If skepticism makes you an atheist

[RandFan]

But, assuming a personal** god existed, I don't think it would owe us proof on demand.

I don't owe anyone proof on demand that I can fly by flapping my arms. Why should anyone believe it?

So, the "absence of extraordinary evidence" claim could neither be used to support our atheism nor make us feel warm n fuzzy about our skeptical willingness to change our mind if presented with proper evidence.

You've lost me. If I ask for evidence of an extraordinary event and I get that evidence and then reject it then I'm not a skeptic I'm an idiot.

The argument then becomes: Unless there's some non-extraordinary / plausible scenario that would make us change our minds about god, we're no better than the fundie theist who won't change his/her mind about creationism (for example) even though tons of evidence against it exists.

You went off the tracks. What the hell are you talking about? I hold my opinions and beliefs provisionally. I am not dogmatic. If you show me reasonable evidence of god I'll be in church Sunday morning. Most if not all atheists that I know are the same.

So, we atheists are no better than fundies; perhaps even worse.

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who are you talking about? I don't know where you got your notions but they have nothing to do with critical thinking and skepticism.

We claim to be openminded, yet there's no realistic/non-extraordinary scenario which exists that would cause us to change our minds.

Hold on, we are talking about an extraordinary claim. Just give me evidence worthy of such a claim.

Are we hippocrates by claiming the open-minded high road, or is god's failure to cure amputees (or answer when called) compelling justification for labelling ourselves skeptics?

I don't think you are justified to use the word "ourselves".

This is an unreasonable notion and it is a straw man. God's failure to cure amputees is evidence that god (if he or she exists) can't or won't cure a specific group of people and that he is arbitrary.

Can anyone think of a plausible scenario that if shown to be true would lead one to reject his / her atheism?

"Reject"? To reject atheism would take empirical evidence of god.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "there is a possibility that god exists". I accept that possibility. However it is a very unlikely possibility for many reasons.

The problem bpesta22 is that there are an infinite number of things without evidence to believe in including fairies, goblins, gremlins, leprechauns, flying carpets, genies in bottles, Zeus, Ganesh, the Flying Spaghetti monster, etc.

We are all atheists. Some of just go one or belief further.

Let me ask you a question, what would it take for you to believe in Zeus?

(**I don't think one can falsify deism, so I believe it's a potentially rational but empty world view-- beyond saying goddidit, deism to me offers nothing in the way of explanatory power),

No belief in any god offers anything in the way of explanatory power. They all simply say "goddidit'. Please to demonstrate that wrong.

 

[Renfield]

I refer you to my sig.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Okay, slightly misunderstood original post. But there's something wrong with the argument there, such that I can't quite get my head around it. Our position there is no proof for a god; proof for god would require extraordinary proof, by definition. Their belief there is a supernaturally powerful being that is capable of affecting our lives. Please correct that if it is not broad enough.

Essentially, what you said is that "If there is a god that owes us no proof, it is irrational of us to deny his existence because of lack of proof." I would take exception with the premise: If the hypothetical god is omniscient, said god knows that we exist. The burden of proof is upon he/she/whatever to prove that he/she/etc exists.

There, that's what's wrong with it. I had to think on that one for a while .

 

[bpesta22]

I'm not saying I believe this bs I'm spewing, I just wanted to get some smart heads to show me where the logic was flawed.

How about a toned down version:

Skeptics are supposed to change their beliefs in the presence of new evidence.

With regard to god, what does this evidence have to be?

The healing amputees requirement seems to raise the bar too high.

The prayer works requirement, to me, would seem reasonable. I understand the studies to date don't support it, and I am aware of the occasional Type I error.

But, we're also betting on the null-- perhaps we just haven't manipulated the variable correctly.

So, what's more reasonable a challenge, assuming openmindedness (vs amnesia) is key to skepticism:

1) If god exists show me that prayer has any real measurable effect on people, even if tiny.

2) If god exists, grow back my arm.

Whoever quoted Sagan here, it seems to make sense to me. A god existing should result in some proof-- his signature somewhere.

Do we need his sig to be as bold as growing back limbs, or would more subtle types of "proof" do it? If the later, what are these subtle types of proof (does the argument from/to design then carry any weight?)? If the former, are we really being open minded (sure, we'll change our minds, but only if the evidence smacks us on the head).

Even if my use of god as the specific example is fraught with problems, I think the same argument can be made for any belief held by a skeptic. It's one thing to say we're open minded. It's another to actually change your mind when presented with good evidence.

I guess I'm asking what open minded means. Has anyone here-- since becoming a skeptic-- changed his mind dramitically on some belief (like global warming or IQ tests or vacinaction)?


p.s. if my use of the terms "we" and "us" doesn't represent your brand of atheism, my apologies.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Alright (glad, btw, that you don't believe it, I was a little concerned ). So...more than infinitesimal proof, but not necessarily such huge standards as amputee cures.

I don't know that prayer is an argument for deism. It could as easily be an argument for some kind of paranormal crap (Positive Thinking really DOES make sick people better!) The same goes for anything with human origin. To prove a god hypothesis, there would have to be something occurring independent of any human action.

 

[RandFan]

p.s. if my use of the terms "we" and "us" doesn't represent your brand of atheism, my apologies.

Pay no attention to the chip on my shoulder.

I think there could be somethings that could lead me to reconsider my views.

When I was in transition I held on to a few ideas that had the potential to make me reconsider including studies of the efficacy of prayer and near death experiences (NDEs).

Then I had to come to this god forsaken forum and find out from Randi that the studies of prayer were bogus and fataly flawed and NDEs could be replicated in a centrifuge.

It seems that the more and more I look into these things the more I realize that there are prosaic answers for them.

 

[bruto]

Let's assume for the moment that god's plan really is unfathomable and all that usual copout that the faithful use to explain why prayer doesn't work and why the world god loves is such a godawful mess. The idea that good evidence would destroy free will is clearly a non-runner if we look at how much good evidence most religious people are willing to ignore or deny and how much nonsense they are willing to believe, so forget that one. Any god worth the name could come up with a way to convince us all that he exists, without having to alter his unfathomable plan and his capricious handling of the world's affairs. Prayers could still go unanswered, crops fail, disasters befall, and we'd all be in awe of the great Jehovah anyway if he'd just let us in on the joke. God would only have to do something uniquely godlike, some gesture, however empty, that makes us say "good god almighty, he's real after all." After all, he's god. He can do anything. I'm not God, so I can't think of the best possibilities, perhaps, but some event, some real explanation, some persuasive globally personal interaction, would be possible if god wanted it to be. If what god wants is (as the bible implies) a maximum of worship and good behavior, he's going about it in a very roundabout way.

One might also argue that the God described in the old testament did not seem so shy about making himself known. Faith back then didn't mean "believing in something there's no good reason to believe." It meant believing that the god you knew was real was also right. That he was the best of all possible gods, and that what he told you was worth listening to. He walked in the garden, he talked turkey with Abraham, he flashed his credentials to Job out of the whirlwind. And he wasn't so shy about quid pro quo, a covenant, in order to get his worship and his thanks and some nice juicy sheep guts on the altar from time to time. So what's the deal now? If he doesn't owe us a little clear participation, what do we owe him?

I for one would be happy to get a tap on the shoulder from god, though I'd be disappointed if it turned out to be Jehovah, a god I'm not at all fond of. It would take some getting used to, but certainty counts for a lot. The offer is open. Whatever god there might be knows where to find me.

 

[dglas]

For me it would require a redefinition of the terms such that they admit to verification/refutation. The problem is not a matter of sufficient evidence, but a definitional one. Concepts like God are "cleverly" (if you consider "Nyah! You can't disprove it, so there!" clever) designed such that they have no reliance whatsoever on external referents. Hence they do not admit of verification/refutation. This is not trivia or a mere abstraction. It is ridiculous and meaningless to ask what evidence will cause one to accept that something that has no external referent is the case. The question simply does not apply. Evidence is not an issue. It cannot be an issue; the stipulated concept does not admit of it.

For me such concepts are effectively meaningless and yes, there are others. Strangely enough, I do not call myself an "atheist" because the term has no meaning for me. I do not define myself in terms of denial of meaningless nonsense. Similarly, I am not a "moral nihilist" despite not being a "moral absolutist." The idea of moral absolutism is absurd and I won't play that game, much less the game of refuting it.

We've done the intuitionist (no external referents) thing for thousands of years and accomplished absolutely nothing except wasting countless generations of human lives and potential on a quagmire of mysticism, poverty, despair, horror, superstition and hate in an endless repetition of an "eternal recapitulation" to ridiculous concepts with no referents but themselves. In only a few hundred years of scientific (external referents) thinking we have accomplished tremendous feats, not just technological, but in terms of promoting human welfare, extending life-spans, improving quality of life, reducing mortality rates and a list that can go on almost indefinitely. Throwing away rattles and prayers gave us the ability to create theoretical frameworks that now save more of our children from death, disfigurement and debasement then ever before. Rather than trying to make ourselves feel happy or proud or sublime or divine (in some bizarre way) about being poverty and affliction-ridden, we have chosen to consider philosophies that enable us - provide the possibility for efficacy - and the payoff has been astounding.

My wallpaper currently has an image of Saturn eclipsing the sun with the Earth visible through one ring. It is easily missed by those lost in their little private realms of nightmarish, self-congratulatory nonsense what an incredible thing it is to see this image (not an artist's vision, but an actual image). There is nothing; no "miracle," no "act of god," nothing in the entire morbid history of mystical nonsense that can compare with this one simple image. And we accomplished this, because we chose to think about the world as it is, not as we wished it to be. Because we chose verification over intuition. Because we chose to define things in terms of external referents rather than purely internal ones or self-referentiality. By looking outward, instead of inward, we have come to understand more about the world, and in a very interesting sense, more about ourselves than ever before - despite thousands of years of trying it the other, useless, self-hobbling way.

Sometimes those who disdain philosophy (often because they see some of the more meaningless stuff sometimes proclaimed to be profound) fail to understand is that there is one thing that philosophy can teach us and it is probably the most important thing to understand and the most easily overlooked. Philosophies are tools that exist to serve us. They are not truths that we exist to serve. The latter is dogmatism. One guess what the philosophical remedy to dogmatism is. Yes, skepticism.

 

[El Greco]

One might also argue that the God described in the old testament did not seem so shy about making himself known.

And in the new testament as well. We are being taught those stories and the awesome miracles and those are more or less expected to make us believe. What would the place of the Christian God be if all we knew about Jesus Christ was his teachings and he hadn't performed any miracles ? Isn't it the extraordinary evidence he provided the basis for his success ? Otherwise he'd have a place in the history no better than that of Socrates or Plato maybe. With that in mind, why exactly does healing amputees "raise the bar too high" ? You seem to want a proof that can not be disputed only by those who know statistics. But when he multiplied those fish and bread people didn't need to know the probability values to see and understand the miracle. God could still remain largely invisible and apathetic and faith would be greatly reinforced if only he would heal one bilateral amputee each year on his son's birthday.

 

[kellyb]

It really wouldn't take much for me to reconsider.
Anything at all would peak my curiosity. I'd LOVE for there to be "something else" out there.
But I've looked and looked and it just doesn't seem to be there. All I can find are anecdotes and weird circular logic fallacies.

At this point the absence of evidence really looks like evidence of absence.

 

[RandFan]

Otherwise he'd have a place in the history no better than that of Socrates or Plato maybe.

(emphasis mine) Excellent post El Greco. I think "maybe" needs to be emphasized because Christ's teachings (or at least most of them) were not unique or new to Christ.

Recently I was debating a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses and they spoke disparagingly of Romans and Greeks. To Christians Romans and Greeks were godless heathens.

So Christ gets credit for enlightenment when he simply came along at the right time to repeat many concepts that had been state by others. It is very likely that his moral philosophies are a direct result of the contributions of others that was also a direct result of those dastardly pantheistic heathens.

 

[Iamme]

And if you're a true skeptic, there must be a willingness to change your mind about god if presented with new / proper evidence.

So, what type of new / proper evidence would be needed for you to abandon atheism?

The problem is that many of us likely require something extraordinary, like god calling our name, or curing an amputee, or making paris hilton a talented actress.

But, assuming a personal** god existed, I don't think it would owe us proof on demand. So, the "absence of extraordinary evidence" claim could neither be used to support our atheism nor make us feel warm n fuzzy about our skeptical willingness to change our mind if presented with proper evidence.

The argument then becomes: Unless there's some non-extraordinary / plausible scenario that would make us change our minds about god, we're no better than the fundie theist who won't change his/her mind about creationism (for example) even though tons of evidence against it exists.

So, we atheists are no better than fundies; perhaps even worse. We claim to be openminded, yet there's no realistic/non-extraordinary scenario which exists that would cause us to change our minds.

Are we hippocrates by claiming the open-minded high road, or is god's failure to cure amputees (or answer when called) compelling justification for labelling ourselves skeptics?

Can anyone think of a plausible scenario that if shown to be true would lead one to reject his / her atheism?

(**I don't think one can falsify deism, so I believe it's a potentially rational but empty world view-- beyond saying goddidit, deism to me offers nothing in the way of explanatory power),

I like this open honesty.

I was brought up as a Lutheran. As I reached about the age of 14 and came of age and made it through Cathechism class, I began having serious doubts. From then on, I considered myself an agnostic. Not an atheist. An agnostic. I felt there was no real compelling evidence that God existed or that the Bible stories were true [of all the stories posted in this forum, I can't recall if the Neeshack-Meeshack-Abednigo (sp.) account has been mentioned...and that is REALLY one for the books] or that Jesus was the Son of God and came here by virgin birth. But at the same time, due to the lack of any alternative answers as to how the universe came into being, and how man got here, I have always remained open-minded to the possibility that a God still may exist, and is so much above us that we can't comprehend him (it).

At the same time, I ask myself that if there is some form of intelligent thing out there that has some klind of brain-networking going on that conceived all of this in some kind of set orderly fashion, beyond sheer chance, that unless the Bible is true and the promise of eternal life is true...then what is the use of it all even if there IS a God of sorts? Would it really matter (if there was a God or not), if the claim for eternal life is just a made up fable no more true than the theme from Santa that "you better not shout, you better not cry..."?

The only couple things I see it maybe mattering about is the fact that you maybe would not go nuts your whole life from never figuring out if there was a God or not, if you finally figured out there was one (or there wasn't one)...and, from the standpoint that if there IS a God and everything was designed with a purpose, that perhaps we could live in better harmony with nature, and also get some satisfaction knowing that we are conducting ourselves in harmony with this 'being's' purpose.

 

[Iamme]

And in the new testament as well. We are being taught those stories and the awesome miracles and those are more or less expected to make us believe. What would the place of the Christian God be if all we knew about Jesus Christ was his teachings and he hadn't performed any miracles ? Isn't it the extraordinary evidence he provided the basis for his success ? Otherwise he'd have a place in the history no better than that of Socrates or Plato maybe. With that in mind, why exactly does healing amputees "raise the bar too high" ? You seem to want a proof that can not be disputed only by those who know statistics. But when he multiplied those fish and bread people didn't need to know the probability values to see and understand the miracle. God could still remain largely invisible and apathetic and faith would be greatly reinforced if only he would heal one bilateral amputee each year on his son's birthday.

It isn't just the fact though that he did miracles. He also supposedly said things about himself (like...he is God himself) that one has to wonder if the claims by him were true (as to be perhaps made up by supporters of a certain type of religion, hundreds of years later, when no other records could prove otherwise). Also remember that Jesus did not directly cause THIS miracle but was the recipeint of one himself, from God, during the "transfiguration" that a couple of the disciples witnessed. True, or made up stories?

One of the things that bothers me about Jesus life on Earth and his ministry, (other than the fact Jesus was much more passive than the accounts we read of God from his Old Testament wrath) was that not enough is known about his early years. That we only know things basically about his meager 3 year ministry (a God who is eternal and timeles comes to Earth to school men for 3 measely years?????) from his age of 30-33, when he was killed. And there are so many unanswered questions. SO many. And we are here to sit and constantlyt ask WWJD, because the answers were not given. I find it interesting that Jesus never was recorded saying how the earth was made, or that there would be cars someday, instead of foot and camels. Or telling the disciples about dinosauers... Or why he performed miracles such as walking on water, and creating more fish and bread, but never created wall outlets with TV sets plugged in.

 

[RandFan]

It isn't just the fact though that he did miracles. He alos supposedly said things about himself (like...he is God himself) that one has to wonder if the claims by him were true (as to be perhaps made up by supporters of a certain type of religion, hundreds of years later, when no other records could prove otherwise). Also remember that Jesus did not directly cause THIS miracle but was the recipeint of one himself, from God, during the "transfiguration" that a couple of the disciples witnessed. True, or made up stories?

Not a bad point Iamme. Bear in mind though that the story was not knew or unique to Christ. There were a number of very similar stories that include many of the themes of a Messiah including virgin birth and resurrection. Those did not survive. These include Dionysus, Osiris, Mythros and Hercules. So we can surmise that this wasn't enough to ensure longevity but it was a factor for Christ.

 

[RandFan]

But at the same time, due to the lack of any alternative answers as to how the universe came into being, and how man got here, I have always remained open-minded to the possibility that a God still may exist, and is so much above us that we can't comprehend him (it).

At the same time, I ask myself that if there is some form of intelligent thing out there that has some klind of brain-networking going on that conceived all of this in some kind of set orderly fashion, beyond sheer chance...

"Sheer chance"? This is not a scientific explanation. One need not choose god or "sheer chance".

...that unless the Bible is true and the promise of eternal life is true...then what is the use of it all even if there IS a God of sorts?

This doesn't make any sense. Why is the view posited in the Bible more significant than any other view?

Would it really matter (if there was a God or not), if the claim for eternal life is just a made up fable no more true than the theme from Santa that "you better not shout, you better not cry..."?

This is an emotional and irrational response.

The only couple things I see it maybe mattering about is the fact that you maybe would not go nuts your whole life from never figuring out if there was a God or not, if you finally figured out there was one (or there wasn't one)...and, from the standpoint that if there IS a God and everything was designed with a purpose, that perhaps we could live in better harmony with nature, and also get some satisfaction knowing that we are conducting ourselves in harmony with this 'being's' purpose.

Purpose is NOT necessary to living in better harmony with nature. You need to let go of your self centered ego. You don't have to have a divine purpose to have a purpose in life. Life is meaning for its own sake. Loving others and/or nature, caring about others and/or nature, respecting others and/or nature, providing service to others or protecting nature brings the same rewards whether Christ was the messiah or not.

 

[Iamme]

Not a bad point Iamme. Bear in mind though that the story was not knew or unique to Christ. There were a number of very similar stories that include many of the themes of a Messiah including virgin birth and resurrection. Those did not survive. These include Dionysus, Osiris, Mythros and Hercules. So we can surmise that this wasn't enough to ensure longevity but it was a factor for Christ.

Would your point then be that there is some reaon why the Christian faith flourished while other similar belief systems did not? And we (people of religious faith) would use this fact alone as some sort of compelling evidence that since the accounts of Jesus live on, that there must be something to all this stuff?...all these claims?

 

[The Atheist]

For me even the question is irrelevant. Why even consider the possibility that there might be a God so that I may ask myself what would prove him to me ? Why bother with God more than Santa or Mickey Mouse ? To make an analogy with the 1M challenge, God hasn't even passed my preeliminary tests. It makes as much sense to me as wondering what would take to accept the moon as the deity of fertility or the horse-shoe as a bad luck repellant. I don't even bother with such questions and this does not make me a fundamentalist; just a realist.

Mate, I saw this thread and was going to come in an Oolon Colluphid, "Which/whose/what god are you anyway", when I got as far as your post and didn't bother going further.

Beautifully put, thanks.

 

[Iamme]

Originally Posted by Iamme
But at the same time, due to the lack of any alternative answers as to how the universe came into being, and how man got here, I have always remained open-minded to the possibility that a God still may exist, and is so much above us that we can't comprehend him (it).

At the same time, I ask myself that if there is some form of intelligent thing out there that has some klind of brain-networking going on that conceived all of this in some kind of set orderly fashion, beyond sheer chance...

RandFan:
"Sheer chance"? This is not a scientific explanation. One need not choose god or "sheer chance".

Iamme:
Okay. Very well. Not "sheer chance". I suppose i cood have said "random selection", but I'm sure that wouldn't be satisfactory either. If one believes that all the complex laws and matter are derived from the simple... based on basic laws, that grew upon themselves. based on harmony within those laws, then yes, I agree that it is not just sheer chance. Probably a bad choice of words on my part.

Quote (Iamme):
...that unless the Bible is true and the promise of eternal life is true...then what is the use of it all even if there IS a God of sorts?

RandFan:
This doesn't make any sense. Why is the view posited in the Bible more significant than any other view?

Iamme:
I can't argue with that. Only to ask you what your response has to do with what I said.

Quote (Iamme):
Would it really matter (if there was a God or not), if the claim for eternal life is just a made up fable no more true than the theme from Santa that "you better not shout, you better not cry..."?

RandFan:
This is an emotional and irrational response.

Iamme:
You out to play devil's advocate for it's sake alone? Is not what I said, a valid point, or not?


Quote (Iamme):
The only couple things I see it maybe mattering about is the fact that you maybe would not go nuts your whole life from never figuring out if there was a God or not, if you finally figured out there was one (or there wasn't one)...and, from the standpoint that if there IS a God and everything was designed with a purpose, that perhaps we could live in better harmony with nature, and also get some satisfaction knowing that we are conducting ourselves in harmony with this 'being's' purpose.

RandFan:
Purpose is NOT necessary to living in better harmony with nature.

Iamme:
Well, I guess so, if there is no God. Obviously everything is working....somehow. Since if there is no God there would be no purpose, and hence it be all up to us as to if we felt the need or not to live in harmony with nature. And since we are a part of nature, it be to our well-being to live in harmony, whether or not there is a God or not.

But if there was a God, I think it would even further make us more acutely aware of trying to live with nature in some way that we would try to figure out how God would have intended.

RandFan:
You need to let go of your self centered ego.

Iamme:
Hmmm. Explain that comment further. You think I am self-centered...while you don't have any of that in you?

RandFan:
You don't have to have a divine purpose to have a purpose in life. Life is meaning for its own sake. Loving others and/or nature, caring about others and/or nature, respecting others and/or nature, providing service to others or protecting nature brings the same rewards whether Christ was the messiah or not.

Iamme:
Maybe. You are presuming that there is no God from the get go. Therefore you presume we exist, and all of nature, without God's help. And if you believe that what I just said to be true, you are also going to believe that there still has to be a right way and a wrong way to do things, in relation to the nature around us.


But souppose that the only reason why there is any chance of there being any harmony at all is the fact there is a God to begin with, who layed down the order of things starting with the most simple of laws, that led up to there being all this stuff in nature, that could lead us to be even having this discussion?

I'll make an analogy to what I just said: Suppose warm water serves a "purpose" between hot and cold. You'd buy into that, right? You'd have to admit that warm water serves the purpose of soothing us, for one thing, right? Well... what if I said that if there was no God, that then therre would be no hot water and no cold water...so hence, there could be no discussion about warm water (purpose). See what I mean? You have forgotten that part in your argument. You are making a your presumption grounded in some belief that the laws of the universe apply whether or not a God exists. And I am saying that if a God did not exist, none of this would even be up for discussion.

 

[ClintonHammond]

I can't think of a single good scenario that hasn't already been debunked by Original Series Star Trek....

If it was that easy for THEM to dismiss.....

 

[RandFan]

Okay. Very well. Not "sheer chance". I suppose i cood have said "random selection", but I'm sure that wouldn't be satisfactory either.

It would also be wrong. I would ask you to educate yourself Iamme but I'm not sure that would at all be helpful. As to biological complexity the answer is evolution via natural selection. An elegant and compelling fact.

Iamme:
...that unless the Bible is true and the promise of eternal life is true...then what is the use of it all even if there IS a God of sorts?

RandFan:
This doesn't make any sense. Why is the view posited in the Bible more significant than any other view?

Iamme:
I can't argue with that. Only to ask you what your response has to do with what I said.

You used the word "Bible" in your quote as if it is significant, is it? Why can't an alternative view of eternal life fit the argument without the Bible?

Iamme:
Would it really matter (if there was a God or not), if the claim for eternal life is just a made up fable no more true than the theme from Santa that "you better not shout, you better not cry..."?

RandFan:
This is an emotional and irrational response.

Iamme:
You out to play devil's advocate for it's sake alone? Is not what I said, a valid point, or not?

It's an emotional and irrational response. Short answer. No.

Well, I guess so, if there is no God. Obviously everything is working....somehow. Since if there is no God there would be no purpose, and hence it be all up to us as to if we felt the need or not to live in harmony with nature. And since we are a part of nature, it be to our well-being to live in harmony, whether or not there is a God or not.

Yes, that is exactly right.

But if there was a God, I think it would even further make us more acutely aware of trying to live with nature in some way that we would try to figure out how God would have intended.

This is simply asserted. There is no basis to accept it. It is also begging the question. I dread having to explain that to you.

RandFan:
You need to let go of your self centered ego.

Iamme:
Hmmm. Explain that comment further. You think I am self-centered...while you don't have any of that in you?

When I was religious everything that called into question my world view was seen as threat. I would respond in an emotional and irrational fashion. I was angry at those who I perceived threatened my beliefs. This is caused by giving undue relevance to what we see as the self. Once I let that go my eyes opened. There were no more threats, demons, devils, etc. I could analyze the world in critical way. In the past humans relied on intuition and emotion. Then came some Greek philosophers and suddenly humans began to see the world from a different perspective and thus was born the enlightenment.

To be sure not everyone with such a world view is angry but many if not most feel threatened by those who question their beliefs.

Do I have any of that in me? Of course. Damn straight. But I recognize it and I have let much of it go.

Maybe. You are presuming that there is no God from the get go. Therefore you presume we exist, and all of nature, without God's help. And if you believe that what I just said to be true, you are also going to believe that there still has to be a right way and a wrong way to do things, in relation to the nature around us.

No, I don't believe that to be true at all. I believe that there is a right and wrong way based on my perceptions and the perceptions of society.

But suppose that the only reason why there is any chance of there being any harmony at all is the fact there is a God to begin with, who layed down the order of things starting with the most simple of laws, that led up to there being all this stuff in nature, that could lead us to be even having this discussion?

To what end? What would such supposition lead to?...

I'll make an analogy to what I just said: Suppose warm water serves a "purpose" between hot and cold. You'd buy into that, right? You'd have to admit that warm water serves the purpose of soothing us, for one thing, right? Well... what if I said that if there was no God, that then therre would be no hot water and no cold water...so hence, there could be no discussion about warm water (purpose). See what I mean? You have forgotten that part in your argument. You are making a your presumption grounded in some belief that the laws of the universe apply whether or not a God exists. And I am saying that if a God did not exist, none of this would even be up for discussion.

Once again, you reveal your ego.

Dawkins gives an absolutely wonderful example. Suppose a mud-puddle suddenly came to life. What would its assumptions be? "Isn't life wonderful?" "The world fits me so well. It remarkably suits my purpose"

And what of the bacteria living in the hot springs? I'm sure the near boiling hot water could be soothing to the bacteria.

Your argument is silly and is not founded on any logical basis.