Atheist, are you one??

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

Is the godd bless you an anglo-saxon thing?

In most languages I can think of the common response to sneezing refers to health:

I can hear the QI klaxon going off as I say this, but I was told that it was believed the spirit weakened when you sneeze - which could allow the devil to sneak into your soul.

As for being an atheist, as howerd suggests, I just am. I have no arguments either way - I just never felt it and have no need for it. I have blue eyes...I have no god(s) in my life...I worry about neither.

But some of my close family and friends are very committed to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam. They are all good people and share values of giving, caring and helping - so that's great! If I break bread with them I say "grace" or equivalent with them because I respect their belief - I just don't share it.

My theory, to explain myself to myself, is that religion is not something outside pushing in but something inside coming out. You either have that gene or you don't... I don't. Some people like red wine...I don't.

[The Unknown Libertarian]

Originally Posted by howerd

Errrr... just wondering... how can you or anyone 'reluctantly' not believe god claims???

Calm down. I am an atheist.

To your point, it's quite easy to reluctantly be an atheist or a theist. It is quite easy to reluctantly disbelieve in Bigfoot.

When I was a kid, I believed in Bigfoot. Later, because of a profound (and almost suspicious) lack of evidence, I stopped believing in Bigfoot. I couldn't believe in them (or it) anymore. At the time (and even now, to a degree), I knew that I would rather believe in Bigfoot than not, but I was compelled to abandon my belief. I was a reluctant disbeliever in Bigfoot.

Originally Posted by howerd

Oh you mean they'll react just like theists then?

No. Nowhere is that implied in my statement. How theists react or don't react is utterly irrelevant to my post.

The rest of your post isn't worth reading. I never claimed that all atheists are thin-skinned and whiny. I never claimed that no theists are thin-skinned and whiny.

[rbb0965]

Its too easy to dismiss religion by making fun of bad RE lessons and looking at the failings of one or another awful practitioner of the faith.

But the fundamental problems remain:

Where did the universe/multiverse come from if we leave out some supernatural power? (Supernatural here just meaning outside nature.)

If the answer is the big bang, why did the bang 'bang!' nothing can cause itself. So if the Universe came into existence 16.8 Billion (or whatever the current number is) years ago. Why did it start, what caused it?

Science has no answer, it just pretends it does. You probably heard Sean Carroll or Lawrence Krauss or someone like them say "we can make a universe from nothing. No time, no space, nothing." However they then go on to say things like this to explain how this can happen. "In a quantum field pairs of virtual particles can come into existence and this is tiny amount of matter is enough stuff to make our universe."

Lets tease that out a bit.

1) "Pairs of particles" Two of anything implies space, no two things can occupy the same space at the same time, no matter how close they are. Therefore in this version of nothing we must have "space" before the Universe is created. But I thought the big bang is supposed to have created space?

2) "Particles exist" Existence requires time, a thing that has no existence in time is not a thing. Therefore in this version of nothing we have "Time" before the Universe is created. But I thought the big bang is supposed to have created time?

3) "In a quantum filed" Fields are something that exist due to the current laws of physics and endow matter with its properties. Therefore in this version of nothing we have "The laws of Physics and Material things"before the Universe is created. But I thought the big bang is supposed to have created the laws of physics and matter.

So when science says it can explain the coming into existence of the Universe out of';nothing', what they mean is. "If you give us, time, space matter and at least some of the laws of physics, we will give you the universe", but my dear Scientists, if we have all that, we would already have a Universe!

So one of the reasons I believe in God, is because I can't explain how the Universe can cause itself to come into existence...

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by rbb0965

So one of the reasons I believe in God, is because I can't explain how the Universe can cause itself to come into existence...

And conversely one of the reasons I do not believe in a God/Gods (apart from an understandable total absence of any form of evidence) is is because no one can explain how he/she/they came into existence.
It all comes down to an individual choice.

[rbb0965]

Hi Wendigo,

I will address this more fully later, I don't want to get sidetracked just yet.

But really you can't argue the non existence of God in the same way. God is a timeless immaterial 'being' beyond space time and the laws of physics by definition. As such, he requires no such tinkering to explain his eternalness.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by rbb0965

Hi Wendigo,

I will address this more fully later, I don't want to get sidetracked just yet.

But really you can't argue the non existence of God in the same way. God is a timeless immaterial 'being' beyond space time and the laws of physics by definition. As such, he requires no such tinkering to explain his eternalness.

You also can't argue the existence of God in that way...

[rbb0965]

That is not correct.

We can argue the existence of a thing which is non temporal necessary and immaterial, which causes other things to come into existence and which we can call God. But by definition that which exists in space and time and has a beginning requires a cause. God does not exist in space and time and therefore does not require a cause.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by rbb0965

That is not correct.

We can argue the existence of a thing which is non temporal necessary and immaterial, which causes other things to come into existence and which we can call God. But by deification that which exists in space and time and has a beginning requires a cause. God does not exist in space and time and therefore does not require a cause.

No one knows what is correct all any of us can do is conjecture, arguing that God is beyond space and time so needs no explanation however is pure wishful thinking.
I'm happy not believing in a God and you are happy to believe there is one (presumably you are a monotheist? ) and never the twain will meet.

[onehourplus]

Nullius in verba

(Latin for "on the word of no one" or "nothing by mere authority")

-the motto of the Royal Society of London

[rbb0965]

I respectfully disagree:

onehourplus you say my argument that we can infer or argue the existence a thing which is non temporal necessary and immaterial, which causes other things to come into existence and which we can call God, is in effect "Nullius in verba" by which you seem to suggest I have no way of proving my point. But you are wrong.

To prove my case all I need to show is that the Universe exists. For if the Universe exists it cannot have caused itself and since whatever did cause it is beyond the Universe by definition (having existed before the Universe), it must by definition be non temporal (outside time) necessary (it is required to create the Universe) and immaterial (without space or mass since it exists outside the Universe). Now such a thing could exists and not causes other things to come into existence, but then we would not have a Universe and clearly we do, therefore we may as I say infer the existence of a "non temporal necessary and immaterial thing, which causes other things to come into existence" which I choose to call God.