Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer: 

Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation. 
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer. 
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise? 
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve? 
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist? 
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more? 
If your curiosity has been piqued and you desire to look into this matter further, we recommend that you consider the world's assortment of so-called Holy Books. If God does exist, has He revealed Himself? And if He has revealed Himself, surely He exists...

Cheers for the swift response :) I guess I'll try and respond to some of those points with my own personal views.

>Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.

I disagree with this point. Scientists have not proven theories such as The Big Bang and although they can date parts of the Universe and have proposed theories that it is expanding, there are only assumptions regarding how it all started. The problem with looking at the Universe from a timeline perspective is that it would indicate a point of creation. However, it may be the case that only the 

visible

 Universe was "created", what went before, some other force/dimension that we cannot comprehend?

> upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.

The issue I have with the "Intelligent Design" theory is this. If only God (or another creator) can and has created such 

exquisite

 designs (be it humans/plants/animals) then why is our anatomy not perfect? If an omnipotent being was powerful enough to create something like the brain, why couldn't he/she/it create perfect eyesight in which we can see pefectly in the dark for example.

This can be said for animals too so surely the idea of evolution is more applicable, that is, natural selection adapts a species over time but it is not perfect by any means.

>Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes

I would argue that astronomical odds on Earth are quite possible when you look at the Universe as a whole when, for example, 1/100000000000000000000000000 odds may not actually be that impossible :p

>The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve? 

I am not aware of the debates surrounding this argument. Wouldn't mind hearing some of anyone around knows them :D

>People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. 

Interesting, but I have an issue with people associating supernatural forces with God. Assume that ghosts exist, this would then be evidence for the existence of a supernatural world but not necessarily for God.

The other issue I have is that, if we take miracles as being true, then there have been a lot of miracles, rather than a few. This, to me, implies that miraculous events are more natural than supernatural, and indeed, this view of mine is strengthened everytime I hear of a miracle. 

Also, continuing with my "Greek Gods" argument from my main post, those people who worshipped Zeus in Ancient Greece and witnessed a miracle, would have had it occur because of God rather than Zeus. This implies that all other religions apart from those that have faith in God are incorrect in their beliefs.

Thanks for the post anyway, it's given me a few more debates to look into! :p

Everything I say is just my belief/faith/opinion. So don't take it the wrong way if you are offended. 
To start off, I do belong to a religion and I will let you in on a secret, There is a God (I refer to him as a Heavenly Father out of respect)! There has to be. 

1. All religions have the same thing in common, even Scientology, someone or something created the universe. They just have a different view or hypothesis of how things are. They base these on books, visions, signs, tales passed down through generation, etc. All religions have their foundation in which they created the religion. Then branches of that religion reform into another one (like Christianity). They deeper you go into teachings of religions is where they start to differentiate. Some religions are right in what they teach, but where the wrong happens is when reformers don't like what they hear so they change it to what suits them best. But some reformers sometimes enhance it or dig even deeper into things. Basically, most religions have the right content or the basic knowledge/foundation, but there still has to be only one true religion with all the right doctrine. 
The religions back then in fact knew that some being overpowered them in all circumstances, but they could not prove or know by fact that they were right. Scientology also knows something had to happen for us to be here. Some purpose.

2.Creationism did in fact happen. Heavenly Father created man in his own image, with flesh. Everyone first existed in the pre-existence (as my religion calls it). Everyone on earth choose to come here versus Satan and his crew. 
No, we were never once apes or whatever. We just have similar characteristics, as most mammals do. I just want to point out that religion and science are connected in numerous ways are rely on each other to keep them going. If you get a chance to read 

Angel and Demons

 by Dan Brown, it talks all about it and is quite interesting. 

3. Yes, something did create this. Heavenly Father is like the architecture and laid out his plans but in fact did not create the universe. His son and our brother Jesus Christ created the Heavens and the Earth under the direction of Heavenly Father. Everything that has happened and will is all in his master plan. He knows what will happen/already happened in our lives. Like I stated before, Heavenly Father developed rules/laws like the laws of physics, so science is a minor fraction of religion. 

If anyone has questions on what I just said, reply back, or there are websites on my religion.

-PMF

Hope you won't be offended, FσσĎ FiġнŤ , but some things you wrote are simply not true, feel free to believe whatever you want though. 

>Information requires intelligence<
No, it does not. 
7r67yfjdfv8e5455 <- see ? Information without intelligence.

>Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes.<
Since we still not excactly sure how abiogenesis works I doubt that any meaningfull calculation has ever been done.

>Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. < 
No, they do not agree on that.

  >So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? < 
If you can prove that micarulous phenoma are real you can win a million dollars : 

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

If your curiosity has been piqued and you desire to look into this matter further, you might want to check out
www.talkorigins.org ;)

Oh, and slightly offtopic, the answer to the ultimate question is ofcourse 42. :)

Chris :
>The problem with looking at the Universe from a timeline perspective is that it would indicate a point of creation.<

A few questions :)
Since you already told us you consider yourself an atheist, why do you think it (the timeline perspective) indicates a "point" of creation ?
With no time and space how do you imagine any kind of creator to exist at all ? 
Suppose big bang theory is proven to be true without any doubt, would you start to believe in a God or would you just call it the big bang theory ?

>So don't take it the wrong way if you are offended.

Don't worry, I'm not offended at all. In fact I'm glad someone who belongs to a religion has put their stance forward. If I was offended by a perfectly serious debate I would be letting my own personal views drown out objective analysis :p

With regards to your first point, I agree with much of what you said (Although I don't believe in something creating or controlling us). I agree with your point about taking the specific "there is a God" argument out of the debate and instead focusing on 

something

 "out there", which is not particular to one religion but particular to faith in general.

>Heavenly Father created man in his own image

I'm interested to ask you what you think about the fact that some animals are now extinct and others appeared on Earth (Whether this was because of someone creating them or because of my view, evolution) after. For example, reptiles such as crocodiles were alive in the age of dinosaurs whereas modern day human beings were only on this Earth much later (thousands of years ago). In your view would this mean that someone/something creates animals/humans on a constant basis?

To add to this, the procedure of putting fossils into chronological order shows extinction and changes over time.

And if you don't mind me asking, what religion do you follow? It wasn't quite clear in your post. :)

Apologies in advance if this results in a double post, after replying above (resulting in a page refresh) I saw Wally's post.

Firstly on a lighter note:
>the answer to the ultimate question is ofcourse 42.

Haha, imagine, we try and come up with all sorts of theories/analysis/evidence and Douglas Adams has corrected everything in the space of 3 seconds by thinking of "42" :p

Anyway I'll try my best to respond to your questions (Although I sometimes end up terribly confused on the subject!!)

>Since you already told us you consider yourself an atheist, why do you think it (the timeline perspective) indicates a "point" of creation ?

Okay. When I look at the idea of a Universe being say, 13 billion years old, that implies to me that at somepoint the Universe was, theoretically, 0 years old. Now, my own view is based on two ideas. 

The first, that there was something before space/time/the visible universe, so what was created was what we see today (if that makes sense). Still, the word "created" implies that there has to be a creator which is not my view. It's more of a case of something 

happening

 that caused the result of what we see/feel/measure today. 

My second view is the one of a "cycle" Universe. The view that the Universe is in a continuous cycle of expansion and contraction, so in theory, there was a Universe "before" ours.

>With no time and space how do you imagine any kind of creator to exist at all ? 

I don't imagine a creator. Whatever (if anything) was there before the known Universe is beyond our comprehension as human beings in my opinion. We can theorise things in relation to time/dimensions/Science but, if time wasn't there before the Big Bang then in my view this implies something that we can not theorise about as our knowledge is based on what we can comprehend in our 'world'.

>Suppose big bang theory is proven to be true without any doubt, would you start to believe in a God or would you just call it the big bang theory ?

No, as I said above even if the Big Bang was proven it doesn't mean there has to be something that created it. People say that it is impossible for there to be "nothing" before the Big Bang, but I would argue that "nothing" in our Universe could actually be something in a different form when the physical laws/time/gravity are taken away i.e. before the Big Bang. 

Hopefully I've given answers on my views that make sense (and hopefully I haven't contradicted myself in the process :p).

I read a few chapters of the god delusion, and i couldnt help but think they were just finding answers to the questions that can be answered (if you understand my meaning)... im yet to find an answer to how it all began... 

i dont think We as humans, can comprehend nothingness.. how could you.. so until the proof that we started from nothing, comes to light. then i personally can't see an alternative to there being a higher power governing us!

however i dont belong to any religion, and i dont particularly believe in God!, make of that what you will

Right, think about the 1 in what a rediculous amount chance that you were born from the amount of your fathers sperm, then that chance, multiplied by every single one of your ancestors, back to evoliving from a single celled organism, amounts in an infintesimally small possibility that it is basically impossible, yet it happend. Every child born is going to increase this infintesimally small probabily by billions, yet it still happens. So yeh no matter how small the probability that life could evolve from nothing, it is basically proved in the fact we exist. 

>I would argue that astronomical odds on Earth are quite possible when you look at the Universe as a whole when, for example, 1/100000000000000000000000000 odds may not actually be that impossible 

Actually Chris a calculation was made that considered the adverage possible amount of habitable plants surrounding the estimated possible amount of stars in our universe which still showed life evolving as pretty much impossible. 

Whether you choose to believe that or not is obviously up to you, I havn't researched it enough to make my own opinion, although I do believe life to be elsewhere.


That site mentioned however by walle2 is a complete joke! They offer 1 million to someone who can proove paranormal activities to be true! Think how much they would make for this information! It would completely change any known scientific theory!

Ok. I didn't put my religion out there on purpose because whether you like it or not, people judge. I wanted you and others to read my first post with a fair input (I'm not saying you wouldn't but it helps create it more equal).
I am from the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints (LDS). Or most commonly referred as "Mormon".

Look. I don't know everything about God's plan, but everything happened for a reason. My religion teaches that the Earth was created from "unorganized" matter. The matter comes from other sources, which could have had dinosaurs on it. I believe dinosaurs did once live. I also believe evolution is true for reptiles and other species. I believe animals changed to suit the environment and to survive. A reason why some are extinct today is because of humans. 
But no, I do not believe humans went through the process of evolution. We were created before this earth life and will dwell after it. Also, all animals and humans were created before the earth life, so he doesn't keep creating them. 

-PMF

Of course there's a God. How did we get here? Not by dirt, or any other matter that just popped up, i'll tell you that. And poeple of other beliefs--when you pray to your god, nothing happens. When you pray to 

the

 God, it may seem like nothing happens for a while... but it's God's will. Most things are answered, if they don't involve hurting someone in any way.

I'm a strong Christian--there is a God! (there's a Jesus too :p)

>Actually Chris a calculation was made that considered the adverage possible amount of habitable plants surrounding the estimated possible amount of stars in our universe which still showed life evolving as pretty much impossible. 

Not sure if it's the same one but this one is quite interesting :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

I came across that the other month, found it quite interesting, especially the fact that the calculated number of civilisations that we could come into contact with in our galaxy is 10 :p

>im yet to find an answer to how it all began... 

I doubt we'll ever know. I don't know any of the theory in depth, but I assume the only possible way to get even close to finding out is by going to the "edge" of the visible universe where I guess we could observe whatever it was that happened. This would of course require us to travel faster than the speed of light which brings a whole new set of problems in intself :p

And thanks PMF for responding to my questions, I apologise if it came across as insulting to your religion in anyway :)

>Hope you won't be offended, FσσĎ FiġнŤ

Not offended at all mate.  I will say that me personally do not believe in god.  Im just saying some topics & answers that have popped up in my 21 years of life lol

i might sound big-headed but i consider myself something which you can call 'intellectual'
and i'm an atheist,i don't believe in any kind of god.
as time goes by,people realise that religion is something that fools them,therefore more and more people consider themselves atheists.
i believe in the power of science. the abilities of human,human's brain,are endless,and its being proved by scientists. i believe in evolution,in big bang theory,etc.
Charles Darwin,Albert Einstein - those are gods,and definately not someone on the sky telling us what to do

might write something else on the subject later,short of time just now 

@Chris
thanks for answering, I just wondered why you used the word "creation" as an atheist.

@poof master floof
Forgive me for the silly question :), I just want to know because I thought it was so weird when I first read about it.
Do mormons still wear special underwear ? 
( 

http://www.mormon-underwear.com/

 )

@Massimiliano. 
>i might sound big-headed but i consider myself something which you can call 'intellectual'<
Yes :) calling yourself an 'intellectual' does make you sound big-headed, it's probably better to let other people be the judge of that.

"Intellectual" can be used to mean, broadly, one of three classifications of human beings:

   1. An individual who is deeply involved in abstract erudite ideas and theories.
   2. An individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas, as opposed to producing products (e.g. a steel worker) or services (e.g. an electrician). 

For example, lawyers, professors, politicians, and scientists.

   3. An individual of notable expertise in culture and the arts, expertise which allows them some cultural authority, which they then use to speak in public on other matters.

@Massimiliano. 

>For example, lawyers, professors, politicians, and scientists.<

Calling yourself a scientist or professor without any credentials or information to back it up, on the internet(for crying out loud), makes you sound big-headed again. :) sorry.

There is no offence intended even if you perceive it that way, it's just friendly advice how to behave on an internet-forum. 

Chris - you didn't insult my religion at all. Thanks for replying though.

Wally2 - It wasn't silly, you are just curious. You can ask what ever you like.
Short answer Yes. They are called garments. The whole website that you gave is correct.

Great subject and the answers given were interesting. I guess the real way to find out is by dieing.

-PMF

for now, i will hold my personal beliefs, and just state a few things i've heard from people over the years (which tend more towards the 'fact' end of the spectrum).  maybe later i'll put some of my opinions out... we'll see.

chris brings up the question "is there a God?"

one person will say, with absolute certainty and conviction "of course, i believe there is because of ..." i've talked with him, i've seen miracles, i've been raised that way, i've concluded by the evidence of something or other, or any other number of arguements.

another will say, and fully believe there to be no other option "there cannot be a God because ..." how would he let evil exist, we have free choice so there is no one controlling us, God is a made-up concept just to make people feel good about themselves, among other things.

in reality, there will be no one answer or arguement that will suddenly "convert" all people on one side to the other... and even so, they aren't even really sides, but more of an idea, where there are many people of varying degrees inbetween (there might be a god, there was a god at one point), but not even a scale (since some believe in many gods).

and the reason there are (and always will be) people on both sides is assumptions.  take almost anything of a similar debate... 

god or no god?  any given holy book claims to be divinly writen (in some way or another), but you have to assume this fact to be true to say there is a god, or assume the books to be written scams (or similar) to say there is no god.

evolution or creation?  you have to assume there wasn't creation initially, and then evolution that brought us to this point.  or even if you say that's a possibility... you will either assume that similarities between species today are a result of a common ancestor, or they are the result of a common designer.

one religion vs another?  assuming one to be true often (though not always) concludes others to be false.

it all depends on your starting point, as to where you end up.  you can't, for instance, say "that whole bible thing, with jesus performing miracles, and claiming to be the son of god... that just can't be, because miracles don't still happen today", and then conclude that christianity is the right way to go.  or in another light, you can't say "for such and such reasons, i believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, but i agree with darwin".  if you don't believe what is written about jesus, you will be an athiest, a jew, or from any other number of religions that may or may not have any belief about jesus, and if they do, it's just that he was a good person.  if you believe the earth is young, and created by a creator, then you can't agree with darwin and his theory of evolution (at least not fully, to the extent that it takes millions and billions of years to evolve).

on most of the things i've mentioned, i'll admit i have (or have at least heard) arguements for both sides.  i also have my beliefs on what's true.  and while some things i believe to be absolutely true and it'll be a long shot to ever change my mind, there are other things i believe that i will openly admit are not set in stone, and possibly never will be, because there are some details that, regardless of what opinion i could have on them, it wouldn't really affect my core beliefs.

--jason... done my rambling for today... looking forward to all that'll be up on this thread by tomorrow, and will likely have much more to say within a few days.

LOL Massi, Either your last post is a joke or your completely deluded my friend.

So your saying if your a Steel-worker or Electrician that therefore makes you 

not

 intellectual? Lmao.

Wereas if your a Lawyer or a Politician that then commends you as intellectual? Give me a break, Politicians dont even know how to run a Country proper. Fair enough Scientists, you expect them to be clever.

Whats this place coming to...

>i might sound big-headed but i consider myself something which you can call 'intellectual'<

u are big headed and i dont think any1 likes u and no1 cares that ur an athiest in my opinion u should just stick to homework and watching tv because i hate ur guts (and i dont even know u) 

[Edited by: chillo1983 on Jan 23, 2009 4:12 PM]

@Āķĭňŝ™. 

>I'm a strong Christian--there is a God! (there's a Jesus too ) <
You seem to be the only "strong Christian" so far so...
what's your opinion about evolution and abiogenesis (=complex chemicals becoming something you can call "alive") ?
This site explains what I think about it :

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Does being a strong Christian imply that you believe in a different explanation ?


@poof masta floof
:) Since you don't mind silly questions, did you see the south park episode about Mormonism ?  They explained the joseph smith-story (in a southpark way;)) was that more or less correct ?
(will try to find some youtube-link in case you haven't seen it)

Quote from jason :
> if you don't believe what is written about jesus, you will be an athiest, a ***, or <
" a *** " = a person that likes bar mitzwas, klezmer music and judaism ?
If so, it's kinda weird that it's against the rules to use that word.

Not believing in a god(s)is not so hard once you realize that the god the three desert religions believe in was founded away back when they thought they were the only people around. They didn't know about all the other humans that populated the world when they first dreamed up the idea of some super power that they had to worship because they didn't understand about nature. All the other groups of people also had to have some reason for understanding nature for their own situation. All of this proves to me that some kind of god or power was necessary to understand their plight.

In every group there were more intelligent people who knew how to exploit their dumb friends.

If you look closely it's the same today. We have people who exploit others by keeping up the tradition of religion. The Catholics have the Vatican, the Americans have their Pat Robertsons and all their pastors. The Muslims and the Jews have their so called intelligent people who dictate..for example,Muslims have Ayatollahs ( look at Iran )

Wally2 - yes I have seen it. South Park put it on to make fun of our religion (in the South Park way). They had some things correct and the basic knowledge of the story, but twisted some parts like reading out of a hat was wrong. I thought it was somewhat humorous though.

I still believe science supports religion in most of it's teachings. And for those believing that miracles don't happen today, they do. Just in a different form. All new technologies, doctors saving lives, other scientific advances are all considered miraculous. 100 or more years ago, people would consider you crazy if you told them of your new technologies.
And the bible and other holy books are also time lines and other historic references. Researchers would not have found out what 2000 or more years ago would have been like if these books had not come out.

-PMF

@wally2... yes, that's what i meant.  guess in my "quick" preview, i didn't catch that one of my words had been censored.
--jason

To Wally2:

My opinion on evolution is that is has a reason for everything--which is fine--but it doesn't seem to have a beginning...

I have to ask: Where did this "matter" come from? If there was no matter before the world began, how did this come about? There has to be a higher power.

Thanks for asking, it made me think ;)

Āķĭňŝ™.:
> I have to ask: Where did this "matter" come from? If there was no matter before the world began, how did this come about? There has to be a higher power.<

What "matter" do you mean ?
Organical chemicals from which life could have started or all the stars & planets in the universe ?

Would you start to disbelieve in God if the Big Bang is proven without any doubt ? (I see no reason why that would destroy the faith of a strong Christian.)

Hey Chris, long time no see, nice to see you are still bothering with this.

I would firstly like to say that basically, creationists, are nuts. If you see one, throw a fossil at them.

As far as my personal beliefs go however, I do believe there is somthing that could possibly be labelled an "omnipotent creator", however I believe it is ignorant and premature to call this thing a God, and worship it, and take things like the Bible literally. 

Issac Newton:

"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion"

I mean look around, we have matter, anti matter, energy, gravitation, and even existence. The universe is just a bit too balanced. 
As for the afterlife, personally I think when we die we go beyond the somewhat linear existance we are living now. Maybe there is cake. Who knows...

Perceptionally, we as humans are like an ant climbing up a humans leg, not ignorant, but maybe limited.

SYS

Just actually read a few posts and im amazed to see how many people are suddenly experts.

Wikipedia, anyone?

Suitsyousir :
>As far as my personal beliefs go however, I do believe there is somthing that could possibly be labelled an "omnipotent creator", however I believe it is ignorant and premature to call this thing a God<

Why is an "omnipotent creator" o.k. and calling it God ignorant ?

Off topic :  Your nick's from the fast show right :) ?
             "Have to go.. there's a drainage in the lower fields.." ;)

>Why is an "omnipotent creator" o.k. and calling it God ignorant ?
Thanks for the question, I will start with saying that we humans over the years seem to attach the word God with a "someone" who has almost human charateristics, someone we imagine has a bears and that must be worshipped. I find a 'God' in this sense (you will find all monotheistic religions have one) an anachronistic solution to superstitions and things we didn't have science to understand. 

But an omnipotent creator is entirely subjetive and could be anything, but like I said before I think, as humans, our perceptional limitations are unable to really think in such terms.

Also offtopic:
Yes, the fast show is epic.
"What, you and this lady here, sir? Are you sure, sir? Have you really thought this one through, sir?"

Oh, and Massimiliano, as for you being a self-proclaimed "intelletual", was just wondering why you felt the need to copy and paste your anti-religion speech from this website:

http://atheistblogger.com/2008/08/19/the-benefits-of-atheism/

I Could tell it was plagiarised as it didn't have any appauling grammar or spelling mistakes.

much love, Suits.

SuitsYouSir wrote :

> someone we imagine has a bears...<
Don't understand this bit, is it some keyboard error or does "bears" has some meaning that I'm not aware of ?(English is'nt my first language)

>But an omnipotent creator is entirely subjective and could be anything, but like I said before I think, as humans, our perceptional limitations are unable to really think in such terms.<
"Creator" sounded a bit like some intelligent design explanation to me, but that's not what you meant apparantly.

Where do you think that our "perceptional limitations" end ?

more offtopic fast show stuff :)
"Hey mister Atheistblogger, you shouldn't put that stuff on the internet, I'll steal it! I'm a little bit woooo, a little bit weeeee, I'm a geezer ! I'll nick it !"

:) Understand now ; "bears" was a typo for "beard" right ?

Yeah, I did mean to write beard, sorry for the typo.

What are you fishing for? 
Fish. (and clever passages about atheism I can copy onto this forum so people know just how clever i am. My mummy even sez so)

SuitsYouSir
>What are you fishing for? 
Fish. (and clever passages about atheism I can copy onto this forum so people know just how clever i am. My mummy even sez so)<

I'm not fishing for anything (not that I don't like fish, although I was bitten by a fish at the age of 5,I don't hold a grudge against them (mostly)).
:)

It might sound like fishing because I don't realy know what you think, you sound religious but you seem to look down on people that believe in God (am I correct?).

The fish thing was a fast show quote lol



I may be religious, but only to the point I believe that there is something greater out there, so call me an agnostic.

>"you sound religious but you seem to look down on people that believe in God"<

Not at all, I do not look down on people who believe in God, on the contrary I respet them. I do however think that people who believe in monotheistic religions such as Christianity are brainwashed idiots, and I do look down on them, as i'm clearly better than them.

Suits.

@SuitsYouSir
>The fish thing was a fast show quote lol<
Can't remember that bit.. (I'll get me coat)

>I may be religious, but only to the point I believe that there is something greater out there, so call me an agnostic. <
If you believe there is something greater out there, you're not an agnostic.
I can't see any real difference about making up your own "something greater" and being a follower of a monotheistic religion (making it up yourself is more creative though).

Actually my friend, I believe it is time for me to come out of the 'religion closet'. I am very religious, I believe in One God, The Flying Spaggeti Monster - that's right, I am in fact a pastafarian (can I get a Ramen from the audience?).

This should explain better:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

It is the fastest growing carbohydrate-based religion in the world.

I hope you take the time to learn about it.

Suits x

P.S - If any of you Christians can give me a reason why Christianity represents a more believable fictional character, or "God", please do tell me. At least we can explain things like global warming:
[img=

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

] 

Additionally, and more seriously, to Wally, I use Agnosticism in a more non-commital sense, but perhaps you could explain why I do not fit into the Agnostic category?

Suits.

Suits
>Additionally, and more seriously, to Wally, I use Agnosticism in a more non-commital sense, but perhaps you could explain why I do not fit into the Agnostic category?

Suits.<

You can ofcourse call yourself what you want (there's also loads of people that call themselves Christians but don't act like it), but an agnostic is someone who isn't sure if gods exist or not, you said you believed in something greater (could be the FSM, bless his noodly appendages). And you wrote in a different post : 

>I mean look around, we have matter, anti matter, energy, gravitation, and even existence. The universe is just a bit too balanced. <

That's the fine-tuning argument, 

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/against/problems_of_fine_tuning/

(Or you can call it the sentient puddle analogy, if you've read the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy).

So, is it because we have less pirates now , that the Earth is warming up ?

Or because the Earth is warming up,we have less pirates ?

;)

Yes, Charlie Brown there is a God. Did you know where there is Faith there is hope? 

Did you know that where there are clichés like that there is rhetorical nonsense?

Well I finally managed to get hold of a copy and read the book (The God Delusion). I would advise anyone with an interest in the subject to try and read it themselves (Including those with a religious background!!)

The book introduced me to plenty of new ideas that further fuel the debate and it certainly concreted my position as an atheist :p

It's late now so I won't go into detail about Dawkins' arguments but I am interested whether anyone else has read it and whether they actually found his arguments to be wrong or incorrect in anyway.

I have read it, and to be honest I can't believe that a society as advanced as ours can believe in such anachronised superstition.

It is all about hope, when you are down and can`t find a solution, all you can do is to hope that something, somebody, somehow, will help you get out of trouble.
It is all in the human nature....
That`s why humans believes in a Superpower they call it God.

Lucia

Do you know, that were the weight of a neutron even 1*10^-115gms less, the universe would never have been.
As regards the birth of god, did you ever hear of CMBR?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is proof that the universe was planned long before being created?
Besides, the fact that the universe has less antimatter than matter is proof that something wants us to exist.
We are not exact as GOD is finite. The universe is finite. God used to say that he can do anything as our utmost concept of "anything" at that age was also finite.

So, here is my oppinion: 

STUDY FER YER EXAMS IF YOU WANT GOD'S HELP KID!!! 

>Do you know, that were the weight of a neutron even 1*10^-115gms less, the universe would never have been.<

You miscalculated (or mistyped) there with 1*10^-115 and I suppose with gms you mean grams, but anyway,
Do you know, that if I didn't have access to a computer I would never have been able to answer your post ?

>As regards the birth of god, did you ever hear of CMBR?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is proof that the universe was planned long before being created?<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Saying CBR is proof for God is the same as saying trees are proof for God.

>Besides, the fact that the universe has less antimatter than matter is proof that something wants us to exist.<

If you are refering to baryogenesis then No, that's no proof either.

>We are not exact as GOD is finite. The universe is finite. God used to say that he can do anything as our utmost concept of "anything" at that age was also finite.<

Why do you want to proof your religion anyway ?
I thought religions are based on faith and what you believe is true, if there was any real proof for your faith than it wouldn't be faith anymore (and your God would disappear in a poof of logic ;) )

"As regards the birth of god, did you ever hear of CMBR?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is proof that the universe was planned long before being created?"

Do explain how, as I understand it's only evidence to back up the the Big Bang model.

"The fact that the universe has less antimatter than matter is proof that something wants us to exist."

You seem to be confusing proof for conjecture. There is no "proof" in that statement. Why would God have created anti-matter at all? We simply don't know enough about it.

I will not continue as you summarise with circular rhetoric that God is finite, even though there is no evidence anywhere (except in people's heads) to suggest a God even exists.

If you have that much 

proof

 it's a wonder why we have to have this debate at all ;)

>STUDY FER YER EXAMS IF YOU WANT GOD'S HELP KID!!! 

Not sure who this is aimed at but I have to assume it was me as the original poster. Ignoring the ignorant usage of the word "kid" in your sentence, I am quite capable of doing my exams at University without the help of someone 'above' completing my answrs for me ... :p

Also what is your reasoning behind:

"Do you know, that were the weight of a neutron even 1*10^-115gms less, the universe would never have been."

>Do you know, that were the weight of a neutron even 1*10^-115gms less, the universe would never have been.


Bumping an old thread, because I still want to know what Rajarshi's reasoning behind this is.
If he/she is still around. :)

I have bone to pick with some atheists, i guess namely Chris:
I don't see the relevance of Richard Dawkins to the question of whether a god exists. God and biology/evolution/science are not mutually exclusive. Science is only evidence that the existence of a god isn't *necessary* for things to be the way they are. But just because something is not necessarily true, doesn't mean it is necessarily false; something can be true without being *true by necessity.*

Now a bone to pick with some theists.
To put into my own words a common argument i hear:

"Everything isn't the way it is just by some extreme coincidence. Especially considering how complex things are, and how, if anything had gone a tiny bit differently, we wouldn't be here today. Things must be the way they are for a reason. Looking around me at this beautifully intricate existence, I'm compelled to think there's a God who caused it."

I have two problems with this:

1) Randomness and design aren't the only two possibilities: there's also the possibility that things are the way they are because this is how they *had* to be. If this is the case, we may never understand why they had to be this way, but that doesn't de-legitimize the possibility, any more than not understanding God de-legitimizes the possibility that God exists.

2) By your own argument, God could not have existed by mere coincidence either, so there must have been a higher god who made the current god. And that higher god had to be made by an even higher god, and so on forever. My point is that if God can exist for no reason, then so can anything else.

"But just because something is not necessarily true, doesn't mean it is necessarily false; something can be true without being *true by necessity.*"

I'm sorry but that is just complete tosh. Just more circular rhetoric. I mean a flying teapot with a magic hamster running the universe isn't true by necessity, but just as viable. 

Science doesn't know if a God was necessary to create this universe, but it is not a viable logical conclusion as there is no evidence. If you want to carry on inducing propositions that don't need to be a "necessity" and have no proof then we could be here all day drawing absolutely no conclusions.

One conclusion we can draw with science though is that there certainly isn't a bearded chap sitting on a cloud happily smiting us all with righteous abandon. Those sorts of things are called by origin fairy tales and are relient on an anachronous superstition in order to mostly deal with fear. 

I think Einstein may have been on the money with this one: 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

-Suit.

Tin, we aren't in disagreement; i'm an atheist, i believe in a greater consciousness but not one that has any desires (esp. not human concerns), and doesn't interfere with things. I'm pretty much on the same page as Spinoza.

>

If you want to carry on inducing propositions that don't need to be a "necessity" and have no proof then we could be here all day drawing absolutely no conclusions.

That's my point: that no conclusion can be drawn just by talking about science.

>

One conclusion we can draw with science though is that there certainly isn't a bearded chap sitting on a cloud happily smiting us all with righteous abandon.

Yes, but that image is only held by people who don't study their own religion or think much about it (which, i grant, is most people); not by theologians. When i say science can't provide evidence against god, i'm talking about the theologians' god, not the popular image. 
(I do find it strange, though, that the god theologians describe sounds like precisely the kind of being that wouldn't have such human-like thoughts and desires, and certainly wouldn't care about human affairs.)

> i'm an atheist, i believe in a greater consciousness

Are you sure you're an atheist ?

"Greater consciousness" isn't close to being a synonym for "God". The consciousness i believe in is omniscient but completely impotent. It does nothing but observe, and it observes everything at once--everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. It can't do anything, nor does it want to because it has no desires. It never created anything, it's just a bi-product of Existence. Everything in Existence contributes to its awareness; you can say reality is one giant brain whose consciousness is the greater consciousness.

Also, i believe the greater consciousness is the 

only

 consciousness there is. Meaning, you don't have your own consciousness, no one has different "souls", just different brains. The fact that your brain only contributes a small amount of awareness to the greater consciousness, is what creates the illusion/assumption that there are multiple consciousnesses. Your brain can only think about, or be "aware" of, its own small portion of reality. Your "i" is your brain, because your brain is the one thinking "i". The consciousness experiences all brains' thoughts at once, but naturally your brain doesn't know this because your brain and other people's brains aren't interconnected, so your brain assumes it has its own limited consciousness. However, the consciousness isn't limited; only the brain is.

Do i sound like a Theist to you?

Hi So Nice,
 
>Do i sound like a Theist to you?

Well... to be honest, yes. 
But what you believe is indeed different from, say, mainstream christianity (whatever that may be).
However, you wrote about your 

beliefs

 and a greater consciousness, and that seems like some sort of diluted religion to me.
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm conscious (most of the time).

But feel free to call yourself atheist if you want to, the United Atheist Alliance needs more members :)

Okay, let me make myself clear: I'm not an atheist on purpose, i'm not 

trying

 to be an atheist, the label doesn't give me a sense of pride or heightened self-esteem. If your definition of a God is broad enough to include something that can't do anything, has no importance, and is partly comprised by you and I, then sure, I'm a Theist. I haven't called myself a Theist, simply because that's not how I would define a God. If that's the definition of God, then who cares if there's a God or not?

>

However, you wrote about your beliefs...

Everyone has beliefs...no one *knows* things for certain, one has to be pretty arrogant to think he does. You either believe in God or you believe in the lack of God, there's no such thing as not believing in anything, unless you're completely unsure of which side to take for every issue.

>

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm conscious

I didn't say we're not conscious. I said the consciousness experiencing what you experience, isn't your own unique consciousness, but one shared consciousness. And i said, the reason you're only conscious of what your brain experiences and not what anyone else experiences (even though the consciousness is), is because your brain is limited.

(note: internet went out when i first posted, so i hope this isn't a double post)

were all just men on this earth.

Sexist.