Atheist 1 - Christian guy 0

[Pete Daly]

It's redundent but true, there is no evidence for or against god.

I'm saying that there needs to be evidence to justify a claim. That claim being: god exists. Make the claim, back it with evidence. That is how something is determined whether or not to be true. In this case, there is no evidence to back the claim, therefor it is logical that we determine the claim untrue.

The reason the default is atheism is because theism must be taught, it must be learned. You apply new information to a person who previously had no information on the subject. If someone had never heard of the concept of a god, then you would need to explain theism to that person, whereas there would be nothing to explain in terms of atheism.

As for the gremlin he could be disproven or proven using a scientific method

And if i said that the gremlin is not subject to the scientific method, then what?

A lack of evidence is only evidence when using a scientific method and that lack of evidence is never conclusive proof it's only proof with a verying degree of probability or likelihood.

Throughout history, humans have attempted to prove of his existence. All attempts have failed, but that does not mean he does not exist, so is it fair to say that there probably is no god?

[Pete Daly]

4. For atheists- I know in the Christian community it's believed that God "Wrote the law upon our hearts". in other words, universally we know right from wrong. We dont have to be taught that killing is bad for no reason. We know within ourselves that its wrong because of our "conscience". We feel bad when we do certain things. Whats the atheistic view on why this happens? Why do we have a conscience about certain things that would seem ultimately beneficial in the animal kingdom. For instance cheating on a spouse seems to be instilled in us. Whereas when you look at it from an animalistic stand point it would only be better for the reproduction cycle. So where do you believe this natural awareness of good/evil comes from?

If I may speak for the entirety of my ilk, atheistic view is generally answered through evolution. We are not the most adept species in the world in terms of survival of the fittest, but we are incredibly intelligent, comparatively speaking. Those who worked together within their species survived, and those who did not were on their own, and were killed and did not reproduce.

[AJ Camacho]

Atheism as defined by websters
n.
1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Atheism is ones personal belief that there is no creator or god in saying "I'm an Athiest", you are taking the God doesn't exist belief as your own. That isn't a default position, its is the faith that there is no creator or god. A belief in nothing is still a belief. The default option would be Agnosticism and just accepting and admitting that its not a knowledge that we as humans have an ability to obtain (yet, if ever).

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]" - Wikipedia

I am the atheist and I am explaining to you the parameters that I and other atheist's use to define the term. If you want to stick with the notion that it's a belief, your are more than welcome to, but know that you are not discussing any idea related to me and more importantly most people that would define themselves as atheists.

I am not forcing a definition down your throat but am just simply explaining that your definition of the term does not apply to me.

[AJ Camacho]

Do you believe this is correct?

I understand, to the best of my knowable knowledge, that it is indeed correct.

[Andrew Maxwell]

1. When it comes to evolution.. for the ones who believe we started from wither a plasma or single cell of some sort. If over millions or billions of years we developed into where we are now, how did it all evolve in a way that allowed for our organs to be useful before they were arranged the way they are now.. for instance, it would be pointless for me to have eyes without nerves leading to my brain, or for me to have a butthole without intestines. So how did the evolutionary process allow for these things to develope one without the other? what would have been the point of having a heart without blood vessels? I hope this makes sense the way im wording it. For instance, Its not like our DNA was smart enough to plan evolution ahead and say "in 10 million years i want to be able to see, so i think ill start working on that now my gradually evolving the nerves and brain that will be required to use the eyes that will come around that time". And again, dont take this as a personal attack on the theory, I obviously am aware that there is an actual scientific theory to how it happened, and thats the answer im looking for. From someone who knows enough to respond in a way that makes sense and so i will be better able to understand your views.

The way evolution is said to work is that many very small changes occure over a very very long span of time one change building apon the other. So if we start as single cells and start to evolve over great lenghts of time we eventully become (possibly) lets say a worm. Now a worm has organs but they are far less developed then say a fishes which would be another step in the evolution of a creature. So human organs didn't develope in the way you're picturing it, one with out the other, we didn't have usless organs developing over time independently,(that means we never had intestines and no butt hole or vise versa) our same organs we've had since worms have just become more developed and complex over time as we went from cell to fish to lizard to mammel to man.

[Andrew Maxwell]

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]" - Wikipedia

I am the atheist and I am explaining to you the parameters that I and other atheist's use to define the term. If you want to stick with the notion that it's a belief, your are more than welcome to, but know that you are not discussing any idea related to me and more importantly most people that would define themselves as atheists.

I am not forcing a definition down your throat but am just simply explaining that your definition of the term does not apply to me.

Its cool, our tems were just getting crossed, we just needed to define some perameters for our premises.
I was just trying to say that a belief is defined as what one holds true for ones self, and if you say that "there is no god" then you have a belief that there is no god, based on the peramiters set for the word belief.

[chronic_jiujitsu]

If I may speak for the entirety of my ilk, atheistic view is generally answered through evolution. We are not the most adept species in the world in terms of survival of the fittest, but we are incredibly intelligent, comparatively speaking. Those who worked together within their species survived, and those who did not were on their own, and were killed and did not reproduce.

Ok, so i THINK i understand what you are saying. but let me make sure. What you are suggesting is that the reason we dont do certain "immoral" things. (I'll just use the example of cheating in this scenario), is because we have learned the benefits of working together. And by not betraying each other or the person we have chose to be with, it will ultimately lead to more of a unison and cooperation of the species overall. Therefor leading to, for lack of a better terminology, "power in numbers" because we are all working together. So in a sense, we are looking out for others best interest, because it would ultimately be better for us also (seeing as though that means we would work together) is that correct?

[Brandon Mccaghren]

I understand, to the best of my knowable knowledge, that it is indeed correct.

Hmmm... interesting...

Understanding based on your "knowable knowledge" implies one of 2 things:

1. You have a complete and thorough understanding of a subject, with no room for further acquirement of knowledge

OR

2. You believe in a thing which you do not fully understand but feel compelled towards based upon what you do in fact believe yourself to understand about the subject.

Option 1 is perfection and complete knowledge. I don't think any of us are so haughty as to lay claim to complete knowledge of any subject.

Option 2 is faith in the stated subject. Call it what you want if you find the term faith to be offensive, but it appears you believe in a thing you can not fully grasp or explain.

Just some food for thought

[chronic_jiujitsu]

The way evolution is said to work is that many very small changes occure over a very very long span of time one change building apon the other. So if we start as single cells and start to evolve over great lenghts of time we eventully become (possibly) lets say a worm. Now a worm has organs but they are far less developed then say a fishes which would be another step in the evolution of a creature. So human organs didn't develope in the way you're picturing it, one with out the other, we didn't have usless organs developing over time independently,(that means we never had intestines and no butt hole or vise versa) our same organs we've had since worms have just become more developed and complex over time as we went from cell to fish to lizard to mammel to man.

That part i understand. its the little changes that confuse me. for instance.. to get from a worm to whatever comes next, would require multiple changes. None of which would occur overnight. they are all a lengthy process. For instance some believe we started in a pond or body of water, and eventually developed lungs. So lets say to get from a water occupying creature, to becoming something that could take in oxygen from the air, we would need to develope some sort of organ or body part that we didnt have before. bust that obviously wouldnt happen overnight. Or in one generation. so how would this DNA "plan ahead" if you will. Or start this organ needed for air intake generations before it was complete? i hope that makes sense. Because to me, even "small" changes would take at minimum a few generations to evolve. So what would be the evolutionary benefit of the generation in between. before its actually fully functioning? it seems like there would be a lot of half developed parts between the original specimen and the one that had the fully operational (insert whatever the next part to develope was here). do you understand what im saying? Maybe its not coming out right.. if not, ill try to think about it and re-write it sometime lol

[Andrew Maxwell]

4. For atheists- I know in the Christian community it's believed that God "Wrote the law upon our hearts". in other words, universally we know right from wrong. We dont have to be taught that killing is bad for no reason. We know within ourselves that its wrong because of our "conscience". We feel bad when we do certain things. Whats the atheistic view on why this happens? Why do we have a conscience about certain things that would seem ultimately beneficial in the animal kingdom. For instance cheating on a spouse seems to be instilled in us. Whereas when you look at it from an animalistic stand point it would only be better for the reproduction cycle. So where do you believe this natural awareness of good/evil comes from?

It has to do with DNA and brain chemistry. We evolved as a group and in a group effort we survived. Just like wolves or many apes this affected our evolution. We had to evolve in a way condusive to the group because the group was necessary to the individuals survival. When a mother hears her baby crying at night a chemical is released in the brain telling that mother how special and beautiful and wonderful that child is. That chemical is what keeps animals from killing and eating there annoying and screaming child. Those same chemicals affect our moral compass and gives us what appears to be a conscience.