Atheism: how can you be so sure?

axer

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

Just like I don't believe that christians have any tangible proof of a god I am also thinking that aethiests could not possibly have any proof that there is no god either because there is too many unknowns when it comes to life, the begining etc? I believe that there is, if even just miniscule, a possibility that there is a god. Thus in my mind they (christians etc & aethiests) are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

is that fair thought?

I bring it up because I have told people I am not catholic (and am leaving the church) but agnostic to which many people (probably due to ignorance) presumed I was an aethiest. A few of them then began talking about aethiests they know and how they were always arguing that aethiesm is correct and christian etc is wrong. I thought that reminded me of religions like catholicism etc.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

Just like I don't believe that christians have any tangible proof of a god I am also thinking that aethiests could not possibly have any proof that there is no god either? I believe that there is, if even just miniscule, a possibility that there is a god. Thus in my mind they are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

is that fair thought?

I bring it up because I have told people I am not catholic (and am leaving the church) but agnostic to which many people (probably due to ignorance) presumed I was an aethiest. A few ofthem then began talking about aethiests they know and how they were always arguing that aethiesm is correct and christian etc is wrong.

Yes.

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being being so nuerotic as to desire to be loved by all its creations and to disapprove of homosexuls etc. is kinda ludicrous. It's amazing how God just happens to exactly fit the perceptions, biases, and opinions of those that followed him first.

Kazuma

SDooM wrote: »

Yes.

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being being so nuerotic as to desire to be loved by all its creations and to disapprove of homosexuls etc. is kinda ludicrous. It's amazing how God just happens to exactly fit the perceptions, biases, and opinions of those that followed him first.

+1
And why would an omnipresent superbeing who's in all places and times at the same time change his behaviour in the space of 2000 years? Bit fishy if you ask me! Therapy?

axer

SDooM wrote: »

Yes.

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being being so nuerotic as to desire to be loved by all its creations and to disapprove of homosexuls etc. is kinda ludicrous. It's amazing how God just happens to exactly fit the perceptions, biases, and opinions of those that followed him first.

Im not talking particularly about a catholic, islamic etc god. I am talking about a god(s) in general i.e. a creator(s) who could also possibly have somewhat control over certain things. Your reasons about god above are the reasons I am not part of any organised religion but at the same time I cannot believe that there is 100% certainty that there is no god either. So if we take what you said without the last part i.e.:

SDooM wrote: »

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being

Can one believe there is a chance of their being a god (forgetting about the stuff added on to this supposed creator e.g. homosexuality is wrong etc) and still be an aethiest? i.e. is an aethiest just believing in something he/she cannot be 100% sure of either?

Kazuma wrote: »

+1
And why would an omnipresent superbeing who's in all places and times at the same time change his behaviour in the space of 2000 years? Bit fishy if you ask me! Therapy?

as above.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

Im not talking particularly about a catholic, islamic etc god. I am talking about a god(s) in general. Above is the reason I am not part of any organised religion but at the same time I cannot believe that there is 100% certainty that there is no god either. So if we take what you said without the last part i.e.:
Can one believe there is a chance of their being a god (forgetting about the stuff added on to this supposed creator e.g. homosexuality is wrong etc) and still be an aethiest? i.e. is an aethiest just believing in something he/she cannot be 100% sure of either?

as above.

Yup. Most atheists are like scientists: They only believe the evidence placed before them. There is no evidence for a god: There is no belief in a god. If evidence was irrefutably placed before them, they would have no problem accepting it.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

Dinner

I am positive there is no god because I have not been given any indication that there is a god. And until such a time that I see proof of it's existance then I will not believe.

I have seen no proof that there is a massive lion in my attic so I'm not going to call the zoo just yet. If I hear footprints and growling then I may believe in the lions existance.

axer

SDooM wrote: »

Yup. Most atheists are like scientists: They only believe the evidence placed before them. There is no evidence for a god: There is no belief in a god. If evidence was irrefutably placed before them, they would have no problem accepting it.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

But aethiests I presume can still theorise at the possibilty of a creator (god) and still be aethiests? or, like you said, would their have to be irrefutable evidence in front of them to accept the possibility? so possibly have the belief that there could be a god? or does the fact of having a belief negate that they are aethiests in first place? sounds all mixed up but you get the point.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

But aethiests I presume can still theorise at the possibilty of a creator (god) and still be aethiests? or, like you said, would their have to be irrefutable evidence in front of them to accept the possibility?

Yup, you can hypothesise away, but hypothesis remains that until a proof is given.

For example, I can hypothesise there is a flying teapot in orbit of venus. But there's no proof, so it is just hypothesis.

Of course, there is no standard body of atheism, so interpretations vary.

axer

Arabel wrote: »

I am positive there is no god because I have not been given any indication that there is a god. And until such a time that I see proof of it's existance then I will not believe.

The reason why I am agnostic instead of aethiest is because I dont believe how someone can say with 100% certainty that there was no creator(s)/god(s) when we do not know for sure how the universe/us was created thus how can we rule it out as a possibility?

SDooM wrote: »

Yup, you can hypothesise away, but hypothesis remains that until a proof is given.

For example, I can hypothesise there is a flying teapot in orbit of venus. But there's no proof, so it is just hypothesis.

Of course, there is no standard body of atheism, so interpretations vary.

Is believing there is no god a hypothesise in itself since there is no proof either way i.e. we don't know for sure how the universe etc was created.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

The reason why I am agnostic instead of aethiest is because I dont believe how someone can say with 100% certainty that there was no creator(s)/god(s) when we do not know for sure how the universe/us was created thus how can we rule it out as a possibility?

Is believing there is no god a hypothesise in itself since there is no proof either way i.e. we don't know for sure how the universe etc was created.

It's not certain, just bloody unlikely.

axer

SDooM wrote: »

It's not certain, just bloody unlikely.

but possible? One could say that about the world being flat. My point being that I cannot understand how someone can be 100% positive that there is or is not a god when it has not being proven either way and until we have proof either way - how can one commit?

Dinner

axer wrote: »

but possible? One could say that about the world being flat. My point being that I cannot understand how someone can be 100% positive that there is or is not a god when it has not being proven either way and until we have proof either way - how can one commit?

So there could be a lion in my attic?

axer

Arabel wrote: »

So there could be a lion in my attic?

Im sure there is a slight possibility but it can easily be proven either way.

I think whether there is a lion in your attic or not is a different argument to the creator etc argument because we know the difference between a lion in the attic or not in the attic. We also know through experience the probability of a lion being in your attic (presuming you live in Ireland and not in africa where there is a much stronger possibility of a lion in your attic). Since we do not know how the universe was created then we cannot rule anything out - then all hypotheseses should be all on a level playing field (in that one can not rule out any of them unless they are 100% proven not to be the case).

Zombrex

axer wrote: »

Im sure there is a slight possibility but it can easily be proven either way.

I think whether there is a lion in your attic or not is a different argument to the creator etc argument because we know the difference between a lion in the attic or not in the attic.

Firstly you don't believe there is a lion in your attic, you can reject that idea without need to be 100% certain that it is impossible that there a lion in your attic. In fact a lion in your attic is a lot more plausable than a lot of things, since you know lions exist, you know your attic exists, you know a lion could fit in your attic etc. But you can still say "There is no lion in my attic"

Secondly, if Bob, a random guy on the street, came up to you and told you there was a lion in your attic you would most likely say "No there isn't. Go away Bob".

This is what atheists do. Someone comes up and says "My god is the creator of the universe, he sent is son/prophet/angels/golden tables to Earth to reveal his plan for mankind to help us, and we should worship him because he is real and wants to save you from hell/hades/oblivion"

And the atheists says "No there isn't"

axer wrote: »

Since we do not know how the universe was created then we cannot rule anything out - then all hypotheseses should be all on a level playing field (in that one can not rule out any of them unless they are 100% proven not to be the case).

Certainly not, but then that isn't what atheism is actually saying. I have no idea if the universe was created by something or not. Its entirely possible, and as you say we have no way of judging.

What I do know is that humans make s**t up, and that humans make up religions.

When I say I'm an atheist I'm not claiming that there is no chance the universe was created by something, I'm rejecting the human claim that that "something" what religion X.

This is just like your rejecting Bob saying "There is a lion in your attic" It is entirely possible there is a lion in your attic, but it is very unlikely that Bob would know there is a lion in your attic. It is far more likely that Bob is just making s**t up.

Hope that explains at least my position.

Dinner

axer wrote: »

Im sure there is a slight possibility but it can easily be proven either way.

I think whether there is a lion in your attic or not is a different argument to the creator etc argument because we know the difference between a lion in the attic or not in the attic. We also know through experience the probability of a lion being in your attic (presuming you live in Ireland and not in africa where there is a much stronger possibility of a lion in your attic). Since we do not know how the universe was created then we cannot rule anything out - then all hypotheseses should be all on a level playing field (in that one can not rule out any of them unless they are 100% proven not to be the case).

Well I currently don't have a ladder so I won't be able to check for a while.

I assume that there is not a lion in my attic because there are no wild lions in Ireland, or if there is it's keeping itself pretty well hidden and has not let anybody see it.

Similarily, I assume that there is no god because I have not seen, or heard of any possibility of there being a god. If there is a god, then it has done a damn fine job at doing absolutley nothing for millennia.

There is, of course, the possibilty of there being a god, lion or teapot but until I am given some sort of evidence I see no reason why I should entertain the chance of it's existence.

eoin5

Hi axer. At any point in time you are either a theist or you are an atheist, or in other words you either believe or you dont. I've found that a lot of people use agnosticism as a third choice, but most of those people are really agnostic atheists. The question of probability is a seperate issue to what personal belief you hold.

Also its worth noting the power of suggestion in this debate. To say that someone is an atheist doesnt imply a thought process resulting in a belief, its simply the default state of mind. A good comparision is all those people who dont believe in walking rainbows, because they have never heard of them.

aidan24326

eoin5 wrote: »

Hi axer. At any point in time you are either a theist or you are an atheist, or in other words you either believe or you dont. I've found that a lot of people use agnosticism as a third choice, but most of those people are really agnostic atheists. The question of probability is a seperate issue to what personal belief you hold.

Also its worth noting the power of suggestion in this debate. To say that someone is an atheist doesnt imply a thought process resulting in a belief, its simply the default state of mind. A good comparision is all those people who dont believe in walking rainbows, because they have never heard of them.

Good point Eoin. Basically we're all effectively 'nothing at all' with regard to gods and religion until those ideas are planted in our young heads in the first place. (assuming religion isn't hard-wired in some way)

And Axer, the atheist position (in general) is not to be 100% certain about anything. No atheist I ever met or heard of has ever said 'there is definitely no god/creator'. From my position I totally reject the versions of god put forward by organised religions, because like Wicknight said it's pretty clear that people are just 'making sh1t up', and framing the whole thing to suit their own fears/wishes/biases etc.

The possibilty of there having been some sort of creator is one that can't be dismissed outright, and we may never know either way. But the possibility of any of the main religions being correct is as near to zero as makes no odds, so I'm confident that they're just a human invention to satisfy human needs and have no basis in reality.

axer

So aethiests do not reject the idea of a god/creator just the god that humans have created to satisfy their point of view. That is pretty much what I believe.

Eoin5 I guess you are right, I am most likely an "agnostic atheist" then. I await the strange looks from people when it comes up in conversation.

Its a pity their is such a negative image associated with the word "atheist".

Thanks for your responses guys.

Zombrex

axer wrote: »

So aethiests do not reject the idea of a god/creator just the god that humans have created to satisfy their point of view. That is pretty much what I believe.

To me "god" has more meaning that simply creator. "God" is a human concept, a creature or creatures modeled on humans, beings that should be revered and worshiped and that explain various elements of what we don't understand in the concept of human-like agents that do things for human reasons. The Christian "God" is an example of this, but a better example would be Greek mythology. In Christianity you end up with a rather schizophrenic god, where as the Greeks were clever enough to attribute different aspects of nature and humanity with different gods.

If there is "something" out there beyond the universe that is response for its creation (and I see no reason to believe there is), I'm pretty certain humans have not idea what it is or that it exists or not. Gods are an entirely different concept altogether. It is only in recent times that people have tried to marry the idea of a god with concepts like the universe and the big bang. Before that gods lived in the clouds.

Akrasia

Wicknight wrote: »

To me "god" has more meaning that simply creator. "God" is a human concept, a creature or creatures modeled on humans, beings that should be revered and worshiped and that explain various elements of what we don't understand in the concept of human-like agents that do things for human reasons. The Christian "God" is an example of this, but a better example would be Greek mythology. In Christianity you end up with a rather schizophrenic god, where as the Greeks were clever enough to attribute different aspects of nature and humanity with different gods.

If there is "something" out there beyond the universe that is response for its creation (and I see no reason to believe there is), I'm pretty certain humans have not idea what it is or that it exists or not. Gods are an entirely different concept altogether. It is only in recent times that people have tried to marry the idea of a god with concepts like the universe and the big bang. Before that gods lived in the clouds.

+1

Even if there is a creator entity. It is extremely unlikely that it has any more of a relationship with us as individuals (or as a species) than a lab techician has with a bacterial culture in a petri dish

Galvasean

Arabel wrote: »

I have seen no proof that there is a massive lion in my attic so I'm not going to call the zoo just yet. If I hear footprints and growling then I may believe in the lions existance.

I'd e amazed if you heard footprints.

edit: For the record I think there is more chance of a lion living in your attic than there is of God existing. Bear in mind I've never been to your house. For all I know you don't even have an attic!
That pretty much sums up how unlikely I find this whole 'God' thing.

limerick_woody

Thus in my mind they (christians etc & aethiests) are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

is that fair thought?

I don't think this is a fair thought.

I don't 'believe' that there is no god in the same way that a theist believes there is. I simply see absolutely no evidence to make me think that there is and the theist accepts it on faith. At the drop of a hat, if proof arrived i would accept the existance of God as truth immediately. This proof wouldn't even have to be hard for an omnicient being. For example he/she/it could appear before me and tell me, or any prediction in the scriptures that mentioned the dna molocule, or indeed anything that couldnt' have been known a thousand years ago. A cure for smallpox would have been useful long before it was 'revealed' to us. The theist' position for me is intellectually bankrupt and lazy.

An Fear Aniar

axer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

[rant]
I'm all in favour of you walking away from mumbo jumbo religions but what makes you think God is a catholic?

For me God is.

That's all there is to say.

All those religionists are forcing the idea of God into their puny human understanding. Don't ever hope to understand God, that's trying to be God.

If you adopt an open attitude and a willingness to be accepting of the idea that there might be a God, things can start to happen for you. It's not necessary to be holy, God already knows you, there's no need to pretend, or to be fearful.

It just makes me sad when I see this spiritual poisoning, that I suffered from myself.

[/rant]



.

aidan24326

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

For me God is.

That's all there is to say.

Which you must admit isn't saying a whole lot is it?

axer

limerick_woody wrote: »

For example he/she/it could appear before me and tell me

and how could you be sure it is not schizophrenia or some other mental condition? Oh oh, I am starting to sound like all those athiests

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

[rant]
I'm all in favour of you walking away from mumbo jumbo religions but what makes you think God is a catholic?

I don't think god is Catholic. Actually that is just about the one thing I am most sure of.

Akrasia

axer wrote: »

and how could you be sure it is not schizophrenia or some other mental condition?

That would be the most likely cause of such an aparition. One needs to find independent evidence outside of your own personal psyche which wouldn't be very hard for a god to provide.
If he created a 100 foot tall human and sent him walking across the continent of europe performing miracles all along the way, followed by a media circus, that would constitute very strong evidence for a supernatural entity.

axer

Akrasia wrote: »

If he created a 100 foot tall human and sent him walking across the continent of europe performing miracles all along the way, followed by a media circus, that would constitute very strong evidence for a supernatural entity.

Except if you thought that was happening due to your schizophrenia e.g. you are watching it "live" on television!

eoin5

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It just makes me sad when I see this spiritual poisoning, that I suffered from myself.

I think spiritual poisoning is very harsh. I think you can explore your spirituality without having to believe in anything in particular.

pH

axer wrote: »

So aethiests do not reject the idea of a god/creator just the god that humans have created to satisfy their point of view. That is pretty much what I believe.

Then by most common definitions you are an atheist. The word Theist describes someone who believes in a personal, intervening, rule-giving type of God (Christianity, Islam etc), and at its simplest the word atheist means "not-theist". By this definition all agnostics are atheists.

I also think that "belief" in God isn't necessarily the most important thing here, better questions to split atheists from theists are to do with worship of a God, or perhaps if they believe they know what God wants or feel he intervenes in our lives. Belief in God's "existence" - Yes - No - maybe - theist - atheist - agnostic is a very simplistic way of looking at this.

Malari

axer wrote: »

Its a pity their is such a negative image associated with the word "atheist".quote]

Do you find that being an atheist has negative connotations? How so? I think it's a perfectly reasonable position and much easier to explain and back up your arguments for so being than if you were religious.

extopia

Atheism is not the "belief" that there is no God.

Atheists look for the evidence, see that there is none, and conclude that God does not exist.

It is not necessary to have an alternative proof for the creation of the Universe (for example) to discount God. There is simply no evidence, and that's enough.

Atheism is a rational conclusion, not a belief system (i.e. religion) in itself.

eoin5

pH wrote: »

Then by most common definitions you are an atheist. The word Theist describes someone who believes in a personal, intervening, rule-giving type of God (Christianity, Islam etc), and at its simplest the word atheist means "not-theist". By this definition all agnostics are atheists.

Im an agnostic theist. To me these definitions make the most sense:

Noun 1. theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Noun 1. agnostic - a person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists

The two certainly arent mutually exclusive.

pH

eoin5 wrote: »

Im an agnostic theist. To me these definitions make the most sense:

Noun 1. theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Noun 1. agnostic - a person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists

The two certainly arent mutually exclusive.

How so? some hair-splitting about definition of the words "know" and "believe"?

Are you equally Agnostic and Theistic about all Gods? You believe in Krishna as much as Christ and Allah and are equally unsure about the certainty of existence of any of them?

As I said anyway, belief in the existence of a God is a poor distinction for practical purposes anyway as it doesn't clarify the Deists (those who have some vague belief in some sort of supernatural prime mover - but not a personal God).

axer

Malari wrote: »

Do you find that being an atheist has negative connotations? How so?

I don't but when it has come up in conversation it seems a few that I have met/am friends with seem to see it in a negative way. Much like the way my mother used to call myself and my brothers and sisters pagans when we didn't go to mass.

Malari wrote: »

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position and much easier to explain and back up your arguments for so being than if you were religious.

It is but I don't think all people that are religious or are brought up in a religion see it that way. They see it as a cop-out of sorts (i think).

axer

extopia wrote: »

Atheists look for the evidence, see that there is none, and conclude that God does not exist.

It is not necessary to have an alternative proof for the creation of the Universe (for example) to discount God. There is simply no evidence, and that's enough.

Thats where I would have a problem with atheism (if that is what atheism is). No evidence is not enough for me to conlude when no alternative is there. The way I see it is that until we do know what is there i.e. nothing or something then no answer can be ruled out since there are still sooo many unknowns in the equation. I don't think someone should conclude on something until it has been proven the major unknowns at least i.e. how the world began, what was there before the universe, why did the universe begin, how can something come from nothing etc etc Many of these answers will more than likely never be answered.

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

Im an agnostic theist. To me these definitions make the most sense:

Noun 1. theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Noun 1. agnostic - a person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists

The two certainly arent mutually exclusive.

That isn't really what (as far as I understand) an agnostic means.

An agnostic is someone who not only accepts the possibility of gods like the Christian god existing, but is open to the idea, they think it is plausible, though they wouldn't say they have enough information to actually pick a god.

Using the analogy of this thread, if you substitute "lion" for "mouse" in the attic I think most people would be agnostic about that. Having not seen or experienced the mouse themselves they cannot say that they know there is a mouse in the attic, but a mouse being in an attic is certainly a plausible and rational possibility.

eoin5

pH wrote: »

How so? some hair-splitting about definition of the words "know" and "believe"?

Are you equally Agnostic and Theistic about all Gods? You believe in Krishna as much as Christ and Allah and are equally unsure about the certainty of existence of any of them?

As I said anyway, belief in the existence of a God is a poor distinction for practical purposes anyway as it doesn't clarify the Deists (those who have some vague belief in some sort of supernatural prime mover - but not a personal God).

I've no idea about how you would go about quantizing agnosticism. What I can say is that my belief in a god is hopeful and totally irrational. It a bit like someone who believes Sunderland will win the champions league next year.

Galvasean

eoin5 wrote: »

bit like someone who believes Sunderland will win the champions league next year.

They won't?!!?

pH

eoin5 wrote: »

I've no idea about how you would go about quantizing agnosticism. What I can say is that my belief in a god is hopeful and totally irrational. It a bit like someone who believes Sunderland will win the champions league next year.

But to use your own analogy what would you say to someone who also believed that Man Utd and Chelsea will win the Champions league next year? Surely the statement "Sunderland will win" implies "All other teams will not win"

You say your belief in god is hopeful and irrational, but which God? Are you equally agnostic/theistic about all Gods? Zeus for example? Do you have a hopeful and irrational belief in Krishna? Are you atheistic about any Gods? Are you prepared to say that Neptune doesn't exist? What about pseudo Gods, are you hopeful that Xenu came here 75 million years ago with his followers?

eoin5

pH wrote: »

But to use your own analogy what would you say to someone who also believed that Man Utd and Chelsea will win the Champions league next year? Surely the statement "Sunderland will win" implies "All other teams will not win"

Next years champions league is in the future, I can believe my team is going to win but I can also believe that no-one can fortell the future. Its a hopefull irrational belief of the kind that humans are easily capable of.

I'm like an agnostic about everything. In other words I believe its impossible to know anything. The word 'is' bends our heads the wrong way. How do you really know Australia is there if youve never seen it, maybe its all just an elaborate ruse, how can you be absolutely sure? Even if you have seen it maybe those images were implanted into your brain by alieums. We all have our own subjective experience, or reality tunnels as Robert Anton Wilson describes it. To say you know something all boils down to a belief that you hold.

My godess is Eris (hail Eris!), there could be other gods but shes the one I'd like to exist the most so I've decided to believe in her. I could be wrong but I also believe that theres no way to tell if I am or not.

eoin5

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really what (as far as I understand) an agnostic means.

An agnostic is someone who not only accepts the possibility of gods like the Christian god existing, but is open to the idea, they think it is plausible, though they wouldn't say they have enough information to actually pick a god.

Using the analogy of this thread, if you substitute "lion" for "mouse" in the attic I think most people would be agnostic about that. Having not seen or experienced the mouse themselves they cannot say that they know there is a mouse in the attic, but a mouse being in an attic is certainly a plausible and rational possibility.

I wouldnt go along with the plausable part of that definition. I wonder what other peoples take on that is?

stereoroid

axer wrote: »

Thats where I would have a problem with atheism (if that is what atheism is). No evidence is not enough for me to conlude when no alternative is there. The way I see it is that until we do know what is there i.e. nothing or something then no answer can be ruled out since there are still sooo many unknowns in the equation. I don't think someone should conclude on something until it has been proven the major unknowns at least i.e. how the world began, what was there before the universe, why did the universe begin, how can something come from nothing etc etc Many of these answers will more than likely never be answered.

Well, yes - and again, where is it written that atheists have concluded anything? That the discussion is over, and the answer, to the question of the non-existence of all possible gods, is a definitive No?

If you go back to the origins of the term "atheism", it means "no theism" i.e. no positive beliefs in gods. It does not assume that the question can not be answered - that is agnosticism ("no knowledge"). On the other hand, it does not mean that the question has been answered with a Yes or a No.

When you see someone claim that atheists positively say "there are definitely no gods - 0% chance of it", I would be wary of that source. I suspect a religious motivation behind any such statement, with the aim of making atheists look illogical. Yes, that includes dictionaries, whether online or in book form. It rarely (if ever?) includes the atheists themselves - and could there be a better guide to what atheism is, and is not, than an atheist? Who do you trust - an old book, or a real-life example in your face?

So go ahead and call the existence of gods an open question: it doesn't stop me getting on with my life, and I don't need anyone else to tell me what to believe. Is that clear enough? I'm getting really hacked off with people putting words in my mouth, telling me what I do or do not believe. :mad:

barrrywalsh789

This is the best proof I've found so far. It's the Zeitgeist movies on Youtube, very good I think. For those you don't want to watch it, it basically says how the story of Jesus Christ mirrors tons of other people before him. ie, born on 25th December to a virgin mother, had 12 disciples/brothers/friends, betrayed by one for money, crucified, raise from the dead one the 3rd day. I think the 1st one with this storyline was Hontus, an Egyptian. As to where these stories began, it's simply star stories. For example, Orions belt (or the 3 kings as it was known back then) followed a bright star (Sirius, the closest star to Earth after the Sun) and found God's son, or God's Sun. This was probably made aaround December 25th aswell when the Sun is low in the sky, during a solstice. It appears dead and three days later starts starts to rise again. Watch the videos, they're very interesting!!

iUseVi

barrrywalsh789 wrote: »

This is the best proof I've found so far. It's the Zeitgeist movies on Youtube, very good I think. For those you don't want to watch it, it basically says how the story of Jesus Christ mirrors tons of other people before him. ie, born on 25th December to a virgin mother, had 12 disciples/brothers/friends, betrayed by one for money, crucified, raise from the dead one the 3rd day. I think the 1st one with this storyline was Hontus, an Egyptian. As to where these stories began, it's simply star stories. For example, Orions belt (or the 3 kings as it was known back then) followed a bright star (Sirius, the closest star to Earth after the Sun) and found God's son, or God's Sun. This was probably made aaround December 25th aswell when the Sun is low in the sky, during a solstice. It appears dead and three days later starts starts to rise again. Watch the videos, they're very interesting!!

Link? I'm too lazy to google. :rolleyes:

Sqaull20

I'm convinced anyone who claims to believe in god is on the wind up. If society had existed until now without reference to some make believe creature in the sky, then once it was suggested by a ''cleric'' that there was a ''divine power'' they'd be carted off to the local nut house.

Zeitgeist is good fun, but shouldnt be taken too seriously imo.

The suggestion that Christ only existed as an allegory of some sort is pretty crazy. Even the most hardcore skeptics generally agree that the historical record - both first-hand accounts from people of the faith as well as accounts from non-believers who lived at the same time as Christ - are more numerous and detailed than perhaps any other record of any other prominent historical figure within several hundred years of Christ’s time on earth. It is one argument to doubt Christ’s divinity, but it’s wishful thinking to pretend that he never exist at all.

A smart man once said, follow the money and you will get your answers..

What is the biggest selling book in the world?

Sqaull20

iUseVi wrote: »

Link? I'm too lazy to google. :rolleyes:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

barrrywalsh789

just search Zeitgeist on youtube or go to this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
the rest is in the related video sections

kelly1

axer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

Hello Axer, I'm sorry to hear you're leaving the Church. I'm very fortunate that I have strong faith but that only came about after a trip to Lourdes. It is my experience that the more I learn about God, the more I want to learn about Him. It is also my experience that the more I try to please God, the more at peace I feel. There is nothing better than the feeling of God's grace working in your soul and living with a clear conscience.

axer wrote: »

Just like I don't believe that christians have any tangible proof of a god I am also thinking that aethiests could not possibly have any proof that there is no god either because there is too many unknowns when it comes to life, the begining etc? I believe that there is, if even just miniscule, a possibility that there is a god. Thus in my mind they (christians etc & aethiests) are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

From my experiences of debating with atheists, I've learned that many don't simply not believe in God, but actively work to promote atheism. e.g. coming onto the Christian forum and telling people that belief in God is foolish. Many so-called athiest are in fact anti-theists.

I've also heard too many strawman arguments. All this nonsense about not believing in flying teaposts, Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy etc, etc. Atheists tend focus on perceived negative points about God and don't seem to consider the possibility that God's wisdom is beyond their understanding.

I think atheism is a catch-22 situation. God is not going to reveal Himself unless the atheist makes a genuine and humble effort to seek Him. I don't see too many on this forum genuinely seeking God (I hope I'm wrong). I see too much arrogance and ridicule of believers. I can't recall anyone genuinely trying to understand the Christian position but instead I see atheists constantly trying to prove Christians wrong. There's no way anyone is going to find God with that kind of attitude.

James 4:6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Matthew 11:29 Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls.

Matthew 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

2 Timothy 3:2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked,

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't recall anyone genuinely trying to understand the Christian position but instead I see atheists constantly trying to prove Christians wrong. There's no way anyone is going to find God with that kind of attitude.

Can't recall huh? I think the OP made a fairly good attempt.

kelly1

Galvasean wrote: »

Can't recall huh? I think the OP made a fairly good attempt.

True, I agree.

Doctor DooM

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Axer, I'm sorry to hear you're leaving the Church. I'm very fortunate that I have strong faith but that only came about after a trip to Lourdes. It is my experience that the more I learn about God, the more I want to learn about Him. It is also my experience that the more I try to please God, the more at peace I feel. There is nothing better than the feeling of God's grace working in your soul and living with a clear conscience.

From my experiences of debating with atheists, I've learned that many don't simply not believe in God, but actively work to promote atheism. e.g. coming onto the Christian forum and telling people that belief in God is foolish. Many so-called athiest are in fact anti-theists.

I've also heard too many strawman arguments. All this nonsense about not believing in flying teaposts, Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy etc, etc. Atheists tend focus on perceived negative points about God and don't seem to consider the possibility that God's wisdom is beyond their understanding.

I think atheism is a catch-22 situation. God is not going to reveal Himself unless the atheist makes a genuine and humble effort to seek Him. I don't see too many on this forum genuinely seeking God (I hope I'm wrong). I see too much arrogance and ridicule of believers. I can't recall anyone genuinely trying to understand the Christian position but instead I see atheists constantly trying to prove Christians wrong. There's no way anyone is going to find God with that kind of attitude.

People who believed in Zeus and Thor would think your belief in God is nonsense. not accepting that is the blinkered arrogance you are accusing atheists of. Belief in your god as opposed to their is not automatically less nonsense because more people do it now.

I was a Christian for many years Kelly but I simply cannot see what you see, I am sorry you cannot accept that and think it means I am being arrogant, or trying to disprove you, but I simply think God s you percieve it does not exist.