how an atheist found God.

[Michael]

Too much autism in this thread.

[Agent]

Sorry man, i've never had to read the Wikipedia entry for Love. I just feel it.
Some men just want to watch the world burn, and some men want an explanation for everything.

Edit: I would also class beauty and art as God. Poetry and acoustic music.

I would say that whatever you choose to believe is also God.

Again, it is that simple to me.

Smiles

I feel pain too, but that doesn't mean I don't like to know why it's there and is an essential function to survival. I don't quite understand the viewpoint of using it as a basis for any sort of god.

Your classification of 'god' is one of the more interesting ones. I'd actually be genuinely interested if you could explain what you class as 'god', given that things like poetry and music are subjective.

Would you class, carrier pigeon poetry for example, thus existence of a god? or is there a specific 'feeling' you get for each piece which backs up your reasoning?

[TheAnimus]

Too much autism in this thread.

Too many simpletons who want to say "SKY FAIRY MAKES IT SO" rather than use any logic, or even common sense.

Why does the coffee shop near this office make bad coffee? Because the sky fairy? Or because they use crap beans, don't grind em right, don't tamp em down properly leaving a gritty texture. Or because the sky fairy.

God is just a tool for simple minds, you don't need to have a high IQ that puts your firmly in the group which has autistic traits to notice that.

[usxhe190]

What is love?

A neurophysiological function which aids social cohesion. If you love people close to you, you have an endorphin compulsion to maintain, even violently defend those relationships. Any organism which is compelled to protect its offspring is more likely to propagate as per natural selection.

You sound like a Vulcan. Or should I say "Welcome to Earth, my friend"

[Agent]

Too much autism in this thread.

Hang on a sec....you were just using love as a reasoning for your belief in 'god'....and now you're accusing people of being autistic (which in it's own right is a scientific definition of certain behaviours) who have asked you questions?

Do you not see the irony of accusing people of having a disorder of neural development, while using 'love', which in itself has neural based mechanisms as a way of defining 'god'?

I was genuinely interested in your response until that. Comes across as very hostile.

[Michael]

I feel pain too, but that doesn't mean I don't like to know why it's there and is an essential function to survival. I don't quite understand the viewpoint of using it as a basis for any sort of god.

Your classification of 'god' is one of the more interesting ones. I'd actually be genuinely interested if you could explain what you class as 'god', given that things like poetry and music are subjective.

Would you class, carrier pigeon poetry for example, thus existence of a god? or is there a specific 'feeling' you get for each piece which backs up your reasoning?

Well thankyou for at least taking my opinion as interesting, I will go one more time, but that's going to be it for now on account of it's past midnight where I am and i'm at work at 6.30.

No, I would not class carrer pigeon poetry as 'god', it's clearly just comedy, but to some people, if comedy is what they love, then sure it could be 'god'.

Poetry that touches me and affirms my views is what I would class as 'God' (for me), and in line with what I am posting here, perhaps this quote is apt here for me

And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.
Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.
And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain.
You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

(From Khalil Gibran on Religion)

I simply believe that the world we live in is a blessing, nature is beautiful, life is precious and people should do nothing more than live life, be happy and love each other.

I believe that each person is completely entitled to their own beliefs, and whatever they choose to believe is God to them. Whatever they love is God to them. Their children are God to them.

I think the word 'God' however, is (almost) evil, because just look at the arguements it causes.

The end. Goodnight.

Edit: On the Autism thing... I met some autistic people lately and I didn't really mean it as an insult, just that everything has to be explained away with irrefutable points without much leeway given for simple acceptance of beliefs or opinion.

[malfunction]

Too much autism in this thread.

That's just outright offensive and idiotic. I was wondering if you'd been smoking something (literally) going by your earlier posts in this thread but either you're a tool or you're trolling with comments like that.

A neurophysiological function which aids social cohesion.

You old romantic...

[Michael]

I apologize for the autism comment, but come on... if my partner asked me why I loved her and I said something like 'It's just a neurophysiological function which aids social cohesion. You don't actually have any bearing on me other than uncontrolable chemical reactions', then I don't think it'd last much longer.

[aidanjt]

Too much autism in this thread.

If you think the scientific answers are far too clinical and sober for you to digest, well, that's between you and your sky fairy. Personally, I think it's infinitely more miraculous that we developed as a cosmological fluke. The estimated odds of it happening naturally are anywhere between a billion to one, to a trillion to one. If we came to being because some supreme being snapped his fingers, then the odds of it happening were always going to be exactly one.

I see far greater splendour in the naturalistic world, and it has the added virtue, and not an insignificant one, of also being true.

[Mama Sumae]

If there is a god it is called trial and error, it rules everything from the universe to nature and the species who are part of it. The universe is a dynamic place in slow but constant change, the conditions that harbour life today will change tomorrow and so will the spectrum of life found in that environment. The perfection of the system that some mention will never be questioned by those who have adapted and are capable to live in it, only by those who have perished from their own inadequacies and those of the ecosystem that surrounds them. Those who are trialled and fail are discarded and so is the inherent variation that they all carry, there is no space to individualism in nature due to the rules of trial and error that guides it only the species and the variations that allow them to succeed (no matter how crippling or beneficial to ) matter.

To believe in god is to believe that all the loss, death and destruction inherent and "harcoded" to the universe and all all forms of life happen from his own desire and action, it is to believe in a being that deems you and your suffering as an individual truly and inherently expendable.

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not.

If you don't have a divine being, and think that god is almost gia to use another term, then erm your an athiest, or if you think there might be something else at play too, agnostic.

I don't believe you put it very well, contrary to a hard-line opinion that god simply doesn't exist agnostics do not believe in god since they haven't been shown otherwise, others like you said faced with no facts to tell them otherwise consider any potential existence and acknowledgement of god an irrelevant fact to themselves, god and others.

I apologize for the autism comment, but come on... if my partner asked me why I loved her and I said something like 'It's just a neurophysiological function which aids social cohesion. You don't actually have any bearing on me other than uncontrolable chemical reactions', then I don't think it'd last much longer.

So the unsurpassed dedication, deep empathy and care felt towards another amounts to nothing, only a romanticized view and lets say rather random and somehow uncontrollable perception towards another matters?

[malfunction]

if my partner asked me why I loved her and I said something like 'It's just a neurophysiological function which aids social cohesion. You don't actually have any bearing on me other than uncontrolable chemical reactions', then I don't think it'd last much longer.

It may be unromantic (hence my other comment to aidanjt) but that doesn't mean at a base level that it's incorrect. Nor does it mean that's how anyone would or should describe it in emotive terms.

[Michael]

If you think the scientific answers are far too clinical and sober for you to digest, well, that's between you and your sky fairy. Personally, I think it's infinitely more miraculous that we developed as a cosmological fluke. The estimated odds of it happening naturally are anywhere between a billion to one, to a trillion to one. If we came to being because some supreme being snapped his fingers, then the odds of it happening were always going to be exactly one.

I see far greater splendour in the naturalistic world, and it has the added virtue, and not an insignificant one, of also being true.

Well then we have the same opinion, because I also don't have a sky fairy, I just think that along with the splendour of it all, science, technology, emotions (ncluding hate)... they are all also the result of that cosmological fluke. Just because i've used the word 'God' to wrap it up does not make me wrong, or you right.

Again I will stress the point of how the word God causes so much heartache in the world. Look at you all trying to bring me down, for what? Believing that each is entitled to an opinion?

[Agent]

Look at you all trying to bring me down, for what? Believing that each is entitled to an opinion?

No one is trying to bring you down. You posted on a discussion board. Don't be surprised when people of differing opinion try to discuss things with you. No one is attacking you.

[Mama Sumae]

Well then we have the same opinion, because I also don't have a sky fairy, I just think that along with the splendour of it all, science, technology, emotions (ncluding hate)... they are all also the result of that cosmological fluke. Just because i've used the word 'God' to wrap it up does not make me wrong, or you right.

Again I will stress the point of how the word God causes so much heartache in the world. Look at you all trying to bring me down, for what? Believing that each is entitled to an opinion?

This a forum and you brought your opinions to the table of discussion not others, I haven't read the whole topic but I didn't see nothing particularly incorrect towards you, if you feel uncomfortable with the discussion its your own right and you simply need to withdraw from it.

[Zhaoman]

Stopped reading at this point. The conditions of creating life being particular and exact are in no way proof of god. If anything i would say they are the contrary

I can only assume the rest of the article was complete mindless religiously philosophical dribble.

too true!

I apologize for the autism comment, but come on... if my partner asked me why I loved her and I said something like 'It's just a neurophysiological function which aids social cohesion. You don't actually have any bearing on me other than uncontrolable chemical reactions', then I don't think it'd last much longer.

Yes but the status of your relationship with your partner has no bearing on the validity of that statement. Love is a chemical reaction in our bodies to protect members of our family and community that was naturally selected over millions of years because it increased our chances of survival on this planet. It's up to you how much you want to sugar-coat the facts with a nice, loving god or two (or a dozen) or some other lovely, bubbly, godly, supernatural power. I prefer to digest the facts raw, it's much more satisfying and inspiring that way I find.

[aidanjt]

I don't think the clinical reality detracts from the emotion. Pretty fascinating stuff, humbling even.