How many Atheists do we have here?

[NoMayo15]

Don't atheist still believe in some high being or whatnot?

Um... I don't know what you mean by "high being", but generally speaking an atheist has no belief in supernatural beings... namely gods.

 

[Oville]

Then stop speaking on things you don't KNOW. Invoking 'god" doesn't answer anything. Invoking god doesn't answer anything

So we shouldn't ask questions? I'm only invoking god because in the sense that I'm talking about, I don't think it could be neither disproven nor proven
DNA Methylation, Histone modification, and other effects are fairly well understood in the realm of epigenetics.
this makes no sense. cause its not true. thats not how evolution nor immunology works. Neurons reacting to stimuli in a concerted fashion. "Consciousness" is a myth.
First of all consciousness is not a myth. Psychologist can tell you which areas of the brain actually enable consciousness. The mechanisms of the components of DNA are understood but not why it exists in the first place.

Its not perfect. It just works based on its environment.

Part of the reason you don't need your appendix much anymore is because no one eats raw grasses anymore.

because you're not educated enough on the things you think you understand. Paying attention in bio 101 would have answered this. What? If you can accept that your body reacts to chemicals, then you shuld be able to understand how external stimuli also can cause the body to react. Its all stimuli and receptors. stop right there.

Again your only bringing up the mechanisms but why is it that our species can react to stimuli and receptors. What relationship is there between our genetics and the environment around us that allows certain genes to shut down when we no longer need them depending on the environment that we're in. Genetiecists don't have a great explanation as to what causes certain genes to shut down even when theres no use for it. For me that might imply that concsiousness could have been a possibilty
its NOT "perfect" since you don't have anything else to compare it to.

Well I would say we're well built machines. We can eat food and we have a pathway which allows us to bring our broken down food into our stomachs, Nutrients from the food we eat flow out into our veins, arteries, and capillaries which feed and repair parts of our bodies. Remaining food is broken down in the body to create excrement and urine so that our bodies don't overconsume what we take in. We have white blood cells that are able to detect outside pathogens and defend the body. We're built pretty well for a species which arose from a random accident I would say. Years of evolution played a part and I know not all mutations work in every environment but the way we're built is amazing and the way the chemicals in our body reacts to outside stimuli allows me to wonder whether why the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are what they are. And how well they work considering we were all accidental. Again I'm not saying this can't be disproven just that science has yet to disprove that there's an all encompassing force on that level. All your bringing up is the mechanisms of how things work which is fine but I'm asking what is enabling the mechanisms in the first place? Maybe things are what they just are but I don't think its crazy to say that our universe is intelligently designed even if their wasn't exactly a designer
Humans work because they work. not because they're "perfect"
Wow ok I guess we can all stop wondering. That was such an elaborate way to explain our complex existence and we should never even try to broach why things are the way they are.

you're just rambling here. I guess you don't understand what you're even suggesting. Not only is there no evidence of this, but its just not true.
All your bringing up is the mechanisms of how things work which is fine but I'm asking what is enabling the mechanisms in the first place? It all goes back to how did anything just arise from nowhere. Maybe it was random but even that hasn't proven 100%. Your brand of atheists believes that everything arose from chaos. Chaos bring lawlessness and we do live in a universe which has concrete laws. Life has concrete laws, chemistry, biology and physics have concrete laws. Which refrains me from denouncing the higher force aspect all together. Maybe science will one day do that but it has yet to do so. I don't pray, I don't believe in metaphysics or none of that. I just don't believe that God has been disproven in the pantheistic sense.
You sound like the type to only have watched youtube videos on science instead of actually paying attention in class.

Dude fukk all this snobby shyt. You have no idea what level of education I have. I know science and a lot of the questions that you don't think are worth asking scientists themselves are trying to ask. If you believe everything in our lives are random and accidental fine. But some of the things that you feel have been proven absolutely just haven't been yet.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So we shouldn't ask questions? I'm only invoking god because in the sense that I'm talking about, I don't think it could be neither disproven nor proven

So you don't care to prove or disprove what you're talking about, why waste our fukking time?

First of all consciousness is not a myth. Psychologist can tell you which areas of the brain actually enable consciousness.

Consciousness IS a myth...i'm sorry neuroscientists haven't told you this already.

The mechanisms of the components of DNA are understood but not why it exists in the first place.

WTF does asking "why" do anything for you? We know how it works and when it works...asking "why" doesn't do anything...it exists to carry out its fukking function.

Again your only bringing up the mechanisms but why is it that our species can react to stimuli and receptors.

all species of all living creatures do this to various degrees, dummy.

What relationship is there between our genetics and the environment around us that allows certain genes to shut down when we no longer need them depending on the environment that we're in.

could be anything from thermoregulation to energy production and homeostasis.

Genetiecists don't have a great explanation as to what causes certain genes to shut down even when theres no use for it. For me that might imply that concsiousness could have been a possibilty

Not only does this make no sense (indicating you don't even know what genes are or how they work for you to say something this fukking stupid which could be answered in a formal biochemistry class) but you are FALLACIOUSLY implying that since ________ doesn't know how it works, therefore you get to imply some OTHER unsubstantiated belief you want to be true...yet you seem to not be interested in supporting your claim:

Well I would say we're well built machines.

To our environment. whales are well suited to theirs as are birds and llamas.

We can eat food and we have a pathway which allows us to bring our broken down food into our stomachs, Nutrients from the food we eat flow out into our veins, arteries, and capillaries which feed and repair parts of our bodies. Remaining food is broken down in the body to create excrement and urine so that our bodies don't overconsume what we take in. We have white blood cells that are able to detect outside pathogens and defend the body.

every animal has a form of metabolism. you're taking your own to be special, when its really not.

We're built pretty well for a species which arose from a random accident I would say.

selection towards survival tends to do that

Years of evolution played a part and I know not all mutations work in every environment but the way we're built is amazing

its "amazing" to you since you don't know how it works. It just works. Theres nothing "amazing" about it.

and the way the chemicals in our body reacts to outside stimuli allows me to wonder whether why the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are what they are.

thats like asking why carbon has 12 protons.

Its cause it doesn't have 11 or 13. It just does.

You're asking the wrong question.

And how well they work considering we were all accidental.

stop saying "accidental"

Its fukking chemistry and energy states of preferred confirmations.

Again I'm not saying this can't be disproven just that science has yet to disprove that there's an all encompassing force on that level.

NO DUMMY

You don't hold beliefs because they aren't yet "disproven"

You HOLD beliefs because they are proven. You can't prove a negative

All your bringing up is the mechanisms of how things work which is fine but I'm asking what is enabling the mechanisms in the first place?

Energetic confirmations towards the lowest energy states

. Maybe things are what they just are but I don't think its crazy to say that our universe is intelligently designed even if their wasn't exactly a designer

You keep saying this shyt as if you have some OTHER universe to compare shyt to.

What universe can you compare ours to to even come to the conclusion that ours is so "intelligently" designed? You only know of ONE experience!

Better yet, tell me this:

What would a universe without god look like? Would it look any different from this one? How would you know?

Wow ok I guess we can all stop wondering. That was such an elaborate way to explain our complex existence and we should never even try to broach why things are the way they are.

Asking "why" doesn't lead anywhere.

All your bringing up is the mechanisms of how things work which is fine but I'm asking what is enabling the mechanisms in the first place? It all goes back to how did anything just arise from nowhere

I don't know. Does you saying 'god" answer anything though?

Maybe it was random but even that hasn't proven 100%.

don't lie. you'd just move the goalposts anyways.

Your brand of atheists believes that everything arose from chaos.

atheists don't actually believe that. ATHEISM is the lack of belief in a god. it says NOTHING about an individual's view on the origins of the universe.

Chaos bring lawlessness and we do live in a universe which has concrete laws. Life has concrete laws, chemistry, biology and physics have concrete laws.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, these "principles" seem to be immutable but we have a very limited range of abilities to test their absolute boundaries within such concepts. That being said...so what?

Which refrains me from denouncing the higher force aspect all together.

Fine. Don't "denounce" it. Maybe you can spend more time SUPPORTING such a notion in the first place.

Maybe science will one day do that but it has yet to do so.

So stop acting like a little hoe and man up and admit you don't know shyt and when confronted stop inserting shyt you WANT to be true.

I don't pray, I don't believe in metaphysics or none of that. I just don't believe that God has been disproven in the pantheistic sense.

1. STOP SAYING "DISPROVEN" thats not how EMPIRICISM works dumb dumb. The time to believe is when an idea has been supported, not the other way around.
2. The problem with the pantheistic god is that 300 years ago, your notion of god would be A LOT wider than it is now. With time, this "god" fo yours gets more and more limited in nature.

Dude fukk all this snobby shyt.

You have no idea what level of education I have.

and I don't care since you aren't able to present arguments that stand on their own.

I know science and a lot of the questions that you don't think are worth asking scientists themselves are trying to ask. If you believe everything in our lives are random and accidental fine. But some of the things that you feel have been proven absolutely just haven't been yet.

Which is a funny stance for an intellectual plebian like yourself to take considering that you just take the limits of science as your cue to jump in and start throwing in random bullshyt you want to be true.

 

[Coherent]

oh wow...

Which god? so you're just creating the god concept you want to believe in, right? but only the truths you want to accept while discarding the rest, huh? and only YOU know the true meaning, huh? of course you do. yet that god allows to exist? yeah...you're pretty opened minded. Quite the imagination too.
Yes. Esoteric bullshyt thats hard to understand cause its devoid of actual substantive conclusions but masks its interpretation in continued obfuscation. Got it.
What you believe has no bearing on whether or not such an entity exists.
You believe this? Prove it. More empty platitudes and poetic jargon.

Prove it

We will never prove it. Our limitations as humans, mainly through our perceptions cannot fully grasp the God concept. It is just a unique part of the human genome that attends a certain level of spirit, faith and beliefs. I'm not ashamed of my beliefs, and I reserve the right to be wrong - because we are all wrong. You just have to trust in your intuition sometimes. I give no prejudice to anyones lives or beliefs that lead them on a righteous path, find peace within themselves, and peace with others. There are missing elements that neither science or our observations can understand. We are flawed to that extent, so to really argue about it would be a waste of time. I was simply sharing my perceptions. Do as you please with it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

We will never prove it.

prove THAT statement.

Our limitations as humans, mainly through our perceptions cannot fully grasp the God concept.

sure as long as:

1. you keep moving the goalposts
2. you don't define any god concept
3. you keep making up a god concept

It is just a unique part of the human genome that attends a certain level of spirit, faith and beliefs.

spirit?

Faith?

WTF are those?

I'm not ashamed of my beliefs,

don't be. But don't expect me not to criticize them or defend them for you

and I reserve the right to be wrong -

you're damn right

because we are all wrong.

WE?

You just have to trust in your intuition sometimes.

and thats not proof.

I give no prejudice to anyones lives or beliefs that lead them on a righteous path,

righteous is subjective

find peace within themselves,

I've got no problem with this

and peace with others.

or this ...

There are missing elements that neither science or our observations can understand.

there really isn't.

you want to make physics and sociology equal.

They're not.

One is an explanation of the physical, the other is an attempt by mental midgets ot derive some sort of objective basis of behavior. The latter doesn't exist.

We are flawed to that extent, so to really argue about it would be a waste of time. I was simply sharing my perceptions. Do as you please with it.

Oh...I am...

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

Apathiest/Athiest checking in

 

[Coherent]

Apathiest/Athiest checking in

You can't be both. An Apahtiest has no interest in believing, or not believing in a deity.

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

You can't be both. An Apahtiest has no interest in believing, or not believing in a deity.

Then its Apathiest, I never knew there was term for it until this thread

 

[Coherent]

Then its Apathiest, I never knew there was term for it until this thread

Do you have morals though?

 

[Oville]

So you don't care to prove or disprove what you're talking about, why waste our fukking time?
As an agnostic I ask more questions than I have answers for. Since God is defined as the force which created all things, its naturally going to be in the conversation of anything dealing with existence and our origins. Is it possible that our origins originated from something other than a god? Absolutely, but nothing in science disproves the existence of a god. And since we don't know how something arose from nothing, it can still be in the conversation.

Consciousness IS a myth...i'm sorry neuroscientists haven't told you this already. WTF does asking "why" do anything for you? We know how it works and when it works...asking "why" doesn't do anything...it exists to carry out its fukking function.

fukking trolls here wanna tough talk from the cpu. First of all the frontal part of the brain is what brings forth consciousness and reason dikk. Asking me why I wanna know something is fukking stupid. Its also dismissive and its important to know how something came of nothing. If the universe always existed than I would say fine we are what we are cuz thats the way its always been. But the universe didn't always exist and arose from nothing.


all species of all living creatures do this to various degrees, dummy.

Never say they didn't bytch. I specified our species but I meant organisms in general. We all evolved from one species I'm talking about why and how something that was the result of some random accident could develop something as important to our survival as having receptors that stimulated by our environment.

could be anything from thermoregulation to energy production and homeostasis.

In other words you don't fukking know so why waste time with an answer. What causes an organism to even have the ability of thermoregulation. If the universe had always been an existence it'd be easy to say well its just always been there. But the universe didn't always exist as it was. Its certain that it arose from a random accident right? The reason I keep asking why is that for something that arose from an absolute random accident I could make arguments of how intelligently designed we are. We didn't have to have mechanisms that allows us to adapt to the environments but we do.

Not only does this make no sense (indicating you don't even know what genes are or how they work for you to say something this fukking stupid which could be answered in a formal biochemistry class) but you are FALLACIOUSLY implying that since ________ doesn't know how it works, therefore you get to imply some OTHER unsubstantiated belief you want to be true...yet you seem to not be interested in supporting your claim:
I don't want it to be true I'm just open minded all the possibilities. Your asking me to substantiate my beliefs in God but like I said I never said I believed in a god only that one could theoretically exist. As someone who is agnostic I can only ask questions but I have no answers cuz I'm humble enough to admit that we don't certain things

 

[Oville]

To our environment. whales are well suited to theirs as are birds and llamas.
Yet whales have genes that can create legs but those genes are no longer triggered because its not needed in their environment. What causes this kind of genetic information to take place. Our bodies can shut down genes that we don't need as if its conscious that the environment that its in no longer needs it. Again, not saying that this is definitive proof of us living in an intelligently designed world, just saying an argument can be made in this regard.
every animal has a form of metabolism. you're taking your own to be special, when its really not. selection towards survival tends to do that

its "amazing" to you since you don't know how it works. It just works. Theres nothing "amazing" about it.
I never meant just human beings but all living things. And yes I think considering that we arose from nothingness and were the result of a random accident I would say our bodies(as well as those of most animal species) is amazing.
thats like asking why carbon has 12 protons.

Its cause it doesn't have 11 or 13. It just does.

You're asking the wrong question.

stop saying "accidental"

Its fukking chemistry and energy states of preferred confirmations.
Chemistry has laws that arose from a universe in which prior to the big bang didn't exist. The reason I bring up chemistry is because its possible that someone can conceive God as the sum parts of the universe. Again, it can be argued that God is not the universe as well. But when you say shyt like science has disproven God every single time, that statement is not necessariy true from the apatheistic point of view.
NO DUMMY

You don't hold beliefs because they aren't yet "disproven"

You HOLD beliefs because they are proven. You can't prove a negative
Except I've conceded that I have no beliefs either way because I am agnostic. If we were to define God not as something that asks us to worship it or something that puts forth a set of ground rules it wants you to live life by, but just as the general thing that is responsible for all things around us and is responsible for the general flow of nature why couldn't someone consider the universe to be God. How can you disprove that? I'm not saying that I look at the universe as God just that I can see how someone could. Science disproves the Abrahamic God, as well as God's from other religions because it was able to disprove a lot of their bullshyt theories about the world such as the earth being the center of the universe, the world not being created in 7 days, creationism etc. The pantheistic view of what God could be doesn't contradict anything that we know of in terms of science. It just says that the general flow of things can be considered God to which theres nothing in science currently that can disprove that.

Energetic confirmations towards the lowest energy states
Which would mean more laws that arose from a universe of chaos

You keep saying this shyt as if you have some OTHER universe to compare shyt to.

What universe can you compare ours to to even come to the conclusion that ours is so "intelligently" designed? You only know of ONE experience!

My knowledge of the nature of chaos allows me to imagine a universe that can be chaotic. Theoretically what would happen if gravity didn't exist, if we didn't have an ecosystem on this planet that naturally checks each other through the food chain. If we had no tree to grant us oxygen or if we didn't breathe out the carbon dioxide that the trees breathe through? What would happen if atoms were only either negatively charged or positively charged instead of having a balance of both. What if gravity didn't keep our planet as well as others from floating randomly away from each other. Scientists ponder these questions all the time.

Better yet, tell me this:
What would a universe without god look like? Would it look any different from this one? How would you know?

I don't know if this one I know of created by god or whether I'm ready to interpret the universe as God to answer that question.

Asking "why" doesn't lead anywhere.
When the apple fell on Isaac Newton's head and he wanted to find out the cause, it sure led to some interesting discoveries.

I don't know. Does you saying 'god" answer anything though?
Kind of does. If we define god as everything that makes our universe run than yea it could answer that question.

don't lie. you'd just move the goalposts anyways.
I'd have no problem admitting god doesn't exist and everything is random. Except we've yet to even begin to explain how something arose from nothing. Nothing in our universe that we know of just blows up from nothing.

atheists don't actually believe that. ATHEISM is the lack of belief in a god. it says NOTHING about an individual's view on the origins of the universe. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, these "principles" seem to be immutable but we have a very limited range of abilities to test their absolute boundaries within such concepts. That being said...so what?
In other words we don't know shyt. Its possible to say that the origins of our universe could have been created by something other than the concept of a god. However, if you perceive god as the general flow and the sum parts of the universe we know of than its hard to disprove that God exists on that level. Which is why giving the answer "Not knowing whether one believes in God or not" can be an acceptable answer because the evidence we have of the universe doesn't refute the possibilty of a god in those terms.
Fine. Don't "denounce" it. Maybe you can spend more time SUPPORTING such a notion in the first place.
If I were to argue with someone who was absolutely sure that there was a god, I'd refute a bunch of atheistic points to refute them. I refute the notion of certitude on either side cuz we've yet to get to a point where we can be certain about either one.
So stop acting like a little hoe and man up and admit you don't know shyt and when confronted stop inserting shyt you WANT to be true.
My whole point has been that I don't know shyt. Its not that I want anything to be true I'm not a spiritual dude. I just don't think theres enough evidence to be certain that their is no god if your talking about god in the pantheistic sense I'm speaking of.

1. STOP SAYING "DISPROVEN" thats not how EMPIRICISM works dumb dumb. The time to believe is when an idea has been supported, not the other way around.
When has it been disproven that the universe couldn't be looked up as god? Which again is why I am agnostic because science has yet to prove how the fukk we came from nothing. I'm not saying god is the answer I'm saying its a possibility, or even that the universe itself could interpreted as god. Its hard to disprove god in that sense and when I say that I'm coming from an unbiased perspective because I don't go through life necessarily believing that their IS a higher power I'm just open to the argument.
Empiricism would be saying

2. The problem with the pantheistic god is that 300 years ago, your notion of god would be A LOT wider than it is now. With time, this "god" fo yours gets more and more limited in nature.
If your "belief" is that god is nature how can it be more limited in nature?
and I don't care since you aren't able to present arguments that stand on their own.

Which is a funny stance for an intellectual plebian like yourself to take considering that you just take the limits of science as your cue to jump in and start throwing in random bullshyt you want to be true.[/quote]
First off I never said anything about what I said to be true, just that the argument could be made in the theoretical sense. The irony of this whole thing is that you conceded that the question of "Is There A God" can merit an I don't know response. Yet you seem absolutely certain that their isn't one and thats fine. But then just say theres notGod. The only reason "Is There A God" question can merit an I don't know response is because of the fact that there are so many questions about our origins. I wasn't even responding to the "Is there a God" question. I was responding to the idea that you can't give an "I don't know know" response to the questions of " do you believe in god". I believe you could give a neutral response their are a lot of things that are unanswered and if one perceives god as simply the force which creates our universe and allows nature to flow as it does, then science hasn't disproven god on that level.

 

[MouseTeeth]

im agnostic. as every human is (and is indisputably born as), but few will admit

if i had to choose id be an atheist

 

[Box Cutta]

I'm an atheist.

I can't remember ever truly believing...and I actually went to a catholic school from first through 6th grade. We used to have to go to afternoon mass like twice a week....and I still vividly remember sitting in church with a strong sense that it was all horseshyt.

Still...I don't think I officially labeled myself as such until like...Middle School.... Before that I was just kinda a "pretender".

Nevertheless, at this point, I've been an atheist longer than I've been anything else.

Edit : I'm just going to add something : I particularly reject being "agnostic". There are many outrageous claims that you could make that I would not say that I *personally* could disprove. I can still call them false.

 

[tmonster]

I believe there is a God.

why breh?

 

[tmonster]

You can't be both. An Apahtiest has no interest in believing, or not believing in a deity.

can to
I am atheist and at some point I started not caring at all about the religious question, it just became irrelevant.

Today, I am post-theist which to me is a state where I am simply in awe of the idea that the world happened without "God". I think everyone should be. At this stage of my evolution, I find that idea just plain exciting, more interesting and unendingly mysterious. But most rewarding to me is that, now I walk through my days on a path of the existential paradox that I had never experienced before, I live with a visceral sense of humility and undaunted sense of empowerment/curiosity, at the same damn time. All this universe with no "God"...Think about it...if you dare.