the religion of peace

[sasguru]

Cards on the table, I believe that there probably is a God.

Controversial I know, but I just don't buy the idea that everything in nature was created purely by natural selection. I just think it's too unlikely.

I'm not a fundamentalist, I certainly don't believe that any one religion has a monopoly on knowledge of said deity and I certainly can't abide the idea of believers in one faith judging their beliefs to be any more valid than those of others, I just think some intelligent force must have been at play at some point in the process that lead to our existence.

I don't see this as mutually exclusive of Darwinian theory, physics, geology or any other science that delusional fundamentalists claim to be heresy.

I just think that something else is at work and have the sense to not claim I know exactly what it is.

On the other hand, an atheist has to believe absolutely that they are right in their notion of there not being a creative force at work, despite the vast complexity of the natural world around them.

IMHO, I believe that is an act of faith, with potentially as little scientific merit as a fundamentalist who believes they know "the truth" about God and that their truth is the only valid explanation to the detriment of all others.

Anyone else feel the same way, or am I about to be flame grilled?

The sole basis for your argument is that the world is too complex for there NOT to have been a guiding intelligence.
There is no a priori reason for believing that compexity cannot arise from very simple basic conditions.
For example it is perfectly possible to write a computer program that can demonstrate immense complexity from a small set of basic rules.

(The opposite is also true. Look at SKA - a very complicated program that does bugger all of any use)

It is of course possible that we are running in some kind of world created by a supernatural being.

But by Occams Razor I prefer the simpler explanation.

[Zippy]

Anyone else feel the same way, or am I about to be flame grilled?

Would you like fries with that?
There is absolutely no evidence to support your belief so I disagree with you. There - that wasn't too bad was it?

[expat]

Cards on the table, I believe that there probably is a God.

Controversial I know, but I just don't buy the idea that everything in nature was created purely by natural selection. I just think it's too unlikely.
...
On the other hand, an atheist has to believe absolutely that they are right in their notion of there not being a creative force at work, despite the vast complexity of the natural world around them.

Reasonable points, but I question some:

What do you mean "unlikely"? Why do you think that nature existing without a god is "unlikely"? IMHO you have just pushed the question back a bit, not clarified it.

I have given up arguing about the use of the words atheist and agnostic. Both end up being traps for the unwary nonbeliever. Your definition of an atheist is indeed a type of faith, and I do not have that. But EO's definition of an agnostic is a bit too much like someone who would like to have faith. Actually both words as here defined are terms of religion, and therefore kidnap the non-believer into the religion game.

I would rather say: I do not have religion. Kindly therefore do not classify me in religious terms.

[landl]

Who creates the simple rules?

The sole basis for your argument is that the world is too complex for there NOT to have been a guiding intelligence.
There is no a priori reason for believing that compexity cannot arise from very simple basic conditions.
For example it is perfectly possible to write a computer program that can demonstrate immense complexity from a small set of basic rules.


It is of course possible that we are running in some kind of world created by a supernatural being.

But by Occams Razor I prefer the simpler explanation.

You're correct, the whole basis of my argument is that I believe this is probably too complex a system to have emerged accidentally. Even if the apparent complexity is actually based on a set of simple rules, from where did those simple rules arise? I don't know the answer to that, it just leaves me with enough doubt to believe something else is at play.

[BrilloPad]

I hope there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

It would take away the whole point of faith.

[NotAllThere]

...In reality everyone is an atheist - there are many "Gods" that fundies reject (e.g. the sun God Ra), why can't they just go that one step further and reject all Gods?

Said Richard Dawkins....

Why can't you athiests think for yourself, insteadly of endlessly repeating the mantras of your iman? I'm amazed no-one has mentioned the tooth-fairy yet.

[sasguru]

You're correct, the whole basis of my argument is that I believe this is probably too complex a system to have emerged accidentally. Even if the apparent complexity is actually based on a set of simple rules, from where did those simple rules arise? I don't know the answer to that, it just leaves me with enough doubt to believe something else is at play.

So you assume a creator of the initial simple rules?
But that only complicates things further and doesn't help you because you have to ask who created the extremely complicated creator who created the simple rules (and the rules he/she/it lives by).

[landl]

That was gently done

Would you like fries with that?
There is absolutely no evidence to support your belief so I disagree with you. There - that wasn't too bad was it?

...and I sir/madam believe that there is a reasonable probability that you are incorrect, and would defend to the death your right to be so.

Ahhh, if only the middle east could be like this.

[EternalOptimist]

Reasonable points, but I question some:

What do you mean "unlikely"? Why do you think that nature existing without a god is "unlikely"? IMHO you have just pushed the question back a bit, not clarified it.

I have given up arguing about the use of the words atheist and agnostic. Both end up being traps for the unwary nonbeliever. Your definition of an atheist is indeed a type of faith, and I do not have that. But EO's definition of an agnostic is a bit too much like someone who would like to have faith. Actually both words as here defined are terms of religion, and therefore kidnap the non-believer into the religion game.

I would rather say: I do not have religion. Kindly therefore do not classify me in religious terms.

ok , lets do the semantics then.
I would not like to have faith. I dont want faith in religion, I dont want faith in Atheism.
I want belief. I want to be shown the evidence either way, then I will have belief. Faith, is a form of madness in this view. You want to change your faith sir ? just change your mind

[sasguru]

Said Richard Dawkins....

Why can't you athiests think for yourself, insteadly of endlessly repeating the mantras of your iman? I'm amazed no-one has mentioned the tooth-fairy yet.

I got that argument from the latest Jack Reacher novel.
Thought it was quite good.

HTH