Why Aren't You an Athiest?

[Tanner 186]

Why aren't I an athiest? Because honestly, I'm kinda neutral in terms of religion, I don't bother thinking about it. People have their own views on an afterlife and such, mine is just nonexistent, I don't really bother thinking too hard on topics involving religion and the like. It's just not something I can bring myself to care about (In other words, I'm not an athiest because I don't consider myself anything, lol)

Edited April 20, 2015 by Crimsonn

[Cleverclover 1,525]

You think God wants you to worry every single day? Maybe He wants you to become stronger. After all, God helps those who help themselves.

 

Well, I don't really worry. I simply thank Him in my prayers every night that I made it through the day without hearing any terrible news. Other than that, I don't think about it too much. 

[Plume 922]

I've always liked to think that there's going to be something else out there, something beyond death, something watching over me and something that'll help me when I really need it. Just... Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I believe in a benevolent god - one of love and kindness - who's helped us in the past and will continue to help make things better.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I've always liked to think that there's going to be something else out there, something beyond death, something watching over me and something that'll help me when I really need it. Just... Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I believe in a benevolent god - one of love and kindness - who's helped us in the past and will continue to help make things better.

 

Being "too much of an optimist" is better than being half of a cynic in my book.

[ConcorDisparate 385]

To believe that the universe and everything in it came about by an explosion from nothingness, is like believing a explosion in an aviation junk yard would make a Boeing plane; in other words, it goes against logic.

 

You're forgetting something here.

You analyzed this situation, but you didn't include something : Humans are limited.

It doesn't take more effort to believe the universe was created by an explosion from nothingness, as it simply requires to understand what I stated above. I was taught by humans, and I am human myself, my reach is limited, thus, it is well understandable that I don't understand such an event and it is easily accepted that it could be true, as the only obstacle of it being untrue is my own self being limited

 

Thus, being atheist or not =/= believing or not in an explosion from nothingness

                                          = Trusting your feelings

 

I often hear people say "how can this whole universe be created without a god to create it ?" or something like that.

We could easily say that too : " How can God exist if there is no universe to exist in" ?

 

"how can this whole universe be created without a god to create it ?" => It's not the reason why you trust in god or not, it is much deeper than that, and being atheist or not is more complex than that too. Everyone has reasons to trust in God or not, but I don't think it's simply based on such a simple thing.

 

 

 

Atheism can't explain a lot of simple things. For example, the existence of the conscious mind or morality

Atheism is not based on explaining everything, it is based, or at least I think it is, on explaining that things make sense, not why nor how.

 

 

 

The evolutionary process of doing some of the most vital things to human life would take too long to figure out by chance.

Who possesses the numbers to say so ?

 

 

 

how can all this is be by chance? The chance of a explosion that created everything we see

That's the very root of the probabilism, given an huge number of attempts, the probability becomes a statistic. It only requires one out of an infinite number of attempts to create us. Asking ourselves why us doesn't make sense, it's probabilism.

 

 

 

the chance of these new life forms learning how to eat and procreate

 

This is not chance. It was "necessity". Why atoms were grouped into molecules is known, why they merged into cells is much more complicated, but it isn't "chance", given the ammount of time and attempts, if there was a probability it happened that way, it would, and it did. If that was the only evolution from molecules to cells that is efficient enough to "survive", then given an infinite ammount of time, the small numbers can become huge, even if the probability is minor.

If only one out of 2^20000 bacteria can react the way it did to evolve into something greater and bigger, it doesn't change the fact that [1/(2^2000)]*oo is a huge number too, an infinite one in fact.

 

 

 

the chance of a monkey becoming a human

 

It is not chance, if such a thing was possible, it would have happened eventually after an certain ammount of time. Probabilism.

If we consider that it happened, well, there was a probability it could, given the time we were given, the chance itself doesn't matter.

 

 

 

he chance the humans would figure out how to make babies

Here, you're mistaken. Monkey knew, humans couldn't not know that. And it's also called reflexes. Plants didn't learn how to reproduce, it's a reflex. They reproduce, that's all. Species are only meant to spread in space and time, a species don't learn how to reproduce, it makes no sense, it's the essence of its being, and a species not directly meant to reproduce is not a species.

 

 

 

the chance that a baby knows when to be born

You have to posses a brain to learn, species don't.

"Nature is well made" - I don't know if you say that often in English, I know we frenchies do.

Given a huge number of attempts, the species will select the individuals able to reproduce and survive, and those that can't do it as good as other eventually disappeared.

 

If you consider that humans are only an evolution of another animal, then you must know that humans aren't the only one having babies. Babies existed for such a long time that the species branch that developped it selected the individuals that were "taught" (through genetical stuff) to know when to born.

 

 

 

So many chances -- millions of them and they all worked out so perfectly so that everything fits together like a puzzle. And this is ALL by chance?

 

Here, you are also mistaken.

This is the most important part, so read it please.

 

We are here because it worked, for those whose it didn't work, well, they are not here to talk about it.

If we would consider ALL of the possibilities, and create a gigantic tree, considering each probability, and ALL of the outcomes possible, what would we see ?

If every outcome was here to talk with us, we would see something. What ? That every one of them would say the same "is this ALL by chance that I evolved that way ?". And that, in fact, the ones that followed the "right" path are not more chanceful than others, it's just necessity, given the ammount of attempts, it would eventually happen. It did. And the one that followed this path shouldn't wonder why, as it makes no sense.

Why doesn't it make sense ? Because he is the only one that exists. And because, in the end, he is the only one being, he is not more chanceful than others, as others don't exist.

Wondering why it happened is a false questionning and leads nowhere.

 

Also, "chance" doesn't matter. The Law of Large Numbers was mathematically demonstrated.

 

I tried to give you my own counter-explanation of your thinking, do as you want with it. I am no atheist, nor agnostic, I'm what they called "apatheist", but I don't really think it matters to give it a name. Thus, my opinion shouldn't be biased, as I don't really care whether or not god exists. I tend to defend and attack any opinion about it as long as the thinking path isn't right to me, the matter/goal of the thinking itself doesn't matter to me.

---------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Why is it that when we stumble on hard times, there is a urge to cry out to God?

There is also a rational explanation about that. Humans are social beings. When they don't find a being able to help them in anyway, their need of help will eventually be directed to something, what ? animals, plants, water, an activity,...

Because we are not all equals, we often related to people greater or stronger than ourselves, thus, it makes sense to us to cry for help from a greater being, and when we find out that all of what we know doesn't fit this role, our will and need for help create a being that fit this role, and the stronger is our need, the stronger is this being. Because our problems feel unsolvable, because we can't even imagine reaching them, we can't also imagine this being we created in its entire self, it's absolute and infinite.

Thus, the greater being is the only one able to help us.

 

I don't know if that's true or not, and like I stated before, I don't really care, I know that humans are too limited in space and time to understand it (though we actually are souls, we are here bound to a brain that isn't infinite in time and space), thus we won't ever find an answer by ourselves unless we actually die and stop being human.

 

My point is, your point does not explain our situation.

 

 

 

Robert Ingersoll: "O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!" (Some say it was this way: "Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!" Caesar Borgia : “While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die.” Sir Thomos Scott (Chancellor of England): “Until this moment, I thought there was neither God nor Hell…Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty…”

 

Also, we could find people doing the reverse, I'm pretty sure of it. But it's still a point, and I won't contradict it, if a God does exist, it is an example that fits.

Edited April 20, 2015 by ConcorDisparate

[HaroldGenhi 82]

If by Atheist you mean a strong atheist, then yes, I am not a strong atheist. I am a weak atheist, or an agnostic atheist. I don't know if a God or gods exist in this reality and if given sufficient evidence for the existence of a God I will believe, but thus far I have seen both no evidence or reason for their to be a God so I lean on the atheism side more often than not. I will stay there until sufficient evidence for the existence of God has been provided. This is similar to how you'd talk about fairies, Big Foot, and Nessie. I am skeptical of their existence and since no solid evidence has been given, I will assume the null hypothesis that they don't exist since it isn't a positive claim.

 

Hence, I am an agnostic atheist, not a strong atheist, and I am very much open to changing my views if I get undeniable evidence for such an existence. Until then, God is placed in the category of fairies, Big Foot, and Nessie.

 

...now of course if you mean atheist as all shades of atheist including those who have a potential of converting, then I do not fit into this thread. I could say I used to hold some spiritual views of the world, but they too have fallen by the wayside, but that is irrelevant.

[Scootaloo Blade 13]

Because there's Celestia lol bad religion gags aside the whole Atheist concept would make life as a whole kind of meaningless. I look at all the creatures in this world and I think because of their beauty there has to be a God. Some sort of supreme being.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

I call bullshit.  Find me the source for that and I will instantly debunk it.  Actually, you contradicted this later when you said that our line of sight was 13,000,000,000 light years but the "best" estimate for the size of the universe was 93,000,000,000 light years in diameter.  93,000,000,000 / 13,000,000,000  =  7.15...    I think the known universe  is more than 7X larger than an atom XD

 

 

Oh boy, you're going to love this then. Someone's about to learn something cool!

 

First, let's start with my favorite YouTube video ever. Trust me, watch this. This is the most amazing thing you'll ever see in six minutes of your life:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

 

And that's what we can see. We can see 13.7 billion lightyears into the past, when the big bang occurred. That much makes sense, right? Of course! So, it would stand to reason that this 13.7 billion lightyears is the distance of the known universe. Except... well, that isn't the case. These things aren't so simple.

 

For as far as we can observe, everything in the universe is expanding. Considering that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, what was once within observable distance is no longer within observable distance. What was within visible range has moved away from us, so those objects are now, with some rough calculations based on the universe's rate of expansion, ~46 billion light years away. This is where the 93 billion diameter comes from.

 

More formally,

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN

 

What is the distance NOW to the most distant thing we can see? Let's take the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years. In that time light travels 14 billion light years, and some people stop here. But the distance has grown since the light traveled. The average time when the light was traveling was 7 billion years ago. For the critical density case, the scale factor for the Universe goes like the 2/3 power of the time since the Big Bang, so the Universe has grown by a factor of 22/3 = 1.59 since the midpoint of the light's trip. But the size of the Universe changes continuously, so we should divide the light's trip into short intervals. First take two intervals: 7 billion years at an average time 10.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which gives 7 billion light years that have grown by a factor of 1/(0.75)2/3 = 1.21, plus another 7 billion light years at an average time 3.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which has grown by a factor of 42/3 = 2.52. Thus with 1 interval we got 1.59*14 = 22.3 billion light years, while with two intervals we get 7*(1.21+2.52) = 26.1 billion light years. With 8192 intervals we get 41 billion light years. In the limit of very many time intervals we get 42 billion light years. With calculus this whole paragraph reduces to:

 

 

 

But still, that doesn't explain the second scale I gave, in which the observable universe is just an atom to the entire universe. You were right to call me out on that—of course the measurements don't align properly! We can be certain that the universe is at least the 90-something billion lightyears across. That's a minimum, and that's just from what we can observe. Still, beyond that, we have theories that would require the universe to be bigger. The latter measurement I gave, the one that seems absurd, comes from our understanding of particle physics.

 

SpaceRip has a pretty cool video on the subject, which I would highly recommend watching.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQouX5U0fc

 

This drives what is known as cosmic inflation theory. The theory basically says this: interactions shortly after the big bang caused the universe to expand much, much faster than we originally thought. Since the universe expanded faster back then, it means the universe is even bigger than that 90-something billion lightyears I gave as a minimum. You can read all about the details of that here; it's interesting stuff.

 

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html

 

As we will see, the addition of inflation to the Big Bang model claimed to solve the horizon problem, as well as one or two other potential problems that had been identified with the standard Big Bang theory, such as the “flatness problem” (why the density of matter in the universe appears “fine-tuned” to be very close to the critical value at which space is perfectly flat rather than a non-Euclidean hyperbolic or spherical shape) and the “magnetic monopole problem” (why the magnetic monopoles which theory suggests should have been produced in the high temperatures of the early universe appear not to have persisted to the present day).

 

There's also M theory, which, while just a theory, would permit the existence of many universes. Of course, like any theory, not all scientists believe it's true. It is, however, the closest we have come to developing a unifying theory of gravity and the fundamental forces. NOVA had a really awesome documentary on it back in the day, and if you have the time, I would recommend giving it a watch, too. Here's part 1:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV_X2B5OK1I

 

So, it's not so farfetched. It's not a logical fallacy at all to assume that there is more beyond what we can observe. It's a very sound hypothesis to make.

 

But based on your responses, I know what you're thinking. You want facts. You want conclusions. You want me to say, "look, this is exactly how big the universe is, this is where it ends!" You want me to give you some specific number, something tangible like that. But I'm afraid I can't. That's not the way science works. The truth is, we don't really know. The truth is, I don't necessarily believe the universe is finite or infinite. I don't know. It's murky. It's a mess. It's supposed to be!

 

I don't know. You don't know. Scientists don't know. No one knows for sure. If we had all the answers then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. So really, all we do is guess. We take our knowledge of the universe and make predictions from there. We interpolate. We have to use deductive reasoning. It's all we have until we acquire more information.

 

After all, I don't see you proposing any theories of your own—your only goal thus far seems to be to bring down my own proposal. Nice try, but it just doesn't work that way. This isn't a game of logical fallacies; this is game of constructing predictions. You've completely missed the point.

 

That lack of understanding we all have, that appeal to ignorance you claim, and that lack of consensus that I've outlined... it's all due to our ignorance. That's why this is so important. We exist to push that boundary of what is known and unknown. That's what it means to be human. It's that spirit of curiosity we have... that desire to figure out these answers is what drives us. Just think, before the 1840's, we couldn't even make something as simple as an ice cube, so who knows what more we'll understand in a hundred or two hundred years in the future.

 

And before I conclude this, here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's take on it all:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ch04YbsC-w

 

 

[Pat.Rio.T. 304]

Partially because the statistical likelihood of just this planet alone, and everything on it, coming about in exactly the right way that it can just continue to exist, by random chance, is so extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely low, that it is pretty much negligible!

Imagine you are trying to break into a safe. This safe has a keypad, with a code that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 digits long. You have no idea what the code is, so you start to punch in a random number. What is the likelihood that you are going to guess it the first time?

 

When I look at a car, and think about all the parts that had to come together to make it, I think, "Some intelligent people made that". 

When I look at this laptop, I think about how much brain power went into, not only, every piece, of every component, of every part, which became the hardware, but also, every bit, of every byte, of every code, which wrote the software.

Then I look at the human body: With a defense mechanism more elaborate than the greatest anti-virus software, a computing speed faster than the best CPU, data storage more efficient than the best hard drive, visual receptors with higher resolution than the best camera, audio receptors with higher quality than the best microphone, motion sensors, thermal sensors, pressure sensors, internal clock, damage indicators, self-repair, internal self-cleaning, self-lubrication, shock absorbers, air and liquid filtration, cooling systems, excess energy reserves which double as insulation, reproduction capabilities, emergency overdrive system, and not to mention, the capability to learn from everything, experience emotions, and the main feature that separates this amazing "machine" from a robot, free will. Yep, I look at that and think, "Random chance!"... 

 

Seriously! Nature just screams intelligent design!

 

Just three more things I'd like to look at

Besides the fact that the earth just so happens to be in that little ring around the system, called the "Goldilocks Zone", did you know, that if the earth were just a bit smaller, we would lose the atmosphere, and if it were just a bit larger, the atmosphere would kill us, and we wouldn't be able to move. "So size does matter." Oh, you know that big angry-looking fireball of burning gas, we know as the sun? Well as it turns out, "Sol", is actually a pretty calm star. If he had as bad a temper as some other stars, earth's surface might get cooked by solar activity. The moon's size is just about as important as the earth's, but it also just so happens, that the sun is almost exactly 400 times larger, and 400 times further away, so that we can experience a perfect solar eclipse, and observe the sun's chromosphere. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork"

[SL4MT 51]

Partially because the statistical likelihood of just this planet alone, and everything on it, coming about in exactly the right way that it can just continue to exist, by random chance, is so extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely low, that it is pretty much negligible!

Imagine you are trying to break into a safe. This safe has a keypad, with a code that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 digits long. You have no idea what the code is, so you start to punch in a random number. What is the likelihood that you are going to guess it the first time?

 

It isn't very likely but it does happen considering the amount of stars there are in the universe. It's almost a mathematical certainty that alien life exists on other planets somewhere else in the universe (There's been evidence of advanced life forms being 200 lightyears from us from the WOW signal). Lets say you have a trillion bowls and in each bowl there are coins for each factor needed for life, if you shake every bowl at once I guarantee there will be at least one bowl with every coin turned positively. You need to factor in the sheer size of the universe and the amount of bodies within it.

 

When I look at a car, and think about all the parts that had to come together to make it, I think, "Some intelligent people made that".

When I look at this laptop, I think about how much brain power went into, not only, every piece, of every component, of every part, which became the hardware, but also, every bit, of every byte, of every code, which wrote the software.

Then I look at the human body: With a defense mechanism more elaborate than the greatest anti-virus software, a computing speed faster than the best CPU, data storage more efficient than the best hard drive, visual receptors with higher resolution than the best camera, audio receptors with higher quality than the best microphone, motion sensors, thermal sensors, pressure sensors, internal clock, damage indicators, self-repair, internal self-cleaning, self-lubrication, shock absorbers, air and liquid filtration, cooling systems, excess energy reserves which double as insulation, reproduction capabilities, emergency overdrive system, and not to mention, the capability to learn from everything, experience emotions, and the main feature that separates this amazing "machine" from a robot, free will. Yep, I look at that and think, "Random chance!"... 

 

Seriously! Nature just screams intelligent design!

Coded systems are not equal to the brain at all, they deal in 1's and 0's (binary), we don't. It isn't a good analogy to start with. Also the part you said about the random chance is actually billions of years worth of evolution and adaptation. The eye used to be a cup shape only able to identify if it was night or day, ever since that time it has curved over to form the pinhole camera type eye that we have today. There are many different stages of this seen in nature today such as the detail seen with the eye of a hawk or the simple light detectors worms have. The human brain is not actually faster than a CPU however it is extremely dense with neurons allowing us to store a lot of information. "The God Delusion" by Professor Richard Dawkins explains a lot more of these things in detail. I recommend it.

 

Omnipotent beings can easily be contradicted, for example: If god is omnipotent and can do anything at any time, he should be able to create a boulder so heavy he can't lift it. If he can't lift it then that is something he can't do therefore he is not omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent then that means he can't really do any godlike stuff. This would also means he would be able to delete himself out of existence but that wouldn't make any realistic sense. *Mind blown*

[Pat.Rio.T. 304]

It isn't very likely but it does happen considering the amount of stars there are in the universe. It's almost a mathematical certainty that alien life exists on other planets somewhere else in the universe (There's been evidence of advanced life forms being 200 lightyears from us from the WOW signal). Lets say you have a trillion bowls and in each bowl there are coins for each factor needed for life, if you shake every bowl at once I guarantee there will be at least one bowl with every coin turned positively. You need to factor in the sheer size of the universe and the amount of bodies within it.

 

 

Coded systems are not equal to the brain at all, they deal in 1's and 0's (binary), we don't. It isn't a good analogy to start with. Also the part you said about the random chance is actually billions of years worth of evolution and adaptation. The eye used to be a cup shape only able to identify if it was night or day, ever since that time it has curved over to form the pinhole camera type eye that we have today. There are many different stages of this seen in nature today such as the detail seen with the eye of a hawk or the simple light detectors worms have. The human brain is not actually faster than a CPU however it is extremely dense with neurons allowing us to store a lot of information. "The God Delusion" by Professor Richard Dawkins explains a lot more of these things in detail. I recommend it.

Omnipotent beings can easily be contradicted, for example: If god is omnipotent and can do anything at any time, he should be able to create a boulder so heavy he can't lift it. If he can't lift it then that is something he can't do therefore he is not omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent then that means he can't really do any godlike stuff. This would also means he would be able to delete himself out of existence but that wouldn't make any realistic sense. *Mind blown*

Well I'll leave others to debate your good arguments. This isn't even a debate thread, and I'm not into that sort of thing. I was just aswering the thread question with my personal opinion.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Imagine you are trying to break into a safe. This safe has a keypad, with a code that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 digits long. You have no idea what the code is, so you start to punch in a random number. What is the likelihood that you are going to guess it the first time?

Imagine a monkey pushing buttons at random on a computer. This monkey lives forever and never dies. Every second of all existence, he pushes buttons on this computer.

 

Eventually, by sheer coincidence alone, he will type up a perfect replica of Shakespeare's Hamlet.

 

This is known as the infinite monkey theorem. It's actually a thing you can search for if you'd be interested in reading more about it.

 

and the main feature that separates this amazing "machine" from a robot, free will.

Have you ever read about determinism?

 

Seriously! Nature just screams intelligent design!

Blood-sucking insects.

Tapeworms.

Spiders.

Radioactive decay.

The second law of thermodynamics.

Farts.

Entertainment system adjacent to the anus.

Cancer.

Alzheimer's.

Asteroids.

Hurricanes.

Tornadoes.

Volcanoes.

Tsunamis.

Ebola.

 

Obviously intelligent design, right? Need I go on?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Admiral Regulus

[HaroldGenhi 82]

My only statement in terms of the statistical probability argument is that if you start from now and work backwards, everything is so improbable that it can be classified as impossible. You are in 2nd grade sitting in homeroom, or your equivalent name. Every person has a specific birthdate and name associated to that birthdate. There are kids that have elevated to the 2nd grade and there are people who have been held back. The class is allowed to sit wherever they so decide to sit thereby placing them in a specific order within the class. What are the statistical probability for that school to have that class composition and class order? When we factor in everything for  every individual students and their conception and their birth and where the parents moved and when they enrolled the child and so on, that classroom is wholly unique and will statically never exist anywhere else in the universe. Should we therefore declare that the classroom has been pre-determined by some higher being? What if because of this class set up you found the love of your life who happened to sit next to you? What are the chances?

 

That is why for statistical analysis you have to start from the beginning end point and work your way forward. When you do that, the probability for anything happening is relatively high.

 

Take for instance a bacterium. We see that it has the capacity to make small changes to its structures to accommodate the changing environments. We know that it has a 50% chance to mutate every generation. The mutations are random, but certain mutations are more beneficial than others. Single flagella bacteria in a food rich environment will be beaten out by two flagella bacteria because they are faster. At the same instance, in a low food environment, the single flagella bacteria would generally thrive as they would require roughly half the needed energy and can conserve what food they get. Keep progressing and adding/removing parts slowly over time and you eventually get an different organism. That organism was not the end goal for that bacteria. The end goal was just who survived more upon each step of environmental pressures.

 

If the world was slightly different and the love of your life didn't go to that school, but was replaced with another individual, life would have gone on without a problem. You would have found someone else later down the line or maybe this person becomes your best friend, who knows? There is no set outcome for events there are just outcomes and we make of them what we will. If we push the timescale back and say humans never evolved, that mutation never happened. The only thing that would change would be another dominant species would have arose and would have had the same improbability of existing as us if we go backwards. But forwards, and applying the environmental pressures progressively through the entire existence, and we are probable with something unique as any other creature. We can't breathe underwater. We can't survive without our heads. We can't go great lengths without food or water. But there are animals out there that can do that.

 

So a message that you can take from this, if we start from now and look back into time, it is next to impossible that you are sitting here reading this or even that I wrote this at this very second. The amount of events necessary to have led us to this point are staggeringly improbable. It gives a sense of feeling relatively special when you look at it that way. It makes mundane events that much more miraculous to have even happened when it did or to have met the people that you have met and will meet in your life. All of it, if we look from now and go backwards it is miraculous. 

 

But going the other direction... everything is more mundane and probable. It just depends on how you look at it and many people can derive their spirituality and/or their religion from this outlook. I enjoy the thought of both. One keeps me grounded while the other fills me with wonder and marvel.

 

Take it how you will.

[Denim&Venöm 16,515]

Because there is still a possibility that a divine architect does exist. But then again, there's just as equal a chance to the contrary. More importantly, it is utterly pointless to argue about it since there is no way to provide evidence for or against the existence of the divine. You can't prove there is god. You can't prove there isn't. And anybody who is trying  wasting theirs and everybody elses time. We as a human race have better things to do than spend precious time and resources, as well as other peoples time and resources, on trying to prove or disprove on what is impossible to prove or disprove. You're wasting your time on a pointless task. 

 

Edited April 20, 2015 by Denim&Venom

[Poetic Stone 1,040]

I am a proud Atheist, and know when I die its over. So i'm living everyday to the fullest, cause when you die your dead, and that's the facts.

[HunterTSN 1,444]

Well I actually am one sooo... Awkward.

[Snow Frostflame 3,567]

because I was raised by a christian family..... though I had a choice of what ever religion I wanted to believe in..... I chose to believe in Christianity..... and to this day I still do, I thank God for all I have....

 

 

I have nothing against those who don't believe in God.... only those who try to tell me there is no God

[Omega Centauri 316]

Because I am a nihilist. I live by no set of values other than my own, and I believe life has no meaning other than what one gives to it. The idea of death seems incredibly peaceful, but I see no reason not to enjoy the time I have.

 

Shouldn't this be in the debate pit?

Edited April 21, 2015 by Omega Centauri

[Blackshirt Brony 415]

Agnosticism is the only scientifically passable position. There is no known experiment to test whether the God of Abraham, Zeus, Thor, Horus, Mithra, Odin, Bael, Vishnu, Satan, Kwan Yin, Pan, Allah, or Enki exist, so any answer other than "I don't know" is probably an assumption. I'm open to the possibility that someone, somewhere has opened contact with higher beings, but until this is personally demonstrated I will remain agnostic to these entities...

 

Atheism is not necessarily any more scientific than theism. It may be more-so than specific paths in particular, especially the Abrahamic paths, because the god of Christianity and Islam is comprised of so many fallacies and mutually incompatible properties that the proposition essentially kills itself under any close scrutiny. But for the most part, while atheism relies on a "probably not true" as opposed to a "probably true" gut feeling, at the end of the day neither side is actually applying the scientific method.

 

I myself am a pantheist, and revere Nature as a godlike organism. Since I have made Nature herself as my point of focus, I don't feel any real need to prove that my deity exists.
 

[Omega Centauri 316]

Imagine a monkey pushing buttons at random on a computer. This monkey lives forever and never dies. Every second of all existence, he pushes buttons on this computer.

 

Eventually, by sheer coincidence alone, he will type up a perfect replica of Shakespeare's Hamlet.

 

This is known as the infinite monkey theorem. It's actually a thing you can search for if you'd be interested in reading more about it.

 

Have you ever read about determinism?

 

Blood-sucking insects.

Tapeworms.

Spiders.

Radioactive decay.

The second law of thermodynamics.

Farts.

Entertainment system adjacent to the anus.

Cancer.

Alzheimer's.

Asteroids.

Hurricanes.

Tornadoes.

Volcanoes.

Tsunamis.

Ebola.

 

Obviously intelligent design, right? Need I go on?

 

There's also the fact that the human body itself is full of flaws. Just look at the mouths of people who don't get dental work or have their wisdom teeth removed. There's also people with allergies and various disorders. None of our hair except the hair on our head provides any insulation and only contributes to making things uncomfortable. Also the appendix.

 

http://io9.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787 This article describes some more.

 

I try not to get involved in debates like this, but people saying that nature and the human body are ingeniously designed is one of those things I can't keep quiet about. Also I can't help but indulge my argumentative side once in a while.

 

I can honestly, whole-heartedly say that if there's some higher power that created us like this, it didn't know what the fuck it was doing, or just didn't care.

[Overdrive 5,366]

I was born, baptized and raised in a catholic family. I also owe the man upstairs my life. He's saved it on multiple occasions. As far as I'm concerned, the idea of atheism is a bit farfetched.

[Edward Kenway 27]

I'm a metatheist[?]. I believe all religions are true - and whatever you believe will happen to you when you die, will happen to you when you die. Am I saying that correctly?

[#1FluttershyFan 206]

Why are you one? Are you comfortable knowing that once you die, it's over?

   I don't think people have as much control over their religion choice as you first question suggests. It has a lot to do with upbringing and your culture. I'm an athiest and I've tried to think the way people in certain religions do. I've tried going to church services and I'm just not buying it. My brain is just wired differently and while I'm not in favor of the question this thread is asking, countering it with basically the same thing isn't much better.

   Anyhow, I actually like the idea of nothing after death because although it's a bit depressing, it forces people to make the most of life since while you still have one. If you believe that there is something after death, life and mortality loose their meaning since you can just console yourself with the idea that there is something else. I don't know if there is something after death but I'm not taking he chance of assuming there is and living an unfulfilling life.

[Trine 665]

Because i feel stuff like

 

- Fear

- Emotions

 

So therefor i have a habit of praying. Although i am sceptical of immorality and that using religion to justify horrible acts is unforgivable. So i am highly critical of the bad parts considering what i've studied, but i still have a belief in god. So its just something i feel i have to do and i feel better when i pray and ask god when i need his help etc.

 

Although people are different, so i guess it depends on what they are comfortable with. I am totally cool if people are this or that. People are unique either way

Edited April 21, 2015 by Trine

[ConcorDisparate 385]

 

 

If you believe that there is something after death, life and mortality loose their meaning since you can just console yourself with the idea that there is something else.

That's a choice .

 

Though I trust in some kind of afterlife, that does not mean I don't trust in Death, afterlife isn't necessarily eternal life, though, being hard to think about such things as afterlife during our life, it's utterly useless to think about death after death while we don't have even an idea about afterlife itself.