Question for the Atheists.

[_Themis]

So if God wasn't needed then that is primary evidence that God doesn't exist, right?

I don't think you can have evidence for the non-existence of God or anything else like Bigfoot. All you can have is evidence against claims made about something that does not exist.

Ok. I'm not in any real disagreement with the major thrust of what you're saying, but why not default to there being a god/creator that is responsible for human beings on earth rather than defaulting to disbelief?

Default to which God, Gia, etc? Why would we default to belief in something we have no evidence for. I certainly don't for Bigfoot, although it might be tempting. :)

That's the reason I'm referring to the tools of inquiry that most of us have, the five senses. Does God remain hidden from us by default if we rely on these filters of perception? And the more interesting question, at least to me, is why would God hide himself behind a veil that cannot be penetrated through the normal means of perceiving the world. The fact is, those that disbelieve in God, in most cases I would guess, have relied primarily upon the five senses to obtain information concerning "god". What if that method is basically useless?

I think everyone knew you were going in this direction from the beginning about some other sense to know God, and this is why God is hiding and wants us to find him through this other sense. Problem is you can't show that some other sense exists other then what our minds can create. I think you may also find many atheists have powerful spiritual experiences but do not interpret them how you do. Hell, most religious people don't. How is your ability to interpret here superior to theirs, or more likely to be accurate?

But is that reason enough to disbelieve in a creator/god who is responsible for human beings on this earth?

Most would find it reasonable to not believe in Bigfoot due to lack of evidence, and any number of other supernatural claims, but why should your God get a pass?

[_mentalgymnast]

So if we found intelligent life on another planet would you expect them to be in human form?

If there is a God and we are created after his image and in his likeness as sentient beings and these other folks are also sentient beings, I would think it likely. Why would God create sentient beings that have eternal potential/natures in a different form or of a different species than himself?

Of course, if there is no god/creator that is responsible for human beings on this earth, the beings from another world could look like...well...aliens.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

Ok. I'm not in any real disagreement with the major thrust of what you're saying, but why not default to there being a god/creator that is responsible for human beings on earth rather than defaulting to disbelief? It seems as though there are enough reasons to believe in a creator to make the belief default reasonable. Why choose disbelief?

(Just so I understand, are you invoking Pascal's Wager here?)

Pascals wager is to binary considering all the religious choices out there, and it's logic seems to suggest going with the one that will avoid the worst outcomes. By this logic MG should be converting to religions like the JW's since they believe non-members will cease to exist. LDS actually have one of the better outcomes for almost everyone. I guess they don't really believe their own arguments.

mentalgymnast

I suppose that it would come down to a basic gut feeling/hope that the universe is not simply a cold place with no ongoing/eternal purpose for sentient beings/entities. It's a sense of the ineffable, the sublime, the LOVE that has meaning beyond the here and now. Yep, it's wishful thinking. But as I've already asked, why not default to this position rather than the opposite position of disbelief in a god/creator? It seems to me that this is a position that opens up opportunities rather than closing doors.

What opportunities. As I a said above, if you are going to default to anything it should be with the JW so if they are right you will at least keep existing and live in paradise. With the LDS it is a win win for everyone regardless of what the believe. Do you really believe we should have certain beliefs we know may be wrong or have no evidence for just becuase we like them? You don't seem to do this with things like leprechauns as far as I can tell.

[_mentalgymnast]

If someone gives me a phone number and tells me to call it for all kinds of awesomeness, and I call it repetitively and get no answer, I'm going to think there's nobody there and figure it was too good to be true. If I tell them later that the number's no good and they insist they just called last night and it was awesome, but I continue to get no answer, I'm going to maintain that nobody is at that number until I get some confirmation that someone is.

After a while, there doesn't seem to be a point to calling the number any more.

Fair enough. Can't argue that.

I'm assuming this applies to prayer and using it as a tool to obtain knowledge from God? Would we expect the dynamics/processes to be exactly the same?

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

So if we found intelligent life on another planet would you expect them to be in human form?

If there is a God and we are created after his image and in his likeness as sentient beings and these other folks are also sentient beings, I would think it likely. Why would God create sentient beings that have eternal potential/natures in a different form or of a different species than himself?

Of course, if there is no god/creator that is responsible for human beings on this earth, the beings from another world could look like...well...aliens.

Regards,
MG

Well given the enormity of the universe I say it is a pretty safe bet to say there is intelligent life out there. If you are correct it will only exist on planets that are similar to our own due to the unique nature of the human form. Frankly I think it is very likely that some sort of intelligent life has evolved on planets that would not support a human form. It is not hard to imagine a planet with very little land mass in which some sort of aquatic animal makes it to the top of the evolutionary chain. Maybe some day our descendents will find out.

[_Sophocles]

If there is a God and we are created after his image and in his likeness as sentient beings and these other folks are also sentient beings, I would think it likely. Why would God create sentient beings that have eternal potential/natures in a different form or of a different species than himself?

Of course, if there is no god/creator that is responsible for human beings on this earth, the beings from another world could look like...well...aliens.

This is an interesting question, because now you're treating the god hypothesis as something testable. Any good theory should predict future outcomes, and as you say, if the anthropomorphic god you're describing exists, then we can expect that if extra-terrestrial intelligent life is ever discovered, they will look like us. Great. Now we just need to find them.

Only we don't, because this experiment has already been played out hundreds of times on our own planet. If you look through the history of scientific discovery, nature has always turned out to be different than what the god theory would have predicted. Just to name one example, there was once a time when scientists assumed that species never went extinct. You might say they "defaulted" to the belief that was consistent with their beliefs about a creator god. Why would a god create entire species only to wipe them out? It didn't make sense. Of course, eventually the evidence that there have been millions and millions of different forms of life that have come and gone became overwhelming.

Of course, this didn't make people stop believing in gods, and neither did any other discovery that turned out to be at odds with what the god theory would have predicted. I'm guessing that if we discovered non-human intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, that wouldn't dissuade you from believing in god either.

That's another good reason not to default to belief in creator gods. It has a pretty poor track record as far as predicting natural phenomena. For that reason, I'm guessing that if intelligent life is out there, it will be decidedly non-human.

[_Ren]

Let's go with this definition:

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism

Regards,
MG

Right.
Look again at the definition of the word you just provided.
Did you see any of the following words or terms in the definition:

* Know
* Knowledge
* Absolute certainty

...?!
No?

mentalgymnast,
Are you telling me that - after 1500-odd posts on this forum - you are not aware of how the word 'atheism' is practically used?!

No wonder you don't seem to get it, or understand it...
It's probably because you're not trying very hard to...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Knowing that we are limited to our five senses in determining what is real and what is not, what is true and what is not, what we can know and what we cannot, and so forth, how can you know for a fact that a God doesn't exist? The evidence that you rely on is restricted/limited by the filtering system of your five senses.

How can you be so sure?

Regards,
MG

Well, I don't know for a fact that there is or isn't a god. I just don't believe one exists in any sense that matters to me, and in all reality the notion of a god and its relation to me is fundamentally unimportant. <- That's Existential Atheism for ya.

Would I like a god that suits me to exist? Sure. Why not? Death is a relatively scary thing, and it would be comforting to me to know that Bliss and Purpose exist once I get shot to death, or my heart goes into cardiac arrest, or my plane goes down over Wichita.

That said, I would suggest to the Theist that he or she thoroughly examine the reason they believe in a god and try to go beyond sloganeering, platitudes, or emotions.

[_beastie]

Ok. I'm not in any real disagreement with the major thrust of what you're saying, but why not default to there being a god/creator that is responsible for human beings on earth rather than defaulting to disbelief? It seems as though there are enough reasons to believe in a creator to make the belief default reasonable. Why choose disbelief? Simply because there have been what appear to be some "whacko" god beliefs in the past?

Regards,
MG

How do you go from admitting that if there is a god, it deliberately keeps itself hidden, to asserting “It seems as though there are enough reasons to believe in a creator to make the belief default reasonable.”

Here’s what you’re saying sounds like to me. There are some people who insist that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. They either do not accept or are ignorant of the mechanics of how this ancient culture managed to build such incredible edifices without modern technology. Yet those who have studied the issue present a quite reasonable explanation for how this feat was achieved.

By asserting that if there is a god, it has deliberately hidden itself, you are conceding that the universe with this god looks just like the universe without this god would look. That is the equivalent of admitting that scholars have provided a reasonable explanation for how the Egyptians built the pyramids without the aid of aliens. But then you, like the pyramid alienists, go on to insist that there’s still enough reasons to believe in what research has proven to be completely unnecessary.

That’s why I invoked Humes. The only way it would be reasonable to accept the alien theory is if the falsehood of the alien theory would be more miraculous than the reality of the alien theory.

By the way, did you “choose” to disbelieve in Santa Claus?

[_Mad Viking]

The god you've described has chosen to not make their existence apparent in any way. Their assumed existence looks exactly like their non-existence. It begs the question of why anyone would posit this god's existence in the first place?

But what if that is "his" design? And to make this design operable/functional he has constructed a world in which he can only be known through the use of some other means of perception other than the five senses? If this is so and we are not amenable to this possibility, we will not "know" God while living on this earth. Of course, I know, we (speaking in the collective) can often beat our heads against the wall, so to speak, trying to figure out how the heck this purported "extra" sense works...and often doesn't seem to work depending on different variables. Brain chemistry, environment, relationships, etc.

So we come away thinking that the five senses are the only means by which a "fair" and just god would make himself known since there are so many problems with getting any kind of extra sense to "kick in" in any uniform/predictable kind of way from person to person.

But is this sufficient reason to disbelieve in a god/creator that is responsible for human beings on this earth?

Regards,
MG

Again, if this creator divorced himself/herself/itself from us once we were created and set up a an existence where the perception of the same creator's existence was theoretical at best, why even posit their existence in the first place. We certainly aren't going to worship such a jerk-off. In fact, our existence look exactly like it would if we in fact had come into existence through some other means. So why even posit their existence? Why even posit some other extra-sensory perception (I'm not even sure what that means)? Why not accept the world and our existence as we percieve it? The god you are describing certainly does't want anything to do with us, so why should we worry about their existence?