Question

Mar 2010
3,994
356
north east usa
I have a question for atheism..
why are we here.
how did we get here at all.
I would like to see the atheist view on this.

one more question
if we evolved. how did what we evolved from get here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jul 2008
19,240
13,259
Virginia Beach, VA
I have a question for atheism..
why are we here.
how did we get here at all.
I would like to see the atheist view on this.

one more question
if we evolved. how did what we evolved from get here.
This is a response I gave to a similar question on another thread:

There are six words I'm about to give you. These six words are the reason in any argument about science vs. religion, science will win Every. Single. Time.

These six words are what has led to every scientific advancement made by man since the beginning of recorded history.

Religion will NEVER use these six words because to do so would be to admit that the religion is flawed.

Are you ready?

Here they are:


"I don't know. Let's find out."
I fail to see how claiming to have an answer ("God did it")that lacks sufficient evidence is superior to the answer "I don't know"

Thinking you have the answer hinders any investigation into a REAL answer while the answer "I don't know" gives us incentive to find an answer.
 
Jun 2015
1,881
1,386
Minnesota
"I don't know. Let's find out."

I agree. That means not ruling out ANY possible explanation until it can be clearly proven to be false, i.e. keep a genuinely open mind and be willing to listen and enter into honest intellectual discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jul 2008
19,240
13,259
Virginia Beach, VA
"I don't know. Let's find out."

I agree. That means not ruling out ANY possible explanation until it can be clearly proven to be false, i.e. keep a genuinely open mind and be willing to listen and enter into honest intellectual discussion.
No.

It means not believing something until there is sufficient evidence to do so.

I don't rule out the possibility of a God. I just don't see sufficient evidence to believe one exists.

I am more than willing to enter into an honest intellectual discussion about the existence of God. But I have been an atheist for over 30 years. I have heard almost every argument known for the existence of a God. I'm not going to pretend that some arguments are worth considering in the name of "intellectual honesty".

I could say the same to most believers. If you want to have an "intellectually honest" conversation then you will have to admit that 99.9% of the arguments for God (I'd say 100% but I don't know if I have heard EVERY argument for God) simply are not sufficient.

Also, the amount of CONTRADICTORY evidence for a God (evidence that a God does NOT exist) is enough for me to regard the possibility of a God so slim as to make it something not worth worrying about.

Also you said that we should not rule out any possible explanation. I disagree with that statement as well. If you want to do that then we have to consider EVERYTHING as a "possible" explanation. We should rule out explanations that are so improbable as to not be worth considering. To me that includes that explanation "God did it" just as much as it includes the explanation of flying pink unicorns.

Do you consider flying pink unicorns as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe?
 
Last edited:
Mar 2008
9,638
4,896
australia
"I don't know. Let's find out."

I agree. That means not ruling out ANY possible explanation until it can be clearly proven to be false, i.e. keep a genuinely open mind and be willing to listen and enter into honest intellectual discussion.
there are "possible explanations" that require absurdities to be plausible, these should not be considered as equal to possible explanations that do not require absurdities.

for example, a "virgin birth" would require a set of chromosomes magically appear inside a womans ovary. this is absurd. it is far more likely that she had sex and kept it secret. so the birth of jesus was either a genuine virgin birth, or a woman lied about her chastity, or its a myth. these are not equally viable options, one of them is absurd.

thats the problem. you ask us to have an open mind, and we do, we just dont have it open to absurd proposals.
 
Nov 2012
17,484
5,745
Michigan
Define absurd.

Layman definition : something you've never seen before inconsistent with everything you have seen.

But since recorded history is a blink of an eye and the creation of the earth, sun, galaxy and the universe fall outside of any human observation ; and considering that our current calculations tell us we don't even know what most of the universe is, I feel comfortable in asserting many things that fit the above definition of absurd are true.
 
Dec 2014
28,156
15,754
Memphis, Tn.
Jesus's mother got pregnant the same way as did my mother.
Grow up people.
 
Nov 2012
17,484
5,745
Michigan
Jesus's mother got pregnant the same way as did my mother.
Grow up people.
As a Christian I have no problem with you expressing your opinion, but since Moslems also believe in the virgin birth ya might want to to be careful about who you share that with. Some of them Moslems get kinda cranky.
 
Jul 2008
19,240
13,259
Virginia Beach, VA
Define absurd.

Layman definition : something you've never seen before inconsistent with everything you have seen.

But since recorded history is a blink of an eye and the creation of the earth, sun, galaxy and the universe fall outside of any human observation ; and considering that our current calculations tell us we don't even know what most of the universe is, I feel comfortable in asserting many things that fit the above definition of absurd are true.
What does the state of the universe before recorded human history have to do with the claim of a virgin birth?

Yes, human history is the blink of an eye (less than the blink of an eye actually) when compared to the age of the universe but just because it falls outside of human observation does not, in any way, connect to alleged events of 2,000 years ago. Human procreation has been well documented and nowhere do we have anything indicating that virgin birth is even possible thus making the claim of such an event absurd.
 
Jun 2015
1,881
1,386
Minnesota
No. It means not believing something until there is sufficient evidence to do so. I don't rule out the possibility of a God. I just don't see sufficient evidence to believe one exists.
I get that about you, and I respect it. But I have to take issue with your 1st premise. 1) not believing something until it is personally proven to me represents a closed mind, not an open one, a sort of intellectual skepticism; 2) what constitutes "sufficient evidence to believe"? that is an entirely subjective concept. I think our difference here is more a matter of semantics than "objective analysis."

I am more than willing to enter into an honest intellectual discussion about the existence of God. But I have been an atheist for over 30 years. I have heard almost every argument known for the existence of a God. I'm not going to pretend that some arguments are worth considering in the name of "intellectual honesty".
Agreed. Some so-called arguments are grounded in pure ignorance and irrationality. For example, a creationist once said to me, "I do not believe in evolution because God made man in His own image, and I do not believe that God looks like an ape." Nice! Does this person then believe that God looks like HIM? Or that God is walking around in a mortal body? That kind of argument comes more from blind stupidity than from anything that resembles gray-matter analysis. As a believer myself, I cannot appreciate such anti-intellectual inability (or is it unwillingness) to rationalize even simple cause and effect.

Also, the amount of CONTRADICTORY evidence for a God (evidence that a God does NOT exist) is enough for me to regard the possibility of a God so slim as to make it something not worth worrying about.
I get what you are saying, and understand how you arrive at lack of worry. It makes sense, given the position from which you begin. Where we differ here is in the definition of evidence and the means for measuring and analyzing it. I believe rational minds can agree to disagree. Closed minds don't want to hear, let alone consider, a counter-explanation.

Also you said that we should not rule out any possible explanation. I disagree with that statement as well.?
I apologize. I misspoke. I meant plausible, not possible. I have a legal education which measures things by a standard of "reasonable doubt." What is reasonable to an attorney is not measured in the same way as someone without a legal background. Again... semantics. And pink unicorns, by my standard of analysis, is not "reasonable."

Anyway, thanks for the response. Good to hear from you Nwolfe.
 
Last edited: