[Username_valid]

(Original post by Gofre)
I would agree, there's no evidence the universe was consciously created though. Which is precisely the point I was trying to make before, just because there is no secular explanation verified by science doesn't make your equally unverified explanation any more reasonable.

I understand what you're saying but do you believe the universe was created or do you think it just suddenly came into existence? Surely those are the only two options.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by jam277)
Just wanted to know.

My experience, I used to be a strong christian until I was 17, I just wondered why I actually believed and realized that I could have been a hindu/muslim/insert religion just as easily as a christian if my parents were christian.

I then realized that the things that happen around me are the actions of myself and other people and not of a God. It was hard, but I think I had it coming, it was gradual, took around 3 months to convert fully from an agnostic to an atheist.

I also feel that it's such a barrier to so many things, that at times(before I offend anyone) that it's more trouble than it is worth.

I also find the theory of hell a bit sad, that a so called benevolent God who loves you always is letting you burn in hell, that is not love, regardless of free will, anyone who loves you would take you out of that fiery pit whether you wanted to or not, that is unconditional love.

Anyway TSR, what is your reason for converting?

A baby is not born with a religious belief, it lacks faith. Thus we are all born Atheist. Thought I'll just clear that up first...

Anyway I remained an Atheist because I realised believing in something that had zero evidence to prove its existence. Is not a reliable way for me to gain new knowledge and improve my sharpen my intelligence. It surrendering me to a source of authority that could not be easily challenged with facts, science and reason.

(Original post by Aleandcynicism)
Would you think someone was weird if they said they didn't believe in unicorns because there's no proof they exist?

This post here, which rightly points out the absurdity of thought framed in religious peoples minds. Proves my point, of the real dangers in subjugating my mind to religion.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Aleandcynicism)
Would you think someone was weird if they said they didn't believe in unicorns because there's no proof they exist?

I don't reallly get this argument. Oh we can't see fairies just like god etc.

Im more of a deistic believer myself but stance does change often. (to sort of agnostic)

A god bares much more relavance to our world than a fictional being like a unicorn. Concept of transcendent or otherwise God = may explain the questions i have written down below to some extent. Concept of unicorn = meaningless unless bought up in fiction.

Answer these questions)

1) Why are we here ? why is there existence ? why does the universe exist what is its purpose?

2) what was there before a big bang?

3) What is the meaning of life?

Until these questions can be conclusively answered by science or other factual means then the concept of god can not be rejected.

However i personally don't really find christian or islam concept of god very satifying(god who watches over you and sends you to hell or heaven) = unicornish

However sikh or buddism outlooks on life are more amiable.

That is why i am a diestic believer following science sometimes agnostic as i believe there is transcendent god or there is something there outside or before universe. But it is hard to quite put your finger on the so called "mysteries of life".

[Felchingman]

Technically I am a catholic but by the time I started taking interest in religion, I realized I couldn't believe in God as there is no scientifical proof of its existence. I never believed in God and never will.

[Matt G]

If someone comes up with a new idea such as believing that elephants orbit the sun, you would have to provide evidence for your belief but instead they demand that you should have to prove them wrong.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Matt G)
If someone comes up with a new idea such as believing that elephants orbit the sun, you would have to provide evidence for your belief but instead they demand that you should have to prove them wrong.

Scientifically we can prove them wrong thats the difference.

However if something is transcendent how can we even prove or disprove? It beyond human thought/grasp.

read my post above.

[Sean9001]

I'm an atheist because there is no shred of evidence to believe in a supernatural God that minds what we do, actively directs us, and whispers wisdom into our heads. Moreover, I resent the religious privilege disguised under the notion of 'freedom of religion'. In a nation where surveys indicate that marginally over 50% of the populous hold ANY belief, it is as absurd to reserve 26 seats in the House of Lords for Anglican Bishops, as for 26 White men, or 26 people who live in Great Yarmouth.

No doubt, someone shall retort that God is on a different plane. Or by his very nature cannot be comprehended. But, this serves to make me more certain that God is fictitious. Because it demonstrates how rationalising a belief in God always falls to a default assumption that if something can't [in their mind] be explained then it must be God.

Any good scientist does not purport to know that God categorically does not exist. We don't know. Yet it is certainly more likely than not, that there is no intelligent creator. The crucial difference between science and religion is that science finds the unknown, and searches for an answer. Religion on the other hand, finds the unknown and by default says that it must be God. For example, Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' deduce that because everything must have a cause, and we don't know what caused everything to begin, it must be God. For the sake of my sanity, I hope that we can all see the problems with that reasoning. I don't know the name of whoever designed this font. But because I don't know, I cannot automatically assume that God did it.

Just remember that things don't exist until proven otherwise. They don't exist until proven otherwise. No proof for a supernatural God has ever been put forward, aside from philosophical vaguerisms that assume that because there is a gap in knowledge, it must be God (explicitly not Shiva, Vishnu, Yahwe, Wotan, Thor, or Zeus).

As for argument by faith... There is as much weight to an argument that says God exists because I have 'faith' in him, as an argument that says a teapot filled with jellybeans that can't be seen through the human eye, orbits the Earth, because I have 'faith' that it does.

[Sheldor]

(Original post by wenger16)
I don't reallly get this argument. Oh we can't see fairies just like god etc.

Im more of a deistic believer myself but stance does change often. (to sort of agnostic)

A god bares much more relavance to our world than a fictional being like a unicorn. Concept of transcendent or otherwise God = may explain the questions i have written down below to some extent. Concept of unicorn = meaningless unless bought up in fiction.

Answer these questions)

1) Why are we here ? why is there existence ? why does the universe exist what is its purpose?

2) what was there before a big bang?

3) What is the meaning of life?

Until these questions can be conclusively answered by science or other factual means then the concept of god can not be rejected.

However i personally don't really find christian or islam concept of god very satifying(god who watches over you and sends you to hell or heaven) = unicornish

However sikh or buddism outlooks on life are more amiable.

That is why i am a diestic believer following science sometimes agnostic as i believe there is transcendent god or there is something there outside or before universe. But it is hard to quite put your finger on the so called "mysteries of life".

I know that these questions where supposed to be rhetorical, but here's what I think(for the purpose of presenting my ideas/the science as eloquently as possible, I will present them in a factual manner)
Why are we here ? why is there existence ? why does the universe exist what is its purpose?
2) what was there before a big bang?
The universe has no purpose, life has no purpose. The universe was created through expansion from a single atom(the "Big Bang" isn't really an accurate description, it's about as accurate a name as the "God particle" for the Higgs boson and it annoyed the scientists then as much as "God particle" does now.), then the energy formed antimatter and matter, which created protons, neutrons, and after the cooling if the universe from its high temperatures, they came together the varying quantities of these in different atoms creating the elements(helium, hydrogen) in gas clouds, leading to the rest of the universe. In short, life as we know it was a series of chemical reactions, physical reactions, and expansion( Fun and mind blowing fact: space has no edge because it's always expanding. Whooaaa, right?) Any slight differences in temperature, rate of expansion etc. could've completely altered the way the universe developed, whether organisms developed, if they did, whether organs, tissues, etc. and sentient life developed too, not to mention whether earth would have been in its hospitable proximity to the sun or even if planets developed. In short, the universe is an accident. An awesome, mind-boggling accident, but still, an accident. It has no purpose, it just exists by matter of coincidence and the right conditions.

3) What is the meaning of life
Again, life has no meaning other than what you as an individual choose to make of it. As a human being in a planet of 7 billion in a solar system of 8 planets in a galaxy of hundreds of solar systems in a universe with an infinite number if galaxies, there is no master plan and humankind is not particularly special. I guess this fact makes many people unwilling to accept the big bang theory, as it doesn't provide the same comfort blanket/ thing to love and make you feel all warm & special. Also note that scientific theories have a different definition to a "Theory someone has about governments xkcd" and mean something v. likely but there is still a possibility that it isn't true because we don't have ALL the evidence because, obviously, we weren't there and we are still figuring new things out/ proving it.(conditions in the Large hadron collider and the possible finding if the Higgs Boson)

Anyway, sorry for the essay, and believe me when I say I am no scientific genius so that is all my simplified version of a simplified version of a v.complicated process.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Sean9001]

(Original post by wenger16)
I don't reallly get this argument. Oh we can't see fairies just like god etc.

Im more of a deistic believer myself but stance does change often. (to sort of agnostic)

A god bares much more relavance to our world than a fictional being like a unicorn. Concept of transcendent or otherwise God = may explain the questions i have written down below to some extent. Concept of unicorn = meaningless unless bought up in fiction.

Answer these questions)

1) Why are we here ? why is there existence ? why does the universe exist what is its purpose?

2) what was there before a big bang?

3) What is the meaning of life?

Until these questions can be conclusively answered by science or other factual means then the concept of god can not be rejected.

However i personally don't really find christian or islam concept of god very satifying(god who watches over you and sends you to hell or heaven) = unicornish

However sikh or buddism outlooks on life are more amiable.

That is why i am a diestic believer following science sometimes agnostic as i believe there is transcendent god or there is something there outside or before universe. But it is hard to quite put your finger on the so called "mysteries of life".

1) We don't know. But because we don't know, does not mean God created it. Things don't exist until evidence is brought against it. As for purpose, there is no given purpose. We make our own purposes.

2) We don't know. But again, because we don't know, does not mean God created it. Even if it did, the theory of infinite regress begs the question of who created God. No doubt you would say that God does not need to be created. But why not? Because that is what scriptures tell us. Yet to believe in those scriptures is in itself beyond idiocy. When you are arguing the existence of God, scripture is evidence as illegitimate as a survey asking the best news outlet in the UK, but with only one option to choose from.

3) Let me start by saying that the universe owes you nothing. For all we know, it could be a completely hopeless place. I don't happen to think that it is. But the point is, there is no reason to assume there is a meaning to life.

Accepting God as a definitive conclusion, because of no definitive alternative nurtures the logic which probably led to all but 4 of 43 studies by Mensa between 1927 and today, finding a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence.

And frankly, anybody who lives by that logic is a disgrace to the human species.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Sheldor)
I know that these questions where supposed to be rhetorical, but here's what I think(for the purpose of presenting my ideas/the science as eloquently as possible, I will present them in a factual manner)
Why are we here ? why is there existence ? why does the universe exist what is its purpose?
2) what was there before a big bang?
The universe has no purpose, life has no purpose. The universe was created through expansion from a single atom(the "Big Bang" isn't really an accurate description, it's about as accurate a name as the "God particle" for the Higgs boson and it annoyed the scientists then as much as "God particle" does now.), then the energy formed antimatter and matter, which created protons, neutrons, and after the cooling if the universe from its high temperatures, they came together the varying quantities of these in different atoms creating the elements(helium, hydrogen) in gas clouds, leading to the rest of the universe. In short, life as we know it was a series of chemical reactions, physical reactions, and expansion( Fun and mind blowing fact: space has no edge because it's always expanding. Whooaaa, right?) Any slight differences in temperature, rate of expansion etc. could've completely altered the way the universe developed, whether organisms developed, if they did, whether organs, tissues, etc. and sentient life developed too, not to mention whether earth would have been in its hospitable proximity to the sun or even if planets developed. In short, the universe is an accident. An awesome, mind-boggling accident, but still, an accident. It has no purpose, it just exists by matter of coincidence and the right conditions.

3) What is the meaning of life
Again, life has no meaning other than what you as an individual choose to make of it. As a human being in a planet of 7 billion in a solar system of 8 planets in a galaxy of hundreds of solar systems in a universe with an infinite number if galaxies, there is no master plan and humankind is not particularly special. I guess this fact makes many people unwilling to accept the big bang theory, as it doesn't provide the same comfort blanket/ thing to love and make you feel all warm & special. Also note that scientific theories have a different definition to a "Theory someone has about governments xkcd" and mean something v. likely but there is still a possibility that it isn't true because we don't have ALL the evidence because, obviously, we weren't there and we are still figuring new things out/ proving it.(conditions in the Large hadron collider and the possible finding if the Higgs Boson)

Anyway, sorry for the essay, and believe me when I say I am no scientific genius so that is all my simplified version of a simplified version of a v.complicated process.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I respect what you have said however i have a few questions on your account.

Where did that 1st particle come from? and why was it there? why did the big bang happen? That is a lot of assumption on your part. Why is there "anything"?
What would there be if there was no universe? Just nothing?

I am in no way saying God caused big bang etc. However we don't know.

I myself as yourself am a keen observer of science. It represent the currently evolving knowledge of mankind however unfortunately it can't provide all the answers.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Sean9001)
1) We don't know. But because we don't know, does not mean God created it. Things don't exist until evidence is brought against it. As for purpose, there is no given purpose. We make our own purposes.

2) We don't know. But again, because we don't know, does not mean God created it. Even if it did, the theory of infinite regress begs the question of who created God. No doubt you would say that God does not need to be created. But why not? Because that is what scriptures tell us. Yet to believe in those scriptures is in itself beyond idiocy. When you are arguing the existence of God, scripture is evidence as illegitimate as a survey asking the best news outlet in the UK, but with only one option to choose from.

3) Let me start by saying that the universe owes you nothing. For all we know, it could be a completely hopeless place. I don't happen to think that it is. But the point is, there is no reason to assume there is a meaning to life.

Accepting God as a definitive conclusion, because of no definitive alternative nurtures the logic which probably led to all but 4 of 43 studies by Mensa between 1927 and today, finding a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence.

And frankly, anybody who lives by that logic is a disgrace to the human species.

Read my post again!

I am in no way religious however don't reject the possibility of god. Religion does not have to be linked to belief in god! go read about diestic believers. There are many people (richard dawkins = world most famous athiest like you) who believe there may be a god but one such as in thiestic religions who answers prayers but who is transcendent and can not interfere and it is something we can really grasp.

I was debating against the person saying God is similar to the concept of unicorn ie a meaningless configuration of a human being's mind.

It may be a concept which exists only in human's mind however until we answer my original questions it is a necessarily concept which we can't reject.

I don't see how anybody can be absolutely sure when it comes to questions of existence.

I find the questions whether there is life elsewhere in the universe similar whether there was a creator/life's mysteries. Both can't really be answered however the first may eventually be determined by advances in science.

Why are atheists so aggressive on the internet gosh!

[Sean9001]

(Original post by wenger16)
I respect what you have said however i have a few questions on your account.

Where did that 1st particle come from? and why was it there? why did the big bang happen? That is a lot of assumption on your part. Why is there "anything"?
What would there be if there was no universe? Just nothing?

I am in no way saying God caused big bang etc. However we don't know.

I myself as yourself am a keen observer of science. It represent the currently evolving knowledge of mankind however unfortunately it can't provide all the answers.

No it can't provide all of the answers. But since science has provided all of the answers thus far, and religion has provided answers for none, it is nonsensical to consider that the two beliefs (science vs religion) are of equal worth. Two beliefs borne by nothing but superstition are equal. Two beliefs borne by an evidence of equal quality are equal in worth. A belief borne through superstition, and a belief borne by evidence are unequal in worth.

[Sean9001]

(Original post by wenger16)
Read my post again!

I am in no way religious however don't reject the possibility of god. Religion does not have to be linked to belief in god! go read about diestic believers. There are many people (richard dawkins = world most famous athiest like you) who believe there may be a god but one such as in thiestic religions who answers prayers but who is transcendent and can not interfere and it is something we can really grasp.

I was debating against the person saying God is similar to the concept of unicorn ie a meaningless configuration of a human being's mind.

It may be a concept which exists only in human's mind however until we answer my original questions it is a necessarily concept which we can't reject.

I don't see how anybody can be absolutely sure when it comes to questions of existence.

I find the questions whether there is life elsewhere in the universe similar whether there was a creator/life's mysteries. Both can't really be answered however the first may eventually be determined by advances in science.

Why are atheists so aggressive on the internet gosh!

I'm fully aware of deistic believers. But religion in the accepted sense is belief in a faith with a deity. Live by the principles of religion without the supernatural, and you are not religious, but you use values borne from it as a moral philosophy.

My major quarrel is with the supernatural religions (e.g. not Buddism which is not so much a religion as living by a moral philosophy). By all means, I would have quarrel with some of those values. But attacking the values of a deistic believer, is different from attacking the supernatural belief of a theist.

[Hood_Man]

I don't think I ever really believed, or at least not since a very young age. I just sort of never really thought "There is a God," despite praying in schools, nativities, going to church every Sunday until I was 14 etc.

It was never really a conscious decision for me, in the absence of proof I was never convinced.

[Sheldor]

(Original post by wenger16)
I respect what you have said however i have a few questions on your account.

Where did that 1st particle come from? and why was it there? why did the big bang happen? That is a lot of assumption on your part. Why is there "anything"?
What would there be if there was no universe? Just nothing?

I am in no way saying God caused big bang etc. However we don't know.

I myself as yourself am a keen observer of science. It represent the currently evolving knowledge of mankind however unfortunately it can't provide all the answers.

We don't know why that first particle was there, its something else we still don't have the answer too. Obviously, science doesn't have all the answers, but the answers it does have are found through factual evidence, logic and experimentation, unlike religion which uses mythology and easy to understand stories, sometimes with an Aesop attached to keep people lawful. And as for if there was no universe, there would be nothing, because there would be no matter and no atoms. Accepting the fact everything is made from matter, if there was no universe, there would be no matter, without which nothing exists. As for deism, where did the idea of a god come from? I believe it was the human mind, looking for answers which invented religion in the early days of language, by telling stories to children and each other which could explain and answer their questions so they wouldn't waste too much time thinking/asking about it and get back to hunter gathering, as well as to give them all common ground, something to love, and a fear of retribution for bad behaviour/murder,stealing, greed and promise of reward which wouldn't be available till after death to keep them working as a group and surviving.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Llamageddon]

I don't know. It was a bit like father christmas actually. I wanted to believe but kinda didn't. I went to church with school and stuff but I just didn't believe in god. I'd never met him.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by wenger16)
Why are atheists so aggressive on the internet gosh!

If you understood just how badly hit human progress has been by the "we just don't know therefore god" argument then you'd probably understand.

Sure, we don't know everything, but resorting to supernatural explanations is akin to giving up.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
If you understood just how badly hit human progress has been by the "we just don't know therefore god" argument then you'd probably understand.

Sure, we don't know everything, but resorting to supernatural explanations is akin to giving up.

I said religion or god may not provide an answer.

But the point i was trying to make was possibility of god can notbe rejected. i myself follow science religiously(mind the pun) and reject the concept of god in organised religion read my posts again fully otherwise dont quote with baseless accusations.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Sean9001)
I'm fully aware of deistic believers. But religion in the accepted sense is belief in a faith with a deity. Live by the principles of religion without the supernatural, and you are not religious, but you use values borne from it as a moral philosophy.

My major quarrel is with the supernatural religions (e.g. not Buddism which is not so much a religion as living by a moral philosophy). By all means, I would have quarrel with some of those values. But attacking the values of a deistic believer, is different from attacking the supernatural belief of a theist.

Don't agree with this. You can not make this claim.

My concept of a god is different; similar to the one dawkins has often admitted.

It has no connection to our current existing organised religions but to more to science and the questions of why the universe is here.

I feel im not really getting across to you.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Sean9001)
No it can't provide all of the answers. But since science has provided all of the answers thus far, and religion has provided answers for none, it is nonsensical to consider that the two beliefs (science vs religion) are of equal worth. Two beliefs borne by nothing but superstition are equal. Two beliefs borne by an evidence of equal quality are equal in worth. A belief borne through superstition, and a belief borne by evidence are unequal in worth.

(Original post by Sheldor)
We don't know why that first particle was there, its something else we still don't have the answer too. Obviously, science doesn't have all the answers, but the answers it does have are found through factual evidence, logic and experimentation, unlike religion which uses mythology and easy to understand stories, sometimes with an Aesop attached to keep people lawful. And as for if there was no universe, there would be nothing, because there would be no matter and no atoms. Accepting the fact everything is made from matter, if there was no universe, there would be no matter, without which nothing exists. As for deism, where did the idea of a god come from? I believe it was the human mind, looking for answers which invented religion in the early days of language, by telling stories to children and each other which could explain and answer their questions so they wouldn't waste too much time thinking/asking about it and get back to hunter gathering, as well as to give them all common ground, something to love, and a fear of retribution for bad behaviour/murder,stealing, greed and promise of reward which wouldn't be available till after death to keep them working as a group and surviving.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

No the exact point is science hasn't provided all the answers.

You say where has the the concept of god come from?But what exactly is god#? as i told you i do not follow the terms prescribed in organised religions. I give the concept of god a transcendent existence.

I think youy can be athiest in terms of you can reject the god of organised religion however in other terms it is close mindedness.