I believe in Atheism...

[Pedersen]

Ev - yeah, someone did some sort of calculation regarding intelligent evolved life elsewhere (go on, someone tell us his name ).... reduction from number of stars in the universe, reduced by number of stars with planets, number of planets with atmosphere, # of atmosphere capable of sustaining life, # been around to keep life going and evolving, # where evolution has gotten life to advanced state. I think he was using a ratio of 100:1 (every 100 stars had 1 planet, etc). Still, turned out to be a very large number... just a long way away... and still had a few in our galaxy alone.

I'll interject the Drake Equation, and return you to the regularly scheduled thread.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks Ped

JC, what is out there that's unlikely with evidence?

Now, while I'm willing to go along with your following points, you've only tried to invalidate one version of deity...there are stacks of others out there that are believed in. What I find interesting is the number of cosmologists and astrophysicists putting their hand up to say there's something else out there that created all of this. As if, in seeing a much bigger picture, they see much less randomness at work.

[Jadedcarguy]

JC, what is out there that's unlikely with evidence?

With evidence? Not a whole hell of a lot.

Show me evidence, real evidence, not circumstantial bullshit, for any deity and I will investigate it. Seriously.

Now, while I'm willing to go along with your following points, you've only tried to invalidate one version of deity...there are stacks of others out there that are believed in.

Oh, for fuck sake.

Zeus? Bullshit. Apollo? Bullshit. Athena? Bullshit. <Insert Greek God Here>? Bullshit. Horus? Bullshit. Ra? Bullshit. Hathor? Bullshit. Sekhmet? Bullshit. Geb? Bullshit. Nut? Bullshit? Thoth? Bullshit. Sobek? Bullshit. <Insert Egyptian God Here>? Bullshit.

Vishnu? Bullshit. Zoroaster? Bullshit. Buddha? Bullshit. Thetans? Bullshit. Mithra? Bullshit. <Insert currently worshipped non-Christian God here>? Bullshit.

Baldr? Bullshit. Forseti? Bullshit. Höðr? Bullshit. Thor? Bullshit. <Insert Norse God here>? Bullshit. Atlacamani? Bullshit. Chantico? Bullshit. Cinteotl? Bullshit. <Insert Aztec God here>? Bullshit. Ah Peku? Bullshit. Hunab Ku? Bullshit. Balam? Bullshit. Ekchuah? Bullshit. Kinich Ahau? Bullshit. <Insert Mayan God here>? Bullshit.

Hachiman? Bullshit. Benzai? Bullshit. Jikoku? Bullshit. Hoderi? Bullshit. <Insert Japanese God here>? Bullshit.

Do I need to elaborate any further? The preceding list is only a small sliver of the gods who are/were believed in at one point in time or possibly now. Why should Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus garner any more respect when the evidence for their existence is as flimsy as the gods in the 'bullshit' list I just posted? Why?

What I find interesting is the number of cosmologists and astrophysicists putting their hand up to say there's something else out there that created all of this. As if, in seeing a much bigger picture, they see much less randomness at work.

What they're doing is allowing the scope of what they don't know to get the best of them. Inserting a deity into the picture to account for the unknown is childish. And utter bullshit.

[Boozy]

Why is it a leap of faith to believe in ridiculous religions but delusion for EVERY other lunatic idea?

You'd have to provide some examples of other "lunatic" ideas. I think some beliefs are easier explained by simple ignorance than actual mental illness. There is a difference between being uninformed and crazy.

You've mentioned that you are a "born atheist" more than a few times. If that's possible (and I believe that it is), then there are likely "born believers" too. I don't see why either characteristic necessarily precludes sanity.

[Evandril]

Actually, it is. Belief in the unlikely without evidence of any sort is utter horseshit.

So the fact man can fly is utter horseshit? Or that we'll make it to the moon someday? BOTH of which were 'unlikely' at their time, and, other than some rather confused people, are fairly accepted now as having happened.

A deity of that nature is not deserving of worship or adoration.

While I'd agree with that last part...that has little to do with their existance. Show me how there is more evidence for a quark than a diety...and yet quite a few scientists state they exist. What about the matter we can't *find*, that science says must exist?

[Flyndaran]

...
While I'd agree with that last part...that has little to do with their existance. Show me how there is more evidence for a quark than a diety...and yet quite a few scientists state they exist. What about the matter we can't *find*, that science says must exist?

I really wish you religious people would stop bringing up scientific discoveries that you clearly don't understand. It just makes you look ignorant.
People have seen, and measured, and discovered quarks in particle acclerators. No one has predicted, measured, and witnessed an impossibly perfect deity.
Only psuedo-science has even a passing resemblance to religion.

[Jadedcarguy]

So the fact man can fly is utter horseshit? Or that we'll make it to the moon someday? BOTH of which were 'unlikely' at their time, and, other than some rather confused people, are fairly accepted now as having happened.

Some people said we'd never fly. They were wrong. If someone can show me evidence of a supernatural being, perhaps I'll change my mind. Until then, I'll stick to my guns.

Now then, on to your feeble arguments.

The people who made human flight possible believing it could be done were not crazy, because they could see birds and insects and bats do it, so they knew it was mechanically possible. Therefore, believing that it could be done was in no way belief without evidence.

By the time we went to the moon, human flight was commonplace. We'd already put manned and unmanned craft into orbit and beyond, so we knew sending a man to the moon was possible. That isn't belief without evidence either.

While I'd agree with that last part...that has little to do with their existance.

No, it has to do with their divinity.

Show me how there is more evidence for a quark than a diety...and yet quite a few scientists state they exist. What about the matter we can't *find*, that science says must exist?

Flyn covered this one as good as I could have.

[Evandril]

I really wish you religious people would stop bringing up scientific discoveries that you clearly don't understand. It just makes you look ignorant.
People have seen, and measured, and discovered quarks in particle acclerators. No one has predicted, measured, and witnessed an impossibly perfect deity.
Only psuedo-science has even a passing resemblance to religion.

Wow...I'm religious! News to me, thanks for letting me know Last I'd heard, quarks were still unproven, my apologies for using a bad example...I do know there are lots of things scientists won't say exist or not, but they think they do. *shrugs*

I do not believe I've ever stated it needed to be even a moderatly perfect diety, much less impossibly perfect... And the 'evidence' behind things happening without an explination is fairly concrete, if you were talking other scientific investigations.

[Evandril]

The people who made human flight possible believing it could be done were not crazy, because they could see birds and insects and bats do it, so they knew it was mechanically possible. Therefore, believing that it could be done was in no way belief without evidence.

When they started trying to do it...it wouldn't work, because we *don't* fly the same way birds, insects or bats do...the way we do it is quite a bit different. So the 'evidence' they had was pretty much 'I think we can do this, lets see if we can find a way'. It's still believing something without knowing it's possible...sorta like the scientists working on teleportation now. People say they are crazy, but I'm withholding judgement until they either do it or not.

By the time we went to the moon, human flight was commonplace. We'd already put manned and unmanned craft into orbit and beyond, so we knew sending a man to the moon was possible. That isn't belief without evidence either.

Yes, by the time we *DID* it...people were talking about it LONG before then, in Science Fiction, and were widely called crazy for it.

No, it has to do with their divinity.

Ok, so your other post about various dieties doesn't apply? Most of the ones you listed don't fall under the example you gave of divinity...which is it? A diety who's sole power is to make sure the cores of the suns are the right color is *still* a diety...just one we'd never notice...and wouldn't ask for anything you listed, nor do anything you'd said a god/ess *must* do.

[Jadedcarguy]

When they started trying to do it...it wouldn't work, because we *don't* fly the same way birds, insects or bats do...the way we do it is quite a bit different. So the 'evidence' they had was pretty much 'I think we can do this, lets see if we can find a way'. It's still believing something without knowing it's possible...sorta like the scientists working on teleportation now. People say they are crazy, but I'm withholding judgement until they either do it or not.




Yes, by the time we *DID* it...people were talking about it LONG before then, in Science Fiction, and were widely called crazy for it.

You should change your username to Red Herring. I shall henceforth call you Mr. Herring.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the mechanics of flight or space travel, other than to say this. The forefathers of flight and space travel knew it was possible before it was attempted. They could see animals do it. They simply had to figure out how we could do it. All of this of course has absolutely nothing to do with deities. Jesus jack-hammerin' Christ!

Besides the fact that attempting to do something never before done that you know is theoretically possible is an entirely different kind of "leap of faith" than a religion. Come on, man.

Ok, so your other post about various dieties doesn't apply? Most of the ones you listed don't fall under the example you gave of divinity...which is it? A diety who's sole power is to make sure the cores of the suns are the right color is *still* a diety...just one we'd never notice...and wouldn't ask for anything you listed, nor do anything you'd said a god/ess *must* do.

My other post about long lost deities had absolutely nothing to do with my statement that the God of the Bible would be unworthy of worship, Mr. Herring. It meant that if that particular god existed, his behavior as chronicled in the OT made him less than divine, thus my qualifying statement about divinity, not existence. In other words, I don't believe in Him, but if he were real and the OT were accurate, he is unworthy of worship. Ya dig? I gave no example of divinity, only an example of what was not divine.

[Evandril]

I'm not going to get into a debate about the mechanics of flight or space travel, other than to say this. The forefathers of flight and space travel knew it was possible before it was attempted. They could see animals do it. They simply had to figure out how we could do it. All of this of course has absolutely nothing to do with deities. Jesus jack-hammerin' Christ!

Actually, it was in response to someone saying why are people who believe in various dieties concidered sane, but others who have *NON-RELIGIOUS* ideas, ie, having nothing to do with deities, are concidered insane. I was saying that people who *were* concidered insane at the time...Have been proven right.

My other post about long lost deities had absolutely nothing to do with my statement that the God of the Bible would be unworthy of worship, Mr. Herring. It meant that if that particular god existed, his behavior as chronicled in the OT made him less than divine, thus my qualifying statement about divinity, not existence. In other words, I don't believe in Him, but if he were real and the OT were accurate, he is unworthy of worship. Ya dig? I gave no example of divinity, only an example of what was not divine.

So if a god is not a nice deity, they are not worthy of worship, and therefore not divine? I've very rarely heard of a god that didn't have the manners of a spoiled child, in *my* opinion, but lots of people worship them...It seems a different definition of 'divine' than most is being used here...Could you please clarify?

[Jadedcarguy]

Actually, it was in response to someone saying why are people who believe in various dieties concidered sane, but others who have *NON-RELIGIOUS* ideas, ie, having nothing to do with deities, are concidered insane. I was saying that people who *were* concidered insane at the time...Have been proven right.

Seems like an odd thing to be directing towards me then. I consider deity belief to be a little childlike myself.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, and to some extent the early 20th, polite society considered themselves to be at the absolute pinnacle of achievement. Therefore anyone trying to improve on that was considered loopy. Once it was realized how much else was truly possible, the ridicule of the dreamers subsided quite a bit.

So if a god is not a nice deity, they are not worthy of worship, and therefore not divine? I've very rarely heard of a god that didn't have the manners of a spoiled child, in *my* opinion, but lots of people worship them...It seems a different definition of 'divine' than most is being used here...Could you please clarify?

It depends on the definition of divine that you want to apply to it. I used divine in this instance as being "perfectly or supremely good", which most gods fall well short of. If you simply want to say that divine is in reference to a god, then no, my use of the word will not work. When I said that the god of the Bible was not divine, I was using the first definition.

[Rapscallion]

Does divine necessarily mean 'good'? Western culture, infused by generations of christianity, has instilled the idea that a god has to be good, but there are examples out there of nasty ones. Polytheistic religions usually have some sort of god who is mischievous (Loki for example), or downright nasty (Loki at his worst, Shiva, Kali, Nemesis).

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

okies... just 2 things immediately came to mind skimming through.

1 - way back when (say, oh, 5000 years ago), looking up at the sky and thinking "hey, I might be able to do that" was looney! The only difference is science and engineering at the time...so - does that count??

2 - what about other dimension or other universes? We don't know if they exist (mathematically possible, even mathematically 'proven'... ) but not in physics at this moment in time (and perhaps never). Mathematically, there is evidence.

How do those compare to divinities?

(and I've also got to agree, some of the specific 'divine' references have come out confusing...)

[Jadedcarguy]

Does divine necessarily mean 'good'? Western culture, infused by generations of christianity, has instilled the idea that a god has to be good, but there are examples out there of nasty ones. Polytheistic religions usually have some sort of god who is mischievous (Loki for example), or downright nasty (Loki at his worst, Shiva, Kali, Nemesis).

Rapscallion

In the definition of divine that I was using, it does mean 'good'. Divine can also mean 'in reference' to a god'. That is not the definition I was using. Don't blame me, blame the English language for assigning multiple meanings to one word.