This conversation is closed.

Atheists also beleive.

If one analyses a lion; its teeth, its paws, its strength etc. s/he would understand that it is wild beast that wouldnot prefer eating leaves or vegetables. It would be obvious that this type of an animal prefers hunting bloody meat.
If one analyses a car; its engines, its pipes etc. s/he would understand that a car will not be able to work with water or coke.
If the same analyses a person;its inner world, s/he would take in that this creature is structured to believe in something; Ancient Greeks beleived in gods(Zeus,Paseidon...),middle age arabs to Lutta,Uzza..., Buddists to Dyo,Catholics to God,Orthodoxs to Bog,Muslims to Allah, Satanists to satan and atheists beleive that the Creator doesnot exist.
It would be paradoxical but Atheists also do beleive.

  • thumb
    Jan 26 2012: 'It would be paradoxical but Atheists also do beleive.'

    Well its not just paradoxical, its nonsense.
    A person who doesn't believe a claim =/= a person who does.

    By that logic there are two types of people, those who believe unicorns exist and those who don't, therefore everyone believes...Sorry but thats just an asinine conclusion, I can't see any nice way of putting it.
    • Jan 26 2012: The point I am driving to, is that we humanity are intrinsically structured to beleive in Something.
      • thumb
        Jan 26 2012: 'The point I am driving to, is that we humanity are intrinsically structured to beleive in Something.'

        But atheism isn't a belief in something, its a disbelief.
        You believe something exists and I don't believe your position is true: Thats atheism
        Its not a belief its a lack there of.

        Even if I (a life long gnostic atheist) was to agree with your definition of atheism (which I don't), it still wouldn't make sense for the same reason as saying to your daughter that 'monsters dont exist' wouldn't conclude that you're holding a positive and active belief system. The only reason why the semantics are applied in this case is because people just so happen to be accustomed to this concept over the former, which is basically the logical fallacy of special pleading.
        • Jan 26 2012: Dear friend, I respect your position,sincerely!
          If your will be here is a story i encountered two days ago; while I was walking through the street i suddenly realized that the cat of our neiborhood converted to a lion and was about to attack me;with scare i started running and amazingly, I realized that i can fly. After a while, rescuing myself from a cat, i attemted to land down however i couldnot see any land under my feet, meanwhile i decided to fly to the moon,where i stayed for a day(day lasts there 64hours) The next day,fortunately i found my place.
          I know you found it very nonsense, but i am terribly sorry, it is the same what you beleive in, by leaving all the well-designed universe to the hands of coincidence.
          Please, do not get me wrong I donot intend to be destructive and offensive because my belief teaches me not to be so.Regards.
    • Jan 26 2012: Eyes- for looking; Ears- for listening; Nose- for smelling...etc.,
      Heart- for only pumping blood?! I do not think so; it is for LOVING,BELEIVING and TRUSTING.
      • thumb
        Jan 26 2012: mmm Animals have hearts too... (for the record, i personally believe we are also animals, ooops it that a believe equal to believing in god?...)

        EDIT HERE: sorry, I was being sarcastic, I don’t consider the existence of god or souls to be reasonable propositions. We are animals, our emotions are not so special, we do have a very large brain…
        • Jan 26 2012: Yes we are animals with an INTELLECT which is the vivid difference between us and them.
          I understood from your comment that animals are brutal thogh they have a heart. Then how would you explain a passionate care of brutal mother-lioness to its kids ?!
        • Jan 26 2012: Moreover, my friend,beleive me, God is not needy in anybody to beleive in Him; it is `we` who need to do that. Infact i am not a sort of missionair preaching religion here, i am, perhaps,a guy like you who admires playing football, watching TV, having fun. Regards
        • Jan 26 2012: Well, let's look at the EVIDENCE.

          If we look at our ancestor, we see that we evolved from a common ancestor to bobos and chimps. If we look at our physiology, we have the exact same body parts as other animals. it is clearly evident that we are animals that happened to have evolved a larger brain. Conclusion: we are animals.

          If we look at any religion out there: There is not a single speck of evidence that there is any validity of any of their claims. Conclusion: Religions are false.

          Regarding your question: Is the belief that we are animals the same as a belief in "god"? One has evidence and the other has evidence against it. Conclusion: fact vs delusion. Therefore I think the answer is "No".

          Seems pretty simple to me. LOL
      • Jan 26 2012: No, that would be wrong. The heart does not have emotions. Those come from our minds. Other animals have "kindness" toward their young for the same reason we do; it is a survival (of the species) instinct.
  • thumb
    Jan 27 2012: yes i believe. i believe in purposeful action of human beings to improve conditions. i believe that the world is understandable to some degree, and reasonable choices can be made. i believe that we have a future than brighter than the past. at least i believe it is possible if we work on it. i believe that cooperation is better than conflict. i believe that with some effort, we can tell wrong and right apart. i believe that reason prevails in the long run.

    i can prove none of these. i just believe. and i assert that believing in these things are good. and believing in god is not good.
  • Jan 26 2012: Just because we are susceptible to delusion, does not lend those delusions any validity. As our intellect was growing, we looked for answers that we were not capable of providing for ourselves. In the frustration of facing our own ignorance, we invented supernatural beings that we could praise or blame for the natural processes around us.

    Atheism is the act of looking toward evidence and logic to answer questions, as opposed to using superstition and fairy tales.

    Saying that an Atheist is a "believer" is the same as saying that someone who doesn't collect stamps is still a hobbyist. To say that it requires a "belief system" in order to disregard nonsensical fairy tales because there is no evidence to support any of the concepts just goes to show how desperate you are to try to create some equilibrium between delusional superstitions and rational thought.
    • thumb
      Jan 26 2012: 'As our intellect was growing, we looked for answers that we were not capable of providing for ourselves. '

      Let us also not forget that almost every believer in existence is one through indoctrination rather than a personal thought-process which led to that conclusion.
      So its not even 'people' looking for answers, rather, several people hundreds of years earlier.

      One side of my family were originally all catholics, but as one member of the family found out when creating a family tree --Everyone born into the family were 'catholics' solely by birth. We then later found that we could pinpoint the person who introduced the religion to the family.
      It was simply 1 man who came into the family as a catholic, convinced his wife to be one aswell and then had 7 children, raising all of them as catholics aswell, and thats what led to that part of the family all being catholics a number of generations later.

      Apparently divine truth relies on convincing four year olds to continue its message..
    • thumb
      Jan 27 2012: Hi Keith.
      "Saying that an Atheist is a "believer" is the same as saying that someone who doesn't collect stamps is still a hobbyist. "
      You have a point. However Atheism pretty much obliges one to be a materialist. You must believe that everything originated from a material source without any immaterial assistance. That requires faith.

      • Jan 27 2012: I'm sorry, but do you even know what the word "faith" means? Let's look at the definition: "belief that is not based on proof" or "belief and trust in and loyalty to God". Nope, neither definition describes when I see ore mined from rock, then smelted and formed into iron and then forged into steel, how I "believe" that the steel that I am using comes from the earth and not some magic fairy.

        Unlike theist, rationally minded people actually accept that there are things we don't know. How did the universe begin? We don't know. The problem for you is that, just because I don't know, doesn't automatically prove that any crazy story that you make up is true.

        I know that theists like to try to say that atheist have "beliefs" and "faith" in order to try to put us on the same footing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Theists believe in their fairy tales DESPITE all the evidence against the truth of those delusions. Atheists' "beliefs" (if you MUST call them that) are based solely on evidence, not the lack thereof or to the contrary.

        Here's an exercise: You explain to me how all other religions are invalid except for yours (WITHOUT simply saying the bible is the word of god because the bible says so, and if the bible says so it must be true because it's the word of god. Circular reasoning is not allowed.). Once you have explained and proven why all other religions are invalid except yours, I will use that same reasoning to explain why yours is just as invalid as all the rest. How does that sound?
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2012: Hi Keith

          "Let's look at the definition: "belief that is not based on proof""
          You believe that the universe was made without intelligent input; that requires faith as it cannot be proven.

          I do not engage in debate with advocates of sky fairies, teapots, etc., it would be a waste of my time.

      • Jan 27 2012: I'm betting that you think evolution is "just a theory", too, right? That's because you make the same mistake with the word "theory" as you are making with "belief". The Scientific Theory of Evolution strives to explain how the Scientific Fact of Evolution occurs. This is not at all the same as the "theory" (i.e. an abstract thought or speculation) that some magic sky fairy "created" everything on a whim. You will say that something cannot come out of nothing, so therefore the Big Bang is wrong. But on the other hand, you will claim that god made everything out of nothing, which is completely rational (to you). However, even if there was some supernatural invisible pink unicorn that waved it horn and magiced everything into existence, that in no way lends any credence to YOUR version of any sky fairy. You can't claim that yours is the first delusional superstition that came up with a creation myth and yours is certainly no more valid than any other fairy tale.

        All in all, your argument is just a childish attempt to say that your "beliefs" with no evidence at all except at best circumstantial evidence, but what is really just speculation on your part, are just as valid as my "lack of belief" (which stems specifically from observable evidence), which just doesn't hold any water at all.
      • Jan 28 2012: You are right but the point I am driving to is that humanity is intrinsically functioned or structured to beleive in Something. In other words, there is an ultimate truth laying beyond our minds which we humanity throughout centuries are seeking for it.
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2012: Partially agree. We do seem to seek understanding. We do develop world views or paradigms to make sense of life the universe and everything. I suggest this is an evolutionary outcome that has helped make a very successful species. Our beliefs about the universe have been enriched by science and culture, our language and writing ability to pass stories and knowledge from one generation to another.

          Of course we also tend to think the universe revolves around us. That it was created specifically for us, even though most of it is light years away and redundant. Our tendency to take an anthropological view point can also be explained by science.

          Agree the religious meme is sticky and widespread.

          It is a great leap from observing that religious belief is very common to suggesting there is some absolute truth or god we can barely comprehend. Perhaps the absolute truth is none of the theist views got it right. But there is a chance you are correct just like any other extravagant claim that can not be proven one way or the other.

          Language is also widespread. Perhaps there is an ultimate language or method of communication that we have been seeking for centuries.
      • Jan 28 2012: I'm an atheist. Just to be clear, as many seem to be confused by that label, that means I do not believe that any god or gods actually exist; and, it does not mean that I believe that no god(s) actually exist.

        I'm not a materialist. I do not believe that everything is ultimately composed of some sort of substantial stuff. I care not for the atoms of Democritus, corpuscles, "particles", super strings, or lego blocks. I find the materialist notion that things are made of substantial entities unfounded. Every time we think we found matter... it turns out that it wasn't matter at all; rather, the activity of some unknown stuff that we then considered to be the ultimate matter of things.

        I'm an act of organs which are acts of tissues... cells... organelles... molecules... atoms... subatomic phenomena. Some subatomic phenomena are acts of other subatomic phenomena. We don't know much about those 'elementary' subatomic phenomena. We do know that they are accurately described as 'quanta of energy' which is a scientific way of saying 'discrete packets of measurable activity' which is a verbose way of saying 'acts'. I detect no hint of any 'matter' composing any of this.

        I don't believe in 'spiritual' matter either.

        In any case, atheism does not equate to materialism.
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2012: Hi Robert.

          Sorry for stereotyping you, I was speaking from personal experience, but of course there will be exceptions. Very refreshing, pleased to meet you.

      • Jan 28 2012: @Peter Law - ""Let's look at the definition: "belief that is not based on proof""
        You believe that the universe was made without intelligent input; that requires faith as it cannot be proven."

        Let's look at how logic works: The "belief" that there was "intelligent input" of the creation of the universe is an assertion, and an exceptional one at that. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof lies on YOU to provide evidence, not me to provide evidence that any delusional superstition that you come up with is invalid. My lack of buying into your crazy fairy tales does not constitute a "belief", it is actually a "LACK OF BELIEF". Since, as you point out, "belief is not proof" (the only thing you've been right about so far, as far as I can tell), you have no PROOF or even EVIDENCE that your assertion have any validity.

        "I do not engage in debate with advocates of sky fairies, teapots, etc., it would be a waste of my time."

        Ironic, since you are the one that is an advocate for your particular brand of fairy tales. Also ironic, since you felt the need to engage in this conversation, but at the very end declared that you "refuse to engage". Too funny!!!
      • Jan 28 2012: @Davut Hydyrov: "Two things; 1) How come that you leave such a perfectly designed universe to hands of coincidences."

        First, where does your assertion come from that there is "perfect design"? I assert that nature is just that: nature. Why do you feel the need to add a "designer" to it? Second, even if there were "perfect design", why does there have to be intelligence behind it? And third, even if there is some sort of intelligence behind the creation of the universe, what is your proof that your sky fairy MUST be the only valid source of that intelligence? Just because you can't imagine that the universe didn't have intelligence behind the creation, does not make it a fact that there must have been. You are the one making the assertion, please provide empirical, examinable proof that your assertion is the only valid one.

        "2) I would give you consent, if you manage to surmount the phenomenon which from the very beginning perpetually bothers humanity- DEATH. Atheism doesnot offer anything to sooth humanity..."

        I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but I believe that you are basically saying that you feel the desperate need to have an afterlife and, since atheism professes that there is no afterlife, you think that makes atheism somehow "invalid". First, let's talk about the burden of proof. You claim that you believe there is an afterlife, and I say that I refuse to accept your claim. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there IS an afterlife, not on me to prove why I don't accept your assertion. You "feeling better" by believing in an afterlife does not provide evidence, not even circumstantial evidence, that such a condition exists. It is merely speculation.

        As Peter Law clearly points out, "belief is not proof." My refusal to accept your assertion is not a "belief", indeed it is a "lack of belief." You are the one making the assertion, it is up to you to provide proof of it's validity.
    • Comment deleted

      • Jan 28 2012: 1. I didn't leave the design of the universe to coincidences. I wasn't around. If it were perfectly designed for us then the designer has the worst sense of economy conceivable. Why did he need to create trillions upon trillions of stars separated by many lightyears in order to accommodate what fails to amount to a speck of dust in comparison that we are all clinging onto. Given such vast magnitudes of space and time you don't need intellect for chance events to produce interesting or even 'miraculous' seeming effects. Once you get replicators replicating themselves with some variation and living or dying based on conditions in their habitat, and enough time, you don't need a designer of minds.

        2. "Although very religious people fear death the least, studies suggest, total unbelievers take second place for ability to take their mortality in stride. The worst death anxieties haunt those who lie somewhere in between those extremes—who are a little religious."
        Cited from:

        Unless you are a religious zealot, I probably fear death less than you do. That doesn't surprise me since I don't fear death. I want to avoid it for now, sure. Am I certain of what will happen when I die? No. Most likely I shall simple cease to be. I find that much preferable to getting rewarded for venerating one who would damn me to eternal torture for not believing in or venerating them. I would find even eternal torment preferable to believing in and venerating such a villain.
  • Jan 29 2012: I agree that atheists also believe.

    Everyone is a "believer", but not everyone believes in the same things. I am an atheist, and I believe in many things. I believe that there are protons in the nucleus of an atom, that there is a (former) planet named Pluto, and that the cells of my body contain DNA. I, personally, have no physical evidence of any of these things, yet I believe them all the same. I also believe that I could accumulate physical evidence of these things if I devoted enough time, energy and thought. But I instead choose to believe that many other individuals have already accumulated this evidence. So my own beliefs were acquired from "authorities", not directly from evidence.

    I contend that it is the same with all of us. Those who believe in a god acquired this belief from other individuals that they chose to regard as "authorities" i.e. parents, priests, rabbis, imams, etc. I chose to regard my parents and my teachers as authorities. Although my parents and probably many of my teachers had religious views, they did not force them on me. So I acquired a secular belief system. I don't believe in the existence of gods, or fairies, or ghosts, or pyramid power, or any of hundreds of other supernatural phenomena. Yet there are many who do believe in these phenomena simply because they incorporated these phenomena into their belief systems as they grew up.

    As long as a belief system is internally consistent and is not contradicted by well known facts, intellectually I can't see any reason to disparage such a belief system. Yet emotionally most of us do choose to disparage some belief systems that differ from our own. For instance, many people would laugh at someone who believes in leprechauns, but not one who believes in God. So please feel free to laugh at me for believing in protons.
  • thumb
    Jan 28 2012: I personally think that atheists as well as religious people are believers. One person believes there is no God and the others believe there is. Being sure there is nog God or higher instance, or being sure that their is a God, isn't there some lack of humility on both accounts.

    Sometimes science behaves like it is a religion : Some scientist have proven (read : believe) that their is no such thing as global warming and others prove ( read believe) that their is. another example Black holes. If we are honest, how many people have seen a black hole ? How many people now what a black hole is. But there is a scientist that is creating black holes, and she is convinced it is a black hole. One could almost compare her with a prophet. Is it true ? Is it false ? How can she be so certain of something that has only be observed in a distance ? 7800 light years away according to a mathematical model. And if I am not wrong a mathematical model made by man ?

    For us non scientist, well we surely don't know. We put our trust and beliefs and act upon it depending on the people we choose to believe, be that a particular scientists, the reverend, the rabbi, a prophet, scientific discovery or religion.

    I think we are all believers and then in some areas we just don't know, the agnostics. It seems that being an agnostic is a more humble approach to life and forces around it ? An example : I don't know if reincarnation is true. But, by God, I hope not. :-) Just to be on the safe side, lets not do anything that we will regret in the afterlife. If there is any afterlife ? Because I just don't know.
    • Jan 28 2012: Not all atheists believe there is no god.

      A theist is one who believes that some god(s) actually exist.

      An atheist is the logical negation of a theist; that is, one for whom it is not the case that they believe some god(s) actually exist.

      I agree that agnosticism is a good approach. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. One can claim to know a claim is true or false, and be a gnostic... or they can say they dont know and be an agnostic.

      I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. If there actually exists some god(s), I'd love to find out. As of yet, I haven't encountered any good reason or evidence to justify that there actually exists some god(s). If I ever do, I'll become a theist.

      I just get tired of all the straw-manning of the atheist position that abounds around here.
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2012: Hi Robert,

        it is sadly a vicious side-effect of social groups. Them versus us. It degrades very fast into intolerance and discrimination. It is almost unavoidable. Those who believe, believe that non believers have it all wrong. The stronger the feeling of belonging to a group (religious, political party, basketball team, town, school, click) the stronger the adverse feelings one develops for non-members.

        Institutionalized groups thrive on making their members feel that they are better then the rest, that they are lucky to be part of such a wonderful group of intelligent people who are so right. It's a dangerous cocktail and very little good comes from it.

        That's why I think it is so important to learn ourselves and our children the concept of real free will, of wondering and also always question one-self and others and even the law without disrespect. Just to make sure the morals are ok ?

        Some psychotic persons aside, I think most of us know inside if something is morally good or not. If something is going to be bad for someone else or not regardless of cultural standards and differences.

        As long as this is not a given, i guess all fora will contain some expression of non respect. I choose to politely ignore ?
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2012: Agree we are tribal. Agree disagreements between different religious beliefs, and also between theist and non theist views range from the respectful, passionate, vigorous, personal insults, to the deadly in some places and times.

          Given the powerful influence of these beliefs I suggest we should keep on with the debate, while trying to minimise violence.
  • Jan 28 2012: That is a completely invalid argument, you are basically saying, oh because lots of people think there is a religion that is concrete proof. wow.
  • thumb
    Jan 27 2012: The error you make is to assume that belief has to be in something that isn't demonstrably true. We can believe in things that are demonstrably true. It's strange to say I believe in gravity instead of I accept it, but it's still correct. To accept by implication requires you to believe, it's just that believing on its own says less. Your whole argument doesn't really serve its purpose, sorry.
    • Jan 28 2012: Two things;
      1) How come that you leave such a perfectly designed universe to hands of would say we donot,then it means you are venturing that atoms, molecules,hemoglobin,lysosome,planets etc. are INTELLECTUAL beings that they masterly made their minds and function in a way they should function.
      2) I would give you consent, if you manage to surmount the phenomenon which from the very beginning perpetually bothers humanity- DEATH. Atheism doesnot offer anything to sooth humanity, it shows DEATH as a gallows to be hung, by telling that after death we,humanity, are going to decay and meanwhile eaten by worms.Now hearken to your SELF, do you content with such final?!
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2012: First of all, congratulations on providing a reply that is not a reply at all. You don't confront any of what I've said and instead launch into what will be yet another futile exchange between religious and non-religious. Second of all, pertaining to your 1), you asked me a question and then provided what you thought would be a logical explanation in my place. I can speak for myself thanks. I would actually say I do leave it to "coincidences" or as I like to call it, the laws of physics. Of course, '"coincidences" is your way of denigrating something that makes no sense to you. Finally, for 2) I have but one thing to say, it doesn't matter how you or I feel about death, nature is not suited to make us happy. We came along about a few thousand years ago, the universe has been around for like 13,7 billion years (what a perfect universe indeed /sarcasm), how I feel about death is irrelevant and I offer no solution, nor would it make sense for me to do so. Atheism is not a religion. But that's why you believe in religion right there, fear of death, that's an emotional belief, not a rational one. Good to you sir!
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2012: Suggest not all beliefs are equally likely to be correct. Not all opinions are of equal merit

      Some claims are more extravagant than others. Some have more or less evidence.
      Without getting into the rabbit holes of what is real, and absolute precision...
      if I claim to have 2 legs, we agree on the definition of legs, you see I have 2 legs, there is a good chance we are correct.

      If we repeatably measure acceleration due to gravity as 9.81m/s/s at ground level on planet earth... then claiming these to be true is a fairly well substantiated claim.

      I'd suggest religious claims don't have a sound basis for their claims, or are proposed to operate in realm of spirit outside testable reality. Religious belief is incredibly diverse and malleable and faith in the unprovable or unlikely is seen as a virtue.
  • Jan 27 2012: I don't BELIEVE that there is a god, but I do believe that to say so with certainty is as much an act of faith as to say with certainty that there is one.
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Feb 3 2012: Well , I listen the first 7 minutes of the talk , I realized I waste my time and I stop listening ,however I think I got it's idea and this is not about atheist to believe , I think it's more about making a selfish compromise between the needs a human have.
  • Jan 31 2012: We, humanity, are structured to beleive into SOMETHING, all of us are seeking it. We, those with faith, beleive that there is One; and you beleive that there is nobody but human`s tales. So let it be, for you is your beleif and for me is mine.
  • Jan 31 2012: Mr. Miossec have you seen any city, even a village without a mayor? Then how come that huge universe is without its peculiar mayor?!
    • thumb
      Feb 2 2012: that is not a very relevant comparision. who is governing the weather. who is governing the ocean. neptune? who is governing the sun.apollo? no one. you are applying a human perspective to a non human topic. anthropomorphisim.
      • Feb 2 2012: 1) relevant comparison
        So you claim that all those fables are pointless and nonsense ,because they are applying animal perspective to human perspective?! Aisec`d have been dissapointed,had he heard this :).
        2) murdery, violence,rape
        Will you be able to show any verse suggesting murdery,violence,rape in any (so claimed) divine scriptures? Taurah,Bible,Kuran ? If `yes` please type them down.
        3) death
        Leaving scientific dispute aside, let us think what atheism offers as a remedy for death? Because,we have to admit, death is unbearable phenomenon for humanity. If your will be, allow me to tell you what religion offers humanity; As all members of a plant kingdom(particularly flowers) rebirth after so called Winter death, why then humanity kingdom willnot be rebirthed after Death?!
        • Feb 2 2012: You're not making any sense Davut.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Feb 3 2012: Right Gabo , Davut don't make any sense .

          Just simple thinking Davut in this universe exist the evil . But to be atheist because of such things it's also not making any sense.
        • Feb 3 2012: Eduard: You're not making any sense either.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Feb 3 2012: I knew you'll gonna write this :) .

          Why am I not making any sense here ? because I said we shouldn't embrace atheism because of such reasons . Gabo, Davut tried to make an argument I think , in my opinion that's a wrong argument ; you have to understand our arguments don't define our God .
        • Feb 3 2012: You'r not making any sense Eduard, because it's impossible to understand what you are trying to say.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Feb 4 2012: Then I'm not making sense for you . We already have another discussion started .
  • Jan 30 2012: Perhaps, I should be offended by the comments you are making, however I liked you, Mr.Miossec : ),seriously.
    p.s Responses for comments are coming sooner,gonna go now.
    • Jan 31 2012: I don't think your should be offended Davut, those comments should have gotten you thinking what you might be doing wrong. Copying and pasting the very same comment a thousand times is one of those things you are not doing very well. What about you thought c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y about what people have told you instead?

      By the way. I don't believe that "the creator" does not exist. I don't see any evidence that a creator does exist. On the other hand, I see plenty of evidence that gods are human inventions. Thus I conclude that gods don't exist. It's a conclusion, not a belief. All of this is very different to "believing" that some specific creator does not exist.

      Now, rejecting your proposed god(s), does not mean we "leave everything to coincidences." But that we (or at least "I") leave everything to natural phenomena. Quite the difference yet again, right?

      Hasta lueguito,
      • Jan 31 2012: With respect to your position `No ` not right ! It is first. The second, you might conclude for yourself that `there is no God`, however for me and many others there is. The third, I have thought carefully what these people (including you dear sir) told me, and I came up with next; I would thank everybody for their comments, beacuse each comment I got, strengthened my faith and made me firmer on my beliefs; I again comprehended how the axiom of atheism 1.0 is weak and invalid.I understood that the book can be somehow written on its own,without author, and you dears are able to scientifically prove it. Or that the bacterias in my room after 1000 years can become huge dinasours,(by the way I should add) by theory of natural phenomena. Thank you!
        • Feb 1 2012: If that's what you "learned" you were not listening. But so be it.
        • thumb
          Feb 2 2012: not sure if not believing a claim is the same as actively beliving the oppsite view.

          in a way everthing we percieve or interpret about the world is a form of belief. i belive im typing on ted. who knows. i might be a computer programme. just some things are more or less evident. i agree that in this sense athiest believe something different to theists. the jump from not understanding every single aspect of our universe to explaing this with some super being is huge claim. especially today. we have been able to explain so much previously xplained with false assumptions. the world in not flat. earth is not the cantre of the solar system. volcanos dont erupt because of angry volcano gods.
          i also dont believe in zeus fairies demons vishnu odin.
  • Jan 30 2012: I am an agnostic. Agnostic theist or agnostic atheist? Well, I do not believe anything specific about what is out there. However, I love learning about new discoveries in science and dreaming about possible scenarios. Imagination is a powerful tool. I love to think I could be an avatar for example, who knows! I love pretending this or that really exists. I often pretend I really believe some spirit is giving me some wise answers or helping me find answers,and I am conscious that I am probably telling myself stories. The answers I get are awesome and the film is fabulous. It does help me in real life and it is fun. We have evolved to feel and see and experience things that are not real in order to survive (and if possible, as an extra, enjoy life on earth). A rainbow is not really real. We know that and we still enjoy watching it. We are aware of many illusions like how a colored dot is perceived differently depending on its environment. A red dot surrounded by pink looks pink.. On a green surrounding a red dot is standing out and almost glowing. If you fix that dot and close your eyes, you will see its complementary color instead. The scenarios that you can imagine or that you do believe, about why we are here and how we are here are always related to your time, personal history, environment, and culture. Good stories can color our life. My friend has a heavily handicapped baby and loves to believe that her baby was sent to her to make her a better person. Her story helps her. She is convinced that without that new belief, her or the baby would be dead. I think the day we will solve some of the greatest mysteries in science, more questions than ever before will arise. Also, there could be such a shift of paradigm that we could just discover that we have been all of us human beings completely wrong about everything. For now, some common believes are more improbable than others. In any case I hope that love, compassion, curiosity, imagination will spread always.
  • thumb
    Jan 29 2012: Atheists also believe what?
  • Jan 28 2012: Yes, humans are geared to believe things.

    We have developed brains that can actively adapt to changing conditions and incorporate information. Unlike a fly, we will not ram into a closed glass door over and over again because our brains are too small to do much more than follow genetically encoded behaviors. We have the advanced resources and behaviors to consider what is, accept some claims as true, others as false. When one accepts a statement as true, one has a belief.

    We are free to believe pretty much whatever we like. Ideally, we would have evidence and or reason to justify our beliefs. We can't always do that. Sometimes we have to make do with what we have and consider some claims as likely or unlikely. Even those things that we believe we should be willing to revise in light of new evidence and or reason.

    Faith doesn't do that. Faith is how to justify a belief without proper justification.

    Yes, atheists believe too. That doesn't mean that atheists believe that no god(s) actually exist. Some do, others believe it better not to bother forming a belief about the actual existence of god(s) either way. After all, the cost of such an investment seems steep, and there is no evidence of any returns on that investment. It just doesn't seem to matter.
    • Jan 28 2012: 1-Brain,reason,intellect..
      You speak about brain,reason,intellect etc. as if you put me and others who believe, in a position of ignorant docile beings. Allow me to correct you, the faith I posses is perfectly justified with logical proofs and the reason.You seem to be a person of an intellect, so how come that you pass by such a beatiful well arranged order(eg. cell structure, golden ratio, planet formation etc.). I think it is impossible to claim that `Sun after Bing Bang decided to pose itself in 23 angel degree twards Earth,so that earth will have 4 seasons; or that Mitochondria(in cell structure) made its mind to serve to cell with supplying energy because it did not like doing work Lysosome does(grinds food coming from outside); or atmosphere layers decided to be 7 because they didnot like any other number...etc.The thing I am ignorant is in ithat I do not understand how it is possible to leave them to Coincidences. Let us concieve that we have seperate letters U O Y E V O L I ; according to theory of Probability, what would be the probabilty of those letters when dropping them to become I LOVE YOU ?!
      The point I am leading to is that it is impossible for them coincidencly form intellectual meaning without author or master!
      Most think that people with faith are restrained on their wills thus they are dependent and not free.Well, those who think so may be right in some aspects; where as they might not know that religious people are more free than those who are without. Non-believers are perpetually sceptic,they do not have proper,concrete foundation to rely on, thus they can be easily dellusioned by any `mesmirizing` system (eg.Communism)
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2012: Davut, you seem to be working backwards. Was the universe created to support life as we know it or did life evolve to survive in the natural universe as it is.

        Why is it there is life on Earth, not Mercury or Venus, or the sun, or empty space (as far as we know - suggest there is a good chance of life somewhere else). Its just that the conditions weren't amenable. That doesn't mean Earth was made for humans.

        Would we have been okay if the angle was slightly different? OR zero? Do we need seasons to survive? We might have been in trouble in the orbit was more elliptical. Or if earth was closer to the sun. Or if our atoms ended up in the sum rather than earth.

        And in this supposed perfect universe, at some stage our Sun will expand and die. Earth will be obliterated. Just this is outside our puny human time scale. Asteroid hits or nearby super nova might do us in sooner. Also cancer, disease....

        If our descendants survive on the galactic time scale, they probably won't be anything like we are now in 100,000 or a million years. Or another Billion.

        Coincidence on a more human scale - I exist because my mother and father met, and their parents met, and their parents met etc. They all survived long enough to mate. Many of their siblings didn't.
        Natural processes are going to have outcomes. They don't need a driver.

        Perhaps believers are more open to views that clash with more religious views. Religious views seem compatible with Fascism, crusades, burning witches, stoning raped women, human sacrifice, keeping slaves, rascism, sexism, wars of aggression etc. My understanding is about 80% of the current population have some religious belief. I suggest they are responsible for a fair share of killing, lying, stealing, cheating, hatred going on. This is a human problem. I'd suggest religion doesn't seem any better than secular or humanist views on average. Even if atheism did result in worse social outcomes that doesn't make any religious belief system correct
    • Jan 28 2012: 3-Death
      So death for you is just cessation of life and nothing else?! ...not to be :) Crazy advice: try yourself in a coffin for 3 minutes and imagine your END. I bet you will hold different language. For, if to hearken our ego, it is not content with mortality, it seeks infinity.
      I sensed that you beleive in god, but sort of offended on Him. As if he is tyrant or despot making fun of us?! I respect your position but donot consent with that. The way you see is the way you think, the way you think is the way you enjoy your life ! Yes, there are some ostensible factors like poverty,handicapped births, calamaties,loss of very dear people that prompt us complaints,hates towards Him. But why donot we bother ourselves to ,a little, investigate; we are free,if we donot find persuasive answer,then here we go `Let us not trust Him.`
      Dear friend let me tell you that He is not in need for our niether beleifs nor worships,it is we who need it. :) We are free to choose. By the way, I am not religious zealot as you would think of me, I am perhaps a guy like you who enjoys playing football,watching some good movies and having fun!
  • Jan 28 2012: Example, there was an event in Somalia; according to CNN there was an explosion, for BBC there was a terrorist attack, for RT there people made a riot against government . We, the audience, are not sure what exactly happened there; but we are certain that SOMETHING had happened there. All religions beleive in something, we people are not sure what exactly there, but it is favourable that there is Something.
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2012: They're all working with the evidence they have at the time. They know something has happened, that's like our knowledge of the universe at this current time. As the situation gets clearer, the reporting from all these channels will get more accurate, just like our scientific understanding marches us forward. What we shouldn't do, is fill in the gaps with our own story, which in all likelihood, won't turn out to be true. That is what religion does. It sees the universe, it jumps to the conclusion there is a God, based on no evidence whatsoever. Not that this metaphor is particularly good anyway, but ironically it serves my purpose.
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2012: Would you jump to the conclusion that god was responsible for the explosion in Somalia?

      Given our understanding of plate tectonics today, would you assume a volcano erupts because the volcano god is angry. Is the sun a golden chariot?

      I can understand how religion and supernatural filled these knowledge gaps in the past. I can understand that people were indoctrinated in their tribes religion and did not have the understanding we have today on how thousands if not millions of religious belief systems and interpretations have developed, evolved, been absorbed or died.

      Given any set of facts or information and a contextual framework, it is reasonable to start trying to determine the most likely scenario without claiming you have the absolute truth. With proper consideration of the evidence, not trying to warp the evidence to suit your paradigms, understanding of the situation should become clearer. Obviously we shouldn't believe everything a human says is absolutely correct just because they are on CNN, or are the pope, or a supposed prophet, preacher, guru, or demi god.

      Given our improved understanding today, and freedom, in some places, to choose which if any religious view makes the most sense, is it appropriate to jump to the extraordinary claim that some godlike being is responsible for the universe and in some cases believing this being is still intervening in our lives. Especially is you start to get specific and say it was the one that choose some desert dwelling tribes as his chosen people, or other mythology/religious claims.
  • Jan 28 2012: Two things; 1) How come that you leave such a perfectly designed universe to hands of would say we donot,then it means you are venturing that atoms, molecules,hemoglobin,lysosome,planets etc. are INTELLECTUAL beings that they masterly made their minds and function in a way they should function.
    2) I would give you consent, if you manage to surmount the phenomenon which from the very beginning perpetually bothers humanity- DEATH. Atheism doesnot offer anything to sooth humanity, it shows DEATH as a gallows to be hung, by telling that after death we,humanity, are going to decay and meanwhile eaten by worms.Now hearken to your SELF, do you content with such final?!
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2012: Wow, did you literally copy-paste that as your reply to me? Just a word of advice, if you're not willing to converse, neither will we.
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2012: I'm not sure if you are serious about these two questions. Anyway giving you the benefit of the doubt...

      1. What makes you think the universe is perfect? Is it as good as it could be? What is the definition of a perfect universe? If I could, I'd design one without cancer.

      It's a different question to ask how did the universe come about to be as it is today? Given the nature of matter, energy and the key forces, physical laws you'd expect the planets, life to operate within these constraints.

      2. That's like arguing I feel sad about trees dying so there should be a tree heaven. Isn't isn't it sad all the animals died in the forest fire - there should be an animal afterlife. The fact that reality, life is not without its challenges and ultimately is finite (until we master the aging process etc), is not a sound argument for an afterlife.

      Actually who would really want to live for ever? I could imagine a few hundred years if healthy, happy and comfortable, then expect I'd seek a final rest. At this stage I'd suggest our human minds are not infinity ready. Eternal life, if anything life actual life, would be torture after a point. Of course whichever deity is in charge would make it a nice experience for some and perhaps terrible for others. Its hard to argue an eternal afterlife experience would be a good one or a bad one given no one can explain what it's actually like and if they did our human brains would struggle to comprehend.
  • Jan 28 2012: If there is One, then it means

    - he is either master or amateur,
    - he is aware of us or not,
    - he is a merciful(who nurtures us) or a despot(who doesnot care about us);

    Observing His masterpiece it is obvious that He is a great master,if he is a master, then he should think,if he can think, then he should be smart, if he is smart then there should be a point in creating us?!
    Observing his outsanding masterpieces ( eg. cell structure, or galaxy) it is vivid that he is a Master; but is he a merciful master or a despot?! Let us think of Einstein, Einstein founded science of sophisticated physics,which shows that he was a master. Was he a tyrant who wanted to destroy whole earth with atomic bomb, or a devoted scientist who sought betterment for humanity?!
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2012: All of your if statements are irrelevant until you can show the first if to be true. This post is literally a waste of keyboard strokes.
      • Jan 30 2012: 1. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
        2. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world;
        3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
        4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
        5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
        6. Show us the straight way,
        7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,
        those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
        • Jan 30 2012: Davut,

          You started a conversation on the theme that atheists also believe. Please stick to that theme. This is a forum for conversation, not for religious ritual.
        • thumb
          Jan 30 2012: 1. What
          2. In
          3. the world
          4. Are you
          5. on about
          6. ?
  • thumb
    Jan 27 2012: My answer to this would be:
    Does what you believe comfort you? Does it make you happy? Does your belief make you feel love? The reason I ask these questions is because I believe that we are endless and infinite, it's proven that man can change thought into reality. That being said if you could turn your thoughts and beliefs into a visible reality that you can see, touch, feel, hear, taste... Would that reality serve you well and make you feel loved? If yes then I believe you are on the right path if not then maybe you should choose to believe something else... It's your choice and you will always have one as we are our own will....