Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]

[pianodwarf]

Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
 
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
 
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
 
Sincerely,
 
[name removed]

[Historicity]

they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.

But that's exactly what you'd expect from evolution.  I can't see how that's evidence, much less proof, of the existence of God.

Sorry, #2629, that's an antilogism.  You have stated the evidence against your case and declared it as evidence for it.

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

I can't figure this one out.  I mean, what if I wanted the 12 Olympian Gods to create and administer the universe?  Would that cause them to exist?

[hickdive]

This is a new twist, hoorah!

So your creator makes a universe, just so. Puts a rocky planet in orbit round a star at just the right distance, not too hot, not too cold. Blends an atmosphere with
just the right mix of gasses and the tops it all of with humans with their lousy eyes, appendix, hips for walking upright on females etc. etc?

The flaw in your logic is that a creator would have purposely created imperfection, which, if they existed would hardly make them worth worshipping.

Of course, you could argue that humans and animals, coming relatively late in the biblical genesis week and might just be the friday afternoon lemons, put together after a liquid refreshment or two at lunchtime.

Would I want there to be a creator? It depends...

[plethora]

You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.

The existence of living things that work well enough to live and procreate is not evidence that a god exists. That's just evidence that said living things can and do exist.

Evidence for evolution is abundant enough to be considered a fact. There's DNA ancestry, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, real time observable evolution of bacteria from one species to another across millions of generations in the lab, etc.

You may believe a perfect god created imperfect beings ... but you have no evidence for that.

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

No. Because if this world were the result of a creator's design, then that being would be the most incompetent, evil, sadistic prick in the universe and my hate for it would be immeasurable.

[kcrady]

Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.

It doesn't work as well as it would if it had been designed by intelligent engineers, even Sufficiently Advanced aliens.  It is filled with evolutionary kludges rather than elegant, foresighted designs.

You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.

Before we can "prove to you that your logic is flawed," you've got to have some.  This is just an unsubstantiated assertion.  First of all, what sort of "God" are you talking about?  It's not possible to analyze any proposed logical connections between the structure of Life, the Universe, and Everything and "God" as long as "God" is a cognitive blank/moveable goalpost that can mean anything from a vague and undefined "Ground of Being" to a specific Invisible Magic Person like Zeus or Yahweh.

 If you consider "God" to be an Invisible Magic Person who can design and create things,[1] and the level of organization necessary for the existence of biological replicators (and hence, an evolutionary process) represents evidence for IMP's creating it, then the even greater level of organization necessary for the existence of an IMP would also require one or more "creators," for the IMP, and so on.

When confronted with the question, "Where does order and complexity come from?" theism just punts the question into some inaccessible "spiritual" realm and says "It [my creator du jour] was always there!"  This is a non-answer.  Naturalistic theories of cosmic and biological evolution actually explain how order and complexity can emerge from the ultimate simplicity of omnisymmetrical spacetime.

The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.

Tell that to the countless people throughout the ages who have had a woman they loved [daughter, sister, wife] die in childbirth, a death of slow agony, because the evolutionary kludge of a pelvis just baaarely big enough (and sometimes not quite big enough) to admit the passage of a large-brained human head, or any of the other "design" malfunctions that can happen (hemorrhaging, etc.). 

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

"What's true is already so.  Owning up to it won't make it any worse."  In other words, whether I "want" there to be a creator/creators or not is irrelevant.  Either such entities exist, or they don't.  That you ask the question suggests that you think believing that something exists just because you want it to is not a mark of small-child immaturity or questionable sanity.  Wishing Doesn't Make It So.

1.	Rather than, say, a process or trajectory of cosmic and biological evolution a la Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or a sublime equation that could fit on a T-shirt, or a synergetic integration of all known and unknown generalized operating principles of Universe or some such.

[Hatter23]

Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
 
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
 
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
 
Sincerely,
 
[name removed]

Flaws in your logic? OK let us start. If the human body was designed by a perfect designer, what purpose would flaw serve? Particularly, why would there be inactive genes, known colloquially as junk DNA, that match with reptilian species in a creation that happened to arrive complete and its present form? Why would there be transitional fossils of various extinct species?

The flaw in your logic is called circular reasoning, or begging the question.

Now you might state, as many ID/creations advocates do, that order cannot arrive from chaos. It can and I will allow you to demonstrate it to yourself in a limited form via a deck of cards. Shuffle a deck of cards seven times. According to mathematicians, seven is what is required to introduce maximum chaos into a 52 card deck.

Now look through it, remove any runs of three(or more) and three(or more) of a kind. Shuffle it again and remove the series again. You will notice a pattern here. You several runs and matches, creating order, order out of chaos. This is a very simplistic demonstration of how it can happen...but yes every sperm is a shuffle....you think of every animal that has ever had a chance to propagate during the millions of years the earth has existed and that's septillions and septillions of shuffles.

[kcrady]

yes every sperm is a shuffle

[sings]
Ev-e-ry sperm's a shuuuuf-llle
Ev-e-ry sperm is greaaaat
Wheee-never a sperm is waaa-sted
the frequency of its alleles is reduced in the population...
[/singing]

Hmmm, that just doesn't scan as well.  Have I just discovered the Argument From Monty Python Music Argument for the existence of God? 

[free]

I think to answer the original question, is that atheists don't have a horse in the race so to speak.  We have no dogmatic sense of loyalty to any method of the origins of the universe or any phenomena that occur in it.  If there is a creator (big if) and it could be supported with actual evidence (not blind faith), the majority of us would become theists.  We aren't trying to prosecute anyone for their witch-craft, we are seekers of truth.  We challenge everything.  We use discourse, evidence and reason to support what we believe.  If we are challenged and fail we will adapt our views to the new evidence.  If there isn't a creator (small if), we aren't justified.  All that means is that we accurately assessed a situation that was later supported further. 

The question is a silly one to ask.

[kin hell]

Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
I have only just started to read some of the sections on your website and thought you would be a good person to chat to because I have been seeking someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.

Why have you been seeking that proof?
 Do you need your doubts confirmed?
I suspect you already know, and all your following illogic is just a symptom of a desperate need not to give up a security blanket.
That illogic has already been addressed below by those far more capable than I, but I wonder if you will be honest enough to allow their replies any real time and effort, or will your understandable, but baseless, fears of a godless existence disallow true rational appraisal?
 

[jaimehlers]

To answer the last question first, whether I want there to be a creator or not has no bearing on anything.  Disbelieving in a real entity doesn't make it imaginary, and believing in an imaginary entity doesn't make it real.  So it serves no real purpose to 'believe' in a creator without hard evidence to show that there is one.  Still, it's a person's own time and energy to spend, if they so choose.  Just understand that to an atheist, worshiping a creator without evidence is a complete waste of time.

As for the complexity of life, the only thing that argument really says is that life is too complex even for God to get it right.  Which defeats the purpose of believing in God's omnipotence and omniscience, since an all-knowing being would know how to make life perfect, and an all-powerful being would be able to do it.

[Nick]

Id like it if there were gold at the end of rainbows but it still does not happen...where is that goose of mine?

[ParkingPlaces]

Whether I want there to be a creator is irrelevant. If I did, I would have already made up some story line that requires one, like you have. I prefer to look at the universe as it is, not as I wish it were. If I could have it any way I wanted, I would first wish away the myriad ways that humans suffer and cause suffering. And then i'd go to work on the natural sources of pain and death, like disease and earthquakes and such.

Since it is just wishing, and has no basis in reality, you religious types have to carefully explain away the more obvious flaws of this "creation" by letting your god allow suffering, etc. via some other made up mechanism, like the devil and/or original sin. (Or in your case, come up with the unique excuse that he did good enough when he made us).This allows you to account for the various inconsistencies in life. You know, the ones you don't like in a universe created by an all-loving being.

And it must be awkward. Just as you think you have everything figured out, along comes another christian who ostensibly agrees with you, and you find that their story is a bit different that yours. To them, their world makes sense because they've interpreted a bible passage differently or their interpretation of the many bible/science dictomies is different. But you both believe in a similarsounding god and you quite often cut them some slack. (Unless they think the earth orbits the sun or something. That's a stake-burning!)

I prefer existing in a world where I am allowed to be amazed by new discoveries than one where I think I have all the answers and have to, too often, try fit actual information into a version of reality that doesn't allow for such things. I much prefer my sense of awe and wonder about new discoveries over how christians, and especially the fundamentalist ones, have to react. Which is to groan in dispair and mutter "Oh shit!"

There may be over 300 sextillion stars in the universe, and you are a member of a group that thinks a god put us in orbit around just one of them, and after making it all  just for us. Wow.

That's 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. He could make all that and still not be able to prevent 25% of the men on this planet from getting a hernia in their lifetime, whether they are christian or not?

Not only am I glad there is no creator, I am also glad I haven't deceived myself into thinking there is.

[RaymondKHessel]

Do I want there to be a creator? lol... What a strange question to ask somebody. 20 bucks says there's some kind of cheezy Christian angle here; some kind of "gotchya" follow-up no matter what a person answers.

I honestly, truly don't care. It's not something I think about. Do you want there to be genies in lamps? Do you want to meet Bugs Bunny in person? I'm willing to bet you don't spend much time thinking about such things. Same thing with me and gods. An anthropomorphic "creator" is an absurdism that just doesn't blip on my reality radar.

As an aside, why would the universe care what I want anyway? I *want* my face on the one dollar bill. I *want* world peace. I *want* to wake up every morning next to a beautiful 5'8 140 lb Cello-playing Polynesian stripper with a PHD in Quantum Mechanics and a minor in Gangsta Rap.

You can't always get what you want. Mick Jagger. Wise man.

Wanting is all fine and good, but I don't waste time "wanting" stupid, nonsensical shit, like being besties with Bigfoot or getting a ride on a unicorn. Likewise, I don't go around wishing for invisible sky daddies to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, or looking for intangible, invisible, silent, cosmic father figures to go crying to with my problems. That's what books and friends are for.

If a "creator" existed somewhere, I fail to see how it would affect me anyway. Considering it would have never taken the time to say "Hi!" and introduce itself to the world at large, or otherwise make any impact on the world whatsoever, let alone use it's cosmic super powers to improve the world, it might as well be some random French guy working in some office park in Quebec. It/His existence would be utterly meaningless to me, it makes no difference to me whether or not it would exist.

Of course, these answers won't satisfy a Christian. They want an answer that specifically addresses Yahweh specifically, in all his big fat fumbling genocidal crybaby glory.

In which case, I'll go with both A.)"Yes, oh deary me, I SO want there to be an Eternal and all-knowing Foreskin Collector to love me and look over me and to torture people FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER if they're what I preceive as bad!"

and B.)"No, I don't want there to be a creator because I don't want to bend a knee to anybody, and I just want sin and sin and sin and never pay for it! DERP YAY!"

There ya go. Text book retard answers, hand-delivered to all the little retards in retardville. Being as you TOTALLY nailed a blasphemous, godless heathen with this totally original and ingenious philosophical question, you may now proceed to give glories and noogies and pat each other on the backs and buttocks.Yay! Altar boy molestation celebration begins promptly at six, out by the dumpsters behind the Circle K. Praise Him!   

[Omen]

someone who can prove to me that my logic is flawed

What's you're argument?

and that my faith in the creator of the universe is worthless and delusional.

Non-sequitur, poor use of logic doesn't mean you're delusional.  Worthless is a qualification that really has no applicable meaning here.  Either it is valid or it is not, mistakes are not worthless in that we learn from them.

You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.

There is nothing to miss because there is not a valid argument presented in this statement.  Effectively, you're presenting a non-sequitur that uses a qualification for complexity without explanation or validation to make an unwarranted conclusion.  Plus, ID proponents themselves claim 'perfection', pointing out what is less than perfect undermines their qualification.  Design is obviously not done by an omnipotent omniscience super being, but instead a series of blind non-random selective processes reliant on random variation.
 

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

Neither, either information exists to support a position or it doesn't.

[Nam]

I love it when people say, "You missed the point!" -- as if they know the entire truth of everything, yet, always, in another breath, they state they do not.

-Nam

[velkyn]

However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.

so you're god can't make things better?  not much of a god is it? 

Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.

see above.

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

Ah, I'm seeing the usual theist attempt to accuse the atheist of wanting no god since that would put a damper on the babt-eating. 

However, if there was a god that was worth following, sure I'm down with that god.  I enjoy playing clerics in D&D where gods are useful beings taht actually do things.  With the lack of evidence for your god, it doesn't seem that it exists at all, much less does anything worthwhile.     

[wright]

Dear Author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees,
 
However, I read the section on Intelligent Design and immediately note that you have basically said, the human body doesn’t work “perfectly” therefore it evolved.   You missed the point completely that the very existence of living things, ie they work well enough to live and procreate, proves the existance of God.   The flaws in the systems are so minor that they are negligible compared to the parts of the systems that do work.
 
Anyway, if you are interested in pointing out the flaws in my logic, please respond.
 
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?
 
Sincerely,
 
[name removed]

"so minor they are negligible"? Seriously? Smallpox, AIDS, guinea worms, SIDS... kcrady already covered what can go wrong with childbirth... all "negligible"? Spoken by someone who almost certainly has never been touched by any of the above! Pull your head outta your ass, already!

As to your last question, I'm with plethora: any "designer" of the universe as we know it is either utterly unconcerned with the well-being of living things, or a sadist.

[pianodwarf]

"so minor they are negligible"? Seriously? Smallpox, AIDS, guinea worms, SIDS... kcrady already covered what can go wrong with childbirth... all "negligible"? Spoken by someone who almost certainly has never been touched by any of the above! Pull your head outta your ass, already!

It really is ridiculous.

I remember reading one of Richard Bach's books a while back, where he talks about something that he used to do quite a bit: barnstorming throughout the midwest, selling rides in his biplane.  He related the story of one woman who wanted a ride but wasn't sure whether the plane was safe.  He told her that the plane was built one year before he was born and was still going to be going strong long after they were both dead.  And the biplane, obviously, was designed and built by puny humans, not an omnimax being.

Personally, though, I think my favorite design "feature" of the human body is the fact that the openings for the esophagus and the trachea are located right next to each other, so that we can conveniently choke on our food.  Brilliant.

[dloubet]

Contrary to what theists insist, I think it's the lack of a creator that allows our lives to have any meaning. If there's a creator god, then everything we do is just busy-work. If there isn't a creator, then the things we uncover about the universe are genuine discoveries, and not just the pointless rote answers in the back of the textbook.

So to answer the question at face value, no, I would not want there to be a creator.

[Emily]

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

It all depends. I notice you didn't capitalize creator so it might imply a non-personal figure. If this is the case then I don't care. If there is a god  (with a lower case 'g',) then what difference does it make if there is a creator or not. In my mind the deists are the closest ones to showing good evidence for the existence of their god, simply because (even though deism falls somewhere on the god of the gaps scale) their creator comes the closest to existing, and even then it's pretty far off.

As for a creator of the universe is concerned. I don't want there to be one. I find that it takes away the excitement of discoveries regarding how the universe originated, how this ball of rock that we live on formed, and how life formed and evolved. Personally it's no fun to simply point the finger as some all-mighty creator, whether it be the god of the bible or a non-personal god. If it's the god of the bible then he gets no respect from me because of how he appears in his holy book and I don't want to acknowledge him as the creator because he has done a horrible god; and if it's a non-personal god then I'd love to party with it on a Friday night, but still would be upset when he begins bragging about his greatest creation. (If it's the non-personal god I am sure he was drunk when it created everything. Because, as beautiful as the universe and all that is in it is, he sure did a horrible job considering how the universe wants to kill us. Then again, YHWH must've been really hammered too.)

But I don't care if there is one. I just don't want there to be certain ones, because some have such an over-inflatted ego the world would be better if they just didn't exist at all.

-Em

[TruthSearcher]

Hi, I'm the anonymous poster, actually I just sent this email to the moderator and they posted it for me and invited me to sign up so I have, especially since so many of you responded to the post.

Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.  So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.   Who cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made, lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.   Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

[nogodsforme]

My intelligently designed arthritic knees are talking to me today. And the intelligently designed miscarriage and high-risk pregnancy I had make me so happy that we humans are not just some evolutionary accident, but the carefully planned result of a kind and caring super-being.....
 
"God made us good enough to reproduce."

Is that the new Republican campaign slogan? So all we humans have to do is
1) survive until age 16 or so
2) f@ck
3) make a baby
4) squirt it out and
5) die?

So much for the argument that having no god belief takes all the meaning out of life.

PS My opinion of god has no bearing on how I do research, conduct my life or do anything else. Just like my opinion of Batman, Darth Vader or Wonder Woman have no bearing on any of that. Because god (like Batman, Darth Vader and Wonder Woman) does not exist. However, I do wish that Batman existed, because he is hawt.

[Truth OT]

By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

I would love for there to be a creator. And I'd really like it if one day I woke up and realized that the creator was me and though I'd been sleeping od the job for a while, I had the power to fix everything and right all wrongs!

or

I could settle for there being a being that perhaps created the universe and was more powerful, intelligent, fair, and loving than any man has ever been that knows specifically about and cares for me who also has a vested interest in my happiness and wellbeing. Such a being would be unspeakably cool from my perspective.

Nevermind, this is kinda selfish and short-sighted. Who'd really be this self-centered and desire to make up a God to suit their own personal likes and biases at the potential expense of anyone that had a different perspective or different likes?.............................

[Truth OT]

Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.  So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.   Who cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made, lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.   Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

Welcome friend!

Say I was to grant you that a creator does in fact exist. How is it that you can objectively and definitively equate such a being with what you believe your particular God to be? Remember that your opinion of God not only has no bearing on whether such a being exists or not, but additionally, your opinion on that being's qualities and charactoristics is equally as insignificant.

[Emily]

Welcome to the site.

lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.   

and this is where your logic is flawed. It's called a god of the gaps argument, which basically states that because of a lack of evidence for how life can come about through a non-living compound, there must be a god until it is proven that live can. Which doesn't really make sense because, of course, we can counter your argument with how this creator came about.

And those scientists in the the field of abiogenesis are currently working on finding out how life did originate through a natural process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Alzael]

Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.

Depends on the god. The Christian god, absolutely. That would be because he is.

So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.

That's about what everyone has said, yes. Though it is not based on the opinion that god is a sadist. It is based on reality. Reality doesn't care what we want to believe.

for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true)

No we don't. You're actually just making that up.

so until someone shows this scientific law

Not a scientific law. A "scientific law" has a specific meaning. You clearly don't know what that meaning is, so don't go around using the term.

Furthermore there is nothing scientific about what you just said. It was made-up and stated out of igorance of biology. Please learn what you're talking about before you make claims.

then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.

No, we should think that only if the evidence leads us to such a conslusion. Which so far it doesn't. Or at least it points to other ideas as being more likely.

Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

No it doesn't. Or at least it shouldn't. If your opinion of god affects your research then, quite frankly, you're not a very good researcher.

[ParkingPlaces]

Hi, I'm the anonymous poster, actually I just sent this email to the moderator and they posted it for me and invited me to sign up so I have, especially since so many of you responded to the post.

Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.  So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence. 

We think the god that christians worship is a douche bag. Well, not really, because we like douche bags better than that. But it's true, the dude the christians worship doesn't come across as too nice a guy if one uses standards not concocted by those hard up for a trip to heaven.

What we really think is that there is no god. That makes it a lot easier to be critical of those who disagree. Because most of us have no idea why they believe such things. Not in the face of all the rapidly increasing knowledge about our world and the universe.

Who cares what you think the creator should be like, or what kind of creation they should have made, lets just look at the evidence, for example, life comes from life (we all know this to be currently true), so until someone shows this scientific law to be false then we should be thinking that the first living cell must have come from a living being regardless of how hopeless we think that being is.   Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

We care when we are ostracized and told that we are hated more than most other sorts of people. We care when we are forced by circumstances to either participate or go out of way to not participate in religious activities that we disagree with. We care when we know that religion has been and is a huge source of friction between peoples. People die over this stuff regularly, and none of it can proven to be even kinda-maybe true.

Science looks at where the research takes them. You seem to think that life has to come from life, while science is looking at other explanations, which seem more likely than this god guy. And you can't have it both ways. Gobs of christians come here and tell us god is not living in our plane of existence, so as a source of life, he wouldn't count. And of course we always ask where a god would come from. How someone can not imagine how something could have come from nothing (not what actually happened, as per science, but christians always insist that is what science is claiming) but think that a god could always have been is beyond me.

From my perspective as an atheist, it takes rather impressive mental gymnastics and lots of personal tomfoolery to actually believe something for which there is no evidence other than a few stories from some long dead people. I would think that jc telling the crowd he would be back in their lifetime and then not following through would be enough to discourage the masses, but nope, that's just something else to be hopeful about.

The whole story is about hope, both here on earth and in the afterlife. And the irony is that hope has led millions to early graves, other millions to participate in atrocities that no human should ever experience, and dooms further millions to one or the other fate in the future. The many many religions of the world, often at odds with their non-brethren brethren, should in an of themselves make it obvious that each one is a fairy tale.

I assume you don't believe in any of the hindu gods. How hard is that. Do you have to do any soul searching before you reject vishnu as a probable deity? I doubt it. And using exactly the same process (which goes like this: "You gotta be kidding me!"), I reject the christian god just as easily.

Once christians start living longer, better lives, have fewer health issues, freely share their wealth with others and start dying with smiles on all their faces, I might sit up and listen. In the meantime, I have no reason whatsoever to take either their or any other god stories seriously.

Well, maybe Odin, but even he is a little iffy 

Edit: Fixed quoting error.

[Irish]

Hi TruthSearcher,

I see that you have joined us here and I am glad that you have.  Seeing that you have the ability to stand up for your beliefs is a good thing about you.

My post here is simply a warning.  You are going to get many responses in quick secession, considering that there are far many more who oppose your stance than support it.  Don't hesitate to slow the conversation down to answer questions at your pace.

[kin hell]

  Please be aware that our opinion of "God" has a huge bearing on how we conduct research and we need to be open and honest about how it affects our research.

OK then 

 
Have you even one shard of evidence of the existence of any god (let alone yours) that doesn't, in the end, just come down to your personal feelings?

If you cannot offer the slightest independently verifiable evidence of such a god, then is it not just your "opinion of god" that allows you to believe?