So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?I believe that I stop existing because all the evidence points towards that. Sure if would be cool to wake up in some other place where all you do is eat ice-cream every day, but nothing suggests that it's going to happen, so why would I believe that? Would be pretty ridiculous for me to start coming up with all kinds of stories and theories simply because I refuse to accept my fate.
Pepo wasn't being hateful, anymore than you were.His diction made it sound like he was. There's no way to hear a person's tone of voice, so that's all I had to go off of. If any of what I said sounds hateful, I assure you it's not. I merely desire to satisfy my curiosity.
I don't think there is any reason to believe in something that we have no proof of.
What evidence points towards you ceasing to exist? There's no evidence either way.So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?I believe that I stop existing because all the evidence points towards that. Sure if would be cool to wake up in some other place where all you do is eat ice-cream every day, but nothing suggests that it's going to happen, so why would I believe that? Would be pretty ridiculous for me to start coming up with all kinds of stories and theories simply because I refuse to accept my fate.
I don't think there is a "point" in life. Life just happens. We are all just being on this earth, just like a worm or an ant. I don't think some random ant has a higher meaning in his life. It lives, it dies. Simple as that.
Problem with humans is that we like to think that we are somehow special and better than all the other animals here.
That's not the case. We are just animals who happened to follow an evolutionary path that made us successful.
We are not special.
Yes, nothing to worry about.Pepo wasn't being hateful, anymore than you were.His diction made it sound like he was. There's no way to hear a person's tone of voice, so that's all I had to go off of. If any of what I said sounds hateful, I assure you it's not. I merely desire to satisfy my curiosity.
I don't think there is any reason to believe in something that we have no proof of.
Belief doesn't require proof.Then based on what you decide what religion you want to believe in? Just pick one and stick with it? The religion that perhaps your parents follow?
What evidence points towards you ceasing to exist? There's no evidence either way.Well, there is the medical evidence but I'm guessing that's not enough in this case? :)
As for the last part, I wouldn't call that a problem with humans. I think that due to our intellect, it is necessary for us to want to believe there is life after death. I think our species would have died off a long time ago if we couldn't believe there was a point to our lives. Why live if it doesn't matter that you lived?Yes, this is the "point" you talked about in the first post. Like I said, I don't see a point in life really. It's the life itself that is the "point". Our job is to live a good life, help others, and reproduce. That's it. There is no prize at the end.
Perhaps I should also ask, how are you able to accept not existing?
I have no idea what religion my parents are, or if they are religious at all, if that answers your question. I believe what I believe for the same reason as everyone else believes what they believe, including you. It's what I want to believe.Yes, nothing to worry about.Pepo wasn't being hateful, anymore than you were.His diction made it sound like he was. There's no way to hear a person's tone of voice, so that's all I had to go off of. If any of what I said sounds hateful, I assure you it's not. I merely desire to satisfy my curiosity.
I don't think there is any reason to believe in something that we have no proof of.QuoteBelief doesn't require proof.Then based on what you decide what religion you want to believe in? Just pick one and stick with it? The religion that perhaps your parents follow?
I have no need for supersticious beliefs. I find it much harder to believe in some god or gods than accepting that when my brain stops to function there is nothing after that for me.
You said that you believe you stop existing because all of the evidence points towards that. If anyone is guilty of not meeting the burden of proof, it's you. You say there is evidence, I say there is none. I don't know what medical evidence shows that people don't possess souls (or whatever part of us lives on after death).What evidence points towards you ceasing to exist? There's no evidence either way.Well, there is the medical evidence but I'm guessing that's not enough in this case? :)
I'll tell you a secret. I'm really an alien from the Gamma Galaxy. You don't believe me? Well, what evidence points towards me not being an alien from the Gamma Galaxy? Prove to me that I'm not an alien from the Gamma Galaxy.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Otherwise we could just make up stuff and nothing would make any sense.
If I told everyone that a magical green squirrel built the universe, everyone would think I'm nuts. But if I started a religion "The Church of the Magical Green Squirrel", wrote "holy" books, sacrificed acorns, etc. I would no longer be considered crazy because now it would be my religion. And if anyone wanted to prove me wrong, they would have to show me how the magical green squirrel couldn't have existed.*
*science is sometimes wrong so it is always wrong and the proof cannot be based on scienceAs for the last part, I wouldn't call that a problem with humans. I think that due to our intellect, it is necessary for us to want to believe there is life after death. I think our species would have died off a long time ago if we couldn't believe there was a point to our lives. Why live if it doesn't matter that you lived?Yes, this is the "point" you talked about in the first post. Like I said, I don't see a point in life really. It's the life itself that is the "point". Our job is to live a good life, help others, and reproduce. That's it. There is no prize at the end.
Perhaps I should also ask, how are you able to accept not existing?
Me "not accepting" death is just denial. It's like getting cancer and saying over and over again "I don't have a cancer!". Sure you can do that but it makes no difference in the end.
Dude. Again? She doesn't have to prove there are no souls. You have to prove there are.I have no idea what religion my parents are, or if they are religious at all, if that answers your question. I believe what I believe for the same reason as everyone else believes what they believe, including you. It's what I want to believe.Yes, nothing to worry about.Pepo wasn't being hateful, anymore than you were.His diction made it sound like he was. There's no way to hear a person's tone of voice, so that's all I had to go off of. If any of what I said sounds hateful, I assure you it's not. I merely desire to satisfy my curiosity.
I don't think there is any reason to believe in something that we have no proof of.QuoteBelief doesn't require proof.Then based on what you decide what religion you want to believe in? Just pick one and stick with it? The religion that perhaps your parents follow?
I have no need for supersticious beliefs. I find it much harder to believe in some god or gods than accepting that when my brain stops to function there is nothing after that for me.You said that you believe you stop existing because all of the evidence points towards that. If anyone is guilty of not meeting the burden of proof, it's you. You say there is evidence, I say there is none. I don't know what medical evidence shows that people don't possess souls (or whatever part of us lives on after death).What evidence points towards you ceasing to exist? There's no evidence either way.Well, there is the medical evidence but I'm guessing that's not enough in this case? :)
I'll tell you a secret. I'm really an alien from the Gamma Galaxy. You don't believe me? Well, what evidence points towards me not being an alien from the Gamma Galaxy? Prove to me that I'm not an alien from the Gamma Galaxy.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Otherwise we could just make up stuff and nothing would make any sense.
If I told everyone that a magical green squirrel built the universe, everyone would think I'm nuts. But if I started a religion "The Church of the Magical Green Squirrel", wrote "holy" books, sacrificed acorns, etc. I would no longer be considered crazy because now it would be my religion. And if anyone wanted to prove me wrong, they would have to show me how the magical green squirrel couldn't have existed.*
*science is sometimes wrong so it is always wrong and the proof cannot be based on scienceAs for the last part, I wouldn't call that a problem with humans. I think that due to our intellect, it is necessary for us to want to believe there is life after death. I think our species would have died off a long time ago if we couldn't believe there was a point to our lives. Why live if it doesn't matter that you lived?Yes, this is the "point" you talked about in the first post. Like I said, I don't see a point in life really. It's the life itself that is the "point". Our job is to live a good life, help others, and reproduce. That's it. There is no prize at the end.
Perhaps I should also ask, how are you able to accept not existing?
Me "not accepting" death is just denial. It's like getting cancer and saying over and over again "I don't have a cancer!". Sure you can do that but it makes no difference in the end.
Wow, no need to be so hateful. And I don't know what servitude you're talking about, so I can't answer your question.I was not being hateful; that is how I view Christianity. Just as you seem to think that being a part of this beautiful and wonderful thing called life (even if only in the most minute of ways) could ever be depressing.
Is that your reason? You think theists are bound to an eternity of servitude (assuming we're right)?
The argument is not over if souls exist, it's over there being evidence or not. She is the one making the claim that there is, I'm the one asking her to provide this evidence. The burden of proof is currently on her.Dude. Again? She doesn't have to prove there are no souls. You have to prove there are.I have no idea what religion my parents are, or if they are religious at all, if that answers your question. I believe what I believe for the same reason as everyone else believes what they believe, including you. It's what I want to believe.Yes, nothing to worry about.Pepo wasn't being hateful, anymore than you were.His diction made it sound like he was. There's no way to hear a person's tone of voice, so that's all I had to go off of. If any of what I said sounds hateful, I assure you it's not. I merely desire to satisfy my curiosity.
I don't think there is any reason to believe in something that we have no proof of.QuoteBelief doesn't require proof.Then based on what you decide what religion you want to believe in? Just pick one and stick with it? The religion that perhaps your parents follow?
I have no need for supersticious beliefs. I find it much harder to believe in some god or gods than accepting that when my brain stops to function there is nothing after that for me.You said that you believe you stop existing because all of the evidence points towards that. If anyone is guilty of not meeting the burden of proof, it's you. You say there is evidence, I say there is none. I don't know what medical evidence shows that people don't possess souls (or whatever part of us lives on after death).What evidence points towards you ceasing to exist? There's no evidence either way.Well, there is the medical evidence but I'm guessing that's not enough in this case? :)
I'll tell you a secret. I'm really an alien from the Gamma Galaxy. You don't believe me? Well, what evidence points towards me not being an alien from the Gamma Galaxy? Prove to me that I'm not an alien from the Gamma Galaxy.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Otherwise we could just make up stuff and nothing would make any sense.
If I told everyone that a magical green squirrel built the universe, everyone would think I'm nuts. But if I started a religion "The Church of the Magical Green Squirrel", wrote "holy" books, sacrificed acorns, etc. I would no longer be considered crazy because now it would be my religion. And if anyone wanted to prove me wrong, they would have to show me how the magical green squirrel couldn't have existed.*
*science is sometimes wrong so it is always wrong and the proof cannot be based on scienceAs for the last part, I wouldn't call that a problem with humans. I think that due to our intellect, it is necessary for us to want to believe there is life after death. I think our species would have died off a long time ago if we couldn't believe there was a point to our lives. Why live if it doesn't matter that you lived?Yes, this is the "point" you talked about in the first post. Like I said, I don't see a point in life really. It's the life itself that is the "point". Our job is to live a good life, help others, and reproduce. That's it. There is no prize at the end.
Perhaps I should also ask, how are you able to accept not existing?
Me "not accepting" death is just denial. It's like getting cancer and saying over and over again "I don't have a cancer!". Sure you can do that but it makes no difference in the end.
The argument is not over if souls exist, it's over there being evidence or not. She is the one making the claim that there is, I'm the one asking her to provide this evidence. The burden of proof is currently on her.No it's not. You fail to grasp the concept of burden of proof. I do not have to prove that something does not exist. You have to prove that it does.
A pen was created by itself? A paper too? Seems odd.I don't know about pen but I do know that paper was invented by the Chinese, not by any divine being.
Sorry, but that doesn't really answer my question. How do you know the religion you believe in is the correct one, as all of them claim to be. Perhaps you should believe in all of them? Mind you, I'm not really demanding an answer.QuoteThen based on what you decide what religion you want to believe in? Just pick one and stick with it? The religion that perhaps your parents follow?I have no idea what religion my parents are, or if they are religious at all, if that answers your question. I believe what I believe for the same reason as everyone else believes what they believe, including you. It's what I want to believe.
I have no need for supersticious beliefs. I find it much harder to believe in some god or gods than accepting that when my brain stops to function there is nothing after that for me.
You don't understand the argument here. The argument isn't over whether or not souls exist. I am not saying they do. I believe they do, but that's not what I'm arguing about. This argument is about whether or not there is any evidence in support of whether or not souls exist. It's about evidence, not about souls. I don't have to prove there is evidence if it doesn't exist. On the other hand, you have to prove that it does.The argument is not over if souls exist, it's over there being evidence or not. She is the one making the claim that there is, I'm the one asking her to provide this evidence. The burden of proof is currently on her.No it's not. You fail to grasp the concept of burden of proof. I do not have to prove that something does not exist. You have to prove that it does.
The concept of soul is kind of like me saying I have an invisible friend. It's based on nothing but me saying it. You cannot prove me wrong because you cannot prove that there isn't and invisible person next to me.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
What you are doing is argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).A pen was created by itself? A paper too? Seems odd.I don't know about pen but I do know that paper was invented by the Chinese, not by any divine being.
Belief = KnowledgeSorry, but that doesn't really answer my question. How do you know the religion you believe in is the correct one, as all of them claim to be. Perhaps you should believe in all of them? Mind you, I'm not really demanding an answer.QuoteThen based on what you decide what religion you want to believe in? Just pick one and stick with it? The religion that perhaps your parents follow?I have no idea what religion my parents are, or if they are religious at all, if that answers your question. I believe what I believe for the same reason as everyone else believes what they believe, including you. It's what I want to believe.
I have no need for supersticious beliefs. I find it much harder to believe in some god or gods than accepting that when my brain stops to function there is nothing after that for me.
What I want to believe... Ah, okay. I really would like to have an endless feast in Valhalla when I die. It would be absolutely amazing, drinking and eating forever with vikings. Sadly, it is not a matter of belief. It either happens or it doesn't, I guess I just have to wait and see, don't I?
To prove souls exist, who is controling us? What is our mind? What is the thing which helps us think, comprehend besides the brain? It is the soul. The soul is our mind. The mind is NOT the brain. We are thinking about religion, but what is the thing which is helping us? The brain is just a mere organ. But within the brain, something lies which helps us do anything. It is the "imaginary mind", which is the soul. It is something real but we cannot feel it. When you read this, you try to understand it, your brain helps and checks your memory, but the thing that is controlling us is the soul.I believe what you are describing are the billions of synapses firing very very tiny jolts of electricity. We are who we are because our brains dictate us to be like that through years of environmental influence and nurturing through parents, friends, and over loved ones.
Those who doesn't understand it, I cannot clarify it any further. It is impossible to comprehend it as it goes beyond our comprehension.
There is no reason to believe that heaven is a place where you get to lounge around and relax until the end of time, especially considering some particular characteristics of the Christian God (insecurity, paranoia, jealousy). God desires humans to continually praise him and exalt him, and feels insecure enough that he must destroy and endlessly torment anyone who does not believe in him. And even aside from that, the prospect of existing forever seems completely egotistical and fantastic (and not in the good way).No. Christians feel the need to worship God, for they (and I) believe he is their creator. God himself demands no worship. People listened to Jesus because they liked what he had to say and agreed with it, not because they would go to hell if they didn't.
Then again, even if the concept of heaven was a reality, I would never believe that any human would be worthy of entrance, by God's standards. If we are to take the bible literally (which, evidently, no one ever does, anymore), essentially the entirety of humanity is going to hell.You are right, in a sense. Humankind is sinful and the only way to get into heaven is by being completely free of sin. So it's impossible, right? Wrong. When Jesus died on the cross for our sins, all of our sins, past present and future, are forgiven. All one needs to do is ask Jesus into your heart and truly believe, and then try to mirror your actions in life like that, and you go to heaven. This is taking God's word literally, by the way.
All in all, I find the idea of Christianity to be too flawed, too obviously a fear-mongering control device, and too unappealing to waste my precious time on (and my time is precious, because it is so short).Are you one of those people that finds your life too precious to go help other people? Like devote maybe an hour a week to mission service? You don't need to go to Church to go to heaven, be a Christian, and live a christ-like life.
If you think helping the needy (maybe help build a house, or a deck, or clean an area up) is something not worth your time, you obviously have never tried it. It makes you have this nice warm feeling inside that you actually did something good; a lot like what you probably felt about the leaf dragon drawing. But even more because you're helping people who have nothing versus helping Zanzarino make an art drawing for a game.That's not even remotely in the same ballpark as true. Believing something to not be worth your time doesn't mean they've never tried it. You are taking what you feel and generalizing it. Helping build a house for a needy family might give you a nice warm sensation inside, but for someone else it could be boring, or too laborious, or something else completely. Believing and living a christ-like life doesn't make everyone feel warm and nice inside. For someone like me, it makes me feel foolish that I'd believe something like that. But I guess most christians would feel the same way if they tried to be atheist.
That's not even remotely in the same ballpark as true. Believing something to not be worth your time doesn't mean they've never tried it. You are taking what you feel and generalizing it. Helping build a house for a needy family might give you a nice warm sensation inside, but for someone else it could be boring, or too laborious, or something else completely. Believing and living a christ-like life doesn't make everyone feel warm and nice inside. For someone like me, it makes me feel foolish that I'd believe something like that. But I guess most christians would feel the same way if they tried to be atheist.You have no clue how self centered that sounds.
And honestly, living a christ-like life doesn't mean you need to believe. You can give charity and do good works while not believing. You still live christ-like (as much as you can); it's just that your sins aren't forgiven so you don't go to heaven.And it's stuff like that that i would rather being atheist. I can be a great person, help everyone out and do such good things, and still go to hell simply because I don't believe in God. That just sounds very stupid to me. I'd rather do good because I want to, not because I'm doing it to get into heaven, or trying to live like some guy from thousands of years ago.
No. Christians feel the need to worship God, for they (and I) believe he is their creator. God himself demands no worship. People listened to Jesus because they liked what he had to say and agreed with it, not because they would go to hell if they didn't.The difference between a good person going to hell or heaven is whether or not they believe in God, sounds a lot like God want's to be worshiped.
God created man perfect, according to the Bible. As a stipulation of this, he gave man kind the *ability* to fail. Why? Because the ability to fail is pretty much the definition of free choice. Adam choose wrong, and listened to Eve and the serpent.Yes,the reason why humans are on top of the food chain is becuz of our "ability" to fail,and improve.
This made man imperfect.
A cheese ball without cheese isn't a cheese ball anymore. It's just a ball. Which is exactly my point :). A heaven that isn't perfect isn't heaven.ummm...again,blame my lack of knowledge.If heaven is perfect,then why would humans be there? or even god.I believe they all make mistake,if theres mistakes,its not perfect.Besides,how can you if something's perfec? isnt it a matter of how u look at things?
Now you just don't understand what heaven is, according to the Christian faith.Well, God can open your heart for you, to say he can't would disprove God, as God is omnipotent, and if he can't do something then he is not God. He just chooses not to, free will and all. But that's just nitpicking.
Heaven is a perfect place. EVERYTHING in it must be perfect. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be heaven anymore. It's like saying a cheese ball has to have cheese. If it didn't have cheese, it wouldn't be a cheese ball anymore.
God created man perfect, according to the Bible. As a stipulation of this, he gave man kind the *ability* to fail. Why? Because the ability to fail is pretty much the definition of free choice. Adam choose wrong, and listened to Eve and the serpent.
This made man imperfect.
So now we have a place where EVERYTHING must be perfect, and man, who is imperfect. Man and heaven aren't compatible now.
However, God has it in his heart to forgive your sins and make you perfect again. But he can't do that if you don't open your heart to him. He wishes he could, even wants to. But he just can't. He wants you to open your heart to him so he can forgive you and then so you can go to heaven.
Therefore, believe and you are forgiven and can go to heaven.
Don't believe and you stay incompatible with heaven, so you have to go somewhere else. ie, Hell.
God does not decide who goes and who doesn't go to heaven. If he had it his way, everyone would. But it doesn't work like that. Harvard wishes everyone was smart enough to get into it; it would make more money and be much happier. But if it admitted everyone, well, it wouldn't be Harvard anymore.
/logicked by Religion
You just keep proving my points for me. Thanks :D .No offense, but that is a horrible analogy. If God was in my inbox, well then, that's sort of proof he exists and I can believe in him. Or something similar. God isn't trying to get in contact with me. Having man write a book and then thousands of years letter claiming it's God's word is like playing the Operator game. Where one person says a phrase into someone elses ear and then say that phrase to the next person over and over and over again until you get to the end. In the game, you get to find out what the original phrase was, but with the Bible, you can't go back and find out what it original was to see if everything said was correct or how far off from the original it was. That's like you telling a random stranger to come tell me that you want to give me $1000. Why would, or why should, I believe this random person, when You could have easily came over and told me yourself?
The Christian religion defines God as perfect. He has never made a mistake.
Therefore, he can be in heaven with his host of angels (who are also perfect).
Now humans on the other hand aren't perfect due to the sin we all carry. No amount of good deeds will ever erase this sin, so you will never be able to go into heaven. Unless God forgives you.
Analogy:
I really want to give you a thousand dollars. For free. For no charge, no strings attached. I'm just going to mail it to your house. This is God. He wants to free you of your sin and let you into heaven. You would owe him nothing, and it costs you nothing.
Now, to give you this money, I keep emailing you. And keep trying. And trying. But you don't believe me and think it's all just another scam. But I keep trying, and I never stop trying. All I want is to give you something free. All I need is your address so I can mail it. But you never answer me, thinking by giving me your address you'll suddenly get scammed everything. And that's natural; there ARE a lot of scammers out there.
This is what God is trying to do. He wants to give you amnesty and rid you of sin, and he never stops giving you chances to do so. He never stops trying to get you to believe. But you, the non believer, shut him out and refuse to listen to him, thinking it's all a lie. He can't prove to you he's real; he just tells you you have to believe. But you don't since you're very skeptic and think it is a lie (a very real possibility; there ARE lots of lies out there).
You just lost a thousand dollars. ie You just lost your chance at heaven.
I really want to give you a thousand dollars. For free. For no charge, no strings attached. I'm just going to mail it to your house. This is God. He wants to free you of your sin and let you into heaven. You would owe him nothing, and it costs you nothing.Yes, but the problem is that christian God is not the only one spamming those emails. There are thousands of different religions in the world, each spamming emails. My question is: which one is right? I mean, they can't be all right because they contradict each other.
Now, to give you this money, I keep emailing you. And keep trying. And trying. But you don't believe me and think it's all just another scam. But I keep trying, and I never stop trying. All I want is to give you something free. All I need is your address so I can mail it. But you never answer me, thinking by giving me your address you'll suddenly get scammed everything. And that's natural; there ARE a lot of scammers out there.
This is what God is trying to do. He wants to give you amnesty and rid you of sin, and he never stops giving you chances to do so. He never stops trying to get you to believe. But you, the non believer, shut him out and refuse to listen to him, thinking it's all a lie. He can't prove to you he's real; he just tells you you have to believe. But you don't since you're very skeptic and think it is a lie (a very real possibility; there ARE lots of lies out there).
You just lost a thousand dollars. ie You just lost your chance at heaven.
Pepokish, I must say your views about Christianity are very flawed. You don't have to believe, but at least don't believe for the right reasons. If you made claims that it "wasn't proven" or something, I can accept that; that's why it's called believing and not knowing. However, you seem to not like and look down on Christians because you think we're all bigots that worship an evil being where even if there was a heaven wouldn't let anybody in to it.I'm sorry that you seem to think that I look down on Christians, as I do not. I can honestly say that I don't look down on anyone. I don't think Christians are bigots (where have you gotten this idea?), but you're right in assuming that I don't think the Christian God is as wholesome as he proclaims himself to be -- and I'm allowed to think that.
Are you one of those people that finds your life too precious to go help other people? Like devote maybe an hour a week to mission service?Now this is the part that made me angry. Excuse me? Where did I say anything of the sort? You have stepped completely out of line. You do not need religion to be a good person, and such an assumption is an atrocity.
Belief = KnowledgeSo belief is knowledge, of what exactly? If it means knowledge that what you believe is correct, that would be circular logic. And could be used to justify anything, even something that I would think to be immoral, so I cannot accept it. I find that blind faith and devotion is unacceptable by definition.
It may not be true knowledge, but it is knowledge. There is no evidence showing that my beliefs are false or true, so I will believe they are true. It's just like SG. She believes there is nothing supernatural because there is no evidence either way. If there is no support for either side, a person is free to choose which side they want to believe.
Interesting...You obviously aren't familiar with philosophy. Belief is a type of knowledge. There is no agreement on what knowledge is.
Belief = knowledge ... nope.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief.Interesting...You obviously aren't familiar with philosophy. Belief is a type of knowledge. There is no agreement on what knowledge is.
Belief = knowledge ... nope.
Thanks for telling me what I already know. Except that's only one type of knowledge. Belief is also all that is required for knowledge by some people's definitions.Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief.Interesting...You obviously aren't familiar with philosophy. Belief is a type of knowledge. There is no agreement on what knowledge is.
Belief = knowledge ... nope.
"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true."
I eagerly await the production of proof :D
Jesus was not crucified and still lives above the heavens. If Qur'an is not a valid source of Islam, I don't know what is. I rather would choose Christianity because they at least believe there IS A GOD. Atheists don't do that.Honestly, you reached such a level of not making sense that I'm having trouble not laughing.
Oops, i should know better, this debate never gets resolved...Pretty sure I already answered that: Because I want to. I doubt there is any way I could justify it that would satisfy you though.
However, I wonder if you would do me the curtesy of answering: Why believe in God?
If Qur'an is not a valid source of Islam, I don't know what is.We're not talking about a source of Islam, we're talking about a source of knowledge of the way things really are. Let's say I go to the library and I see three books: Qur'an, the Bible and Harry Potter. All three books tell wonderous tales of magic and miracles, yet two of the three say their stories actually happened as described, as well as that I need to change the way I lead my life because of them (-Or else nasty things will happen to me after I die!).
But if you believe it's true that doesn't make it true. Could you make youself believe 1+1=3 if you'd want to? Now when I can see that something is red then I simply won't believe it's green, even if it would be more convenient for me if it were green (-Nope, the bank account isn't in the red...).Oops, i should know better, this debate never gets resolved...Pretty sure I already answered that: Because I want to. I doubt there is any way I could justify it that would satisfy you though.
However, I wonder if you would do me the curtesy of answering: Why believe in God?
Belief does not require truth.It does require subjective truth (it needs to be perceived as true by the person believing in it).
Almost all religions have a vital knowledgable fact in it. How else would people believe in that religion?Then what happened to the vital knowledge of the ancient viking followers of Thor the God of Thunder? I don't see his believers very often these days.
Why Atheism in particular, and not Agnosticism?I already understand agnosticism, of course.
If you really wish to understand the other side, I highly recommend getting hold of a copy of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". Dont be put off by the title, its interesting, without being too heavy going.
You aren't looking hard enough, they are all around you...right at this moment...they are also ninja vikings.Almost all religions have a vital knowledgable fact in it. How else would people believe in that religion?Then what happened to the vital knowledge of the ancient viking followers of Thor the God of Thunder? I don't see his believers very often these days.
Heh, so he's doing better than Odin? http://www.theonion.com/audio/viking-god-odin-down-to-last-4-worshippers,12963/You aren't looking hard enough, they are all around you...right at this moment...they are also ninja vikings.Almost all religions have a vital knowledgable fact in it. How else would people believe in that religion?Then what happened to the vital knowledge of the ancient viking followers of Thor the God of Thunder? I don't see his believers very often these days.
He does have the mightest spear ???Heh, so he's doing better than Odin? http://www.theonion.com/audio/viking-god-odin-down-to-last-4-worshippers,12963/You aren't looking hard enough, they are all around you...right at this moment...they are also ninja vikings.Almost all religions have a vital knowledgable fact in it. How else would people believe in that religion?Then what happened to the vital knowledge of the ancient viking followers of Thor the God of Thunder? I don't see his believers very often these days.
well, i dont know if this has already been said, but i dont want to sift through 4 pages of comments, so im going to say it. just because you are athiest, doesnt mean you believe your going to stop existing when you die, it just means you dont believe any kind of god. there are many athiest religions out there, i just cant name any of them because i only heard of them all once in social studies class.I find it hard to comprehend that a rational mind capable of rejecting the existance of a god, could also encompass the thought that there is a concious or spiritual existance after death.
That's where a lot of minds fall apart, at a thought like that. But the afterlife does no have to be tied to religion, at all. Maybe when you die, you go to a mystical place where everything is made of your favorite food, or a place where your favorite game is a reality, or maybe you are simply reincarnated. Afterlife refers to what comes after death. There are probably hundreds of ideas of what the afterlife could be. Most of them come from religions, but many probably come from thoughts of fantasy, and all of them are equal because no one knows for certain until they die.well, i dont know if this has already been said, but i dont want to sift through 4 pages of comments, so im going to say it. just because you are athiest, doesnt mean you believe your going to stop existing when you die, it just means you dont believe any kind of god. there are many athiest religions out there, i just cant name any of them because i only heard of them all once in social studies class.I find it hard to comprehend that a rational mind capable of rejecting the existance of a god, could also encompass the thought that there is a concious or spiritual existance after death.
Please tell me more, I'm curious?
Why would there be an afterlife? Isn't this life enough already?That's an extremely low value on life, in my opinion. I don't see how eighty years could be seen as "enough." How could a person ever want their consciousness to end? All of their memories disappear, no more experiences, no thoughts, no time, no anything, for eternity. Even if you live a million years, it's no different than only living eighty. In the end, it's basically like your life never happened. If there is nothing else, the universe is cruel for allowing the existence of life only to erase it.
Thats life, baby. 8)Why would there be an afterlife? Isn't this life enough already?That's an extremely low value on life, in my opinion. I don't see how eighty years could be seen as "enough." How could a person ever want their consciousness to end? All of their memories disappear, no more experiences, no thoughts, no time, no anything, for eternity. Even if you live a million years, it's no different than only living eighty. In the end, it's basically like your life never happened. If there is nothing else, the universe is cruel for allowing the existence of life only to erase it.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that I look down on Christians, as I do not. I can honestly say that I don't look down on anyone. I don't think Christians are bigots (where have you gotten this idea?),Bigots... re-reading it, I have no clue :). I guess what I was thinking is that since you think the Christian God is "fear mongering" and "jealous/insecure," naturally his followers are bad too. I mean, if someone says they worshiped the Devil, what would you assume about that person's mindset?
but you're right in assuming that I don't think the Christian God is as wholesome as he proclaims himself to be -- and I'm allowed to think that.Yes, you are allowed to think that. You're allowed to think 1+1=3 too. That doesn't mean it's right.
particular characteristics of the Christian God (insecurity, paranoia, jealousy).Christianity says this is wrong.
God desires humans to continually praise him and exalt him, and feels insecure enough that he must destroy and endlessly torment anyone who does not believe in himChristianity says this is wrong.
the entirety of humanity is going to hell.Christianity says this is wrong.
idea of Christianity to be too flawed, too obviously a fear-mongering control deviceI believe this is wrong; Christianity is supposed to provide comfort, not fear. If you think otherwise I'll agree that's your choice. I'm not going to argue this point because I'm not in the mood of this turning into another Zeitgeist argument.
Now this is the part that made me angry. Excuse me? Where did I say anything of the sort? You have stepped completely out of line. You do not need religion to be a good person, and such an assumption is an atrocity.I'm sorry; I got the wrong idea from the idea that "your time on this Earth is precious". If you truly do live a good life by helping others, shame on me for assuming wrong.
Puppychow, I respect your beliefs -- please have the decency to do the same for me. I have had horrible experiences with Christianity, and I want absolutely nothing to do with it. I will not PM you trying to explain why your views of atheism are flawed, so please don't PM me regarding Christianity for the same reason.
Yes, but the problem is that christian God is not the only one spamming those emails. There are thousands of different religions in the world, each spamming emails. My question is: which one is right? I mean, they can't be all right because they contradict each other.You're exactly right. Notice I said the person "assumed it was just another scammer" :). The God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is the same one anyway. The specific beliefs may differ, but we all worship the same God.
Lets take this thread as an example. Wardead is a Muslim, and knows his religion is right. PuppyChow is a christian and knows his religion is right. The problem is, one of you has to be wrong. So which one is it? Or maybe you are both wrong, and some Buddhist is right?
We have billions of people all over the world from different religions, everyone thinking they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Because only one religion can be right (if any), that means that huge majority of religious people are worshiping a false God.
Christians themselves are atheists when it comes to all those 999 non-christian religions. Atheists just take it one step further to make it a 1000.
Well, God can open your heart for you, to say he can't would disprove God, as God is omnipotent, and if he can't do something then he is not God. He just chooses not to, free will and all. But that's just nitpicking.You're correct. He *could* force you to believe in him, but just as you said: we wouldn't have free will; we wouldn't be human.
And that's one of the main reasons I don't believe in God or a Heaven. If heaven is so perfect, then I must have missed something because then how did Lucifer come about? Lucifer doesn't seem too close to perfection in my mind.You're right. You don't understand how Lucifer came about.
If the deciding factor between going to heaven or hell (and it is) is believing in God, then until I get concrete proof, non of this faith stuff, that he even exists, I have no reason to. I'd rather live my life happy and believe what I want than to believe a something that is most likely wrong, even if it turns out to be right in the end, than to force myself to believe a certain thing or way. There are tons of religions on this world, and each of them claims they are the right religion.<Deja Vu>
No offense, but that is a horrible analogy. If God was in my inbox, well then, that's sort of proof he exists and I can believe in him. Or something similar. God isn't trying to get in contact with me. Having man write a book and then thousands of years letter claiming it's God's word is like playing the Operator game. Where one person says a phrase into someone elses ear and then say that phrase to the next person over and over and over again until you get to the end. In the game, you get to find out what the original phrase was, but with the Bible, you can't go back and find out what it original was to see if everything said was correct or how far off from the original it was. That's like you telling a random stranger to come tell me that you want to give me $1000. Why would, or why should, I believe this random person, when You could have easily came over and told me yourself?You misunderstood my analogy. Cliffnotes version:
And if heaven and his angels are so perfect, what about Lucifer? Or when the Angels came down and began having sexy time with the humans? Doesn't sound to perfect to me./Misconceptions Devil isn't in heaven /Misconceptions
You're right. You don't understand how Lucifer came about.What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.
1) Lucifer was perfect; a cherub, or powerful angel. In heaven.
2) Lucifer wanted to be like God and take power away from him.
3) Wanting to be like God, or overthrown him = Sin.
4) Lucifer sinned, and Sinful =/= Heaven.
5) Lucifer is kicked out of heaven for sinning.
6) Lucifer became a fallen angel/cherub. Hello Satan!
He was created because and out of sin. Not perfection.
Do you realize how ridiculous sounds? I really doubt if you were faced with the same email situation as above, I doubt you'd give that random email your address. And you second example, the "real version" is the same thing I stated above in what I said. Random person is telling you to believe in some mighty being or else I will suffer eternally. Yeah, I'm totally going to go and believe that random person.QuoteNo offense, but that is a horrible analogy. If God was in my inbox, well then, that's sort of proof he exists and I can believe in him. Or something similar. God isn't trying to get in contact with me. Having man write a book and then thousands of years letter claiming it's God's word is like playing the Operator game. Where one person says a phrase into someone elses ear and then say that phrase to the next person over and over and over again until you get to the end. In the game, you get to find out what the original phrase was, but with the Bible, you can't go back and find out what it original was to see if everything said was correct or how far off from the original it was. That's like you telling a random stranger to come tell me that you want to give me $1000. Why would, or why should, I believe this random person, when You could have easily came over and told me yourself?You misunderstood my analogy. Cliffnotes version:
1) Random dude in New York. Let's say his email is randomguy4231@random.com
2) You.
3) randomguy messages you and tells you he wants to give you a thousand dollars but he needs your address.
4) You refuse. Just think it's another scammer.
5) He keeps trying. Every day, every second, another email.
6) You keep refusing. You shut him out and put him on the "ignore" list.
7) He keeps trying to email you.
8) You never get the thousand dollars.
You see, you didn't know it was God. You were supposed to *believe*. Real version:
1) God sends you messages through people that he wants to give you eternal life but he needs you to open your heart to him.
2) You refuse the messages, denying them.
3) God never stops trying because he wants you to make it into heaven.
4) You never listen or realize he's sending you a message.
5) You don't believe and don't go to heaven.
What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.By created by and out of sin, I was referring to the Satan we know today. Not the Satan before he fell. Not the perfect Satan.
Do you realize how ridiculous sounds? I really doubt if you were faced with the same email situation as above, I doubt you'd give that random email your address. And you second example, the "real version" is the same thing I stated above in what I said. Random person is telling you to believe in some mighty being or else I will suffer eternally. Yeah, I'm totally going to go and believe that random person.Hence, it's a simple analogy. In the case of the analogy you're right - I would probably be a non believer too.
So God is a user and addicted to humans. He needs and intervention. You know, provided God actually exists and christians aren't just into self delusion.
Hence, it's a simple analogy. In the case of the analogy you're right - I would probably be a non believer too.
As to it being a random person, that is entirely wrong. Yes, it could be that homeless guy you saw on the street yesterday that asked you for money (God was giving you a chance to donate to the needy), or maybe it's your next-door neighbor inviting you to a musical at Church. God is working through all of them ;).
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief./Off topic: there is no agreement about that "justification" clause.
"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true."
IMO, every non-atheist human being has hi/her own God.Sorry, couldn't help but think of this:
How do you know Julius Ceaser existed?Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief./Off topic: there is no agreement about that "justification" clause.
"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true."
Knowledge = 3 conditions
1. Belief (A person must believe X to be said to know X.)
2. Truth (X must be true.)
3. Something something something.
Obviously this last part is important, it's just hard to nail down. In your "justification" clause, you put a higher burden and a peculiar burden on knowing than you would on any other action or state of being such as seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. "Justification" would mean that you have to "know that you know" in order to know something. But you would never require someone to "see that they see" or "taste that they taste" in order to be said to see or taste.
As an example, I think I can safely say that I know that Julius Caesar was a man. Do I have some sort of evidence for this? Do I have to construct some chain of evidence from the time he lived to the time I first heard about him in order to safely say I "know" anything about him? If I cannot, does that mean I don't know it?
/back to the regularly scheduled why atheism thread...
Oh and again, it's called believing not knowing. I believe that my God is the right one and that the religion of the smelly shoe is the wrong one. My belief. Doesn't have to be yours.Yes, but aren't you worried that you picked the wrong religion? Actually in this case (like in most cases) I'm guessing you didn't even choose Christianity yourself. It is the chosen religion of your parents, and their parents, and their parents.. etc. Having a specific religion is generally not your choosing, you were born into it, which means that if you were born in some other part of the world, you would most likely believe in some other God.
How do you know Julius Ceaser existed?In a nutshell, what you've argued here is that I have a good chance of being right that Julius Caesar existed (and was a man) because a lot of other people have previously claimed he existed through their writings, study and teachings. That is, I can know Julius Caesar was a man because for centuries people have passed this belief along. And people would never lie or mislead or make mistakes about that kind of thing. Unless you're making an argument for solipsism, you need to grant that the state of knowing is not the same as being aware of the knowledge or the ability to prove it is true.
Is it the evidence left behind, and subsequently collated and studied that give you the impression that he existed? It would seem there is enough evidence of his existence to make a justifiable statement that he once was upon this earth.
What is justifiable? Any knowledge requires some evidence to show that it is true.I think you are confusing knowing something and knowing that you know it. You have to separate a) the state of knowledge from b) the ability to prove that the belief is true and has its truth has some special relationship with the belief.
What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection. Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin. The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect. Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.
Is God perfect? the Egyptians, Caananites, and all the poor innocent babies drowned in the flood might think he is a bit harsh & maybe just a tiny bit unfair, don't you think?What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection. Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin. The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect. Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.
Whoever said it's for people to decide what is fair an unfair, just and unjust? What is good and evil? Does the nature of a god matter, or is it only important that they exist?Is God perfect? the Egyptians, Caananites, and all the poor innocent babies drowned in the flood might think he is a bit harsh & maybe just a tiny bit unfair, don't you think?What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection. Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin. The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect. Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.
Why Atheism?And what are the commandments of atheism. I have never heard of such things. Atheism is a stance on religious beliefs, it is not a religion itself.
Humans like to be right. They like to be in charge. They like to have their puny little world in order.
Two responses to those demands are:
Religion + Atheism
Both provide a belief system upon which the human can found his identity. Defending/ Promoting this belief-system against outsiders provides an excellent opportunity to be right.
Both provide or imply a variety of "commandments" that empower the human to be in charge.
Both describe a world-order in which the human can position himself and thus doesn't have to fear insecurity.
Also, both represent an irrational choice because neither the existence nor the non-existence of a divine being can be proven.
Is rationality important here? I don't think so, unless of course the respective human simply wishes to come back on his fundamental needs to be right, in charge and orderly.
For the true religious/atheist believer, simply living ones faith outside of a domain of reason should be the only way to go, since faith does indeed require no proof.*
If people from both camps were to take their "reasonable" stance more seriously, for most of them the question would arise:
Why not agnosticism?
* "no reason" does not imply that consequent actions shouldn't be within reasonable judicious range.
That's an extremely low value on life, in my opinion. I don't see how eighty years could be seen as "enough." How could a person ever want their consciousness to end? All of their memories disappear, no more experiences, no thoughts, no time, no anything, for eternity. Even if you live a million years, it's no different than only living eighty. In the end, it's basically like your life never happened. If there is nothing else, the universe is cruel for allowing the existence of life only to erase it.Low value? No, I think that is exactly what makes life, or the time we spend living, so precious. It's not really about wanting, it's about accepting what seems to be the reality. And surely you cannot say that the lives of people who lived before us didn't happen. Even if we don't remember them anymore they played their part and it's safe to say that doing so they made our lives possible. There will also, hopefully, be lots of future generations to experience life.
Does the nature of a god matter, or is it only important that they exist?Yes the nature of a God would matter if they existed. Why worship a God that just wants to be mean and petty towards its followers (no specific God intended).
Lol, jangoo... agnoticism is a very profound, and deeply soothing choice.Exactly Artois, the true agnostic can be a philosopher and an ethic human being to the full extent without having to get all worked up about "facts of existance". Agnosticism is not only profound and soothing, it's also humble as long as it's not confused with the ignorance of "not caring" or the cowardness of "not wanting to care".
Agnosticism - there is no god as far as I can see, however I like to keep an open mind and accept that the realms of scientific endevour are not far enough established to prove or disprove the existence of a divine being. Sounds appealing?
Then again, a rational mind would wonder further, where did God come from? Why am I debating the existance of God? What exactly IS God? Uh-oh... the can is open, I can't make the leap of faith, I'm a non-believer, I have doubts... I've tasted from the tree of knowledge and been thrown out of the garden of eden.
Why would God exist?
And what are the commandments of atheism. I have never heard of such things. Atheism is a stance on religious beliefs, it is not a religion itself.I am a little confused here concerning the last two passages: On which side are you originally on?
I don't think agnosticism is a good stance, since [if ??] there is no reason to assume that god would exist, there is no reason to prove anything.
Agnosticism on what caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs would be reasonable. But agnosticism about tooth fairy would just be stupid.
In my humble experience, agnosticism is a great leap forward...Lol. Funny how life-courses differ:
...on the path to aetheist enlightenment :o
People really love to generalize. Atheist arrogance towards an omni-spiritual worldview? You need better atheist friends then as most of the arrogant people I have met were religious, not to say I haven't met my fair share of arrogant atheists.In my humble experience, agnosticism is a great leap forward...Lol. Funny how life-courses differ:
...on the path to aetheist enlightenment :o
For me it was a great leap forward too - away from atheist arrogance towards an omi-spiritual worldview.
You can ride a road both ways I suppose. :D
I'm assuming were discussing agnosticism as Artois stated. That does seem a good way of putting it.Agnosticism - there is no god as far as I can see, however I like to keep an open mind and accept that the realms of scientific endevour are not far enough established to prove or disprove the existence of a divine being.Exactly Artois, the true agnostic can be a philosopher and an ethic human being to the full extent without having to get all worked up about "facts of existance". Agnosticism is not only profound and soothing, it's also humble as long as it's not confused with the ignorance of "not caring" or the cowardness of "not wanting to care".
Okay, if there is a reason to assume that there could be a god, agnosticism could be a rational stance. But unless that reason is provided, I don't agree with you. As far I can see there is no reason to assume anything like a god could exist so there is no reason to prove anything one way or the other. I think it would be a fools errand (figure of speech?) and waste of resources to try to prove something there is no reason to prove. For example, are you agnostic on whether Harry Potter exist or not and just waiting for for science to prove his existence one way or the other. There are even several books about him. Would not seem very rational to me.Agnosticism on what caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs would be reasonable. But agnosticism about tooth fairy would just be stupid.I am a little confused here concerning the last two passages: On which side are you originally on?
As for the "commandments", I may have stretched the term a little too far when applying it to Atheism.
However, my point is that Atheism is just as irrational and "faithful" as Theism. Both sides are the infinite legs of a parabola (with agnosticism being the apex on the bottom).
As an antagonism to theistic, religious belief, Atheism makes several very strong statements about the human being, it's place, abilities and duties. Just like the religious belief and its implications for leading your life cannot be seen apart from the actual "religious lifestyle", neither can the atheistic belief be seperated from the life atheistic people lead. The result is a variety of "life-styling-commandments" if you want, commandments which are founded on the substitute belief system, atheistic people choose for themselves. The ten commandments are indeed nothing more than guidelines on how to lead your life while hardly touching "academic" issues.
This may seem a bit confusing or even far-fetched, but a couple blunt illustrations may help explain what I mean:
.
.
.
As I said, a bit blunt but maybe you get what I mean?
It's about the individual human becoming the center of definition and the consequences of forging ones own life without divine assistance.
Wtf is an omi-spiritual worldview? ???omi? no clue, I believe he meant omni-spiritual.
I'm still lost... whats an omni-spiritual worldview?Wtf is an omi-spiritual worldview? ???omi? no clue, I believe he meant omni-spiritual.
Omni-spiritual, that means all spiritual. Omni-spiritual worldview is basically a religious worldview, you view the world in it's entirety as religious, based on religion, like any religious believer would view the world.I'm still lost... whats an omni-spiritual worldview?Wtf is an omi-spiritual worldview? ???omi? no clue, I believe he meant omni-spiritual.
I don't know whether to agree or disagree... I've been befuddled :-\
Easy, I disagree with an omni-spiritual worldview :DMhmm, I was forced into religion, so that turned me off from it. Then when I got older, and no longer had religion forced upon me so I could make my own choices, it made more sense not to believe than to believe.
Funny how Ive never met anyone whos travelled from atheism to devout, whilst many have travelled the difficult and rocky road the other way...
Mhmm, I was forced into religion, so that turned me off from it. Then when I got older, and no longer had religion forced upon me so I could make my own choices, it made more sense not to believe than to believe.Like a cult?!
Well, all religion is basically a cult, but yeah, I was basically forced to go to church or be grounded when I was younger.That's tough. Does Gods 'love' need to be forced upon anyone so young... or were you 30 at the time living with your parents ;)
Haha, no, from ages 8ish to around 15.Well, all religion is basically a cult, but yeah, I was basically forced to go to church or be grounded when I was younger.That's tough. Does Gods 'love' need to be forced upon anyone so young... or were you 30 at the time living with your parents ;)
People really love to generalize. Atheist arrogance towards an omni-spiritual worldview? You need better atheist friends then as most of the arrogant people I have met were religious, not to say I haven't met my fair share of arrogant atheists.A misunderstanding. I only meant to describe my own transition in response to Artois:
Omni-spiritual, that means all spiritual. Omni-spiritual worldview is basically a religious worldview, you view the world in it's entirety as religious, based on religion, like any religious believer would view the world.Yes, sort of. What I meant to say was that I am a "generalist" believer and try to take into account that the various manifestations of "god" could be different expressions of the same underlying phenomenon, a phenomenon I believe to have taken a glimpse on.
I recently read a survey...I'd believe it, to an extent, because we are young, and don't know right, left, blue or goldenrod. Like you said, the rest we learn from outside influences. But I believe, take a group and raise them, with no word about religion, or a lack of religion or anything about religion at all. Teach them the basics of survival and then release them to fend for themselves away from the rest of mankind and observe them through the years, eventually, I believe they will end up being a part of a religion. Whether it be an already known religion, or one of their own. Maybe not all of them will, but a good sized handful of them, all without any outside influence. It's just a part of mankind's want/need to believe in something higher than them.
apparently in one age group all are atheists... yup, we are born atheist, the rest learnt, for without followers no gods exists. Simples.
However, I am quite sure every atheist known, would quite happily change their opinions were a breakthrough or revelatory source of eveidence into the existance of a spiritual deity were to be uncovered.Yep, I believe that as well. Same goes for the deity of a certain religion, most all other people of different religions would convert.
The whole idea behind agnosticism is that there IS a reason to possibly believe in a god, a reason that currently cannot be conjoined with any type of proof/reasoning, be it scientific or else. Agnostics don't just sit there and wait for "science" to prove something ... "proof" itself is contradictory to the agnostic stance since it refers to human rationality which is, for an agnostic, not the right approach towards the issue: God cannot be truly recognized by the human ratio, a part of which is especially speech so above all god cannot be expressed or proven to anyone.So if I get this right you're also acknowledging that the toothy fairy may exist, as well as that the Earth may not (since you can't prove that what you're experiencing is real).
I recently read a survey...If he does exist however, he exists nevertheless and is probably laughing at you (or crying about you).
apparently in one age group all are atheists... yup, we are born atheist, the rest learnt, for without followers no gods exists. Simples.
PS. Jangoo, pardon me for making an assumption, but from what I can work out, it would appear were never an atheist, but rather anti-religious, and now you have found a happy medium... although it does seem you do believe in a spirtual presence, rather than not believeing whilst hedging your bets.Your assumption is ... erm ... weird.
However, I am quite sure every atheist known, would quite happily change their opinions were a breakthrough or revelatory source of eveidence into the existance of a spiritual deity were to be uncovered.
So if I get this right you're also acknowledging that the toothy fairy may exist, as well as that the Earth may not (since you can't prove that what you're experiencing is real).Even though I am not an agnostic (and was merely suggesting that stance to some) that pretty much hits the spot. However I am too pragmatic to actually consider stuff like this all the time. I have things to do you know. ;)
Well... it's a valid view of the world, but one that I personally find somewhat too unpragmatic.
He wont be revealed? Why would he hide? Isn't that strange.PS. Jangoo, pardon me for making an assumption, but from what I can work out, it would appear were never an atheist, but rather anti-religious, and now you have found a happy medium... although it does seem you do believe in a spirtual presence, rather than not believeing whilst hedging your bets.Your assumption is ... erm ... weird.
However, I am quite sure every atheist known, would quite happily change their opinions were a breakthrough or revelatory source of eveidence into the existance of a spiritual deity were to be uncovered.
Those atheists you are talking about sadly miss the point that this spiritual entity will probably not "be revealed" to them some day. While many believers claim that "god" reveals himself to anyone all the time, I would claim that an effort to learn the respective techniques to make contact has to actually be made by the human.
i am a born jew and a selfproclaimed atheist u think going to church on sunday is hard i go to a jewish school where we have to pray every day :-[What? They teach you to pray every day and it still hasnt sunk in how worthy he is?! ;)
Jangoo, I'm still wondering why you're saying that agnosticism would be rational and atheism not. It would also appear that you're not talking about same agnosticism that Artois described.The whole idea behind agnosticism is that there IS a reason to possibly believe in a god, a reason that currently cannot be conjoined with any type of proof/reasoning, be it scientific or else. Agnostics don't just sit there and wait for "science" to prove something ... "proof" itself is contradictory to the agnostic stance since it refers to human rationality which is, for an agnostic, not the right approach towards the issue: God cannot be truly recognized by the human ratio, a part of which is especially speech so above all god cannot be expressed or proven to anyone.So if I get this right you're also acknowledging that the toothy fairy may exist, as well as that the Earth may not (since you can't prove that what you're experiencing is real).
Well... it's a valid view of the world, but one that I personally find somewhat too unpragmatic.
Perfect and fair can be two entirely different things. If I want to keep my lawn perfect (green, no weeds, ants, etc.) then I put down weed and bug killer right? My lawn is now perfect, green and healthy. But all those poor innocent bugs and weeds had to die. Was it fair to kill the weeds? Maybe, maybe not. That's for me to decide, because it's my lawn.Is God perfect? the Egyptians, Caananites, and all the poor innocent babies drowned in the flood might think he is a bit harsh & maybe just a tiny bit unfair, don't you think?What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection. Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin. The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect. Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.
The face of "god" and how to be "convinced" of his existence:All the same. If there's no evidence for it, then it makes no more sense to believe in it than to believe in anything else that has no evidence to support it (invisible pink unicorns, amorphous gods -you name it).
It sort of puzzles me that this talk indeed revolves arond concepts of god that equal the toothfairy or alien abductions, that god is apparently actually portrayed as some old guy with a white beard that has never knocked on your door and introduced himself ... Of course "god" will never be "proven" if you expect him to be like this.
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
So, just to get away from that SantaClause-style god here for a moment, what do you guys think about far eastern spiritual practices and the underlying concepts?
What is more rational than recognizing ones limits and admitting for once that one simply doesn't know?Thats not quite right Jangoo.
Contrary to that, an atheist does indeed make a leap of faith by saying "No, there isn't a god." He really cannot possibly know that for sure and yet here he is making that claim based on no evidence whatsoever. That is irrational.
I would think a true atheist could by definition certainly not acknowledge a god ever.
Allright, it is getting a little painstaking to actually reply in detail, so sorry if I miss out on any specific details.Yes, the whole topic can be a pain, and I'm sure you know very well where .
Different types of agnosticism and rationality:In reality, most atheist aren't such believers that you suggest. I know I'm not, I would believe evidence.
Yes, the range is pretty wide. From "humans aren't (ever) able to know if there is a god" to "there is no convincing evidence for god (yet)". Artois seemed to be talking about the latter while I was leaning more towards the further.
These stances are rational because they acknowledge the limits of human perception and achievement as well as the concept of god as something that (if even existant) is indeed different than anything else already known to man. What is more rational than recognizing ones limits and admitting for once that one simply doesn't know?
Contrary to that, an atheist does indeed make a leap of faith by saying "No, there isn't a god." He really cannot possibly know that for sure and yet here he is making that claim based on no evidence whatsoever. That is irrational.
I would think a true atheist could by definition certainly not acknowledge a god ever. If he were consequential he wouldn't even admit gods existence after god smacked him in the face personally ... that would probably just be a "psychosomatic shift" or something.
The atheist lifestyle and faith:Yes, atheist are a minority. But how did you come to a conclusion that there are atheist only in industrialized countries and that it is modern idea? Ancient greeks have had similar ideas.
I am aware that the elements I pointed out are a part of lots of peoples lifestyles. My point was however that first, this "lot" of people is actually a small minority living in industrialized countries. Far away from that cosy computer-place in our nicely furnished livingroom the world and the people that live within it look, think and live a whole lot different. Education, politics, individualism etc. have no or just a very small place indeed for the vast majority of the worlds population.
My underlying thesis is second, that humans do not live without a strong belief (faith) in something that provides meaning, values and institutions. I simply don't believe that atheists live along "just like that" without giving their lives a "higher" meaning. If this meaning is no further provided by a higher power, then where is it? ...
The face of "god" and how to be "convinced" of his existence:Are you familiar with one exquisite teapot, Bertnand Russel's teapot?
It sort of puzzles me that this talk indeed revolves arond concepts of god that equal the toothfairy or alien abductions, that god is apparently actually portrayed as some old guy with a white beard that has never knocked on your door and introduced himself ... Of course "god" will never be "proven" if you expect him to be like this.
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
So, just to get away from that SantaClause-style god here for a moment, what do you guys think about far eastern spiritual practices and the underlying concepts?
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.When you suggest to think about divine beings seriously, we do also have to take the celestial teapot into consideration. It is equal to the god you describe, and so is the invisible pink unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn)
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html)
No one should compel someone to religion. It is an act of violating the right of freedom.I agree with you very much.
When I was in Singapore, we had to sing and pray to Jesus. Good thing I left after a year.
Since you seem to like tackle philosofical questions, I feel that I must give you a fair warning. For all you know I could be an engineer, *gasp*. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic)Lol, nice comic-strip. I would think that this actually the perfect basis for this discussion. I feel we are not even discussion philosophy at the moment but rather much theology.
All the same. If there's no evidence for it, then it makes no more sense to believe in it than to believe in anything else that has no evidence to support it (invisible pink unicorns, amorphous gods -you name it).And how about the most micro possible level we could probably boil it down to:
Sure the tooth fairy and reincarnation are both possible, but my point is that I'm not going to believe in reincarnation any more than I do in the tooth fairy, since I have the same amount of reason (evidence) to believe in either.
Thats not quite right Jangoo.Apparently I am fully mistaken about the true meaning of atheism.
An atheist belives there is a God, no more than you or I believe that the core of jupiter is made of green cheese. Its nonsense, even though I have never studied or visited the core of Jupiter, I would be very suprised to find it edible. However, if 'proof' were made available to me that this was the case, I would undoubtably consider the evidence.
Yes, atheist are a minority. But how did you come to a conclusion that there are atheist only in industrialized countries and that it is modern idea? Ancient greeks have had similar ideas.I am saying that I focus on atheism as a postmodern, western idea.
Your underlying thesis is rather weird, since you've implied that you don't have such faith yourself and yet see it as necessary. :))I would say that my underlying thesis is rather much common ground in just about any possible discussion I can imagine. The priviledged human is more or less defined through his striving which is propelled by his beliefs.
Are you familiar with one exquisite teapot, Bertnand Russel's teapot?Now I am. That reminds me of that official religion of the great spaghetti-monster.
[...]
When you suggest to think about divine beings seriously, we do also have to take the celestial teapot into consideration. It is equal to the god you describe, and so is the invisible pink unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
However, I deduce that whilst you don't believe in the God of the scriptures, or other organised religions, you do 'feel' that there is a spiritual 'something' out there.Yes. However that "something" may be very, very far away from a "being" as such.
This belief in a spititual 'something', however vague does not make you agnostic as far as I can tell... rather you may be about to find a new God for us all :DLike I said, I am not an agnostic. I was suggesting that stance apart from my personal stance.
It's all a bit 'new-age-y' for me... but then I have acquaintances who swear by the spiritual effects of crystals :PI despise "new-age" stuff, mostly because new-age followers often seem way too sure about their thing. In that, they are pretty similar to other religious followers.
And how about the most micro possible level we could probably boil it down to:Not all spiritual practices are religious practices, but as with all religious practices I agree with the ones that can also be shown to be good from a non-religious perspective. There's evidence that meditation is good for you, but you needn't be religious to meditate. Prayers, while not performing any of the miracles they're promising also tend to have a positive impact on how the praying person feels (which has knock-on effects on health). Though advocating prayer for that reason would be much like advocating placebo as valid medicine...
Simple and personal "spiritual practices" and their effects on the human ... if you parallel reincarnation with the christian god fine. But what do you think about meditation, prayer etc. as a technique? Do you admit any kind of effect to those techniques? If yes, what are the qualities of those effects? Which name would you give them? ...
Apparently I am fully mistaken about the true meaning of atheism.I've never said that I would ignore valid evidence, but instead that there isn't any. Convincing evidence could for instance be the sort the god of the Bible provided to the people in that book. A display of the supernatural which can be confirmed as not being bogus, preferably something scientists could observe in a laboratory and confirm as such.
The question remains which type of proof you would need to believe.
I fully agree that the picture drawn of god and other divinities in books, scriptures etc. is most probably far off the "reality". For me, it is a given that humanity failed over the centuries to accurately recognize and portray the face of god for various reasons. Like I said, Santa Clause god doesn't matter to me at all.
So, if the depiction in works like the bible is a vague generalization at best and if religious belief is majorly grounded on highly individual experience ("When I pray I feel that ..."), how are you as an atheist ever going to be confronted with "convincing evidence"? There would hardly be anything to contrast a revelation with.
Hence my claim that a true atheist wouldn't acknowledge god if god smacked him right in the face because he is preoccupied with god as an institutional, political and scriptural concept.
He would probably go: "Hmyes that was weird, but there is no such thing as smacking-in-the-face in the bible so I don't really see why this was supposed to be god." ... See what I am saying?
"I am not describing or defending any specific type of god here."Neither was I talking about any spesific god. The teapot stands for infinite number of things even the god you suggested:
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:And yes, the FSM is basicly the same idea taken even further.
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
Knowledge = 3 conditionsMaybe you mean this one?
1. Belief (A person must believe X to be said to know X.)
2. Truth (X must be true.)
3. Something something something.
Answer could of course be that God is not all loving, but honestly, who'd worship him then...Funnily enough, he's not particularly nice, the God fellow in the bible, which is interesting, because, if I did believe in his existance, I wouldn't worship him, but rather despise the vindictive, petty, old blighter.
... and saying that we will die and stop existing ALSO needs more proof.Does it? I see dead rats on the road, and observe that they no longer exist. All that remains is a rotting carcass. I see no reason to believe the dead rat has gone to ratty heaven, but rather that death is the end, the rat ceases to exist, and after much prodding, and searching around, I can find no ratty religions promising good rats an eternal salvation in ratty gods company. How can I find proof of the non-existance of something, if it doesn't exist?
Ugh....I get the impression you didn't actually read my post before quoting it. :'(Knowledge = 3 conditionsMaybe you mean this one?
1. Belief (A person must believe X to be said to know X.)
2. Truth (X must be true.)
3. Something something something.
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:
1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P is true
Gettier pretty much proved that above thinking is bullcrap. I can think many situations where I can justify my beliefs and same time it's not true. Far from it.
Another problem is basic skepticism: how I can know that I'm not hallucinating? You mentioned that 'know that you know' thing, it's basicly the same what I'm trying to say here. If I think christian solution to this problem we have to think God as being who really want prevent this kind of situation BUT only way to own this solution is believing this kind of being. We have own will, so we can make own solutions and one very used is just stop thinking and do something fancy, fill life with action, humour, you name it: just live without thinking that much. In our basic lives we don't think that kind problems anyway - so what the heck!
Anyway, we should give some respect to each other, even when we have issues in 'understanding sector' :)
I'll tell you a secret. I'm really an alien from the Gamma Galaxy. You don't believe me? Well, what evidence points towards me not being an alien from the Gamma Galaxy? Prove to me that I'm not an alien from the Gamma Galaxy.Your country flag says that you're from Finland. Mystery solved!
I think a big problem with society is that we pushed out our desire for God because we believe that science can give us all the answers.Progress leads you nowhere? That's somewhat nonsensical, don't you think?
In a way, this is true, but only for the tangible, things we see with the senses. However, science is unable to prove the untangible, including God. The scientific method will NEVER give proof of God's existence.
By saying that science makes our life better is merely scientism and progressivism, two ideology that eventually lead you to nowhere. Science is not able to explain with 100% the untangible...
The point is that there is really no problem to have sceptisicm or faith.
Overall, the intangible may exist, but in order to know more about it, we need 4 things:
1) faith
2) scepticism
3) knowlegde
4) reason and logic
the point is im existing now..im enjoying the gift life is...everyone and everyting dies...you may remain in fear of death if you wish...but why atheism?atheism ahs never lied to me...or made outrageous supernatural claims....atheism will admit when it errs and learn from its mistakes rather than think itself unfallible...atheism is based on fact and proofs not fairy tales....and there are no atheist freedom fighters..no atheist martyrs...no atheist suicide bombers..or riots caused by clashes of atheistic thought.....So you're not atheist because it's the only stance that does not require indoctrination, or the ability to delude oneself with mental gymnastics whilst making an illogical, irrational 'leap of faith'?
So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing?That's not what atheism is. Although most atheists would agree that you cease to exist when you stop existing. Why? Because that's where the evidence points. What evidence? We were dead for billions of years before we were alive so why would it be any different after death?
I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?Well you see there are things that are programed into human brains that allows for happiness and pleasure, I don't see how it's like not living. For me, my point of existence is to help further the knowledge of the human race and to do what i enjoy
All you really have to do to get to heaven is accept jeasus into your heart you dnt have to praise god every day even if you save the world you won't get into heaven you just have to accept jeasus into your heart.what kind of god would do that? He'd torture you eternally just because you didn't believe something for which there was no evidence, also hitler was a christian, did he go to heaven? IF you've been told he's an atheist here's a quote from mein kompf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
God can forgive everything if you ask him to.
Hell is made for the followers of the devil (the people who sin) and you dont have to go there even if you destroy the world as long as you ask for forgiveness from god.
So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?Well first off, because there's no evidence to the contrary. But there's more to it than that. I don't want to get so bogged worrying about my next life that I miss out on living this one. I think that when you realize that this life is the only one you have, it doesn't become worthless, instead it becomes that much more precious.
Actually that is a pretty intriging philisophical question (the hitler thing). but apart from that, you don't need belief (i'm still alive aren't i). If you don't believe in anything then you realize that your life is finite meaning that its infinitly valuble as opposed to believing that this world is a stepping stone to the eternal party.what kind of god would do that? He'd torture you eternally just because you didn't believe something for which there was no evidence, also hitler was a christian, did he go to heaven? IF you've been told he's an atheist here's a quote from mein kompf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."If he believed that he was acting for the good of the world, then he would be forgiven. There is no proof that Hitler didn't go to heaven, because there's no proof that there is not a heaven. All that you need is belief. If there is nothing to believe in, then life is simply black and white, with a beginning and an end. There would be no purpose to life if there is nothing before it or after it.
If he believed that he was acting for the good of the world, then he would be forgiven. There is no proof that Hitler didn't go to heaven, because there's no proof that there is not a heaven. All that you need is belief. If there is nothing to believe in, then life is simply black and white, with a beginning and an end. There would be no purpose to life if there is nothing before it or after it.I actually find the idea that "if I don't believe in an afterlife then my life is meaningless" borderline offensive. It also doesn't make any real sense. Basically there are 2 ways to look at it:
how about...why judaism?they believe ina loving compassionate god after half their people died in the holocaust.why catholocism?does it make sense to catholic women that their sexual doctrine is decided upon by an 85 year old male virgin in italy? why mormonism? [...]Why Necromancy? ;D
So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?So, I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die there is an omnipotent/scient/present who will get you in a perfect place? I don't see how anyone could accept that and not ask him/herself some questions, knowing that basically his/her life on Earth is actually useless. If you go to a better place, then what's the point of coming to Earth in the first place?
Since he broke the ten commandments and didnt ask for forgiveness because he thought he was doing the right thing he will go to hell since God can forgive anything if he asked to be forgived and stopped killing jews then he might've gone to heavenAll you really have to do to get to heaven is accept jeasus into your heart you dnt have to praise god every day even if you save the world you won't get into heaven you just have to accept jeasus into your heart.what kind of god would do that? He'd torture you eternally just because you didn't believe something for which there was no evidence, also hitler was a christian, did he go to heaven? IF you've been told he's an atheist here's a quote from mein kompf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
God can forgive everything if you ask him to.
Hell is made for the followers of the devil (the people who sin) and you dont have to go there even if you destroy the world as long as you ask for forgiveness from god.
lets look at how hey translate from a different angle: your about 8 and your parents dieIf he believed that he was acting for the good of the world, then he would be forgiven. There is no proof that Hitler didn't go to heaven, because there's no proof that there is not a heaven. All that you need is belief. If there is nothing to believe in, then life is simply black and white, with a beginning and an end. There would be no purpose to life if there is nothing before it or after it.I actually find the idea that "if I don't believe in an afterlife then my life is meaningless" borderline offensive. It also doesn't make any real sense. Basically there are 2 ways to look at it:
1) I believe in an eternal afterlife. Therefore, I have 100 years in this life and an eternity in another.
2) I don't believe in an eternal afterlife. Therefore, I have 100 years in this life and that's it.
It seems to me like when those 100 years are all you have, they become incredibly more precious. Lets just look at how these two attitudes translate.
1) Who cares about this life? After all, I have an eternally long one coming after, so why care about this one?
2) This life is all there is, so I'd better make sure I live it to the fullest.
I argue that the idea of an afterlife actually cheapens this one.
Lol. Yeah, it's all cool, my parents are dead, but hey, who cares? Also, I bet people don't mind if I kill lots of other people, they'll meet their families in heaven too. After that, I can go to church and all my sins will be forgiven and I'll go to heaven... Yay!lets look at how hey translate from a different angle: your about 8 and your parents dieIf he believed that he was acting for the good of the world, then he would be forgiven. There is no proof that Hitler didn't go to heaven, because there's no proof that there is not a heaven. All that you need is belief. If there is nothing to believe in, then life is simply black and white, with a beginning and an end. There would be no purpose to life if there is nothing before it or after it.I actually find the idea that "if I don't believe in an afterlife then my life is meaningless" borderline offensive. It also doesn't make any real sense. Basically there are 2 ways to look at it:
1) I believe in an eternal afterlife. Therefore, I have 100 years in this life and an eternity in another.
2) I don't believe in an eternal afterlife. Therefore, I have 100 years in this life and that's it.
It seems to me like when those 100 years are all you have, they become incredibly more precious. Lets just look at how these two attitudes translate.
1) Who cares about this life? After all, I have an eternally long one coming after, so why care about this one?
2) This life is all there is, so I'd better make sure I live it to the fullest.
I argue that the idea of an afterlife actually cheapens this one.
1) When my parents die they will be at a better place then this, so I shouldn't worry too much.
*Lives a happy life eager to meat his/her family in heaven*
2) WHY DID THEY DIE! NOW I'LL NEVER SEE THEM AGAIN! *cries*.
*Lives a life sad and depressed and probably would want to commit suicide*
So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?I sense a big emptyness in you, Demagog.
How did he break the ten commandments? he didn't kill anyone directly, so technically he didn't break the ten commandments. not to mention, do you take the entire bible literally? there are plenty of atrocities in the bible that im sure you would try to explain away (here's a big list of them http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html)) if you choose to explain away any of these then my next question is how do you know which parts of the bible are true literally and which aren't?Since he broke the ten commandments and didnt ask for forgiveness because he thought he was doing the right thing he will go to hell since God can forgive anything if he asked to be forgived and stopped killing jews then he might've gone to heavenAll you really have to do to get to heaven is accept jeasus into your heart you dnt have to praise god every day even if you save the world you won't get into heaven you just have to accept jeasus into your heart.what kind of god would do that? He'd torture you eternally just because you didn't believe something for which there was no evidence, also hitler was a christian, did he go to heaven? IF you've been told he's an atheist here's a quote from mein kompf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
God can forgive everything if you ask him to.
Hell is made for the followers of the devil (the people who sin) and you dont have to go there even if you destroy the world as long as you ask for forgiveness from god.
lets look at how hey translate from a different angle: your about 8 and your parents dieSo you basically claim that heaven is good because it allows me to indulge in escapism? You could replace heaven with alcoholism and your argument would remain exactly the same.
1) When my parents die they will be at a better place then this, so I shouldn't worry too much.
*Lives a happy life eager to meat his/her family in heaven*
2) WHY DID THEY DIE! NOW I'LL NEVER SEE THEM AGAIN! *cries*.
*Lives a life sad and depressed and probably would want to commit suicide*
Well I know because some parts of the bible have real evidence that some of it happened like how they found chariots at the bottom of the red seaHow did he break the ten commandments? he didn't kill anyone directly, so technically he didn't break the ten commandments. not to mention, do you take the entire bible literally? there are plenty of atrocities in the bible that im sure you would try to explain away (here's a big list of them http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html)) if you choose to explain away any of these then my next question is how do you know which parts of the bible are true literally and which aren't?Since he broke the ten commandments and didnt ask for forgiveness because he thought he was doing the right thing he will go to hell since God can forgive anything if he asked to be forgived and stopped killing jews then he might've gone to heavenAll you really have to do to get to heaven is accept jeasus into your heart you dnt have to praise god every day even if you save the world you won't get into heaven you just have to accept jeasus into your heart.what kind of god would do that? He'd torture you eternally just because you didn't believe something for which there was no evidence, also hitler was a christian, did he go to heaven? IF you've been told he's an atheist here's a quote from mein kompf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
God can forgive everything if you ask him to.
Hell is made for the followers of the devil (the people who sin) and you dont have to go there even if you destroy the world as long as you ask for forgiveness from god.
Well I know because some parts of the bible have real evidence that some of it happened like how they found chariots at the bottom of the red seaYou simply ignored part of my post. secoond of all as far as i am aware the evidence ffor that part of the bible that creationists present is that they found a chariots wheel. that's what is called leading the evidence you're making the evidence fit to your favorite hypothesis instead offollowing the totally of evidence to the correct conclusion
There are always some things you can't explain, like how the very first life came onto Earth. Somebody HAD to make that one bacteria/microorganism.First of all we do have hypothesises about how that happened. Second of all even if we didn't how is that evidence of god. How about instead of reforming your prejudices to explain away the evidence/theories how about you don't form an irrational belief with no evidence. of course you can still believe it, when did any atheist in this thread ever say they couldnt practice it? The problem is that you have these people who then turn and use their religion against minorities they have predgudices against like gays,
Religion is simply an answer people taught themselves in the old days when life was archaic and people weren't as scientifically aware. It really served as faith and helped many good people achieve their goals. So when we prove the big bang and evolution, we're just supposed to drop all of it? I don't believe in abolishing or denying evolution like the school board in Kansas, but I really think that religion has become a custom, something that's just celebrated and accepted. It doesn't matter if it's proven wrong, you can still believe in it. It would have been such a upheaval and would have destroyed our culture if all the scientists said, "Hey, Christianity has been disproved, so STFU with the Old Testament." Just accept it. And if you don't like it, fine. More people will still practice it.
in my opinion there is a god/gods, but even if there weren't, it wouldn't matter because our mind cant comprehend not existing anyways, so if we didn't exist it wouldn't matter to us because we wouldn't know that we didn't exist, get my logic? (http://undergroundfreakz.com/s/otn/wink/smily012.gif)I don't think comprehending not existing is very hard. I find that the people who have a hard time with this idea are the ones who have been told their whole lives that it isn't true.
My philosophy on religion: God didn't create humans; humans created God.True dat.
Another religion about atheism that i like to read, especially I'm Catholic..It's important to debate and question religion, otherwise how would anyone have an informed decision about the way they have lived their life?
Look. Even I'm 12 years old kid that didn't know a lot, but I'm sure there's some mystery about God and Jesus out there. One that i found is the mystery about Jesus Shroud.
I didn't believe to God a lot, but since i must, i do it.
Just being yourself and don't debate about religion is the way to peace the world, not to mock other religion.
Follow Which way you want and it'll tell you who you are, sooner or later
Another religion about atheism that i like to read, especially I'm Catholic..Excuse me? I fail to understand that sentence.
Look. Even I'm 12 years old kid that didn't know a lot, but I'm sure there's some mystery about God and Jesus out there. One that i found is the mystery about Jesus Shroud.
I didn't believe to God a lot, but since i must, i do it.
Just being yourself and don't debate about religion is the way to peace the world, not to mock other religion.
Follow Which way you want and it'll tell you who you are, sooner or later
Nah, lets take a look.Are you sure that god is just one of several FG's that have a Mark of 3 and fully upgraded cards?
In Bible it said ," God creates world, plant, animals, and human".
But, if we look at some historical book it said ," Eugene Dubois found a jawbone, teeth, skull top, and left femur in the village of Sandpipers, Indonesia. Eugene Dubois estimates that the brain volume this creature is 900 cc, larger than the species of monkeys that peak brain volume is only 600 cc. Because the type of creatures found in the village Sandpipers position is between apes and humans, then given the name Pithecanthropus Erectus."
So which one you believe? If the Bible is true and the history is fake, OR The history is true and Bible is fake? Or you think this was a paradox? I don't know.
That's fine until you start using this "god" figure to justify all kinds of other things.Nah, lets take a look.Are you sure that god is just one of several FG's that have a Mark of 3 and fully upgraded cards?
In Bible it said ," God creates world, plant, animals, and human".
But, if we look at some historical book it said ," Eugene Dubois found a jawbone, teeth, skull top, and left femur in the village of Sandpipers, Indonesia. Eugene Dubois estimates that the brain volume this creature is 900 cc, larger than the species of monkeys that peak brain volume is only 600 cc. Because the type of creatures found in the village Sandpipers position is between apes and humans, then given the name Pithecanthropus Erectus."
So which one you believe? If the Bible is true and the history is fake, OR The history is true and Bible is fake? Or you think this was a paradox? I don't know.
just had to say that... now to be realistic about this though...
Alright why can't both be right... When I would say I made lunch do I also say that I got a up, went to the refrigerator, opened the refrigerator, grabbed the meat, grabbed the coca-cola, closed the refrigerator, etc. no I just say I made lunch. When it says "God creates world, plant, animals, and human." it could have gone down where god created the world, then he created plants, then he created animals (which would include the named Pithecanthropus Erectus) and then created man later on. There is no time period to this either so therefore this could have been a very long and drawn out process in order to have created humans.
Another religion about atheism that i like to read, especially I'm Catholic..
Look. Even I'm 12 years old kid that didn't know a lot, but I'm sure there's some mystery about God and Jesus out there. One that i found is the mystery about Jesus Shroud.
I didn't believe to God a lot, but since i must, i do it.
Just being yourself and don't debate about religion is the way to peace the world, not to mock other religion.
Follow Which way you want and it'll tell you who you are, sooner or later
*snip*I don't disagree with what you said, even though I'm atheist. Assuming God exists, I agree with what you said, and more importantly how you said it. That's a very good stance to have.
I'll close with a quote from a godly man I once knew... "If I live my life uprightly and it turns out there is no God, so be it, I lived a good life. But I'd hate to be the guy who lived his life for the vain pleasures of this world assuming there is no God, but was wrong."
I'd like to point out that Pascal's Wager (which is basically what Napalm's quote was) represents a false dichotomy. It presents no god and the Abrahamic God as the only 2 options. I could add more gods that are every bit as valid as the abrahamic one but are mutually exclusive to it.Huh...I got beaten to it by some French guy some 400 years ago.
So DD's equation becomes something more like:
a+b+c+...+x+y+z=1
So Pascal's wager shouldn't be taken as an argument for belief.
The end goal for all the religions being the same also only holds if you're willing to discard the idea that you have to believe in Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever to get into heaven. Otherwise they all get separate probabilities.I'd like to point out that Pascal's Wager (which is basically what Napalm's quote was) represents a false dichotomy. It presents no god and the Abrahamic God as the only 2 options. I could add more gods that are every bit as valid as the abrahamic one but are mutually exclusive to it.Huh...I got beaten to it by some French guy some 400 years ago.
So DD's equation becomes something more like:
a+b+c+...+x+y+z=1
So Pascal's wager shouldn't be taken as an argument for belief.
I knew it probably wasn't original (far too obvious explanation to escape 2000 years worth of people) but I never knew it was an actual theory.
However: Most religions overlap. They have different practises, but the trend is that good actions = good future, bad actions = bad future.
The general trend also consider ignorance an excuse as long as your intentions were just. While there are slight differences, it would seem unfair to split x up into multiple religions because of different practises, if the final result is the same.
Is there a basis for when to split them? Hinduism and Catholicism may be very different, but it seems strange to split them when the outcome after death follows the pattern good actions = good future.
I mean, without naming your a + b + c for all we know, you could be including a 4 year old who said 'God makes you cut your kneee after you pray!".
For it to be a separate possibility, it would need to be based on something, and have a different trend to 'good actions = good future'
| God rewards reasoning | God does not exist | |
| Honesty/Reasoning | + ∞(heaven) | +1 (a rational, scientific life) |
| Dishonesty/Lack of reason | - ∞ (hell) | -1 (irrational life) |
If you stop existing, then what was even the point?I won't get into the logical field of the argument, but instead ask... *socratic method mode=on* is life pointless per se?
The end goal for all the religions being the same also only holds if you're willing to discard the idea that you have to believe in Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever to get into heaven. Otherwise they all get separate probabilities.The topic is called Why Athiesm?
Note that the division is something that those religions sometimes do to themselves.The end goal for all the religions being the same also only holds if you're willing to discard the idea that you have to believe in Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever to get into heaven. Otherwise they all get separate probabilities.The topic is called Why Athiesm?
Not Why not Christianity? or Why not Hinduism?
Personally, I am of the belief that the only thing necessary is belief.
I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.
And to split up the religions like that and then compare them to athiesm is like dividing the hair colours "Light brown" "lightish Brown" "Quite Light Brown" "Darker than Light Brown" and then suddenly "Red hair" and leaving it at that.
But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?
I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.
I'd like to note that isn't my quote.I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.
But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?
But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?I have no doubt that the religions are different, and I have every doubt that my religion was the correct one.
Actually quite a large proportion of religious people do believe that you have to do something more than be a good person to get into heaven.But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?I have no doubt that the religions are different, and I have every doubt that my religion was the correct one.
However, the general consensus (as said before) on the most practised faiths is:
Good actions = Good Future
The one/s who make/s the decisions is/are both forgiving and understanding.
Therefore, acting in good faith, whether or not your religion is correct will grant you a good future (beyond life).
Actually quite a large proportion of religious people do believe that you have to do something more than be a good person to get into heaven.Most of these groups you are mentioning have one god, and a pretty similar image of him. Most of them all originated from the same religion. We can assume here that the god here is the same. God is always portrayed as understanding and forgiving. In fact, one of the passages suggests that all that is necessary for passage into heaven is repenting at the deathbed (from the bible, so we shall take it to be near the original if not the original)
Catholics believe you must be prayed for in order to ease your passage through purgatory.
Baptists, Catholics and many other groups believe that you must "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", or some variant thereof, in order to get into heaven - no matter how good you are.
The Orthodox church teaches that you must accept God's grace to be saved.
Lots of Christian groups believe that you can only go to heaven if you have been baptised.
In Lutheranism and Calvinism salvation is elective - that is, it has to be chosen.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will ever get into heaven.
In Islam, people who do not believe in "The One God", or Allah, will not get into heaven.
This is far from a general consensus. In fact, it appears that the general consensus is that just being a good person alone will not get you into heaven.
I just dislike the idea of athiesm, and thinking there is no point or reason for life.I have no idea where this idea that atheists think life it pointless came from, but it is utterly false.
The idea of a watcher, or a protecter, or anything, unseen and unheard, it reassures people. It motivates people. It keeps people doing good things.Ironically, it's found that atheists are less likely to be criminals, not more. This is probably do at least partially to the fact that an atheist has no one else to blame their actions on but themselves.
There are examples of people who have been saved by the Bible or other sources - regardless of whether it is real or not. There are many cases of prevented suicide because someone found hope in religion.
At a more personal level: If someone you were close to died, you would gain hope from knowing that somehow, you would be with them again. If you were planning to steal from the poor and defenceless, you would be more likely to back out if you knew that somewhere there is someone watching and waiting to reserve judgement on you.
Religion is not for some people. But for others, it provides hope. And there should be no reason to tear down that thousand year old hope because of this new discovery called science. Wait another 1000 years and we'll see what is thought of our science and methods now. While it will almost certainly not prove creationism, or global floods (Noah's Ark)- it may just show us that we shouldn't be so prepared to just throw away our old beliefs because some new facts come out.I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with religion if it wasn't constantly shoved down my throat. If you want to believe in something because it makes you feel better, than whatever. But forcing your beliefs on other people when they have no grounding in reality is completely unacceptable.
I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with religion if it wasn't constantly shoved down my throat. If you want to believe in something because it makes you feel better, than whatever. But forcing your beliefs on other people when they have no grounding in reality is completely unacceptable.To be fair here, you can get aethiests subtly doing this too. If I openly said I was religios in front of 500 aethiests, I'm sure one would decide to tell me how stupid I am.
I guess I should add that I don't really think the whole "Religion makes people feel better" idea is a very good argument, just that I can't force someone to give it up.While I should stop now, and it's clear that arguing with Daxx and QuantumT isn't going to get me anywhere (you are both superior debaters, and have much more experience than me here, possibly on both sides), I'd like to bring up some lines from another source of inspiration and wisdom: Men In Black.
To me, this argument seems analogous to a 2 year old with a security blanket. Sure it makes him feel better, but eventually he's expected to give it up and move on with his life.
Note: Other arguments can be made for religion. This analogy is just for that one argument.
So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?Nihilistiskism for the Win
We are not special? How can you say that. Yes, we are very similar to animals in some ways, but look how amazingly different we are at the same time! We appreciate art and beauty and have the ability to think rationally and create. We love, we (unfortuneately) hate.So I've always wondered. Why believe that when you die you stop existing? I don't see how anyone could accept that and be able to live happily, knowing that it's basically like you aren't even living at all. If you stop existing, then what was even the point?I believe that I stop existing because all the evidence points towards that. Sure if would be cool to wake up in some other place where all you do is eat ice-cream every day, but nothing suggests that it's going to happen, so why would I believe that? Would be pretty ridiculous for me to start coming up with all kinds of stories and theories simply because I refuse to accept my fate.
I don't think there is a "point" in life. Life just happens. We are all just being on this earth, just like a worm or an ant. I don't think some random ant has a higher meaning in his life. It lives, it dies. Simple as that.
Problem with humans is that we like to think that we are somehow special and better than all the other animals here.
That's not the case. We are just animals who happened to follow an evolutionary path that made us successful.
We are not special.
Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.As Bloodshadow said, the burden of proof lies solely with you.
I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.
It's not so much proof, but it's why I believe in God. It's also 1190 words long. Also, I'm not so much concerned with atheists "proving" that God exists. I just want to know why you believe that. It would involve evidence, but I don't expect you to prove it as you would prove unicorns and such things exist. However, God is not a unicorn, and this is where the analogy fails. He is also not a physical being, and that is where it fails more. He is spiritual. You do not go about disproving God in the same way you do unicorns because God must be disproved in a philisophical way, you can't just search every corner of the world like you'd have to for a unicorn.This just reeks of special pleading. Why should god get special treatment?
Also, why does love come from intellegence Bloodshadow? Love is an emotion, not an intellectual thing.But it's an emotion that only develops once you've attained a high enough level of intelligence. A turkey can't love anything because it's too stupid to even grasp the concept.
Also, why does love come from intellegence Bloodshadow? Love is an emotion, not an intellectual thing.What QuantumT said. You need a bigger brain to grasp an esoteric concept such as love. I'm absolutely sick of the arguments that emotions are "special" and exclusive to humans. They are not! Emotions are just more complex versions of instinctual urges and desires.
Just give me some reasons why you don't believe in him. In the link I mad I've given you my reasons for why I do.Because I haven't been convinced that God exists. I know you cannot conclusively prove anything, but science is widely accepted in the world and it seems to be consistent and true. Thus, I need scientific proof of God before I'm able to believe in Him. As I said before, "you cannot prove that God doesn't exist" simply isn't good enough for me.
Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement.
I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.
For the most part, I just don't like it because I'm a particularly rational person. The reason that a burden of proof argument is sufficient is because atheism is the default position. If there's no reason to suppose something to exist, then why suppose that it does?Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement.
I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.
If a random person walked up to you and asked those questions would you say "you have to prove God, I dont have to prove anything"?
BS you did at least respond eventually to it, however, Im with polka. With the attitude you have towards it, it seems lack of evidence isnt the sole reason for your disbelief
2. I do not like faith.Lol, how do you believe what you see is real or what you feel is real or even what you think relates to reality?
I said I do not like faith. I would prefer to have pure logic if given the choice. However, I do not have that choice, so instead I prefer things with as little faith and as much logic as possible. Science is mostly logic and some faith, while religion is only faith. Thus, I prefer science.Its faith that allows you to believe perceptions of reality and thus develop a science. You cannot proove anything but you can have faith in perceptions. A person cannot know the contents of an atom or how big space is, but from perceptions can make assumptions. Now the difference between Faith in God and not is related to the question of unknowing. If as a scientist and not a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by something undefined. If as a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by God.
Just saying, I've seen that reality argument many times before. I'm getting tired of responding to it all the time.
I would prefer to have pure logic if given the choice.Hmmm, but logic is in the buisness of breaking minds. As G.K. Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:
I also don't like that it encourages inaction. With religion, when a problem comes up, instead of being proactive and trying to solve it, I pray for god to fix it for me.False. And I can say that as a Christian and someone who knows many Christians. I pray for God to give me strength, guidance, etc. and then I try and fix it if I can.
Additionally, as someone who like trying to figure out how the universe works, I don't like that religion discourages questioning how it works. When a question like "How did people come to be on earth", religion demands that we just say "god did it" and leave it at that.Yes, I definitely can understand your lack of satisfaction with the simplicity of "God did it". Some facts are simple though, and if it is simply true than it is simply true no matter how much we like it. However, the Christian view on how people got here is a little more complex than just "God did it". You could read Genesis if you'd like but according to Genesis (if I recall correctly) God made Adam out of dust of some sort (ever heard the theory that our bodies are composed of stardust?) and breathed the breath of life into him. Eve came when God took a rib from Adam and formed it into woman (and of course, breathed the breath of life into her).
If a random person asked me, then that would indeed be part at least part of my response. Why would I respond to them any differently?I think he meant if someone came to you and said: "Hey Quantum, why are you an atheist?" (as I did) then would you say: "What do you mean?!" "It's your job to prove God since you claim he exists!" (as you and Bloodshadow basically did).
I suspect the reason that most people didn't give any further answer to this is because they didn't need to. The sufficient response to "why do you not believe in God" is "I don't see any evidence for it", which is the same answer you'd give to anything you didn't believe in, from Santa Claus to Fairies to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The burden of proof response is logically sufficient - anything else would either be trying to prove a negative (which is logically unsound) or an appeal to the body of scientific evidence which explains the world without the need for a God (which does not consititute a proof).Sorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement.
I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.
QuoteQuoteSorry for double posting, but the last post didn't load properly and I couldn't see what I was typing.
I was wondering, for those of you who are athiests, why do you not believe in God. I'm not convinced by simply: "I see no evidence of him", because I see no evidence against him or for atheism. So, please give me an argument against God besides that because that is known as an "appeal to ignorance" and is an informal logical fallacy.
This hasnt been answered. Frankly because of the respect I have for Quantum and Especially BS, I have to say that Im quite dissapointed that you never answered it, and instead avoided it with burden of proof responses, especially when he never was making a claim of God existing in that statement.
I suspect the reason that most people didn't give any further answer to this is because they didn't need to. The sufficient response to "why do you not believe in God" is "I don't see any evidence for it", which is the same answer you'd give to anything you didn't believe in, from Santa Claus to Fairies to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The burden of proof response is logically sufficient - anything else would either be trying to prove a negative (which is logically unsound) or an appeal to the body of scientific evidence which explains the world without the need for a God (which does not consititute a proof).
For further reading, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Understood. But it still doesn't explain why when I asked them why they were atheists they told me that since I was claiming God exists (which at the time I wasn't) I had to prove he exists.I suspect it's because they thought it was implicit in your question.
Its faith that allows you to believe perceptions of reality and thus develop a science. You cannot proove anything but you can have faith in perceptions. A person cannot know the contents of an atom or how big space is, but from perceptions can make assumptions. Now the difference between Faith in God and not is related to the question of unknowing. If as a scientist and not a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by something undefined. If as a believer of god when you cannot percieve something you assume it to be something defined by God.Regardless, I prefer logic. I only have faith in science because I must; if I don't, I probably would have went insane and committed suicide. The point is, in my personal opinion religions are not logical enough for my tastes, which is why I don't believe in them.
Understood. But it still doesn't explain why when I asked them why they were atheists they told me that since I was claiming God exists (which at the time I wasn't) I had to prove he exists.You seemed to be asking us to prove that God doesn't exist, since you say the absence of proof isn't good enough. Which is why we said the burden of proof is on you, not us.
Regardless, I prefer logic. I only have faith in science because I must; if I don't, I probably would have went insane and committed suicide. The point is, in my personal opinion religions are not logical enough for my tastes, which is why I don't believe in them.Alright, then I will not bother you about your reasons anymore.
I don't want to argue about this any longer. I try to give simple reasons for why I like and dislike certain things, but you can't blame me if you find holes in these reasons.
You seemed to be asking us to prove that God doesn't exist, since you say the absence of proof isn't good enough. Which is why we said the burden of proof is on you, not us.Alright, sorry for not making my question more clear. It was just a misunderstanding, but I felt as though you guys were being rather harsh.
Im sure everyone wants to be reincarnated, have a sweet dream of eternity. Who wouldnt want that?Just because you want something to be true isn't sound reason for believing it. For instance, kids might be happier to go through their whole lives thinking Santa Claus is real, or that their security blanket has magical protective powers, or whatever. Eventually though, we expect them to give these things up. It's part of growing up.
Me my myself try to believe in something as wonderful as that. Though i dont believe in god, i still want to believe in this. As mentioned several times in this topic, sadly the proofs of it not existing, is much more likeble than it existing.
I think the best thing for you to do, is just forget it. Forget about death.
Its rather easy actually. Just have a good time with friends or family.
Dont let the mystery of death hinder you movement in life. We will all die. We all happen to have the same fate.
Its not unfair, and its going to happen. Nothing can stop it.
The birth of regions was made for people to feel alive. To feel that they ahd a purpose.I'd like to think I'm capable of finding my purpose better than some old guys 2000 years ago.
We are all living beings who swarm around the planet, looking for answers and somewhat of an explination of what life is, buit the truth is we will never find out.I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we'll never figure it out.
This sounds depressing.
But would you really like to find out if there was life after death?Sure, just like I'd like to find out that I'm a millionaire tomorrow. But wishing for it won't make it so.
Alright, sorry for not making my question more clear. It was just a misunderstanding, but I felt as though you guys were being rather harsh.Sorry, I suppose I read something into your question that was there.
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. - Eric HofferPersonally, I'm more the gentle cynic when it comes to atheism. I won't accept a deity 'just because', and I find that there is some truth in all religions. I think that each and every person must learn to set aside their differences, and accept people for who they are and what they believe.
(I am not saying it is hard to be reasonable and believe in an afterlife, but I am saying I have yet to meet someone who does both, in real life so far)We're a rare breed.
Do you believe there is a part of the world that exists outside science?Yes and no. It's complicated. My beliefs are in a generally constant state of flux (a few key things are solid), and right now I'm leaning towards this:
Your statement seems awfully like dualism, where there is believed to be a physical brain that is governed by science, and a separate spiritual mind that has no physical form, and isn't bound by science.
Personally, I'm more the gentle cynic when it comes to atheism. I won't accept a deity 'just because', and I find that there is some truth in all religions. I think that each and every person must learn to set aside their differences, and accept people for who they are and what they believe.I like people like you. I was exactly like that before I found my personal beliefs, and I completely support anybody who thinks that way staying atheist/agnostic until such a time as personal experience makes them want to change, should that time come.