Not one. In fact, no one in recorded history, present company included, has any better idea about it than I do.

I do not believe in a creator entity because there is no real evidence that one exists. None.

At best, we have inference, wishful thinking, and the dubious claims of personal revelation.

If someone chooses to believe, then that's their business, but they haven't actually encountered any real evidence, either.

And if anyone disputes this point, I invite them to present such evidence for review (with the disclaimer that "personal revelation" is absolutely not evidence.

I just spoke to Him and surprisingly He says you are correct.

If you want to make the question relevant, here's how to phrase it:
what evidence do I have that the person I love or loved actually exists or existed?

To answer, I can present things such as photographs, handwriting samples, audio/video recording, and other physical evidence of the person (perhaps including the actual person) sufficient to establish that person's existence with a fair degree of certainty (except to deliberate contrarians, I suppose).

Your question, as phrased, seeks to conflate the actual existence of an unverified, transcendent entity with a mundane human's personal experience of another mundane human, and that's an intellectually dishonest comparison.

Assuming that I exist and am of competent mental faculty, then I am an acceptable judge of my own emotions, and my own perceptions are sufficient to justify my own personal assessment of those emotions.

However, even assuming that I exist and am of competent mental faculty, my own perceptions are simply not adequate to assess the existence of a unique, transcendent divine being for whom no other verifiable evidence exists--and to that end, others' testimony of experience does not add to mine, unless I can evaluate that testimony independent of their experience.

I can choose to believe in such a magical entity, but absent corroborating evidence of that entity's existence, then my belief is not sufficient to demonstrate its existence.


That type of verbal trickery, of equating transcendent phenomena to everyday occurrences, is a favorite tactic of religionists, by the way, but it's a crock.

in love?

What makes you think you are a competent judge of the accuracy own perceptions and your emotions? You think you are, but not those that use that same argument to say they are capable of experiencing God?

Don't you accept that perception is fallible? If you do, then you should know that witness testimony can also be fallible. Witnesses could say they saw a miracle. Does that make it real? Witnesses could say they saw David Copperfield fly above the stage. Does that make it real?

Collecting physical evidence, letters, etc., does not confirm that you are in love either. For example, one individual may shower another with "evidence" of love--romantic gestures, kisses, poetry, whatever--and actually be driven by money for example.

You seem to argue that there is some kind of proof that love is a real, and that it isn't an illusion. If it is real, it would also involve free will, and you seem to assume that your perception is not fallible.

Love, free will, self-certainty -- it all sounds very spiritual.

The same applies to you; if you're going to dismiss the assumption that a mundane human can assess mundane human perceptions, then you must certainly reject any hope that a mundane human can accurately assess the existence of a transcendent entity.

However, I accept I am fallible. I accept I am an unreliable witness, as other are. I accept I am able to be deceived by my own perceptions and my own conclusions. I don't see God and science as being mutually exclusive. For a start, I don't know what God is. It may be science.

Atheist or not, you assumed your conclusion as religionists generally do.

functional brain state correlates of the experience of love.

brain state. Ghosts beliefs are assertions about external reality.

as well as a change in brain chemistry.

Here is just one study exploring this phenomenon.

The difference between this and a similar response in a worshiper is that the individual who have fallen in love with can be verified to actually exist (see the other excellent posts on this point).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140206155244.htm

"Falling in love causes our body to release a flood of feel-good chemicals that trigger specific physical reactions," said Pat Mumby, PhD, co-director of the Loyola Sexual Wellness Clinic and professor, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine (SSOM). "This internal elixir of love is responsible for making our cheeks flush, our palms sweat and our hearts race."

Levels of these substances, which include dopamine, adrenaline and norepinephrine, increase when two people fall in love. Dopamine creates feelings of euphoria while adrenaline and norepinephrine are responsible for the pitter-patter of the heart, restlessness and overall preoccupation that go along with experiencing love.

MRI scans indicate that love lights up the pleasure center of the brain. When we fall in love, blood flow increases in this area, which is the same part of the brain implicated in obsessive-compulsive behaviors.

of God, is it?

outside of a person's brain.

Can you?

and there is evidence it exists. You keep conflating the experience of belief in gods with assertions that gods exist in order to equate “love” and “the existence of gods”. It is an old worn out equivocation fallacy. It isn’t clever and it isn’t original.

Love and religious experiences are both internal brain states that can be measured and shown to exist. That says nothing about the existence of gods.

But many scientists can accommodate faith and science. These scientists accept that the NOMA applies.

It answers no questions and provides no comfort.

I will happily accept that NOMA applies here, once you get all of the world's religious leaders to state clearly that their faith has nothing to do with worldly matters.

Since it "does not ask for proof," as guillaumeb says, then it is indistinguishable from fiction.

Good to see you around, Orrex!

My opinion works for me, in part because I don't force it on others. Organized religion absolutely forces its opinion on others, generally to the detriment of women, children, non-white males, and the LGBT community as a whole.

Abortion is one example of that, where some feel that they have the right to determine what all women can do with their own bodies.

And that is one reason for the Founders desire for separation of Church and State.

When you're down in the single-digit percentages of a given population, it's unwise to tout the members as somehow proving a point.
Also, eyeballing the ones I recognize, you're talking a mean of 70+ years old. These people are from a very different era.

Don't ruin the narrative.

may I add my pal Dr. Robert Bakker? Bobs a paleontologist and a minister.

There's room for all.

There is room for all.

Scientists who are not personally invested in concrete thinking see new and amazing possibilities.

This is an amazing time to be alive.

Tell us of these quantum/religious possibilities!

..... only those with open minds should try to enter the realms of CERN

Our understanding of that reality progresses forward as it always has in spite of the efforts of organized religion to return to a regressive mindset where the inevitable answer to ignorance on questions about our physical world is hocus pocus metaphysical babble.

Concerning 'Change". Organized religion is not involved. These are FUNDAMENTAL changes to previously accepted RULES.

Many are scared because they built their reality around 'rules' that are being broken by experiments and research.

We should approach new ideas with skepticism, but embrace those ideas when the preponderance of evidence favors them.

And did you forget about Quantum? It's all things to all people!

And that seems to be a problem for some here.

We know.

We also know that atheism is the rejection of god claims, and not necessarily the assertion that no gods exist.

But then again, that destroys YOUR entire narrative, so you'll continue to misrepresent others.

Watch, you'll do it right here.

Some will continue with their strawman bullshit that rejection of an unprovable assertion MUST include another unprovable assertion.

The interesting part is regardless of how often they are cold hard busted on their fallacy, they will continue to repeat it. It’s almost like the propaganda technique employed by the orange man where a lie will somehow magically become truth if it’s repeated enough. I suppose some simply have no other choice but to play to their fan club.

"I know you are but what am I."

So I provided this link.

And yes, some here are invested in their own narrative that includes the idea that theism=delusional thinking.

And you do realize, that a person can be delusional about one thing, yet completely competent in their career, right?

But regardless, Mariana's reply to you in the other thread (why oh why do you insist on starting a new thread to answer a question in a different one, anyway?) is the only one needed.

MineralMan did not ask if there are any scientists who are theists. He asked you to name some. Lying about other people's posts is not conducive to dialogue, Gil.

And my response to him.

He asked, I answered.

Bernardo de La Paz post #76 was DIRECTLY in reference to scientists of faith on the subject of global warming.
Your response to that was imprecise, but MM could fairly assume you meant scientists that have something to do with climate.

None of your '25' are climate-related to my knowledge. None. Not a single one. You've basically referenced random people with no expertise here, in a thread that was clearly about climate science.

You have no proof that he has no proof he didn't duplicitously misrepresent that entire conversation to hell and back in another thread of his creation specifically intended for that purpose.

Checkmate atheists!

Last edited Fri Nov 1, 2019, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

So, you started a new thread to remove your response from the thread in which I asked that question, because you wanted to change what I asked to a more convenient question. I won't play. Oh, well...

Does that mean alchemy is true?
Also Newton was a religious nutjob. He wrote more about religion than physics. For him to become the Lucasian Professor of Mathmatics at Cambridge he had to get a waiver because he was not a member of the Church of England. You see he did not accept the trinity.

What is considered to be science has evolved.

When he was born, alcohol was illegal and women had just won the right to vote.

This post was triggered by a question in another post.

Or is it that you just don't care?

There's always gonna be some in the crowd who need to have their "white history month" or "straight pride parade."

Like, the author could have just said, "Here's 23 Scientists of Faith" and left it at that.

But no, the author had to add, "These guys aren't ATHEISTS". It's obvious the intent was to take something away from us. Something we never had in the first place. Like mugging a naked man.

Gil can always be counted upon to illustrate the truth of that quote.

Does privilege apply to you as well?

Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

But some seem to feel they have none.

I presume you've devised some metric by which to test my self-awareness?

But your own answer shows that you are indeed well aware.

the true propagandist will simply double down.

Example of secular myth:

Evolution has resulted in us having, in general, greater intelligence and abstract thinking.

On the other hand physiologically we are made up the same building blocks as other life. Also looking at our great ape cousins and the fossil record, when were imbued with a soul? The difference between us and a chimp is in degree and not kind. Who else has a soul: Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Habilis, or Erectus?

Where is it located? How do you know it even exists?

I don't think consciousness exists after the brain chemistry ends. I don't think humans are privileged with anything transcendental beyond other animals.

Do you realize how insulting the constant replies equating theism with delusion are?

Or is it that you simply do not care?

A very smart and hugely influential doctor. Who said that "all religion is delusion."

the D-K effect.

as was explained ad nasium to you on your D-K thread.

You might want to take up a different sport.

The author says he'd like to hear why; but his blog does not allow comments.

But the explanation is all too easy; academics in the hard sciences don't know much about human biology, and human culture studies. Which are often all too clearly telling us where religion is coming from; in an all too concrete - and highly disillusioning - ways. Religion coming from flawed human social institutions, etc..

Most humans are theists. Most scientists are theists. In my experience, their being theists has little to do with their occupations. They were brought up theist, like most of us.

And that was 10 years ago. Likely lower now.

33% believe in God.

18% don't believe in God, but believe in a "universal spirit or higher power"... which means they believe in God.

Pew (deliberately?) makes this more complicated than it needs to be.