How I Feel About Atheists

[NoRightOrWrong]

Anyone can believe whatever they want. I don't object to that. We have to remember though, that opinions aren't facts.

I am a person who is concerned with finding out as many true things as possible about the world we live in. I don't want to believe false things. And I want my opinion of reality to match reality as closely as possible. For me, it comes down to verifiable evidence. If there is good reason and evidence for me to believe in the existence of a thing. Because, as I think we've both just demonstrated, opinions can vary greatly and don't necessarily reflect reality.

And vice versa in regards to how this awesome universe and human beings exist at all. All the facts we have on how the material world is constructed may be just an observation of what the designer created. I don't know , I rely on evidence , too, when it comes to believing in something, like elves or bigfoot. But when it comes to the how the universe came into existence and then human beings with minds to contemplate all of existence, I am not so convinced that a possible designer isn't behind it all, whether we know of him now or not. The very fact that we exist can lead me , and many others obviously, to consider that a designer could be behind it. We may not have evidence now but the possibility is a very reasonable one, I think. It's not merely an opinion based on some whimsy. It is built into our human nature since the beginning to consider this possibility based on the very scientific findings and nature that we are observing. We see these things and naturally wonder how can this all exist at at all, how can we exist where there was once nothing or was once eternity. Either way it is quite an amazing and unbelievable reality that we are here at all and so I don't reject the possibility or the natural tendency of many if not most humans to consider or believe in a designer or higher power, regardless if there is actual current proof. But I can understand and appreciate your view and other's who share the same view. I just think there s more to it. Each is an opinion. Your framework that evidence is required for the possibility of a designer to exist is also an opinion, not a fact.

 

[leibowde84]

And vice versa in regards to how this awesome universe and human beings exist at all. All the facts we have on how the material world is constructed may be just an observation of what the designer created. I don't know , I rely on evidence , too, when it comes to believing in something, like elves or bigfoot. But when it comes to the how the universe came into existence and then human beings with minds to contemplate all of existence, I am not so convinced that a possible designer isn't behind it all, whether we know of him now or not. The very fact that we exist can lead me , and many others obviously, to consider that a designer could be behind it. We may not have evidence now but the possibility is a very reasonable one, I think. It's not merely an opinion based on some whimsy. It is built into our human nature since the beginning to consider this possibility based on the very scientific findings and nature that we are observing. We see these things and naturally wonder how can this all exist at at all, how can we exist where there was once nothing or was once eternity. Either way it is quite an amazing and unbelievable reality that we are here at all and so I don't reject the possibility or the natural tendency of many if not most humans to consider or believe in a designer or higher power, regardless if there is actual current proof. But I can understand and appreciate your view and other's who share the same view. I just think there s more to it. Each is an opinion. Your framework that evidence is required for the possibility of a designer to exist is also an opinion, not a fact.

It is a dangerous road to trust our own personal experience and human assumptions about the universe. Most often, they end up being wrong. Without evidence, I don't think we should accept anything.

 

[Polymath257]

And vice versa in regards to how this awesome universe and human beings exist at all. All the facts we have on how the material world is constructed may be just an observation of what the designer created. I don't know , I rely on evidence , too, when it comes to believing in something, like elves or bigfoot. But when it comes to the how the universe came into existence and then human beings with minds to contemplate all of existence, I am not so convinced that a possible designer isn't behind it all, whether we know of him now or not. The very fact that we exist can lead me , and many others obviously, to consider that a designer could be behind it. We may not have evidence now but the possibility is a very reasonable one, I think. It's not merely an opinion based on some whimsy. It is built into our human nature since the beginning to consider this possibility based on the very scientific findings and nature that we are observing. We see these things and naturally wonder how can this all exist at at all, how can we exist where there was once nothing or was once eternity. Either way it is quite an amazing and unbelievable reality that we are here at all and so I don't reject the possibility or the natural tendency of many if not most humans to consider or believe in a designer or higher power, regardless if there is actual current proof. But I can understand and appreciate your view and other's who share the same view. I just think there s more to it. Each is an opinion. Your framework that evidence is required for the possibility of a designer to exist is also an opinion, not a fact.

I think the main issue I have here is the jump from 'some cause' to a 'designer'. That seems like animism to me: attributing intention to natural processes. So, even if you think it makes sense to talk about the 'cause of the universe' (which I sincerely believe is a meaningless concept) and even if you think such a cause actually exists (with no evidence for it), there is still a huge, huge leap to saying that cause was an intelligent designer.

In fact, to be intelligent requires much more complexity and structure and is thereby a much more extreme assumption that the mere existence of physical laws.

 

[leibowde84]

I think the main issue I have here is the jump from 'some cause' to a 'designer'. That seems like animism to me: attributing intention to natural processes. So, even if you think it makes sense to talk about the 'cause of the universe' (which I sincerely believe is a meaningless concept) and even if you think such a cause actually exists (with no evidence for it), there is still a huge, huge leap to saying that cause was an intelligent designer.

In fact, to be intelligent requires much more complexity and structure and is thereby a much more extreme assumption that the mere existence of physical laws.

Well-put.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a dangerous road to trust our own personal experience and human assumptions about the universe. Most often, they end up being wrong. Without evidence, I don't think we should accept anything.

This ^^^^^

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think the main issue I have here is the jump from 'some cause' to a 'designer'. That seems like animism to me: attributing intention to natural processes. So, even if you think it makes sense to talk about the 'cause of the universe' (which I sincerely believe is a meaningless concept) and even if you think such a cause actually exists (with no evidence for it), there is still a huge, huge leap to saying that cause was an intelligent designer.

In fact, to be intelligent requires much more complexity and structure and is thereby a much more extreme assumption that the mere existence of physical laws.

And this too ^^^^

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You will get nowhere discussing your beliefs with most atheists as they are very ignorant to ideas and values of faith.

It is correct that you will get nowhere offering faith based beliefs to a reason and evidence based thinker, but not because such a person is ignorant about faith, but because he doesn't consider it an adequate path to truth. If he cares more about being right than comfortable, he will deem all faith based beliefs guesses and not be persuaded. That's not an ignorance of faith but a repudiation of it as a proper way to decide matters.

They dismiss anything that doesn't fit their personal belief framework.

We fail to be persuaded by claims that aren't adequately supported.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand what you believe, The point is that faith based ideas don't require material evidence. Just as evidence based ideas don't require faith. if someone doesn't believe or some scientific or mathematical equation based on faith then , of course, that is not reasonable. But that's not what faith based mind sets are involved with. Their faith pertains to a higher power or source and there is no non evidence of that either. reason and evidence don't play a part in that.

Precisely. That is *exactly* what it means to not be reasonable.

Although it is reasonable to believe in the possibility since we do exist and our very existence does and always will lead humans to consider a possible God , just by the fact that we exist at all. Nobody knows why or how we came into existence. You choose evidence before considering the possibility, they choose faith in considering the possibility. And their faith is based in the evidence of our very existence, nature, human, the cosmos, etc...They believe in that evidence. And it is very a natural and human trait to consider and even have faith that a Creator exists based on this miraculous evidence of our existence and all we observe.

But it is *quite* clear that faith is an unreliable way to determine truth. The simple fact that almost every two people have different faiths is enough to show that.

And the reason it is insufficient is clear: there is no way to eliminate false beliefs based on faith.

If you were alive in primitive times walking in the desert and came across a watch on the ground, ( you know this analogy ) , you would would look at it and naturally consider that some designer must have made this device. Well, on a much larger scale and scope, humans look at the entire universe and think the same thing. That seems very natural to think that. Except the universe and human beings are so much more complicated and awesome than a watch and just because we don't know now if there is a designer behind it all, it certainly isn't unreasonable to consider one and even have faith that there probably is one.

No, this is NOT a reasonable way to proceed. The reason we can look at a watch and know it to be designed is that we know that natural processes do not produce such things as pocket watches. But, in contrast, we *do* know that natural process can and do make things like stars, galaxies, etc. To attribute these to a designer is NOT at all the same as with a watch.

 

[Polymath257]

Again , you are telling people "No" and "On the contrary". You use these negative terms quite often, pretty much in every single response to people....That his his belief and his experience. These are not objective matters you are dealing with. You can't deny someone of their faith, so why are you even attempting to do so ? You would do a lot better on a math forum discussing mathematical formulas and pure science. But on these matters of faith and philosophical matters and other's personal opinions you come off as a self-righteous , egotistical, narcissist. I'm sorry but you do.

Sorry if you feel that way, but I refuse to stop pointing out very basic logical errors. I feel that the theists are the ones being arrogant, egotistical, and narcissists. They are the ones that seem to think they know there is a creator and what that creator wants. They are the ones using faith instead of reason to get to their conclusions, which usually means they simply choose that which makes them comfortable in their own egos. They are the ones that denigrate the non-believers because we are not convinced by 'faith'.

 

[PureX]

Couldn't it be possible that they are not willing to buy into believing in anything that there isn't any tangible evidence of?

Anything is possible. But to adopt such a belief is irrational because it's as unenforceable as it is dysfunctional. We don't have "tangible evidence" for a great many things that we need to believe, to survive in this world.

Just as with a sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, or extra terrestrial visitors to earth, although there is not a way to disprove their existence, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that they exist until evidence is found. Until then, the default position should be to not believe that these things exist. Do you agree?

Since none of these examples are 'metaphysical entities', I don't see why you keep using them as an analogy, except that you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference. Because if you acknowledge the difference you will have to recognize why the expectation of physical evidence, and the lack of it's forthcoming, is illogical, and is biased to provide you with false validation.

 

[leibowde84]

You will get nowhere discussing your beliefs with most atheists as they are very ignorant to ideas and values of faith. They require empirical evidence to validate any belief system and find it unreasonable that anyone lives their lives in accordance with faith because they are ignorant of it. Since they don't share the same experience or understand why one has faith they attempt to negate it with material arguments, not realizing that material evidence isn't required in matters of faith or " God." The ironic thing is it takes faith to be a pure atheist. It takes faith in scientific reasoning to nullify any existence of God since it can't be proven either way. You will get no where with those that have this mindset. It's like the same ends of a magnet, they just repel each other. They dismiss anything that doesn't fit their personal belief framework. Only people who accept that there is no right or wrong conclusions to this matter since hit is not provable are reasonable. One has to understand that each is a personal belief and one can't make it true or untrue for the other. It's for the individual to decide and live their life however they choose to believe.

I think you are wrong, and very unreasonable in this assessment. Atheists are merely not convinced due to a severe lack of evidence.

You can call believing in the existence of things without verifiable evidence "faith", but it seems very close to just being gullible.

 

[leibowde84]

Anything is possible. But to adopt such a belief is irrational because it's as unenforceable as it is dysfunctional. We don't have "tangible evidence" for a great many things that we need to believe, to survive in this world.

But, it is proven that we don't need belief in God to survive in this world or even live fulfilling, meaningful lives. So, how is this relevant?

Since none of these examples are 'metaphysical entities', I don't see why you keep using them as an analogy, except that you are unwilling to acknowledge the difference. Because if you acknowledge the difference you will have to recognize why the expectation of physical evidence, and the lack of it's forthcoming, is illogical, and is biased to provide you with false validation.

OK, so how about ghosts. The same applies to ghosts. It is possible I guess that ghosts exist, but, until there is verifiable evidence supporting their existence, is it reasonable to assume (or have "faith") that they do?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Couldn't it be possible that they are not willing to buy into believing in anything that there isn't any tangible evidence of? Just as with a sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, or extra terrestrial visitors to earth, although there is not a way to disprove their existence, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that they exist until evidence is found. Until then, the default position should be to not believe that these things exist. Do you agree?

Doesn't the fact that this amazing universe exists at all and human beings exist who can contemplate their own existence lend itself that a human would observe all of this and consider a higher intelligence ? Observing the entire universe and all of nature including humans doesn't really provide reason or logic to believe an idea of a Bigfoot or Loch Ness monster. That is a very specific idea not really based on anything as immense in scope as the possibility of a designer to explain how anything exists at all. I don't find that to be an equal comparison. You don't wonder or contemplate or find mystery in the least bit of how we came into existence and how incredibly designed everything is. No, it doesn't prove of disprove an existence of a higher power but it is a very reasonable thought and it is human nature to contemplate this. Just because there is no obvious evidence as of this time that there is or isn't a designer, can't you find it reasonable that most of the humans who ever existed , presently exist, and will ever exist will naturally come to a belief that there may be a higher intelligence just by the fact that we exist at all ? It's an innate , natural human instinct to contemplate this. People believed in scientific possibilities prior to their discovering evidence of them. Should they not have believed in anything until there was absolute proof ? They believed in ideas based on what they observed and the possibilities that could have caused them. And humans believe in the possibility of a designer based on their observation of the universe and human beings and it is very reasonable to think a higher intelligence caused all of this because everything we observe has a cause. Just because we have no proof or absolute knowledge as of now doesn't mean one should withhold belief. You may be just observing evidence of material objects that were created by a designer. We didn't always have evidence of everything yet we still believed in the ideas. That's important in discovering the facts. So what is unreasonable with believing in a designer prior to having proof ? Everything to be known hasn't been know yet. We are continuously evolving in our quest for knowledge and understanding and always will. Like if we find evidence of extra terrestrial aliens one day, which is totally possible, and many think quite probable, will it have been useless and unreasonable that we believed in them prior to finding evidence of them ?

 

[leibowde84]

Doesn't the fact that this amazing universe exists at all and human beings exist who can contemplate their own existence lend itself that a human would observe all of this and consider a higher intelligence ?

No, I don't feel that way at all. Can you explain why you think a creator would be necessary or responsible?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I think you are wrong, and very unreasonable in this assessment. Atheists are merely not convinced due to a severe lack of evidence.

You can call believing in the existence of things without verifiable evidence "faith", but it seems very close to just being gullible.

And I think you are wrong and unreasonable in your assessment. Around and around we'll go. It's all opinion and yours won't influence mine and mine won't influence yours. What makes sense and what is viewed as gullible or not will lay in the beholder. I find it gullible to be convinced of something you don't no the answer to.

 

[leibowde84]

And I think you are wrong and unreasonable in your assessment. Around and around we'll go. It's all opinion and yours won't influence mine and mine won't influence yours. What makes sense and what is viewed as gullible or not will lay in the beholder. I find it gullible to be convinced of something you don't no the answer to.

I am not convinced of anything that I don't know the answer to. Fyi, I am an atheist because I lack belief in the existence of God. But, I do not believe that God doesn't exist. I merely haven't been convinced either way due to lack of evidence. I'm fine with "I don't know".

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, I don't feel that way at all. Can you explain why you think a creator would be necessary or responsible?

I already did in quite some length. If you can't comprehend it, I don't know what to tell you. I can't comprehend it for you. And I didn't say a Creator is necessary , I said the belief in the possibility of one is completely reasonable. I can grasp the reasoning of choosing to not believe in a a creator and I can grasp the idea of choosing to believe in a creator. You obviously are biased in one direction. That is your choice, your belief system,your framework, your conclusions. Mine are different. That's all there is.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I am not convinced of anything that I don't know the answer to. Fyi, I am an atheist because I lack belief in the existence of God. But, I do not believe that God doesn't exist. I merely haven't been convinced either way due to lack of evidence. I'm fine with "I don't know".

I don't know either, and I'm fine with not knowing too. But I don't find a reason or need to tell others that believe one way or the other that their views and beliefs are unreasonable in regards to what we don't know. What is the motivation behind doing that to someone ? People come to their own conclusions, it's their life to do so. It doesn't affect or concern my beliefs.

 

[columbus]

Doesn't the fact that this amazing universe exists at all and human beings exist who can contemplate their own existence lend itself that a human would observe all of this and consider a higher intelligence ?

No, just the opposite.
The fact that the universe is so inscrutable and hostile to life, sentience, and intelligence is solid evidence that it isn't the result of intelligence. Whatever the Original Source of being might be, intelligence is ruled out by the staggering majority of the evidence.

I do understand why primitive people didn't get that, since they knew next to nothing about reality.
Tom

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, just the opposite.
The fact that the universe is so inscrutable and hostile to life, sentience, and intelligence is solid evidence that it isn't the result of intelligence. Whatever the Original Source of being might be, intelligence is ruled out by the staggering majority of the evidence.

I do understand why primitive people didn't get that, since they knew next to nothing about reality.
Tom

Thanks , Tom. I don't agree.