Why in God's name are you an atheist?

[mingmty]

I disagree. I believe in God, if science shows that I am misconceiving God I will alter my conception accordingly.

You may believe in whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no data supporting it, your beliefs are the result of your subjective perception; your birth place, what your parents believed, what the priests told you. There is nothing other than that, if you eliminate the subject, you, from the context, you are left with nothing.

I don't see any great difference between my belief in God and this.

Then you didn't got the essence of my comment, helium keeps in liquid state when temperature approaches zero kelvins, it doesn't matter if you try it yourself or a Japanese try it, doesn't matter if a Christian try it, or if a Buddhist try it, is a fact, helium keeps in liquid state when the temperature approaches zero kelvins.

This data, this fact, is one in which you can take yourself and your culture out of picture, is not subjective, and it supports the theory that vacuum has energy, as there is nothing else than vacuum to extract energy and keep helium in this energized state.

Facts and data; theories supported by facts and data; anywhere in the world; peer reviewed.

I think you dismiss too lightly those whose views differ as you see it from yours.

I think you don't understand what I'm trying to explain; or the nature of science.

 

[mingmty]

So only that which "conforms to scientific principles" warrants support?

For me it does, that's why I'm a scientist. And in my defense it is, historically, the best tool we have to explain and understand the universe.

Is about the free evolution of knowledge, was and is a revolutionary idea, and is called scientific thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it does not.

So why should the number of intelligent theists have any more bearing on a person's religious beliefs than the number of intelligent Republicans/Tories/Marxist-Leninists/Libertarians/whatevers have on a person's political beliefs? All of them found compelling evidence for whatever they believed in.

Vacuous ...

Nice.

Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

 

[sandandfoam]

You may believe in whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no data supporting it, your beliefs are the result of your subjective perception; your birth place, what your parents believed, what the priests told you. There is nothing other than that, if you eliminate the subject, you, from the context, you are left with nothing..

Again I disagree, of course my beliefs are subjective, just like yours, I disagree that 'they are just cultural'-my parents and my wife are all atheist, where I live the vast vast majority of people are Roman Catholic. I am not a Roman Catholic. My belief is based on my own reading and thinking.

Then you didn't got the essence of my comment, helium keeps in liquid state when temperature approaches zero kelvins, it doesn't matter if you try it yourself or a Japanese try it, doesn't matter if a Christian try it, or if a Buddhist try it, is a fact, helium keeps in liquid state when the temperature approaches zero kelvins.
This data, fact, is one in which you can take yourself and your culture out of picture, is not subjective, and it supports the theory that vacuum has energy, as there is nothing else than vacuum to extract energy and keep helium in this energized state.

Facts and data; theories supported by facts and data; anywhere in the world; peer reviewed..

The big bang happened - theory supported by facts and data. Why?

I think you don't understand what I'm trying to explain; or the nature of science.

Perhaps. I am engaging you in an open manner, that is all I can do in my efforts to understand. I still think think you dismiss too lightly those whose views differ as you see it from yours.I agree with Dr. Davies a cosmologist at Arizon State University who asserted "that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe. Without that presumption a scientist could not function."
Perhaps he misunderstands the nature of science too?

 

[mingmty]

Again I disagree, my parents and my wife are all atheist, where I live the vast vast majority of people are Roman Catholic. I am not a Roman Catholic. My belief is based on my own reading and thinking.

I really don't want to discuss your beliefs, as I'm quite sure I'm not going to convince you on believing something else, but what you are describing still is a subjective experience that is dependent on your education and surroundings; somebody else could have read the same books you did and still be an atheist, or pagan, or what else, once again if you take yourself out of the picture you are left with nothing.

In the other hand, we have data, this fact of helium keeping in liquid state even when the temperature is close to zero kelvins, and it doesn't matter who try it, it always happen.

I think you aren't understanding what a subjective experience means, I'm not saying it's wrong (it works for you), all I'm saying is that it doesn't work for me, and I'm giving my reasons as that is what this thread is about.

The big bang happened - theory supported by facts and data. Why?

I get this feeling you are not very familiar with scientific theories; the universe is expanding, and it has a center, so the first logical conclusion driven from the data that supported the Big-Bang is that if the universe is expanding and it has a center then long ago everything must have been condensed in this center, and since breaking this huge gravity and electrical forces to start a expand would require an equal huge amount of energy, then a big explosion was proposed.

But our modern telescopes, like the Hubble, gave us a new opportunity to collect data and this data supports the theory; since light has speed if we look far into the cosmos we are really looking at the past of the cosmos, the past of the universe, and this picture of the ancient universe (that can be taken anywhere by anybody) shows clear signs of a hot radiant system full of starts that most probably were the result of a huge explosion.

But the theory has its flaws, and other theories are trying to beat the Big-Bang, so far the Big-Bang is the one with the most data that supports it, but it may be just a matter of time until we drop it for something better... Don't you love science? I bet you can't do the same to an aspect of your religion.

Perhaps. I am engaging you in an open manner, that is all I can do in my efforts to understand. I still think think you dismiss too lightly those whose views differ as you see it from yours.

I don't think I'm dismissing your view lightly, I'm just expressing my opinion.

 

[sandandfoam]

Sorry mingmty I edited as you were replying.

 

[sandandfoam]

There's loads I want to take you up on but I have been called away. See you later.

 

[mingmty]

I agree with Dr. Davies a cosmologist at Arizon State University who asserted "that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe. Without that presumption a scientist could not function."
Perhaps he misunderstands the nature of science too?

And he is somewhat right! Science also has evolved over the history, from the magical/scientific alchemists to our modern science.

Science was actually under heavy risk of becoming another religion, this were the times when scientists claimed to discover "laws" and those who challenged them were discredited. This time in science history is called positivism, since they were mistakenly certain that this laws were how the universe worked as fact, and not a theory of how it works as far as we can see.

But Heisenberg (with the Uncertainty Principle) and Einstein (with the Theory of Relativity) gave birth to modern science, our science, they gave science the last push to become a true tool for the evolution of knowledge, I will risk to say it is the science it was meant to be, but humans are so eager to embrace absolute answers that it almost got lost.

What Dr. Davies said apply to the science that is thought in High-School (you can't really expect much from teachers that aren't specialized in the subject) but as our modern science go, he is wrong on saying that scientist expect a orderly universe, we only order our thoughts to conform to the universe. For example imaginary numbers, they don't mean a thing in the physical world, they are impossible, yet we use them extensively to explain and predict the universe, it makes sense to us, and we adapt them to explain the unknown, so it is now known, to us, by using our tools... You could say we linearize the universe (Geek joke).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why in God's name are you an atheist?

Mu.

Thank you and good night! :run:




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Willamena]

I think you don't understand what I'm trying to explain; or the nature of science.

"Cultural" is only science when it's in a petri dish.

 

[Smoke]

I'm still a little surprised to be an atheist.

I didn't sit down and go over the arguments for and against theism and come to a tightly-reasoned conclusion that there was no god. I found some of the teachings of my religion inadequate and indefensible, and eventually I got to the point where I didn't feel I could honestly remain a member of my religion. Once I shed my religion, my belief in god fell away quickly and almost without my noticing. I just realized that I no longer believed. I no longer saw any reason to believe. I don't see any need to believe, either, and I don't notice that believing is any help in understanding the world or our life in the world, so I'm okay with finding myself an atheist. I like it. It makes my life feel less cluttered. But I don't have any big philosophical reasons for being an atheist.

 

[Nanda]

Vacuous ...

So this is the "Tell me why you're an atheist so that I may make judgements and snarky comments about your reasons" thread. Think I'll pass.

 

[methylatedghosts]

But the theory has its flaws, and other theories are trying to beat the Big-Bang, so far the Big-Bang is the one with the most data that supports it, but it may be just a matter of time until we drop it for something better... Don't you love science? I bet you can't do the same to an aspect of your religion.

I don't think I'm dismissing your view lightly, I'm just expressing my opinion.

Just remember this:

Every great scientist, when his/her research doesn't seem to be working, must go on the assumption that everything they know is wrong. Then he/she can start anew, start from scratch and create a new theory independant of what he/she has been taught already.

I think the same should be of spirituality.

Place experience above teaching.

As a side note - be careful about what you call religion. Not everyone here ascribes to a religion but can still be theistic

 

[Random]

But the theory has its flaws, and other theories are trying to beat the Big-Bang, so far the Big-Bang is the one with the most data that supports it, but it may be just a matter of time until we drop it for something better...

So people have to believe whatever transient doctrine Science comes up with that is considered orthodox just for the moment, until it gets changed into something else? And if they don't, they're "irrational" or somthing? Sounds like a con-game to me.

Don't you love science? I bet you can't do the same to an aspect of your religion.

Actually, I do love real science. And my religion, Dolorosa, is highly adaptive within the context of its logical constants.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So this is the "Tell me why you're an atheist so that I may make judgements and snarky comments about your reasons" thread. Think I'll pass.

As you wish ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So people have to believe whatever transient doctrine Science comes up with that is considered orthodox just for the moment, until it gets changed into something else? And if they don't, they're "irrational" or somthing? Sounds like a con-game to me.

Sounds like you're off-topic to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I no longer saw any reason to believe. I don't see any need to believe, either, and I don't notice that believing is any help in understanding the world or our life in the world, so I'm okay with finding myself an atheist. I like it. It makes my life feel less cluttered. But I don't have any big philosophical reasons for being an atheist.

Excellent!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

To say that you're an atheist because you don't believe in God is not an answer but, in fact, a vacuous comment - much like telling your doctor that the reason you're obese is that you're overweight.

 

[standing_alone]

If you're an atheist, let me know why.

I couldn't really tell you an easy reason why. Maybe there really isn't one or much of one. It has nothing to do with "well, I don't understand science but I like to think I do, so blah blah blah..." or because I think it's somehow more logical. I just fell into atheism, I guess. I used to be a really religious Lutheran Christian and along the line I fell into questioning my religious beliefs and then just the existance of God (and the supernatural) as a result and, after some searching, especially within myself, just felt like atheism made the most sense for me and I was satisfied with it. Maybe that's why I'm an atheist; I just found it more satisfying for myself than theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To say that you're an atheist because you don't believe in God is not an answer but, in fact, a vacuous comment - much like telling your doctor that the reason you're obese is that you're overweight.

I wouldn't describe it exactly that way. I think the statement "I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God" makes just as much sense as, for example, "I'm a libertarian because I believe in limited government".

Anyhow, sometimes the most obvious answer is the most appropriate.

The factors I listed before may inform my beliefs, at the end of the day (and as I said earlier in this thread), I can't consciously choose my beliefs. Make whatever argument you want to make me change my mind, but if I'm not convinced by it (even if I appreciate it and the reasoning behind it), my beliefs won't change. I suspect this is true for most people with regard to most beliefs that they hold.

I consider myself an atheist because I think it's a good description of my beliefs. My beliefs do not include a belief in God (in fact, they include a disbelief in God). Whatever process led me to this position, when it comes right down to it, I call myself an atheist now because of my beliefs now... and for no other reason.