Science has the answer to just about everything....

I want to answer your question "why I don't believe in god" <p> Not anymore. I was raised Catholic and has lots of questions as a 5-yr old. My parents just threated to spank me if I ever doubted my faith again. I stayed confused for many years but then I finally had to make a decision. Am I living for myself or for these people who just seem, I don't know, sort of stupid to me. <p> The main reason why I don't believe in god is simply science, solar evolution, and human evolution. I watched a 3-hour special on the History channel and was shown all of the evidence as to who we are, how we got here, and why people started believing in god in the first place. As humans evolved and grew smarter, they developed a couple of feelings: love and grievance for example. People just couldn't come to terms with the loss of their loved ones so they had to make up this make-believe world of the after-life in order to get by. People couldn't handle the fact that we just rott in the ground when our time is up. Do I want to see my precious son Noah after I die? Of course! Is that going to happen, I don't believe so. <p> Slowly but surely, us as a human race has evolved to believe in this make-belive man-made world versus the truth. I mean you think people would be happy that us as humans are even capable enough to research fossils, figure out the answers to our questions, and come up with hard facts as to why there are different races and where we originated---but they ignore it all! I know that it is not just the Christian god that I find intollerable, but every other religion had its idocracies that drive me crazy. I asked myself, if not Christianity, then what religion? Is there a religion that I should look into that would better suit me? The answer: Yes! <p> Atheism -- I choose to believe none of it and for good reason (not a religion, I was merely making a point). We as people can't understand just how huge our universe is. I highly doubt that some supernatural element created it all. People will find, there is an answer to every question. We don't just have to have "faith" anymore, but we have the truth! We have our answers! <p> I am a woman of science. I spoke to a Christian at work today and she thinks that human evolution is made up by Hollywood and it's secretly the Devil trying to persuade those God-fearing individuals into damning themselves. What??!! What kind of a God would tell their people such stories?? <p> Our planet Earth is a grain of dust compared to what is really out there in our universe and it is just simply a question of people really believe that we, a bunch of nothings have to ultimate answer (God)? I know, from science, that it's almost definite that there is life on other planets, if and only if their planet has the same liveable conditions as ours, therefore making it possible for life to develop. Who is to say that we are the only ones? Don't most religions on this planet think so. Eveyone is so closes-minded I feel suffocated most of the time. The agnostic part of me feels that we are incapable of ever knowing even if there is a god (which I highly doubt). I just want people to think and not just believe just to believe. <p> I'm sorry for the long answer.....are my feelings shared by anyone??? <p> Atheisic Mommy
Atheist Answer: 

I agree with almost everything you've written, but you misunderstand my question. You've given an excellent explanation of why you don't believe in any gods, but absence of belief isn't the same as belief in an absence. I asked why you positively believe there are no gods. Reading your stuff, I don't really think you do.

There's a lot you don't like about the major religions. Ditto. Thinking they're misguided has very little bearing on the existence of a real god, who if it exists might be as depicted in any of them or might be unlike anything we've imagined. I think that if there is one, it's not as concerned with this planet as people think. As you say, and as Carl Sagan famously expressed in Pale Blue Dot, we don't amount to much in many ways.

You see atheism as a religion, which was a big clue to your idea of things. Atheism is simply the absence of god-belief, whether by conscious rejection of it (explicit atheism) or lack of exposure to it (implicit atheism). Your opinion, and your conclusion based on the evidence, is that there are no gods. If more evidence came along, you might start to believe in one. All that stands between you (or me) and god-belief is lack of a good reason, not some contrarian belief that has to be knocked down first.

Strongly rejecting a position doesn't mean believing in the opposite with no more justification than one's opponents. I don't think you're really a "strong atheist", but that doesn't make you any less firmly atheist.

- SmartLX


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Science has the answer...

I have difficulty understanding where you are coming from. It seems to me that you have based your entire worldview on a 3-hour documentary from the History channel, which immediately raises some red flags in my mind. The title of your post also confuses me, considering that science is a method of investigation where one uses observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses. Some of the claims you make, such as basing your worldview on human evolution and solar evolution, have absolutely no basis in science.

I'll try to keep things simple for the sake of example. To start, it has been known for over 40 years that the universe is not eternal, and began at some specific point in time. For the universe to have a beginning, there had to have been a cause, more specifically, a cause which is uncaused. In philosophy, we refer to this an an uncaused being. I would like to know how an atheist would explain this.

On evolution, it is common knowledge that nonliving molecules are unable to produce life. This is evolution's first major flaw. Also, while microevolution has been observed to some extent, it is known that macroevolution takes much longer. This is where evolution is unable to explain the event in the fossil record known as the Cambrian explosion. Darwin himself even acknowledged, after coming up with his theory, that the greatest downfall will be if the fossil record does not produce evidence to confirm it. And guess what, no definitive proof has been found in the fossil record since Darwin left us...what a surprise! Your claim that "science", also known as testing a hypothesis or theory using the scientific method, holds all the answers...well, please revise that.

I would go on, but I'm very interested to see what the History channel, I mean, you, has to say about what I have stated.



Geneticist Francis Collins, though he's presented other reasons since, was initially convinced of the reality of the Trinity after seeing a waterfall frozen in three streams. Being essentially convinced of something of any sort can take place in an instant. One three-hour documentary is plenty, and the change of mind can be genuine, IF one then pursues further knowledge of the subject to support one's initial reaction. That's exactly what Jessica here is doing.

There's no such thing as "solar evolution", except as a misnomer for the lifecycle of a star. You appear to be of the sadly widespread school of thought that scientific explanations of events prior to the beginning of evolution are part of the theory of evolution. What you're really against here is mainstream cosmology.

Andrew, I refer you to my piece on the cosmological argument, but a lot of folks don't seem to follow my links so I'll start again here.

What we've known for 40 years, since the discovery of cosmic background radiation, is merely that the Big Bang happened. Whether that was the true beginning or it was simply an event in an ongoing sequence is still undecided. If it was the beginning, there are many theories (and interpretations of experiments in quantum mechanics) wherein it was caused by an external universe, another of an infinite chain or network.

If you say that the universe's precursor was uncaused, why not simply say that the universe itself was uncaused and cut out the extraneous entity? The constraint you place on the universe to necessitate a god must immediately be broken to allow a god, in the ultimate case of special pleading.

You've thrown in a bunch of well-known creationist talking points to attack evolution. Goody.

- Your "common knowledge" is such a sweeping generalisation. Non-living molecules have been used to produce the precursors of life, from amino acids in the fifties to rudimentary self-replicators just this year.

We know the emergence of full-blown life is a rare event because it apparently hasn't happened since the event that resulted in our earliest microbial ancestors. (Since all known life is genetically related, it all stems from that one event.) That doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely to have happened at some point, given the vast space and time in which it had its opportunity on this planet.

- Macroevolution takes longer than microevolution because macroevolution is simply microevolution over and over and over again. Biologists dumped both terms over a century ago because they just describe the same process over different timescales. It's okay that the amount of evolution required to make easily visible changes takes a long time, because it's been about 3.5 billion years since the beginning of life.

- See Quote #2.4 here for Darwin's writings on the Cambrian explosion, in full context. The "explosion" was only instantaneous on the geological timescale; the Cambrian period was fifteen million years long, and the event took up a decent chunk of that.

As that last link explains, fossils of several branches of life previously thought to have emerged in the Cambrian but dating further back have been unearthed, so it didn't throw up as many new forms of life as we thought. There are several other explanations for the phenomenon, listed there too, some or all of which could be true. It's regarded as an interesting moment in the evolutionary timeline, but hardly a dealbreaker. Regardless, who said evolution happened at the same rate throughout history?

Andrew, I get the feeling you've never had anyone sit down and explain to you why these talking points give no pause whatsoever to evolutionary biologists or other enthusiasts. That's a pity, but let me explain something else to you. Now that you have your replies to them, if without answering the objections (at least for yourself) you move on and give the same arguments to others who have not already considered them, you are employing sophistry. This is a form of dishonesty, and whichever god you think you're defending would not look kindly on that.

Hi Andrew. First don’t

Hi Andrew. First don’t have any red flags up. The documentary I mentioned merely was to explain that there is so much truth and evidence out there of how we got here and that I feel makes most Christian religions look ridiculous. So no , I haven’t based my entire work view on this as I stated in another post, I have had this stance for quite some time now, not just recently. And yes science is a basis for investigation but it has also given us many answers that we seek today. So please explain to me how come you don’t think science has any basis—that is what actually raises the red flags Andrew. And you are simply WRONG about nonliving molecules not causing life: A 1950s discovery….. Graduate student Stanley Miller, combining the ideas of other scientists, reproduces the early atmosphere of Earth by creating a chamber containing only hydrogen, water, methane and ammonia. He boils the water and exposes the elements to an electric discharge like lightning, simulating Earth's early processes. After a week, Miller finds organic compounds have formed, including some amino acids, the "building blocks of life." And since I’m biology major I know that every living breathing thing in this Earth is made up of amino acids commonly known as proteins. So it is not evolutions flaw but your own I’m afraid. Please don’t make fun of the History and Science channel. Those channels are merely there so that everyday people who aren’t educated can get a better understanding of the truth and what really happened. And also my saying that humans created and invented religion and god is not an opinion. As we evolved, we evolved complex feelings (part of being a Hominid). Before when people died, they just died and were left, but when we track back the earliest grave sites, which were only discovered as early as 100-150 thousand years ago, that plainly tells us and science that the complex man’s new feelings of love set in deep. People became afraid to die and that is why the make believe world was created. I don’t need proof to come along when there isn’t any and there won’t be. I can’t blame people because I don’t want to die either knowing that I just rot in the ground, but the truth is scary and maybe even too complex for people. Understand where I’m coming from?

Atheistic Mommy

You Guys Have Good Intentions But A Weak Foundation, Let Me Help

This website seems a bit vindictive, I don't say that to be harsh but simply as a literary observation...coming from a Christian background I understand where you are coming from but to deny the existence of God because of religion is really a misunderstanding of God.

Atheism is useful in certain situations but can also lead you from a more complete understanding.

For example if you posit that God=existence/truth by definition,an idea I first got from Gandhi, you cannot deny atheism without denying yourself. Now I can embrace this dualistic belief, being and non-being, but pure nonbeing makes no sense. If you understand God in the Bahai or Spinoza sense you cannot deny God without denying yourself/existence and the denial itself becomes as misguided as other's beliefs, a stubborn refusal to understand more fully.

That is where I see this website going. Your active promotion of atheism submits to many of the same evils that religion does, namely the separation of one group into another, the narcissism of differences, atheists and nonatheists although we simply have different terminology for a remarkably similar condition that we all have the burden of living.

Lastly the insistence on Rationality is all good and well but about 100 years outdated - this is no more than the enlightenment thinkers embraced as well. After WWII and other catastrophes caused by secular man - many deep thinkers questioned rationality and began to see its limits. See Nietzche and Wittgenstein for the philosophic reaction to these limits. Next comes postmodernism etc., which is a sort of attempt to reconcile the Dionysian chaos of the human soul with a spatial and aesthetic approach to life.

Now I'm not saying rationality isn't extremely important, but it cannot dictate the workings of the soul, nor does it have any insight into the power of faith or an understanding of God (West) or Oneness (East), which was an extremely crucial development for the human mind.

We need rationality and emotions, in harmony, no dualistic separation between the two, which is difficult, and ironically some of the best advice for reconciling these two concepts can be found in religion.

You guys seem sincere and dedicated but honestly as someone immersed in scholarly research at a very high level it is quite outdated and really nothing that people haven't thought of already - unfortunately its cutting-edge usefulness is really not much nowadays for those that have dedicated their lives to exploring it.

But best of luck!


Thanks for the constructive criticism. I'm well aware that philosophy has gone far beyond the level of discussion here, and I have no delusions of being cutting-edge. My aim relative to my audience is relatively humble: to help the majority of atheists and theists who have not yet reached that level to think more. Those who've dedicated their lives to this sort of discourse, without locking themselves into one mindset against all counter-arguments, will probably gain little or no truly new insight. That's fine.

I do not deny the god of Spinoza, which according to most other definitions is no kind of god. I believe in it, in a way, because the universe and its governing laws pretty obviously exist. Theism and deism are instead concerned with separate entities; intelligent agents who created and/or influence the universe towards their own ends. Spinoza's god has no intelligence or purpose. The jump from this kind of pantheism to atheism is merely a semantic one; one stops calling the universe "god".

If one believes on the other hand that the universe itself has intelligence and a sense of purpose, this is a pantheism akin to other theism and I deny it.

My issue is with unsupported belief in theistic and deistic gods, and the unfortunate reality is that those who have it often use it as a major source of self-image and community. I cannot help but be the "other" when faced with this, because I do not agree. I don't aim for separation, but my position lies on the other side of an existing divide I would currently rather re-balance than close.

Rationality cannot dictate the workings of the soul or provide an understanding of God because we have yet to establish the existence of either, and there may be no such wisdom to gain. Rationality does have great insight into the power of faith, through the application of psychology. As for the importance of religiosity in the development of the human mind, recent research suggests it was more a byproduct of the truly important developments than a crucial thing in and of itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the advice of most religions on the matter of rationality versus emotions to subjugate rationality in favour of the "felt"? Not usually in the fideistic sense of simply rejecting reason, but in the sense of influencing one's reason until it accommodates one's faith?

Anyway, thanks again.