When in history did atheism become the only choice?

[BZ_Zorro]

Any thinking, rational person of today has to admit that in the year 2005, God is an absurb hypothesis. Science has progressed to the point where we can safely say the universe functions just fine without any divine intervention, and everything that exists/has ever existed can be explained sufficiently by naturalism. Where things haven't been explained, it is fairly obvious to an open minded person that 'God did it' is one of the most childish and least useful explanations we can come up with. And wrong on so many levels.

But 1000 years ago, we didn't have answers to a lot of simple questions. For example:

1. What are the sun and the stars?
2. Where did people come from?
3. How can we think and feel?
4. What is the world made of?
5. How did everything get here, all the elements, all the amazing diversity of life
6. What makes life tick? How is life different to non life? What is the life force that drives us?
7. Where does morality come from?
8. What happens when we die?

Looking at these questions, it's fairly easy to see (I think) how an uneducated but otherwise intelligent and thoughtful person could believe in God. There's simply no other explanation for the amazing world as perceived by someone from that era.

So my question is, at what point could intelligent people begin to infer that God is just made up? What breakthroughs made it possible? Or have there always been atheists who didn't have the answers, but suspected the 'all powerful Superdaddy/Sky Fairy' theory wasn't it?

[kpux]

When Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species".

[Peter666]

You start with a false premise by saying any thinking rational person cannot believe in God. Clearly God can be understood in an analogous manner. I do not need the impossible immediate proof that historical figures exist to believe that they existed. If I believe in Socrates, am I irrational?

There is nothing irrational about believing there may be a superior immaterial being outside of ourselves, especially since we have not made our own existence or can will it to stop existing.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question is, at what point could intelligent people begin to infer that God is just made up? What breakthroughs made it possible? Or have there always been atheists who didn't have the answers, but suspected the 'all powerful Superdaddy/Sky Fairy' theory wasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it so far, DS has said that we still haven't come far enough to say for certain and there are certainly many intelligent people who still believe in God for whatever reason.

I believe that the only litmus test that we've seen semi-articulated so far was David's contention that if computers can become conscious then God will be much less likely to exist.

The consciousness side hasn't been nailed down yet, but I think that he made his general point fairly clearly.

As to the rest of your questions, we still don't have the definitive answers to most of them, but we do have much more useful answers than we used to.

I can certainly understand your position, but you still need to make sure that you are not one now taking a leap of faith into what we don't know yet, but will discover.

Just keep your hat on and you know we'll get there eventually.

[David Sklansky]

"Clearly God can be understood in an analogous manner. I do not need the impossible immediate proof that historical figures exist to believe that they existed. If I believe in Socrates, am I irrational?

Cmon.

[Peter666]

Do you believe in Socrates?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in Socrates?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean that he existed or that he was God? (God's son, etc.)

[Peter666]

Like in Santa Claus.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing irrational about believing there may be a superior immaterial being outside of ourselves, especially since we have not made our own existence or can will it to stop existing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically true.

I think the problem comes when you examine explanations that used to be attributed to God or Godlike beings that are now explained by science and technology.

The probability that the causes of current unknown phenomenon will be discovered by science increases with every new discovery while simultaneously decreasing the probability that God will maintain his place as the explanation for everything.

If this is fallacious, please point out how.

[Peter666]

I think the only thing fallacious is not in your reasoning, but in people who try to limit God's nature by attributing to him material or limited conceptual characteristics.

The understanding of God as pure essence cannot be disproven by any means, even in abstract human thought. It would be like trying to say that we don't exist.

And although science can answer how things work, it does not answer why. This is beyond the natural realm that science works within.

So why people's prejudices of what God is may change in the future, it does not alter God in any way.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
there always been atheists who didn't have the answers, but suspected the 'all powerful Superdaddy/Sky Fairy' theory wasn't it?


[/ QUOTE ] yes.

[spoohunter]

[ QUOTE ]
Any thinking, rational person of today has to admit that in the year 2005, God is an absurb hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist, but I would not be incredibly surprised if there was a God. I just think it unlikely.

[Nytecaster]

God is difficult to put into concrete or even abstract thought. It is as difficult as explaining to a rock what feelings are. To say it must be comprehendable on our level of existence does not mean He is not there, but rather beyond our comprehension. Those that fail to see this are trying to prove that rocks know what feelings are. Until you prove that a rock can do this, I stand by my arguement.

I must agree with my friend Albert "I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it"

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Those that fail to see this are trying to prove that rocks know what feelings are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rocks have had feelings for years.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7272/petrockbrown7uy.jpg

[ACPlayer]

One is truly in awe of the structure of the world.

Standing in the middle of canyonlands, the rock structures of Bryce, the animals roaming the Serengeti, the Okavango delta disappearing into the middle of Botswana, the snow covered slopes of Kashmir, the underwater life in the Andaman Sea -- these are all awe inspiring structures of the world.

When in the midst of these grand sights you realize that God is within not without.

Religion however sucks.

[coolhandluke]

this is amusing, I was just on another board I frequent, and a poster started with a very similiar idea, but argued that the more we learn, the more it demands we believe in a higher being.

Both sides have some holes in there argument, but it does crack me up that I read the same starting position arguing 2 totally different conclusions back to back.

[mslif]

It is hard to be rational when it comes to religion. Religion is about your faith, what you believe in, not about what science can prove or not.

I have a dilemna though, maybe some of you can answer that..
To make a long story short, I was raised catholic but lost my faith years ago. I was involved in a very bad car accident a few years back and almost died. The first thing I did when I realized I was in bad shape was pray to God to live. Remind you that at that time, I did not believe in God.
Since then I have done an intership in a hospital for almost a year. Almost all the people I saw coming in always pray to God to get better!

Do you think the faith in God is in us no matter what our rational thinking is? Do you think it is the way God shows us that he is present? I am curious to know what you guys think?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard to be rational when it comes to religion. Religion is about your faith, what you believe in, not about what science can prove or not.

I have a dilemna though, maybe some of you can answer that..
To make a long story short, I was raised catholic but lost my faith years ago. I was involved in a very bad car accident a few years back and almost died. The first thing I did when I realized I was in bad shape was pray to God to live. Remind you that at that time, I did not believe in God.
Since then I have done an intership in a hospital for almost a year. Almost all the people I saw coming in always pray to God to get better!

Do you think the faith in God is in us no matter what our rational thinking is? Do you think it is the way God shows us that he is present? I am curious to know what you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

We've had lots of threads discussing this. The best way to answer your question is to search for those threads. I think most won't deny the possibility of god(s), in various forms, but thats as far as the thinking goes. Trying to define that god is generally where people run into problems.

[The Absurdist]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only thing fallacious is not in your reasoning, but in people who try to limit God's nature by attributing to him material or limited conceptual characteristics.

[/ QUOTE ]

--Yeah, how dare you attempt to use logic to analyze unsubstantiated claims about the existence of a non-entity. Don't you realize God will not have himself pigeon-holed this way?!

[ QUOTE ]
The understanding of God as pure essence cannot be disproven by any means, even in abstract human thought. It would be like trying to say that we don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

--Oh, this old canard again. First off, a statement like "the understanding of God as pure essence" is almost entirely meaningless. It's just a bunch of vague words thrown together. And the issue isn't whether or not it can be disproven (whatever that statement means), it is whether or not there is any reason to believe that it is true. If you can't offer any credible evidence, your assertion fails. It is not the disbeliever's job to demonstrate negative affirmation. Your second sentence above is entirely absurd.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science has progressed to the point where we can safely say the universe functions just fine without any divine intervention, and everything that exists/has ever existed can be explained sufficiently by naturalism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explain the existence of the universe.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
To make a long story short, I was raised catholic

[/ QUOTE ]

You were trained in this.

That's what training is for. It teaches you a response other than the instinct you were born with.

People aren't born believing in God. People need to explain things so that they make sense. God is not used to explain anything that already makes sense. That's because we don't need him for that.

If I get attacked in the street I will probably kill my attacker. This is because I was trained to do this. Most people will either fight recklessly or freeze up in panic.

You do what you are taught, especially under stress when you may not be thinking clearly about the situation.

[The Absurdist]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain the existence of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]


God made it. Well not God exactly, but the pure essence of the Almighty willed it into being with a heaping of loving-kindness thrown in for good measure.

[ACPlayer]

I am what I want to be, I experience what I want to experience, I am god.

In Hinduism there is a thought that essentially says to find the great force that is without look deep inside your self.

[benjdm]

Another vote for 1859, Darwin's Origin of Species. If not, maybe 1927, Big Bang Theory.

[PairTheBoard]

Some Native American religions talk about the "Great Mystery". They believe in the Great Spirit, Father Sky, Mother Earth, and Animism, but they don't consider these to in any way explain the Great Mystery. When Europeans arrived, the Native Americans thought them to be religiously naive in the way they presented their concept of god as descriptive knowledge of the Great Mystery.

Now Science has emerged to explain many things that were once considered mysterious. The Scientific conceptual framework has become ubiquitous and many people have replaced old religious concepts with Science, thinking the metaphores of Scientific Theories are more enlightened than the poetry of old religions.

However, just as "gods" come and go throughout history, I think the current fad of Science negating Mysticism will fade in the future. Mysticism will make a big comeback amongst even the most Scientificly Literate because even though Science has explained many mysteries of the past, the Great Mystery still remains.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

I can't give the exact date but Eve was the first atheist. When she no longer accepted God at His Word, but substituted her own understanding, she was effectively saying God is not supreme, which is the same as saying there is no God.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't give the exact date but Eve was the first atheist. When she no longer accepted God at His Word, but substituted her own understanding, she was effectively saying God is not supreme, which is the same as saying there is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do we know whether Eve was hot? Because if she was hot and she was the first truly independent thinker . . . hubba, hubba.

[Peter666]

No, it is not absurd, because my evidence was to show that men have not willed themselves into existence and cannot will themselves out of existence.

You demand "credible" evidence from a purely subjective human standpoint. My point is, that there is an objective reality outside of ourselves, and we cannot come to absolute conclusions about certain things.

There are people here who state that they are Atheist because they think God probably does not exist from what they have seen. This is reasonable. Then there are those who insist that there is 100% positively no God. This is impossible to positively conclude, thus is unreasonable.

You also state that, " It is not the disbeliever's job to demonstrate negative affirmation." This is incorrect. Anybody who makes an affirmation that is 100% conclusive must be able to demonstrate it.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we know whether Eve was hot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we do!

2 ways to approach the question.

1) Eve was the only chance for the survival of the species.

2) Even the snake was hot for her.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Any thinking, rational person of today has to admit that in the year 2005, God is an absurb hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Thinking, rational people often get wrong answers to tricky questions, and there are still plenty of tricky questions concerning theism.

[pc in NM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any thinking, rational person of today has to admit that in the year 2005, God is an absurb hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Thinking, rational people often get wrong answers to tricky questions, and there are still plenty of tricky questions concerning theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to recommend the silly focus on the "intelligence" of a person as a measure of his/her theories be herewith discarded. This is simply the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority (and a not very good one, at that!).

Any theories, arguments, etc. should be evaluated on their own merits, and the so-called "intelligence", "rationality", reputation and/or any other characteristics of their proponents should be regarded as irrelevant.

Thank you.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
But 1000 years ago, we didn't have answers to a lot of simple questions. For example:

1. What are the sun and the stars?
2. Where did people come from?
3. How can we think and feel?
4. What is the world made of?
5. How did everything get here, all the elements, all the amazing diversity of life
6. What makes life tick? How is life different to non life? What is the life force that drives us?
7. Where does morality come from?
8. What happens when we die?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's awesome that we still don't have an answer to a number of those questions.

[Carl_William]

i THINK you are getting on the more correct &amp; right track....