I've noticed that same fear of atheists here in Canada as well. Of the 3 serious girlfriends I've had during my time here in university, their parents ALWAYS disapprove when they find out I'm an atheist, and that usually doesn't take long since I like to talk about it.

Luckily it hasn't resulted in any direct tension (with one exception), because the parents (like their daughters) have been good people, and they get over it and judge me for what I do and how I am. But I can tell, certainly at first anyway, that they'd rather have their daughter be with someone who believes in ANY sort of god instead of me. It's a tough thing to figure out.

Unfortunately, a lot of people tend to evaluate certain types of groups (especially faith groups) by their most extreme members.

I'm always surprised that some people think identifying as 'Christian' implies fundamentalism (I, and most of the Christians I know are very liberal). Likewise, I think a lot of people get their picture of atheists by looking at Richard Dawkins, instead of someone who's a bit less...rabid.

My head asplode.

Honestly, I just cannot fathom how this came to be. Look at all the religious-fueled violence going on out there. Sure Dawkins is a little in-your-face about it, but you don't see him killing people for believing in a diety, or advocating for anyone's death.

"...“Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher." This quote literally gave me a headache. Ugh.

Oh wait, I misread. I guess she is simply saying we are the exception to the rule, not we are the cause of the exception to the rule. Ok, that was like taking an Advil. ;-)

Personally, I would love to be compared to Dawkins. I agree with what he says almost entirely. To openly criticize religion and faith, or anything, is to be openly rational, and I respect and agree with his methods and concluions. It's important to remember that he's doing his job when he speaks and writes on the issue.

So I'm a little curious as to their definition of "atheism".

Does it mean someone who actively challenges the existence of (a) God?

Or does it include all the folks who were baptized in various faiths, but do not follow their faith actively? Because I know a lot of people (myself included) who haven't gone to church in years, and don't read the Bible on a regular basis.

By even the loosest interpretations of Christianity, these folks are violating some pretty core concepts. Are they still considered "Christian", by others, and by themselves?

Or should they get lumped into the "Atheism" category, since that all-seeing, all-knowing God apparently doesn't matter all that much?

Asinine American. I think we need a new definition, system.

Agnostic - Question of gods existence is unanswerable

Normal Atheist - Lacks a Belief in a Deity

Hardcore Atheist - Openly attacks beliefs in the supernatural and tries to show the faithful the light :P

Fundamental Religious (Of any faith) - You know what I mean here ;) - the lunies, the nuts etc...

Moderate Religious (Of any faith) - Believes in core tenents and goes to church and follows most rituals

Light Religious (Of any faith) -Believes in core tenents but is not overly religios only going through some of the rituals

and finaly

Dont care - may be baptised or born into a faith, or it may be tradition, but when it comes down to it they really dont care whether there is a god or not, these are people who wouldn't go so far as agnostic or atheist but would still say they are some sort of religious afiliation

And to Canadian Rower, I to find Dawkins to be an exceedingly rational person and would enjoy being compared to him :)

Lataz

"Richard Dawkins...rabid" If using logic is wrong I don't want to be right.

I used to call myself agnostic since it was more correct than atheist but gave up after explaning what it meant to religious people a lot. Now I just say atheist since I'm so convinced of religions bullshit.

Why does this god have to be such a mean bitch and make it so hard on us? Why doesn't he just come down and tell us "hey, do what I say and you won't go to hell. Now get me sum dorito's." Well, if they have faith in god I should start preachin' the "matrix" idea to them.

I think to the typology of religious belief should be added identity religious, i.e. those people who strongly consider themselves one denomination and will attack other religions or people who claim to be agnostics or atheists, but don't necessarily believe in the tenets of the faith or partake in rituals besides weddings and funerals. A relative who used to think it was funny to taunt the atheist by asking when I was going to go mass on Christmas was henceforth silenced when I responded calling a bluff, "Whenever you go".

Dawkins is brilliant, and I enjoyed the Selfish Gene as much as anyone. I've also gone to hear him speak on more than one ocassion. However, as a scientist his views on religion demonstrate an anti-relgion bias that goes far beyond 'basic' atheism. He is the counter to those who try to use science in an attempt to prove religion - he uses science to try to disprove religion.

Science can never disprove the existence of the supernatural. It can only disprove specific tangible claims made on behalf of those who believe in the supernatural.

Dawkins' whole approach on religion is to disprove specific religious perspectives, and then use that as a basis to claim that God does not exist.

Agnosticism is a good scientific/objective perspective. Atheism is faith, no matter which way you slice it.

And Dawkins is the poster-child for using science to make a case for his particular type of faith. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist. But to imply that science in some way supports atheism is a subtle perversion of science's purpose and goal. At best science can claim that there is no natural or physical evidence to support the existence of a God. But to imply (directly or indirectly) that a lack of such evidence equates to proof of the non-existence of God is incredibly irresponsible. And in this particular area I hold Dawkins to a higher standard than religious zealots on the opposing side, because as a scientist, Dawkins' should know better.

I believe there is a supernatural God, who is more complex than myself, who knows more than I do, and who has motivations beyond what I can fully understand. I do not believe that this God chooses to interact with the physical world in any kind of regular/predictable fashion. Disprove this.

I think to the typology of religious belief should be added identity religious, i.e. those people who strongly consider themselves one denomination and will attack other religions or people who claim to be agnostics or atheists, but don't necessarily believe in the tenets of the faith or partake in rituals besides weddings and funerals. A relative who used to think it was funny to taunt the atheist by asking when I was going to go mass on Christmas was henceforth silenced when I responded calling a bluff, "Whenever you go".

"To openly criticize religion and faith, or anything, is to be openly rational"

That just doesn't follow, and it's a mistake that a lot of atheists make. I know several people who are atheists because "my sister died" or "Christians are irritating," etc. Not exactly logical.

The Webster definition of atheism doesn't quite do it for me either: "one who believes that there is no deity." I'd suggest a subtle revision: "one who does not believe that there is a diety."

In otherwords, one who is unconvinced.

My girlfriend is a recovering mennonite, and I, as an atheist, have found the process of revealing my philosophical machinery fascinating.

Christians will often speak of feeling God's presence as love, and I have heard religious people speak of a feeling of community and connectedness in temple that they can only ascribe to the touch of God.

When I explain that love can have a material origins and that scientists - indeed, any like-minded group, especially political parties - often have the same feelings of closeness and spiritual alignment, they sometimes find it unintelligible.

Another point about religious people is their confusion over the difference between faith and conditioning. Do I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow? Well, yes, but only because I've seen it happen before. I have not seen God, or felt his presence in a way that was irrefutably his doing.

My point is, that religious feeling is more than just a refusal to be logical. There are many deeply ingrained psychological phenomena that move people so deeply that threatening their reality with a hard logical refutation can only provoke defensiveness and hostility.

Humility is the one thing, I think that keeps all people of faith (including atheists) in conflict. You can not Know something dogmatically, and still claim to be rational.

I concur with Kevin on every point but the existence of a diety, but I have a feeling that we'd both be willing to acknowlege the potential that the other might be correct.

Correction:

"Humility is the one thing..."

Should have been:

"Lack of humility is one thing..."

My opinion?

It makes no difference whether a diety exists or not. Morality is ALWAYS defined by behavior, not religion. Belief and non-belief are inconsequencial.

Creepy atheists are equally as creepy as christian creeps.

A creep is a creep.

Here's a better definition of atheism: one who is not willing to ignore the lack of proof in the existance of a diety. Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief is a conviction that certain things are true. As an atheist I don't hold a conviction there is no diety, I acknowledge the vacuity of proof. As put forth by Christopher Hitchens- anything that can be posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A person may believe in little green men from Mars. Polite semantics, or outright ignorance plays a game of 'we do not know for certain there are no little men from Mars'. If Kevin believes in magic the burden falls to him to prove it, not for anyone else to disprove it.

"I concur with Kevin on every point but the existence of a diety, but I have a feeling that we'd both be willing to acknowlege the potential that the other might be correct."

Exactly. I'm fully open to the possibility that I might be wrong.

Now, DIE HERETIC!!!

:)

"You really think there's no God, no God at all?" A girlfriend asked.

"No, I'm not religious, really."

"I don't believe you. You probably are more religious than you think."

"Well no, I'm not. I'm not religious or superstitious or anything.

"Then you're an atheist?!"

"No I'm not. I'm not an atheist. I'm not anything."

"Yes you are. You're an atheist. If you don't belive in God then you're an atheist!"

"Hey, that's a name you can call people. You need a name to call me? Go ahead, call me whatever you want."

"You just say you're not religious but I don't belive you."

"Well I'm not."

"Ok,if you're not religious then you're spiritual."

"No. I'm not. I'm not religious and I'm not spiritual."

"Yes you are. You're spiritual whether you know it or not."

"I'm going to bed."

Recently, I've been thinking about a fundamental inconsistency in the religious claim on morality. It's void: God demands that we follow his rules to escape Hell. That's not morality--it's obedience.

Only the atheist is capable of true morality. When he or she does right, it is done outside the context of a higher authority. It is honest morality.

Think about this: while a good Christian may want peace, only the atheist really needs it. Our world would in fact be much safer if everyone felt it was the only one they had.

"Hardcore Atheist - Openly attacks beliefs in the supernatural and tries to show the faithful the light :P"

I prefer "Occam's-Razor-Wielding Militant Atheist." I'll cut you, fool!

Rob,

I fail to see how my earlier claim "To openly criticize religion and faith, or anything, is to be openly rational" is illogical.

It's not a claim about atheism. It's not a claim about religion. It is a claim about rationality, to the effect that one may be truly rational only if one looks at all elements of a given subject with a critical eye.

Eyago,

That's not a very good definition of an atheist, as I'm a Christian and I'm also not willing to ignore the lack of proof in the existance of a diety. I acknowledge and embrace the lack of proof. I believe in a God that chooses to have people's belief in him to be based on faith, not proof (as that's the only type of God that makes any sense, given the world I live in).

I have no burden of proof, as I do not believe God's existence can be proved empirically (hence the reason the question is solely one of faith).

As an aside, one difference between God & the little green men from Mars, is that the LGMs are something that would likely be provable, though we might lack the technology to do so at present. An omnipotent God would likely be able to exist outside the boundaries of any universe he/she could create, so as soon as one is willing to accept the possibility of a God (of the omnipotent variety), you also have to accept the idea that it may never be possible to prove his existence.

Interesting question for atheists & non-atheists alike: - Do you have any beliefs (religious or not) which can not be logically/empirically tested? Why or why not?

Oh, and to Eyago's point:

"As an atheist I don't hold a conviction there is no diety, I acknowledge the vacuity of proof."

There's a logical statement I can understand. My earlier point on Dawkins was that that's not the case he makes. Dawkins doesn't say "There is no proof God exists". He says, "You're ignorant if you believe in God, because there is no proof God exists" which is an irresponsible position from a scientist.

"Recently, I've been thinking about a fundamental inconsistency in the religious claim on morality. It's void: God demands that we follow his rules to escape Hell. That's not morality--it's obedience."

Why must the two be mutually exclusive? If morality exists - if there is moral truth for truth's sake - and someone (God, or me) tells you that's how you should live, how does that fundamentally change the nature of that morality?

I think what you might be getting at is that if you define morality only by what God tells you to do, then it lacks any kind of solid foundation. If you define turning clockwise as moral, and counter-clockwise as immoral because God just says so (on some kind of Godly whim), then I agree with you.

On the other hand, if you believe God is perfect, and that God's moral direction is equally perfect, then it's more of a chicken and egg question. Or one of those Catholic grade school paradoxes: If God can do anything, and is perfect, can he make himself imperfect?

"If Kevin believes in magic the burden falls to him to prove it, not for anyone else to disprove it."

So you don't believe in "magic" which implies an alternative explanation, and you carry a burden equal to Kevin's.

Canadian_Rower, there are many reasons to attack religion, some rational and logical, some not. To say that all arguments against it are inherently logical is just not reasonable.

Kevin writes, "Science can never disprove the existence of the supernatural. It can only disprove specific tangible claims made on behalf of those who believe in the supernatural.

Dawkins' whole approach on religion is to disprove specific religious perspectives, and then use that as a basis to claim that God does not exist."

Later he writes, My earlier point on Dawkins was that that's not the case he makes. Dawkins doesn't say "There is no proof God exists". He says, "You're ignorant if you believe in God, because there is no proof God exists" which is an irresponsible position from a scientist.

These are inconsistent. The first is that Dawkins tries to disprove the existence of God. He simply does not try to do this. The second comment by Kevin is closer to the mark. What I don't understand is why one would think this is "irresponsible" for a scientist. What Dawkins is complaining about is belief without evidence. If a scientist said, "I believe this medecine will work" and he has no evidence for it, that would be irresponsible. The point is, why does religion get a pass on that standard.

"What Dawkins is complaining about is belief without evidence. If a scientist said, "I believe this medecine will work" and he has no evidence for it, that would be irresponsible. The point is, why does religion get a pass on that standard."

Belief that a medicine will work without proof would be foolish, because medicine is judged on its ability to treat an ailment (something which can be tested and therefore is provable).

Belief in something that is unprovable is faith. My point is that science works wonderfully in the first case, and not at all in the second.

I applaud anyone who uses science to explore logical inconsistencies in religion. Using such a case in an attempt to discredit a belief in God - faith - is irresponsible for a scientist. I use the term deliberately, as a responsible scientist should always take care to frame his results and the logical conclusions of those results.

Hence my comment on Dawkins. He does not stop where the data ends. He uses the data to justify a belief which clearly goes beyond the realm of science.

When you can't prove your god's existance that doesn't mean you're absolved of having the burden of proof. It just means you fail to do so. Again, anything that can be posited without proof can be dismissed without proof. As for my Little Green Men, are you saying your make-believe magic friend in the sky is somehow more real because you posit no accountability of discovering her/him/it, but somehow this lack of accountability does not apply to my race of make-believe magical (oh yes, they are magical) superbeings? Why can't you acknowledge and embrace the lack of proof of my Little Green Men and believe in them? Given the world you live in wouldn't that be the only Little Green Men that make sense?

Eyago,

If you want to posit the existence of little green magical men (which are by your definition unprovable) then you have been absolved of the burden of proof - science has no ability to discredit that belief. Just as it has no ability to discredit a belief in God. This is the realm of faith.

Now we can have an entirely separate discussion over why you hold such a belief. Logic can be applied to the reasoning behind your belief. I'm guessing that the reasons I have for believing in God are probably less arbitrary than the reasons you (hypothetically) believe in LGMs, but it's certainly subjective at that point. We're now in the realm of belief and conviction (not science) which is where this question has always belonged.

To repeat my earlier question: - Do you hold any belief (religious or not) which can not be logically/empirically tested?

"To repeat my earlier question: - Do you hold any belief (religious or not) which can not be logically/empirically tested?

No.

"Do you hold any belief (religious or not) which can not be logically/empirically tested?"

"No."

Then you're in the minority in the world. Most people have beliefs - about what the future holds, how the universe began, what happens after you die, or a hundred other things despite the fact that those things can't be proven.

While I consider myself exceedingly rational, I don't believe that rationality needs to preclude a belief in things which can not be proven. But I am clear on why I believe what I believe - be it a result of solid evidence, inference, or because it just feels right.

Keven, I am trying to appear rational. I just don't have any beliefs in anything "spiritual" or whatnot. I am an artist, so I do understand the idea about a "muse" and I enjoy incense and candles etc, but I don't attribute these emotions to the supernatural.

I'm not trying to imply that you need to have beliefs in things 'spiritual', nor am I talking about muses, candles or incense. I'm simply throwing out the idea that there are concepts in the combined human experience which are untestable and unprovable, and that people have the ability to hold beliefs about those things.

Every person gets to decide for themselves how likely or unlikely those things are to be true, but it's ultimately a subjective process. I'm all for debating the reasoning behind those beliefs (when both sides are willing), but actually trying to argue that the belief is wrong is pointless when it's unprovable one way or the other.

Kevin give some examples that are untestable, that rational thought plays no role in, where one is just as good as another.

I think rational thought plays a role in all the questions worth considering (I've never stated otherwise). Irrational people make lousy philosophers just as they make lousy scientists. And obviously the qualification 'where one is just as good as another' is totally subjective.

As for questions that are untestable, here are a few: - Does anything exist beyond that which we can presently perceive? - How did the universe begin (what was happening 5 minutes before the 'beginning')? - Are there independent dimensions (on non-intersecting 'planes' from our own)? - What is the key to consciousness? To sentience? - Is anything truly infinite? - Is there a God?

Okay define God, be specific. I'm looking for something that makes the term meaningful in some way.

The creator of the universe?

My question: 'Is there a God?' was meant as an example of an unanswerable question. The question can work with a number of different definitions of God. Granted, if you define God as 'a cocker spaniel named Edward' then it might no longer be unanswerable.

Is there a particular aspect to the (potential) nature of a (potential) god that significantly alters the nature of the question for you?

"Is there a particular aspect to the (potential) nature of a (potential) god that significantly alters the nature of the question for you?"

There are so danged many different definitions of "God", that if you do not define what you mean by "God", then this discussion will just go around in circles and get no where.

Every person gets to decide for themselves how likely or unlikely those things are to be true, but it's ultimately a subjective process

So those who believe in the healing power of crystals, those who believe in the magic of unicorns and faeries (and there are many people who believe in unicorns and faeries), are you saying that the belief or nonbelief in these things is just subjective? So it is equally rational to believe something for which there exists no evidence of its existence as it is to not believe something because of a lack of evidence? Is this what you are saying here?

"So those who believe in the healing power of crystals, those who believe in the magic of unicorns and faeries...are you saying that the belief or nonbelief in these things is just subjective?"

The word 'just' in that last sentence seems key. Without proof, belief is subjective. The things we're discussing generally fall in two camps: Things that should be provable (based on their claims), and things that shouldn't.

• If crystals have healing powers, that should be provable. The lack of proof that they do makes me strongly believe that such a claim is false.

• The unicorns and faeries probably fall in either camp (as I'm sure someone believes their magic prevents them from being captured, photographed, etc.). The lack of evidence of such creatures, a logical explanation as to why such creatures would exist, where they live, and why they are never seen, also makes me strongly believe that such a claim is false.

"So it is equally rational to believe something for which there exists no evidence of its existence as it is to not believe something because of a lack of evidence? Is this what you are saying here?"

Not sure what you're getting at here. While I can concoct a random fiction out of the air along with conditions that preclude your being able to disprove it, I'm not saying that all such ideas are equally likely to be true. I am saying they are equally impossible to disprove via any scientific method.

A belief in God's existence is a belief. A belief in God's non-existence is a belief. There is no direct proof of either, as God's existence (by the most common definitions of God) is not provable.

OED defines Agnosticism (in part) as: a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. A person who relies 100% on logic, science, and fact has no right to claim more than this. A person who believes in God (a deitist?) and an atheist both hold a belief in something they can not hope to prove.

That said, I can give plenty of logical reasons for the existence of God. For every one, a counter-argument can be made. While that could be an interesting discussion, I wouldn't claim that I could do more than make a plausible argument for why a God might exist. And I'll stipulate up front that I already agree a plausible argument exists for why a God might not exist.

Ok, then, by that definition I hold the belief that there is no god. I also hold the belief that there are no faeries.

I also hold the belief that there is no plausible argument for why either god or faeries might exist. Arguments can be made for either the existence of god or the existence of faeries, but none of the arguments which can be made are plausible.

"Arguments can be made for either the existence of god or the existence of faeries, but none of the arguments which can be made are plausible."

...in your humble opinion. That would be the subjective part. And presumably what you meant to say (by virtue of your having an open mind) is that you have yet to hear any arguments for the existence of god which you deemed plausible.

To say that no plausible arguments can exist makes it sound like you've decided to hold your belief regardless of any potential evidence to the contrary, which (I believe) is one of the primary things atheists routinely criticize people of faith over.

As stated, I can provide you with arguments for the existence of god which are extremely plausible (and logical). However, if you've decided that those arguments are immaterial in advance, then there's not much point to the whole exchange in the first place.

I have heard many arguments for the existence of god, and none of them have been plausible because none of them are backed up by any evidence.

That said, I can give plenty of logical reasons for the existence of God. For every one, a counter-argument can be made.

However, if you've decided that those arguments are immaterial in advance, then there's not much point to the whole exchange in the first place.

Sounds to me as though you don't want to advance those arguments, because you know that there will be counter-arguments to shoot down your ideas about your belief in your god. That's the problem with arguments advanced in the belief of a god. Unlike facts, for which there are no counter-arguments, the belief in a god is just like the belief in faeries. You have to take both on faith.

Likewise, none of the arguments for the non-existence of god are backed up by any evidence, yet you are still capable of holding a belief (absent evidence) in the non-existence of god.

Science is full of ideas which are plausible, despite a lack of evidence. And scientists routinely hold personal beliefs about how the universe works, despite a lack of evidence.

My reference to Dawkins was an attempt to illustrate how science should or should not be used when discussing religion. Science is great for validating or invalidating specific religious claims ("The Earth is 5000 years old" or "The world will end next Thursday"). It's lousy at proving God doesn't exist.

So when an atheist (i.e. Dawkins) tries to use science to criticize a belief in the existence of god, while simultaneously using it to justify a belief in the non-existence of god, I cry foul.

Sounds to me as though you don't want to advance those arguments, because you know that there will be counter-arguments to shoot down your ideas about your belief in your god.

Um...no. I acknowledged the existence of counter-arguments in my original statement. I just didn't want to launch into a far larger debate that digressed further from the original point of this discussion. If you want to spend a portion of your day listening to every argument I can make for the existence of god, just so you can voice all the counter arguments, knowing in advance that none of them will conclusively prove anything, that's fine.

Here's an easy one: How did the universe (all matter, energy, and space) begin, if it was not created?

Please provide me with a rational explanation, which is clearly and obviously more plausible than the possibility that a god created it.

That's the problem with arguments advanced in the belief of a god. Unlike facts, for which there are no counter-arguments, the belief in a god is just like the belief in faeries. You have to take both on faith.

You call it a problem, I call it the nature of the discussion. That you don't wish to engage in a debate about something which ultimately can't be proven, does not make such debate meaningless (although maybe it does to you). I'm curious to see how you respond to the question above, as by your logic anything you propose, I should be able to dismiss based on your inability to back it up with evidence.

If there were a creator, then who created the creator?

No one knows what happened before time=0. There is no answer. Because there is no answer, then you are free to make up any myth you choose to believe, but is this a rational thing to do?

If there were a creator, then who created the creator?

That's not an answer to my question. That's a counter question designed to balance out your inability to answer the first one. I asked you for a better explanation, not a refutation of mine.

No one knows what happened before time=0. There is no answer.

There is no answer? That's neither rational nor logical. Just because there's no way to prove an answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Truth doesn't pop in and out of existence based on whether or not evidence shows itself. Are you proposing that the universe just spontaneously popped into existence one day for no reason? Because that would be without precedent in nature, whereas there are countless examples of things being created by beings (humans, in this case) more complex than their creations.

Because there is no answer, then you are free to make up any myth you choose to believe, but is this a rational thing to do? I didn't just make up a myth at random (which would be irrational), I hold a belief that has plenty of rational arguments for being true. But I acknowledge that: a) none of them are conclusive, and b) there are alternate rational arguments against as well

You appear to feel that your arguments are more 'rational' than mine. I would counter that your definition of 'rational' is completely subjective. And where this leaves us is why we frequently have conflict between some religious people and some atheists (the most vocal on both sides, usually):

Ultimately, you just believe you're right. Not because you have any proof, but because you feel your arguments are more 'rational' than the next guy's. Additionally, you feel more justified in your view the more the next guy also lacks proof and just believes his argument is right without proof.

My (sincere) apologies if I've mischaracterized you there.

Summary: - Belief in god: A faith perspective, made without proof. - Atheism: A faith perspective, made without proof. - Agnosticism: Refuses faith in either, due to a lack of evidence.

There is no answer? That's neither rational nor logical. Just because there's no way to prove an answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist

True, I should have said that no one knows the answer to this... yet.

Are you proposing that the universe just spontaneously popped into existence one day for no reason? Because that would be without precedent in nature,

Not true. If you spent more time studying physics instead of religion, you would know that this statement is false.

My (sincere) apologies if I've mischaracterized you there.

hmmmm.. I don't know. I just don't believe anything based on faith. I prefer to have evidence which backs up what I believe.

Not true. If you spent more time studying physics instead of religion, you would know that this statement is false.

Actually, I was a physics major in college before switching to computer science, and haven't read nearly as much on religion, thank you very much. Would you like to cite a specific example to disprove my statement as false or just dismiss it based on your vague assertion?

I suspect you're referring to something like vacuum fluctuations/virtual particles which are spontaneously created and destroyed (in which case I should have said, '...without relative precedent in nature'). Since virtual particles have incredibly short life spans (since they have to pay back any energy they use to keep the overall amount of energy in the area constant) and since their behavior is only evident at a quantum level, I'd say that's a far cry from a precedent for spontaneous creation of any significant amount of matter/energy for any significant amount of time.

Or was there something else you were referring to?

I just don't believe anything based on faith. I prefer to have evidence which backs up what I believe.

Well, I'd still argue that this statement is inconsistent with atheism at it's core. There is no evidence that God does not exist. A more accurate statement would be: "When no evidence is available, I always choose to believe against any positive assertion".

That's a classic skeptical perspective. And it's pretty much guaranteed to make you right more than wrong (as there's usually only one right answer to any problem whereas there are many wrong ones). It does pretty much close off philosopher as a career path for you, though.

How is "the creator of the universe" a meaningful definition of God. One could substitute any nonsense word for God and it would make just as much sense. It provides us with no useful information.

How is "the creator of the universe" a meaningful definition of God. One could substitute any nonsense word for God and it would make just as much sense. It provides us with no useful information."

I'm at a loss. How much more basic a definition can you have? Perhaps I should have said, an intelligent force which created the universe? Is there any further point of detail which you think is going to make the difference between potentially believing yes vs. no?

"and since their behavior is only evident at a quantum level, I'd say that's a far cry from a precedent for spontaneous creation of any significant amount of matter/energy for any significant amount of time."

At T0 the universe was a quantam world. And particles are spontaneously created, so it is possible.

Anyway, at this point no one really knows the answer to the question of what came before the big bang. Except that you believe that you do have the answer. God did it. And you never did answer that if God created the universe, who created God?

At T0 the universe was a quantam world. And particles are spontaneously created, so it is possible.

Not by any mechanism that has ever been explained, observed or proven. The logical chasm between spontaneous quantum particle creation (that is immediately followed by annihilation) and spontaneous creation of a stable universe is so huge that there is no way you would even consider it (given your previously stated objection to a belief in anything that can't be proven) were it not being used as a counter to the possibility that the universe was created by a god.

I do believe that the universe is not an accident - I do think that its creation was ultimately by design (I also believe that the development & growth of the universe follows natural laws, so I don't think God winks his nose and things just poof into existence).

And you never did answer that if God created the universe, who created God? A great question. I avoided answering it earlier, as I wanted to stay on the first question until we were done. By answering it, we jut off into my own personal philosophy, which I'm happy to share.

Short answer: I don't know.

Longer answer: I doubt the question can be answered in any kind of meaningful way, as I believe that I (and probably everyone else on the planet) lack the proper context with which to fully consider it.

My personal belief is that the universe in which we live is not the entirety of what exists. I know almost nothing of what exists beyond this universe (actually, I know almost nothing of what exists in this universe).

I also think people want life to have defined boundaries - even if they can't fully explore those boundaries, simply knowing they exist brings comfort. Throughout history, human beings have shown a remarkable ability to think they know it all, and repeatedly be shown that they barely knew anything. While I believe it's possible that our universe is the boundary for what exists, I think it's more likely that it's not.

I hesitate to put much of a definition to God, as I know basically nothing of his nature. And as such, knowing so little as I do, I really don't think I can answer (or even fully understand) the question of how/when he came to be (do the concepts of time, beginnings and endings even have meaning in the 'realm' of God?).

That's my own, personal belief/philosophy. Obviously, I make no claim to be able to prove it, though I could give you thousands of anecdotal reasons why I think it makes sense.

The concept of a "stable" universe is entirely in your mind. There is nothing "stable" about our universe. It is only a perception due to our "impression" of time compared to the scale of our human lives. The universe evolves slowly, so we have the illusion of stability. If our life spans were of the order of one thousandth of the life span of subatomic particles we would see them as "stable"

Okay, are we just nitpicking now? By 'stable' I mean something that has apparently survived for 10-20 billion years as opposed to something that lives for about 10(-43) seconds.

I'm not arguing that there aren't similarities or even potentially a connection between the process of the formation of the universe and virtual particles.

What I'm saying that virtual particles are so unlike the universe as a whole, and given all the other well-established incompatibilities between classical and quantum mechanics, someone who requires proof for any belief shouldn't really be using virtual particles as an example of how the universe might form spontaneously.