Question for atheists

[Matthew Mussolini]

Are you open to the possibility that Sentient beings that we aren't able to see, entities with intelligence and wills of their own could have come forth from the Big bang , evolved, or later came into existence as we evolved from pond scum (or a single cell organism in the water)?

Are you open to the possibility that maybe the big bang created something intelligent that helped create planets and moons that appear quite round in shape and helped put the sun in the right place, and assisted the process of evolution.

If not, have you considered the fact that you're probably a narrow closed minded ass hole?!

At least I'm open to the possibility that I'm totally nuts and delusional, but coincidences in my life are like comparable to a broken clock repeatedly changing where the hands are located, so that it by chance tells the correct time many times a day.

It just has been a journey full of signs that I am unable to be an atheist. Trust me, I hated religion and sympathise with atheists because the Bible is so ridiculous it creates atheists.

But I tried to be an atheist , and if I became a true atheist, I would find a way to quickly eat a bullet, because faith in the supernatural (and signs from the other side) is the only thing that keeps me going anymore.

[Audiogen]

I'm not sure why you need to be antagonistic about this if you are generally interested and normally I wouldn't be inclined to respond in depth to that but I'll chalk up the douchey framing of your question to your tweakerdom.

Are you open to the possibility that Sentient beings that we aren't able to see, entities with intelligence and wills of their own could have come forth from the Big bang , evolved, or later came into existence as we evolved from pond scum (or a single cell organism in the water)?

Are you open to the possibility that maybe the big bang created something intelligent that helped create planets and moons that appear quite round in shape and helped put the sun in the right place, and assisted the process of evolution.

If not, have you considered the fact that you're probably a narrow closed minded ass hole?!

Here is a Spectrum of Theistic Probability laid out by Richard Dawkins, a so called "militant" atheist. He labelled himself a 6 on the scale and I would probably consider myself the same for the concept of a personal God. For other nebulous ideas of God, I would probably be a 5 but there's a caveat, once we are not talking about the personal God of traditional religion, there tends to be a wide range of ideas that don't really have any definable characteristics, so basically I trend towards agnosticism on the basis of the unknown rather than any stronger convictions of ideas I've heard.

Dawkin's-Scale.jpg


In regards to possibilities...

We could argue that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that hovers just beyond the Milky Way Galaxy that is undetectable and decides to shape all the planets and stars like the shape of meatballs. Why does this idea seem absurd?

If we are to try to understand the Universe, not all ideas should be considered equally, particularly if an idea is based on a line of thought that has been superceded and the burden of proof usually falls on the one making the assertion of existence. Usually proving non-existence does not make sense as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So I'm Atheist due to Naturalistic Explanations of phenomena in the Universe that have a ton of support, a scientific framework in which to study the universe and has eroded supposed powers of the God concept. If a naturalistic explanation with gravity can provide reason as to why planets and stars tend towards round-ish shapes, I find that satisfactory and don't need to introduce spaghetti monsters or supernatural deities.

[Pete's Draggun]

Never ever heard of The Dawkins's Scale
Cool/interesting

I'm definitely #7

[Matthew Mussolini]

I'm not sure why you need to be antagonistic about this if you are generally interested and normally I wouldn't be inclined to respond in depth to that but I'll chalk up the douchey framing of your question to your tweakerdom.



Here is a Spectrum of Theistic Probability laid out by Richard Dawkins, a so called "militant" atheist. He labelled himself a 6 on the scale and I would probably consider myself the same for the concept of a personal God. For other nebulous ideas of God, I would probably be a 5 but there's a caveat, once we are not talking about the personal God of traditional religion, there tends to be a wide range of ideas that don't really have any definable characteristics, so basically I trend towards agnosticism on the basis of the unknown rather than any stronger convictions of ideas I've heard.


In regards to possibilities...

We could argue that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that hovers just beyond the Milky Way Galaxy that is undetectable and decides to shape all the planets and stars like the shape of meatballs. Why does this idea seem absurd?

If we are to try to understand the Universe, not all ideas should be considered equally, particularly if an idea is based on a line of thought that has been superceded and the burden of proof usually falls on the one making the assertion of existence. Usually proving non-existence does not make sense as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So I'm Atheist due to Naturalistic Explanations of phenomena in the Universe that have a ton of support, a scientific framework in which to study the universe and has eroded supposed powers of the God concept. If a naturalistic explanation with gravity can provide reason as to why planets and stars tend towards round-ish shapes, I find that satisfactory and don't need to introduce spaghetti monsters or supernatural deities.

I thought the smileys made it clear that the insults were a joke or being silly

I don't think someone is an asshole for being closed to possibilities of unseen entities, but I don't see how science really leaves much more than a theory that sounds intelligent and rational, but is still a theory that requires a lot of faith to believe imo

Regarding the flying Spaghetti monster, it's a possibility.

I was thinking more along the lines of just something intelligent that can't be seen which was helping the evolution process along and keeping the sun not too close or too far away.

I'm sure science explains how water, plants, silver, gold, diamonds, jewels etc. all came to exist out of essentially nothing, but I'm very skeptic of these theories , as scientists are not in agreement, kind of like I'm extremely skeptic of the Bible if not straight up nauseated by it.

But there is something intelligent that is influencing certain people that cannot be seen with the naked eye. I'm 100% convinced of that.

I'm not convinced that it or they are omnipotent, all-knowing, or omnipresent (any omnipotent entity that allows so much misery and suffering then chooses to hide himself/herself is a total asshole. But maybe his/her/it's hands are tied and doesn't know how to properly communicate with the material world or is incapable of communicating with the average person), but it has revealed it's existence to me through too many unexplainable signs and phenomenon to count.

If these sentient beings would show everyone they cared about them or spoke up , we wouldn't have atheists, so it is absolutely their fault and not the fault of the atheist.

I just think when atheists are extremely close-minded it is complete arrogance , because just because they haven't received anything they count as having a supernatural origin , doesn't mean the countless millions who say differently are mistaken.

But that applies to Christians or religious people as well. Just because they feel something has been revealed to them, it is extremely arrogant to say those who believe the opposite are undoubtedly mistaken.

I don't know. It's a total mess. It makes me pissed at God!

[Audiogen]

I don't think someone is an asshole for being closed to possibilities of unseen entities, but I don't see how science really leaves much more than a theory that sounds intelligent and rational, but is still a theory that requires a lot of faith to believe imo

Aside from Theoretical Physics, which is a bit more complicated, a theory in science is more established than a theory of colloquial use. A scientific theory can provide explanatory power, reproducibility and is based on facts. There is no such thing as a definitive proof in science like with Mathematics. A hypothesis is more along the lines of a theory as used by the general public, even then, it's still incumbent on the researcher to set up ways to test the hypothesis.

I was thinking more along the lines of just something intelligent that can't be seen which was helping the evolution process along and keeping the sun not too close or too far away.

Humans have a tendency to attribute agency to many things, some of which might not be appropriate. We are pattern seeking beings. I already mentioned the God of the Gaps fallacy to you in a prior discussion and I'm of the mindset to not multiply entities beyond necessity.

But there is something intelligent that is influencing certain people that cannot be seen with the naked eye. I'm 100% convinced of that.

I'm not convinced that it or they are omnipotent, all-knowing, or omnipresent (any omnipotent entity that allows so much misery and suffering then chooses to hide himself/herself is a total asshole. But maybe his/her/it's hands are tied and doesn't know how to properly communicate with the material world or is incapable of communicating with the average person), but it has revealed it's existence to me through too many unexplainable signs and phenomenon to count.

If these sentient beings would show everyone they cared about them or spoke up , we wouldn't have atheists, so it is absolutely their fault and not the fault of the atheist.

I just think when atheists are extremely close-minded it is complete arrogance , because just because they haven't received anything they count as having a supernatural origin , doesn't mean the countless millions who say differently are mistaken.

But that applies to Christians or religious people as well. Just because they feel something has been revealed to them, it is extremely arrogant to say those who believe the opposite are undoubtedly mistaken.

Do you consider yourself extremely close-minded and completely arrogant? I'm not sure how an atheist is held to one standard if they are certain there is nothing of supernatural origin but you are held to a different standard if you are 100% convinced that there is.

If supernatural beings spoke up, yah I agree there likely wouldn't be any atheists, goes back to the whole burden of proof thing.

[Matthew Mussolini]

Aside from Theoretical Physics, which is a bit more complicated, a theory in science is more established than a theory of colloquial use. A scientific theory can provide explanatory power, reproducibility and is based on facts. There is no such thing as a definitive proof in science like with Mathematics. A hypothesis is more along the lines of a theory as used by the general public, even then, it's still incumbent on the researcher to set up ways to test the hypothesis.



Humans have a tendency to attribute agency to many things, some of which might not be appropriate. We are pattern seeking beings. I already mentioned the God of the Gaps fallacy to you in a prior discussion and I'm of the mindset to not multiply entities beyond necessity.




Do you consider yourself extremely close-minded and completely arrogant? I'm not sure how an atheist is held to one standard if they are certain there is nothing of supernatural origin but you are held to a different standard if you are 100% convinced that there is.

If supernatural beings spoke up, yah I agree there likely wouldn't be any atheists, goes back to the whole burden of proof thing.

I said I was 100% convinced of the existence of sentient beings that can't be seen.

What it means is I am not able to be an atheist anymore no matter how hard I try as a result of things that keep happening in my life. Try to see it in that context.

I'm still open to the possibility that I am mistaken. It's just I can't be an atheist. Like, it's literally impossible. I actually try to be an atheist at times because I want to move on with my life, get ahead, and make sure I don't waste time praying to something that doesn't exist, but my attempts at being an atheist always end in failure. But that doesn't mean I'm closed to the possibility that I am wrong.

I have been 100% convinced of something before and later found out I was wrong.

However, I have had atheists tell me with 100% certainty that every alleged miracle, prophetic revelation, or bizzare coincidence , has an explanation that rules out the possibility of supernatural intervention or influence.

That's just total arrogance.


See, I told you I'm 100% convinced of something. That doesn't mean I'm declaring my findings with certainty , but rather stating an opinion and a conviction regarding something that is still a mystery to me.

Atheists often don't talk about their opinions regarding the mystery surrounding our existence like they are mysteries, but like they are proven facts. That's simply arrogance.

Now, to tell you the truth, atheists who do that don't make me as sick as Theists who state something like it is factual because it is in the Bible or Qur'an.

[Audiogen]

I said I was 100% convinced of the existence of sentient beings that can't be seen.

What it means is I am not able to be an atheist anymore no matter how hard I try as a result of things that keep happening in my life. Try to see it in that context.

I'm still open to the possibility that I am mistaken. It's just I can't be an atheist. Like, it's literally impossible. I actually try to be an atheist at times because I want to move on with my life, get ahead, and make sure I don't waste time praying to something that doesn't exist, but my attempts at being an atheist always end in failure. But that doesn't mean I'm closed to the possibility that I am wrong.

I have been 100% convinced of something before and later found out I was wrong.

However, I have had atheists tell me with 100% certainty that every alleged miracle, prophetic revelation, or bizzare coincidence , has an explanation that rules out the possibility of supernatural intervention or influence.

That's just total arrogance.


See, I told you I'm 100% convinced of something. That doesn't mean I'm declaring my findings with certainty , but rather stating an opinion and a conviction regarding something that is still a mystery to me.

Atheists often don't talk about their opinions regarding the mystery surrounding our existence like they are mysteries, but like they are proven facts. That's simply arrogance.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics but I'm not understanding the distinction you're making between certainty and conviction, but if it was meant as opinion then ok.


If an atheist is a physicalist/materialist then by definition any supernatural miracle is ruled out. I don't think that's necessarily arrogant, it's consistency among a philosophical position, much like if you're a dualist you would have to maintain part of our being is spiritual. I would say most atheists are physicalists but there are exceptions like our very own Dax.


I won't speak on behalf of the atheists you usually talk to but I'm very much fascinated by the mystery of our existence. To me, there is several lifetimes worth of intrigue and mystery in billions of years of evolution and life, massive stars, solar systems, galaxies, the expanse of the cosmos. Don't get me wrong, the inner world of consciousness is fascinating as well, I would not have used psychedelics so extensively if I didn't think so, but religion has a stagnant quality to it with the source material of monotheistic religions going back a couple thousand years give or take and an inflexibility to it, which to me, is less appealing than the mysteries of the world that the likes of Socrates and Plato sought to explore around the same time.