Why I'm an atheist.

[gcomeau]

Why don't you just answer the question, or can't you?

I just did answer it.

Evaluating whether or not an idea/claim/hypothesis is supported by empirical data or evidence IS APPLYING LOGICAL ANALYSIS TO IT. In order for you to even say that an idea is unsupported by evidence or empirical data you have to logically analyze it FIRST. And claiming you can't logically analyze it because you logically analyzed it and determined it couldn't be logically analyzed would be pretty freaking stupid wouldn't it?

You're just playing games on where the logic is applied. If there is no empirical data or evidence to analyze on a topic, then you can not apply logic to the topic, other than to say there isn't any emirical data or evidence.

That's was a perfectly ridiculous statement. You just basically said exactly what I mockingly said, only you were serious. Which is just sad.

Since in order to say that there is no empirical data or evidence supporting the claim you need to perform a logical analysis of the claim to DETERMINE that, you just said you can't logicaly analyze it other than when you logically analyze it to find out you can't logically analyze it.

Congratulations, you just transformed satire into reality.

 

[gcomeau]

edit: double-post... nothing to see here.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't know if I've asked you this before Newby, but, why do you believe in God?

 

[Newby]

I just did answer it.

Evaluating whether or not an idea/claim/hypothesis is supported by empirical data or evidence IS APPLYING LOGICAL ANALYSIS TO IT. In order for you to even say that an idea is unsupported by evidence or empirical data you have to logically analyze it FIRST. And claiming you can't logically analyze it because you logically analyzed it and determined it couldn't be logically analyzed would be pretty freaking stupid wouldn't it?

You're just playing games on where the logic is applied. If there is no empirical data or evidence to analyze on a topic, then you can not apply logic to the topic, other than to say there isn't any emirical data or evidence.

That's was a perfectly ridiculous statement. You just basically said exactly what I mockingly said, only you were serious. Which is just sad.

Since in order to say that there is no empirical data or evidence supporting the claim you need to perform a logical analysis of the claim to DETERMINE that, you just said you can't logicaly analyze it other than when you logically analyze it to find out you can't logically analyze it.

Congratulations, you just transformed satire into reality.

Really? Then would you tell me what logic you applied exactly in determining that there is no emprical data or evidence that God exists? Not only that, but you misinterpreted my comment. I said that you were playing games as to where the logic is applied.

I also like how you completely ignored the remainder of my post. Again, why do you have faith that human logic can explain everything in the universe and about human existance?

 

[Newby]

I don't know if I've asked you this before Newby, but, why do you believe in God?

Because this universe, this solar system and this planet didn't happen coincidentally. When you look at the order and the purpose, it is intelligent design. Until someone can explain to me how it all came to be, my logic states that there is a higher order. To assume that the human mind is capable of understanding it all is ridiculous. I admit to the inadequacy of the brain to understand and explain it. As I said in an earlier post, humans have logically explained things throughout history completely incorrect because of lack of understanding or lack of technology to explain it correctly. To assume that we're at some pinacle of human existance where we now 'know' everything is completely naive.

 

[gcomeau]

You're just playing games on where the logic is applied. If there is no empirical data or evidence to analyze on a topic, then you can not apply logic to the topic, other than to say there isn't any emirical data or evidence.

That's was a perfectly ridiculous statement. You just basically said exactly what I mockingly said, only you were serious. Which is just sad.

Since in order to say that there is no empirical data or evidence supporting the claim you need to perform a logical analysis of the claim to DETERMINE that, you just said you can't logicaly analyze it other than when you logically analyze it to find out you can't logically analyze it.

Congratulations, you just transformed satire into reality.

Really? Then would you tell me what logic you applied exactly in determining that there is no emprical data or evidence that God exists?

Since you're the one that said there wasn't any when you presented the example and wanted to know how people apply logic to "something for which no evidence or empirical data" exists, why are you asking me? How did YOU determine it?

Wild guess?

Dice roll?

Coin flip ("Heads this claim has empirical evidence in favor or against it it, tails it doesn't!")

Psychic insight?

None of the above maybe? Does the actual answer perhaps have something to do with performing a rational, logical analysis of the claim and whether supporting evidence for it's veracity has been presented or could even possibly exist? Just perhaps?

Not only that, but you misinterpreted my comment. I said that you were playing games as to where the logic is applied.

No, I am not.

I also like how you completely ignored the remainder of my post. Again, why do you have faith that human logic can explain everything in the universe and about human existance?

I ignored the rest of your comment because I'm not in the habit of responding to questions about why I do things I don't do. It's rather pointless.

 

[Newby]

In other words, you got nothing.

 

[gcomeau]

In other words, you got nothing.

In case you missed it, you're the one not able to explain yourself.

 

[Newby]

You haven't explained a damn thing.

Not only that, you refuse to address any other points, so it's a waste of time. I think you just like to hear yourself type.

 

[gcomeau]

You haven't explained a damn thing.

I've answered Your questions. Except the one asking me why I did something I DO NOT DO.

You have avoided all of mine.

Summary of discussion complete.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't know if I've asked you this before Newby, but, why do you believe in God?

Because this universe, this solar system and this planet didn't happen coincidentally. When you look at the order and the purpose, it is intelligent design. Until someone can explain to me how it all came to be, my logic states that there is a higher order. To assume that the human mind is capable of understanding it all is ridiculous. I admit to the inadequacy of the brain to understand and explain it. As I said in an earlier post, humans have logically explained things throughout history completely incorrect because of lack of understanding or lack of technology to explain it correctly. To assume that we're at some pinacle of human existance where we now 'know' everything is completely naive.

Coincidence is a flaw of human perception. Coincidence doesn't happen outside of the human mind. Perhaps the Universe exists simply because that is the nature of the Universe. It seems like a coincidence, as though the chances of all this existing, the planet being perfect for our development, etc., but that's because you are perceiving it backwards. The planet just happened to be here, it just happened to have the best characteristics for the formation of life, that life just happened to form into human beings, and one of those human beings just happens to be you. Why must there be a driving conciousness about it? And why would that conciousness be the God of Abraham? There are so many flaws in the intelligent design argument that I think you should really do some research on it and then think analytically and critically about it.

Order and purpose also do not exist outside of the human mind. The planets orbit the sun, and there doesn't have to be a purpose and the reason it seems orderly is because of gravity, space/time, and mass and the brevity of the human life.

Why do you think the human mind can't understand the Universe? Shouldn't we at least try?

Humans are flawed and oftentimes our understanding of reality is also flawed. But sometimes we get close and there is evidence of it. Just look at much of modern technology such as nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, lasers, microwaves. Sure, there's A LOT of room for improvement, but I think we're on the right track - scientifically speaking.

By the way, the appeal to ignorance logic isn't logic, its perceived logic. "We don't know and can't know so it must be God" isn't a logical argument or position.

Why isn't it more logical to think to one's self: "We don't know if there is a God or if there isn't, and until we know for sure one way or another, I'm not going to just believe." That's what you do with science, right? You don't believe the Big Bang without knowing for sure. You don't believe in interspecies evolution without knowing for sure, right? Or that life came from primordial ooze? I don't believe those things. I suspect that those ideas could be true, but I don't just believe them. I don't suspect that those ideas could be true because I want to, but because there is evidence which indicates that those ideas could be heading in the right direction. However, if new discoveries were to show that those ideas are way off base, I'm not just going to keep on the same way. I can change my mind.

I don't believe in God because there isn't sufficient logical reasoning to support that He exists. I don't believe in anything if there isn't sufficient logical reasoning to support that it exists. In fact, I don't believe in anything that I can't say is without a doubt true or factual. Why do you believe in such things?

 

[amrchaos]

To me (I know lots of people have different defs):

Atheism: god is not possible.

Agnoticism: god is not (at present) and is probably not at all, but we leave the door open slightly in case someone does find real proof of god.

There, does that help?

Atheists claim that god(by its supernatural definition) does not exists

Agnoticism claim that they do not know if God(by its supernatural definition) exists or not due to the evidence presented

Holy Rollering theists claim that God ( by all their definitions of God) exists and is present as the front of your nose!!

I am an Atheists. I do not see a cloud being on my nose. Sorry..

 

[gcomeau]

I don't know if I've asked you this before Newby, but, why do you believe in God?

Because this universe, this solar system and this planet didn't happen coincidentally. When you look at the order and the purpose, it is intelligent design. Until someone can explain to me how it all came to be, my logic states that there is a higher order. To assume that the human mind is capable of understanding it all is ridiculous. I admit to the inadequacy of the brain to understand and explain it. As I said in an earlier post, humans have logically explained things throughout history completely incorrect because of lack of understanding or lack of technology to explain it correctly. To assume that we're at some pinacle of human existance where we now 'know' everything is completely naive.

So many things wrong with what you just said it's difficult to know where to being...

First of all, what indication do you have the universe, solar sytem and planet didn't happen coincidentally? I've never seen any.

Second, you just saying there is order and purpose to look at doesn't create it, particularly the latter. What purpose???

Then you proceed top declare it is ridiculous to think you could ever understand it. And yet you seem able to jump directly from that to "therefore this is the answer. God did it!". That's a really, really neat trick that is. How exactly does that work? I'd love to hear you explain how "I could never understand it" leads directly to you being shown the answer to the cause of the universe somehow. Care to lay out the steps that get you from A to B there.

And then there's the fact that even IF you could somehow establish that there was some kind of governing, guiding entity responsible for all this... which frankly I highly doubt you can come anywhere near doing... you then all of a sudden know exactly what the identiy of that entity is! Wow! That's incredibly impressive! How did you rule out that it was Zeus? Or Mithra? Or hyper intelligent aliens from another plane of existence who died out long ago after setting our universe in motion? Or magic space fairies? Or my cat (who, quite secretly, has unlimited supernatural powers and has existed for all eternity in one form or another but chooses not to reveal that to anyone because he doesn't like the publicity)?

Please, enlighten us as to how you figured all this out. I'm dying to hear this.

 

[Frank]

I don't know if I've asked you this before Newby, but, why do you believe in God?

Because this universe, this solar system and this planet didn't happen coincidentally. When you look at the order and the purpose, it is intelligent design. Until someone can explain to me how it all came to be, my logic states that there is a higher order. To assume that the human mind is capable of understanding it all is ridiculous. I admit to the inadequacy of the brain to understand and explain it. As I said in an earlier post, humans have logically explained things throughout history completely incorrect because of lack of understanding or lack of technology to explain it correctly. To assume that we're at some pinacle of human existance where we now 'know' everything is completely naive.

So many things wrong with what you just said it's difficult to know where to being...

First of all, what indication do you have the universe, solar sytem and planet didn't happen coincidentally? I've never seen any.

Second, you just saying there is order and purpose to look at doesn't create it, particularly the latter. What purpose???

Then you proceed top declare it is ridiculous to think you could ever understand it. And yet you seem able to jump directly from that to "therefore this is the answer. God did it!". That's a really, really neat trick that is. How exactly does that work? I'd love to hear you explain how "I could never understand it" leads directly to you being shown the answer to the cause of the universe somehow. Care to lay out the steps that get you from A to B there.

And then there's the fact that even IF you could somehow establish that there was some kind of governing, guiding entity responsible for all this... which frankly I highly doubt you can come anywhere near doing... you then all of a sudden know exactly what the identiy of that entity is! Wow! That's incredibly impressive! How did you rule out that it was Zeus? Or Mithra? Or hyper intelligent aliens from another plane of existence who died out long ago after setting our universe in motion? Or magic space fairies? Or my cat (who, quite secretly, has unlimited supernatural powers and has existed for all eternity in one form or another but chooses not to reveal that to anyone because he doesn't like the publicity)?

Please, enlighten us as to how you figured all this out. I'm dying to hear this.

One word. Faith.

 

[gcomeau]

Because this universe, this solar system and this planet didn't happen coincidentally. When you look at the order and the purpose, it is intelligent design. Until someone can explain to me how it all came to be, my logic states that there is a higher order. To assume that the human mind is capable of understanding it all is ridiculous. I admit to the inadequacy of the brain to understand and explain it. As I said in an earlier post, humans have logically explained things throughout history completely incorrect because of lack of understanding or lack of technology to explain it correctly. To assume that we're at some pinacle of human existance where we now 'know' everything is completely naive.

So many things wrong with what you just said it's difficult to know where to being...

First of all, what indication do you have the universe, solar sytem and planet didn't happen coincidentally? I've never seen any.

Second, you just saying there is order and purpose to look at doesn't create it, particularly the latter. What purpose???

Then you proceed top declare it is ridiculous to think you could ever understand it. And yet you seem able to jump directly from that to "therefore this is the answer. God did it!". That's a really, really neat trick that is. How exactly does that work? I'd love to hear you explain how "I could never understand it" leads directly to you being shown the answer to the cause of the universe somehow. Care to lay out the steps that get you from A to B there.

And then there's the fact that even IF you could somehow establish that there was some kind of governing, guiding entity responsible for all this... which frankly I highly doubt you can come anywhere near doing... you then all of a sudden know exactly what the identiy of that entity is! Wow! That's incredibly impressive! How did you rule out that it was Zeus? Or Mithra? Or hyper intelligent aliens from another plane of existence who died out long ago after setting our universe in motion? Or magic space fairies? Or my cat (who, quite secretly, has unlimited supernatural powers and has existed for all eternity in one form or another but chooses not to reveal that to anyone because he doesn't like the publicity)?

Please, enlighten us as to how you figured all this out. I'm dying to hear this.

One word. Faith.

Translation: "Cause I said so! Pbbbt!"

You can run along now.

 

[BigBarry]

So what do you call someone who doesn't believe a god has ever been proven but leaves the door open in case of the (unlikely) event that someone does come up with empirical proof of god?

I have no idea, you provided insufficient information. Does this person believe this unproven god exists or don't they?

If they do they're a theist. If they don't they're an atheist.

(And no, there isn't a third rational answer to that question. Before you say "yes there is! 'I don't know'" think through what you'd be claiming not to know. It is not "I don't know if god exists". You would be saying you didn't know if you believed god exists. Or, in other words, that you didn't know the content of your own thoughts. If you don't know that, you know nothing, and you should probably be consulting a psychologist or something.)

LOL, you can just post the name of your psychologist.
I like color's answer better, a non-dogmatic atheist with agnostic tendencies, because I don't believe in a god nor has one ever been proven but I leave the door open to changing my mind if and when someone does prove god.
It's atheists who reject even the possibility that in the future someone will prove god, that aren't realists because you never know what my be discovered next.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm considered an atheist because I don't believe in God as he is conceived of in the Bible. I believe that all beings have buddha nature and can awaken to enlightenment.

 

[gcomeau]

So what do you call someone who doesn't believe a god has ever been proven but leaves the door open in case of the (unlikely) event that someone does come up with empirical proof of god?

I have no idea, you provided insufficient information. Does this person believe this unproven god exists or don't they?

If they do they're a theist. If they don't they're an atheist.

(And no, there isn't a third rational answer to that question. Before you say "yes there is! 'I don't know'" think through what you'd be claiming not to know. It is not "I don't know if god exists". You would be saying you didn't know if you believed god exists. Or, in other words, that you didn't know the content of your own thoughts. If you don't know that, you know nothing, and you should probably be consulting a psychologist or something.)

LOL, you can just post the name of your psychologist.
I like color's answer better, a non-dogmatic atheist with agnostic tendencies, because I don't believe in a god nor has one ever been proven but I leave the door open to changing my mind if and when someone does prove god.
It's atheists who reject even the possibility that in the future someone will prove god, that aren't realists because you never know what my be discovered next.

You can like the answer better all you like, liking it doesn't make it accurate. That answer relied on guessing what you were talking about instead of dealing with what you actually said. I have no interest in doing any such thing.

You DID NOT SAY if the person in question believed god existed or not. You only said they believed god hadn't been PROVEN, which is a completely different question. it is perfectly possible both to believe god does exist and NOT believe that existence has been absolutely proven. Understand? Am I using words of too many syllables perhaps?

Without the information of whether or not they believe God EXISTS it is impossible to say if they are an atheist or theist. What part of that are you having difficulty comprehending?

And for cripes sake, try reading the definition of atheist one more time. You seem to have missed it the first time around.

 

[BigBarry]

comeau, l'anglais ne doit pas être ta première langue, MDR.

 

[gcomeau]

comeau, l'anglais ne doit pas être ta première langue, MDR.

Says the person who doesn't understand the difference in meaning between "Exist" and "Proven". You are truly making an idiot of yourself you know that?

Let me ask you a question genius:

"I do not believe the existence of bigfoot has been proven."

"I believe bigfoot DOES exist".

Are those two statements mutually contradictory or not? Figure out the answer, then substitute "god" for "bigfoot". The second statement would make you a theist. the first statement is completely irrelevant to whether you are one or not.

Comprehension dawning yet?