opinion, the only one that soul will have.

I cannot prove the existence of god as I define it and you cannot prove the non-existence and I understand that it is not your burden to prove a negative. I believe in a god of sorts because it seems and feels right to me based on my intellect (however limited you may think it is), experience and intuition.

There is more, but that's part of it in a nutshell. Let the insults and slamming begin.

[premjan]

I agree with this view. However, God is not always that smart. In some cases he may be smarter than I and in other cases, not as smart. He is a distributed intelligence or information-feedback mechanism that causes structure to emerge out of chaos (itself a most surprising occurrence). I wonder how the second law of theormodynamics meshes with that: the notion of emergence of structure: is it only possible in a universe that began with a large amount of free energy to begin with?

[Barcode]

Hullo Clearscreen :)

Also, I observe design and intelligence in everything I see.

Would you class humans as " intelligent design?" God (or whatever your concept of such a deity is) has designed us rather imperfectly. We have the appendix which has a chance of killing us, something like one in three of us will get cancer -- there are a myriad of things that can go wrong with us as you know.

Do you think the Universe exhibits intelligent design? There are vast amounts of space incapable of supporting life, we'll be dead when the sun goes nova, if not before., If God so cared about the human race, then he could have done a better job.

Define " intelligent design " ?

I suspect there are levels of existence that are non-physical and thus do not conform to the principles of relativity or space and time.

Based upon ....?

I also believe our souls transition to another, non-physical level of existence when our bodies die. I have heard too many accounts of communications with spirits and knowledge of things unknowable (indicating reincarnation) and NDEs to discount them all. If only one of them is true, then afterlife and beforelife (it's a new word I just created) exist. Your quotes discrediting one or several accounts does not make them all false.

Of course it doesn't make them " false " ... but neither does this mean we should go around assuming the wildly implausible. Humans are prone to confabulation, exaggerating things. NDE's have been reproduced under laboratory conditions and there is a sound medical explanation for them.

People report spiritual experiences after taking drugs. Would you say that makes such an experience true, or it's a result of say, taking ecstasy? As far as the individual is concerned, the experience may well be real ... but the point is it is *subjective* and has a scientific explanation.

To me, god is not a specific, separate entity but rather some sort of creative force or intelligence that exists in all things on all levels. It is not judgemental, needy or punishing. It does not intervene when you supplicate. It is all that is and it is a ubiquitous power that can be accessed.

If I believed, this may well be my perception of a God. It seems downright ludicrous to worship something for fear of roasting in hell ... and yet, millions of Christians do. They also get it into their head this God answers their prayers and inspires them to do good.

If Christians have a personal line to God, then they would do well to explain why Vishnu doesn't answer Hindu prayers as many Hindu's claim, or why Allah isn't answering the prayers of Muslims around the world.

It's not an unreasonable claim, and would surely make the traditional idea of an omni-everything God more credible if they could refute other God's in favour of their own. Yet, nobody, not a single person has managed to demonstrate why they are right in their beliefs and the rest of the world is wrong.

Which leads me to suspect as somebody who doesn't believe ... that it's all in the mind and people become convinced of things if they try to believe hard enough.

I agree that the god of most religious texts is absurd and fairy tale-like and I can see why you have problems with most organized religions.

Agreed. I'm continually amazed that so many people take The Bible seriously. Honestly, does it look like it's been inspired by a divine anything? The same for other holy books as well.

They are obviously distorted by the theocracies of the time in an attempt to control the people through fear.

Yup. The Catholics get suckered in by confession and thinking they have sinned, other sects say you'll be toasted if you ain't saved by the Lord Jesus ... it's a very evil thing to play on a person's conscience and lead them to believe the fate of their eternal soul lies on believing in Jesus/some other deity.

It's no different from cult leaders exploiting people's vulnerability and gullibility in my mind. We all like to believe life is meaningful, something is in control, that we'll continue to exist after death -- *I* would like to believe .... but I've yet to encounter anything halfway credible that would lead me to suggest such ideas are grounded within reality as opposed to wishful thinking.

I cannot prove the existence of god as I define it and you cannot prove the non-existence and I understand that it is not your burden to prove a negative.

Of course not, but I can demonstrate fallacies and contradictions regarding the orthodox concept of God which makes his existence dubiou indeed. Your concept isn't one I have any particular problems with even though I disagree.

I believe in a god of sorts because it seems and feels right to me based on my intellect (however limited you may think it is), experience and intuition.

Again, simply because you *feel* something doesn't mean it's true. My intuition told me someone reciprocated my romantic feelings some years ago ... boy, was my intuition wrong when I had a slap in the face! It took about a year to face up to reality when that happened.

Intuition concerning God is no different if there is no objective evidence to verify such a claim.

There is more, but that's part of it in a nutshell. Let the insults and slamming begin.

[Hedshaker]

Originally posted by clearscreen
I believe there is something that created the universe and probably other levels of existence.

Hi clearscrean and welcome.

Two serious questions for you.

1) Can you explain the details of how your god's creation mechanism works?

2) What do you mean by "other levels of existence"?

thanx

bya

[Hopeful Monsters]

Originally posted by clearscreen
I believe there is something that created the universe and probably other levels of existence. Why? In a relative universe that consists of here and there, before and after and beginnings and ends, a beginning (creation) is consistent. The big bang and the expansion of the universe also indicate a beginning and a starting point. Also, I observe design and intelligence in everything I see. Where god came from, I cannot answer other than I suspect there are levels of existence that are non-physical and thus do not conform to the principles of relativity or space and time.

<snip>

… To me, god is not a specific, separate entity but rather some sort of creative force or intelligence that exists in all things on all levels. It is not judgemental, needy or punishing. It does not intervene when you supplicate. It is all that is and it is a ubiquitous power that can be accessed.
clearscreen – your 8th post had already become a lot more measured than your first!

I can see how you might believe the above – it seems wondrous, interesting and maybe less mundane to you than any view science might hold – but what does it really mean?.

Ideas like it are always around (eg. Leibniz and his ‘Monads’?) but do you mean that every quark, string, electron, molecule, exotic particle etc shares some kind of ‘intelligence’ with every other? How far could you get I wonder, if you really tried to develop the detail and rationale of this idea, instead of floating it as a general concept – I would suspect not very far.

Let me put something to you in relation to two things: (a) the existence of the universe; and (b) the existence of humankind.

I would say it is right to ask how? when? what? where? in relation to these two but that to ask why? simply is to ask a question that does not have an answer and does not need one.

I believe that often the reason people ask why? is as much borne out of human egocentricity than anything else.

We have such a vast universe – we see with our own eyes, pictures of galaxy after galaxy after galaxy crowding the picture frame and receding way into the distance, and in all this we feel and believe there has to be a why? to human existence? We are rendered infinitesimally tiny and insignificant by the universe – why can’t we just accept that?

One last point – I think other posters here have shown you that your Hawkins, Einstein etc quotes were either mistaken or somewhat disingenuous – but welcome clearscreen to iidb.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Also, I observe design and intelligence in everything I see.


The design of living organisms exists, but it is not intelligent design. Evolution by natural selection is the blind watchmaker that "designs" living organisms with no plan, no purpose and no foresight. So, to quote Massimo Pigliucci's title: Design Yes, Intelligent No. The jury is still out on the larger argument of cosmic design (setting the parameters needed for evolution to take place), but the smaller argument for biological design is clearly dead.


I also believe our souls transition to another, non-physical level of existence when our bodies die.


What is a soul? What's it made of? If it's immaterial, then how does it interact with our material body? If the soul is the personality, how does it happen that drinking a glass of wine changes the personality? And how do you explain the case of Phineas Gage (http://www.deakin.edu.au/hbs/GAGEPAGE/Pgstory.htm)?


I have heard too many accounts of communications with spirits and knowledge of things unknowable (indicating reincarnation) and NDEs to discount them all. If only one of them is true, then afterlife and beforelife (it's a new word I just created) exist. Your quotes discrediting one or several accounts does not make them all false.


These are all anecdotes, nothing systematic. Such sort of "evidence" would lead one to believe in UFOs.


Why are some people born with birth defects? There are lessons to be learned and progress to be made in adversity and that particular existence is not, in my opinion, the only one that soul will have.


I'm sure people with birth defects love to hear that explanation. They're having a great learning experience and are making full use of every moment. :rolleyes: I prefer Richard Dawkins' explanation:


"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 has 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." (River Out Of Eden, p.133)


It's not consoling, but it rids me of having to dream up far-fetched theodicies. It allows me to call bad things bad.


I cannot prove the existence of god as I define it and you cannot prove the non-existence and I understand that it is not your burden to prove a negative. I believe in a god of sorts because it seems and feels right to me based on my intellect (however limited you may think it is), experience and intuition.


Your beliefs are very similar to the beliefs I had when I was overwhelmed with fear of death. I still fear death, but I have decided not to let wishful thinking dominate my mind.

[Hopeful Monsters]

Precisely Heathen Dawn – Richard Dawkins: “The universe we observe has 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." (River Out Of Eden, p.133, by Professor Richard Dawkins).

Maybe if that kind of thinking was part of humankind’s common language and commonplace, everyday conceptual framework, the world would not be so plagued be wilful embracing of irrational superstition.

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by Barcode
Would you class humans as " intelligent design?" God (or whatever your concept of such a deity is) has designed us rather imperfectly. We have the appendix which has a chance of killing us, something like one in three of us will get cancer -- there are a myriad of things that can go wrong with us as you know.

Do you think the Universe exhibits intelligent design? There are vast amounts of space incapable of supporting life, we'll be dead when the sun goes nova, if not before., If God so cared about the human race, then he could have done a better job.

Define " intelligent design " ?

Based upon ....?Yes, I would classify humans as intelligent design. I would also consider a car to be an intelligent design but I wouldn't expect it to last forever and there are many things that can go wrong with it. Let me ask how you define perfection.

I think the universe exhibits intelligent design. I think an atom exhibits intelligent design. Why does a lack of ability to support life indicate a lack of intelligent design? A car is an intelligent design, but it doesn't support life. What would you expect to be between the planets and galaxies?

Intelligent design: The intentional result produced by a being with the faculty for thought and reason.

Again, simply because you *feel* something doesn't mean it's true....Intuition concerning God is no different if there is no objective evidence to verify such a claim.True enough. However, based on my entire experience on this earth, something that is impossible to convey to someone else yet still very real, I believe in a creator and in the perpetuation of souls. I do realize that I may be wrong., but I seek an explanation for things and my beliefs are the best I have come up with so far. Perhaps you can change my mind.

Let me ask you what degree of proof is required for you to accept something as true. You may not have been to Antarctica, but I assume you have reason to believe it exists even though you have not personally experienced it in any way. It requires a certain "leap of faith" no matter how miniscule. Is photographic evidence enough? Is what you have read or heard from others enough? Is it because everyone else believes it? My prediction is that you will call me ridiculous for asking these questions because obviously Antarctica exists. I'm just trying to get at the degree of evidence required to prove something as true.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by clearscreen

I think the universe exhibits intelligent design. I think an atom exhibits intelligent design.
...
Intelligent design: The intentional result produced by a being with the faculty for thought and reason.


But can you prove that an atom is the result of intelligent design?

Is it intelligent design because there is an inverse square law to the falloff of the electric attraction between an electron and a proton? Is it intelligent design because the ground energy states of the atom are quantized?

At what level is the intelligence really acting? Is it impossible by natural law for atoms to build up to life? Do you believe that the mere existence of natural law is evidence of intelligent design?

I do believe that there is natural law in the universe. However, it is difficult for me to interpret what their existence says about their origin (if they have an origin at all).

Let me ask you what degree of proof is required for you to accept something as true. You may not have been to Antarctica, but I assume you have reason to believe it exists even though you have not personally experienced it in any way. It requires a certain "leap of faith" no matter how miniscule. Is photographic evidence enough? Is what you have read or heard from others enough? Is it because everyone else believes it? My prediction is that you will call me ridiculous for asking these questions because obviously Antarctica exists. I'm just trying to get at the degree of evidence required to prove something as true.

No, these aren't ridiculous questions. Here is my answer. As for the existence of Antarctica:

I have seen pictures of the continent taken from space. I have seen pictures of the landscape taken by people who have gone there. I have talked with scientists who are involved on projects that will be based there. I have talked with people who have been there. It is a reasonable extrapolation to believe that there can exist a continent there. The descriptions of the place from various sources are all consistent with each other.

It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of trust.

Here's the definition of proof that I work with:

proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact

[exi]

Originally posted by clearscreen
Let me ask you what degree of proof is required for you to accept something as true. You may not have been to Antarctica, but I assume you have reason to believe it exists even though you have not personally experienced it in any way. It requires a certain "leap of faith" no matter how miniscule. Is photographic evidence enough? Is what you have read or heard from others enough? Is it because everyone else believes it? My prediction is that you will call me ridiculous for asking these questions because obviously Antarctica exists. I'm just trying to get at the degree of evidence required to prove something as true.

Hi clearscreen, from a fellow Atlantan! :cool:

I will try to answer your question about proof by presenting you with a situational/thought exercise.

Do you believe in the existence of leprechauns? There have been books and songs written about them, movies made about them, even breakfast cereals represented by them. If you ask any modern westerner what is meant by the term "leprechaun", it's fair to say that most people, including children, would be able to agree upon a fairly common idea of what is meant to be described by the word "leprechaun." Now, do you believe in the existence of leprechauns on that basis? Why or why not?

If there were a contingent of people you were aquainted with (e.g. neighbors, co-workers, friends, etc.) who claimed to believe in leprechauns, would that change your answer?

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by clearscreen
True enough. However, based on my entire experience on this earth, something that is impossible to convey to someone else yet still very real, I believe in a creator and in the perpetuation of souls. I do realize that I may be wrong., but I seek an explanation for things and my beliefs are the best I have come up with so far. Perhaps you can change my mind.

Do you think that your inability to convey your evidence to others might be due to the fact that your evidence is not really as solid as you believe it to be?

If you have come to this conclusion based on real evidence, you should be able to produce a list of things that we would not expect to find in a Universe that had no creator and no souls, but which we do find in our Universe. You should also be able to provide a solid reason for why these things would not be possible without a creator or the existence of souls.

A lot of things that make sense intuitively are shown to be implausible or outright incorrect when examined with even a little bit of critical skepticism. Time and time again people have discovered that things they once believed to be self-evidently true are, in fact, false.

The key to finding the truth is to avoid theories that attempt say more than the evidence will support. If you do not have enough evidence to make a complete theory, you should be looking for more evidence rather than making a "leap of faith" and drawing unsupported conclusions.

[Barcode]

Clearscreen:

I think the universe exhibits intelligent design.

If the designer is capable of thought and reason, as I presume any being which you call God is .... then a quick look around our own galaxy should indicate things are not as perfect as they appear.

We have threats from asteroids, uninhabitable planets, natural disasters ... a God could do better if is omnipotent as many religious people like to claim.

I would argue that the complexity of life indicates a designer is improbable, because an all powerful designer would have had the capacity to do a much simpler job.

Does the intelligent designer also dislike humans so much he will make us extinct in the far off future? This is what is going to happen. Why would the creator of the entire Universe even care about us humans for a brief breath of time in the face of eternity?

Let me ask you what degree of proof is required for you to accept something as true. You may not have been to Antarctica, but I assume you have reason to believe it exists even though you have not personally experienced it in any way.

But I can trust numerous independent sources that come up with the same result (photo's etc) from around the globe. If you go to different places on Earth each culture has it's own interpretation of God and it changes depending upon the society you find yourself in.

The God concept changes ... it is not objectively verifiable.

I don't need to " believe " in Antartica, but it's not something that drastically alters just by talking to a few people ... even the Christians I know all appear to interpret God in different ways.

Something that I cannot see, experience or verify in any credible way may as well be the same as something that does not exist ... what's the *point* of believing in something that hasn't revealed itself in any meaningful way that we can all agree on?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Barcode
Something that I cannot see, experience or verify in any credible way may as well be the same as something that does not exist ... what's the *point* of believing in something that hasn't revealed itself in any meaningful way that we can all agree on?

:notworthy

[clearscreen]

Well, I'm back. I was banned from the Atheist Network for what I considered a reasonable retaliation for some very childish and low provocations. The Administrator claimed I broke one of the rules, saying that I suggested I should be banned which I obviously did not. In my opening post here and my final one there, I made some accusations that clearly do not apply to all atheists. I took out some frustrations here for some things that happened at AN and that was childish and I apologize. I realize that we are all individuals and that the infantile behavior of some does not indicate that all are the same way. I don't, however, understand why some people have to resort to insults and name-calling when someone disagrees with them.

Anyway, I find the topic interesting to discuss, which is why I post. Some of you may be interested in reading what happened over there. I understand that some or most won't give a shit. If so, no need to insult me, just don't read it:

http://www.thedeepdark.com/atheism/board/showthread.php?threadid=5359&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

I think it went downhill when jesusisacorpse called me a dumbass for disagreeing with him.

Then there was Staggnant, who sunk so low as to attack me using the death of my son as ammunition:

http://www.thedeepdark.com/atheism/board/showthread.php?threadid=5311&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

Interestingly, Leo was banned for something similar, but not Staggnant, and I was banned for supposedly breaking a rule, which I did not.

[Hedshaker]

Clearscreen,

Staggnant was reprimanded by his fellow atheists for his remark and had the humility to offer you an appology. It is disingenuous of you to make any Comparison with the banning of Leo Volont who had been warned, many times, for his personal abusive attacks on members.

You were banned from AN under rule 13. That is, you asked to be banned. Crying to members of this board about it does you a disservice.

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
Clearscreen,

Staggnant was reprimanded by his fellow atheists for his remark and had the humility to offer you an appology. It is disingenuous of you to make any Comparison with the banning of Leo Volont who had been warned, many times, for his personal abusive attacks on members.

You were banned from AN under rule 13. That is, you asked to be banned. Crying to members of this board about it does you a disservice. And I accepted his apology though I was so pissed I was rude about it.

I said "I will post what and when I want for no other reason than "I want to" at any particular time unless you ban me while having a tantrum". That does not seem to be a request to be banned to me.

[Hawkingfan]

...to think that something that exists may have been created?
If that were so, then something must have created god. A super-god, perhaps?
... to think that the creator, if it exists, was/is greater than its creation?
You need to rephrase that. "Greater" is quite subjective. What do you mean?
...to think that the creator, if it exists, had/has intelligence?
So?
...to think that ones life energy, awareness and intelligence may endure after its physical body has perished?
Definitely unreasonable to believe that.
but there are those who believe in a different kind of "god" than that in most religious texts - one that is perfectly reasonable to consider as an explanation for the origin and perpetuation of the universe and our "souls".
So you don't believe in the god of the bible? Find it unreasonable, eh? How come? Are ALL assertions of a "god" reasonable? Do you believe every one of them, then? Why do you find it reasonable to believe in one assertion of god, but not another?

[Hawkingfan]

Originally posted by clearscreen
I already know it is not possible to prove the existence or non-existence of god as anyone defines it. While it is interesting and a good way to waste some time, the debate is ultimately pointless. To each his own.
You're all over the place here. The debate of what is reasonable to believe is not pointless at all. It is for the very fact that there is no evidence proving (or disproving) the existence of god that makes the question of what is reasonable to believe important. It is not "to each his own". This universe runs in systematic ways that we can predict and understand (whether god created it or not). Therefore, there is a defined reality to the way in which it behaves. It would be unreasonable to believe things that contradict those realities. Not to mention, it is unreasonable to believe something without proof on the basis that there is no disproof. There is no need to disprove something which cannot be proven first.