Those condescending atheists

[Alexander]

Actually the question wasn't one of atheism  so much, but directed at the poster, because he comes across a spiritually void.
But thanks for the response nonetheless.

My apologies. I just can't resist giving my input sometimes because so many people hold the view that atheists are zombies who 'believe in nothing'.

Strange as it may seem, we are much alike, though I believe in God, just not in the form as you stated, Religious institutions put forth.

Interesting, although I should probably state for the record that I do not believe in any type of God, religious versions or otherwise. But I think I understand what you are saying.

Which is why is was trying to get American, (I think that was the posters name) to be a bit more open in his approach to all things spiritual, he strikes me as someone damaged and disillusioned by a specific Religion or Religion in general, which is rather quite common among those claiming Atheist status.

I think that many atheists come off this way for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Terms like "spiritual" have become synonymous with "supernatural" to many people, so most atheists consider this a dirty word and will try to separate themselves from it. For example, if an atheist enjoys a sunset or beautiful waterfall (or whatever floats your boat) they will be very unlikely to describe this as a spiritual experience because other people will equate this to having a "religious experience" which is not even remotely the same. They don't want to lessen their experience with the wrong language....if that makes sense.

But my take on God is not one of an individual, rather a collective, as one might find in the insect world, termites, ants etc, for lack of a better description.
I see all of us an extension of God, in other words, mankind is God as a collective.
But that's how I've always viewed it, even as a child and it was strengthened after dying a few times.

Would that not be pantheism?

[Solar]

My apologies. I just can't resist giving my input sometimes because so many people hold the view that atheists are zombies who 'believe in nothing'.

Interesting, although I should probably state for the record that I do not believe in any type of God, religious versions or otherwise. But I think I understand what you are saying.

I think that many atheists come off this way for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Terms like "spiritual" have become synonymous with "supernatural" to many people, so most atheists consider this a dirty word and will try to separate themselves from it. For example, if an atheist enjoys a sunset or beautiful waterfall (or whatever floats your boat) they will be very unlikely to describe this as a spiritual experience because other people will equate this to having a "religious experience" which is not even remotely the same. They don't want to lessen their experience with the wrong language....if that makes sense.

Would that not be pantheism?

That is a bit of a simplification, but for loss of a better description, it will suffice.

[anti-American]

I am a spiritual person in some sense of the word. I am a deep thinker. I have many thoughts that cannot be expressed with language. Many things that others never think about are deeply philosophical issues that I think about. I have trouble sleeping at night because my mind just never wants to stop thinking. People say I am too analytical. I can assure all of you that I am not spiritually or philosophically bankrupt. I'm not an atheist because I don't care and never bothered to think much about it; I am an atheist because I care very deeply and have spent God knows how much time (pun intended) thinking about these types of things. 

[taxed]

I am a spiritual person in some sense of the word. I am a deep thinker. I have many thoughts that cannot be expressed with language. Many things that others never think about are deeply philosophical issues that I think about. I have trouble sleeping at night because my mind just never wants to stop thinking. People say I am too analytical. I can assure all of you that I am not spiritually or philosophically bankrupt. I'm not an atheist because I don't care and never bothered to think much about it; I am an atheist because I care very deeply and have spent God knows how much time (pun intended) thinking about these types of things.

I appreciate that you are smart and a deep thinker, but this is another place where young athiests go off  the rails.  Your assumption that deep thinkers can't have faith and be religious is silly.

[Solar]

I appreciate that you are smart and a deep thinker, but this is another place where young athiests go off  the rails.  Your assumption that deep thinkers can't have faith and be religious is silly.

Most scientists would agree with you.
I'm a deep thinker and smart as well, if you don't believe me, ask God, we talk all the time.

I find with age comes wisdom, when no matter how you try, you can't explain certain miracles of life, without coming to the conclusion it had everything to do with an intelligence far greater than all of mankind combined,  past, present and future.

It's pure arrogance for an individual to think they were able to come here without some unseen force helping them along the way.

[anti-American]

I appreciate that you are smart and a deep thinker, but this is another place where young athiests go off  the rails.  Your assumption that deep thinkers can't have faith and be religious is silly.

I was not aware that I was making such an assumption. There are certainly some religious people that lack deep thinking skills but there are also plenty of non-religious people with that same deficiency (e.g., godless liberals).

Most scientists would agree with you.
I'm a deep thinker and smart as well, if you don't believe me, ask God, we talk all the time.

I find with age comes wisdom, when no matter how you try, you can't explain certain miracles of life, without coming to the conclusion it had everything to do with an intelligence far greater than all of mankind combined,  past, present and future.

It's pure arrogance for an individual to think they were able to come here without some unseen force helping them along the way.

It is true that we can't explain the amazing complexity of life and the universe. But it is illogical to think that asserting that the universe and life has "everything to do with an intelligence far greater than mankind combined, past, present, and future" solves the mystery. The problem is that you can't explain this great intelligent "unseen force" that is greater than the existence it is supposed to explain. Therefore, your introduction of what is essentially a lame deus ex machina explanation only creates a bigger unsolved mystery. If the deus ex machina people call God is needed to explain something less complex and inferior to said deus ex machina, then surely the deus ex machina requires an explanation of its own. In other words, if you "know" God exists because life and the universe is too great and complex to exist without some force even greater than God, then God must, for the same reason as the thing it is supposed to explain, have an explanation. n.

[taxed]

I was not aware that I was making such an assumption. There are certainly some religious people that lack deep thinking skills but there are also plenty of non-religious people with that same deficiency (e.g., godless liberals).

My apologies then...

It is true that we can't explain the amazing complexity of life and the universe. But it is illogical to think that

We don't know.  To assess if something is logical or not, you need to have a pretty strong understanding of the discussion: in this case, creation and beginning of the universe.  I think I'm correct to say it is so vast, and in the scope of the universe, our brain power is so minute that to declare a side of a philosophy that has been discussed since the beginning of time as "illogical" seems silly to me. 

asserting that the universe and life has "everything to do with an intelligence far greater than mankind combined, past, present, and future" solves the mystery. The problem is that you can't explain this great intelligent "unseen force" that is greater than the existence it is supposed to explain.

I've never walked across a bunch of ants sitting around discussing us humans.  Our senses are only calibrated to a setting that our designer, creator, or whatever, has determined.  A dog, for their own hearing senses, can hear frequencies we can't.  Why?  Who made that decision?  If you want to say it's an evolution, that dogs acquired that heightened sense over time, then fine.  That's a great discussion encompassed by so many biological, astronomical, ecological, and a whole other bunch of 'icals' that we don't even have a gnat's ass hair's worth of knowledge about, in the scope of the universe.  To play the odds, to say we were created is a 50/50 shot.  We were or we weren't.  To go down other roads of philosophy, like theory of evolution, opens up a kaleidoscopic cascade of infinite possibilities that we will never know nor come close to really knowing, significantly reducing the odds that you're on the right track.  With a creator, I can flip a coin and maybe be right.

Therefore, your introduction of what is essentially a lame deus ex machina explanation only creates a bigger unsolved mystery. If the deus ex machina people call God is needed to explain something less complex and inferior to said deus ex machina, then surely the deus ex machina requires an explanation of its own. In other words, if you "know" God exists because life and the universe is too great and complex to exist without some force even greater than God, then God must, for the same reason as the thing it is supposed to explain, have an explanation. n.

Your assumption is based on you know what God is.  What is time to God?  Is it relative to our time?  How materially dense is God, compared to us?  We can sit in our nice comfy Earth with an ideal climate that our bodies are magically calibrated to live in and point to the sky and say "there is no God" all we want, but to my way of thinking, you aren't appreciating the possibilities of the unexplained universe.

[TNHarley]

Is the OP tryign to say morallity is not natural?
That it was given to us from a bunch of shepherds tripping on natural drugs? LOL

[anti-American]

taxed, I don't think you understand the argument that I am making. The problem is that your deus ex machina explanation for the existence of life and the universe is even more inexplicable, complex, and unlikely to come about naturally than life and the universe. It doesn't bother you that you can't explain God at all but logically justify God's existence as the only way to explain the inexplicable. If the universe and life needs an explanation because it is complex and wonderful, then surely God, being infinitely more complex and wonderful, also needs an explanation. Say there is a hole in my wall that I want to fix. Would it make any sense to make the hole even bigger? No, of course not.

[taxed]

taxed, I don't think you understand the argument that I am making. The problem is that your deus ex machina explanation for the existence of life and the universe is even more inexplicable, complex, and unlikely to come about naturally than life and the universe.

If you say so.  I don't pretend to know how life was created.

It doesn't bother you that you can't explain God at all

Correct.  I can't explain God.

but logically justify God's existence as the only way to explain the inexplicable. If the universe and life needs an explanation because it is complex and wonderful, then surely God, being infinitely more complex and wonderful, also needs an explanation. Say there is a hole in my wall that I want to fix. Would it make any sense to make the hole even bigger? No, of course not.

Your assumption that I believe in a God that is "complex and wonderful" implies that I'm religious and believe in such a thing.  I don't know how we got here or how we were created.  I go on a limb and say we came about from the universe somehow, but how, I have no idea.  All I can do is philosophize and think about possibilities, while not labeling those that believe in a supreme being as "illogical", as if I have a clue.

[MFA]

taxed, I don't think you understand the argument that I am making. The problem is that your deus ex machina explanation for the existence of life and the universe is even more inexplicable, complex, and unlikely to come about naturally than life and the universe.

God, by definition, doesn't "come abou.t"

It doesn't bother you that you can't explain God at all but logically justify God's existence as the only way to explain the inexplicable. If the universe and life needs an explanation because it is complex and wonderful, then surely God, being infinitely more complex and wonderful, also needs an explanation. Say there is a hole in my wall that I want to fix. Would it make any sense to make the hole even bigger? No, of course not.

What's the alternative?  Multiple universes that could never be verified empirically?  How is that not a bigger hole?

Also, why would it be necessary for a Creator to be more complex than his creation?

[Solar]

We're here, therefore something created us, hence a creator.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

[kramarat]

We're here, therefore something created us, hence a creator.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

It's not quite that simple; it also requires faith.

Although, it also requires faith to believe that in all of the known universe, on a tiny speck of dust called earth, some water and chemical elements that exist throughout the universe got mixed together, and all life on earth was spontaniously created.

[Solar]

It's not quite that simple; it also requires faith.

Although, it also requires faith to believe that in all of the known universe, on a tiny speck of dust called earth, some water and chemical elements that exist throughout the universe got mixed together, and all life on earth was spontaniously created.

I'm not even talking about life, I was talking about existence in general, the fact that there is even something in existence, space or matter. Something had to create it.
Then add to that life, one has to be a fool to think all this is an accident, accidents require two ententes for it to happen, otherwise there would be nothing.

For every action, there's a reaction, something created the first action.

[kramarat]

I'm not even talking about life, I was talking about existence in general, the fact that there is even something in existence, space or matter. Something had to create it.
Then add to that life, one has to be a fool to think all this is an accident, accidents require two ententes for it to happen, otherwise there would be nothing.

For every action, there's a reaction, something created the first action.

Yeah, but I can also understand how people that haven't been taught about God can easily dismiss the concept. Others that have been taught, are receiving a constant barrage from the left, about how stupid it is, and choose to abandon God on their own.
I don't hold it against any of them. Personally, I've had too many things happen in my life for me to believe in anything but God. I don't bother arguing about it, because there is no way I can expain what God is, in scientific terms. I'm pretty sure that the answer would be beyond our comprehension.