It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian .
English
-
It takes precisely zero faith to be an atheist.
-
[quote]It takes precisely zero faith to be an atheist.[/quote] Do you know God doesnt exist? If you do, give me some evidence if you dont, you believe in it which requires faith.
-
I don't believe anything. I don't have faith in anything. I have [u]confidence[/u] that something will/won't happen, or that something does/doesn't exist, based on the evidence presented to me and my prior knowledge.
-
[quote]I don't believe anything. I don't have faith in anything. I have [u]confidence[/u] that something will/won't happen, or that something does/doesn't exist, based on the evidence presented to me and my prior knowledge.[/quote] But see, you cant know that there isnt a god. So by saying "there isnt a god" without proof means there has to be faith or believing.
-
But there never will be proof there is no god, because you can't prove a negative. The distinct lack of evidence for the existence of god is all I need.
-
Atheism is more a belief in statistics. Atheist count on the most probable thing having happened or going to happen. That's what most scientific theories are. Saying what is the most probable thing to have happen/will happen based on evidence. That's why atheists believe in scientific theories.
-
[quote]Atheism is more a belief in statistics. Atheist count on the most probable thing having happened or going to happen. That's what most scientific theories are. Saying what is the most probable thing to have happen/will happen based on evidence. That's why atheists believe in scientific theories.[/quote] I would agree with you there. But the thing that bothers me is that atheist say "there is no God or gods". That is an absolute. Its a statement. But if what you say is true and they are going off statistics then they cant prove it. They cant back up their absolute statement with absolute evidence. Its just statistics. If something happens a certain way 99% of the time thats not absolute proof. Even if it was 100% that something happened a certain way and in 2 years it changes its not 100% true. Its not an absolute. Statistics cannot prove the future. They can document the past very acuratly but they cannot make absolute evidense.
-
I don't believe in a god because there is nothing that hints that there is a god, so the probability that there is one of very very small.
-
[quote]I don't believe in a god because there is nothing that hints that there is a god, so the probability that there is one of very very small.[/quote] There is a ton of ecidence other than that that i could tell you about.
-
[quote]I don't believe in a god because there is nothing that hints that there is a god, so the probability that there is one of very very small.[/quote] I think that there is evidence all around. I think your very body is evidence. I think my body is evidence. I think that the whole world is evidence. I believe that the world and all the trillions of stars and planets are soooooooooo complex that it could not have been an accident. That there had to be an intelligent designer. When you look at a building you know that an architect made desings for the building. And that people made it in a certain way. I look at the world and say "this is far too complex to be an accident" there has to be a maker and a designer.
-
Key words. " i think" "I believe" Just because you think/believe the above doesn't mean its true, nor is it even remotely close to evidence.
-
Edited by HumongousPizzas: 10/21/2014 8:07:53 PM[quote]I think that there is evidence all around. I think your very body is evidence. I think my body is evidence. I think that the whole world is evidence.[/quote] I believe that it could be a coincidence. Think of how many planets there are without life, water, etc. Almost endless, right? The only planet with life, as far as we currently know, is Earth. The point of this is that we (Earth as a whole) are the "1-in-a-million" when it comes to having life. Moving on to humans, we are also a product of coincidence. Life started as single-cell organisms living deep in the ocean, and slowly but surely adapted to their environment to expand their capabilities and efficiency of living. This carries on with those single-cell creatures until they are multicellular, and then they become complete organisms, adapt to different climate (closer to water's surface, reefs, etc.), and eventually develop enough to survive on land and breathe. After that, these land creatures had to develop to their new land environment in order to be efficient and to live. As they developed, they started to go in different directions, so to speak. For example, some stayed around the water and thrived in a water-land environment (reptiles and amphibians). Some chose to go farther inland and survive there, some surviving better than others (a squirrel compared to a wolf, for example). And then there comes us. We were able to develop above and beyond other animals, enough to build shelters and use logic in everyday life. What we are now in the world (compared to other animals) is similar to the way a lion lives in a jungle; it is the king. Keep in mind that all this developing didn't happen overnight, it took millions upon millions of years. Back on topic to humans, more specifically our bodies, we have prevailed over every other species because we adapted differently. We have a strong bone structure, and an immune system, and arms and legs and toes and fingers and thumbs. Most of all, we have a complex brain, developed over many many years. As our brains developed, we started creating things to improve our lives, such as medicine. That expands to modern medicine today as well. We also expanded the ways of education and our technology, which may be why all of our complexity seems, to you, like only a god could have created/designed it. However, you must realize that it took so long for us to get where we are today: as a highly dominant, highly intelligent species on the only known planet that holds life. Sorry for the super-long post, but I wanted my ideas to be fully understood. Also know that I'm not trying to attack any of your beliefs, but just explain my own point of view :D
-
Lions as 'King of the Jungle' is a misnomer. They typically inhabit savanna and grassland, although they may take to bush and forest.
-
You know what I mean, it's the first example I thought of
-
[quote][quote]I think that there is evidence all around. I think your very body is evidence. I think my body is evidence. I think that the whole world is evidence.[/quote] I believe that it could be a coincidence. Think of how many planets there are without life, water, etc. Almost endless, right? The only planet with life, as far as we currently know, is Earth. The point of this is that we (Earth as a whole) are the "1-in-a-million" when it comes to having life. Moving on to humans, we are also a product of coincidence. Life started as single-cell organisms living deep in the ocean, and slowly but surely adapted to their environment to expand their capabilities and efficiency of living. This carries on with those single-cell creatures until they are multicellular, and then they become complete organisms, adapt to different climate (closer to water's surface, reefs, etc.), and eventually develop enough to survive on land and breathe. After that, these land creatures had to develop to their new land environment in order to be efficient and to live. As they developed, they started to go in different directions, so to speak. For example, some stayed around the water and thrived in a water-land environment (reptiles and amphibians). Some chose to go farther inland and survive there, some surviving better than others (a squirrel compared to a wolf, for example). And then there comes us. We were able to develop above and beyond other animals, enough to build shelters and use logic in everyday life. What we are now in the world (compared to other animals) is similar to the way a lion lives in a jungle; it is the king. Keep in mind that all this developing didn't happen overnight, it took millions upon millions of years. Back on topic to humans, more specifically our bodies, we have prevailed over every other species because we adapted differently. We have a strong bone structure, and an immune system, and arms and legs and toes and fingers and thumbs. Most of all, we have a complex brain, developed over many many years. As our brains developed, we started creating things to improve our lives, such as medicine. That expands to modern medicine today as well. We also expanded the ways of education and our technology, which may be why all of our complexity seems, to you, like only a god could have created/designed it. However, you must realize that it took so long for us to get where we are today: as a highly dominant, highly intelligent species on the only known planet that holds life. Sorry for the super-long post, but I wanted my ideas to be fully understood. Also know that I'm not trying to attack any of your beliefs, but just explain my own point of view :D[/quote] Hey man I really appreciate that last part! Im not trying to attack you world view either just trying to explain why i believe what I believe. I just have a hard time believing that nothing could explode and millions of years later we have what we have. There is this small organism (I forgot the name of this organism but its small on a molecular level). Anyway this tiny organism has a flagellum which acts like a propeller and inside its tiny body there are almost the same components of a cars motor. It has a little ogranic motor and little gears that move the flagellum. Anyways if anyone of these components are taken away then the flagellum wouldnt be able to move and the organism would die. So how would you from your point of view answer this thing called "irreducible complexity". Its like I said one part is missing the whole thing dies. How would this organism survive and how would its components all be made in one instant? I appreciate the respect you have for other peoples beliefs. Most other people on here just cussed me out. I just wanted to know what logical trail atheists and agnostics follow to arive at what they believe!
-
No problem, I always try to be respectful when it comes to people's beliefs. As for this organism, I think it could have possibly done away with things it didn't necessarily need when it was developing. Hypothetically, it would be like if us humans had a finger coming from the ankle, we would eventually "undevelop" it since its not needed. However, in that process for the organism, it made itself more unstable in the sense that if one thing is taken away, the whole system falls apart. Kind of like a game of Jenga; you can keep taking away parts of it and the tower still stands. But once you get to a certain point, even one part missing causes the whole thing to collapse. This can also be said for humans in certain scenarios: if we take away the brain, heart, lungs, stomach, or just one of our many intestines, we would soon die. This is also true for many other animals, but you get the idea. I think it may not be as uncommon as you think, but I do see where you're coming from, as you were talking about just a tiny organism. This is simply my theory though, I could probably make a better claim if I did some research on it and knew more about it
-
[quote]No problem, I always try to be respectful when it comes to people's beliefs. As for this organism, I think it could have possibly done away with things it didn't necessarily need when it was developing. Hypothetically, it would be like if us humans had a finger coming from the ankle, we would eventually "undevelop" it since its not needed. However, in that process for the organism, it made itself more unstable in the sense that if one thing is taken away, the whole system falls apart. Kind of like a game of Jenga; you can keep taking away parts of it and the tower still stands. But once you get to a certain point, even one part missing causes the whole thing to collapse. This can also be said for humans in certain scenarios: if we take away the brain, heart, lungs, stomach, or just one of our many intestines, we would soon die. This is also true for many other animals, but you get the idea. I think it may not be as uncommon as you think, but I do see where you're coming from, as you were talking about just a tiny organism. This is simply my theory though, I could probably make a better claim if I did some research on it and knew more about it[/quote] Well I appreciate it! That would certainly be a valid point if evolution was proved to be right. And is a valid point right now. My question is how could this organism survive if it took so long to evolve. If one component were to disappear for say 30 minutes the organism would die and so would all the other organisms of its kind. I do like the analogy of jenga but I want to know how all the parts got there not how many can be taken away! I would highly recommend looking up "irreducible complexity". I want to also clarify that I do believe in a certain type of evolution. Micro evolution, change within a species. Such as different types of dogs. But I do not however believe in macro evolution.
-
[quote]...I want to know how all the parts got there not how many can be taken away![/quote] Granting your beliefs of theism and micro evolution, and keeping irreducible complexity in mind, I cannot think of a way for the parts to get there. However, I don't understand why an organism would be purposely designed so fragile by an intelligent designer. That just seems illogical to me. Granting my own beliefs of atheism and macro evolution, it would make sense that it became that way through developing from something else. It possibly could've become close to being what it is, then mutated into its current state. I understand the aspect of irreducible complexity, and I think it is logical when in accordance with the right set of beliefs, but I personally don't believe that it's true. For someone with your beliefs, then yes, it makes sense that you also believe the idea of irreducible complexity, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. People who share my beliefs, on the other hand, find the idea to be false. Two things - I'd like to know your opinion on what I mentioned near the beginning of this post about an intelligent designer designing something so fragile; more drastically though, why were organisms/lifeforms not designed perfectly? Second, what is your position on free will? Just wondering because it would give me a better understanding of your set of beliefs as a whole. (If you don't know much about "popular" positions on free will, look up Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, and Libertarianism. I am a Libertarian.)
-
[quote][quote]...I want to know how all the parts got there not how many can be taken away![/quote] Granting your beliefs of theism and micro evolution, and keeping irreducible complexity in mind, I cannot think of a way for the parts to get there. However, I don't understand why an organism would be purposely designed so fragile by an intelligent designer. That just seems illogical to me. Granting my own beliefs of atheism and macro evolution, it would make sense that it became that way through developing from something else. It possibly could've become close to being what it is, then mutated into its current state. I understand the aspect of irreducible complexity, and I think it is logical when in accordance with the right set of beliefs, but I personally don't believe that it's true. For someone with your beliefs, then yes, it makes sense that you also believe the idea of irreducible complexity, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. People who share my beliefs, on the other hand, find the idea to be false. Two things - I'd like to know your opinion on what I mentioned near the beginning of this post about an intelligent designer designing something so fragile; more drastically though, why were organisms/lifeforms not designed perfectly? Second, what is your position on free will? Just wondering because it would give me a better understanding of your set of beliefs as a whole. (If you don't know much about "popular" positions on free will, look up Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, and Libertarianism. I am a Libertarian.)[/quote]here is an awesome link to a guy who really knows his stuff and answers some questions better than I can.
-
[quote][quote]...I want to know how all the parts got there not how many can be taken away![/quote] Granting your beliefs of theism and micro evolution, and keeping irreducible complexity in mind, I cannot think of a way for the parts to get there. However, I don't understand why an organism would be purposely designed so fragile by an intelligent designer. That just seems illogical to me. Granting my own beliefs of atheism and macro evolution, it would make sense that it became that way through developing from something else. It possibly could've become close to being what it is, then mutated into its current state. I understand the aspect of irreducible complexity, and I think it is logical when in accordance with the right set of beliefs, but I personally don't believe that it's true. For someone with your beliefs, then yes, it makes sense that you also believe the idea of irreducible complexity, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. People who share my beliefs, on the other hand, find the idea to be false. Two things - I'd like to know your opinion on what I mentioned near the beginning of this post about an intelligent designer designing something so fragile; more drastically though, why were organisms/lifeforms not designed perfectly? Second, what is your position on free will? Just wondering because it would give me a better understanding of your set of beliefs as a whole. (If you don't know much about "popular" positions on free will, look up Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, and Libertarianism. I am a Libertarian.)[/quote]i think that you believe micro evolution is true. It means there is change within its kind. For instance there are 2 dog and you breed them and breed their children and so on down the generations you will end up with a different dog than you started with. Well the way I see it through my point of view is that God created all the parts exactly how they need to be in one second. I believe that God created everything in the 7 days of creation. Well here's the thing. God created everything perfect. He made a perfect earth that was basically heaven. And he made Adam and Eve the perfect humans. He made everything perfect and I mean every atom was perfect EVERYTHING WAS PERFECT! But then as you probably know satan came into the picture and introduced sin into the world. God cursed Adam and Eve and sent them out of the garden of Eden. From that moment until about 4400 years ago the world became progressively worse and more sinful and more evil. Like you should see some of the stuff in the bible there is some seriously messed up stuff the people were doing. God regretted making the world and humans according to the bible and he sent the flood that killed everyone except Noah and his family who were to start the human race over and this time make it better. Then God killed everyone except Noah and his family. Noah got off the ark after 40 days and 40 nights. And started the human race from him and his family.
-
I never said I didn't believe micro evolution was true, I do believe it to be true alongside macro evolution. But my question for you is that if God did create everything perfect, then how did Satan sin in the first place? It is also said that God is a perfect and completely pure being, and that humans were made in His image. If that were true, then why was Eve deceived? Being able to be deceived seems like an imperfection in my eyes. More broadly, how does evil and sin come from perfect beings? I think evil and sin would not be considered parts of perfection to God.
-
[quote]I never said I didn't believe micro evolution was true, I do believe it to be true alongside macro evolution. But my question for you is that if God did create everything perfect, then how did Satan sin in the first place? It is also said that God is a perfect and completely pure being, and that humans were made in His image. If that were true, then why was Eve deceived? Being able to be deceived seems like an imperfection in my eyes. More broadly, how does evil and sin come from perfect beings? I think evil and sin would not be considered parts of perfection to God.[/quote]ok I gotcha. Well being made in someone's image doesn't mean they are 100% alike in every way. For instance: God made humanity in is image yet a human from Africa looks very different that a European. And the same goes for our personalities. My personality is greatly different than my (blood related) brother. Yet we are all made in Gods image. So to answer your question I think that God created Adam and Eve with the capability to sin. As for satan sinning from being a perfect angel. I honestly cannot answer that. I have no clue what he was thinking.
-
[quote]As for satan sinning from being a perfect angel. I honestly cannot answer that. I have no clue what he was thinking.[/quote] That's one of the problems I find in Christianity and its counterparts (Judaism, Islam). It fails to explain how that happened. Another thing that I don't quite get is how people can say that God determines the "paths" (events in lives, outcomes, etc.) of humans, yet people can be sentenced to Purgatory/Hell for their sins. If people's actions are determined by God, then why would people go to Purgatory for actions that God chose for them? I know you said you are for the most part Libertarian, but this is just another problem I have with Christianity.
-
[quote][quote]As for satan sinning from being a perfect angel. I honestly cannot answer that. I have no clue what he was thinking.[/quote] That's one of the problems I find in Christianity and its counterparts (Judaism, Islam). It fails to explain how that happened. Another thing that I don't quite get is how people can say that God determines the "paths" (events in lives, outcomes, etc.) of humans, yet people can be sentenced to Purgatory/Hell for their sins. If people's actions are determined by God, then why would people go to Purgatory for actions that God chose for them? I know you said you are for the most part Libertarian, but this is just another problem I have with Christianity.[/quote]well first thing first. Christianity and Islam and not counterparts at all. We believe in different Gods. The only way they are similar is that we both believe in Old Testament prophets such as Abraham and Moses. Christians believe that the Old Testament and New Testament are both holy books inspired by God. Islam on the other hand believes that man corrupted the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament that don't agree with their beliefs. Second. I do not believe that purgatory is real in any way shape or form. I think that one either goes to heaven or hell. Second. That's what free will is. Some Christians believe that it is 100% there choice to follow God or not to. And the apposing view is predestination. Where God, before time knew and chose who was going to be a Christian and who wasn't (who was going to heaven and who was going to hell). I personally believe this. The reason I do is that all through the scriptures it says that God is ALL POWERFUL. Omnipotent is another word for that. If I believe that God is omnipotent but he can't control people's lives... Well that's a contradiction so I think God rules everything.
-
Well Islam isn't too different from Christianity. Obviously they don't believe Jesus was the son of God, however they still believe that Jesus was an influential prophet. They do worship the same god, Muslims just call him Allah instead of God. Muslims interpret the Bible and scriptures differently than Christians and Jews, and also have their own scriptures. Also, depending on interpretation, "purgatory" can be Hell. I was using the two terms interchangeably, sorry for the confusion. What I was mainly trying to get at was why would God choose for people to go to Hell? Also, why would God choose for someone to not be Christian? Both of those just seem very contradictory to me