Any other born atheists out there?

[Slytovhand]

Smiley, nah... you need to change your maths there... no way is it actually 1 in 6billion...

But anyway, yes, I do believe that sometimes, we hear it right. (and, far too often, I ignore it )

1 in a million chances happen 9 times out of 10!

(FTR - I never believed in Santa Claus or an Easter Bunny... well, not until much later in life! )

I like the PERList idea... (I have a slight problem with 'physical evidence' though... for the time being... as I've indicated elsewhere)

[Flyndaran]

I was raised a christian, but I stopped believing in God about the same time as I stopped believing in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny. My parents never pressured me or tried to convert me; and still don't.

Maybe it's my early desire for storytelling, but I never believed in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I did as a child, til around five when I applied logic to both. My parents threatened me under pain of death not to ruin things for my little brothers. XD

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Exactly. I've never understood why science and religion are seen as mutually exclusive.

Me neither. If anything, science stregnthens my faith, it doesn't erode it.

[Slytovhand]

It is seen as exclusive, because some want to believe that any 'divine beings' must only operate outside the laws of physics... and some want to believe that physics must never have influences from anything that can't be measured with physical devices.

Basically, people want to keep the two seperate.

[protege]

My "turning away" from religion came...after I was told that I'd "never amount to anything" by some of the nuns when I was in elementary school. That's what started it. Well, that and my mother dragging me to church every Sunday and threatening "bad things will happen" if I didn't go Throw in that most "religious" types (at least locally), seemed to be the most uptight, anal-retentive people on the planet...it's no wonder that I'm more or less an atheist.

[IvorTangrean]

I was raised atheist, I think my parents have a Bible in the house. If they do it is in a trunk in the basement that is used as a printer station. Besides weddings, funerals and my pre-school* I have only been to a church once or twice in my life.

* This particular church is pretty much a hall for rent with a cross on the roof, it sees far more use for other things than a church.

[Flyndaran]

Me neither. If anything, science stregnthens my faith, it doesn't erode it.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Faith is believing in something, despite the evidence. Science is believing something, BECAUSE of the evidence. They are not similar.

[BroomJockey]

Faith is believing in something, despite the evidence. Science is believing something, BECAUSE of the evidence. They are not similar.

No they're not similar, but I think your definition of "faith" is slightly off. Faith is believing in something "despite a lack of evidence" is a bit more correct. If there's direct contradiction to the existence of something, it's no longer faith, it's wilful ignorance.

To you, to believe in something without evidence is anathema. To others, if it's not disproven, then it's faith to believe it's true. Further, faith and science technically do not have to be exclusionary. Faith is supposed to cover spiritual matters, aka "matters of the heart." Science covers the physical world. As long as you don't try to combine them, they're not not at odds. Further, due to the scientific method, you cannot prove God doesn't exist. Some people take that intrinsic doubt that science provides, and say "since there is no proof, and cannot be proof, I shall believe."

Obviously, due to your complete inability to have faith, it doesn't apply to you, but logically, you surely must admit that with the proper definitions, and keeping things to the realms they are meant to cover, someone's faith doesn't undermine your science, even if you can't understand that faith?

[Flyndaran]

No they're not similar, but I think your definition of "faith" is slightly off. Faith is believing in something "despite a lack of evidence" is a bit more correct. If there's direct contradiction to the existence of something, it's no longer faith, it's wilful ignorance.

...
That seems like religion to me, willful ignorance. Dead things stay dead. Believing that someone or heck everyone has, can, or will pop back up is wrong acording to the evidence all around us. It takes faith to believe that our surroundings are all lies.
No one really has faith that it will rain tomorrow. They only have faith in the absurd things, like souls, miracles, reincarnation, etc.

Obviously, due to your complete inability to have faith, it doesn't apply to you, but logically, you surely must admit that with the proper definitions, and keeping things to the realms they are meant to cover, someone's faith doesn't undermine your science, even if you can't understand that faith?

I don't like the very existance of magical thinking, superstitions, etc. Their very nature fights all logical thinking, and therefore scientific analysis.
If something exists, then it can be studied scientifically. If it can't be measured and explained, then it doesn't exist.

[Nyoibo]

...
That seems like religion to me, willful ignorance. Dead things stay dead. Believing that someone or heck everyone has, can, or will pop back up is wrong acording to the evidence all around us. It takes faith to believe that our surroundings are all lies.
No one really has faith that it will rain tomorrow. They only have faith in the absurd things, like souls, miracles, reincarnation, etc.

Dead things don't stay dead, people who have been, what 50-100 years ago dead, are brought back to life with defibrilators and adrenalin, medical advances have made this possible, and who's to say souls don't exist? just because we have no conventional way of measuring them yet, which brings me to ...

I don't like the very existance of magical thinking, superstitions, etc. Their very nature fights all logical thinking, and therefore scientific analysis.
If something exists, then it can be studied scientifically. If it can't be measured and explained, then it doesn't exist.

Bull, a few hundred years ago most of what exists couldn't be studied measured or explained, to use "logic" as you cling to then that means, that because they couldn't be measured or explained then things like atoms, electrons, hell even sarcomeres and such in muscles, didn't exist, hell we don't know what most of our brain is used for, it can't be explained, want to tell me that it doesn't exist?

[Boozy]

Their very nature fights all logical thinking, and therefore scientific analysis. If something exists, then it can be studied scientifically. If it can't be measured and explained, then it doesn't exist.

I really have to agree with Nyoibo. Quantum physics is very illogical; at least it is to us. It might make sense to a life form smarter than us. But I don't think that we can say with any certainty that if something doesn't make sense to us, it can't exist. We're very limited in our ability to understand the universe. If our we can't process something logically, that could very well be our brain's limitations.

I'm not a religious person, but I am able to recognize that humanity knows less than we tell ourselves, and there are things we will probably never know. We're ants in the universe. Not only can ants not understand the workings of a computer, they cannot even comprehend that such a thing could exist. They don't have the brains necessary to understand and appreciate the wonders of the world.

[Flyndaran]

Dead things don't stay dead, people who have been, what 50-100 years ago dead, are brought back to life with defibrilators and adrenalin, medical advances have made this possible, and who's to say souls don't exist? just because we have no conventional way of measuring them yet, which brings me to ...
...

Dead is brain death which no one ever recovers from. It is not mostly dead like from heart failure, comas, hypothermia, etc.
If there is no evidence for its existance despite some whackos real attempts at study, then it almost certainly doesn't exist. Hope cannot dictate reality.

[Flyndaran]

...
Bull, a few hundred years ago most of what exists couldn't be studied measured or explained, to use "logic" as you cling to then that means, that because they couldn't be measured or explained then things like atoms, electrons, hell even sarcomeres and such in muscles, didn't exist, hell we don't know what most of our brain is used for, it can't be explained, want to tell me that it doesn't exist?

Of course reality can be explained. Why do you think it can't. We don't know everything. Atoms can so be measured, so can sarcomeres, and what most of the brain does. I think you should research more before making claims.
What is truly unexplainable? Not just unexplained now, but truly violates some rule of evidence you seem to believe in?

[Flyndaran]

I really have to agree with Nyoibo. Quantum physics is very illogical; at least it is to us. It might make sense to a life form smarter than us. But I don't think that we can say with any certainty that if something doesn't make sense to us, it can't exist. We're very limited in our ability to understand the universe. If our we can't process something logically, that could very well be our brain's limitations.
....

I never said that if something doesn't make sense it doesn't exist. It has to do with evidence. There is evidence for the whacky world of quantum space. There is none for souls, magic, etc. There is evidence against such.

We are not monkeys. Human minds can conceive of at least the basics of reality. The actual math may be hard to impossible for most to understand. But that is quite different. It certainly doesn't need the invocation of magic or religion to spackle over what we don't know.