A subject I like to discuss is how much athiesm is logical or scientific (as its folowers claim it to be)?? Personally, I only found them to claim that God's existance can't be proven, and when confronted with proof they change the subject or ask questions which are basically self contradicted ( I ment the question itself ). And they only attack religion ( any religion ) by taking the verse out of its context to builed a false case!! They claim to follow ethical principals with no need to religion at the time religion is the source of ethics and it is only by it that you come to refuse something ethically or not, religion is built into the social thinking, weither you are a beleiver or not, you are affected by it. My conclusion about athiesm is that it is only a way to give themselves a reason why they are (athiests) committed to nothing!! But that's only my opinion!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think that athiesm takes faith, just like every other religion, because there is no absolute proof either way.
Rigorous proof has never been a hallmark of religion, so why should athiests have to prove anything? I find atheism to be sensible because everywhere there have been people, they have made up stories to fit their life into a mythological context. It serves a psychological need (or weakness), and should be understood as much. There are better things to commit yourself to, like making the world a nice place to live, or discovering the real nature of existence.
How can you not understand atheism? Unless you believe all current and past religions are correct, you understand how atheism works.
Only a fool should believe there is no god. It would be to deny your own creation and purpose. Without that, what is the point in living? So, you give yourself a point to live for, a point to live for is a point to live for. A point to create life itself. We are a creation, somethings' creation. We create, we destroy, we create.
I find that people who believe in a religion usually judge it using the same standards in which they were raised; and they were raised by the same standards that particular religion dictates. For example, I was raised without the idea of God. When I heard about it, it sounded comical, how could anyone believe that? ...and the reasoning just didn't make any sense to me, it was like a foriegn language. But, some of my peers, raised to believe in God, were incredulous when I suggested there wasn't such a thing. What, they asked, was keeping me from killing people? Of course, I had no wish to kill anyone, and neither did they, but they thought that fear of God was vital to maintain the social order. Atheism is scientific in the sense that it starts with a level playing field. It doubts the original suppositions that we base our observations on. Doubt is scientific. It is the only way to be objective. Starting with nothing, we can then observe events with an unprejudiced eye. Also, there is in science less of a need for the idea of God. More and more is being explained in other ways. The institutions of God have also been proven wrong about many things, like the Sun revolving around the Earth, so its credibility has largely evaporated.
This is most likely a waste of my time, but here goes. Prooving God's non-existance: First of all, read the burden of proof thread in this section. Second of all, every attempt to prove that some entity with the qualities attributed a god being has been disproven. So. When an Atheist says: give me a proof or something testable that says that this entity exists, they are just saying, come on man, I need something more than prove that God doesn't exist. If an theist wants to believe in god purely based on faith, then that's fine, but proof goes out the window. There has to be falsifiabilty be able to be considered a proof -- pure faith denies that. So. I have no idea where you are getting that atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist, and it shouldn't matter, since there is nothing to disprove as of now, seeing as how all the proofs have been disproven. As far as taking verses out of context, I find that Christianity is the most fond of using their bible as a salad bar. They like some of it but not the whole bar itself. To put this into context let me remind you of where the phrase, 'faith can move a mountainl,' came from. To paraphrase, Jesus kills a fig tree because he is mad it is not in season. When asked how and why he did this, he says, 'with faith you can move a mountain.' This has never been mentioned in any discussion I've heard about this, and I've heard it quoted quite often. In any event, why would verses matter, they don't concern god much. As for having principles without a belief in god, I think you are a bit misguided. To have absolute truths, as in smashing a baby's skull is Wrong, with a capital w, you need god. But to believe it is just wrong, with a lowercase w, you don't. As seen as early as Plato's Republic and continuing with modern writers today, democracy is the ability for people to govern themselves and decide what is right and wrong. You don't need a god for a group of people to agree upon some laws to govern themselves. And if you look around people don't all have the same laws. That's sorta the beauty of democracy, the people have the power to decide how to rule themselves, not some monarch. As for Atheists holding onto nothing, I think it is quite the other way around. Would you rather be told what to believe or have to figure it out for yourself? Would you rather be attacked and called a heathen, or be welcomed into the masses and told you are one of the chosen people? Jean Paul Sartre put it best an essay of his. It is included in Christianity on Trial in the Atheism section. In any event. I'm not sure you've spent much time examining the atheistic viewpoint, I'd encourage you to examine a bit more before passing judgement on it. And remember Mathew, 'Judge not lest you be judged yourself.'
The evidence against God is circumstantial. The idea of God was created specifically so it could not be disproven. This was done by describing a thing with no fixed characteristics, no observable matter or energy, no consistency of action, and no response that could be distinguishable from random occurances. I could create an idea of something so insubstantial and indefinite too, and call it Bog. What is your proof that Bog does not exist? Bog was God's creator, and contained both good and evil. Does it take faith to say there is no Bog? The best circumstantial proof for the non-existence of God is the fact that Churches often get hit by lightning and burn to the ground. (Also, millions of religious people are atheists, they are called Buddhists.)
There isnt any proof either way, the best arguement for god anyone seems to have is 'this book says god exists and its his words therefore he must', and the books are fallable despite being 'gods words', so you see there isnt any proof, and no they dont change the subject or avoid questions thats what religion does, and same goes for self contradictory. Some arnt taken out of context, and sometimes the verses used are ones already quoted in the same arguement by religious people to justify there own views, so they contradict themselves with their own verses. Principals can be developed without religion, example: If you kill you may feel remorse and therefore draw the conclusion killing isnt a great idea as it makes you feel bad and somebody else stops living, now where does religion enter into it? And as for ethics religion can be cruel and even justify killing, need i say more? Why should you be committed to anything? And who says they arnt, im committed to enjoying life while it lasts, and i dont need a god for that. By the way as for the proof of god matter it depends what god you wish to argue for.
Yaz, Atheism isn’t a religion and doesn’t have followers, dogma, or a set of rules. Some atheists are scientific and logical and others are irrational idiots, and everything in between. You cannot group all atheists together and say anything about the group other than they all disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. What proof do you mean? Please tell us so we can judge the credibility of your claim. Some might and others will not. Again you cannot group all atheists together on such matters. Why not give actual examples and allow the atheists here to respond and then you can judge. That is only because of millennia of superstition and ignorance that has attributed human devised morality to fictional deities. All religions were created by men and many were used ruthlessly as a ruling force by past totalitarian and authoritarian governments. But today in a much more free society for most of us (Islam is still several hundred years behind at this point) we can now generate codes of ethics and morality that can be entirety based on rational thinking rather than ancient out-dated mythologies and values more suited to ignorant times. Then perhaps you should read something authoritative about atheism rather than simply regurgitate religious prejudice. But atheism does not claim anything more than an opposition to theism, the people that are atheists usually follow other positive philosophies as a way of life, e.g. secular humanism, etc. The error in your outlook is that you are trying to view atheism as if it is an alternate religion with rules and dogma like other religions, but it is an entirely different paradigm, and incomparable in that regard. Clearly. Kat
Athiests have just as much proof and reasoning in their beliefs as one who follows an organized religion. I feel that both are wrong though as they're both each an extreme. One says there is no God and the other says their is and tries to define it. Basically both are using absolutes and that's wrong. As Buddah said, the middle road is the key. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
You're not seeming to get it. People realize that some things just don't exist. The classical example is saying there are dancing monkeys or whatnot in some hard to find place, or dancing pink elephants. I like to use invisible green apples, but who really cares. Anyways, lets say that I say there are 12 dancing monkeys in New York City, running around maniacally. You say I don't believe you. So I say, okay, I'll show you. We go there, no monkeys. Then you say, see, I told you there weren't crazy dancing monkeys here in NYC. So I say, well, I think they moved over to the Bronx. Over to the Bronx we go, no monkeys. This happens for around 2,000 years. And after that time you say, okay man, I really don't think your monkeys exist. And I reply, well that's just faith, you have no proof my monkeys don't exist, I am just as right to believe in my monkeys as you are to believe that they don't exist. So there it is. You can add to it as well. Instead of saying that it's faith to not believe in them, I could have said the classical phrase, 'well prove my monkeys don't exist.' You can't. There isn't anything to disprove. Burden of proof at work. After you say, well, I can't disprove them. I say, 'see! they must exist!' It's just flawed logic.
Neildo, Most atheists do not hold a belief but simple disbelief. But I’m sure you know that you are only referring to the less common ‘strong’ version of atheism, right? And thus propagating the outdated concept of atheism. That isn’t mainstream atheism. But there is no middle road – either you believe in a god or you don’t. There are only theists and non-theists (atheists). Kat
Enigma, Ahh I love this tactic. This demonstrates the true weakness and hypocrisy of the theist case. The attempt here is to discredit atheism by saying – “look they don’t have any evidence and can only use faith just like us”. Isn’t this an outright theist admission that faith is useless? And that despite their continual protestations that all you need is faith. Kat
I think the point is that the whole god issue cancles itself out because all that props it up is faith.
