Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
The definition of 'faith' is "belief that is not based on proof". Can you prove that God does not exist? You can't, hence atheism is faith. This statement alone would be very controversial so let me elaborate.

I think your objection as an atheist to this statement might be that you've always maintained that atheism is the neutral position and now suddenly I'm bringing that into question for you. However, the fact that atheism is a belief does NOT depreciate atheism or the arguments for it. An atheist is still a non-believer and it's a very rational position to take. If however you feel uncomfortable with the idea that there is no evidence of the non-existence of God and therefore atheism is faith, perhaps you will find comfort in considering yourself an agnostic and anti-theist. Let me elaborate on that.

Agnostic
Most atheists consider themselves atheist because they don't see how God could be real and I take that position as well. Someone recently told me there are two forms of atheism: weak or agnostic atheism ("It's possible but unlikely for a god to exist.") and strong or gnostic atheism ("A god does not exist"). If you state that God does not exist that's not a fact because facts need to be proved and by definition God can't be proved because it's exterior to our universe, just like a multiverse can't be proved (but can be strongly suspected by association and experience) because it's exterior to our universe. If you state that God does not exist that's a personal conviction/opinion. So, if you're a weak atheist your position is hard to argue. If you're a strong atheist then that's based on an opinion and takes a leap of faith. I can find myself in weak atheism also known as agnosticism. What might bother you about considering yourself to be an agnostic is that it implies that you're open to the possibility that God exists while the idea of God just seems ludicrous to people who would consider themselves to be an atheist. This brings me to anti-theism.

Anti-theism
Anti-theism can also be defined in two ways. The anti-theist can detest religion (which many atheists do as well) and he can detest the concept of God. I personally detest both. Even if God could exist, I maintain it's a horrible idea. So anti-theism doesn't pretend to know God does or doesn't exist but expresses an opinion. To consider yourself an agnostic and an anti-theist tells the whole story: it's highly improbable that God exists and in my opinion there is no way and no reason for God to exist. I think this is essentially what you mean to indicate with atheism but described in a more descriptive manner. 'Atheism' can imply things you don't mean to imply.

I'm rather reserved in making statements which haven't been proved, and to consider myself an atheist goes against the scientific protocol. This was also Carl Sagan's opinion which is why he said the following:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed"

However, in practice Carl Sagan could definitely be considered an atheist in the general sense of the word. He preferred not to consider himself as such because it goes against the scientific protocol, which needs to be kept in honor especially by a scientist. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a similar opinion on the matter as he prefers not to consider himself any -ist except for 'scientist'. I strongly recommend you watch this 4 minute video to hear what he has to say: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5…
On this note, I'm not quoting people of authority to give credit to my statements—or worse, to pretend that I'm correct. However I do want to show that I'm not the only one who makes these distinctions.

I very much respect atheism and in practice I am an atheist but I have to be reserved with my statements because I simply don't know. To give an analogy, when a black hole was described in mathematics many scientists were convinced that black holes had to exist while others thought it was too weird. It brought a great divide within the scientific community. What would be wrong at this point though is to state that black holes ARE real. Even though we now know black holes do exist, there was no observational evidence for it when the concept of a black hole was first described. Scientists had to wait for observational data until they could state it as fact. Equally, I rather wait for the observational data of God before I can state with absolute certainty that God does not exist. Meanwhile though, it's my opinion that God does not exist.

I personally think a bit of controversy is good so we can have a well-mannered intellectual debate, however of course not just for the sake of it; it needs to be productive. According to my reasoning though atheism is based on faith. But again, this notion doesn't depreciate atheism, and atheism is definitely NOT a religion. I have to bring very strong emphasis to that distinction.
I recently sparked controversy with my article Theistic delusions and this is my response to one of the people who either misinterpreted my words or simply can't relate to my logic. I do hope this message will elaborate more clearly on my reasoning and where I make the distinctions and I also hope for once I will not cause any controversy when talking about theism, philosophy and the scientific protocol.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthedigitalabyss:
TheDigitalAbyss Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Actually faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

You can't have faith in "nothing" because faith is complete trust in someone or something..

Argument over, have a nice day.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014  Professional General Artist
You can always win arguments by defining an aspect of what we're talking about in a very narrow sense. Faith is defined as "subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view without empirical evidence. The word faith is often used as a conceptual synonym for hope, trust, belief or knowledge."

Besides, with this article I alluded to the notion that it's not a "God vs nothing" argument. Atheism is inherently the belief that there is no God, but until we know more about the event which sparked our universe we can't say anything conclusively about the creation process. Besides, in recent years the idea has developed that perhaps we live in a simulation and I personally speculate there might be a fractal aspect to it

 I guess the point of this article was to make atheists more humble. I'm an atheist myself but most atheists seem to be stuck in this argument between atheists and theists while I genuinely think in most cases both sides simply haven't considered all the possibilities and merely reiterate old arguments, usually with plenty of insults because arguments alone are often not enough.

Quite frankly, we can have a similarly seemingly endless discussion about this article I wrote because there's truth in it depending on how you argue. If someone told me atheism is faith I wouldn't agree with that, but that's not how bluntly I put it. If I have to put it bluntly, what I wanted to convey is that atheism is a belief, not a fact.
Reply
:iconbart-fargo:
Bart-Fargo Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2013
Ricky Gervais has the best response to your opening remarks: If you claim that you can fly, it's your job to prove you can. It isn't my job to prove you can't.

There is no evidence that any gods exist, so I don't believe in them. That's what atheism is: disbelief. That's all. Nothing else.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2013  Professional General Artist
"If you claim that you can fly, it's your job to prove you can."
This is such a commonly made error in reasoning. You desire prove in this case because experience tells you that 1. humans usually can't fly and 2. if they can fly, then a presentation of this ability would have to persuade you. When considering God there is no point of reference (1.) and no way to prove or disprove God by means of observational evidence (2.). It's not a matter of God exists or not. First I have to ask, what God are we talking about? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is a deity in the sky. However, how our universe came into existence is an interesting question. The idea of an entity creating our universe is ludicrous (unless it's a fractal principle in which we essentially live in a virtual fish bowl of an advanced civilization, and they may also be in a virtual fish bowl of a civilization superior to them and so on, and this could even be a closed loop, just as you could argue with a deity God which was created by a God created by a God etc. if you're foolish enough), but the definition of a God is so vague you could equate it with the fundamental mystery of the universe. In other words, whatever the mechanism behind the universe is, you can rightfully call that God. A pantheistic God. If you consider the subject like this, then atheism is merely the rejection of the belief that there is a deity God. There is no way to deduce or observe the mechanism behind the universe so the atheist shouldn't pretend to be in a more righteous position by not believing in God. I would call the atheist more mature in that aspect, but it's still a blind guess what the mechanism behind the universe is.

Okay, I'm having a pretty hard time explaining myself because there is quite a subtle distinction I'm playing with. I don't know how much you know about physics and quantum mechanics though, but if you research the material I've researched you will discover the matter is quite a lot more complex than believing in Gods or not. For example, science is a protocol to statistically verify what's true and what isn't. As such, it becomes a body of knowledge. Not about our reality though, and this is important. It becomes a body of knowledge about the phaneron. The phaneron is reality filtered through our senses, which is the only possible way to observe reality. For example, we humans can't see x-rays, ultraviolet and infrared, although with equipment we can get an approximation of these colors so we can still see whole areas of the universe whereas we couldn't in optical light, so although we do indirectly observe the whole light spectrum that way, it just goes to show it's only a part of reality we observe, and even that we can't observe it as it truly is. This distinction becomes important in quantum mechanics, where the behavior of reality itself changes depending on whether or not you're observing. In fact, there is evidence to suggest we live in a holographic universe, which is to say that all the information of the content of the universe is embedded on a two-dimensional surface outside the universe. These kinds of considerations don't necessarily have implications for disbelieving in deity Gods, but should be food for thought for the theist and atheist alike. Yes, atheism is the disbelief of God, but the discussion doesn't end there. What is God in the first place? If you're an atheist you need to define what it is you disbelief. I disbelief in deity Gods as well, but that's not the only kind of concept deserving of the word "God".

Although there is no evidence to suggest that there is a God, and I find the idea of a deity God to be ludicrous, I can't say with absolute certainty there is no such God. Since we are made of the stuff of stars and have a fundamental connection with the universe itself, it seems to follow that not only the matter but also consciousness is derived from the universe itself. If you consider this, then a conscious force as the mechanism to the Big Bang is not as ludicrous as it sounds in the Bible. Also, if consciousness is a natural process of the universe, then perhaps our tendency to create Gods says something about the universe as well. I think it takes faith to be an atheist. But then, it also takes faith to believe in the scientific method. In this context I'm not using "faith" in a theological context, which would mean believing in something despite lack of evidence and in many cases also plenty of evidence to suggest the theological proposition is not true.
Reply
:iconbart-fargo:
Bart-Fargo Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2013
OK, try this: If I claim that I have a baseball autographed by Babe Ruth, it is my job to verify that before any money changes hands. You wouldn't say, "Well, my friend can't prove that you don't have an autographed baseball, so I'll give you full market value for an authentic autographed ball, and just assume that the signature on the ball you eventually send me is authentically Babe Ruth's."

Fun fact: In literature, the imposition of human characteristics on nature ("cruel winds", etc.) is called the "pathetic fallacy".
Reply
:iconjackstills:
JackStills Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2013
sarcastic comment aside this was a very well written article. Very thought provoking
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013  Professional General Artist
Thank you for the comment, and I appreciate the quote.
Reply
:iconjackstills:
JackStills Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
anytime
Reply
:iconjackstills:
JackStills Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2013
"Secondly, my God did NOT sanction the cruesades. The Roman Catholic Church did"

and who does the church answer to?" God":|
Reply
:iconi-stamp:
i-stamp Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
I think it's possible that strong/explicit atheism could be a defensible position in the future (which is why I'm an agnostic atheist). But we're not there yet. Hawkings described it best that if cyclic models are correct, and the universe, matter, energy and their balancing act has always existed, then there's no room for a creator of that universe. If one says that a god need not be a creator, then it falls back on an ignostic position of 'Well what's a god then?'
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
First off, I never heard of the word ignosticism before but I'm very glad you mentioned it because this is my position on why we can't definitely say God doesn't exist, not only because it may be impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of God but also because you first need to define what a God is before you can say whether it exists or not, and that's exactly why atheism is based on faith.

I personally strongly doubt we will ever be able to say anything definite about God or the origin of the universe but I do remain open to it. In fact I wondered in the past if it wouldn't be possible for a new movement to develop with a similar approach to science but which supersedes it. This is highly speculative, but let's say we find a way to look through time; to essentially see a matrix of individual moments and past, present and future in some ways become indistinguishable from each other. In that case much more could be said about cause and effect and a more fundamental explanation of reality. It seems unlikely for such a movement to exist but people were just as close-minded and ignorant before science, so I guess never say never.

As for cyclic models, that's quite a big 'IF'. I mean, I personally speculate the fundamental construction of the universe to be cyclic like a sort of fractal, but that pertains to an individual universe. It seems that unless we start talking about a multiverse, the probability of our universe existing is so incredibly low you're almost forced to call it a miracle, and the anthropic principle in itself is also rather unsatisfactory. Someone recently told me about Ervin László. I only briefly read his theories but I do plan on researching it properly. He created an integral theory of which one component is the "Akashic Field Theory". This theory posits that the quantum vacuum is the fundamental energy and information-carrying field (and recent findings on dark energy do already suggest that dark energy is the same as the quantum vacuum) which interacts with the Akashic field of other universes, causing the apparent fine-tuning.

So anyway, if our universe is cyclic then you have to wonder how that connects with the other universes. Either there was a beginning to something, namely the first universe, or there was no beginning, in which case the fundamental structure of the multiverse also has to be cyclic. It's again an infinite regress, similar to what you might get by arguing God. If our universe is not cyclic then obviously there was a beginning. So no matter how you reason, I personally still fail to understand what infinity means in this context, and what it means to have a universe with an apparent beginning to space and time but no beginning cause.

In conclusion, I do support the idea of a cyclic universe but then it must follow that either the multiverse is cyclic or that there was a beginning after all. The only other option is one, cyclic universe but as I mentioned in that case you're forced to call the universe a miracle. On the other hand, it may not be meaningful at all to calculate the probability of the existence of a single, self-sustaining, cyclic universe.

In any case, thank you for your contribution. It's definitely food for thought.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
I recently first saw that joke. It's a good one. It also reminds me of this:
Theist: prove that God doesn't exist.
Agnostic: that's a tough one. Show me how it's done by proving that Zeus and Apollo don't exist and I will use your method.
Reply
:iconphantomuzumaki:
phantomuzumaki Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
XD yeah, that's a good one too :3
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I wasn't going to comment on this... But I can scarcely keep myself silent.
Firstly, Atheism is, indeed, a religion. Every form of athiesm holds man to be the highest thinking being in existance, and, therefore, he believes himself to be, in a way, god, as there is no higher force that he believes is governing his life.
Secondly: I would submit that it is, frankly, more difficult to believe that there is no god. Christians can believe that the (temporal) universe came into being by the acts of an eternal God; but athiesm cannot explain the ultimate origins of the universe, nor does it claim the universe to be eternal, and so it must have a point where it arose out of nothingness... a point which is never explained by atheism.
Furthermore, we know that the universe is, in fact, in state of decay-- that is, things in higher levels of complexity are breaking down into lower levels oof complexity. Whereas Atheism would hold that the universe is constantly ascending to a higher level of complexity. If it is, indeed, ascending, rather than decaying, then I ask you why it is that in recorded history there have been no new animals created by natural evolution? We have created crossbreeds and new species, yes, but only by man's tampering, and not a single new race of creature has come to light, nor is any gradual change in any race from one animal into another observable in recorded history. Nor, even once, have scientists observed single-cells combining to form a new, multicellular organism. Now, I realize that you're wondering why I brought up evolution, just hold on, bear with me, and I'll make my point. Since, as I have just explained, evolution is most certainly not occuring, and the universe is in decay, then there is no way for life, or even physical material to have developed from the simple quarks, protons, neutrons, and the other componants of the atom into higher, more complex form of matter, and, eventually, into living organisms that likewise would have evolved... Unless, of course, one takes into account an Almighty Creator who would have ordered the elements and the molecules and the cells into higher, complex forms.
In short, Is it not easier to believe in God, even from a cold, logical standpoint?
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Firstly, Atheism is, indeed, a religion."
No, it isn't and that wasn't the point of the article either. My position is that atheism is based on faith but atheism isn't faith, nor a religion. The fact that it shares some pseudo-religious aspects is besides the point. The same can be said for Marxism. Actually, it's much more applicable to Marxism than it is to atheism. If atheism would include rituals you may have a point, but as it is, atheism is by no means a religion.

I would submit that it is, frankly, more difficult to believe that there is no god.
That's interesting. If you don't believe in God you just have to wait for science to explain everything to the point in which it can be explained. If you believe in God, you have to wait for science to explain the universe AND you have to pretend to understand the mind of God. By invoking the concept of God you're really not answering the fundamental questions but rather you're postponing the answers and you make things much more complex for yourself. You can't explain the way a pen works by explaining the mind of a human. The same counts for God and the universe with the only difference that a human was necessary to create a pen while God is not necessary to explain the universe. You might have to wonder why theoretical physicists don't include God into their Theory of Everything despite the fact that there are plenty of theistic theoretical physicists. It's because God is simply not necessary to explain the universe.

Christians can believe that the (temporal) universe came into being by the acts of an eternal God; but athiesm cannot explain the ultimate origins of the universe
It's not up to the atheist to explain that but even if it was and regardless of who should explain this, during my teens I devoted years of my life to esoteric Christian theology and Jewish mysticism but I never found an explanation of the origin of the universe in those books. You might counter my argument by referring to Genesis but—and I mean no offense—I really hope you're not a creationist. The bible is a compilation of many different works from many different authors. You can find moral teachings, poems and historical accounts in the bible, but Genesis among others are not historical accounts. In fact most of what's in the bible has been proved to be false. I'm not implying however that the bible is based on lies. First off you have to consider these the authors who wrote the bible didn't have a clear distinction between fact and fiction as we have. There was no scientific protocol to statistically verify what's true and what isn't it would take many centuries of philosophy and technological progress to reach that point. I firmly believe the authors of the bible wanted to write beautiful stories of morality. By the way, the books of the bible were never meant to be compiled like that, either. They were separate works which weren't compiled until later. A lot of moral stories even about Jesus were left out and the stories which were included are rather inconsistent, as you would expect from a compilation of works by different authors. Anyway, all of this has no implications for whether or not God exists but I just want to make sure you have your own reasons for believing in God and not just because you adhere to the Christian protocol. Anyway, to get back to your statement, not atheism nor theism explains the origin of the universe or even the origin of life.

nor does it claim the universe to be eternal, and so it must have a point where it arose out of nothingness... a point which is never explained by atheism.
Again, it's not to the atheist to explain but to the scientist and perhaps the philosopher. You say "nor does it claim the universe to be eternal". Are you implying that theism does say that? If so, it's wrong. As for the point where the universe arose from nothingness, it's not completely understood but we are not entirely ignorant. In quantum mechanics particles pop up out of nothingness constantly. You should read Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing". But even if that wasn't explained, Christianity nor any other religion does explain that. The scientific endeavor is always looking to explain more and we certainly have big gaps in our knowledge but science is slowly but consistently filling in those gaps and God becomes smaller and smaller. We may eventually reach a point where even the theist has to acknowledge his God is a God of the gaps and not a higher truth.


Furthermore, we know that the universe is, in fact, in state of decay-- that is, things in higher levels of complexity are breaking down into lower levels oof complexity.
That simply isn't true. We do have an arrow of time so there is a tendency towards chaos; add milk to your coffee and it's impossible to reverse the process. However, have you never heard of entropy? Everything has a natural tendency to go from simple to complex. I don't understand how you can state the opposite as being true. You're undermining more than just Darwinian evolution. You're among other things undermining cosmological evolution. Our universe started as a simple system in which the fundamental forces are one and everything is in equilibrium. The equilibrium is broken and everything goes towards more complexity. You have a split of the fundamental forces, hydrogen clumps together and at sufficient masses and densities (=star) starts a process of nuclear fusion to cook increasingly heavier elements. Eventually the star fuses iron and heavier elements and the core collapses while the outer shell is blown away. The core collapses into a black hole and the outer shell is ejected into space to form the next generation of stars and planets, which will also clump together around the black holes. The black holes will also clump together to create intermediate mass black holes and then supermassive black holes. With a supermassive black hole you have a protogalaxy. Repeat this process for billions of years and life is absolutely inevitable. All of this from a simply system going to ever increasing complexity. By the way, we can actually go back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang and explain everything from that point on. That's what the Large Hadron Collider was designed to do. What scientists haven't been able to do though is find out what happened before the Big Bang. This is why theoretical physicists work hard on creating a Theory of Everything. String theory is such a theory and it absolutely doesn't need God. What it does need are 10 dimensions but I will take that over the concept of God any time. Still, string theory is far from perfect and makes no predictions so it can't be tested. Also troubling is that there is more than one version of string theory. There's also bosonic string theory, super string theory and M-theory among others. Anyway, it seems at most you can say God caused the initial spark we call the Big Bang, but you can't give God credit for manually creating everything because we already know how the universe progressed starting from when it was less than a second old. We have a lot of data to support that.

If it is, indeed, ascending, rather than decaying, then I ask you why it is that in recorded history there have been no new animals created by natural evolution?
If it were decaying rather than progressing you wouldn't be here. The molecules you're made of would never have been made in stars, planets would never have formed, life would never have started and life certainly wouldn't have gone from simple one-celled organisms to more complex life, which it did and does. It's disappointing to realize you're indeed a creationist. You would do better by accepting scientific facts and attribute that to God. What's the hurt in believing in Darwinian evolution if you believe God caused that evolution? In any case, you're really not doing yourself any good by completely ignoring facts. You want me to name a new animal created by natural evolution? I think you might be misinformed about Darwinian evolution. There is no end goal. It didn't go from a single celled organism to a human and then stopped. We're still evolving. If you ever visit Europe, visit a castle. You might be shocked upon seeing the armor people from medieval times would wear. Why? Well, because grown adults were the size of children. We're getting taller, out feet are getting bigger, our jaw is getting smaller and we're getting less hairy. As for getting taller and our feet growing, that's evolution on a very, very short time scale. Also read this article: [link]
I know of two other creatures which evolved at a fast pace and the second one may surprise you. The first one is the common house mouse, which is evolving to resist chemicals which would normally destroy it. This made mice and rats into an even bigger problem. As for the other creature, this one didn't only evolve but actually changed into a genuinely new species of animal. It's a type of worm (I'm sorry to say I forgot its name) which within 40 years evolved from one species of worm into an other due to the increase of chemicals in the soil.

Now, I'm almost certain you won't find that answer satisfactory because it still evolved from a worm into a different kind of worm, but at least this went beyond just evolving and actually changed the animal into a different kind within 40 years. If we have evidence of that, why is it so hard to understand that animals go through profound changes in millions of years and actually do evolve from one kind of animal into a different one? Now, back to the statement that you're misinformed about Darwinian evolution. If you're looking for evidence of in-between species such as a dog evolving into a cat, I'm sorry to say but I question your intellectual capacity. You can't expect to have a cow, a cat, a dog and a monkey and also have every possible stage in between. That's not how Darwinian evolution works. It would if species would evolve from one species into the other from one generation to the next but natural evolution doesn't work so fast. Every time a cell is copied it will slightly alter the DNA, so at a time scale of millions of years you will and DO find one species evolving into a different one but the process is so slow that you will generally only notice evolution within a species. However, fortunately we have millions of years of fossils to support evolution. It's not an isolated idea which just happened to gain popularity. It has been put to the test millions of times and it remains consistent. That's what a scientific theory is. It's generally synonymous with fact, though science is always open to the possibility that a theory is incomplete, which is why it's insisted upon that they're called theories even though they're verified millions of times.

I wonder how you can challenge me to come up with evidence where one species changed into an other while the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. You have to check the back collection of fossils from museums and such. They have hundreds of fossils which actually do show how one species changed into the other. I also can't imagine you haven't heard of the fact that modern birds evolved from certain dinosaur species. You can tell me you choose to ignore these millions of pieces of evidence but you can't tell me there is no evidence. I also have to say, I enjoy debates but if you continue making these kind of remarks I'm not going to continue talking to you. It's not that I'm offended but according to my reasoning, if you consciously chose to ignore these millions of pieces of evidence not only about Darwinian evolution but also about cosmological evolution for example—all this evidence from many different fields and they're all consistent not because there is a massive conspiracy among scientists but because science actively seeks to find truth regardless of any negative consequences in regard to our ego or otherwise—if you've consistently been ignoring all that evidence prior to talking to me, then I very seriously doubt I would convince you of the opposite. And really, I don't need to "convert" you but it's a waste of my time trying to convince someone who's just not willing to accept evidence. Not everyone values evidence and that's fine. For a meaningful debate with me though, you absolutely have to look at evidence or I may as well start talking fiction here; it's more than counterproductive.

Nor, even once, have scientists observed single-cells combining to form a new, multicellular organism.
I just have to ask: are you aware you're just fabricating information? How can you state that not even once scientists have observed single-celled organisms changing into multicellular organisms? It's simply not true and it has been observed millions of times. Here are two random articles pulled from the Internet: [link], [link]

Have you ever heard of the Siphonophora? This bizarre sea creature acts as one single organism but actually consists of colonies of many individual animals. Speaking of hive minds, also consider bees, which act very much like our brains, where the brain is the hive and the neurons are the bees.

Since, as I have just explained, evolution is most certainly not occuring, and the universe is in decay, then there is no way for life,[...]
You haven't explained. You simply stated and it's absolutely false. If it IS true, please show me evidence for it. I don't ignore evidence simply because it's not conform to my ideology.

In short, Is it not easier to believe in God, even from a cold, logical standpoint?
Given that you choose to ignore a lot of evidence and fabricate evidence to support your own claims, perhaps for you it's indeed easier because without God your world makes absolutely no sense at all. You're undermining just about any fundamental principle I know of in nature so it's not surprising your ideology completely collapses without God. No, it is by no means easy to believe in God. There are plenty of atheists who wish there was a God but simply can't believe. I'm not one of them. I would consider myself an agnostic and anti-theist. Agnostic because I adhere to the scientific protocol, so I will always be open to possibilities and as such won't discredit God. Anti-theist because I think it would be absolutely horrible if God were real. I mean, a pantheistic God is absolutely fine but if you're talking about the Abrahamic God of the bible then that's very disturbing and I wouldn't want to live in such a world. This however has no implications for whether or not God does exist and if there was evidence, I would embrace that even though in principle I despise the theistic God concept.

By the way, it might be beneficial to ask once in a while "What if I'm wrong?". Not in the sense that if you're wrong you only wasted some passion while if I'm wrong, I might go to hell. I mean in the sense that if what you're saying is true, what implications does that have? For example, if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old you have to ask what astronomers, physicists, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists and other scientists are doing all day. If the Earth is indeed 6000 years old that means many scientists have studied years to become a professor and currently make a decent amount of money by doing something which is completely fabricated and unfounded. Not only that, but all these scientists of different disciplines would have to engage in a massive world conspiracy, which is then presumably also learned at school. Just imagine going to that "Fool the creationists" class and learn how to engage in this massive conspiracy. If on the other hand the Earth is 4,7 billion years old then apparently science does work because there are many forms of dating and they're all consistent with each other, regardless of whether you're talking about the age of the planet or the age of the universe. And by the way, in 1922 Edwin Hubble looked through the best telescope at the time and observed objects which seemed to be exterior to the milky way. Up to that point the milky way was the entire known universe but Hubble then realized these objects were not stars but entire galaxies. Suddenly the universe grew by a tremendous amount, from one galaxy to the roughly 100 billion galaxies estimated to be in the observable universe alone. In 1929 Hubble observed that the further away the galaxy, the deeper the redshift. Redshift occurs when light is stretched out, similar to the doppler effect with sound. By calculating the distances using so-called "standard candles" he managed to deduce that the Doppler redshift was parallel to the relative distances to Earth. This became known as "Hubble's law". While scientists like Einstein firmly believed in an eternal, static universe Hubble now discovered that the universe came from a single point and is not static at all. It wasn't until 1998 that Einstein's cosmological constant (an equation to balance the universe to become this static model) which he considered his biggest blunder (because the universe wasn't static) was re-used on the opposite side of the equation, this time not to balance the model of the universe but to calculate at which speed the universe was accelerating. Since Hubble's discoveries it was thought that the speed at which the universe is driving apart was slowing down but in 1998 the opposite was found to be the case. The people involved (Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess) rightfully received Nobel prices for their achievements. Anyway, to finally get to my point. Hubble used his Hubble's law calculations to determine/estimate the age of the universe. His answer was 10 to 20 billion years. We now know that the age of the universe is 13.72 billion years old plus/minus 0.12 billion years old, so that's incredibly accurate. The age of the Earth was also first determined to be something different and although I forgot who calculated it, at the time that answer was higher than the age of the universe so obviously an error was made there, but my point is that scientists don't just fabricate answers. Some wrong answers were given then and we continually pushes for progress and reached a point where we can determine space and time on large scales. You haven't said you believe the Earth is 6000 years old but with the other erroneous things you stated I just assume you do. If you don't, I must praise you for considering the evidence there, but then I do wonder why you object to both Darwinian evolution and cosmological evolution.

Unless, of course, one takes into account an Almighty Creator who would have ordered the elements and the molecules and the cells into higher, complex forms.
This statement is rather bizarre to me. Essentially what you said is that the universe is decaying, but it's actually progressing because God ordered it to. You contradict yourself. Essentially you just said that indeed the universe does go towards increasing complexity but you first introduce a problem which doesn't exist so you can invoke God to make sense of it. With this kind of looped reasoning it's not surprising God is essential to your belief.

I also want to state that I'm not your average atheist. I don't aggressively object to theism while adhering to very primitive ideas of why atheism is the only truth. In fact, I think atheism is arrogant in saying there is no God. All which can be said is that so far evidence for God hasn't been found but this speaks of a probability rather than the absolute notion that there is no God. I just want to say, I know plenty of theism and I may know more about it than the average believer. Without any doubt in my mind I've researched much more esoteric documents than you have and in fact when I left the art academy in 2008 I strongly considered studying theology before I decided to continue in the design field and I went on to study multi-media design. In conclusion, I don't think I'm biased. I was baptized as a baby, at age 8 I did the communion and at age 12 I did the confirmation. As a kid the concept of God had no relevance at all to me despite being raised in a catholic environment. I did the communion and confirmation only because I was expecting to get presents and money. At least communion we celebrate in a big way, but at the conformation I got an old-fashioned children's book from my grandparents and a backpack for school from my parents, which I was going to get anyway. Sufficed to say I was angry I did the confirmation "for nothing" but in hindsight it's rather amusing to me. Anyway, this is just to show I was raised in a religious environment but even at a very young age I was interested in the science of both evolution and astronomy and never believed in God. I have Asperger so I'm rather obsessive about the things which interest me. As a kid it was all about drawing, dinosaurs, animals, volcanoes and the solar system. As I hit puberty went from dinosaurs to dragons to mythology and then theology and philosophy. My interest in astronomy remained but it wasn't a big passion until I got out of puberty. Right now I'm obsessed with graphic design, type design, astronomy, cosmology and physics and the philosophy of science. I mostly find myself only talking about type design, cosmology and God. For an anti-theist I have a rather extraordinary obsession with talking about God. I think because I derive satisfaction from making sense of my own ideology and sharing ideas on it as well as to disprove statements made by others. This is all good and well but for a productive discussion both parties should adhere to the same logic. A debate with William Lane Craig is interesting exactly because he embraces science and approaches God with reasoning. Undeniably Craig often makes statements I don't agree with but as a philosopher and professional debater he's just captivating, and although his arguments for the existence of God are not direct evidence, he at least reasons it logically and draws fairly well founded conclusions from that. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I genuinely think you could learn a lot from theists like William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, David Wolpe and John Lennox. As for the opposing parties in these debates, consider the four horsemen of atheism: Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Hitchens is by far the greatest speaker of the bunch but Sam Harris also raises some particularly interesting points on morality and psychology.
Reply
:iconarcane-shadow-razil:
Arcane-Shadow-Razil Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
I like how calmly you state things. While I'm personally not atheist, I do respect a good argument that isn't condescending or rude. Although I know that there are people on, shall we say, both sides who take the spot light and make both sides look like completely crazy idiots.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Professional General Artist
It seems within philosophy every argument in regard to theism has already been heard of and so every argument can be weighed against each other but consensus will most likely never be reached because there are certain things you can't prove and certain strains of logic you can't get around and this tends to limit both parties somewhat. A discussion about theism in the general public however tends to rely heavily on emotions and personal convictions without genuine research to back any claim up. I think this is one of the reasons why people are hesitant about getting into theistic discussions at all. As long as both parties adhere to the virtual rules of a debate and rely on arguments rather than emotions we should be fine, and without a doubt this will allow people to discuss these issues more deeply with respect. When emotions are involved a conversation tends to quickly regress to a discussion without purpose.
Reply
:iconunusedemotion:
unusedEmotion Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
Well, I can see you're already engaged in several compelling discussions and I'm not strong in my conviction about atheism and the likes nor am I witty enough to keep up intelligent banter about such a subject, but I can tell you that this was immensely interesting.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Professional General Artist
Thank you for the comment. If you find this subject interest, I recommend watching some debates with Christopher Hitchens on YouTube—if you haven't already.
Reply
:iconunusedemotion:
unusedEmotion Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student Writer
Absolutely, I'll pursue that ^^
Reply
:iconroadkillkitten:
roadkillKitten Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Good luck "getting through" to that person, I'm assuming is a "christian." I'm totally with you on this one, but here's what I've discovered over many years of "debating" with these people: You can't argue (debate) with a crazy person. If they truly believe an invisible man lives in the sky and is either going to reward or punish them for their actions, they are, in fact, crazy. "Logic" is right out the window with these types of people, therefore, having a "rational" conversation is a moot point. Save yourself the headache, dear, they aren't listening.
Bill Nye was recently in the media about his non-belief in a god, it was pretty funny. "Bill! Bill! Bill!"
I wrote this this morning: [link]
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Watch it.
I don't get offended easily, but belief in God does not make one crazy. I would submit that constantly scrambling to find something other than God to believe in would classify one as crazy.
Give me a logical arguement against there being a God, and if I can't beat it, then I'll still believe in God, but I'll let you go ahad and call me a lunatic.
Reply
:iconroadkillkitten:
roadkillKitten Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
"Watch it"... is that a threat? And apparently you ARE, in fact, easily offended.

Normally, I don't bother to respond to you people, but I don't take kindly to being pushed around. Last time I checked, we still had freedom of speech in this country.

Secondly, I can't possibly have offended "you" (whoever "you" are) since I wasn't talking to "you" anyway. You butted into a conversation that didn't involve "you" in the first place.

Thirdly, I think you've made my point for me, so thank for that. I'm perfectly capable of rational conversation, but you people (yes, "you people" ie, "christians") are rarely capable of rational discussion, so I don't bother.

Fourth point, you can just as easily replace the word "god" with "santa klause" and the terms are the same: the guy who lives "up there" is omniscient and will either punish or reward you for your behavior.

Also, you people are sooooo good at denying your own history for the sake of your own righteousness. You conveniently avoid the plot-holes in the bible and deny that the crusades were, in fact, sanctioned by your very own god. If you can explain to me why your god is right to slaughter the innocent, but hitler was somehow evil, I'd love to hear it (yes, I just compared your god to hitler, deal with it). You can't have it both ways: god is good... well... except when he's killing babies.

Lastly, here's the very reason I think you're all a bunch of hypocrites: WWJD? You tout your holier-than-thou attitude, then behave as if it doesn't apply. If I had said something to offend jesus, would he a) verbally bitch-slap me as you have done, or b) merely turn the other cheek...? You might wanna read that book once in a while. So much for forgiveness and humility, huh? Those who live in glass houses n all....

One last point: lighten up. The world doesn't revolve around you, I'm not out to "get you" or anyone else, and mind your own affairs, or, realize that there are consequences to your actions. Your god might forgive you, but the rest of us are only human after all.

[link]
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I'll start with the part that is the most soundly illogical. If you post it online, then it is the business of anyone who sees it and possesses a membership on the site to reply however they wish if they so desire.
Secondly, my God did NOT sanction the cruesades. The Roman Catholic Church did. I'm quite soundly a Baptist. Man does not start out innocent, he starts out sinful, but, that being said, there is not a single time that anyone has slaughtered babies in God's name that they haven't been bearing His name falsely. And need I mention the abortion clinics that are all over america? You mention Hitler and the Crusades, but you don't seem to come near the issue of abortion.
I would grant that a great many who say they are Christian are hypocrytes. HOWEVER, making a blanket statement that all christians are hypocrytes is like saying that all Americans are fat and lazy, or that everyone who lives on a farm must be a country bumpkin. You, through your entire responce, have had a Holier-than-thou attitude. Forgiveness and humility, yes. But there is also a time when one must stand up for what he believes to be true and right, and he must do so boldly.
I did not slap you (I'll refrain from using foul language), I did not even insult you specifically as you have implied. I said that, "constantly scrambling to find something other than God to believe in would classify one as crazy." And Jesus did, repeatedly respond to His adversaries, and not always very kindly either. If you, sir, read the Book as you have suggested that I do, and done a little research, you would find that To smite on the right cheek was done with the back of the hand, and Jewish law held a slap with the back of the hand to be a double insult; so to, 'turn the other cheek' does not mean to not respond, it means not to repay an insult for an insult (which, for the record, I am not. I am responding to your statements.) You would also find that in the incedent (lest you cite it) in which Peter smote off a man's ear and Jesus healed it and rebuked Peter, He did so because He knew that He had to be taken by the Pharisees so that he could be crucified, not because Christians shouldn't defend themselves.
I am, usually, quite a bright, cheery person. I realize that the world does not revolve around me, nor did I say that you were 'out to get me.'
I only challenged you to give me a bit of solid proof that my God does not exist. And, since you elected to instead rant at me rather than simply produce any proof, I will assume that you have none.
Lastly: as to the link that you gave me, sir, I now have no respect for you. If you are going to tell me that, essentially, I am aloof, hateful toward non-Christians, prideful, arrogant, spiteful, and hypocritical... I would appreciate it if you had the maturity to not be nasty and spiteful to me, as I merely responded to your comment about Christians being crazy (which, for the record, you were awefully 'better-than-thou' about anyway).
I have gotten into two other debates on these pages, and I have a high level of respect for the other two people, as they repected me. I may still disagree with them, but I don't feel the need to send them a link to a youtube video of satan, as you, apparently, do.
I appologise if I offended you, sir, if I did so. But whatever it is that spurns such bitterness toward Christians, I believe is a combination of misconceptions and pointless distaste. If you are going to challenge me to read the Bible, then I challenge you to do the same, sir, and when you've finished, please tell me of these supposed plot-holes in the Bible, and I'll gladly explain to you how they aren't really plot-holes.
Reply
:iconroadkillkitten:
roadkillKitten Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Yeah... I tried reading that book, but the main character dies half-way through... I lost interest.

Seriously though, if you had WATCHED and/or (more importantly) LISTENED to the video, it had nothing to do with satan at all, the singer is, in fact, a buddhist.

Secondly, you did not "merely" question my proof in the existence of a god, you did, in fact, might I remind you, begin your interrogation with a threat-- hence the rant. One good turn deserves another.

Thirdly, I'm well aware of how you people get around the plot holes in the bible - the same way you deny your history - obfuscation and interpretation. I can read on my own just fine, I don't need someone to tell me what to think.
But let's start with the story of noah: god sets man up to fail from the word "go," gives them free will, then punishes them for using it. Then god gets so fed-up with man kind he decides to wipe them out entirely (I DO love a good genocide!) --oh, except for noah and his family, cause they're "good." But then, god says: wow, that was a really crappy thing to do, and I feel kinda bad... I'll never wipe out the human race again. Now, here's the book of revelations. (So, your god is either fallible, or bi-polar. Either way, I'm not playing his game, it's a lose-lose situation). Now, I know what you're gonna say next, something about god saying he would never destroy mankind by "flood" ever again. Great, so now god is petty...? No, thank you.

My "distaste" for christians is neither misconception nor pointless, and has, in fact, been well fueled by the simple fact they continue to open their mouths where not invited to conversation. It is their insistence that it's their mission to change the world to their line of non-thinking. It is because they continually protest at abortion clinics, yet never consider their time to be better spent on raising a homeless child, preferably a black one who was addicted to crack when it was born. It's their actions, sir, that speak louder than their words, and yes, that is a blanket statement, and may not apply to "all" christians, but what you don't seem to understand is that it applies to "most" christians, and that is the problem. You cannot say: "my god is good and great and compassionate and loving," out one side of your mouth, and "but he'll condemn your soul to eternal hell if you piss him off," out the other side of your mouth. You simply cannot have it both ways. If you were to as the parents of serial killers, they will tell you they still love their children, despite their mistakes, and yes, even forgive them, yet, god will condemn them for ETERNITY ....unless they ASK for forgiveness...? It's absurd. Or maybe I just "expect" too much from a "divine" being.

No need to apologize, you can't offend me, though I give you kudos for trying. And I'm hardly "scrambling" as you say, for something to believe in. My grandmother gave me the only advice that has ever rung true: the only person you can count on to take care of you, is yourself. Sad, maybe. Harsh, definitely. But it doesn't stop it from being any less true. Don't get me wrong, I think having some kind of "faith" is awesome, more power to you! I, however, cannot live in that kind of denial. I have been unable to convince myself that the invisible man in the sky is going to help with all my dilemmas, trial and tribulations. Manna doesn't fall from heaven, angels don't swoop out of the sky and rescue people, and if god really didn't give you more than you could handle, then there would be no such thing as suicide. But, you are, of course, fully entitled to live in that delusion. I hope it's nice there.
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I've read enough, at this moment, I'll read no further.
I did not threaten you. I said 'watch it.' Perhaps you live someplace where that is used differently, but where I live, it is used just like 'Careful.'
"It is because they continually protest at abortion clinics, yet never consider their time to be better spent on raising a homeless child, preferably a black one who was addicted to crack when it was born."
My family does foster care. We, in fact, cared for a little black boy who had fetal alcohol syndrome, for three years, until he went home to his parents (who now are able to care for him). We just adopted three children, two boys and a girl(the eldest of which gasped as he read your response over my shoulder.).
As to the rest... I'll respond later. Not because I have no response, but because I know that, right now, I'm fuming with anger, and I need to check my indignance and calm down before I say something I'll regret.
I may not respond at all... Though I doubt that.
Reply
:iconroadkillkitten:
roadkillKitten Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2013
Ehh, don't bother, I'm no longer amused by you and I'm on to other, more important uses of my time.

I do applaud you for being the one in a hundred thousand who does, in fact, put their time where it might actually make a difference, in the lives of those you have adopted: kudos for that.

I do, however, stick to my original statement: You can't have a rational discussion with crazy people. If you believe your BFF is an invisible man who lives in the sky and is somehow influencing your life, that is what psychiatrists call a "delusion," and delusions are had by whom...? Yes: crazy people.

For the record, I have nothing against the idea of the existence of a god or gods, it's religion, and people, that are the problem.

I'm out. -K
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Professional General Artist
Actually the person I said this to identifies herself as an atheist. I think she just doesn't appreciate the fact that I equate her conviction with faith, but I don't think there is a way around that because to state that conviction as factual requires the knowledge that God does not exist and as far as I can reason a person like that doesn't exist.

So this is not really a testament of the delusions of theists but rather how easily we are deluded regardless of whether we associate with the spiritual world or religion at all. I'm certainly not saying my reasoning is flawless and I speak a more genuine truth than the theist. What I'm actually urging is just to be skeptical. There may very well be a God depending on how you define God but I can't believe in it because I never found evidence for it and the concept of God doesn't actually explain anything I couldn't explain scientifically. I mean, there are many scientific mysteries but theism is just no answer to that. Theism has been very important in philosophy and science and in fact Christianity set up the scientific enterprise, but the day that theism plays a major role in the development of human logic is over.

Anyway, if I were talking just to convince other people you definitely have a point because people who have their minds up about something will almost never change their minds—and that includes myself. However, I enjoy reasoning so these kind of debates are in fact more for me than for others. My life is quite empty without my opinions and debates.
Reply
:iconroadkillkitten:
roadkillKitten Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
I couldn't agree more. I'm kind of surprised the atheist was so defensive, I see no fault in your reasoning. Perhaps "people" in the general sense, are just defensive when they think they are being accused of being "wrong." Some people just like to argue. Who knows? But, I'll leave you with this joke, it cracks me up every time I tell it:

What do you get if you have an agnostic-dyslexic-insomniac...?

Someone who lays awake at night wondering whether or not there's a dog!
Reply
:iconjakeukalane:
Jakeukalane Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Atheism is based in knowledge.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Professional General Artist
Knowledge? I don't know that there is no God. However I am highly suspicious of it, and I suppose that's all that can be said.
Reply
:iconjakeukalane:
Jakeukalane Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
god is something invented by humans and is deeply based in their brain where those biological predispositions make humans in the past more likely to survive. That biological predisposition is religion.
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Alrighty... So... All you can give is a reason why is COULD be a human invention, but you cannot give a reason that it CANNOT be actual Deity?
...Is that pretty much it?
Reply
:iconjakeukalane:
Jakeukalane Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
???
your believe in a deity is based in your education. change the education and it will change the deity. You are atheist of 99.99% of the deities created by human. I am 100%, is a little difference.
gods ARE human invention
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
That is not a solid reason, but a rewording of your last statement.
If I correctly follow your logic, then I do not dispute most of your arguement (only the very last part), only its relevance and effect.
Yes, my belief is based on my education, in a way. I would likely term it differently, but yes, because I have been taught the Bible, I believe in it. However, I am, in fact, a rather suspicious student of anything I learn, and if there is any doubt, I pick it apart until I've either dispelled said doubt, or proven it to be well founded. I do not simply believe everything I am taught.
I do hold that every god but my God is a human invention, or an instance of man following a demon or like entity; but I also hold that I am an invention of my God, not the other way around.
So then, While your statement about me is mostly true, this does not disprove the existance of my God, or that He is a human invention. It only proves that I don't believe in any other god but He, and that it is because I have been taught that.
And now I ask you this:
Were you not taught atheism, and therefore believe it?
Why do you strongly feel that their is no God? Tell me what causes you to be so convinced.
Reply
:iconjakeukalane:
Jakeukalane Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I was educated in an catholic ambient. Atheism (although I don't like the term, I prefer rationalist or realist)grew in me but a lot of factors. By the contradictions of the existence of a god (the moral of the cristians is cruel), the obvious thing of that no god exists (no one shows me that a god exist, there is no prove, the love came from the people not from imagination of people hundred years ago), the radical of religion (in my country for example they burn people and nowadays steal people, are pedophiles and trick people all the time), history, sociology and psicology shows that there is no god or gods in the world. There is not evidence for a camel smoking marihuana that didn't create you equally there is not evidence that an invisible force create you. Is the same.
Can you demostrate legitimally that my giant camel smoking marihuana in the deep space don't exist? try changing C.S.M.i.t.D.S. for your god

"I do hold that every god but my God is a human invention" Why? Because a book says?
If you have born in India you will believe in hundred of gods.

You are only one step to open your eyes and see the world without gods.

Also I don't believe in a lot of idiotic things (conspirations, science conspirations, ufo/ovni, sitchnin).

Apart from that I think that some people just need the religion to have a sense for their lives because they can't found a meaning without religion. /and I don't pretent to include you, i am talking about people that I know/

Fortunately, the people change and the religion evolve into more civilizated things and now we know that the more atheistic countries are the less violent and we can have a higher moral than believers in a non-existing thing.

You and me we are not talking about the deistic think. we are talking about the existence or not of the cristian god. And that is absolute there is 100% no such a god.

About deistic thinking: well is a little more complicated than that and the rationalist people that grow inside religion comunity will accept that. I do not accept the existence of any god because anything superior for us (like a creator of universe or a creator of simulation) it is not equal to a god. He/She (It) not know nothing about us (the information have a limit of transmision also a limit of depth to manage) and cannnot influence so by all the meanings there is not such an entity.
Also the existence of that entity is less probable that the existence of the entire universe because require more complexity that the original explication so, although a "deistic" explanation (although that IT, it would be by all the means NOT a god) is improbable it can't be said 100% untrue.

But well, you will find all of this (maybe) offensive in a way or another (it is NOT my intention to be offensive, and this is a language that I don't know the correct way to avoid being offensive).

Also, I didn't find any people that change his mind about anything related to believing: ufo/ovni, sitchin (sumerian like extraterrestial), 11m bombing conspiration, jews conspiration, religion and those things.

I, by myself, consider that all those things have to grew inside one by looking all the factors. And also I consider that atheist is better than religion if we have a solid base connected to the reality to look the world how it is. If we believe in other things that are not the reality (money, new age, astrology) is just an another form of religion.

And science is not a thing that can be interpretated as a whole. science is not good or bad (although i think is predominally good) but is good or bad in the implementation.

Greetings and sorry for the mistakes of grammar / spelling / bad construction of phrases and general divagation...
sorry for the long reply.

Greetings!
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well then, You're outlook on human existence, my friend, seems a sad and purposeless one.
That you would rather adamantly believe that when you die your life will end and in no way continue, and thus have been totally meaningless, astounds me to no end. But, I suppose that you could say the same about me and my beliefs.
I cannot, I think, convince you of my case, because you look at my arguement, and then reinsist oupon yours. Of course, I suppose that, at this point, I am doing the same in reply to your statements.
Yet, I'll still hold unwaveringly to my beliefs... so I guess you can just call me crazy until I can come back with a better answer.
But, I'd like to leave you to contemplate this, and please read it through, even if it has little of concrete arguement, and ponder the questions:
It has been said of a human life, that once he has died, his whole existance in the world boils down to a simple dash between two dates, etched into stone. I ask you, if there is no god, and there is no eternity, then when you die, your entire time of existence as an entity is over forever: just what will that dash be worth? Years? Perhaps. But of what real value will they be? You might perhaps say that your effect on others who might outlive you is what the dash is worth. But, if when they die, their life is simply gone forever, just what is that effect worth?
Do you have anything to live for? If there is no god for which to live, then does that only leave self, or selflessness? ...But, again, how worthy a cause are they really?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Professional General Artist
How can you say with certainty that God is a human invention? I do think that is the case, however you're likely thinking of the God from scripture. If you consider a pantheistic God then that leaves you with just as many questions as considering a scientific interpretation but it is a vague attempt at defining the mechanism at the core of the existence of the universe. Did the universe create itself or was it created by a different mechanism? If it's a different mechanism then I think you can rightfully call that a God until we have a way of explaining that mechanism. God doesn't have to be a deity and as such it seems very premature to state that there is no God and it's a human invention. Fabricated Gods are human inventions, but whether 'God' is a human invention... of course it is, but it can both be a human invention and something which is real and which we would right now define as 'God'. Once this mechanism is explained scientifically however it's no longer a mystery and only such a fundamental mystery can be equated with God. So you see, God is a placeholder term for something we don't understand. In that regard it's similar to gravitation, which is also a placeholder term.

In conclusion, you're right to say that religion is a human fabrication/tradition but nothing can be said with certainty about God. Besides, you first have to define what God is before you can say it doesn't exist. I'm the first one to say I wouldn't understand the mind of God, so how can I reject an idea I don't even understand? That's just ignorance, or making premature statements.
Reply
:iconjakeukalane:
Jakeukalane Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
If we live in an artificial universe or in a simulation, that's the only place where the words creator can be used. But, and this is the important thing: those "creator" is not a divine thing, it is not equal to any concept formed by religion. So the gods of the religions don't exists (also, can't exists) because they are based in non-physical things.

well, you can say that neutrinos are god. moreless the terms are related ("is everywhere") but the relationship between neutrinos and the gods of the religions are null.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
If we live in an artificial universe or in a simulation, that's the only place where the words creator can be used.
No, it isn't. How would an artificial or simulated universe be distinct from a "regular" universe? There is no distinction, and whether we are simulated by an advanced race or not doesn't matter because you still have to explain where that advanced race came from. You enter an infinite regress, just like you would by asking who created God, or presumably even by asking who or what created the laws of physics or the notion that they can become one single force and where that one force comes from. I'm not saying the idea of a simulated universe is not relevant but ultimately it just postpones the answers to the fundamental questions.

I'm also not quite sure how you can say a God can't exist in a non-physical form. We know of plenty of things which do so it's a weird presumption that God couldn't. In fact I submit that a God can ONLY exist in non-physical form, as I argued in the article.

You can't say neutrinos are God just because it's everywhere. Dark energy, dark matter, space and time are also everywhere but by your reasoning it seems there would be a lot of Gods. Of course you are right that there is no connection between neutrinos and Gods. A God would have to explain how the universe came to be, and as far as I understand what neutrinos are, they're a sort of radiated energy from nuclear processes and don't seem to be essential to the origin of the universe, but rather a by-product of the universe.

Speaking of artificial and simulated universes, it seems our universe is simulated regardless of who or what the creator is. Gerard 't Hooft came up with the holographic principle, which was later adapted and interpreted through string theory by Leonard Susskind. This theory suggests that there is a lower dimensional description from which gravity emanates (hence gravity is so weak because it looses energy by going through space we don't see) and furthermore it seems that all information is embedded on a two-dimensional surface exterior to the universe, much like a black hole. A black hole is actually a three-dimensional object and everything which goes beyond the Schwarzschild radius "falls in" and is embedded on a two-dimensional surface and the energy is slowly radiated from the black hole in the form of Hawking radiation. This last principle was the result of a long discussion between Hawking and Susskind among others called 'The Black Hole War' which was about the information paradox.

I don't think we can verify that indeed we are holographic but it seems consistent with principles which have been verified, such as the fact that information is never lost. Ultimately I couldn't say whether I'm "real" or not; I might very well be the imaginings of someone else. I could die in this life and wake up in an other.
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
And so you believe in only the physical?
It has been said, "I feel sorry for modern man, because he lives in a world devoid of dragons, and, by extension, devoid of magic."
While God certainly isn't 'magical' per se, I believe the quote fitting, nonetheless.
I am, quite honestly, both shocked and saddened by the fact that you would rather live in a simulation or artificial universe, than a real universe created by deity.
...Because (according to your logic) such ideas must also arise from what man is predesposed to think, or, essentially, what he would prefer to be truth.
Reply
:iconjakeukalane:
Jakeukalane Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
well, the fist part is a bit funny :) (in a good sense).
there is the coincidence that I WRITE about dragons, fantasy beings, that I invent by myself. I don't believe in those things but I enjoy a lot creating those stories.
Second, you have to clarify me the world artificial. There is not such a barrier between artificial/natural. If there is in an odd posibility to those creator to exist an create the universe is the same: is not natural or artificial. I am only saying that such a thing is not divine. There is nothing about divine in the world. Divine things are only in our brain. I am only saying that those "creator" is not equiparable to any deity because he/she/it will follow the physic laws of another universe.

BUT. that is only a concesion to the 1% of rational doubt that we have and we are predesposed as you say. That way (a thing that create a universe following the rules of other and being not-a-deity in the sense we have) is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAT thinking that the universe it is only by itself.

If all the people that belive in god will say ONLY that he created the universe, i will be very happy because that will give freedom to the mind of the people.

but yet, yes, i have to admit, for some people is better religion than not-religion. Not for me sorry. Probably not for you, but that is a question that you can have by yourself.

Well, I enjoyed this time talking :) Have a nice day/nigh :D
Reply
:iconscrewfaceromeo:
ScrewfaceRomeo Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I think that "can you prove god does not exist" is a bit of a fallacy; with God, the burden of proof lies with the religious. Russell's teapot illustrates this; "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense"
Reply
:iconfeanor-the-dragon:
Feanor-the-Dragon Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
NICE! I like that arguement!
...Although I can't really tell what side you're taking...
Reply
:iconscrewfaceromeo:
ScrewfaceRomeo Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Since I have yet to find a convincing arguement for the existence of god, I remain open on the subject, though I lean towards a reality in which god does not exist, because I feel that "god" or "gods" as a concept fails Occam's Razor.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Professional General Artist
Of course you are correct, but I'm not trying to prove the existence or nonexistence with that argument. My argument is in regard to the notion that believing in the nonexistence is also faith. Your teapot analogy is also based on faith. What the teapot analogy tries to show is that it should not be an argument for the existence or nonexistence of this hypothetical teapot.
Reply
:iconscrewfaceromeo:
ScrewfaceRomeo Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
My conception of the teapot analogy is that it posits that the existance of god or gods is a human proposal, generated and postulated by people, much like the claim of a teapot orbiting the sun. One must then go into the situation with the basic expectation that the teapot does not exist, and await proof. Religion demands faith, or belief despite lack of physical evidence. Areligion (not to be confused with Anti-Religion) starts off with the basic assumption that the world is as we can observe it, that the supernatural beings claimed by the religious do not exist (as we have yet to observe their existance). So lack of religion is not necessarily faith, because faith requires a leap of belief despite evidence or lack thereof, and as per the Teapot, the baseline assumption is that god or gods do not exist, since there is no evidence to the contrary.

Now, some variants of areligion, or more specifically anti-religion, do take on religious qualities. Militant Atheism, or "big A" atheism, is very reminiscent of religious extremism, and it's perfectly justifiable to treat it as such. But "small a" atheism and areligion, are not, I would argue, faith. I'm areligious; I don't "believe in nonexistence", I just don't see any justification for believing in existence, and so don't.
Reply
:iconmartinsilvertant:
MartinSilvertant Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Professional General Artist
You can posit that the existence of God is a human proposal but in some regards you're wrong to do so. I think all you can state is that religion is a human proposal. First off, you have to define what a God is before you can say that there is none. We have no clear description so in that regard I don't know what we're arguing about, let alone state that it doesn't exist. Secondly, something we would consider "God" can exist despite religion and all which has been said about our human conception of God. Thirdly, of course there is no way to prove the nonexistence of something, but that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that therefore it doesn't exist. I don't believe unicorns exist and that opinion comes from the experience I have of the nonexistence of unicorns and from expectations based on what I do see in biology. The same goes for your teapot analogy; we can infer that it isn't there because we never found a teapot or any other such item in orbit around anything before. It may be that other planets do have unicorns but the argument for God is a lot more complex because you can't speak from experience and we don't have a clear description of what we're arguing about in the first place. To me it's an entirely open debate which should not have a factual conclusion but one based on opinions. As this is a discussion based on opinions and not on what we know to be facts, the belief that God does not exist is very much faith even if it's a rational position to not believe in something you don't know to be real. The argument for atheism is a universal negative (obversion); the position of atheism is inferred from the position of theism and the quality of the inferred proposition is changed but the truth value is equivalent to the original proposition. Therefore one should not pretend atheism is synonymous with facts because this goes entirely against the scientific protocol. You can have an opinion about the existence or nonexistence of God but one should remain open to the possibility.

I should also say that it's dangerous to use 'religion' and 'theism' interchangeably. As such your last arguments are besides the point. I'm not at all talking about religions or religious aspects.

I don't "believe in nonexistence", I just don't see any justification for believing in existence, and so don't.
That's an opinion and that's exactly my point. I must ask you though, do you think there is a point to the universe? If there were no consciousness there probably wouldn't be a point to the universe and it could be there or not there and it would have no implications for anything. If you can tell me what you think animates the universe then you have a point. If you can't then this remains an open question and the concept of God remains relevant.
Reply
:iconscrewfaceromeo:
ScrewfaceRomeo Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
That's ignosticism, I believe, or the position that we cannot discuss God in a meaningful way because God has not been defined, right? If we accept that we lack a clear definition of God (which seems quite reasonable, and which I would agree with), then I suppose anti-theist groups that specifically state a lack of "God" could be grouped with faith-based organizations. But that's by no means universal among areligous people; agnostics adopt the position you advocate, or "remain[ing] open to the possibility", wereas my philosophy is something of a combination of ignosticism, lack of proof either way, and above all just not particularly caring, since there seems to be no measurable impact on my life from either end.

I don't take a position here. Simply put, I don't care, don't see the discussion as particularly relevant to anything, and don't really have an answer. If asked, I'd have to say that I find the existence of god unlikely, simply because it seems to fail Occam's Razor and because it still fails to solve the question, since one then has to ask "how did God come into being".
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconmartinsilvertant: More from MartinSilvertant


Featured in Collections

Word art by Arcane-Shadow-Razil

LIT by roadkillKitten


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
December 9, 2012
File Size
5.6 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
534
Favourites
15 (who?)
Comments
72
×