Why Atheism?

Yo Mamma

Atheism is made up of three elements:

1. Faith - People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism.

2. Pessimism - Some people thrive on depression. They believe whatever makes them more depressed.

3. Rebelliousness - Kids love to rebel against Christianity. Notice that most Atheists have a lot of anti-Christianity arguments but little or no ways to argue other religions.

Why would anybody consider themselves and/or believe in the strict tenets of atheism when agnosticism is available?

Anyway for my money, I define atheism as total rejection of the possibility of the presence of any sentient holistic forces ("gods") in the universe.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, organized religion and gods are two different, albeit closely related, things. One can reject organized religion (like me) without rejecting the possibility of the existence of god.

There could be a blind idiot god named Azathoth dwelling at the center of the universe and constantly surrounded by thousands of lesser gods, who exist solely to placate the great god's whims. There could be an all-powerful mass of bubbling, frothing, silvery spheres named Yog-Sothoth that traverses the spaces between dimensions and whisks away humans to play with. Hell, Chandra Levy could have been whisked away by Yog-Sothoth.

But we don't know that any of this is true or untrue. There is a multitude of possibilities like these, possibilities which are so far beyond our ability to prove or disprove that it is ludicrous to presum that we can do either. Thus, total rejection of the possibility of the existence of any Gods anywhere in the universe, in my eyes, is sort of dumb.

Any atheists please respond.

Magwitch

Originally posted by Yo Mamma


Why would anybody consider themselves and/or believe in the strict tenets of atheism when agnosticism is available?

Anyway for my money, I define atheism as total rejection of the possibility of the presence of any sentient holistic forces ("gods") in the universe.

Athiest at your service. As far as I know (or thought) an Agnostic is a truer interpretation of your definition of Athiesm (although lets not get diverted). I am a complete non-believer in anything "spiritual" and the concept of God or a Supreme being and as such would class myself Agnostic. Many people claim to be Athiests, but their claim does not bare close examination - they are usually just too lazy to go to church. Athiem, to my understanding is the rejection of the concept of God or a central figure.

I reject (whole heartidly) concepts of spiritual belief. The brain is a highly advanced meat machine. Its ingenuity and the genious of its construction lies in the the fact that it cannot answer the fundamental question of life or being. This I believe is the basis of what gives us curiosity (if you get my drift). Self realisation "I think therefor I am" is only the first step on a spring board of curiosity to solve the question that naturally follows and that is "Why?". Fundamentally the answer may lies in the question, but the necessary logic to explore that has yet to be developed as we are still struggling with the ground rules of interpretation.

Although I respect those who hold spiritual or religious beliefs dear (where else would the ground rules of civility and respect for life come from) I believe a "Supreme being" or "inner Spirit" is a manifisation of the question I have out lined above, but it replaces reason with belief , confusion with comfort - and these in themselves are not to be sniffed at in the world during any era.

I disagree with agressive Athiesm ("God sucks" etc etc) as a cop out for the lame brained and lazy and hence always spell God with a capitol "G" out of respect for other s beliefs but draw the line at Scientology and others like it.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
Atheism is made up of three elements:

1. Faith - People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism.

NO
give me one little shred of evidence that god exists.
hes your god, you prove him.

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
.

2. Pessimism - Some people thrive on depression. They believe whatever makes them more depressed.

and this is a fundemental part of not believing in god is it?
hmmm, interesting twist on that one there.
any other fasinating observations?
people thrive on depression because a struggle often gives meaning to their lives.
you want depression, why dont you give your 10% to the catholic church that you are suppose to, give up all your worldly possessions like jeasus and then when you are perfect, come back and i'll say to you, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
.
3. Rebelliousness - Kids love to rebel against Christianity. Notice that most Atheists have a lot of anti-Christianity arguments but little or no ways to argue other religions.
.

because kids dont have buddsim shoved down their throat.
in the same way that kids will not listen to the same music as their parents. kids like to make their own individuality and it does not include having a belief system the same as their 'old-styled- parents.
besides, only the completely blind will ignore the gaping holes in christian thinking. and i guess kids dont like hypocrasy any more than the rest of us.
why would they argue against a theological idea that the have no idea about, they arent told to go and worship every sunday, and basically have no interest in?
notice that most athiests have come from a christian background. has to say someting for the teaching....

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
.
Why would anybody consider themselves and/or believe in the strict tenets of atheism when agnosticism is available?
.

and i put it to you, why would anyone consider themselves and/or believe strict tenets of christianity when buddhism is available?

and er sorry? strict tenets of athiesm?
atheism is just a belief that there is no higher being or power.
agnostic is just a lapsed christian. a non practiser if you wish.
and you are again perfect in your worship of god that you can pick holes in others private religious affairs?

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
.Anyway for my money, I define atheism as total rejection of the possibility of the presence of any sentient holistic forces ("gods") in the universe.

you dont have any money. you give a tithe of 10% to the church every month.
i guess thats one way of saying it. and your point is what?

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
.Now, as far as I'm concerned, organized religion and gods are two different, albeit closely related, things. One can reject organized religion (like me) without rejecting the possibility of the existence of god.
.

and this has what to do with anything?
so youre agnostic then?
and youre picking at atheism?
hello?

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
.There could be a blind idiot god named Azathoth dwelling at the center of the universe and constantly surrounded by thousands of lesser gods, who exist solely to placate the great god's whims. There could be an all-powerful mass of bubbling, frothing, silvery spheres named Yog-Sothoth that traverses the spaces between dimensions and whisks away humans to play with. Hell, Chandra Levy could have been whisked away by Yog-Sothoth.

But we don't know that any of this is true or untrue. There is a multitude of possibilities like these, possibilities which are so far beyond our ability to prove or disprove that it is ludicrous to presum that we can do either. Thus, total rejection of the possibility of the existence of any Gods anywhere in the universe, in my eyes, is sort of dumb.

Any atheists please respond.

it is as valid as any other form of belief.
and anyone who doesnt see it is dumb.
i mean, if this all true and there athousands of little gods flying around doing stuff, why have a not seen one.
why have you not seen one.
why hasnt anyone seen one?

ok, they are good at hiding.
and no one has ever seen one, communicated etc etc etc.
so you think that because you say there may be something out there, that because some people have a different view that they are automatically wrong?
you do realise that this sort of thinking is what got the old chusrch of on a few crusades?

i tell you what, if someone someday proves that there is no god of any description, theres going to be a lot of apologising by religions all around the world (except buddhism who really dont make war) islam and chatholisism will really have an awful lot to answer for.

and lets face it.
if there were no rteligions. would we have had a lot of wars?
coz we all know what religion has brought us.
ive never seen an athiest go up to another athiest and claim that his non belief in god is stronger and then kill him for not being strong enough in his belief. well, i havent seen it for religion either, but we do know it goes on in ohh lets say afghanistan.
and it certainly went on in europe and the middle east.

its not a case of my god is better than yours, its a case of, ohhh different thinking.

ConUladh

I haven't a clue and am in no rush to find out, what does that make me?

Ivan

1. Faith

People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism.

I'm sorry to start this post out in such a way, but that is pure bullsh1te. People see FACTS staring them in the face, and then decide to interpret them in whichever way conveniently applies to their religion.

More pro-god logic than anti-god logic? - oh right, for example:
An all powerful being created our universe, countless galaxies, even more stars, several billion planets, not to mention various other gas clouds, black holes etc. etc. and then came, out of all these planets mind, and decided "Hey, I think I'll create a load of people there in MY own image, I mean, I know I went to all this work but what the hey, I like this planet, its cool, I'll make some hip people to go with it" - (Ok now I'm just being condescending but anyway) --- All in 7 days might I add...
OR
Our galaxy and planets, and stars AND us, were created over billions of years, from a giangantic cloud of gas. Who knows why that gas cloud was there - maybe every few trillion years the universe begins to re-form into the Big-crunch, and every thing starts all over again. Dont ask me how it ALL started, why do fish swim?, why do bad things happen to good people? Sometimes things are just beyond our comprehension.


Pessimism

Some people thrive on depression. They believe whatever makes them more depressed.

I would accept that, this is ONE possible reason for Atheism, I dont believe it is the main reason, but it is one possible reason.
However, it ISNT my reason. TBH I dont think I have any single reason, but I am certain as hell that this one doesnt come anywhere at all... I dont like that I feel I have nothing to look forward to after death, I dont like that I'm reminded that even if I'm wrong, I'm still kinda up sh1te creek without a paddle. I'm reminded that when I die, and I am going to die, thats it...space dust, I return to whence I came.

I dont like that thats all I have to look forward to, that all that remains of us is others memories of us, and that too, decays to nothingness after time. It is depressing, it is pessimistic, but at least I'm living the truth (as I see it)

Rebelliousness

Kids love to rebel against Christianity. Notice that most Atheists have a lot of anti-Christianity arguments but little or no ways to argue other religions.

Surely you cant be serious? - I mean fine, rebel, do crazy stuff, but this... I dont know, I guess its possible, but again its not in the least bit of a factor for me. Perhaps, maybe, it was in the begining, when I first set out against organised religion.

And it is against organised religion not just Chrisitianity. Sure, its Christianity that gets the most digs from people like me, but thats because its the main religion here, it stands for what I hate the most - hypocrisy - Doing one thing in front of the camera - The pope embracing peace, telling the "followers of God" to follow peace etc. etc. And behind closed doors - Priests abusing left right and centre, Nuns becoming pregnant, sexism within the church - Few/No female priests - Catholics/Protestants going at each other for their "so-called-beliefs", its just a never-ending cess pool of corruption, the worst of which is that it has a legitimate tag and lobbying power.

I dont know if there is a supreme being, a "God", and I dont know if we should worship him/her assuming s/he exists.
I believe in what I can see, what I can feel, what I can hear, what I can taste, and what I can smell. I believe in things that have proven themselves to me.

If there was some God out there, and s/he wanted us to worship him/her, wouldnt s/he come and visit us every so often to remind us that s/he is all powerful.

Another thing to think about. If there is other life out there - and there most certainly is, with the countless galaxies, and numerous stars, with those billion of planets. Some where, there must be some other computer nerdy geek, who perhaps doesnt look a bit like me, but who is spouting off the same gibberish to his computer buddies. - my point is, there has to be other life out there, there has to be, its a simple mathematical fact. So many planets, so few required resources - Heck look at mars - and so many limitless ways in which life can evolve to thrive in countless environments. HOW, can any all powerful God, with his/her infinite wisdom claim responsibility for all of them. And which is more, how can s/he say to each of them - I'm creating you in my own image. Its just not on.

So imho, Religion was created by our primitive minds (which had different regions of the brain which operated indepently of each other) "I walked home today and 'The Gods' told me that I'd left my cows at home, so I went home and got them. What a miracle."

---

When in actuality "I walked home today, and the right side of my brain told the left side of my brain that I left my cows at home today, but because my brain is so primitive I interpreted it as divine intervention."

These fanatical religions evolved over hundreds of years, each year leading to more persecution, more crimes, more horrific murders in the name of Religion. Leading to the final climactic ending, where religions divided and joined to form several major religions each putting down the next religion as a 'Cult', until religions find they have no followers but themselves. A power base of wealthy, white, egotistical and bored leaders, with no one to push around.

Now if you take the word Chrisitanity and replace it for whatever religion you like, you find the same crap. Religion started for purely primitive reasons but continues for financial gain. You dont think the Pope lives like Mother Theresa did? Hell no, I'm sure he has a few ivory backscratchers and some for his henchmen/bodyguards/patsy's too.

There could be a blind idiot god named Azathoth dwelling at the center of the universe and constantly surrounded by thousands of lesser gods, who exist solely to placate the great god's whims. There could be an all-powerful mass of bubbling, frothing, silvery spheres named Yog-Sothoth that traverses the spaces between dimensions and whisks away humans to play with. Hell, Chandra Levy could have been whisked away by Yog-Sothoth.

What your forgetting is, just because there is a god doesnt necessarily mean we have to worship him/her. I also like to think that is part of Atheism.

Just because Microsoft/IBM launched P.C's forward, and created the world-wide market we have today, doesnt mean we have to support them, or worship them or buy their software.
Just because €ircon set up our phone line systems and gave us the only telecommunications infrastructure we have, doesnt mean we should blindly buy whatever garbage they should try and sell us.

Comprendo?

But we don't know that any of this is true or untrue. There is a multitude of possibilities like these, possibilities which are so far beyond our ability to prove or disprove that it is ludicrous to presum that we can do either.

Of course its impossible to disprove religion, thats the beauty of it. If you denounce religion your a heretic, if you follow it your a believer/follower whichever.

A multitude of possibilities but I chose to believe what I have a shred of proof for, not some 5th party account of what 'could, maybe, possibly' have happend several centuries before I was even concieved.

Thus, total rejection of the possibility of the existence of any Gods anywhere in the universe, in my eyes, is sort of dumb.

Sure, the possibility of some kind of God somewhere in the Universe. But whats your definition of God, a superior alien race which has existed since long before us? Which come down every so often to experiment with cows for whatever bizarre reasons that our beyond our comprehension/or just to satisfy some sick and twisted curiousity.

Fact: Science is the examination of Problems/Situations, and production of theories and experimenting until we prove/disprove one or more theories.

[The End]

Sorry if its long-winded

Doctúir

Originally posted by Magwitch

I am a complete non-believer in anything "spiritual" and the concept of God or a Supreme being and as such would class myself Agnostic.

Agnostics are generally sceptical about the concept of God, but don't reject it outright. Atheists do. You sound more like an atheist to me.

Doctúir

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

give me one little shred of evidence that god exists.
hes your god, you prove him.

You never heard of the Oolon Colluphid and his book, "That about wraps it up for God" ?
http://www.mediafinance.de/babelfish.htm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

coz we all know what religion has brought us.

Lack of religion didn't stop Uncle Joe from wiping out a few million "undesirables".

FWIW, RTÉ are rebroadcasting the entire series of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
http://www.rte.ie/radio/av_radio1.html

j3bUs

(First off dont take my name as slanderous its just a joke fom the simpsons not an atempt to offend.)

My arguement is quite simple. I "hope" or "wish" that there is a define presence or entity out there that is watching over us and when I die I might go to a heaven. But I do not "believe" or have "faith" that there is this God out there, I have not seen anything to make me believe and I dont feel within myself that there is a God. I class myself as an atheist, I do not "reject" the pssobility of a God existng I am just not going to act like there is one ie. some form of worship until i see something that would make me believe otherwise.

As far as the anti-christianity point goes I feel it depends on your experience with christians. I am 19 now but when I was 15 and in 3rd year my religion teacher was a Roman Catholic called Mrs. Ward. She was very open minded to other religions and respected me when I told her I was atheist, she didnt mind and still wanted my input in class discussions etc. I respected Mrs. Ward very much. When I was older 16 and moved up to 5th year I got a new religion teacher Ms. Kelly. Also a Roman Catholic she was different, she was a closed minded individual who took whatever the Pope and other senior Church representitives as pure "fact". She was always contradicting my views and told me flat out I was "wrong" and she was right. It got to the point when I did not want to contribute anything to her class becasue it would just be mocked and rejected. I told her in private that I was atheist and did not believe in the same things as her and she kept on offending my beliefs everyday in school so I did not want her to ask my opinion in class again. the next day she started to ask me questions and when I said I was atheist and didnt want her to mock my beliefs she asked me what religion my parents where, I told her Roman Catholic. She asked was I Christened I said yes but not by my choice she said " tough you were chrsitened you are Roman Catholic".

She may be an extreme case but still after spending two years in her class I must admit I do have some strong anti-christianity feelings.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Doctúir


You never heard of the Oolon Colluphid and his book, "That about wraps it up for God" ?
http://www.mediafinance.de/babelfish.htm




Lack of religion didn't stop Uncle Joe from wiping out a few million "undesirables".

FWIW, RTÉ are rebroadcasting the entire series of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
http://www.rte.ie/radio/av_radio1.html

yes, i have read the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy, and it doesnt have any use in this context. its fiction.
(although the same could be said about god if you wanted to be purely cynical)

youre second point about uncle joe (sam?)
i was talking about wars caused by organised religions.
i have no idea what your point is on this, who is uncle ajoe, who are the infidels and what war was it?

i dont live in ireland so i wont be tuning into that show. i already have it on book, audio tape and video.

Doctúir

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

yes, i have read the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy, and it doesnt have any use in this context. its fiction.

Don't panic, it was only meant as a joke.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

who is uncle joe

Josef Stalin.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Doctúir


Josef Stalin.

.....had not a lot to do with religion but lots to do with an ethos for living. ie communism.
he didnt kill people for not being religious, he killed anyone who he just didnt like.
and is not relevant to topic of discussion.

Yo Mamma

I dont like organized religion, i dont like being told what to think and believe in. it bothers me. i don't believe in any "higher power" because 1) it gives me the feeling i can't control my life and 2) there is no proof. the only way i can believe in something is if i actually KNOW it's there. i also dont like the feeling that everything in my life is leading up do a judgement when i die.

l am not a fan of religion in general. it causes so many fights and wars and has killed so many people. the values of almost every religion are mainly to live in peace and whatever. but every day people are fighting over whose religion is better, what gods are true, what values should be followed. i think religion has been bended and totally changed from when it was first thought up. i have nothing against people who are religious but i can't bring myself to go to church or practice a religion.

atheism is just a belief that there is no higher being or power. agnostic is just a lapsed christian. a non practiser if you wish. and you are again perfect in your worship of god that you can pick holes in others private religious affairs?

agnosticism to me is someone who doesnt want to care or even consider any beliefs , when an atheist beleives there are no gods....kinda sounds the same, but a little different...

Yo Mamma

WhiteWashMan

Are u a Buddhist ?

Shinji

1. Faith - People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism.

Rubbish. There is less evidence for the existence of a God than there is for the existence of flying saucers.

Atheism requires nothing other than faith in fact and logic; and by many religious definitions of faith, one cannot actually have faith in something that can be proved, because at that point it ceases to be "faith".

2. Pessimism - Some people thrive on depression. They believe whatever makes them more depressed.

Catholicism is pretty damn good at depressing people, in my experience.

I know precious few athiests who are depressed by their disbelief in gods.

3. Rebelliousness - Kids love to rebel against Christianity. Notice that most Atheists have a lot of anti-Christianity arguments but little or no ways to argue other religions.

Choosing a different system of belief, or choosing to ignore previously held beliefs altogether, is not necessarily an expression of rebellion.

A great many athiests can argue equally convincingly against any organised or non-organised religion. Christianity as the pre-dominant western religion is merely the one that they are challenged by most often


As regards your bickering over definitions, I'm personally quite fond of "An athiest is a man with no invisible means of support".

bonkey

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
1. Faith - People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism.

Atheism requires that you simply not accept the concept that there is a single (or multiple) "overruling" consciousnesses which determine or influence what happens in our world.

The concepts of an afterlife etc spring from this.

There is no pro-god evidence anywhere. There are unexplained phenomena which the religious have interpreted as being divine in some way.

Then again, in various epochs, the sun was worshipped as a god, because how else could it be explained. You're going to tell me that believing in the sun as a god in this day and age requires less faith than believing in no god?

Or is it just the modern deities which people believe in which you feel require less faith?

Atheism requires a lack of faith - typically brought about by either a disillusionment in your previous religion, or a rejection of it as implausible.

Rejecting something as implausible does not take faith, it takes analysis.

jc

Yo Mamma

The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.

Now have a read through this !!

In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

Pheww..............

Doctúir

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

he didnt kill people for not being religious

He killed quite a few people for being religious.

Do you think that if everyone was transformed into an atheist tommorrow, that Ian Paisley would invite Gerry Adams around for tea and crumpets on Sunday? Or that Palestinians and Israelis would suddenly become the best of chums?

Ivan

The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.

Who created God?

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Doctúir


He killed quite a few people for being religious.

Do you think that if everyone was transformed into an atheist tommorrow, that Ian Paisley would invite Gerry Adams around for tea and crumpets on Sunday? Or that Palestinians and Israelis would suddenly become the best of chums?

thats like saying he killed a few people for being black.
he didnt kill them for religion, he killed them coz he didnt like them, it wasnt religious perscution, its pretty much a lets juct clean everyone up. stalin is not a good person to pick as an example because he wasnt pushed by religious beliefs.

and no, i dont think thats a good example either.
the north and isreal have gone beyond religion into so many things. nationalism etc.
but they originally came from religion.
what i said was that a lot of wars wouldnt have started if there was no religion. i didnt say they would end suddenly if everyone forgot about going to church.

and yo momma, no im not a buddhist. why do you ask?
i gave the example of buddhism being an organised religion where i have never heard of any violence conducted on its behalf. unlike islamic, muslim, christianity (in all its various guises)
besides, buddhism is more concerned with the spirit within the self than chopping peoples heads off.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Ivan


Who created God?

god as we know him/her today was created by the catholic church way back when.
it took the myths and fables of history and turned them into the bible. a lie based on fact.
and im quiet sure that other religions did the same.
its kinda funny how so many people in different religions around the world all worship the same god, and yet they still kill each other becasue someone has a different name for that god.
and why do christians worship a jewish god?

if you ask me, theres more to life than worshipping some made up idea.
and if im wrong. i will turn around at the gates of heavan and say. im sorry, please forgive me.
and i wll be forgiven.
so either way, im on a bit of a winner.....

bonkey

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

You define God as the creator of the universe - fair enough, yet there are other possible reasons for the universe's creation.

You then God as "changeless, timeless and immaterial" and yet also allocate them the ability to make a conscious decision which results in the creation of the universe. A conscious decision requires a change in state....which therefore implies that "changeless" is not a valid description. Timeless would also imply that there is no state-change, as the transition from one state to the next requires the existence of time. The decision to create the universe, and the action required to do so both require a state-change.

Ergo, your "proof" is self-contradictory, and must therfore be false, unless you can define a "reality" which existed before the universe, and produce a consistent model to allow the creation of the universe to occur. Otherwise, you fall back on the unproveable.

While still theoretical, the generally accepted scientific models of the creation implicitly disallow any interference with the universe should it have been created deliberately.

Thus, were God to exist, in that something caused the big bang, either we are playing a fixed tune which was already predetermined and which cannot be changed, or we are completely independant of this being. Which effectively means that even were god to exist, we are completely and irrevocably removed from the influence of such a being, and his existence is meaningless in the context of this universe.

Hence "believing" in a religious god is still pointless, as this creator god can do nothing for you during your life, or when you die.

If you go back and look at your definition of atheism, you will therefore find that your proof of the existence of god, even were it correct, actuallys support atheism, rather than theism, unless you also choose to ignore scientific research....in which case youre back to "blind belief" and therefore can ignore your offered proof.

As a side-note, there are, however, a number of scientific models which purportedly show how the universe could have "spontaneiously" begun with no external influence whatsoever. I dont have any references to hand, but IIRC, Hawkings discusses some of this in "Black Holes and Baby Universes".

jc

swiss

Originally posted by Yo Mamma:
1. Faith - People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism.

Actually, I believe that yes, atheism is based on logic whereas religion is almost exclusively based on faith. However, I do see your point. If a person is brought up according to the doctrine of a particular religion then it does take a great deal of self belief i.e. faith in oneself and in one's own beliefs to disavow what they have been told has been fact for years.

Originally posted by bonkey:
Rejecting something as implausible does not take faith, it takes analysis.

It does take analysis, but it also takes faith to make the kind of objective analysis to come to a conclusion that there is no higher power.

I would tentatively class myself as an atheist. I'm tempted to call myself an agnosticist, as it allows a little scope for belief, or hope that a higher power may exist. However I find the idea that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent 'force' out there beyond the scope of plausable possibility. It ties back to what Yo Mamma said about Azathoth, or the babelfish. If a person can believe in the existence of a god, then, by the same rationale, the existence of the babelfish cannot be completely debunked either. Since I don't believe in the babelfish, I don't see how my lack of faith in a higher power is remarkable.

Originally posted by MagwitchI reject (whole heartidly) concepts of spiritual belief. The brain is a highly advanced meat machine. Its ingenuity and the genious of its construction lies in the the fact that it cannot answer the fundamental question of life or being. This I believe is the basis of what gives us curiosity (if you get my drift). Self realisation "I think therefor I am" is only the first step on a spring board of curiosity to solve the question that naturally follows and that is "Why?". Fundamentally the answer may lies in the question, but the necessary logic to explore that has yet to be developed as we are still struggling with the ground rules of interpretation.

Erm, look here for more on that.

Doctúir

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

he didnt kill them for religion, he killed them coz he didnt like them, it wasnt religious perscution, its pretty much a lets juct clean everyone up. stalin is not a good person to pick as an example because he wasnt pushed by religious beliefs.

We've got crossed wires here I think. The point I was making is the fact that Stalin was an atheist didn't prevent him from engaging in persecution - both religious (e.g. Jews) and otherwise. I don't agree with your argument that being an atheist will make you less likely to hate some other group for whatever reason.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

and no, i dont think thats a good example either.
the north and isreal have gone beyond religion into so many things. nationalism etc.
but they originally came from religion.

The alternative view is that people interpreted religion to suit their own political agendas. And if religion hadn't existed, they would have found some other ideological crutch to support their misdeeds.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

what i said was that a lot of wars wouldnt have started if there was no religion. i didnt say they would end suddenly if everyone forgot about going to church.

So exactly what difference would it make if religion was henceforth banned?

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
I would tentatively class myself as an atheist. I'm tempted to call myself an agnosticist, as it allows a little scope for belief, or hope that a higher power may exist. However I find the idea that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent 'force' out there beyond the scope of plausable possibility.

So, you hope that there is a god, despite a belief that there isnt?

If you believe there isnt, then you cannot hope there is.
If you hope there is, then you can at best doubt that there is one.

If you only doubt the existence of god, but hope he does exist, you are a textbook agnostic, not an atheist.

jc

Ivan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan


Who created God?

---

god as we know him/her today was created by the catholic church way back when.
it took the myths and fables of history and turned them into the bible. a lie based on fact.
and im quiet sure that other religions did the same.
its kinda funny how so many people in different religions around the world all worship the same god, and yet they still kill each other becasue someone has a different name for that god.
and why do christians worship a jewish god?

if you ask me, theres more to life than worshipping some made up idea.
and if im wrong. i will turn around at the gates of heavan and say. im sorry, please forgive me.
and i wll be forgiven.
so either way, im on a bit of a winner.....

Uh, I think you completely missed what I said...

Part of the support for religious belief's is something must have created the universe, "it couldnt have just spontaneously developed, something MUST have created it"

And I said that if something must have created it, then something MUST have created God. And I want to know who!!

The alternative view is that people interpreted religion to suit their own political agendas. And if religion hadn't existed, they would have found some other ideological crutch to support their misdeeds.

Religion gives people a reason to do misdeeds, however it also can spark the light for the following misdeeds.
The trouble in the north STARTED over religion, however it wouldnt now end if religion were suddenly removed from the equation, because now you have the whole - well he started it, and he hurt us, so we'll hurt them, and they'll hurt us, and we'll hurt them...etc.etc.

What it WOULD do however, is remove the potiential spark for future arguements.

So exactly what difference would it make if religion was henceforth banned?

I also dont think banning religion would help anything at all, if anything it would make things worse. When people are FORCED into something, even if its for their own good, they just go crazy.
No, No, No, No, No... - Humans are excredibly ficcal (sp?) and yet even more stubborn.

What alot of religious fanatics fail to realise when their are committing whatever atrocities of the day, in the name of their Divine Being, is that its usualy mans interpretation of everything.
I mean, sure, according to the bible, God came to moses and told him - "Oih, bucko, these are my 10 commandments."
But assuming that were true, how do we know there werent 20 commandments and Moses took some poetic licence.
Even more is, how do we know such an event took place. It could simply be Moses went up the mountain, got completely ratfaced on whatever awesome pre-medevil drugs they had and decided, what the hey, I'll make up some commandments to make people act better.

Assuming that Jesus existed, even if he were a divine incarnation of the Supreme being etc.etc., he was still simply a man, everything he said and did were his interpretations of what his "God" wanted.

Thats whats so imperfect, and well plain false about religion. Its flexibility. In one mans eye God could be telling him to be a good man, look after his family, pay his taxes, say his prayers etc. etc.

In another mans eyes this may not be good enough, God wants all of us to be pure of heart, to not pertake of the flesh, to disolve governments etc. etc.

Tbh Religion is fluid, thats why it has survived for so long, but its also its main weakness. The fact religion requires interpretation.

Its also, why I'm quite confidently an Atheist, Religion reeks of mans actions, despite the main figure around which theology is based, the Supreme Being(s) have little or no interaction in what their subjects do.

"Religion was a story some man made up to caution/scare/calm/cheer up his children."

This topic is going way off course, but I think Yo Momma you got your answer, we're all as devotely anti-Religious and any pro-Religious for perhaps the exact same, or exact opposite as the ludicrous reasons the Religious use.

---

"I'm alone in my life, I'm going to die soon. there is no God coming to embrace me and welcome me home. I accept that, I embrace that. And because of this - I will die happier, even in the face of oblivion, in knowing that I am the freest of my peers. "

---

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Doctúir


We've got crossed wires here I think. The point I was making is the fact that Stalin was an atheist didn't prevent him from engaging in persecution - both religious (e.g. Jews) and otherwise. I don't agree with your argument that being an atheist will make you less likely to hate some other group for whatever reason.

all i said was that stalin wasnt pushed b yreligious motives. he was just an unpleasant person. i aslo didnt say that if you are not religious you wont start wars. i said that many wars have been due to religion.
maybe i should use easier to read sentennces so you wont take the direct opposite of what i say.

Originally posted by Doctúir
The alternative view is that people interpreted religion to suit their own political agendas. And if religion hadn't existed, they would have found some other ideological crutch to support their misdeeds.?

true.
i cant disagree with anything there.

Originally posted by Doctúir

So exactly what difference would it make if religion was henceforth banned?

i never said anything about banning religion... (scans back quickly) um, no, i dont think i did. i cant talk about the future. i have given examples from the past.
stop being pedantic.

DadaKopf

From Yo Momma's first post:
1. Faith - People can not say that Atheism is based on logic as there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence. Thus, Atheism requires more faith than theism

I used to think the same but you could approach this from what God is as a concept. What is God other than 'perfection', that omnipresent being that transcends time and space - He which posesses all perfection, even human perfection - that to which Man aspires. Well, this is pretty nihilistic.

There is a case for atheism when you look at the function of God: the negation of man's innate, human abilities on this imperfect earth for a perfect afterlife. So God is actually human creation pulled away from man himself and assigned to some esoteric concept called God which is just a construction of the human mind, formed by his physical world. This is what Marx and Feuerbach would assert, among others.

In fact, God in this sense, is just an abstract, mathematical, logical concept - we can't say language exists but it's how we make sense of the world. God was an explanation for the inexpliccable at one point but there's no doubt that God has been squeezed out of the equation due to modern science and physics. Even philosophy has been squeezed out. Surely as man's conception of the universe changes, so does our conception of God which is continually under more and more threat of reductio ad absurdum.

God is becoming more threatened as a mental concept the more and more science explains the universe. God isn't real, just a concept, an illogical statement like 2+2=7. God can't be anything more than the sum of the universe's parts just as modern philosophy and science as come to refute Cartesian mind-body dualism and accept the fact that the mind is part of the body and consciousness is too but no more than that. God is simply the unexplainable - a false concept.

Last point: from St. Augustine through Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Karl Jaspers, no logical system has ever satisfactorily constructed a 'proof' of God - there's really more to prove that it's simply a fancy of human imagination.

But: probably the best stance is the 'suspension of judgement' as espoused by William James and people like Wittgenstein. There are certain logical oppositions that are incapable of answering so the solution is either 1) suspend judgement until real proof arrives or 2) accept the problem as unanswerable and move on.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf

we can't say language exists but it's how we make sense of the world.

What? Language doesnt exist? Or rather, we can't prove that language exists? Care to explain that one - must be too early in the morning for me.

[b God isn't real, just a concept, an illogical statement like 2+2=7. [/B]

I know of several billion people who would strenuously disagree with you. They would argue that God is real.

Hundreds of years ago, we thought god lived in "the heavens" because that was outside the boundary of our knowledge.

As we progress our knowledge, we can laugh at religion trying to say "we were wrong, god exists outside time and space" as being a backtracking manouever, but in reality, they are doing the exact same as science - refining their basic teachings to better fit with the currently established mmodel.

Unless we do someday have a complete model of the universe, we can never remove all places where god can reside. And even were we to do so....can we *prove* that our theory of everything is not just an incomplete theory of "everything we've found so far".

Basically put, religion is safe, as it can never be truly disproven. This does not make its assertions true, just safe from disproof.

Ultimately, this is what religion relies on. Your *faith* in the unknown.

jc

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by bonkey


I know of several billion people who would strenuously disagree with you. They would argue that God is real.

Hundreds of years ago, we thought god lived in "the heavens" because that was outside the boundary of our knowledge.

As we progress our knowledge, we can laugh at religion trying to say "we were wrong, god exists outside time and space" as being a backtracking manouever, but in reality, they are doing the exact same as science - refining their basic teachings to better fit with the currently established mmodel.
jc

hmm, im not sure there are even 7 billi0on people on the planet. and i doubt you know them all. and i certainly doubt if they all believe in a a god.

so, you are talking rubbish. will it follow that the rest of your argument will be the same?
by the way, how will they argue that god is real?
in the same way that no-one here has proved him?
please, its an age old question, is there a god?
if you have proff you could be the saviour the church is looking for, coz they certainly dont seem to have any proof.

as for your connection between science and religion. its silly to expect the church to continue to say something in the face of common sense.
god used to live in heaven. we flew to the moon but didnnt see him. so he must be somewhere else. the church will change its stance on anything and everything. its well known. the church is hypocritical. fact.

as for science. science doesnt go out to prove or disprove the existance of a god. thats theology and philosophy. science goes out to prove or disprove theories of a scientific and calcubale nature.

how can you disprove something that isnt there?

Doctúir

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

maybe i should use easier to read sentennces so you wont take the direct opposite of what i say.

You could make a significant start by learning to use the 'Shift' key.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

i cant talk about the future. i have given examples from the past.

Which examples would those be then?

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

stop being pedantic.

Where's the fun in that?

bonkey

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


hmm, im not sure there are even 7 billi0on people on the planet. and i doubt you know them all. and i certainly doubt if they all believe in a a god.

so, you are talking rubbish. will it follow that the rest of your argument will be the same?

a) I said several, not seven
b) I said "know of" not "know"

So, you are either writing or comprehending rubbish. will it follow that the rest of your argument will be the same?

Sometimes I wonder if people on tehse boards deliberately misread statements in order to start arguments.

as for your connection between science and religion. its silly to expect the church to continue to say something in the face of common sense.
god used to live in heaven. we flew to the moon but didnnt see him. so he must be somewhere else. the church will change its stance on anything and everything. its well known. the church is hypocritical. fact.

The earth used to be flat. Science has done as much backtracking due to new scientific revelations as religion has. That was my point. We cannot knock religion for being constantly "disproved" by science, as science has constantly done the same to itself.

"Heaven" being associated with some physical location in space is as outdated an idea in most religions as the flat-earth is, or the early models of the universe with the earth at the centre. To say that the church is "changing its mind" in the face of fact is mostly correct, but science does the exact same.

So, by your logic, the scientific community is as hypocritical as the church, which is just plain silly.

I will admit that in medieval times, the church preached a load of horse, but so did science. Nowadays, the church keeps itself informed about religion, and is careful to consider the implications of latest cutting edge research.

Naturally, they do not update their preaching to the common people, because it would be senseless to require that a lay-person need a strong understanding of cosmology and quantum mechanics purely in order to be able to understand teh answer to the question "where is heaven" or "what is the soul".

how can you disprove something that isnt there?

Well, pretty simply actually.

You assume it is there, and then prove that this assumption causes a contradiction in known "fact". Its called "reduction to absurdity" and is a common scientific method of proof - widely used within mathematics.

My point is not that God does or does not exist. My point is that while scientific analysis makes it highly improbable that God does exist, it cannot prove his non-existence.

You can call it "common reason", and I may actually agree with you in practice, but I would also acknowledge that ultimately I simply have belief in the non-existence of god, where others have belief in his existence.

I would say that the evidence strongly indicates that there is no such thing as god, but this is not a proof, only an indication.

jc

Yo Mamma

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science.

No reasonable person imo, is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause?

The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is
"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:
"We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."
The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most people, simply looking at their newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

or maybe not ?

Shinji

If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science.

You should go on tour with this - it's great stuff. Add a little more slapstick and possibly some backing music and you've got Monty Python.


Or, in a somewhat less sarcastic way of putting it: I've never heard such an over-simplified, incomprehending and downright wrong discourse on the origins of the universe in my entire life. Any athiest who wishes to argue against religion will take time to familiarise him or herself with the Bible and the basic tenets of religion. I suggest that you do likewise with the basic understanding of science, rather than simply coming out with drivel like this which will see you laughed out of the place.

There are a number of good books out there to start on - Stephen Hawking's work is a good jumping off point, and just reading journals such as Scientific American and New Scientist for a couple of years, along with doing some basic textbook science work, might actually see you understanding some of what you've just written and why it's so damn wrong.

bonkey

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

Actually, there are a number of hypothetical models which allow for the creation of the universe "from nothing" as it were.

One such model is the "universe / anti-universe" model, where in our universe, we have a surplus of positive energy, thus giving rise to matter, while another universe was "spun off" at the same time with negative energy. Given that this "other" universe is completely seperate from ours, we no longer need to consider it in terms of influence or anything like that, and therefore its existence or inexistence is irrleevant in scientific terms.

Furthermore, it is energy, and not matter, which is self-existing, but even then, unless you subscribe to the "constant model" theory you must still come back to the point that this energy was created at some point.

Another model which can explain this, by the way, is based on an expansion of some interesting ideas. In "empty" space, it is possible for "nothing" to spontaneously split into a virtual positive and negative charge. Were this to occur at the event horizon of a black hole, it is possible that one vharge fall into the hole, and the other escape. There are some doozy reasons for determining that over time the negative charges are more likely to fall in than the positives, thus leading to the fact that black holes can decay. An extension or derivative of this model is also used to explain how the universe could spontaneously occur, and how there is no problem in terms of the energy having been mysteriously brought into being....but I cant remember the specifics.

However, the basic underlying principle on all of them is that there are a number of models which could explain this. The existence of god *is* another, but science has also shown that what happened before the "Big Bang" (assuming that theory is correct) is completely seperated from our universe. Thus, if God did create the universe, he/she/it can have nothing more to do with it, and we cannot in any way "return to god" when we die.

Ergo, even arguing that god is the creator of the universe is, in many ways, self-defeating, as it immediately places God outside his traditional sphere of influence.

God may have created the universe, but he is not all-knowing unless the entire universe is deterministic, which as far as I know flies in teh face of almost every religious belief on the planet.

So, allowing god to exist in that capacity, he is not interfering, as the universe is a closed model. We do not go to heaven (or any other similar construct) or get reincarnated according to some cosmic score-card, because there is no way god can make these decisions, and unless heaven exists within our reality, we cannot get there.

Basically put, our model of the universe, if correct, may not prove or disprove god's existence, but can prove or disprove his sphere of influence...which kinda screws religion anyway....

However, there is always the fallback that we do not have a theory of everything, even should one exist, and we also cannot predict that no discovery will ever be made which shows something new - something outside the sphere of such a theory of everything.

A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life.

The anthropic principle, when originally used in cosmology was basically a poor attempt to answer the question of why the universe is the way it is. In other words, scientists want to believe that the state of our laws etc. is ultimately a highly probable one - one which can be settled to by many diverse starting conditions.

The answers which have come up so far are basically pathetic (IMHO) attempts such as "our universe is the way it is, because were it different, we would not be here to ask this question".

Ultimately, it doesnt matter. If there were only two states into which the universe's laws could have setlled into, people would ask "why this one".

Declaring that chance is not a valid mechanism is a bit foolish, IMHO. It is essentially stating that the entire universe is deterministic.

Take it to the other extreme....will the anthropic principle argue that quantum uncertainty is also not based on pure randomness or chance, but is in fact guided?????

At the end of the day, you can no more prove gods existence than you can disprove it. If you wish to use incomplete scientific theory on either side, you must admit to its incompleteness. If you do not wish to use said theory, then you get laughed off the stage for not taking scientific theory into account.

jc

azezil

I'm, well maybe i am (not really sure!) an atheist, i don't believe in god but i do however agree with the (or rather my) concept of mass religion...

The way i see it goin to mass, confessing sins etc. is good for u!
It gives u a guide towards a better life, instills morals n values, teaches that life is precious etc.

I acknowledge that some ppl use religion as an excuse to develope hatred of others but its up to the teachers (priests etc.) to guide their flock, if the leader is a worthy one, n the message is of peace n understanding... go for it!

P.S. i don't go cause i'm just too lasy not because i don't believe in god!


Join my religion n receive a promise of eternal life n a really groovy badge with my face on it! Call today as badges are limited, calls cost £1.80 a min, all proceeds go to the azezil computer fund

Yo Mamma

I was not trying, in that post, to conclusively prove the existence of God or some other higher power, I was showing a way of viewing the given information that could point u in a certain direction! When u cannot prove something to exist or not exist then u can look at it whichever way u like! There are as many arguments that point to the existence of a God or higher power as there are for disproving it !

That was just one such argument ! And the thing is, u cant say that it is less valid than any of the other arguments for or against the whole God-Universe debate !

Shinji

That was just one such argument ! And the thing is, u cant say that it is less valid than any of the other arguments for or against the whole God-Universe debate !

Yes I can. It was factually inaccurate and uninformed and relied on a number of scientific assumptions since disproved. It showed quite clearly that you've read a small amount on this subject and assumed that you are now qualified to construct arguments based on what you've read.

I would never presume to attempt to prove or disprove a personal point on the basis of an area of science as complex as this one, in which human understanding changes literally from month to month. For anyone who is not expert in the field to attempt to do so is utterly ridiculous as your understanding of what you are discussing will clearly not be good enough to found any statement on it.

Of course, it is the special arrogance of the religious and the religious apologists such as yourself to assume that while many athiests know religion inside out and backwards before engaging in debate over points of it, you have no need to do anything other than read a few Arthur C Clarke novels before holding forth on the thinking of the scientific world on the topic of the beginnings of creation...

Yo Mamma

I would never presume to attempt to prove or disprove a personal point on the basis of an area of science as complex as this one, in which human understanding changes literally from month to month. For anyone who is not expert in the field to attempt to do so is utterly ridiculous as your understanding of what you are discussing will clearly not be good enough to found any statement on it.

What personal point exactly do u think I was trying to prove ???

I was trying to prove no point! I was simply giving a differant point of view !

Of course, it is the special arrogance of the religious and the religious apologists such as yourself to assume that while many athiests know religion inside out and backwards before engaging in debate over points of it

Religious apologist !! How exactly did u make that one out ??

U should read some of this just to rise u a bit rurther !

DadaKopf

Why is this such a hot topic now? Has it anything to do with the threat of Global Islamic Terrorism or anything?

People have suddenly discovered there are different people in the world.

Typedef

Seriously
There is no evidence of any kind of omnipotent being that is the architect of the universe as is espoused in namely Christian texts. Seriously the world is older than 12,000 years old - it's about 4 billion years old , now either the old-testament guy's dropped a few numbers when they were multiplying out the time it took "god" to make the "heavens & earth" or they were full of s--t.

Either way if you believe the bible you are a fool, why ? Palentology(spelling) proves that the bible is totally made up as for example there used to be large reptiles roaming this planet hundreds of millions of years before our ancestors even developed opposing thumbs ok? This negates the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in their skewed pontifications about the beginning of this rotating ball of rock ok? Furthermore if you are so completely inured and enamoured with the hopeless romanticisms about existance of god on the "proof" that there is in the bible etc then you are either conciously or sub-conciously choosing to disregard proof that the accepted religious texts are nonsense.
What's worse is that there are millions of people who are victims for want of a better word of this weak thinking, people who simply choose to believe what makes them comfortable in the face of obvious and I mean obvious fact ie (above). Does this not show how feeble minded humans really are?

Believe what you wish & I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but the most compelling evidence that I have had in front of me for the possible existance of god was , "where did the big bang come from"?
However in a brief history of time I believe Hawking did touch on this so even at the most fundamental level of where did all of this matter/energy come from I find little compelling facts that proport a GOD, and a vast wealth of proof that god and creation as it has been presented in the "Classical" sense is just bull. Some people may say the bible is metaphorical(probably meaning allegorical anyhow) , but if it is a allegory then is god an allegory too? If so what is god meant to symboiise and what does that symbolise and so on? Catch my drift?

Sorry.

DadaKopf

By Bonkey:
You assume it is there, and then prove that this assumption causes a contradiction in known "fact". Its called "reduction to absurdity" and is a common scientific method of proof - widely used within mathematics.

Heh, you know your Fregean propositional logic! Are you a philosophy student? That's the
reductio ad absurdum rule. It's got its problems, like Double Negation, but it's a neat solution.

Typedef:
I don't think anyone's assuming God is as he's protrayed by the bible or any other kind of primitive, superstitious nonsense. No one is denying the advances science has made to explain the world. God's role in the world has been diminished whether you think He exists or not. The idea simply hasn't as much influence anymore.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about God as the prime mover of the universe who made it all happen, the view isn't necessarily incompatible with science, is just comes down on your own conclusions, whether you accept others' conclusions or not.

The fact remains that there is no 100% consensus on the issue so the qustion is still out there. I know what I think but there are always people out there to contradict me.

I still wanna know what people thing about this being such a hot topic all of a sudden.

Typedef

Originally posted by DadaKopf
People have suddenly discovered there are different people in the world.

Americans have discovered that it is no longer fashionable to lynch nergo's for coming to their country and taking their jobs so instead they're gonna go to Afghanistan and lynch some "Moslems" for standing against big brother and his daddies oil money hehehe.


Seriously what are we, really a collection of stem-cells that have become organs which have some biological imperitave(whatever that is) to continue(whatever continue means - as what is time really)? If time is perception then what is perception and how can we perceive that we perceive? What are humans anyway, I mean really if you try to ponder the existance of your own thought do you not find that any thought you have is superficial because the act of thinking is an absurdity as is existance?

DadaKopf

Seriously what are we, really a collection of stem-cells that have become organs which have some biological imperitave(whatever that is) to continue(whatever continue means - as what is time really)? If time is perception then what is perception and how can we perceive that we perceive? What are humans anyway, I mean really if you try to ponder the existance of your own thought do you not find that any thought you have is superficial because the act of thinking is an absurdity as is existance?

WHOA!! That's a few too many problems to take in one go! Come back after you've read up on it all. And I'll do the same.

I mean they're all roughly related to this problem of God but let's not lose the point here. The question is "Why atheism?" not any of those other things.

All I was saying was that since religion is in the headlines again, people are talking about it. I started a consciousness thread a while back but no-one was interested but it's of equal significance. It's just not interesting to most people, or if it was, it'd be in the news.

Blitzkrieger

There is no god. I'm not saying I don't believe in god because that's sort of an oxymoron. It also suggests that I'm not 100% sure about what I'm saying. The sky is blue. The grass is green. There is no god.

Originally posted by Yo Mamma
there is more pro-god evidence than there is anti-god evidence

Sorry to take the piss but.......[take the piss] that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard[/take the piss]. I'm over simplifying your argument but you seem to be saying because we can't explain the big bang and/or existence god must have created it/us. Didn't somebody already post that that is exactly the reason god was invented? To explain what we can't comprehend so we won't worry our little heads. There is no pro-god evidence.

[off topic]
The only bit of wisdom to come out of some plonker we had for religion one year was "Don't blame the church for everything done in the church's name". I doubt if any war was really started for religious reasons. Someone mentioned the crusades - isn't the popular opinion nowadays that the crusades started because there was an excess of noblemen and not enough land to go around?

Besides, even if there was a god - why worship it? What possible use could an imaginary omnipitent being have for your prayers? What difference does it make to your life if god is real or not. As Pratchet says, it'd be like worshiping a table. "Oh great table, without whom we are naught". Somebody mentioned that religion was a guide for leading a good life, but Cpl. Carrot would say people should be good because it's the right thing to do, not because god tells them to.
[/off topic]

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf


Heh, you know your Fregean propositional logic! Are you a philosophy student? That's the reductio ad absurdum rule.

philosophy student? Nah. Ex- Applied Maths Student. Ex- as in I graduated 7 years ago.

Originally posted by TypeDef
Either way if you believe the bible you are a fool

Err, hang on a sec m8...

1) We are discussing "God" in non-religion specific terms, not necessarily Christian ones.
2) The Catholic Church do not hold the bible up as fact, (nor do any other major Christian religion AFAIK), and readily admit that a lot of the earlier stuff is completely allegorical.
3) You are blaming a religion for writing scientifically incorrect stuff several hundred years ago - stuff which there was no correct answer for at the time, and stuff which they no longer hold or teach to be true (with the possible exception of some extreme "fringe" groups).

Once you get back on track, and discuss the big bang etc, you raise an interesting point...

Some people may say the bible is metaphorical(probably meaning allegorical anyhow) , but if it is a allegory then is god an allegory too? If so what is god meant to symboiise and what does that symbolise and so on? Catch my drift?

Yes, the bible is allegorical. Well - at least the religions who believe in it declared it so once its fantasy was shown to be just that - fantasy.

However, they take the existence of God as "unproveable fact", not allegory.

Interesting idea though, which I think azezil touched on as well when he said :

Originally posted by DadaKopf
i don't believe in god but i do however agree with the (or rather my) concept of mass religion...

The way i see it goin to mass, confessing sins etc. is good for u!
It gives u a guide towards a better life, instills morals n values, teaches that life is precious etc.

Unfortunately, a cynic like me looks at organised religion and sees it mostly as an excuse for a group of individuals to have power over others.

Belief, if it is good for you, is a good thing. Organised religion with its rules is all too often an excuse for someone to have control.

jc

jc

popinfresh

Well, I beleive in god, not because I want to, but because nothing else makes sense. Evolution is too unexplained and yet to be proven. And the thought that the earth was always here is scientifically proven wrong. The question I'm worried about, is what exactly is god?, and does he care?

j3bUs

We cannot "prove" that a God entity exists, there are no facts or real evidence to prove such.

We cannot "prove" that a God entity does not exist, there is no evidence to support this claim.

I am an anti-organised religion person because I believe it degrades the original ideals of the religion as it becomes a chore to perform the rituals of the religion instead of a meaningfull expression of faith, ie. going to church on sunday for many catholics is done because they are "supposed" to instead of "wanting" to.

To me the only way a religious person should believe in a divine entitiy is if somewhere within themself, within their soul if you will they "feel" there is a god and for no other reason should they believe and put faith into religion, not because some book called the bible or becasue their parents believed in a God, but because THEY FEEL there is a God.

I an not arrogant enough ( well almost ) to try and scientifically prove someones feelings are wrong so i just want to say.

" why cant we all just get along?"

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Bonkey apparently quoting me:
i don't believe in god but i do however agree with the (or rather my) concept of mass religion...

The way i see it goin to mass, confessing sins etc. is good for u!
It gives u a guide towards a better life, instills morals n values, teaches that life is precious etc.

Dude! I never said that! Man oh man.

Von

Capitalism, the worship of Tat, is my religion, however I am lapsed.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf


Dude! I never said that! Man oh man.

Of course you didnt. I am a complete lemon.

I meant to say azezil said it....

Damn but I'm dumb at times

jc

Terran

I have to say I'm an Atheist. I'm Omega_Weapon, returned with a better user name. I believe in Science. God cannot scientifically exist, and so I have doubts. Serious doubts, as in, I think it's all bull.