Question to Atheists:

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I also find it ironic that God is described as merciful yet bad people receive eternal torture for things they do in 80 years.

That may be true however it is fairly safe to claim that no god is actively interfering with human life, regardless of if one exists.

I don't like that policy either - you get one measly human lifetime to figure out the basic nature of the Universe: God did it. Sure, figure out the cause of reality. Easy problem, right? Good luck, your first test is also your final exam. Have fun! No partial credit.

 

[Kadarin]

To the OP: Why only one God? Why not two, or three?

Also, what is the point of being a Deist? God (singular or plural) either exists or it does not, and no amount of belief or disbelief on yours or my part will have any effect whatsoever on that existence.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I don't recall ever using the word 'pleasant'. However, having known many people who have lived through cancer and many who have not, I have seen both sides. Most view the experience as sad, but as one of the biggest growing experiences of their life. Some have a hard time looking at it that way and understandably so. But tell me, you mock my explanation, so let's see how you answer this. Cancer exist and God doesn't, therefore people just die and others can do nothing but morn. Or, cancer exist and God does, therefore the person can find solace in the fact that they'll see that person again some day. Which one do you think is more conducive to someone being able to grow from the experience? Think what you want to think, but the fact that suffering exist is all the more reason to believe there is a God, IMO.

The first one makes more sense to me. Because it means motivation for people. There was nothing that could be done for this person, but I want to make damn sure it doesn't happen again. As opposed to "Oh its ok, they go to heaven". Cancer could be seen as the express lane. And that is a terrible, unfounded view.

I wouldn't view it in that fashion at all, nor do I believe most people do. Simply because you believe there is more than just this life doesn't mean you're in a hurry for it to end. I'm not talking about a Gnostic religion where the body and life are viewed almost as a prison. There is a lot to be done and gained in this life and no reason that I can see to want it to end as soon as possible.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: iskim86
what's also very stupid is the fact that people actually mourn for people who sin and say they're resting in heaven now.

say a fornicating, indulging rockstar who smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc died of cancer or something. people would be mourning for him, and say something like "we'll see you in heaven" or "may god be with you".

what is going on? clearly he's gonna go to hell (if it even existed), not heaven.

I don't see anything wrong with mourning when others die. To me it's a mourn because I may not see them again for many years, which is often very sad. But I agree with what you said about seeing them in Heaven. If you believe you're not supposed to judge people, then you have no right to say that they are going to hell or that they are going to Heaven. None of us are in a place to be able to say with any amount of certainty that either of the two will be the case. A judgment is a judgment, regardless of whether the result is positive or negative.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

Rejecting amazing, proofless claims is human nature. It protects us.

Can I borrow $5,000? I'll pay you back. No? Why not?

I don't see how a deity should receive different treatment.

 

[astralusion]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

Rejecting amazing, proofless claims is human nature. It protects us.

Can I borrow $5,000? I'll pay you back. No? Why not?

I don't see how a deity should receive different treatment.

there is a difference between a lack of a belief and a true proof against a claim.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: astralusion

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

Rejecting amazing, proofless claims is human nature. It protects us.

Can I borrow $5,000? I'll pay you back. No? Why not?

I don't see how a deity should receive different treatment.

there is a difference between a lack of a belief and a true proof against a claim.

Just as there is a difference between a reasonable doubt and an absolute certainty of a claim. Lack of proof of one claim does not automatically make the other claim true.

 

[astralusion]

i know i was just pointing out the inconsistency of his statement. anyway, god in his weakest form cannot be disproved same as a theory of the world starting 5 minutes before. if he is merely the flipper of a switch then he cannot be disproved, he's also pretty much unimportant.

 

[iskim86]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: iskim86
what's also very stupid is the fact that people actually mourn for people who sin and say they're resting in heaven now.

say a fornicating, indulging rockstar who smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc died of cancer or something. people would be mourning for him, and say something like "we'll see you in heaven" or "may god be with you".

what is going on? clearly he's gonna go to hell (if it even existed), not heaven.

I don't see anything wrong with mourning when others die. To me it's a mourn because I may not see them again for many years, which is often very sad. But I agree with what you said about seeing them in Heaven. If you believe you're not supposed to judge people, then you have no right to say that they are going to hell or that they are going to Heaven. None of us are in a place to be able to say with any amount of certainty that either of the two will be the case. A judgment is a judgment, regardless of whether the result is positive or negative.

yeah. i wasn't saying the mourning is wrong, but biased assumptions.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: astralusion

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

Rejecting amazing, proofless claims is human nature. It protects us.

Can I borrow $5,000? I'll pay you back. No? Why not?

I don't see how a deity should receive different treatment.

there is a difference between a lack of a belief and a true proof against a claim.

Just as there is a difference between a reasonable doubt and an absolute certainty of a claim. Lack of proof of one claim does not automatically make the other claim true.

So you both believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist and that I might pork Jessica Alba nightly?

BS. I point out the double standard and, unable to refute it you pretend it doesn't exist ... /sigh

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: astralusion

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

Rejecting amazing, proofless claims is human nature. It protects us.

Can I borrow $5,000? I'll pay you back. No? Why not?

I don't see how a deity should receive different treatment.

there is a difference between a lack of a belief and a true proof against a claim.

Just as there is a difference between a reasonable doubt and an absolute certainty of a claim. Lack of proof of one claim does not automatically make the other claim true.

So you both believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist and that I might pork Jessica Alba nightly?

BS. I point out the double standard and, unable to refute it you pretend it doesn't exist ... /sigh

FSM be with you.

 

[Vette73]

Russell's teapot

Russell's teapot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:
? 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. ?

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:
? The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. ?

The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[topslop1]

Then if God is real... who made Him?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ghostman

By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish and not give something without asking for something in return. Yet there are many people throughout history (and even more today) who give with no thought of a reward, save the good feeling that comes from doing something good. And where does that feeling come from praetell? Once again it violates the laws of nature.

I normally don't respond to a religion thread when it has already grown this large, since chances are, what I have to say is usually stated in one form or another. And let's face it, few people are going to make it this far back into the thread.

But I felt compelled to address this particular point because you don't seem to see a flaw in your own reasoning. Your conclusion is that "a God must exist," providing the evidence that "By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish... Yet there are many people... who give with no thought of a reward." However, your evidence is based on an ASSUMPTION that "By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish." This is actually a fair assumption; in game theory, a "rational" person is someone who would choose the option that would be of the most benefit to himself. So, one would think, a rational person would never choose an option that will help another person (ex. Prisoner's Dilemma).

In reality, that game is too simple and the "laws of nature" (and not religion) likely defined morality. Through years or death and survival, it became apparent that working in groups increased the likelihood of survival. This is not a surprise, as we witness group activity in primitive animals as well (wolves, lions, fish, bugs). So, a rational person, knowing that survival is better than hoarding a good meal, would now choose the option to benefit the group. For groups to form, the members had to give up some of their "selfishness," knowing that other members had to do the same. Building on that, stealing from within the group or randomly murdering another group member undermines the group structure, so misbehaving members are punished. Depending on how advanced the animals are, we now have a society with the rules strictly defined...

So when you speak of these "people... who give with no thought of a reward," I'd say that they are actually getting a reward. They don't go through all the reasoning as above as it has grown innate to human behavior ("save the good feeling that comes from doing something good"). I volunteer, but not because He tells me to or to get on His good graces; I don't believe in God. I do it for the warm fuzzy feeling, which may ultimately translate to knowing that I'm helping society. Either that, or I'm an irrational being.

b/c I wanted to respond to this argument, I see that it has been well-covered allready.
The idea that Laws of Nature dictate a necessarily selfish attitude is the type of tripe that Dawkins has been arguing over the last 30 years, yet it has no support in evolutionary theory or the naturally observable world.

Atruism is a well-inherited trait. You see it in Frogs, prairie dogs, mole rats, bees...the list goes on. Genes do not have rational thought.

 

[Imyourzero]

I'm only halfway through the thread but wanted to comment on a couple of things.

Someone mentioned something like, "If there is a God, why is there so much hate and suffering in the world?" Religion teaches that God wants us to have a choice. He doesn't force us all to love Him, and He doesn't force us to do what is right. He wants us to, sure, but we're given free will to make the wrong decisions if we so choose.

Also, I remember reading something along the lines of: "You have nothing to lose by believing and everything to lose by choosing not to." Now I'm no Bible Thumper, and I'm not here to push my own personal beliefs on anyone...heck I'm not even sure what I believe sometimes. I definitely can't provide proof to anyone that there is a higher being. But that really made me think...I mean if you make the decision to go through life and believe in God and put your faith in Him, you might end up in Heaven. If you denounce Him, curse him, or deny his existence, you might end up in Hell. *IF* Hell exists, I can tell you that's one place I don't want to be. Hell might be a man-made concept, but if it's true and it's as hot and full of pain & suffering as what I've heard, I definitely don't want to spend eternity there. Heaven sounds like a much better place to me.

So I guess my point is, unless you're absolutely convinced that the only thing that happens after death is turning into worm food, why not believe? It's easy to shrug off now, because we're selfish and self-righteous, but it would seem we really do have nothing to lose by TRYING to get into Heaven. If it doesn't exist, we're still worm food, no harm no foul. If it does exist, it sounds like a much better place than the alternative.

BTW, very interesting thread. Thanks for the read. The concepts of space, time, the universe, etc. fascinate me and I love reading about/discussing them.

Now where are the threads on black holes, wormholes, and ghosts?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: irishScott
How can you look at something like the Universe, with it's laws, rules, dimensions, shapes, and ORDER and deny, with absolute certainty, that there isn't a higher being behind it?

Now I'm not talking about the Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other denomination's god, just the "God concept".

Personally, I'm a Deist, and (for me) he very fact that the Universe has order provides compelling (albeit not conclusive) evidence that a higher being must have had some role in it's creation. Whether that role is still active or not is anyone's guess, but I'd like to think he is.

As for Jesus, Mohammad (sp? no insult intended), and every other religious icon, they definitely existed, and they were definitely great philosophers with a lot of good points to make. As for them being divinely inspired/influenced, I am seriously skeptical. And their magic tricks (walking on water and such) were utter bullsh!t.

So getting back to the point, given the order present in the universe, how can you say, with 100% certainty, that there is no God? I don't care if you think of God as Zeus, Ra, Ogun, Jesus, Vishnu, Mohammad, Ancestors, Animal Spirits, Romulus, Cthulu (sp?), the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Grampa Phelps or George Bush. Just in the general "God concept" sense, how can you deny it?

EDIT: I don't mean to insult anyone here. I'm naturally curious about how people think.

EDIT 2: Seems that Desim might need some clarifying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism

I am not here to argue that my world view or approach to understanding to world is better than anyone else's. If you are happy with yours, good for you.

I am not a deist so I do not automatically choose the "god exixt" rational to explain any phenomena I do not understand.

I want to understand how the world works and be able to develop "laws" that can predict what has and will happen. Saying that thunder and lightling are caused by Thor, earthquakes are caused by Neptune, mass disease outbreaks are caused by Apollo and Jehovah, and other explanations that say there is a supernatural force behind everything does not do this for me.

 

[Journer]

i was too lazy to read any replies...so..

OP: there are two problems here

1) you don't know what atheist means...
the correct etymology for atheist literally means lack of a belief in a god/god(s)
that doesn't mean that an atheist believes a god does not exists

however, the common social standard says that all atheists believe god does not exists..

so based on that, i think it is silly to be the social term of atheist...and silly to be theist...

the plain fact of the matter is that given our current understanding of the universe, there is no possible way to truly know if there is/was a god(s)

which is why i am agnostic.
however, the reason there are still religions and ...'non-religions' is because of faith

christians, muslims, etc. have faith in their god(s) and their religion
atheists have faith in atheism...or rather the faith that nothing is going to happen when they die...or more typically faith in science and logic..

personally...my faiths are science and logic. i believe that they are the most adequate in determining the origins of life, information about life, etc.
however it is not possible (or at least not right now) to determine what happens after we die. so this is probably while ill end up a deathbed converter

however, i personally feel that if a god/god(s) do exists and have some sort of 'plan' for me then said god(s) would eventually act in me in such a way that i would believe the tenants of it's belief system

/rant

 

[Rogodin2]

I am not here to argue that my world view or approach to understanding to world is better than anyone else's. If you happy with yours, good for you.

So, are you one that partakes of the full bounty of this world-do you feel like you've overcomed sadness/despondency/depression? Once you've felt the loss of a person and have had to move beyond it then you'll be able to understand what siddhartha overcame to be a riverboat guide.

Are you German?

Rogo

 

[Journer]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
I'
Also, I remember reading something along the lines of: "You have nothing to lose by believing and everything to lose by choosing not to." Now I'm no Bible Thumper, and I'm not here to push my own personal beliefs on anyone...heck I'm not even sure what I believe sometimes. I definitely can't provide proof to anyone that there is a higher being. But that really made me think...I mean if you make the decision to go through life and believe in God and put your faith in Him, you might end up in Heaven. If you denounce Him, curse him, or deny his existence, you might end up in Hell. *IF* Hell exists, I can tell you that's one place I don't want to be. Hell might be a man-made concept, but if it's true and it's as hot and full of pain & suffering as what I've heard, I definitely don't want to spend eternity there. Heaven sounds like a much better place to me.

So I guess my point is, unless you're absolutely convinced that the only thing that happens after death is turning into worm food, why not believe? It's easy to shrug off now, because we're selfish and self-righteous, but it would seem we really do have nothing to lose by TRYING to get into Heaven. If it doesn't exist, we're still worm food, no harm no foul. If it does exist, it sounds like a much better place than the alternative.

what your asking people to do is:
1) stop believing in everything that makes perfect scientific sense and trade it for something that seems impossible
2) try to get others to follow you

you also make it seem soooo simple...
"just stop what you have been doing for years and do the complete opposite"

personally i think i'm at the point in my life where it would literally take an act of god to convert me back
that or being brainwashed

 

[Sunner]

A somewhat related question...

I don't believe in any gods, magic, ghosts, soul, etc.
It's not so much a belief as an assumption, there's no evidence of it, so I assume none of it exists until someone can prove otherwise.
Would that make me an atheist or an agnostic?
I would lean towards the latter, but on the other hand, I do "actively" believe that there is no deity, only I do so purely based on the lack of evidence, rather that some sort of "anti-religion".

Oh and the "why not believe, just to make sure" philosophy.
If there turns out to be a god, and he(it? I'll make it him from now on) gets pissed off because I didn't worship him even though I'm a nice enough guy living a decent enough life, he can quite frankly go screw himself.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
I'm only halfway through the thread but wanted to comment on a couple of things.

Someone mentioned something like, "If there is a God, why is there so much hate and suffering in the world?" Religion teaches that God wants us to have a choice. He doesn't force us all to love Him, and He doesn't force us to do what is right. He wants us to, sure, but we're given free will to make the wrong decisions if we so choose.

Also, I remember reading something along the lines of: "You have nothing to lose by believing and everything to lose by choosing not to." Now I'm no Bible Thumper, and I'm not here to push my own personal beliefs on anyone...heck I'm not even sure what I believe sometimes. I definitely can't provide proof to anyone that there is a higher being. But that really made me think...I mean if you make the decision to go through life and believe in God and put your faith in Him, you might end up in Heaven. If you denounce Him, curse him, or deny his existence, you might end up in Hell. *IF* Hell exists, I can tell you that's one place I don't want to be. Hell might be a man-made concept, but if it's true and it's as hot and full of pain & suffering as what I've heard, I definitely don't want to spend eternity there. Heaven sounds like a much better place to me.

So I guess my point is, unless you're absolutely convinced that the only thing that happens after death is turning into worm food, why not believe? It's easy to shrug off now, because we're selfish and self-righteous, but it would seem we really do have nothing to lose by TRYING to get into Heaven. If it doesn't exist, we're still worm food, no harm no foul. If it does exist, it sounds like a much better place than the alternative.

BTW, very interesting thread. Thanks for the read. The concepts of space, time, the universe, etc. fascinate me and I love reading about/discussing them.

Now where are the threads on black holes, wormholes, and ghosts?

So, your argument is play it safe? Just consider how spineless that makes you!

 

[skyking]

So, your argument is play it safe? Just consider how spineless that makes you!

It's known as 'buying fire insurance'

 

[Roguestar]

I find it interesting that some people with faith claim that atheists are in some way "weak" because they need to have everything explained by science, etc etc. I disagree, I find that it I am comfortable in saying "well, we don't know everything about where the universe comes from", but I don't need to justify it and say "it must surely be god". I don't need to have it rationalised and explained in some sort of comforting, nicely wrapped up fashion. I can accept that we don't know everything yet.

 

[compuwiz1]

nm
carry on

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Journer
i was too lazy to read any replies...so..

OP: there are two problems here

1) you don't know what atheist means...
the correct etymology for atheist literally means lack of a belief in a god/god(s)
that doesn't mean that an atheist believes a god does not exists

however, the common social standard says that all atheists believe god does not exists..

so based on that, i think it is silly to be the social term of atheist...and silly to be theist...

the plain fact of the matter is that given our current understanding of the universe, there is no possible way to truly know if there is/was a god(s)

which is why i am agnostic.
however, the reason there are still religions and ...'non-religions' is because of faith

christians, muslims, etc. have faith in their god(s) and their religion
atheists have faith in atheism...or rather the faith that nothing is going to happen when they die...or more typically faith in science and logic..

personally...my faiths are science and logic. i believe that they are the most adequate in determining the origins of life, information about life, etc.
however it is not possible (or at least not right now) to determine what happens after we die. so this is probably while ill end up a deathbed converter

however, i personally feel that if a god/god(s) do exists and have some sort of 'plan' for me then said god(s) would eventually act in me in such a way that i would believe the tenants of it's belief system

/rant

Just as a note, his definition is correct and is not just a social standard. Atheist comes from atheos, meaning no God. Add the -ist and you get "belief in no God". That was the original definition. Others have tried adding the definition of theist, meaning belief in God, and a-theist meaning no belief in God. Most any dictionary will show the word actually came from the greek atheos, but will still make considerations for the second definition. So technically, they are both correct.