Look around you , your PC was made by logical cause-effect processes , was there someone behind it or was it by chance that some materials formed the parts such as motherboard and ram -because some kind of explosion- , and the all parts somehow got together perfectly, then also by chance a DVD was formed and has some kind of data that happened to run perfectly on that PC so you'd be able to play Half-Life2. chance can't make a perfect and precise system . I really hope that I made my point clear

BTW that of course brings a very valid question "How God was created then?", the answers to that are always personal conclusions , that God isn't bound by the the same natural laws that we have in our reality  , cause-effect process must have been started at some point , that point is God .

Many atheists simply have a lack of faith in a god/gods because they don't think that the burden of proof has been met by the theists. Thats what I am, it really is that simple.

You would be hard pressed to find many atheists that would make the positive claim that god doesn't exist and shift the burden to themselves. If you're going to attack the atheist position at-least don't build up a straw man by saying what you think many atheists have as a position on the debate instead of what they actually say. It says a lot about you and nothing about atheists.

Also the agnostic position is not a point in between atheist and theists, it deals with knowledge claims. You can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

Hope you don't mind me dropping in, but that's a perfect example of the problems you run in to when you are just looking at the end product. Man did not sit down and design the modern pc to play half-life 2. First we started playing with electricity, then figured out how to put switches in succession and how to make automatons. As well we figured out how to capture sound waves onto rolls of wax. From there it's evolution on steroids, going a million times faster. Good ideas thrive, while bad ones quickly become obsolete.

Chance is only a small part of evolution, competition is key.

A bit more on topic "cause-effect process must have been started at some point , that point is God" Does that mean you are calling the big bang, God? As far as science goes the questions what was before the big bang or where did the big bang happen are meaningless, since the current theory is that space and time were formed in the big bang leading to cause-effect processes.

I don't believe in god personally but also believe whether there is or is no God can't be proven. I think the same applies to free will and determinism. How can you be sure that 'you' are making decisions or that cause-effect is making them for you based on external influences adding up until you take action. The brain is evolved to find patterns and explanations to lead to better predictions and planning for better survival. Are we just witnissing this process or do you actually make decisions. How can you prove one or the other. Is there a difference.

Uhm, to me it just seems like the OP is trying to paint an image of atheists being blind sheep that simply go with the times and don't think for themselves. Which kind of makes me chuckle since these are the hallmarks of religious zealots.

On topic though; I have always been an atheist and it is a result of growing up and learning to see a world where things make sense, reason and logic reside and where there is no inclination what so ever for me that there is a deity of any kind or form in our universe. I guess people see what they want to see, that very same argument can be turned against me, I know, but I always go out of my way to figure things out and always go deep into matters so as to understand them better. I love finding out how things work, anything from complex machinery to how bees fly and the moon affects the tide and I've always been this way.

For me, there is no deity and there never will be but I respect the fact that others believe in things I do not. In turn though, I ask them to respect me for my way of living and my way of seeing the world, this is where the problem often arises...

@sapphisnake

Its not that simple if it would be there is nothing to talk about. First you need to differenciate between god and religion god explains nothing except the beginning he is not a world view he is just god a allmighty selfaware beeing. Science and god cant compete because there is nothing to compete. Science explains the world 100000 times better then religion. god explains nothing at all he is just the source of existence. You can perfectly well be scientist and believe in god actually alot of scientists do a lot of the stuff they handle is way more unbelievable then god. Here some links that proof my point 51% of scientists believe in god didnt change over the last century: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

They are less likely to believe in a deity then other people though but as you describe it it sounds like god and science doesnt work together because scientific principles make the concept of god somehow unreal. As I said science cant handle god because it would be unscientific. But that doesnt mean its not true or unlikely or whatever.

" Since god is unfalsifiable, it means that it logically cannot be considered to be a true concept"

You make really to much assumptions. Where does it say that a true concept must be falsifiable ? God is a perfectly legit concept just not a scientific one.

Your comments until now show me you are arguing science vs religion. Religion uses god that doesnt mean they have copyright on him Religion could be total BS that still says nothing about god.

@mummelmann


Be aware what I say now is not pro god I am no believer myself though I do consider it as possibility. I just want to show you reality isnt that simple.

"and it is a result of growing up and learning to see a world where things make sense, reason and logic reside"

It sure seems so reason and logic. But thats not true. Actualy the logic ends pretty fast, our scale is logical but the world as a whole not. Is it logical that things can be on two places at the same time ? Is it logical that lifeless matter changes its behavior depending on the fact if someone watches or not ? Is it logical that some things break the natural laws while more of the same things dont ? Isnt it weird that the world consists of almost nothing at all ?

I could go on the world is weird and makes no sense people just dont realize it.

" in our universe."

Did it occur to you that the universe is maybe god as in the energy the universe consists of ?

Even if the big bang did happen it's still an effect ,what was the cause?  that's definitely not a meaningless question ,no answers even in theories ,as I said cause-effect process must have been started at some point ,that point is the cause of all causes which isn't bound by the natural laws, the ultimate Mind/power/free will ..that's what I mean by God. I won't say this is the only explanation that makes sense because that's just me

About what you said about our free will. I think you just need to make it more simple. If I offered you two kinds of fruit , an orange and a mango  , let's say you pick the orange , do you really think that you couldn't pick the mango whatsoever because there is an unbreakable process that determines everything ?. I think what troubles you that we lose our free will as soon as we choose something, you can no longer choose the mango after you've chosen the orange, look at it while you can still choose not after you've made the choice.

The ideea that 'god is the source of existence' is a statement about the world that goes against what science says science. Ply And here is a link that proves otherwise. Scietists don't really believe in 'god', and certainly not leading scientists.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Heck, the only major scientist mentioned in the article you provided onyl started believing in 'god' because he didn't like the ideea of death, and if you read what led to him having, you can see that it wasn't anything rational (his god of the gaps arguments will make him a laughingstock in the future).

Not to mentin that that article spreads misinformation regarding Darwin, which leads me to believe the source is biased. All that was missing was the death bed conversion.

Where does it say that a true concept must be falsifiable ?

Falsifiability. You're the one who linked it and used it in your argument. Try to be consistent now.

Your comments until now show me you are arguing science vs religion. Religion uses god that doesnt mean they have copyright on him Religion could be total BS that still says nothing about god.

Religion invented god, and it does actually have a 'copyright' on it. Ouside of religion, what point does the whole concept even have? And outside of religion, there really isn't any 'evidence' of the existence of such a thing.

Your view of the world is too teleological, which leads you to make such statements.

@sapphisnake

No you totaly misunderstand what falsifiability means. I am consistent its not my fault if you dont get it. Falsifiability doesnt apply to god. It doesnt mean that god doesnt exist because he is not falsifiable IT JUST MEANS ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC. Not everything that cant be falsified is wrong. Evolution for example CANT be practically falsified but is still right.

Now you say: " You said if something is unfalsifiable its not scientific"

Yes I said that and in 99% of all cases its true but if lot of things back up your theory it will be sooner or later regarded mainstream.

But even when there is no sign that your theory is right and its unfalsifiable it still doesnt mean its wrong. But scientists cant work with it because there is nothing to work on.

Religion didnt invent god its the same as saying the first human who used fire invented fire. Besides even tens of thousends of years ago humans buried their dead instead of leting them lie were they died. So long before there was any religion people had some sense of afterlife and probably god. God is a fundamental question. Everywere where there is intelligent life there is the question how did it all start.

To the article i could pick other ones but the point was the survey not the article. Scientists are less inclined to believe in god that doesnt mean they cant because it would be unscientific.

Lets recap falsifiability doesnt determin if something is wrong or right. Meaning something unfalsifiable can still be right. What it does determin is if scientists can work with it or not. Unless the concept is backed up by things that indicate its correct (like fossils). Even without indication a theory could still be right.

Thus scientist never say: "God is not real from a scientific standpoint" Because it would be stupid to say that there is nothing to back that claim up. And there never will be. Thus Scientists are allowed to believe in god without discrediting science.

Hopefully this was clear enough this time. I am practically saying the same thing over and over again. Besides do you think I dont know what I am talking about ? Do you think I would bring this stuff up when I am not sure that I am right ?