Question to Atheists:

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So why'd we get all pissed off at Hitler and Stalin? They built character in millions of people before ending that sufferring by sending them away from this planet of sufferring, into a gloriously wonderful afterlife. By that reasoning, shouldn't they be hailed as heroes?

Suffering and murder are two completely different things. Yes those peoples suffering is over, but was suffering all that they had on this Earth? By murdering them, they not only ended their suffering, but ended their joy, happiness, and life here on Earth. Several of those people may have looked upon it as 'sweet release', but that still doesn't justify their murder.

 

[DougK62]

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?

Well I can't really answer your question because I don't believe in your first sentence, quoted above. I look at the universe and all I see is disorder and mess.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp
The list of things that were once unexplained and attributed to "God" is so long, that people should really stop attributing the unexplained to the supernatural.

I'm not talking about the fact that some woman awoke from a coma or that a gun goes "boom". I'm talking the nature of the Universe here.

That's not what I am talking about either. But plagues, famines, earthquakes, volcanoes, motion of the planets, etc were all once attributed to gods only to be supplanted by a natural explanation. So I would be careful of saying anything can only be explained by the presence of a deity simply because it hasn't been scientifically explained yet.

Once again, all of those primitive comprehensions were based on the behavior of the phenomena, not the presence of order within and around them.

Once science can explain the presence of order in our Universe, and why it's laws are what they are, and how that can come out of a non-being, I'll drop the existence of a supreme being.

This is why I dropped the existence of a supreme being. Science hasn't explained it, but I believe that when (hopefully) eventually it does get explained (even if not in my lifetime), the explanation won't be a supreme being.
I've made the assumption and I have faith that science will eventually explain things, rather than assuming god(s) exist for now, with a view to renouncing my belief later if/when science explains things.

Also, isn't your faith a little weak if you believe there is the possibility that science may come up with an explanation?
You seem to be an "oh, I'll believe in God because I think it explains things better than any other current idea" kind of religious person, which IMO is a pretty archaic way to think.

*Sigh* For the eleventy-billionth time:

I'm not certain of my religion, I'm confident in it. The same way I'm confident that I'll ace a test if I study hard.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

You actually get a result from a test and you either get a A, B, C, D, or F.

You can't say that with the other situation.

 

[pontifex]

/prays that someone (God or man) would get rid of all the damn nested quoting

 

[A Scream]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Descartes
Maybe you could actually present an argument? All you've given is rhetoric.

[edit]Oh, and educate yourself more about atheism, because your "100% certainty there is no god" isn't something espoused by many.[/edit]

That's kinda the definition of atheism. If you aren't 100% certain, that would make you agnostic...would it not?

Nothing is ever 100% certain. That's the whole point of faith. I consider it very likely that he exists, the same way I consider an A on a test very likely if I study hard. I'll be certain of one thing or the other when I die.

What I find interesting, is that you can only prove this once you are dead.

Not while you are alive, as you have no way of doing so. It must be after you cannot report back what you learn.

An Atheist could take your utter inability to provide proof as proof enough that they have no reason to believe a god exists.

Right back at ya. As some who believes is God, I can take an Atheist's utter inability to provide proof as proof enough. It's a circle, just like the evolution-creation debate.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: pontifex
/prays that someone (God or man) would get rid of all the damn nested quoting

or these threads entirely...

 

[TMS]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Lets assume that the laws of physics, which are undeniably well tuned to support our existence, were free to vary slightly from universe to universe. This isn't really a good assumption mind you. It's possible that the the laws of physics depend on each other in such a way that they are not free to vary in any universe, but lets assume anyway. It is theorized by some that there may be an infinite number of universes overlapping each other or sitting side-by-side or some other equally 3 dimensional misrepresentation of their relationship. In any case each of these universes have, as we assumed, slightly different laws of physics, so that the vast majority of them are unsuitable for life.

Now this is all pretty far-fetched speculation on my part, but it is a perfectly workable scenario that needs no god to explain how "lucky" we are that the universe works as well as it does. As such it deserves every bit as much consideration as your assertion that everything that you perceive to be "ordered" must have been "put in order" by a deity.

I think this is somewhat close to what the string theory is saying. So its not so far fetched
This is also what I would have said about the subject. Ironically, the string theory might be impossible to prove (with experiments). Am I some sort of believer for thinking that the theory might be valid explanation for the universe/multiverse?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: irishScott
1. My beef is that the Universe beat out 1/nearly infinity odds to become what it is today instead of pure chaos. I find that to be quite the convenient coincidence.

You're basing your belief on a guess. Even if the odds were that low, people do win the lotto, get struck by lightning, etc. If it didn't work out the way it did, we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.

 

[chambersc]

..

 

[TheBDB]

What created the higher being? The same reasoning you used should apply there.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

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?

... Just in the general "God concept" sense, how can you deny it?

It is not so much the situation that a "God concept" is denied since this concept provides little relevance to life the way I live it. I do not deny any god's existence. I just do not give the thought any importance in my life.

To deny a god's existence, I would first have to consider such a concept to be important.

pretty much how I see it. My understanding of life, reality, and now that which I need to complete my work, is based on empirical and observational evidence. I don't actively deny a God, and it just isn't important to me. I could care less if there was a God that created "order" and then ducked out of the equation, or if there wasn't one at all.

Evidence of Jesus, Mohammed, et al existing is pretty air tight. Hard to deny that. They sound like wonderful people (to a certain extent), with a lot of good ideas. But in mind, imagining them as any more devine or relavant than the countless other mesiahs and zealots of the day seems a bit of a stretch. Of course, a virgin birth and resurrection is about as likely as Luke Skywalker being my father. Really cool stories though...

 

[chambersc]

..

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Suffering and murder are two completely different things. Yes those peoples suffering is over, but was suffering all that they had on this Earth? By murdering them, they not only ended their suffering, but ended their joy, happiness, and life here on Earth. Several of those people may have looked upon it as 'sweet release', but that still doesn't justify their murder.

I was under the distinct impression that all Earthly pleasures pale in comparison to those awaiting in the various afterlifes. A place with no suffering where you are in the presence of your eternal creator? If that were so, I sure wouldn't mind one bit if said deity would call me back home.

Originally posted by: pontifex
/prays that someone (God or man) would get rid of all the damn nested quoting

Hm, surely it can be no coincidence:
God + man = Mod.
:Q
Run for the hills!

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I was under the distinct impression that all Earthly pleasures pale in comparison to those awaiting in the various afterlifes. A place with no suffering where you are in the presence of your eternal creator? If that were so, I sure wouldn't mind one bit if said deity would call me back home.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they all pale in comparison, but that's just me. I wouldn't find being called home early a bad thing either, but that would be very selfish of me. There are people here on this Earth that need me, such as my wife and children, and vice versa. If given the choice of dying today and going to heaven or staying on this Earth were suffering exist, I'd stay. The reason is simple. I love my family and I want to care for them and be there for them when they need me.

I don't think this puts a downer on the wonderfulness of Heaven, but that's JMO.

 

[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.

 

[iskim86]

we should make topics like this a sticky so the same ****** doesn't get repeated a million times.

 

[iskim86]

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

anyway, to answer your question.........

humans are very egocentric, and all views share the same concept: it is derived from a big ego

a psychological viewpoint.

people who believe in a higher being.... they believe they are created by a perfect being and therefore they believe they are special.

people who don't.... they believe they are not created by a perfect being and that they are far too superior to be created by a higher being.

I believe humans are inferior creatures disguised as intelligent beings, worthless creatures with a big ego, to have the thought that they are superior, thinking they have the right to dress in clothing, look good, have morals, have society with systems, have a government, have religions, and believe in a greater being. who are we to even think that we deserve such "higher thoughts"?

inferior and worthless

 

[Cattlegod]

I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

 

[iskim86]

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.

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.

 

[iskim86]

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

good point....

 

[blackllotus]

What bugs me about religion is not that people believe in God but what they believe about their god/s. All of the major religions are littered with inconsistencies and claims that have been proven wrong. For example, how people can continue to believe in a 6000 year earth is beyond me (thankfully, its a minority of people). I also find it ironic that God is described as merciful yet bad people receive eternal torture for things they do in 80 years.

I think that definitively saying that there is no god is just as retarded as saying there is.

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.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I think this is a Great Quote

"Monotheists reject all other gods but their own. I just happen to believe in one less god than they do."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200704100005

One reasons I don't believe in a god is the very notion of all these different gods. Every culture has a different interpretation of a higher being. What authority does anyone have to say which god is real? Religions like Christianity has the power to do that because it is one of the most widespread religions.

 

[SampSon]

Order is a human construct. Everything you understand is a human construct.
If a higher power exists, you don't have the ability to comprehend it. Just give it up and let whatever needs to happen, happen.

 

[n yusef]

My main reason for being an atheist is that I find huge faults with the idea of a creator.

To explain this, I have a couple questions to ask of this creator. Obviously, he won't answer them, so OP, please do in his absence.

1) Why did you create the universe?
2) What did you do before creating the universe?
3) Now that you have created the universe, what will you do?

The idea that the creator thinks, a conclusion the OP made from the order the world was created in, makes me assign him motives and purposes. No thinking being, especially no thinking being able to create a world as grand as ours, would do so without any rhyme or reason. Conjectures to this answer have been made over the years, but because the OP doesn't align himself to any religions, I would appreciate his opinion on god's motivations.

Has god done anything other than create the world? The idea that god lives without time isn't any more of a stretch than anything else mentioned, so it could be argued he needs neither a future nor a past.

This is all my personal opinion, but I just doubt a god that has done nothing but create a universe, without any purpose or reason. I choose to believe that the world works because it must. 1 + 1 can equal nothing other than 2 (or 1.999...), so it does.

All of my questions can be answered by making the creator unconscious. But then, what separates it from no creator at all? I don't see the point in believing in an entity that does nothing.