I'm glad that makes sense to you. I live in a religious part of the US, and I've gotten a lot of crap from religious people. I don't think many people realize that I do believe in something, just not a higher power.

I have a question for you, diskotek: What is it like for you to be an atheist in Turkey? If I remember correctly, Turkey is a relatively secular nation--kind of a middle ground between Europe and the middle east. Have you had problems living in an Islamic country as an atheist? (I'm sorry if that's a rude/uninformed question to ask, I'm just curious about your experiences with Islam and how they compare to my experiences with Christianity.)

I believe.....
Call if Faith, Hope, Love, or Silly. I still believe. I think to much energy is wasted on fighting about it. (I am not claiming that is happening here)
I believe, don't ask me to prove my religion and I won't ask you to disprove it. Doing either would not better either one of us. I love you, I always will love others. Do not read this wrong. I love you, but will defend myself and my family. Best way to say this is, if you hurt my family or friends I WILL Hurt you.
I believe, I think there is a greater power. I think Jesus had full understanding of the greater power. I also think that legend and folklore have played heavy on what we think today. I think early churches have rewritten the words to better suit what they believe should be right.

I believe that with an ounce of Love and a pinch of understanding, we can change the world. What I think is a bit complicated but make no mistakes..
I believe...

I would say that I don't know enough to say for certain that there is no god/higher purpose any more than I would say that I know for certain that there is one. However I have hope that there is something more to life than what we see everyday.

I think that matters of religion and the like are matters of faith. I mean if you know for certain (or as certain as anybody can be...just been reading the free will post) that there is a god then it really is not a matter of faith any more than I would call it faith to believe that I am sat at a desk in front of computer right now. I am happy enough to accept that this is a fact rather than faith.

Sometimes I do envy those that have the certainty one way or the other though at other times I do think that they may be missing out on many ways of thinking by accepting one way of thinking absolutely over any other. I am certainly not ready to do that (the irony is not lost on me).

Mmm, I would like to refute this statement. I must say I'm an atheist, not for any dislike, but knowledge. I thought if I would really want to understand life and realize the existance of God, I had to step back. Now, I don't believe in many things said on the bible, just because it's a book written for people that felt they were under a despotic government, however, I agree with many of the teachings written there, not all of them, but I see Jesus as a person trying to make a difference in the conflictive world he was living, either if he really existed or not, I don't care, I can take lessons of life from any character in history, regarding his existance or beliefs. I would say that, more than an atheist, I'm a humanist, thus I see with good eyes all the exaltations of humanity. So, I see Jesus as a brave person, even though I don't believe in him nor in his divinity.

Why? Isn't life enough?

There is no *clear* evidence that there is a God. There is also no evidence that God does not exist. To atheists: You say that you refuse to believe that which you cannot prove; and yet you believe that there is no God, and you cannot prove that. It seems that if you require proof, you should be an agnostic. The statement that there is nothing other than what we can see seems an arrogant and untenable statement. I am very uncomfortable with religious people who claim that they are absolutely right and everyone else is doomed to eternal torture. I am equally uncomfortable with those who claim that there is no God and anyone who believes in God is stupid. Personally I think there must be a higher power of some kind. I cannot believe that the universe generated itself, or that it is eternally existent. It's much nicer to my mind to think that something/someone created it all. Either point of view is equally unprovable. I also like to believe that there is a powerful, intelligent, benevolent God who watches out for me. Maybe that's just a "security blanket," but it seems right and I think there is some vague evidence which may suggest that's right.

Just my two cents.

The idea that the universe has always existed and will always be existent fits the whole "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" paradigm. Any form of "creation story" contradicts our scientific laws.

A = no
Theism = religion



Anyway, I am agnostic because there is no proof on either side of the argument, and there never will be.

Yes, it fits with conservation; but it directly contradicts our scientific "laws" about entropy, which creation better fits. Either way, science is not too good with infinite past, and we can't find a beginning. Science cannot answer the question.

It doesn't contradict our laws of entropy. The universe can degrade into chaos with pockets of relative order in places where large amounts of energy are located. Such as a planet that orbits a star.

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I'd never say that those who believe in a god are stupid. I know many intelligent, otherwise rational beings who believe in a god largely because you were brought up told that they must believe in a god, and have not come back to question the belief in the time since then.

You cannot believe that the universe existed forever, but you can instead believe that a god existed forever? Also, the basis of belief simply upon what is comfortable is not necessarily what is right. I'd love to believe I'll be receiving a check for $10million in the mail tomorrow, but I doubt it will happen.

Also, just because neither side can be proved due to the unfalsifiability of a god does not mean that one side is not more logical than the other. One side clings to old traditions and beliefs simply because that's what it was brought up with and that's what makes it comfortable. The other side rejects the beliefs because they are silly, irrational, and make no sense.
In what way? Please do explain this to me as though I had no idea what entropy was or how it relates to this at all. I'm quite interested in hearing the reason.

But how did it get there? The current "scientific" viewpoint is that the universe existed in a state of chaos, and out of that life generated itself. That's the reverse of entropy. Additionally, if the universe is tending toward chaos, it will eventually get there unless something occurs to change that

Science is based on observable phenomena. Since we have never observed anything besides conservation and entropy, that's all we can go on. That doesn't mean no other rules *could* be in effect -- only that they have not been observed.

The idea behind a scientific approach: Observe. Apply the simplest explanation to the data (Occam's razor).

In my opinion, creation is simpler than "the universe has always been"/ evolution. You may disagree, and I think that's a valid viewpoint, just not one I share.

As a whole, the universe is approaching entropy. Parts of it can become more ordered. As an example, think of the time it takes to build a house- months. Lots of energy is expended, money spent, time taken. It actually ADDS to entropy as a whole, even though the visible effect is one of order.

Warning: I like to rant about philosophy, so this could be a long drawl.
----------
There's a penguin in my pants that's just dying to meet you. Prove me wrong.

Dr. Seuss made a boulder fall on my car. Prove me wrong.

Saying "You can't prove God doesn't exist" is an important point. However, it's a matter of probability. I'm agnostic myself, though I lean more and more towards atheism, because Evolution seems to have an explanation for just about everything.

But about this whole "science vs. religion" thing -- I think that's a phrase coined by schoolyard debates. The phrase "science vs. religion" serves only one purpose: to discredit the notion of "religion," and to put "science" on a pedastal like it has all the answers.

Science is nothing more then the search for truth. Religion is nothing more then the search for truth (Plus dogma). Both use tools of reasoning -- however mangled they may be by emotion. Both use faith (Most "scientists" believe in evolution, even though the evidence for it is very complicated to understand).

Cut the rhetoric, folks. "Scientific law" is an appeal to authority, and you both skipped the part about *how* creation and/or evolution contradict these "laws."

bns: Read up on the concept of natural selection. I think you'll find it makes sense -- and the whole "laws of thermodynamics" gig doesn't get creationism anywhere.

Joshj: The entire point of creation is that it was a super-natural event, so whatever we say about natural laws has no bearing on its validity.

It's a matter of probability: Which was more likely, given what we observe in the grand scheme of things? Evolution or creation?

Pet peeve: I don't like the word "proof." We prove things like Area = pi*r^2, a^2 + b^2 = c^2, and e^(i*pi) = 1, etc. We don't prove that "she said this", "what the president really means is that", or "the meaning of life is this." On overarching matters of truth, philosophy, and -- yes -- of science (Hate to steal anyone's endgame word), there is not proof, there is only evidence.

There is very strong evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is evidence that the current bug in my program at work is due to a mis-directed pointer somewhere -- and that's my current theory, so I'm hunting for that pointer, but I haven't proven it, because I don't have all the data, or at my puny mind can't keep track of it all, however good my debugger's output.

That said, I'm one of your folks who wants "proof." I know I can't have it, but I want to know what the "truth" really is, not what feels good or what I want it to be, so I constantly weigh evidence. The jury is still out, but right now the only witness with any semblance of credibility is the nihilistic scientist who says we're all apes, which in turn are fine-tuned lumps of dirt.

Doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but what can I say? I've never found a Christian apologist who makes a good case for God -- though I must say I was raised by some of the most intelligent Christians I've ever met.

The "believe, and the evidence will come" argument sounds swell -- and many of its subscribers shake their head when I bring up skeptical questions at church -- but, I mean, really. In a postmodern society, how can that perspective have weight? Any religion could say "believe, and the evidence will come." Evolution could say so. Once you "believe," you become emotionally involved, and "evidence" is easily found because you look for it (Oh! I found my keys! Thankyou God!).

SigmaX

I agree, and I'm glad you are not calling anyone stupid.

The universe is what I know. It doesn't make sense (that is, it doesn't make sense to me, I'm not saying it's irrational) that it existed forever. A God, on the other hand is outside this realm and has his/her/its own rules and is therefore welcome to exist forever if he likes.

Just because you think something is irrational, does not make it so. Many of the beliefs which some religions hold are irrational, but by no means all of them. You made a large, bold statement and gave it no support by the way.

Entropy is the notion that all things in the universe tend toward chaos. The universe is not in a state of total chaos. That means that at some point in the past the universe had lots of order. The only two ways that could happen is for the universe to give itself order -- which would violate the idea that it tends toward chaos -- or that some outside force (call it God if you like) acted upon it. Thus, since God is outside the universe He is welcome to violate the law of entropy, so He can create order. The universe cannot generate order in itself without violating the law of entropy. Aside: The law of entropy -- like all scientific laws -- was proposed to try to explain what we observe around us. That does not mean that it is set in stone or that it must hold everywhere and always.

God is simple?

SigmaX

I'm irreligous. Call it atheism, agnostism, whatever you want. Religion was developed as a social-engineering tool for those in power.

I am a mathematician, so I know what a proof is. Anything which actually relates to the real world cannot be proven. Which is actually my point. Religious folk say that God must exist because you can't prove He doesn't. That's stupid. Atheists make the same stupid claim when they say God doesn't exist because you can't prove He does. Look, we can't prove anything either way, so quit trying to find irrefutable proof. A skilled arguer can generally shoot holes all through every single statement about the world we can come up with, even those he/she personally believes. If there was any kind of strong evidence for any one stance, we wouldn't keep having these discussions over and over.

It sure is an uncanny feeling to try and imaging a universe that existed forever, or worse yet one where time itself began at the big bang, or where there's a multiverse, etc, or the other cosmological theories. That's what makes it so interesting to think about -- the very fact that we can't comprehend anything outside of our linear sort of existing.

Isn't this getting all a little... abstract? The law of cause and effect is also something that was proposed (Several hundred years ago) to explain what we observe -- but saying "the universe had to have a cause, therefore: God" isn't something we trumpet that loudly anymore (Though John Locke seemed to think it was enough proof for anybody).

SigmaX

No, not at all. Neither is any other explanation of how we got here. That's the one I like best.