Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[Animavore]

The funny thing is, religious people are usually never expected to have opinions on why they don't believe in the gods of other religions, and no one is expected to have opinions on the gods of dead religions and minority cults. No one ever says to a Christian that their non-belief in Ganesh is a belief in and of itself. It's just accepted among most religious that they have their beliefs and the other religion has theirs, so I guess in many of their heads they must figure that atheists have theirs also, rather than being able to wrap their heads around having no belief in any of them. It's projection.
When I became a Buddhist some people would ask me about the subject with interest about what I believe, they would even try find common ground between theirs and mine or reason it was a different path to the same thing. I only met one person, a Born Again, who called Buddhism the work of the devil.
When I rejected religion altogether I now had some people (most people I find don't care what you believe by the way) taking offence at the mere suggestion that there might be no god, asking me in anger, 'How can you not believe?', 'How can you believe in nothing?', 'Are you telling me when you die that's it?". In one case an old guy got frustrated when his attempts to convince me failed and he hit me on the back of the head, 'You think you're so smart. Have an answer for everything.' Why atheists should have to defend their position so much more than other areas of nonbelief such that it's the only one that has its own word for it and has to put up with people trying to paint it as a belief also is beyond me. In the worst case scenario some will even try tell you that you do believe in God and you're in denial. It's like some religious people can't stand to see you standing around not believing like they do. Pope Francis recently said that atheists can go to heaven if they're good and true, Mormons will baptise you after you're dead. Quit trying to include me and make me just like you

I find it's better not to engage at all when people start trying to aggressively grill me on the subject (I'll respond to anyone genuinely interested in my position). They've no interest in trying to understand it.

[Hermit]

In all practical senses I'm 100% sure there is no god. Yes, I know that I can't be 100% sure of anything, but I just regard the hypothesis as silly and not worth real consideration. Like XC I don't really regard my position as holding a belief. Nobody expects me to have an opinion on whether the sun is pushed across the sky by a dung beetle or whether a fat man in a suit delivers presents to my kids every year, so I don't see why I should be expected to have a "belief" in the lack of any number of other things.

That's exactly what I was saying! Except not as well

No tat. You said it perfectly well yourself.

We all did - it's just that Seth seems a little is stubbornly obtuse on this point. He hates it when people don't stay in their his boxes...

Agreed with you peeps. That's why I chose the de facto atheist option.

[Animavore]

The de facto atheist option should've said, '...I live under the assumption that there are no gods.'
Not that I accept that either. I don't even think about gods the vast majority of the time going about my day to day. I don't live under any assumptions relating to them, existing or not. It's not like I ask myself, 'What would Jesus do?' then do the opposite.

[PsychoSerenity]

It's not like I ask myself, 'What would Jesus do?' then do the opposite.

I do that all the time!

[Animavore]

It's probably better off you do the opposite to Jesus. Look where his trouble-making, disturbance of the peace and wreckless vandalism got him.

[laklak]

I find "What Would Dexter Do" to be more useful.

[Seth]

Except there is no absence of evidence for abiogenesis.
Nice try.

Well, yes, actually there is a complete lack of evidence for abiogenesis. Any credible biologist will admit that they don't know how life began. They have lots of theories and ideas, but nobody's ever managed to prove that a primordial soup can spontaneously become living matter, so there is exactly zero evidence that abiogenesis is how organic life began.

Just because scientists don't have the complete picture yet doesn't mean there aren't indicators that abiogenesis can happen, not least the evidence that shows that many of the building blocks of life can and do arise spontaneously under certain conditions. The evidence is not zero.

Yes it is. What is known is that certain chemicals can combine to form basic amino acids under certain conditions and that those molecules can combine to create protein chains. And that is ALL that is known. The rest is just as much speculation and wishful thinking as Creationism is, and it's based on the same sort of fallacy that Creationism is, although with negative polarity. Abiogenesisism requires the a priori assumption that God does not exist and that life began without intelligent intervention, a theory for which there is exactly as much objective scientific evidence as there is for God and Creationism, and that is precisely zero.

It's exactly as likely that some energy-based, non-organic intelligence introduced the "spark of life" to the primordial goo as it is that the spark occurred spontaneously. The fact that there is no evidence of this means nothing because it could have been a one-time event occurring billions of years ago produced by an entity that no longer exists, or has simply moved on to another membrane universe somewhere to try a new science project for class.

The ridiculous Dawkinsian statement that "God is not necessary" is one of the most idiotic logical and rational intellectual failures I've ever seen.

The obvious reason that sort of statement is blindered idiocy is because, as should be obvious to a child, just because God is not thought to be "necessary" for life to begin does not mean that God did not begin life...if God exists...or if some other form of intelligence that would look like God to us likes to dabble with his biological science project from time to time, like a kid with an ant farm or an aquarium.

Therefore, even if science does manage to brew a primordial stew and observe it long enough to prove beyond any doubt that abiogenesis can spontaneously create life from non-living matter, it STILL doesn't prove God doesn't exist, nor does it prove that God didn't create life on earth.

And that's not a religious belief, it's a logical, rational fact.

[Seth]

No. My position is that an absence of evidence is ample justification for not giving a shit about something. Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence.

You'll feel that way about Ebola right up until you start bleeding from your eyeballs.

Strawman. There is plenty of evidence for Ebola. It could all be faked (as could the moon landings and 9/11) but it is compelling enough to take seriously. The same cannot be said of god IMO.

Just because YOU cannot (or have not) perceived and correctly interpreted the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Where did I make a claim of existence or non-existence? ONCE AGAIN, you read my words and see what you WANT to be there! I'll repeat the relevant part... "Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence."

For fuck's sake, if you can't argue with the points I actually fucking make, don't bother.

It's your comprehension that's at issue. You see, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, you just don't believe any of it because it doesn't meet your personal criteria as "evidence" that you will accept as showing the truth of the proposition that God exists. That's quite different from there not being any evidence. Quite different indeed.

So, in essence what you are saying is "I deny and reject the evidence that God exists because it conflicts with my own religious doctrines and dogmas."

And that's every bit as rational and logical as any fundamentalist's proclamations about Creationism, which means not at all rational or logical.

[Seth]

No. My position is that an absence of evidence is ample justification for not giving a shit about something. Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence.

You'll feel that way about Ebola right up until you start bleeding from your eyeballs.

Strawman. There is plenty of evidence for Ebola. It could all be faked (as could the moon landings and 9/11) but it is compelling enough to take seriously. The same cannot be said of god IMO.

Just because YOU cannot (or have not) perceived and correctly interpreted the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Where did I make a claim of existence or non-existence? ONCE AGAIN, you read my words and see what you WANT to be there! I'll repeat the relevant part... "Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence."

For fuck's sake, if you can't argue with the points I actually fucking make, don't bother.

It's not that he sees what he want to see. He knows exactly what he's doing. I told you all ages ago, don't let him troll you.

Of course I know exactly what I'm doing. I always have. I'm challenging your perceptions, ideas, notions and self-assurance in your own powers of reason and logic by demonstrating the flaws in your thinking as a way of improving (potentially) your understanding of logic and reason.

It's a dirty, nasty job, but somebody's got to do it.

[Animavore]

Except there is no absence of evidence for abiogenesis.
Nice try.

Well, yes, actually there is a complete lack of evidence for abiogenesis. Any credible biologist will admit that they don't know how life began. They have lots of theories and ideas, but nobody's ever managed to prove that a primordial soup can spontaneously become living matter, so there is exactly zero evidence that abiogenesis is how organic life began.

Just because scientists don't have the complete picture yet doesn't mean there aren't indicators that abiogenesis can happen, not least the evidence that shows that many of the building blocks of life can and do arise spontaneously under certain conditions. The evidence is not zero.

Yes it is. What is known is that certain chemicals can combine to form basic amino acids under certain conditions and that those molecules can combine to create protein chains. And that is ALL that is known. The rest is just as much speculation and wishful thinking as Creationism is, and it's based on the same sort of fallacy that Creationism is, although with negative polarity. Abiogenesisism requires the a priori assumption that God does not exist and that life began without intelligent intervention, a theory for which there is exactly as much objective scientific evidence as there is for God and Creationism, and that is precisely zero.

It's exactly as likely that some energy-based, non-organic intelligence introduced the "spark of life" to the primordial goo as it is that the spark occurred spontaneously. The fact that there is no evidence of this means nothing because it could have been a one-time event occurring billions of years ago produced by an entity that no longer exists, or has simply moved on to another membrane universe somewhere to try a new science project for class.

The ridiculous Dawkinsian statement that "God is not necessary" is one of the most idiotic logical and rational intellectual failures I've ever seen.

The obvious reason that sort of statement is blindered idiocy is because, as should be obvious to a child, just because God is not thought to be "necessary" for life to begin does not mean that God did not begin life...if God exists...or if some other form of intelligence that would look like God to us likes to dabble with his biological science project from time to time, like a kid with an ant farm or an aquarium.

Therefore, even if science does manage to brew a primordial stew and observe it long enough to prove beyond any doubt that abiogenesis can spontaneously create life from non-living matter, it STILL doesn't prove God doesn't exist, nor does it prove that God didn't create life on earth.

And that's not a religious belief, it's a logical, rational fact.

When did I ever say abiogenesis proves that God doesn't exist. Point it out. Go on. Find the exact sentence where I said this.

I'll wait.

[Animavore]

No. My position is that an absence of evidence is ample justification for not giving a shit about something. Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence.

You'll feel that way about Ebola right up until you start bleeding from your eyeballs.

Strawman. There is plenty of evidence for Ebola. It could all be faked (as could the moon landings and 9/11) but it is compelling enough to take seriously. The same cannot be said of god IMO.

Just because YOU cannot (or have not) perceived and correctly interpreted the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Where did I make a claim of existence or non-existence? ONCE AGAIN, you read my words and see what you WANT to be there! I'll repeat the relevant part... "Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence."

For fuck's sake, if you can't argue with the points I actually fucking make, don't bother.

It's not that he sees what he want to see. He knows exactly what he's doing. I told you all ages ago, don't let him troll you.

Of course I know exactly what I'm doing. I always have. I'm challenging your perceptions, ideas, notions and self-assurance in your own powers of reason and logic by demonstrating the flaws in your thinking as a way of improving (potentially) your understanding of logic and reason.

It's a dirty, nasty job, but somebody's got to do it.

You're not challenging anyone's assumptions. You're challenging your own assumption on what you think others are assuming, as you've demonstrated yet again in the post right above.

[Animavore]

Yes it is. What is known is that certain chemicals can combine to form basic amino acids under certain conditions and that those molecules can combine to create protein chains. And that is ALL that is known. The rest is just as much speculation and wishful thinking as Creationism is, and it's based on the same sort of fallacy that Creationism is, although with negative polarity. Abiogenesisism requires the a priori assumption that God does not exist and that life began without intelligent intervention, a theory for which there is exactly as much objective scientific evidence as there is for God and Creationism, and that is precisely zero.

Abiogenesis does not require an a priori assumption that God does not exist. Abiogenesis, like any other branch of science, is theologically neutral. God could use abiogenesis (like some theists believe God uses evolution) as a tool of creation. Abiogenesis is not a problem for any non-literalist theistic view.

The evidence if not zero for abiogenesis. There is enough there to make a plausible case even if the evidence isn't conclusive. Plausible enough that it is its own field worthy of investigation. You may not agree with that, but that's not my problem frankly.

It's exactly as likely that some energy-based, non-organic intelligence introduced the "spark of life" to the primordial goo as it is that the spark occurred spontaneously. The fact that there is no evidence of this means nothing because it could have been a one-time event occurring billions of years ago produced by an entity that no longer exists, or has simply moved on to another membrane universe somewhere to try a new science project for class.

You're creating a false dichotomy here. It is not a case that either an intelligence introduced a spark of life or life arose gradually from chemical reactions. The two are not mutually exclusive if you accept, as Father George Lemaître did, paraphrasing Isiah, that the hand of God is invisible, even in His own creation. According to Lemaître God is a matter of "the heart". We should not expect to find Him under our microscopes or in our scientific theories.

And I don't agree it is equally likely that some energy-based, non-organic intelligence introduced a "spark of life". If I were a gambling man that is not how I would hedge my bet given what I know about the topic. Again, your not agreeing with that assessment is not something I care about.

[pErvinalia]

It can be hard, thinking out of the box.

I get hard thinking about boxes...

[MiM]

It's not that he sees what he want to see. He knows exactly what he's doing. I told you all ages ago, don't let him troll you.

.

[Animavore]

Yeah, you're right. I should take my own advice

Disengaging.