Atheists...

@Ennui phil,

Quote:

I do not believe god ever existed... Why would I go out of my way to believe in it?

Are these statements related? To answer the second one first: you should not go out of your way to believe in god. As to the first statement, what is it for god to exist? What sufficient conditions are to be met in order for us to agree that god exists? Perhaps we cannot meet these conditions, but writing off the whole notion as obviously silly seems, well, silly. Stranger notions have been offered and embraced in philosophy.

Quote:

Sometimes God had under oath to save humanity from all types of disasters or trails but He did not help,apparently He is indolent.People spend their time praying for remedy but He did not help,was He ignoring or no probity is inside His heart?

He cited that people whom had faith in Him would not suffer so much but is this genuine?It is unfeasible to everyone.He might even not exist,and some have hitherto been duped by His existence and praying with resolution.

Perhaps these people do not understand the role of prayer. Are they praying for God to swoop down upon the earth and change something?
In crisis, everyone prays for this to happen, but most of us know that this is futile.

As for faith - what is it? Do I have faith because I say "I have faith"? Are these some magic words that take away all of the pain? Or is faith something that must be cultivated, something to work at everyday, a struggle? Jesus certainly struggled with his faith, several times in the Bible.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

When exactly did I "write off the whole notion as silly"? Did it not occur to you that you are not the only one who understands what it is to believe in god, and thoroughly considered the "evidence" supporting such an existence?
[QUOTE]
What sufficient conditions are to be met in order for us to agree that god exists?
[/QUOTE]
Proof, perhaps?

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

Quote:

When exactly did I "write off the whole notion as silly"? Did it not occur to you that you are not the only one who understands what it is to believe in god, and thoroughly considered the "evidence" supporting such an existence?

I never said you did write off the notion of God. I used the word "we". That means both of us. The idea is that a conversation is taking place, and the two of us are involved. That we are both interested in the subject, and that both of us have given the subject some consideration.

Quote:

Proof, perhaps?

And what would this proof amount to? What sort of "proof" would be proof of God?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Proof that he exists? Something that has clearly not yet been offered.

2 Replies

@AtheistDeity,

You are still haven't answered the question, though.

This is an important issue, too. How will we know proof of god should we stumble upon it if we cannot say what that proof would look like? How can we say that we do not have proof of god if we cannot even say what sort of proof that might be?

To say that proof of god has clearly not been offered musn't we first know what proof of god would be?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

... a physical presence. If people could actually see "god", and scientifically prove his existance-and of couse visual proof of him performing a miracle, or other act only "he" could do.
Have you honestly never thought of this on your oun?

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

Quote:

... a physical presence. If people could actually see "god", and scientifically prove his existance-and of couse visual proof of him performing a miracle, or other act only "he" could do.
Have you honestly never thought of this on your oun?

Yes, I have given the subject consideration. Again, that is why we are having the conversation - because we are people interested in the same topic.

You say "a physical presence". What is a physical presence? For example, if I think about god, there are physical occurrences in my brain - a physical presence of god. We could witness these physical occurrences on certain machinery that modern science has developed.

The sort of evidence that would give proof of god's existence depends on the particular notion of god we are referring to. What is to be said of the pantheist? We certainly cannot deny that the universe does not exist, and for the pantheist, if the universe exists, god exists.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yes, I have given the subject consideration. Again, that is why we are having the conversation - because we are people interested in the same topic.

You say "a physical presence". What is a physical presence? For example, if I think about god, there are physical occurrences in my brain - a physical presence of god. We could witness these physical occurrences on certain machinery that modern science has developed.

The sort of evidence that would give proof of god's existence depends on the particular notion of god we are referring to. What is to be said of the pantheist? We certainly cannot deny that the universe does not exist, and for the pantheist, if the universe exists, god exists.

Indeed,your answer is genuine and intuitive,practical.

0 Replies

@AtheistDeity,

AtheistDeity;27276 wrote:

Proof that he exists? Something that has clearly not yet been offered.

I am just wondering...

You say that you are an atheist, which means that you believe that god does not exist. But then how did you prove to yourself that there is no god? Simply because the concept is not yet proven by science, or visible to your eyes, or what? Because there are many phenomena, acknowledged by science, that are neither visible nor "proven" by science, yet they do exist in some form.

I fail to see how someone can at one time say that others' proof of god is insufficient (I would agree), but then at the same time claim that his own proof of no god IS sufficient. When both "proofs" have not withstood the test of reason.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

I never claimed to disprove god existed. The theory of "god" is something born purely of the imagination of man-not a theory born of evidences itself, but something stated as fact in the lack of. To believe in "god" one would have to go out of their way from believing that which has been proven, and believing pure imagination, whether because it gave them a certain feeling, or they simply thought it a convenient blanket explanation to assume of the universe, life, and any other relating issues they might be concerned with. Often that which they have come across in a book, or from another's word, and not their own logical assessment.
You cannot scientifically prove, disprove nor interact scientifically in any way with a scientifically incompatible existence, or idea.

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

Yes, this is all fine. But what I am wondering is how you have arrived at being an atheist then, which means that you specifically believe a god does not exist. You had to arrive at some type of proof in your mind to come to this conclusion. Being an agnostic seems to be logically consistent, in that you do not claim to know one way or the other, because if you do, there is probably some faulty reasoning involved.

I can equally see reasons where, regardless of myth reading or instruction, a person might conclude that a higher power exists in this world, as I can see that someone might not. Somewhere though, in calling yourself an atheist, you decided that it is significantly more likely that a god does not exist, rather than just deciding you can't be sure. I'm wondering how you arrived at this decision.

This type of reasoning works in the sciences, where you look at what is likely and unlikely based on experimental results. But I see a problem when you apply it to a concept such as god/higher power, because the definition of such a concept includes that it could simply be beyond human understanding, or at least out of our grasp enough to where you can't definitively say one thing or another on the topic.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

So, because no one can prove that the Easter Bunny, does, or does not exist it would be 'logical' to base my beliefs on it? A religious "theory" is no more significant. Neither have any actual proof, both are products of human imagination, both offer something that, as human beings, people tend to pursue, with the strongest argument of their validity in it's lack of proof. Religion, in my view, considering the often inconsistent argument of its conception, lack of evidence, and probability, let alone proof is not worth basing 'beliefs' on. Were it not for its popularity, emotional appeal, and philosophical "relevance" of the blanket assumption of the only true philosophy of all existence no one would give the matter any more say, or value than that of the tooth fairy. As an Atheist I believe what I do based only on theories that have been proven not ideas made likely for the sake of not being possible to be disproven.

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

Belief in a religion and belief in a higher power or god are not the same. Yes, people adopt religious views because they are instructed to do so by others, but the concept of god or higher power does not need religion; it inspires the creation of religions or belief structures. I think that if all religious ideas were somehow to vanish, many people would still conclude that there is a god/higher power.

I do understand what your view, but I just think that the concept can not be reasonably considered to a point where you can even say one is more likely than the other. This concept I refer to is a broad concept of god or higher power. If you mean "God" in the judeo-christian sense, or white Zeus with flowing beard sitting in the heaven chucking thunderbolts at unsuspecting humans, then it is logical not to believe in such nonsense, and comparable to the easter bunny. If you however consider this concept equally, as defined throughout every religion or belief structure, it does not seem to me that the general proposition of this higher power is likely to be either false or true, based on our reasoning.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Actually I never said either was more likely than the other. No one will ever 'know' whether or not there is an Easter Bunny, as they will never 'know' whether or not there is a "god", nor the true validity of any given religion. Neither concept is more credible than the other. Religious morals, principles, or beliefs, like any other 'moral', or principle are no more provable, nor factual, and credible than the 'teachings', of the tooth fairy, if there were such a thing, either. As an Atheist I would never base my beliefs of what is truth, and fact on insubstantial, blanket philosophies that, from no mere coincidence in my opinion, can neither be substantially, and undeniably proven, nor disproved by any range of known, credible inquiry.

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

AtheistDeity;27565 wrote:

Actually I never said either was more likely than the other...

If this is what you think, then you should change your name to AgnosticDeity. Smile

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

I suppose I'll have to repeat myself.
[QUOTE]
So, because no one can prove that the Easter Bunny, does, or does not exist it would be 'logical' to base my beliefs on it? A religious "theory" is no more significant. Neither have any actual proof, both are products of human imagination, both offer something that, as human beings, people tend to pursue, with the strongest argument of their validity in it's lack of proof. Religion, in my view, considering the often inconsistent argument of its conception, lack of evidence, and probability, let alone proof is not worth basing 'beliefs' on. Were it not for its popularity, emotional appeal, and philosophical "relevance" of the blanket assumption of the only true philosophy of all existence no one would give the matter any more say, or value than that of the tooth fairy. As an Atheist I believe what I do based only on theories that have been proven not ideas made likely for the sake of not being possible to be disproven.
[/QUOTE]
Are you going even going to bother challenging my theories or are you going to continue conveniently disregarding my posts?

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

I don't know what "theories" you are referring to. You just keep pointing out the obvious: the burden of proving god lies with the theists/deists. What I am trying to get down to is the definition of "Atheist". An "Atheist" is defined as a person who believes that god does not exist. You said yourself in response to an earlier question that neither the belief of god or belief in no god is any more likely than the other (or at least you implied it by clearly staying you never said it). In order to reach the point where you are an atheist (a belief that there is no god), you first have to determine that the existence of no god is more likely than the existence of a god, when considering the options. If you can not determine this, or if you believe that this can not be determined, then that is being agnostic.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

It is more likely for something that has likely been specifically structured to be unable to be either proven, disproven, or in any other way interacted with by means of any known credible approach of inquiry, something based on a theory that has been modified, and changed numerous times throughout history, something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago when science, technology, and theology, and problem solving was highly unevolved, something created by someone who's credibility, and honesty cannot be observed in present time, and something with the theory and conception itself containing uncountable inconsistencies, to be untrue, statistically, and logically if not provably. It is no more worth a religious theory, something that can be neither proven, disproven, tested, nor challenged credibly in any known way to determine my beliefs, and philosophy than that of the tooth fairy.

0 Replies

@SantaMonica1369,

http://www.craschworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/tadah_jesus.jpg

Just something to think about for you theists. Not saying that it is bad to be a theist.

1 Reply

@MITech,

This is just simply not a depiction of theism, MIT. With most theists and all the ones on the forum here, common sense advocates their theistic beliefs as equally as atheistic beliefs.

Lets not have this as something to "think" about because common sense is not faith.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know