Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[Harlequin]

Atheism comes from the word atheos which means without god. Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

No that's just Atheism. I'm curious to find out where you've gained this definition from.

Jesse provided the doctrine earlier in the thread. That is what it is, no more no less.

Agnosticism is the belief that you can't prove or know a god exists, which says nothing about whether or not you believe one exists or not. That's why you can be both.

Agnosticism is the lack of belief in every other alternative faith, not that you can't prove or know God exists. All religion is based on faith, which by definition would suggest you can't prove it.

If agnosticism is the middle ground, then what is gnosticism to you then? These two words cover a different claim and aren't suitable to describe your belief on deity claims.

I would say Atheism is a contradiction in the mind. First of all you would have to believe there are no Gods to be an Atheist.

But to believe is to act in accordance with a lack of knowledge, which could only lead to a maybe and therefore into Agnosticism.

Of course, you would describe that person to be an Agnostic-Atheist. But that's not the case, to be one you must renounce the other.

About lacking belief, yes you would need reference to make a conscious decision, but you don't need to be conscious of it to be lacking. I think of it like owning an object. I don't need to know about X (an arbitrary item) to not own it do I? I can also know about it and consciously not own one etc.

But all belief is based on reference. If you hear a story, you choose whether or not to believe it, if you see a monster, you choose whether or not to believe it, if you smell burning, you choose whether or not to believe it. Belief is in the mind, your senses and thought processes provide you with the reference.

If you are not concious of a given reference, there is no way you could form a belief based upon it. So while your analogy is an accurate one when refering to ownership, it's not quite in line with belief.

When I say prove, I mean it in practical, scientific terms. Sure, we could wake up in an alternate reality but do we have good reason to think that? Or any evidence to suggest that? What's more important to think about is what is probable rather than what is possible. It's possible that gravity and evolution aren't real but it's very probable that they are or at least there is some illusion of them.

Fair enough, but surely to believe a medium which only operates within the laws of the natural world can explain what happens beyond it is illogical.

 

[Ewan]

No that's just Atheism. I'm curious to find out where you've gained this definition from.

Jesse provided the doctrine earlier in the thread. That is what it is, no more no less.

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/112.htm
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=112

Agnosticism is the lack of belief in every other alternative faith, not that you can't prove or know God exists. All religion is based on faith, which by definition would suggest you can't prove it.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnosis
It doesn't describe your position on deity claims. If agnosticism is what you have said it is, then what is gnosticism?

I'd rather not get bogged down in semantics so unless I strongly disagree with something you've said then I guess you can have the final word.

But all belief is based on reference. If you hear a story, you choose whether or not to believe it, if you see a monster, you choose whether or not to believe it, if you smell burning, you choose whether or not to believe it. Belief is in the mind, your senses and thought processes provide you with the reference.

If you are not concious of a given reference, there is no way you could form a belief based upon it. So while your analogy is an accurate one when refering to ownership, it's not quite in line with belief.

I'm not talking about beliefs being formed. I'm talking about people who are without them. I genuinely don't see why you need reference to simply be without a positive belief.

Fair enough, but surely to believe a medium which only operates within the laws of the natural world can explain what happens beyond it is illogical.

Evolution and gravity are not beyond though are they? Dragon Mage was talking about evolution.

On a side note though, if a deity acts and has an effect on the 'natural' world (I'm sure many believers think their God does so) then surely it can be detected?

 

[Harlequin]

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/112.htm
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=112

And where in those links is 'Strong' Atheism defined? It describes Atheism as Godless or denying Gods. That's a statement, it's the belief in no God rather than a probably or a maybe.

But do you see how this belief is a declaration of not knowing? To be an Atheist you have to believe that you know, otherwise you fall directly into Agnostism.

Here is the article from the same source you provided me with:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnosticism

The third point declares it to mean doubt of the existence of God. Atheism is the belief there is no God. To doubt is to not believe.

Therefore an Agnostic-Atheist believes there is no God but doubt's that very belief?

On that basis, one is certainly separate from the other.

It doesn't describe your position on deity claims. If agnosticism is what you have said it is, then what is gnosticism?

I suppose by the link you've provided it would mean ignorance, which is something I never disputed, all I said was that it also meant the lack of faith in other faiths.

I genuinely don't see why you need reference to simply be without a positive belief.

I was saying you needed reference to be of any belief, whether negative or positive. If your brain doesn't provide reference you cannot form any kind of belief whatsoever on anything.

Evolution and gravity are not beyond though are they? Dragon Mage was talking about evolution.

We don't know evolution and gravity aren't beyond the natural world.

On a side note though, if a deity acts and has an effect on the 'natural' world (I'm sure many believers think their God does so) then surely it can be detected?

How so? If the Lord is infinite, surely it's at his own discretion if his influence is detectable by man or not.

I'm not trying to attack your opinion, only discuss it.

As for the multiquote haters, jeer of me now, but one day you'll all look back and see me as a pioneering multiquoter.

 

[Ewan]

It describes Atheism as Godless or denying Gods. That's a statement, it's the belief in no God rather than a probably or a maybe.

That's a non sequitur. Godless means you are without a god or have no god, not that you believe there isn't one. Not having a god doesn't necessarily mean you believe there aren't any.
Denying implies a refusal to admit something, which implies an atheist knows a god exists. This follows onto my next point...

The third point declares it to mean doubt of the existence of God.

To doubt is to not believe.

This sums up my problems with semantic arguments. I would argue the first 2 support me whilst the third doesn't. Again, the dictionary shows definitions for atheism which vary.
Which ones are right/wrong? The dictionary itself can't even provide a definitive answer so where do we turn to?

Like I said, they're labels and what's more important IMO, is the discussion about the positions (i.e. the other half of what we're discussing) you can have which is what these words describe. The labels are less important because that's all they are.

I was saying you needed reference to be of any belief, whether negative or positive. If your brain doesn't provide reference you cannot form any kind of belief whatsoever on anything.

That's true, but do you need to form a belief to be without one? Explain to me why reference is required to be without something. Belief may be based on reference but whether you actually have them is something different.

How so? If the Lord is infinite, surely it's at his own discretion if his influence is detectable by man or not.

But if a deity influences the world, won't there be an effect? Won't we be able to detect the effect? If we can't, then is effect or the God even relevant?


Also, I haven't put the effort in to make your name appear with the curly arrow in the quotes. Deal with it.

EDIT: Strong atheism is more a term used by atheists themselves and also includes weak atheism.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

[Harlequin]

Denying implies a refusal to admit something, which implies an atheist knows a god exists.

It states he denies Gods because he believes they do not exist, not that he knows anything.

This sums up my problems with semantic arguments. I would argue the first 2 support me whilst the third doesn't. Again, the dictionary shows definitions for atheism which vary.
Which ones are right/wrong? The dictionary itself can't even provide a definitive answer so where do we turn to?

We can't turn to anything. As I've argued in similar threads man is finite and therefore will never obtain genuine irrefutable knowledge of anything. All that remains is personal reference and belief.

Like I said, they're labels and what's more important IMO, is the discussion about the positions (i.e. the other half of what we're discussing) you can have which is what these words describe. The labels are less important but that's all they are.

Again, I'm not saying I know such a hybrid of beliefs exist, only that the hybrid doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe calling it something else will matter at all.

That's true, but do you need to form a belief to be without one? Explain to me why reference is required to be without something. Belief may be based on reference but whether you actually have them is something different.

I wasn't saying that you needed reference to be without belief, but that there is no existence without reference. What I was saying is that there is never a lack of belief, only a different kind of belief. You are born with reference, with senses, from there you base belief. Of course someone who has never been told of Islam will not be able to form a belief on Islam.

But if a deity influences the world, won't there be an effect? Won't we be able to detect the effect? If we can't, then is effect or the God even relevant?

But what if we can't detect these effects? The Bible describes God as infinite and almighty. If that is indeed the case I'm sure he would be able to keep himself hidden.

Also, I haven't put the effort in to make your name appear with the curly arrow in the quotes. Deal with it.

Never

EDIT: Strong atheism is more a term used by atheists themselves and also includes weak atheism.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

But there's no difference in the doctrine of the two. Of course, if one wanted to call one's self a weak Atheist I would have no way of proving they were wrong to do so, but it just sounds to me as if these people are too proud to admit they're not Atheist because it no longer makes sense to them.

Like Humanism. People tell me it's a belief in the betterment of humanity, but when I ask them if someone believes something else is better for humanity than the general consensus, their only retort is that it's a malleable moral code. Bogus in other words, because if something is whatever you want it to be and was by your own admission invented by man, surely you're just imagining it.

 

[Stoic Hero]

I believe that God is detectable, to those who are looking for him. Many unanswerable questions, such as how time began, how the world was made, and how it will end, can be answered if you add God to the equation. While that isn't proof, it is definitely evidence supporting a higher being. We really have no idea how everything began, and it isn't until we start looking into the supernatural that we find answers. Also, who designed us? How do we have such complicated, intricate bodies? From our head to our toes, everything in our body has to work damn near perfectly for us to be alive. Heck, our heart continually pumps for our entire lives. Again, I think this is evidence supporting a maker, a crafter, and an artist. I don't believe that we were put here by accident because nature tells me otherwise.

 

[Ewan]

It states he denies Gods because he believes they do not exist, not that he knows anything.

Not necessarily. Also, my bad about the bolded part. I often use the words interchangeably when I know they're not the same thing. Sloppy.

We can't turn to anything. As I've argued in similar threads man is finite and therefore will never obtain genuine irrefutable knowledge of anything. All that remains is personal reference and belief.

It was more of a rhetorical question but you're right, we can't turn to anything. All I'm saying is that's a bit of stretch IMO, for you to use atheism and agnosticism to describe positions that their origins don't.

only that the hybrid doesn't make sense to me.

Which is understandable when taking your definitions, which are going to be different to other people's. As long as we both understand that there is a position which is "I don't believe a God exists and I don't know that a god doesn't exist" etc. This is what I hold and many other "atheists" do as well. What we call it doesn't matter as much.

What I was saying is that there is never a lack of belief, only a different kind of belief.

You've lost me. Could you explain it further to me?

You are born with reference, with senses, from there you base belief. Of course someone who has never been told of Islam will not be able to form a belief on Islam.

So if there is never a lack of belief, only a different kind of belief, then what kind of belief does someone have who hasn't formed one on Islam?

But what if we can't detect these effects? The Bible describes God as infinite and almighty. If that is indeed the case I'm sure he would be able to keep himself hidden.

So... why should we care about something that acts, but in a way that we can't detect at all? If a god is immune to all our senses then why is said god relevant? Also, is this even the case? You brought up the Christian God, so you tell me.

Also, I put your username into each quote.

 

[Harlequin]

Not necessarily. Also, my bad about the bolded part. I often use the words interchangeably when I know they're not the same thing. Sloppy.

Yeah I do that a lot too

It was more of a rhetorical question but you're right, we can't turn to anything. All I'm saying is that's a bit of stretch IMO, for you to use atheism and agnosticism to describe positions that their origins don't.

In fairness it can only ever be a stretch. Like you said the concept is all that matters and the name and categorising becomes trivial. What's the point of Atheism? Of Agnosticism? They might aswell not exist for all they mean. It's just a way of saying what doesn't need to be said.

If you're not of a religion, it doesn't matter where you are. I don't understand the incessant validation some constantly exhibit to define something that doesn't need to be defined. Ironically, it would seem I'm doing the same.

Which is understandable when taking your definitions, which are going to be different to other people's. As long as we both understand that there is a position which is "I don't believe a God exists and I don't know that a god doesn't exist" etc. This is what I hold and many other "atheists" do as well. What we call it doesn't matter as much.

I fully agree and I'm glad you see it that way. Sorry if I've been overly pedantic but philosophy is a very grey area and I believe we have to be quite specific in our language and concepts to be able to fully discern where we are. Bruce Lee said a name is only a way of making sure one was refering to the given concept and nothing more. My qualm wasn't with the name but the two concepts I thought collided with one another.

You've lost me. Could you explain it further to me?

What I mean is we are all philosophers. When we enter the world we are immediately provided with reference with our senses, to which we immediately base belief. A baby is pulled from the womb and sees the world, from there it builds belief. Which is why I stated that a lack of belief is only true when a lack of existence is irrefutable, for all of existence is based on belief (which only fuels countless fasets of existence debates).

Sorry if that's unclear.

So if there is never a lack of belief, only a different kind of belief, then what kind of belief does someone have who hasn't formed one on Islam?

It depends. To me it would be based entirely on what they have formed a belief on. If they've never decided to believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God I would believe them to be lost. From that point it doesn't matter what denomination they happen to be of, the Bible only describes believers and non believers, as well as worshippers of idols.

From that particular reference I would have no reason to believe any other denomination exists. Of course, I believe mankind can make as many as they would like to, but it wouldn't matter which one he chooses to believe he belongs to, the outcome will only ever be the same from that reference.

So... why should we care about something that acts, but in a way that we can't detect at all? If a god is immune to all our senses then why is said god relevant? Also, is this even the case? You brought up the Christian God, so you tell me.

I couldn't speak for every Christian when I say this but I only meant a means in which God could prevent man from ever being able to prove he exists. If the purpose of life is to live a virtuous life based on your belief in God surely proof would render the 'test', as it were, invalid.

As for relevance, if it effects your afterlife I would say it's wholly relevant. Of course, should you believe the afterlife doesn't exist based on no personal reference (because no one has seen what lies beyond) it could only ever be interpreted by me as a defeatist attitude.

If the Bible is indeed the truth, then the Lord's influence is still relevent in the medium which dominates the very fabric of perceived existence; Belief.

Also, I put your username into each quote.

Thank you

 

[Rasputin]

In response to the original post, the whole argument of "atheists shouldn't attack the Bible to disprove God" is completely silly. Unless Christians can defend each and every passage in a book they consider to be absolute truth, their deluded belief in the validity of religion will continued to be scorned by intelligent thinkers.

As for the definition of atheism, my view is that a hardcore atheist realizes that the entire concept of "god" goes against all that resembles progress and common sense for humanity, whereas that a light atheist may simply consider "god" to be fiction because there is no scientific way to prove it's existence. Both are reasonable positions to have, but would certainly account for some of the differences of opinion atheists have in philosophical debates.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Is this just about guy having a problem with someone else having a problem?

What about live and let live?

"God Does not exist."
Is this really so upsetting to Believers? Faith apparently is not enough for some people and some people are just so Ignorant of how small there opinion really is that they will argue until they are red in the face.

I dont believe in the existence of Gods and recognise them as just a primitive mans view of how thing worked through the Attributation of phenomenon like thunderstorms and the wind to Deities of the ancient world, things we can now explain through Science which I believe in just as much as a Christain, Bhudist or a Muslim.

If they are content to spend there lives believing in false Gods:let them it has no bearing on anything accept how I feel towards them, which is not very much, but I'm not willing to harangue them about it, because tolerance and acceptance are not just found through religious means.

Ive never been in a religious debate and people because its a waste of time IMO, to have an antagonistic argument over the belief of a godis just ridiculous and speaksmore about the worst parts of humanity: Ignorance and Intolerance.

Science may have been used to win wars, but it has never been direct cause of a conflict........fighting over technology is not about whether it is right or wrong, just about some people wanting what others have.

Knowledge of things should be shared and it was religion that halted that process in the dark ages,so thanks a lot for that christianity, Understanding of the world unwillingly undermines the Idea of GOD so does free thinking, and Believers scramble to defend what they know as the truth when its attacked.

Faith is not evil inherently, its what you make it stand for,some use it to justify Mass murder,others use to live better lives, and some have in other areas like science and religion, Ignorance is the real problem when it comes to arguments of belief vs no belief.

Ignorance of its Importance.

I actually enjoy religion being ridiculed, especially Christianty butt only being made fun of when it escalates to Arguments or violence its gone to far.........my favorite Non-Beleiver sketch is when Stewie Griffin goes back in timehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf29DCji4T8

 

[Harlequin]

In response to the original post, the whole argument of "atheists shouldn't attack the Bible to disprove God" is completely silly. Unless Christians can defend each and every passage in a book they consider to be absolute truth, their deluded belief in the validity of religion will continued to be scorned by intelligent thinkers.

Well the Bible isn't the only reference for God. Surely to be an Atheist you would have to disagree with every scriptures to describe the 'beyond'. Also, just because they're being scorned doesn't make those scorning 'intelligent thinkers'.

As for the definition of atheism, my view is that a hardcore atheist realizes that the entire concept of "god" goes against all that resembles progress and common sense for humanity, whereas that a light atheist may simply consider "god" to be fiction because there is no scientific way to prove it's existence.

But why is there a need for these 'hardcore' and 'light' denominations? What's the point? Agnosticism I can understand, but if Atheism is based on belief and believing is an admission of a lack of knowledge, every Atheist would logically be Agnostic.

What about live and let live?

What about it?

I dont believe in the existence of Gods and recognise them as just a primitive mans view of how thing worked through the Attributation of phenomenon like thunderstorms and the wind to Deities of the ancient world, things we can now explain through Science which I believe in just as much as a Christain, Bhudist or a Muslim.

So how does Science explain the afterlife? Thunderstorms and other phenomenon aren't the be all and end all of religious scriptures. If this is all religion you should think about what gave society it's morality, it's ideas of right and wrong.

Ive never been in a religious debate and people because its a waste of time IMO, to have an antagonistic argument over the belief of a godis just ridiculous and speaksmore about the worst parts of humanity: Ignorance and Intolerance.

If you've just passed judgement on something you've never experienced, what does that say about your tolerance?

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Who said I passed judgement you dont have to experience an event to have an opinion on it.

Who the hell are you yo tell me what I can judge!?

So how does Science explain the afterlife? Thunderstorms and other phenomenon aren't the be all and end all of religious scriptures. If this is all religion you should think about what gave society it's morality, it's ideas of right and wrong.

I did not say it was the be all and end all.

Its ust merely an example of where the roots of religion started, 10,000 years ago before your religions how do you think Man understood the world? not the way he does today!
it was through awe and ignorance of what things really were.

Sculpting the world into a mold that a primitive brain could understand.............and this is how religion came about through the inability of men to explain things as they really were.

Take Ancient Egypt for example and other early cultures they had Gods for every bloody effect of nature and animal up the NILE! aligning them with things like storms and childbirth and other things these days we just accept as a part of life.

What gave Society its Morals and and Ideas of right and wrong?

What do you think gave it such thing? Man himself as a part of evolution chose to behave outside of his animalistic nature and it eventually manifested it self as a thing we humans refer to as Decency and Morality.

You think it came about because of some stupid book!

Eliminate the book from the process and the result is the same, Atheists dont believe in god and they are decent hard working people just like Believers and they dont go around killing each other, no more than religious people do anyway.

What about Live and let Live?

Its an expression referring to a persons desire to not do harm and have no harm done to them, I think it applies in this argument, you have people arguing about people who believe and whether they are right or wrong to do so?

Who are they really hurting?, I may not agree with there beliefs and at the very most pity people who believe in a god, but they are not hurting anyone in doing so, just like my non belief is not hurting anyone.

There are more important things in life to worry about like Climate change and financial problems in the world and people are arguing about such nonsense, if religion helps you get through life so be it but not every one has to share your beliefs, Religious or Atheist.

 

[Harlequin]

Who said I passed judgement you dont have to experience an event to have an opinion on it.

Who the hell are you yo tell me what I can judge!?

Hold the phone. Let's take another look at what I said.

If you've just passed judgement on something you've never experienced, what does that say about your tolerance?

Note the crucial use of the word if. The question mark at the end means it's not a statement, but a question, one meant for incision and one which seems to have hit it's mark; have you not just put yourself in your own shoes?

Now, aside from that very important point, you described what such discussions entailed whilst admiting to never have been involved in one. All I asked was what it said about your tolerance and I would say your snappy response showed exactly what you thought about your own statement.

I did not say it was the be all and end all.

You did say that that's all you recognised it's relevancy to man here:

I dont believe in the existence of Gods and recognise them as just a primitive mans view of how thing worked through the Attributation of phenomenon like thunderstorms and the wind to Deities of the ancient world, things we can now explain through Science which I believe in just as much as a Christain, Bhudist or a Muslim.

To which I responded it was a lot more influential than a few would-be explanations.

Sculpting the world into a mold that a primitive brain could understand.............and this is how religion came about through the inability of men to explain things as they really were.

So how do you explain morality? It sounds to me as if you're declaring these 'primitives' as lacking the knowledge you have. So tell me, what is the purpose of life? What happens after we die? How does the cosmos work?

What do you think gave it such thing? Man himself as a part of evolution chose to behave outside of his animalistic nature and it eventually manifested it self as a thing we humans refer to as Decency and Morality.

So what is Decency? What is Morality? You speak as if you've discovered the answer to these questions, so please, do share.

You think it came about because of some stupid book!

A bigoted statement. I didn't think these morals came about from a stupid book no, I think they came about through philosophy and religion compelling man.

Eliminate the book from the process and the result is the same, Atheists dont believe in god and they are decent hard working people just like Believers and they dont go around killing each other, no more than religious people do anyway.

Take religion away from someone who has grown up in a society influenced by religion? Yes, that's a balanced experiment isn't it?

Who are they really hurting?, I may not agree with there beliefs and at the very most pity people who believe in a god, but they are not hurting anyone in doing so, just like my non belief is not hurting anyone.

I won't go too far into this because I feel it would require too many posts to convey the message to you but there is a solid philosophical argument which suggests anyone living a perceived improper life is a risk to all those around that person and can influence them.

There are more important things in life to worry about like Climate change and financial problems in the world and people are arguing about such nonsense, if religion helps you get through life so be it but not every one has to share your beliefs, Religious or Atheist.

Surely you haven't compared climate change and financial problems to the afterlife?

Forget the planet for a second. You will die.

Whether you manage to prolong the lifetime of a rock has little bearing on what happens after you die.

I'm not forcing you to believe what I believe, I only wish you would show some respect to the debate and indeed to religion instead of throwing backhanded opinions at a religion which has done you no harm.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Im going to try and revamp this thread

Alright, the annoying things about atheists..
For most of them, their refusal to believe in a higher power is often ill-educated. It's actually a mathematical fact that the universe came from something. Whether it's divine or not is uncertain, but all of existence didn't just spontaneously burst out of nowhere.
I think people become so overwhelmed by the discoveries that scientists have made that they forget the 95 percent what we don't know yet. Hell, by the time it's said and done, everything we know might be wrong.
Take physics for example: It has happened quite a few times in that field of science. We once believed atoms were the smallest units. Then we discovered protons and electrons. Then we discovered neutrons. Then quarks. Then even more came about. Then we came to a conception that matter and energy are the same thing, trying to unify matter with the universal forces.
Then a reality hits us. We can't seem to unify the forces of nature. Maybe we have it all wrong?
Either way, if you educate yourself on physics, you will reach a heavy conclusion that we don't know jack shit. Atheism is for the shallow-thinker.

 

[Prince Doza]

Oh I'm going to enjoy this one!

For most of them, their refusal to believe in a higher power is often ill-educated.

An atheist's lack of belief is based on a single premise, there is absolutely NO evidence to support the existance of a supernatural being. This does not mean that an atheist denies the possibility of such a being, give us some evidence and we are on your side in a second, the truth is that despite being a regular old gossip in the Old Testement, God's been pretty quiet since then. Add to that, men living in whales, 500 year old blokes, every species on the planet on a boat, men made from dust, talking snakes etc and, well I would argue that you would have to be pretty ill-educated to believe that stuff. And don't get me started on Christians who pick and choose their religion. Any reading of the bible makes it blatantly clear that is was written by bronze age knuckle-heads. Gays are bad, slavery is good! Agnostics are no better, most think that either god exists or he doesn't so that's 50/50 right? Wrong! I urge you to familiarize yourselves with the celestial teapot.

It's actually a mathematical fact that the universe came from something.

No, no it isn't.

but all of existence didn't just spontaneously burst out of nowhere.

Why not? God did. I guarantee that the scientists who discovered protons never said, "Right, that's it lads, smallest things in the universe found, let's all relax now!" Scientists want others to work on their discoveries and even enjoy failure if it advances knowledge in the long run. Imagine a Christian saying "Oh God got it wrong there", wouldn't happen (even though HE gets it wrong pretty much every time)...

I think people become so overwhelmed by the discoveries that scientists have made that they forget the 95 percent what we don't know yet.

Ah, but here's the difference between the atheist mind and the religious mind. The Religious mind is funtamentalist, everything you need to know is written in an ancient novel. As for any discoveries we make, God did it! For anything we can't explain, God did it! It's an easy life huh? The atheist mind accepts that we know so little about the universe, but we are trying, and we don't fit a god shaped delusion to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Maybe we have it all wrong?

So better to give up and start pretending wine is blood and bread is flesh?

Atheism is for the shallow-thinker.

Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens might disagree there. But in actuality it's religion that actively encourages you not to think, just accept, be a sheep.

 

[Squid]

Wow some of the Pro religious posters are hilarious.

So how does Science explain the afterlife?

this really made me laugh because science doesn't need to explain after life, for all we know there is no after life. We could just die and be buried in the ground. You make it sound like there is proof of an after life...

There is so much more that leans towards no god, the fact that we have proven the earth and universe is over 6000 years old, all the discoveries we have made in space, the fact that we are so close to finding life on other planets etc etc.

I also like to think if there was a god why would he torture innocent people like the sick and diseased children in third world countries. Why would he make natural disasters so huge that they wipe out entire towns and kill thousands... is this all because of Adam and eve? So your god holds a grudge for 6000 years and this makes him a good man??

I dunno it all seems a little silly to me. Also I am an atheist because as a child I had my grandma read me the bible before bed each weekend and I did not enjoy having it jammed down my throat plus I love the scientific evidence vs the lack of religious evidence.

 

[coffeecup]

I realize there's a little debate going on, but I'm just going to interject to answer the OP.

I've got no problem with atheists or Christians or Muslims or whatever. It's not really the category or group that's the problem, but it just boils down to the individual. It's not the atheist or Christian who is stubborn...it's just the person. I've met a good number of people with different beliefs who listen and respond in a coherent and civil manner when they're talking about their views. Of course the contrary is true as well (as usually happens on the internet...). So I think it's a bit unfair to say "atheists are this" or "Christians are that." And to be frank...it's even more inaccurate than saying some racial stereotype because atheists and Christians span a very wide demographic that encapsulates many different cultures and origins.

So I've got no qualms with atheists or any other group for that matter, just people who talk incessantly without listening. That's a monologue, not a discussion.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I love the scientific evidence vs the lack of religious evidence.

Scientific evidence only validates it's own premise. It does not in any way, shape, or form discredit theism.
And vice versa. Religion does not discredit science in any way, shape, or form.

I always found this funny because it's like: Believe in God or believe in General Relativity... Can they not both exist?

And I'll say this to save extra argument: Is it or isn't it possible that bc something dates 100000 years old, that a God didn't set it into the universe that old? Carbon dating doesn't go against the Bible. The Bible does not go against carbon dating..
I could think of many other things, but you get the picture//

And one more thing: atheism is for people who don't believe there is anything beyond their sight// yet they go on and on about universal truth and logic, which ventures beyond their sight. Atheists go against theism in terms of what is and what isn't in front of them. But what's in front of them proves nothing.
???

Einstein believed in God. And he invented an explanation of gravity,, the most mysterious force,, in the universe..

 

[Kei]

Einstein was an agnostic. However, he said he believed in Spinoza's god (Impersonal, doesn't judge man-kind etc) not the god you're talking about but he never denied the possibility of a God, so really his name doesn't back you up one bit.

Also, what makes me laugh, is how religious people go all the time about how it's not acceptable that the universe just happened. However, it's acceptable, that an even mightier being who created this universe just happened and came out of nowhere. Very logical indeed.

Btw, if God was so smart and understands us well since we're his beings, he couldn't just understands us from the first time? He had to send a lot of prophets?

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't some annoying atheists out there, there are, and they can be even more annoying than religious people (have a friend who's like that -.- ).

I don't care what others believe, I will have nothing to say about their religion, as long as they don't try to "guide" me to their right path, if hell is where I'm ending by your religion, then let it be, I'd be more happy to die believing what I want to believe than die believing something out of fear.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Einstein was an agnostic. However, he said he believed in Spinoza's god (Impersonal, doesn't judge man-kind etc) not the god you're talking about but he never denied the possibility of a God, so really his name doesn't back you up one bit.

Also, what makes me laugh, is how religious people go all the time about how it's not acceptable that the universe just happened. However, it's acceptable, that an even mightier being who created this universe just happened and came out of nowhere. Very logical indeed.

God or no god, I find the presumption that the universe came out of nowhere ridiculous. It falls back on the laws of physics itself. It's an anomaly that science fails to answer.

Did Einstein discredit a god? No, so you prove no point whatsoever. He believed in a creator,. pretty much kills that argument, friend. This is another problem with atheists. They are more contradicting than the matter they argue against.

And the sad part is that I, myself, am only agnostic. But you know what keeps me from being an atheist? The fact that, with our current knowledge of the universe, a supreme deity is actually a plausible explanation. Can anyone prove it wrong? If you can, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

A typical atheist would say: it's wrong because there's no proof. why am i going to believe something that isn't proven?

Yeah, I'll just go ahead and believe something that has also yet to be proven. Forget this huge monument, I'm going to trust this tiny little brick on the side instead.

If nobody could look up at the sky, does that mean the sky isn't blue?

I am not saying God is real. I'm saying the idea has not been proven wrong, or even challenged, really. If you thought about it really hard, you'd see that. In fact, it's so obvious to me that it almost hurts to see people brag on about atheism: the dullest, most redundant, close-minded theory ever.

I hate to be condemning, but this surely the only way to get the point across.

Atheists believe that the universe just happened, but physics say that it came from something. So what is atheism really?
It's contradiction sprung from contradiction. Technically, it's better to have blind faith than to believe something that isn't stated in any book at all.

And don't get me wrong, theists can be close-minded to, but atheism is what makes my blood boil. I'm not strung up on the idea of them not believing in a god, I'm strung up on the lack of intuition that stems from it.