Has a Happy Person Ever Become Atheist?

[alcurad]

what is "existence" in the first place? in what ways does a creator Not exist?

and how do the laws of physics-as we call them- or less broadly the universe-parts which we can observe/theorize about- originate?

the athiest answer: they existed without need for god:thus they Are god. what is athiesm then but deification of nature/universe?

believing that what we experience, what we can measure is sufficient/all encompassing and enough to deny the existence of a creator is utterly unfounded on science, thus the atheist position lacks proof as much as the theist on this one.

^ the last bit is an overestimation, I might go into that later.

 

[جوري]

what is "existence" in the first place? in what ways does a creator Not exist?

and how do the laws of physics-as we call them- or less broadly the universe-parts which we can observe/theorize about- originate?

the athiest answer: they existed without need for god:thus they Are god. what is athiesm then but deification of nature/universe?

believing that what we experience, what we can measure is sufficient/all encompassing and enough to deny the existence of a creator is utterly unfounded on science, thus the atheist position lacks proof as much as the theist on this one.

^ the last bit is an overestimation, I might go into that later.

Good post..
indeed, I marvel of the atheist desire to put a burden of proof on theists..
they find themselves in a universe, yet have no scientifically verifiable method of proving how it came to be from unicellular goo to complex multi specied, multi-organ, well orchestrated, well coordinated, composites and compounds .. they come with a universal negative, and expecting us to forgo the natural default conclusion for an even lesser certainty!

 

[barrio79]

indeed, I marvel of the atheist desire to put a burden of proof on theists.

Actually atheists just live normal lives as normal people, theists on the other hand are extraordinary people who follow make believe beings and expect everyone else to make allowances for their odd behavior eg drowning each other in the Ganges, building illegally on land in other peoples countries and so on; because it’s being done in the name of one’s religious beliefs . That's ok, but if an average joe does it he/she gets arrested.


For the skeptic, any proof would be nice
for the believer, no proof is necessary.

 

[جوري]

Actually atheists just live normal lives as normal people,

why is a 'normal' person so preoccupied with theists on a religious forum?

theists on the other hand are extraordinary people who follow make believe beings and expect everyone else to make allowances for their odd behavior eg drowning each other in the Ganges, building illegally on land in other peoples countries and so on; because it’s being done in the name of one’s religious beliefs . That's ok, but if an average joe does it he/she gets arrested.

I have no idea what this drivel means, and frankly I don't care, but again, I pose the question, if so ordinary, why waste so much of your time on an Islamic forum?

For the skeptic, any proof would be nice
for the believer, no proof is necessary.

Love that spin, it isn't very seductive, but I am sure has you and others fooled into considering yourselves worldly-wise!

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

what is "existence" in the first place? in what ways does a creator Not exist?

Well Gods certainly do exist... at least as ideas within the minds of their believers.

the athiest answer: they existed without need for god:thus they Are god. what is athiesm then but deification of nature/universe?

You are creating a straw man. Why don't you let atheists tell you their answers instead of inventing answers to assign to them? I predict that if you do you will get many variant responses, because all atheism is, is the lack of belief in a god. Once you get past that and start asking how the universe came to be you're going to get many differing, competing, and conflicting ideas.

Some folks like myself will even be honest with you and admit they don't know (or in my case don't much care).

I certainly have never met an atheist who deifies nature.

believing that what we experience, what we can measure is sufficient/all encompassing and enough to deny the existence of a creator is utterly unfounded on science, thus the atheist position lacks proof as much as the theist on this one.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I take it you are refering to "strong atheists" - those who have the positive belief that there is no god, and not "weak atheists" - those who simply lack a belief in God? I take the position that we can not prove or disprove God, just like we can't prove or disprove the flying spagheti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, Bertrand Russel's celestial tea pot, etc. You can't disprove a non-falsifiable claim.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If an atheist goes around declaring that he is certain that no god can possibly exist, then the burden is on him to prove that claim. But not many atheists do that and I think you'll be hard pressed to find any who take that position here. On the other hand if the theist goes around declaring a certainty that god DOES exist, the burden is likewise on them to prove their claim. I think ALL (or nearly all) of you muslims and christians here fall into that position.

 

[Trumble]

indeed, I marvel of the atheist desire to put a burden of proof on theists..

I don't really think the 'burden of proof' is an issue, is it? Or at least, if it is, it's time people found another one. Surely one thing we can all agree on is that the matter is unproveable either way, and looks likely to stay that way for a very long time.

Half of the trouble seems to be indicated by your next paragraph;

they come with a universal negative, and expecting us to forgo the natural default conclusion for an even lesser certainty!

God is not the 'natural default conclusion' unless you prejudge that He exists, which atheists obviously do not. And of course there isn't the slightest bit of scientific evidence for that conclusion, so criticising the alternative for absence of same seems rather odd. The 'natural default' for atheists would be that "no scientifically verifiable method of proving how it came to be from unicellular goo to complex multi specied, multi-organ, well orchestrated, well coordinated, composites and compounds" has been found yet. But mankind, science, and indeed philosophy are still young. Keep looking and we might find it. Commit the intellectual hara-kiri that is 'God of the gaps' and we never will.

 

[جوري]

I don't really think the 'burden of proof' is an issue, is it? Or at least, if it is, it's time people found another one. Surely one thing we can all agree on is that the matter is unproveable either way, and looks likely to stay that way for a very long time.

Indeed.. but, that does seem like a matter that you should address the fellow atheist, not my person?

Half of the trouble seems to be indicated by your next paragraph;



God is not the 'natural default conclusion' unless you prejudge that He exists, which atheists obviously do not. And of course there isn't the slightest bit of scientific evidence for that conclusion, so criticising the alternative for absence of same seems rather odd. The 'natural default' for atheists would be that "no scientifically verifiable method of proving how it came to be from unicellular goo to complex multi specied, multi-organ, well orchestrated, well coordinated, composites and compounds" has been found yet. But mankind, science, and indeed philosophy are still young. Keep looking and we might find it. Commit the intellectual hara-kiri that is 'God of the gaps' and we never will.

No, it is Natural, and there is no pre-supposition...
natural when you come home to a cooked apple pie even with crusty burnt edges that someone baked it, that it didn't cook itself from objects in your fridge and cupboard, but one would be willing to sit for a winded story (for sheer amusement) of how it came to be rather than accept the obvious.

As for the "God of the Gaps'', well you (collectively) keep wasting a life time in search of it, but there is no point in bothering the rest of us with bromides of spaghetti monsters and whatnots.. (actually not you personally) as you seem to recognize certain truths.. like how far off we are from finding a permanent cure for the common cold, or some viable screening tests for deadly cancers (if not treatment) before we get all hyper-vigilant about unlocking the secrets of the universe, form, life or what happens thereafter; as they have remained obscure for millenniums and I imagine unless someone comes up with some ectoplasm and alternate plane device that so they shall remain.
scientists are humbled indeed as they understand their limitations, only fools think they have a grip on everything.


all the best

 

[Gubbleknucker]

I'm one of the happiest people I know...

How come I have never heard an atheist say, I was outside on a beautiful summers day gazing at the greenery when I said to myself, "There is no God."
.

I've done nearly exactly that. The idea that a god had anything to do with the crimson sunset would make it seem far less meaningful to me.

 

[Joe98]

natural when you come home to a cooked apple pie even with crusty burnt edges that someone baked it, that it didn't cook itself from objects in your fridge and cupboard,

.....but one would be willing to sit for a winded story of how it came to be rather than accept the obvious.

Well everybody in my household denied baking the apple pie and next to it is a Holy Book with instructions and we too can accept the obvious.

......the apple pie was baked by God and he has left a set of instructions on how to lead a culinary life.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Well everybody in my household denied baking the apple pie and next to it is a Holy Book with instructions and we too can accept the obvious.

......the apple pie was baked by God and he has left a set of instructions on how to lead a culinary life.

Peace

That was unintelligible to me-- I don't understand your point!

all the best

 

[Trumble]

That was unintelligible to me-- I don't understand your point!

all the best

Pity.. it's a very good one.

The point is that as everyone denied baking the pie clearly the only possible solution was the 'default' one; GOD had baked the pie. And not only had he baked it, he left a book of instructions so that in future His creations could bake their own pies. Of course, extending the metaphor, you could be 'scientific' and choose to continue your search for the phantom baker by asking the neighbours, your friends, or even checking police bulletins for any signs of a rogue baker at large. But, when it is 'obvious' the baker must be God, why bother?

 

[Tony]

what!!!!!!!! how did Allah become reprersented as a pie baker ? Sorry to dip into this thread but that is so disrespectful:raging:

 

[جوري]

Pity.. it's a very good one.

The point is that as everyone denied baking the pie clearly the only possible solution was the 'default' one; GOD had baked the pie. And not only had he baked it, he left a book of instructions so that in future His creations could bake their own pies. Of course, extending the metaphor, you could be 'scientific' and choose to continue your search for the phantom baker by asking the neighbours, your friends, or even checking police bulletins for any signs of a rogue baker at large. But, when it is 'obvious' the baker must be God, why bother?

That is a complete non sequitur.. so it is a pity indeed as the spin has failed both of you miserably.. anyone can make a pie, and pies still don't appear ex nihilo from ingredients that just happen to be in existence .. not everyone actually I should say no one can or has created a human and the search has failed miserably! Try harder if you are 'going to bother'

all the best

 

[Gubbleknucker]

anyone can make a pie, and pies still don't appear ex nihilo.. not everyone actually I should say no one can create a human and humans don't appear ex nihilo!

Anyone can make a human, too.

At least, almost any male and female.

I like Joe's comment very much. I don't have rep power though...imsad

 

[Muezzin]

Apple pie on one hand, the universe as we know it on the other.

Same thing?

 

[جوري]

Anyone can make a human, too.

At least, almost any male and female.

I like Joe's comment very much. I don't have rep power though...imsad

does the term a ex nihilo mean anything to you? You can't really take credit for ordnance that you came ready equipped with .. 'finding it there' doesn't equate with creation... until you can account for how your Leydig's, Sertoli's cells, epididymis, vas deferens, ejaculatory ducts, pitituary, gonads etc etc all came together to a well orchestrated play integral for the human survival through no volition of your own can you come and tell me about how almost any male or female create a human from two cells!

all the best

 

[believeByHEART.]

ahh unintelligence does bother me much,

when he says no one can make a human he means making them, crafting them physically using the substances that make us..
your joke just made you very lame.

& i wont go scientifically into it either, i aint that brainy.. xD

 

[جوري]

Apple pie on one hand, the universe as we know it on the other.

Same thing?

for the simpleton mind apparently it is.. invoking logic has become a twisted simile!

 

[Muezzin]

Anyone can make a human, too.

At least, almost any male and female.

Given that we're talking about creation ex nihilo here (i.e. making something from nothing), that's kind of shifting the goal posts.

Unless I've misunderstood the discussion in my brief scan.

 

[Hamayun]

Anyone can make a human, too.

At least, almost any male and female.

Err... do you know the difference between Creation and Reproduction? :?

^o)