I found this answer very interesting. Spoiler alert... it's religious in nature, but for you short attention span types, it's barely over 3 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6AHcv19NIc

Evidently that answered his questions!!! Drops mic......

It's funny how people can't comprehend the idea of a force being larger and more powerful than this universe.

42 obviously.

I’m glad the Catholic Church finally made up with Galileo Galilei.

The church and science can certainly compliment each other.

I don't mind the differing viewpoints. What I dislike is when they feel that somehow your belief makes you weak minded, or intellectually inferior. It doesn't.

No, opposing views are fine as long as they are respectful. In fact, they could start their own thread about being atheist/agnostic or whatever. Then I could choose whether I view it or not. I second what MACS had to say.

Maybe not being held accountable for living a crummy miserable existence leads one to do whatever they want to do in Life?

IDK...I've never met an atheist that wasn't an arrogant POS that felt compelled to tell you what they DON'T believe every chance they get. Kinda like vegans...only more slimy and degrading.

I don’t buy the start your own thread part. It fits here just fine.

But respect is a given no matter how much you wankers don’t deserve it.

WWCD?

Copernicus

Alrighty then, let's have it here. I want one of the nonbelievers to defend their ideal. Tell me what's so great about being atheist, how you came to be that way, what YOU believe. Have at it...................

I dunno, Victor... if we're going to be logical, I believe I read somewhere that creation is more likely than the big bang if you go by mathematical equations, is that not so?

A vegan, a cross-fitter, and an atheist walk into the room.

I know this, because each told me so within 5 minutes.

burnem, to me, your questions appear to assume that belief/non-belief is a choice. To me, it isn't.

I wouldn't say that non-belief is an ideal in any way. In fact, believers have some great advantages -- belief in higher beings relieve many of personal responsibilities; it may give comfort in the 'finite-ness' of life; the sense of purpose that may come from doing 'churchy' things; the community that church provides, the ability to easily find group of like-minded people to share, socialize, etc.

I can only say, for me, that I can, in no way, conceive of a God...it just doesn't compute for me at all. I have the exact same reaction to someone's belief in God that I do to someone else's belief in ghosts, or witchcraft, or gangstalkers. Pick some belief that you have trouble accepting....cows as holy animals...or Scientologits Xenu bringing life to earth in spacecraft millions of years ago...or ancient religious human sacrifice...and examine your feeling or reaction to it. It will probably be the same as mine towards dieties.

I work pretty hard to respect beliefs, even if I can't comprehend them. But, admittedly, I don't always do a very good job of that. But, I do sense some harm, or at least waste in things such as prayer, or ritual forgiveness when remorse is lacking...or other things that result from religious believing.

I have issues with organized religion, as well, but that relationship is a bit more complicated. I fully acknowledge that much good comes of it. But, I'm not convinced that the sum total of goodness outweighs the bad....maybe its a wash, but while I might roll my eyes, I do otherwise try to respect those that are actually better for it.

MACS... what mathematical equation could you possibly be talking about?... how is one mathematically assessing the probability of creation?

Return to forum without praying . . . at least to YOUR god

I wonder what everyone here would have thought if the video was of an Iman quoting the Quran? My answer is and will always be 42.

Our existence on this planet, in this universe, as we are today... has a mathematical probability of almost zero. We shouldn't exist. Everything had to happen perfectly. If any of the scientific mathematical laws we know of was even off by a fraction of a fraction, we could not exist.

So the probability of us not existing is much, much higher than us existing. So to believe that the infinitesimal chance of our existence happened without influence is kinda crazy. Our existence as we are is mathematically akin to winning the lottery every day for a month straight. How does that happen without someone stacking the numbers each time?

Not sure if I explained it right, but that's the gist of it.

.... there's too much missing to that MACS... way too much.

The absolute biggest flaw in the logic, is it is trying to map out the odds of us existing, and those being "low" (per that argument) is evidence that there must be a creator to initiate... but that creates a completely different system, one with a creator. Once you do that you have to add in some "odds" of a creator existing first to then create us. As a "creator" is not really defined, and there are no physical laws around it, there's no way of even semi-accurately assessing odds of its existence. The person making up your idea above is starting from a point where they make assumptions they simply cannot make (and still be making a good argument).

and that's just the main problem. there are secondary problems with the idea which fails to take into account the billions of different permutations of planets, conditions and the millions of years of planetary existence... all allowing for things with small odds of occurring many many opportunities to try. ie... there may be small odds of you rolling 10 die and getting 10 6's. But what if I gave you an entire year to re-roll as many times as you want. Do you think you'll probably hit 10 6s before the year is up?

Hehe.
It's funny when people try to prove they're really really smart by trying to prove someone else's faith has no merit.
They talk about probabilities and stats and sciency facts, all the while not knowing what the word "faith" means.

Religion is a concrete, man-made entity.
But faith and belief are not.

You may as well try to prove that eggplant is better tasting than steak.


I find it odd that atheists like to point out inconsistencies in faith as proof it's false. Yet contradictions in science are just a new vision based on the latest evidence.
It's OK for them to change their views based on new information. But it's not OK for a creationist (for example) to alter their view on how their god can coexist with scientific evidence on evolution. It's like they (the atheists) want to make the rules for what's OK to believe in.

Tail... we all know that neither side can 'prove' they are correct. So it's all based on faith. On purpose.

The bible says God created us, and gave us free will to choose to believe in Him or not. If we could prove His existence, the free will would be gone. If He came down and tapped Victor on the shoulder and said, "Here I am"... Victor would no longer have a choice to dismiss Him.

Faith - belief without proof. We have faith that he exists, they have faith that He does not. Both arguments are based on what we 'believe to be true with zero proof'.

I have no qualms with what people of faith believe in. Because I choose to not have faith in a deity does not imply that I GAF what you believe in.

Also, as I've stated in the past, I do believe that the standard model of physics is missing things and that some of it could just be flat out wrong. Though I do have faith in the good scientists putting their heart and soul into advancing our scientific knowledge. I believe that in time our knowledge of the way the universe works will get better due to the hard work of all the dedicated scientists out there.

So to say that we have no faith is inaccurate, everyone has faith in something.

I choose to believe in the hard working people out there trying to expand our collective knowledge.

I gotta say you're missing a step here MACS.
I understand what you're trying to get at, as it's a common argument among religious people, stating that an atheist is just having "faith" that there is no god.

But you're allowing yourself more flexibility than you really deserve.

The universe is enormously complex already. And we as humans are just trying to piece it together. As we figure out more about it, and provide evidence to its workings, we document that. That is science.

Science occasionally posits ideas about how the universe started. These are based on knowledge we have about physics. They are not set in stone, no one alters their day to day activities around it. Those who care look at the ideas, say "huh, that's interesting, makes sense... " and go about our days. If it's later proven to be wrong, we say "huh... guess we need more info" nothing about our lives is in any way altered.

Religion, however tries to fill in the gaps in our understanding (they used to be larger) with some single entity (I'm using christianity because that's most of the people here) which did everything we don't understand. You then alter your life in some way (prayer, church, behavior) to fit what you believe this god wants. You have faith, and you have to have faith, because your religion demands it. But more importantly, if your religion is shown to be incorrect, that DOES change your life. that is faith. Your actions are different because of your belief.

To equate both as "faith" is a fault many religious people have because they are unable to, or unwilling to look at the world through any lens other than that of a believer.

And, I'd like to point out (sidebar) ... you're correct. If your god came down today and proved his existence to me, I would have no choice but to believe in his existence. But I would not become religious. I have no desire, nor will I ever have any desire (barring some omnipotent being changing the fundamental wiring of my brain) to follow a deity which behaved in the manner described in the bible. I would choose not to follow him

This was rhetorical and probably dismissed by most who read it....but it relates to where my mind keeps going back to....

If I stood up and said that Bin Laden was right and is with his 72 virgins right now, I suspect that most believers here would have a problem accepting that statement. But, to me, it really isn't much (any?) different than saying 'live a good life and go to heaven'. If a jihadist faithfully believes that what his God expects, who are you to question his belief....or morality, even?

To expand a little on what I said above....the whole 'faith' part bothers me to a pretty great extent. I'm sure that some would argue the point, but I think that blind faith requires surrender of free will. I place a pretty high value on reason and free will, so the idea of unquestioning faith distresses me a lot. Despite MACS's protestation above, I do think that it is a symbol of weakness for many -- a cop out, even? Not for all, of course. Most who have truly contemplated why they believe what they do and have come to terms with it have exercised their free will and capacity to reason, even if I disagree with their conclusions. But, so much of religious dogma expects acceptance whether supported by reason or not...and that will always trouble me.