Whatever else they believe or disbelieve is up to them.

I never have understood the ridiculous idea that a lack in belief in God/Gods meant we all shared the same political beliefs.

What a freakin' crock.

Edit: I thought politics and religion were supposed to be separate in this country.

the most fundamental issue of religion, an issue which they are more and more embarrassed by their continuing inability to argue credibly in favor of. So yes, they argue pompously, let's just forget that there is still no credible and convincing evidence for the actual, physical existence of "god" (call it Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, whatever). Let's try to paint those who still point to the glaring lack of evidence (for intelligent, non-superstitious, 21st century humans) for the god(s) that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in as hopelessly behind the times, and that it doesn't really matter whether there is such a being (outside of the imagination of their adherents) or not. Let's try lamely to classify the arguments about whether a being capable of creating the entire universe actually exists as "abstract" or "theoretical", instead of eminently practical and intimately connected with the nature of reality.

And while we're at it, let's try to smear atheists as unconcerned about "justice" because they happen to point out the glaring deficiencies of religion, as if the two were mutually exclusive.

The following from the article is especially telling:

"It’s also a step that both atheists and people who care about social justice should applaud..." (Emphasis mine.)

Yep, sure reads like a smear to me.

As if atheists didn't already care about social justice, exactly.

Fucking bigoted hit piece. Disgusting to see it posted here on DU.

Essentially, the debate between atheism and theism is a debate between two different philosophies.

One, the theists, believe in a deity, or deities, or a creative force. Definitions and names vary, but theism is belief without proof.

The second, the atheists, believe that there are no gods or creative forces. Again, the exact words can change but again, atheism is non-belief without proof.

Whether a person believes in a deity or not, working together to make the world a more just place should be a self-evident goal. That goal should inspire all people, believers and non-believers, to work together. But calling each other names is not the way to inspire cooperation. And yes, there is and has been much judgmental behavior on the part of "religious" people against others who believe differently. But matching that religious bad behavior with atheistic judgmental behavior should not be a goal either.

well no, anymore than your non-belief in the existence of santa claus, easter bunnies, leprechauns, tooth faeries, harry potter, or zeus is "non-belief without proof". The general atheist position is that belief requires evidence. Claims made without evidence are not believed. It requires no leap of faith to not believe in that for which there is no evidence.

who believes, without proof, that there is no deity, and a believer, again without proof, who believes that there is a deity?

Neither proposition is provable in the scientific sense. One cannot test for a deity or the non-existence of a deity.

But faith is often defined as the willing suspension of disbelief. One can believe in a deity, or justice, or goodness even though none of these concepts present with real evidence.

Perhaps the problem here is that the word belief is substituted too often for knowledge.

I know that water boils at 100 Celsius at sea level. It can be proven.

I believe in a creative force. I can never prove that there is one, nor do I feel the need to do so.

What do you feel about substituting the word knowledge for belief I this discussion?

So I can't PROVE God doesn't exist. You miss the point.
Knowledge starts with a blank page. It fills with information. If I throw an apple into the air, it comes down. Hence Gravity. The page remains empty when God is considered. Until you can provide evidence God exists, he remains off the page. You don't get to put God on the page and force me to prove him off.

I was 5 years old when I realized the "god concept" was ridiculous.

I am now well over 60, and have not been convinced otherwise.

It is simply the demand that evidence is required for belief. It is not equivalent to belief without evidence. Belief without evidence requires faith - it literally is faith, as in a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Non belief is just that, a lack of belief based on the fact that there is a lack of proof.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. - rational wiki.


However, if we are going down this road you really need to explain exactly what you mean by "god" first. Otherwise what happens at this point is that god attributes shape shift to repel arguments against the existence of gods. I ain't playing that game.

"who believes, without proof, that there is no deity"

I don't actively believe there is no god. Can't know. What I do know, is that every last stupid shit that ever said 'god exists' can prove fuck-all about the claim. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Dismissing someone's claim isn't a positive belief or claim in and of itself. I readily acknowledge that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that does not wish to be directly perceived by me, by definition, I cannot perceive it. (Or it wouldn't be omnipotent.)

The possibility of such a being existing isn't something I can or even attempt to disprove. Can't be done. But a god that does wish to be perceived, can in fact offer evidence that it's believers can use to validate their claims. So far, such evidence is non-existent.

Who believes, without proof, that there is a deity?

I have yet to hear any argument or proof to make me reconsider my longtime aged nonbelief.

But, I believe the tide is turning, so there is hope.

it saddens me.

i am not so sure that percentage of the population are fooled. I think it is more reflex and self preservation when they answer the question.

The non belief of the atheist is not "without proof". It is the consequence of there being no proof.

Claim made... no proof of claim... therefore claim not believed.


That's the difference. Theists make a claim lacking any substantive evidence, atheists don't buy it because it is lacking any substantive evidence.


This is not a difficult thing to get right.

If your respondent doesn't have a good grasp of Logic, you're going to get pure gibberish like that, and that just what that was, PURE Gibberish.
I am an Atheist, and I have a strong sense of social justice. It does not take a belief in anything to allow me to understand harmony, and justice. To conflate that ONLY religion is capable of that ability is a false assertion. You see I operate on PROOF & FACTS, NOT "belief". I find no need for that, as it is superfluous at best, and completely unnecessary.

should be a self-evident goal."

This is the point. When we stop arguing about unresolvable things and look at what we have in common, there is tremendous opportunity.

There are those that are not going to put down their gauntlets but there are those that will.

in far fewer words.

The "unresolvable things" obviously cannot be resolved and/or proven.

it does us absolutely no good to ignore the problem.

E.g., "life begins at conception"

Nice personal swipe though, stay classy as always there cbayer.

Many atheists would love to move beyond the argument of whether God exists or not. We would love to turn our attention to matters of justice. The problem is, it's religion that puts up these walls against social change. The Bible says gays are evil. The Koran says women are second class. In order to tear down these walls, the old myths and superstitions must give way. The believers who also welcome justice are too few and have no impact on the religious powers that be. Pope Frank is still a homophobic misogynist. Islam shows no sign of changing.

movement" opposes? Oh wait, it would appear to be "religion". So we atheists should ignore the ideological foundation of intolerance and instead keep putting bandaids on the wounds those ideologies create. Yeah, that's an excellent idea.

The latter meaning the right to believe what one will and not have others' beliefs forced upon anyone or codified into law.

So my debates are on keeping religion out of public education, out of gov't institutions and defeating theocrats on election day.

Gods' existences are irrelevant to that debate. What matters is true religious freedom -- something in which RW religionists obviously do not believe.

by progressive and liberal people makes it even more critical for non-believers to join hands with like minded believers to cause change.

Let's turn our attention to matters of justice. Let's agree that we have a mutual foe in religious fundamentalists. Let's recognize that there are way to counter those walls.

Maybe if we stopped attacking those believers who really are on the same side , their numbers wouldn't seem so few or their impact so negligible.

And even if that doesn't happen, there is still an opportunity to push a shared agenda.

Jesus talked much about how one should behave. Condemning people was not one of his preachings.

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. — John 8: 7

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. — Matthew 23: 23-24

There is no mention of homosexuality in the 4 Gospels. Jesus did not talk about it.

As to the Koran and women:
"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women." [Noble Quran 2:228]

No room for doubt in this passage.

Again, from the Koran:
The Quran admonishes those men who oppress or ill-treat women:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." [Noble Quran 4:19]

O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from this pair scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. Reverence Allah, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and reverence the wombs (that bore you); for Allah ever watches over you." [Noble Quran 4:1]

I am not certain where the misogyny comes in from the Koran itself. Please be careful not to confuse the religion with the followers.

At times I think apocalyptic approaches are shared by some in the whole range of public discussion on the topic. Both are off base, or at least self-defeating, imo.

So I would prefer to answer the question "Do you believe in anything?" a little differently.

My take is that I believe that humanity has advanced to a point where we have firm handle on a significant part of how the universe works, although that is a necessarily an imperfect view. That this view seems to often clash with what religions say says more about religion than science. That is more or less how Carl Sagan responded to it.

But I fully understand your position and I wouldn't criticize anybody for taking it. It certainly has some rhetoric power and highlights a big difference in philosophies.

Regards.

the gallant keyboard warriors should get up off their butts and actually DO something.

they're not??

As arrogant and stupid a statement as I've read here in quite some time.

None of your buddies wants to move away from the God does/does not exist debate. You're the one who dubbed the OP's call to useful action a "smear."

If you really do get beyond that, good for you.

Many of us are trying to change the world. The assumption that we are not is an insult.

So what are you doing besides typing at your keyboard? And why isn't religion improving people's lives instead of oppressing them?

know for a fact that all any of us do is discuss the juvenile idiocy of religiosity in the 21st century?

cool story bro.

some people choose not to brag about their efforts vis à vis social justice.

I have read the thread, thanks. Maybe you could do us all the favor of doing likewise.

out there in the real world by what's been typed in this thread, right? Sheesh, could you be any more bankrupt with your arguments?

THIS group on THIS site is for THIS purpose; "God does/does not exist debate".

You don't know what OTHER causes I'm involved in. You have not a shred of a fucking clue whatsoever.

And besides that enormous blind spot, you also ignore that being involved in torpedoing religion ALSO torpedoes the motivation for a lot of regressive, right wing, and other harmful issues. Abortion rights? Under attack almost exclusively by religious fundamentalists in the United States. Same sex marriage and anti-discrimination? Under attack almost exclusively by religious fundamentalists in the united states.

So while I am ALSO involved in other social issues, don't pretend that winning the religion/secularism debate doesn't serve dual purpose of advancing progressive issues across the board.

Their knee-jerk defense of Pope Bigot and everything religious is quite tiring. The noble defenders of religious privilege should be out there doing things, like all the atheists I know are.

Do you have any evidence that tells you that atheists are less likely to work for social justice?

Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't.

I am allowed to have an opinion that is different than yours you know.

And I am making no comment on the op.

as I've come to expect.

And nobody said you're commenting on the OP. Why would you believe otherwise?

Let me guess.

to your god's ear. Truly.

I've never put anyone on ignore for the pure vapidity of his or her comments until now.

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

And it rings true to you because of your confirmation biases.

You want to compare charity CV's? DO YOU? Hours or dollars? And I mean ACTUAL charity, getting your hands into it helping someone. Building affordable housing. Slinging around 60lb sacks of bulk foods in a warehouse and breaking it down into family servings and packaging, sorting, and delivering it for food banks.

How about dollars into the hands of social workers? Huh? Not some percentage of your pay to some fucking church, I mean no overhead direct income diverted TO THE NEEDY.

When's the last time you stopped, parked, walked over and talked down those soulless motherfuckers camped outside Planned Parenthood on your lunch break? How many times have you gone toe to toe with those mouthbreathing shitheads that claim to be saving the babies for your imaginary friend? Huh?

You know FUCK ALL about my life and what I do with my time outside this group. FUCK ALL.

It pisses people off because it's a smear, and a lie, and fuck you for laughing about it and loving it. What would your imaginary friend think of you relishing in that idea? Huh?

Is there nothing in your instruction manual about loving a cruel and untrue statement?

Oh, right, your Bigot's Instruction Manual says shit like Psalm 14:1. That's right. So no, you have no problem saying you love a statement like that. Because your shitheap bigoted vile compendium of nasty things to say about other humans (AKA; the bible) told you so.

I did nothing to help people because all I did was post that OP on morality and ethics.

I answered the question in your OP openly and honestly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=185192

Where it went awry was deep in the comments with another poster, where you popped in to accuse me of holding my position to "feel better about yourself." (myself).

Which was a pretty disingenuous and vile attack, I felt, and I feel was a fully valid interpretation, because the thread devolved into you repeating the 'feel good about yourself' line, and trying to equate non-interference with direct causal responsibility.

I still maintain that your whole set of responses in that thread was to absolve your self from any responsibility for your decision and you're the one who stated more or less that even though you would let the entire planet die at least you would be able to feel good about your part in the destruction of a planet. Then you had to sling a little mud in hopes that it would stick and cause doubt. The one thing you did do is show that when it comes to hand washing you could teach Pilate a thing or two.

1. Allow events I did not cause to transpire naturally, 5 people die
2. Kill an innocent bystander and avert the event that I did not cause.

I'm going to choose option 1 every time, because the innocent bystander isn't my life to spend. Killing that bystander is murder. Period. It cannot be sacrifice. It is not my life to give.

the rest of humanity.

Humanity's salvation, according to the new testament (and set up by the old) requires the torture, murder, and 3-day-delayed resurrection of one jesus/Christ/whatever of Nazareth.

I would not have killed that man. Not amortized against the salvation of every last man, woman, and child who ever lived and ever would live.

You have made it quite clear, you will kill for profit. You're just haggling over the price. (In this case, you've made your bar multiple lives being worth the murder of one man.)

I don't know what gives you the right to assume that but let me make one thing clear what ever I would do in this type of scenario I would own it. I will not take the cowards way out that you have repeatedly done by crying 'This is not my fault, I'm not a part of what happens'. Whatever blood would be own my hands I would accept it.

. You want to walk all that shit back, go ahead. Meantime, you've made your position pretty damn clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=185600

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=185614

There you are, madly trying to equate doing nothing, to murdering a bystander. Just the fact you'd pretend the two propositions are entirely morally equal tells me all I need to know about your position. You'd throw the switch. You'd kill that innocent bystander that would never have otherwise been in danger, to save five lives. (Profit)

You just fucking called me a coward for standing on principle, don't play 'I didn't say that' as if you haven't made your position crystal clear.


You WOULD murder that innocent bystander, if the profit (lives saved) meets your bar of approval.

One of us would have blood on his hands, all right.

Standing on principle is not cowardly but running away from responsibility is and it's "pretty damn clear" that you do. Your assumption is not fact.

Cowardly.
"Running away from responsibility".
"cowards way out that you have repeatedly done".
"absolve your self from any responsibility"


I haven't run away from a fucking thing. I have ZERO responsibility to KILL an innocent bystander to save X lives. None. There's nothing to run away from. I have stood my ground every second of this debate. I will not murder. It's not a hard concept. The 'trolley' scenario is a bifurcation test, either or. Either you kill the bystander to save 5 people, or you allow events to unfold as they were set in motion by someone else. Since my position is 'running away' from a 'responsibility' to the five, especially in the 'cowardly' context, looks like you've chosen to murder the bystander as the moral choice.

Dance around assumptions all you want, but there are two choices to the scenario; murder the bystander (you cannot sacrifice what is not yours to give) or abstain from interfering. You going to sit there and pretend you'd abstain as well, after calling me a coward for my position?

You cannot fabricate a scenario in which I have a RESPONSIBILITY to MURDER an innocent person to achieve some goal. I am not a utilitarian. The 'ends justify the means' is not how I operate.

On Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Of course you do. Because it's a disingenuous load of claptrap.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=186498

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I do believe that " fuck you" is not appropriate on DU and I've seen posts before hidden for the very same thing so why let this slide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:59 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm willing to let this one slide. Atheists get discriminated on daily in life and this is a cathartic like rant to vent.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bravo!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Way over the top in angry, nasty comments for the exchange.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I'll dial it back a notch or two. Got a little angry there.

There goes the "religious privilege on. DU " meme. The jurors' comments are the coup de grace.

I'll have some of what you're smoking please....

That explains some things.

I love it, and your responses, because it show clearly that believing in god in an ego driven act to make you all feel better than others.... the whole problem with religion. All that charity and good works.... done for a reward, not out of altruism. Typical.

not too well, huh?

It was an attempt to pull at you guys but it was taken and appeared to say something I in no way mean.

Again my apologies to you and the other atheists in this room for my post.

What a smug insulting holier than thou statement.

Jesus, religious people like okasha are just dreadful! Egomaniacal and holier than thou....just disgusting.

When did you last get off your butt and do something?

I have 2 otherwise homeless people living in my house. I feed them when their meeger food stamps run out. I give them a clean, safe place to lay their weary bodies. I have become their only friend.

I take care of a bed ridden patient outside my home for minimum wage. I spend hours beyond the 30 I get paid for.

So, tell me what you fucking do outside that $10.00, if that, in the collection plate (which by the way, does little more than buy political favor).

Why don't you prove that you are more than a "keyboard warrior"?

I get the gist, personally, about all the hoopla - there is or isn't a god. It will forever be a circular discussion.

So, say it doesn't matter. What next? Or does that matter?

Ironically, god exists in both common definitions of theism and atheism. Both seemed joined in an awkward public perception.

Is there something more than that?

The organization and action around atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, etc, is a chance to move forward with social action.

I am seeing more and more evidence of secular/non-believeing groups taking up causes, and I think that is great.

There is no natural tie like there is for some religious groups, but the demographics of non-believers indicate a left-leaning agenda.

Let's do it. Let's make it happen.

Re: Allies they've found among progressive secular, agnostic, atheist and faith based organizations and individuals for social action. My query was primarily about the separation of church / state issue. It's a big focus for me and they note that as a leading purpose of the organization - so I started there.

Yet, I'd gladly jump in to a big tent approach on an array of social issues. I think we have more in common than at first meets the eye.

Let's do it.

and evaluate information critically before taking deep offense….

or, alternatively, leave them in the dust and move forward with people who can see the bigger picture.

I'm already doing it and I know you are too.

stop talking about God, praying and engaging in anything spiritual and get on with doing something about things like social justice.

They have had millennia to come up with some evidence or sound arguments for the existence of any God, let alone the particular one they believe in.
Time to move on and do something positive with their lives.

I think both groups spin their wheels debating the existence or lack of existence of a god.

Time to more on and do something positive with our lives.

Are you in?

caring and thinking about God than I think Republicans will stop obsessing about tax cuts.

I assume you know my reply was facetious, the OP was idiotic.

Don't you think atheists can both debate the existence of God and do good things.

You constantly tell us how many churches are doing good work, do you think they have abandoned religion and prayer?

There are lots of religious people who post on this site. Do you think they obsess about god?

There are also lots of non-religious people and I would suggest that some of them obsess about god and some of them don't.

I think the OP is great and I strongly support it. We've got growing numbers of organized groups in this country and some of them are seeing the opportunity.

From what he describes, this is primarily young people and I believe they will sit the trend and leave the old curmudgeons in the dust.

Of course atheists can do both things, and those that want to should. Churches that pursue good deeds can also do both, or not. Some don't debate, others do.

Let's drop the swords and work together, whaddayasay?

the obsessing part was suppose to just about the Republicans. My fingers got ahead of me.

but I have knowledge about some things. There are mathematical and physical constants. I can know they are correct because they are provable. But one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher intelligence. If sentient beings exist on other planets we may someday be aware of them. But we have no knowledge at this point.

If there is a creative force that caused the known universe to appear, how would one measure such a force? Atheists talk much about the idea that the Bible is anti-science without realizing that for a Bronze Age people the Bible WAS science. Any creation story is an attempt to explain the origin of the species. That knowledge has evolved, but can it ever be complete?

Atheists will say that no one can prove the existence of a creator because there is no proof. What exactly would the proof be? A note from the creator in a safe deposit box? Perhaps a receipt from a cosmic store for the matter used to create the universe? A fingerprint on a planet?

Let me suggest my opinion on the matter. If a creator did in fact create this universe, did/could the creator stand/exist outside of the known universe to create? Does science admit of the possibility of multiple universes? If there are multiple universes, can we assume that all known constants here are also valid in another universe?

Humans do not have the knowledge or ability to "know" any of this, but our lack of comprehension does not "prove" creation could not have taken place. A catfish swimming in a commercial fishpond does not know of the existence of the fish farm. Does the fish farm exist if the fish is unaware of it?

I have no issue with anyone's beliefs here. My belief does not depend on your belief, and vice versa of course. And I realize that my response is somewhat scattered because I respond to multiple posts here.

Stop hiding behind the rank bullshit that your alleged creator of the universe is too shy to manifest in any tangible way.

then proof is not necessary. If you read what I said in my posts here and you wish to argue specifics please feel free.

But if there is a creator, what makes you feel you would understand or even be able to experience any manifestation of a creator's existence? Can you explain the origins of the known universe? Can anyone? NO. Science can postulate but certain things are not provable at this time. And may never be provable.

I refer you back to my analogy of the fish in a pond.

Ever shrinking realm of the unknown to claim that surely their obsolete gods are somehow hiding in the shadows there. Why just a few thousand years ago the almighty was walking around the one planet in the very center of a very small universe, making miracles loaves of bread. Now in a universe so stunningly vast that the old myths are ludicrous, gods hide in the riddles of the still to be understood.

Pretty sure an omnipotent being can make itself known on some level, for certain, if it wants to, even if its raw naked total being cannot be directly perceived by us, because it is beyond our faculties.

perhaps the idea that:
"Pretty sure an omnipotent being can make itself known on some level, for certain, if it wants to, even if its raw naked total being cannot be directly perceived by us, because it is beyond our faculties."

has already happened. We cannot see in the infrared frequencies, human ears cannot hear above certain frequencies.

Plus your observation assumes that a creator wishes to directly interact.

themselves.

"if it wants to"

"Plus your observation assumes that a creator wishes to directly interact."

No shit Sherlock. I already accounted for that. Is this the new meme now, for debate points? To point out shit that's already been acknowledged as if it's new?

"We cannot see in the infrared frequencies, human ears cannot hear above certain frequencies."

This is just a ridiculous objection. If it's omnipotent, and wants to communicate with us, it cannot fail to do so. Omnipotence allows for no limits. If it wants to talk to us, or make itself known to us, it can. It can't fail. Moreover, god like entities are often ascribed omniscience, so it can't fail to notice that it's using the wrong frequency, can it?

and I think you missed that point. If you were created with free will, why would a creator wish to interfere with that free will by manifesting to the created? To show off?

You are ascribing human motives to what, if it exists, cannot be human.

Want has nothing to do with capability.

I've seen this 'free will' line of argument before. Problem is, a supreme being revealing itself to us has nothing whatsoever to do with our free will. It doesn't interfere at all. In fact, if you follow the Abrahamic traditions even loosely, you should note that god revealed itself to humans repeatedly in the old testament, and people still chose to fuck off and do other things, build golden calves to worship after seeing the power of god directly (allegedly of course). So no, we'd still have free will. We could still choose to ally with or follow that god or not, even after it revealed itself in no uncertain terms.

"You are ascribing human motives to what, if it exists, cannot be human."

Well, again, Abrahamic tradition and all, but I am often told we are made 'in his image'. The god of the OT/NT displays umpteen human emotions such as rage, jealously, psychopathic genocide, etc. Not much of a stretch.

does the fish in a fish farm pond wonder about the owner of the farm?

Does the fish possess the cognitive capacity to wonder about the owner of the farm?

Is your faith in your own intellectual ability unlimited?

If you accept that there are limits to human intelligence, you leave open many possibilities that you cannot even imagine.

Mind boggles.

--imm

Is that one of Ray Comfort's?

Have you ever read the Reader's Digest? You certainly write as if you do.

You write so much and yet say so little.

I don't even know where to start with you sometimes.

It was written in the Bible that the Creator created the universe. To do so requires somewhere to stand, so to speak. No conflict apparent between the multiverse theory and creation. One does not require the denial of the other.

It remains my position that nothing in the Bible requires a denial of science. The Bible represents Bronze Age science as to the origins of the universe. I know that many Biblical literalists disagree with my view.

When you wrote:
"If no god is necessary, and no god is evident, and the universe bears no signature, no tool marks of any kind, than what's the point of postulating a god in the first place?"

I think you pose the real question of why religion at all.

I cannot answer that for anyone but myself. My writing here is not intended to convince a non-believer that he/she is incorrect. Everyone should believe as they wish and no one should try to impose their beliefs on another. If we all did that there would be a lot less war and other violence.

I was actually speaking of the believers who feel that as part of their belief they must try to convert or convince the non-believers. So no, I was not accusing you or anyone here of that.

The sad historical fact is that people have far too often interpreted their religious beliefs as a justification for violence toward people who do not share those beliefs.

The Crusades and the treatment of indigenous people in the Americas are just two of many examples.

Hope that clears up my position a bit.

I actually asked if we could know or recognize signs of a creator.

Plus I have written about the difference between Biblical literalists and those who see the Bible as a combination of Bronze Age science/creation story and behavior guidelines.

"There are mathematical and physical constants."
- The mathematical constants stem from the algebraic structures you use.
For example: If you add up the angles inside a triangle, what value do you get? If it's a flat triangle, the result is always 180°. But if you use a convex curved geometry, the result is somewhere between 180° and 900°.
- Some physical constants of particle physics change when the energies get so high that the forces of nature meld into each other.

"But one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher intelligence."
Your claim remains to be proven.
(EDIT: A finite intelligence cannot prove or disprove the existence of an infinite intelligence, but I see no argument why one finite intelligence could not recognize another larger-but-still-finite intelligence.)

"for a Bronze Age people the Bible WAS science."
No, it wasn't because there was no loop: Observation and abstract thinking alternate in science and each time the result of the abstract thinking might change. Belief exists independently from observation. I don't know any example where the Bible was redacted to get it in line with an observation.

"What exactly would the proof be?"
A statistical aberration for which "intelligent creator" is the statistially by far most likely explanation.

"Does science admit of the possibility of multiple universes? If there are multiple universes, can we assume that all known constants here are also valid in another universe?"
There are several kinds of multiverse-theories you are obviously unaware of: 1. There is for example the theory that, due to the stochastic nature of quantum-mechanics, every interaction leads in several universes where each of the superposed results became the result that was realized. 2. Our universe may give birth to baby-universes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation . 3. The CMB of our universe is so smooth that there most likely was a time where spacetime expanded faster than lightspeed. This means that the universe we can see, with every possible source of information that has reached us since the Big Bang, is not the whole universe. There are parts of our universe we will never see and never know (unless we develop FTL-drive) and it is entirely possible that physical values that resulted from a symmetry-breaking ended up differently in another part of our universe.

" but our lack of comprehension does not "prove" creation could not have taken place."
Irrelevant. He who claims something has to prove it. The "you-can't-disprove-it"-argument merely tries to move the burden of proof for YOUR claim to someone else because YOU got nothing.
If the catfish were intelligent, he would realize that his pond has perfectly straight walls and that food appears from an unknown source with a schedule (unless that guy calls in sick).

to stop beating their wives.

I have always been the social justice type, that's why I'm an atheist.
We can discuss the non-existence of gods etc, whilst helping others. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Get a grip.

that if we are troubling some theists with difficult questions like "where's your proof?" or "how do you know?", we automatically cannot be concerned about things like social justice or poverty or equality.

It's just yet another attack on atheists, to demonize and stigmatize them. Getting awfully tired having to read this bullshit on a liberal message board.

Debate the existence of god, or take a stand on social issues? Obviously, we're too feeble and incompetent to do both.

We think believers and defenders of religion are wrong.

They think we're stupid and evil.

Gee, I wonder why it's hard to have any meaningful conversations.

Yes... atheism is a full time job! There's weekly meetings, spaghetti suppers, masses to be intoned, pilgrimages ....

oh wait, no there isn't!

All we do is sit around during waking hours and think "There's no god!". That's it!

And of course ALL atheists are alike... y'know like all Jews are alike... or something....