Oftentimes on here I see statements that I have difficulty understanding, would someone explain them for me?

"Without god, we could not exist" My confusion lies not with the reference to god, but in the "could not" part. As far as I'm aware, Abiogenesis and Evolution have essentially explained the origins of life and our species. I understand that many people don't accept them as... show more "Without god, we could not exist"

My confusion lies not with the reference to god, but in the "could not" part. As far as I'm aware, Abiogenesis and Evolution have essentially explained the origins of life and our species. I understand that many people don't accept them as explanations, but why dismiss the possibility of them being correct? Even if you find it far-fetched, why act as if it's impossible when it's been shown not only possible, but likely? The language here could at least be open to the possibility of life without supernatural causation, don't you think? Couldn't it be phrased "without god, we probably wouldn't exist"? Isn't that more honest?

"Atheists are closed-minded"

Open mindedness is the ability to consider an alternative scenario or possibility, not the obligation to accept it outright. We use empirical evidence and unbiased observation to filter out ideas which lack sufficient basis. Are theists saying we should relax our standards of evidence? If we do, should we relax them for just your claims or for all claims? What exactly are you trying to say? What course of action are you asking us to follow? I mean, we're a lot more alike than you think, you know that it would be impossible for you to suddenly switch faiths, you're not about to just say "Oh, I think I'll join -this other religion- now.." You, like us, have to be swayed somehow, converted somehow, convinced. We can't just flick a switch in our heads and start believing.

"You need to have faith"

There are many kinds of faith, the simple kind, where you trust your partner to pay the bills or your boss to inform you about any changes at work, for example. There's the kind that's a logical expectation based on previous experience, where you expect a dropped object to fall, or for ice to be cold. Then there's the religious sense of faith, where you believe something without any real indication of it's truth beforehand (this is the kind of faith that we say often relies on logical fallacies, like argument from popularity "over two billion people believe..", authority "Galileo believed..", ignorance "you can't tell me how X happened, so it /must/ have been god.." or increduality "I can't believe X could have happened any other way /but/ by god.."). I mean, it's all well and good for you to have faith, but when you want us to have it, are you refferring only to the third sense? Because it seems kind of silly to think we don't have the first two!

"Atheists are mad at god"

This is a complete mystery to me, I mean, not many people believe in Zues, does that mean they're angry at him? I shouldn't think so. We aren't angry at God, we don't beleive in him. You might find it hard to believe, it may seem almost alien and foreign to you, but we don't. The way you feel about all the other deities dreamt up over the course of histry, be it Ra, Apollo, Thor, Quetzacoatl, or Poseidon, is the way we feel about /all/ deities. Really, we're not lying about it. I know most holy texts say something akin to "on the hearts of all men is imprinted the awareness of god" or something similar, but really, we do not believe in god(s). At all. We're not angry, we're not trying to avoid consequences for our actions, we just don't believe.

"God is like the wind, you can't see him but you can feel him"

This one gives me a headache, it honestly puzzles me. Do you think that the wind is supernatural? Ethereal? Because wind is just the movement of air molocules, the reason it can be felt is because it /does/ have a physical componant, wind is a colorless gas, true, but it can be cooled to the point where it becomes a liquid, and it can be frozen, it's just like any other materiel, it can be a solid, liquid, or gas, depending on temperature. It can be quantified, measured, stored, and experimented on. The god you so often try to convince us exists cannot be quantified or observed in any way, we can't see him, hear him, physically touch him, smell him, or in any other way detect him with our senses, why do you compare him to wind?

Anyway, sorry about being so vociferous, but I really want serious answers, so I have to be as specific as I can be.
Update: Exo, nobody believes "the Big Bang created life", some people believe the Big Bang created all the matter in the universe, but Life came about MUCH later from Abiogenesis, not the Big Bang.
Update 2: Exo: read the part about logical fallacies again, slowly, what is an argument from ignorance..?
Update 3: But Exo, just for you, here, an excerpt from wikipedia "Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that... show more But Exo, just for you, here, an excerpt from wikipedia "Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the Universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis"
11 answers 11