Atheists are supposed to have full trust in science. There were atheists when there was no science to support atheism and so their justification for their atheism was weak. Today, hardly any athiest will not take the support of science to justify his atheism. I arrived at atheism by a process of loggical thinking but my beiefs later on have so strongly supported by science that I now wholly take the support of science to support my atheism.
The age old religious philosophies are based only on two main concepts, viz. god and soul. If we believe that science has unravelled the mysteries of how life emerged on this planet and how the uniververse was formed, then the first question arises in my mind is, " If the so called god of supernatural powers is not the creater of the universe and of the life on earth, then what is he there for? What is he doing?" The most obvious answer is that he is not required. I understand that Stephen Hawking also has recently said that no god is required for creating the universe. So, Enistein, Hawking,Darwin and co. have already found the answer for the question for gods existance.
Another support for this comes from deliberating the old concept of 'soul'. There is enough proof to show that the idea of the soul was conceived by imaginative philosophers because they did not know the function of heart. If one goes in a little more details, one can easily ascertain this. This therefore demolishes not only the concept of the soul but also of rebirth, heaven, hell etc. So, a little knowledge of science and full belief in it is more than adequate to demolish th conceot of god and religion simultaneously.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do have trouble with the phrase, "lack the belief in any gods." I don't feel a lack, like when I lack water; I see no evidence of any god even as I am filled with wonder when I look into another's eyes or see the sunrise, or look at stars and constellations and planets with and without a telescope. Seeing Hubble photos of deep space with all that energy and infinity, I get goosebumps knowing I am created of the stuff of stars, that I have all my senses to experience life, that I exist to participate in life, that differences matter and are not to be avoided or discounted.
Sometimes, when chaos seems to overwhelm me, I realize there is order to existence. When people preach or teach dogma, or "received" knowledge, or values that make no sense to me I have the right ... NO ... the obligation to speak up, not because I am right but because I perceive things differently. Sure, I am open to hearing something new or explore different points of view. But when I answer the doorbell to Mormons or Seven Day Adventists I never hear anything new or worthy of hearing again. They are pests! Intruders! Kind of like dogs spreading their fecal matter all over the neighborhood, unwelcome, unwanted, and uninvited!
The only way anyone could ever find anythin similar to a "god" is through math or physics
I have trouble with the words, "only," "ever," "anything," "is". Absolutes invite me to disregard other words in the sentence. In my opinion, I have not experienced any reason or evidence there is a god or gods or spirits or demons. When reading and watching programs about math and physics and science, I am intrigued and curious to know more.
We can't be completely sure. We only have 5 senses and one thing I'm pretty sure of is that the universe is full of things we'll never comprehend. But I do believe there is no god who put it all together and insists that we worship his most excellent self.
I agree! Absolute certainty there is no god/s is as foolish as absolute certainty there is. On the other hand, the five senses plus the ability to think critically provides evidence for believing or not believing. There is a new twist coming into awareness and that is quantum physics. Obviously I know nothing about the subject, but just enough to know that the laws of Newtonian physics do not explain all of existence. According to Chaos Theory, the "butterfly" effect, i.e. the flapping of butterfly wings in south America effects the wind in the Orient doesn't make sense ... but high temperatures in New York City correlates with neonatal deaths in India.
Sorry, I can't find the New York city temperature correlates with neonatal deaths in India data.
I strongly doubt there is a god but I could be wrong.
and you could be right.
Your expression is so very familiar to me. As I child, I was taught by family, church, community, education and culture in general that god existed and my/our purpose in life was to please "him". Challenges of adult life forced me to take off blinders so that I could perceive other options.
Education, discussions, critical thinking are processes that one can acquire and it is clear to me that god is not necessary to explain life or consciousness, that I am not guided by a higher power, that I have everything I need inside me to make decisions. I also found that I made some pretty awful decisions and I need others so I can learn to think outside the boxes in which I am incased.
Problem solving, conflict resolution, problem identification, options explorations, cost/benefit analysis, action plans, formative and summative evaluations are critical thinking tools one can learn and use to make healthier, wiser, happier, more responsible decisions.
The next developmental step for me is discovering ways to experience and express my sense of wonder ... of knowing I am not the center of the universe but I am made of the same stuff as stars and so is everything else. My senses exist making it possible for me to participate in life and when I die the electric energy will end, I will cease to exist, and I return to elements; only memories remain of me and that is my immortality.
The thing I missed when I stopped going to church was community. It has taken a while and I have been able to develop a community where I feel safe to express my ideas, explore, experiment, inquire, change my mind and all the while know I am in a community of supportive, loving people, even when I express silly ideas. I have the responsibility to build bridges with others with whom I can share and to build walls of protection from toxic people. Even an amoeba protects itself from unhealthy environments ... and so should human beings.
Thank you, Patrick, for your enlightened comment. Your contribution is valuable to me.
I think the question of whether there is a creator of the universe (perhaps more akin to the Deist sense), and whether human gods specifically are real as they're described in sacred text, are totally separate. Am I 100% sure that the big bang wasn't started by some higher being? No. Am I 100% sure that the Christian god as described, or the Islamic god, et cetera, doesn't exist? Yes. I could bet my dice on the idea that gods that humans have written about and described are as likely as pink unicorns farting rainbows, streaking their way across the sky until they land in a pot of gold.
Ava, perfectly stated, especially the "pink unicorns farting rainbows, streaking their way across the sky until they land in a pot of gold". May I borrow your statement, giving you credit, of course.?
"I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god." The answer to Scott's question is already included in his question and almost everybody has picked up the same thread.
"I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god."
"I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one."
Bertrand Russel in his early life called himself an agnostic as, according him, he neither could prove that god exists nor could he prove that god does not exist. So, if there is an element of doubt in one's mind, he should call himself an agnostic, as Bertrand Russel called himself. His was, in my opinion, an honest position. If any one has that small,small, small..........small doubt, he is free to have the same, but then he should not call himself an atheist. Why does any one should have a doubt? Because of fear? Because of inadequate thinking? Because of inadequqte knowledge? If there is any such boubt, then why hurry about calling oneself an atheist? Wait until your doubts are cleared. You want solid proof? Just see what Christopher Hitchens has to say:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed
Asking for a reliable proof, instead of relying on one's own faculties, means any one can make an absurd claim and then we wait till some one else brings proof for or against the claim.
I fully trust the claim of science that the world was not created but emerged after the Big Bang, I fully trust the scientific claim that life on earth was not created but evolved and then I convince myself that no supernatural power was involved in all this. So, I do not have that infinitesimally small element of doubt in my mind that all those stories told by different religions of different gods creating this world are hogwash.
No body can be prevented from having a doubt, but a doubter is a doubter, not an ATHEIST! A faithful is a faithful, not a doubter.
May I ask, if we do not frimly believe in the stories of creation and still have a small element of doubt about the existance of supernatural power, why don't we ask ourselves 'what he was doing when th world was emerging? What was he doing whem life was taking shape on this planet? What is he doing now? Does he act only as a 'manager' now? If that small..........small doubt prevents us from being a 100% atheist, why these doubts prevent us from being a 100% atheist?
Lastly, by calling us as atheists with small doubts, we, in my opinion, are changing the meanings of the words 'atheism' and 'agnoticism"