Atheists what is your proof?

erm ... who exactly is mother nature and what precisely are her needs?

if you would expect a temporary world designed primarily for housing eternal living entities under the duress of pursuing temporary desires to be decked out with eternal teeth in the name of fulfilling the criteria for a perfect design brief, I think you still have a

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

bit more explaining to do .....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ahh - interesting choice of words. I would argue that the claim that defies the belief of virtually all of mankind before you would be the 'extraordinary' claim. Atheism as a movement really didn't get started until the 19th or 20th century. For the thousands of years before that, theism was the norm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

erm
you do realize that the notion that everything is by-product of physical processes is an idea, don't you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personally I have always labelled myself an agnostic because I don't believe in "god".

My understanding was/is that an atheist is someone who BELIEVES god does NOT exist, which is a form of belief. I have no "belief" when it comes to this subject - only unanswered questions.

However, I have had MANY people on both sides of the discussion tell me that I am, in fact, an atheist. So I've come to the conclusion that it's the believer that defines the atheist.

Call me what you want.

As for divinity. I guess you'll have to define that for me too.

Are you asking me if I think the universe may be a living conscious thing? I would have to say that I don't know. I am alive and conscious. I am part of the universe... That's about all I have to go on.

 

How does this make the theist claims any stronger ?

Again, the theist is making the claim thus has the burden to provide the proof of something existing.

Otherwise we can chase that train all day long and we will never catch it.

 

Right, that idea does not exist, but it represents a relationship between abstract symbols.

 

Which is why I made the point regarding testable parameters. If the majority of mankind for the thousands of years preceding me also believed in this invisible leprechaun, I'd think there might be something to it. I might not just jump on the bandwagon without some education on the subject, but I wouldn't dismiss it for no reason other than his attributes made it impossible for me to take it on faith.

I am an agnostic theist. And I think if theists weren't so often in a position of having to defend their beliefs to the world you would probably find more of them. Their refusal to acknowledge that they don't in fact know is a defense mechanism. One that makes them a poor Christian in my opinion, since Christianity is predicated on faith, on not knowing. Those that fear that faith don't have conviction.

Frankly, if the entire reason to evaluate the religion is because I am being ordered or threatened to do so, that alone would make me suspicious of the religion. And I realize that there are millions of Christians that do little better (and the Catholic Church has a history of threatening), which is why they are a bigger thorn in my side than atheism. Too many "Christians" give Christianity a bad name. But, even that is in the Bible, so it is also one of those things that just further strengthens my own convictions.

 

I don't think Mother Nature has any needs.

The teeth don't have to be eternal. I'll settle for 100 years.

 

It doesn't make the theist's claims any stronger, but it doesn't make them any weaker either. I am saying that if either an atheist or theist is trying to convince someone of their position, the burden of proof is on them. It is a balanced requirement that applies equally to both sides. If you are content to believe in God you shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. If you are content to believe there is no God, you shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. And you should be free to pursue either belief without condemnation from the other side.

And again, I realize "Christians" have a history of doing just that - and I take issue with them as much as I do the atheists I was just describing.

 

Yeah, you sound like an agnostic to me. Which frankly comes through in your posts. There is an attitude of derision that seems to come from most atheists that you have not displayed. Thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is extraordinary in scientific sense, not necessarily the popular sense. We used to believe that diseases could be caused by witchcraft, but that is still an extraordinary claim, given what we now know about germ theory, parasites, viruses, and genetics.

Atheism is as old Hinduism, Buddhism, and Epicurus.

 

I like this one(=

God made people. God made sperm. God made coca cola. God made Science. God made Lizards with the capability to diverge into different species through time like God-zilla or Sarah Palin. God made marijuana. God made Heroin and cocaine. God decides when to rape your children and what religious books you follow. god made the H-bomb because he slipped when drawing Japanese eyes. God made atheists so he would have someone to argue against. God made other religions just for sheer added confusion. God made Hitler because the Jews killed his "one and only son". Last but not least God made bacon because it's too good to be kosher. MMMM.... Bacon.... Thank God for that.

God made me write this.

I think he just enjoys watching us play with ourselves(=

 

All considered radical ideas that DID have to be proven to be taken seriously.

Yes, which is why I specifically said "most" of mankind. I recognize that there have been atheists since the time of the Greeks, but - as you say - the "popular" belief has been some sort of theism. In that sense, it is still an extraordinary claim to claim otherwise. So in some sense, both claims are extraordinary - which is why I've been saying that BOTH are due the burden of proof - depending on who is trying to sway whom to their way of thought.

 

The supernatural is by definition extraordinary, since there is no reliable evidence in favor of it, and yet natural processes have been proven to be behind everything from reproduction to tsunamis.

 

SolusCado,

The point is there are no testable parameters to prove god either.

It doesn't matter how many people believe or not. Furthermore, you would admit that the populace who have driven the beliefs from earlier times were operating without the information we have available today.

So yes it is absolute faith that you are placing in an idea.

Yes I agree, many times it's impossible for them to say they have faith and not knowledge. So it appears they are afraid to admit it.

But well said.

Again, well said. I agree and it is too bad that we can't agree to disagree. So much suffering and hatred over the debate, it's sad.

One of the issue for people like myself is that we see religion as a hinderance to progress or what I view as progress.

You and others like you get lumped into that group which represents a wall between where we should be and are.

That's not fair anymore than lumping all atheists together but it happens.

 

then why bring it up?
:shrug:

still doesn't explain much about your zany ideas about the perquisites for a properly designed universe

 

if you agree I'm not sure where you go from here to your ideas having a monopoly on reality

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They have always been abstract representations of reality, but they are closer to reality than yours.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hehe

 

Yup ... ideas and feelings do not exist except for the ideas and feelings that everything is a result of physical processes
:crazy: