Wow an atheist family. I always knew they existed, but never met anybody that actually was born and grew up in an atheist family before. I think my dad was an atheist, but he never talked about it one way or the other and my mom was only weakly religious. So religion was not stressed as I grew up, nor was atheism.
We certainly never talked about atheism either. I was unaware of the entire religion/atheism issue. The only people in my family who went to church were my paternal grandparents. They talked about "church" as though it were a social club, but never about the religious aspect. Given that my grandfather was from an assimilated Jewish family and "converted" to the Episcopal church simply because that's the one his wife belonged to, I doubt that either of them had very strong feelings about it. No one else who came to our house ever mentioned church or religion.
I did wonder about that, because once at the start of every school year we had to answer a bunch of questions, one of which is what religion are you. That question never failed to make me feel very uncomfortable. I didn't want to answer it, but it was a required answer, which elevated it's importance in my mind, and then all your school mates wanted to know what religion you were. So it was always a big deal once a year. And I never knew why they wanted to know. I always felt very intimidated by that question and all that it implied. Did you ever have to answer that question in school and if so how did you feel about it?
In the 1950s nobody ever asked. They just assumed that everybody was Christian. We learned Christmas carols in the first grade, my first formal exposure to music, and I absolutely loved them. I had no idea what those words all meant, "savior," "manger," "little Lord Jesus," and I didn't care.
Atheism is the lack of belief. Can you show that a baby is born believing in god? If so which god?
Jung's studies of
archetypes suggest that belief in the supernatural may be an instinct. This would explain why it is so difficult to overturn. When you're born believing something, it feels
more true than anything beliefs you acquire later through reasoning and learning. As to why that particular instinct survived (belief in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe whose creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the behavior of the natural universe), since instincts tend to be survival advantages, like running away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face or else you won't live to reproduce, that's a tough question. Our species has passed through two genetic bottlenecks so perhaps it's simply a random mutation survived by chance. However, at the cusp of the Neolithic Revolution it may have been a species-survival advantage, since if two rival tribes discovered that they had the same beliefs it may have made them more inclined to try living together instead of hating each other. Unfortunately the basic archetypes of religion have been weighed down with accretions that vary from one population to another, so today it reinforces the rivalry and hatred rather than damping it.
Our problem as atheists is (though), is there any real evidence to indicate he actually doesn't exist given the nature of god is undetermined and changed according to the manipulations and policies of the lier purporting them?
Fortunately the rules of science and scholarship remind us that we are not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is
always on the one who makes the assertion, not the one who demands evidence to support it. Otherwise we would dissipate all of our resources disproving every crackpot theory that's ever been hatched, and research and scholarship would grind to a halt. The Rule of Laplace codifies it even further:
Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Laymen can be excused for not understanding this, but there is no excuse for people who call themselves scholars demanding that we
disprove the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe.
The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?
A reminder:
Evidence against is not required. An assertion remains false until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (the closest science comes to absolute truth).
You discuss issues relating to evidence he does, but do not look at evidence to support he doesn't? Is this completely rounded?
You need to review your Science 101A textbook.
So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.
No. We have
proven evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent, overwhelming evidence. We have volumes of evidence from two completely different, unrelated branches of science: paleontology and genetics. That proof is so solid that even the Pope and the leaders of all the mainstream religions accept evolution.
Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist.
This is a place of science and scholarship, so it's not enough to state an assertion. You have to
explain it. Please explain what evidence suggests that our existence in the natural universe is proof of a supernatural universe?
It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.
You're not much of a scholar, and a compete failure as a scientist, if you don't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. Evolution speaks only to
the development of lifeforms from each other. It says nothing about how the first one came into existence.
Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.
For the record, so far you have provided abundant evidence to support the assertion that you are, at the very least, not very well educated, if not downright stupid. You don't understand science at all, which is pretty much a prerequisite for being respected on SciForums.
It's what churches are founded upon.
Churches are founded upon the fallacy of
argument from authority. "My daddy told me and his daddy told him so it must be true." The fact that this trail of so-called evidence leads us logically back to someone in the Stone Age seems to escape the religionists--since, by definition, they are not logical.
So were looking for something "un-natural" in our natural world.
Well put, for a change. Since science as we know it arose around five hundred years ago, we have been established its fundamental premise, that
the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Since science is recursive, this premise has been tested and peer-reviewed for centuries, and
no evidence has ever been found that challenges it, much less refutes it.
I just said my definition of god is consciousness, a "divine" source of intelligence that creates the illusion of "me" and in general perception. In this notion, I have looked 4 and have concluded that god exists based on the "laws" of science and the self evident truth that we exist.
You still have not explained why the existence of creatures with consciousness--which includes (at least) all mammals and birds--is evidence for a supernatural creator. In other words,
you are still babbling incoherently.
I did not say I dont believe in evolution. It co-exists with my theory of physical reality the way I understand it. I dont believe in anything physical. I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way. I think after all the physical matter has expanded to every possibility this contigent matter created intervals of time (due to its onward expansion) contained in arrays of universes as "units" of a measurement with no coordinates. Due to the expansion or motion the eventual consequence would be an "overlapping of layers" after a certain point creating consciousness to experience or "create" reality so it could instantaneously 'collapse the vaccum' or create based on this evolution of matter or god. I believe evolution is a consequence of time and contigent matter in constant motion (following certain laws created to ensure the survival of experience) and this is a deliberate action of "god" to "experience" in a more meaningful way the emulation. It's like an emulator playing roms versus a simulation of nothing or everything. The universe does not have to be as uniform as it appears and its not, its just the illusion. I think that every type of reality exists and that we will "experience" every one. In increments of time to provide temporary meaning to physical reality which would be negated if we truly understood anything.
That's an interesting science fiction story. But it is not science and it is not scholarship. You have no evidence for this assertion so the only place you can get away with it is right here on the Religion subforum where we loosen the rules.
The same song and dance eh Dwy............
im leaving this alone bro there my beliefs which I dont even plan on elaborating on further although I may be able 2 because it contradicts the very nature of evidence we would require to ascribe to it in any rate so Ill just take it as a big waste of time and hopefully prevent this thread from getting derailed to no return.
Too late for that. You've already succeeded in derailing it. We're no longer discussing why and how people came to be atheists, but instead we're trying to teach you some semblance of rationality so you can get along here.
Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning.
Reasoning??? What utter bullshit! The faith of the scientist is a
reasoned faith. The faith of the religionist is an
unreasoned faith. My wife has stood by me for thirty-three years, so I
reasonably assume that she will continue to do so. The faith of the religionists is based on instinct, stories passed down from the elders, and the overwhelming desire to have a Big Daddy In The Sky who will make everything turn out all right.
So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.
Hmm. Someone else who got an F in Science 101A. Reasoning and empirical evidence are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Although peer review also plays an important role and that's where the religionists fall face down in the mud. None of their assertions stand up to the most cursory examination.
I always assume people don't know the basics of any of the sciences. Just today actually a guy yelled at me cause he thought plants didn't have DNA...he was literally like..."all life on earth has DNA? What about plants moron?..." I was speechless..
Amusing. Plants and animals share about 50% of their DNA. I'm sure this Redneck doesn't even know that besides plants and animals there are four more kingdoms: fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea. And they all have DNA.
