What Makes People NOT believe In God? (Atheists Come!)

Frank Apisa wrote:

there seems to be no way to repair whatever strands have been torn between us.

Try duct tape - there's somethin' everybody can believe in :wink:

0 Replies

That you would rather it repaired is enough for me to call it even and start clean - how about you?

0 Replies

Looky there - snood brought his own roll of duct tape.

Cool.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

That you would rather it repaired is enough for me to call it even and start clean - how about you?

Let's go for it.

I like you, Snood.

When I mentioned a while back that I was concerned for your safety (not an especially safe line of work you are in right now!)...

...I meant it! Sincerely!

I also want to go on record as saying that I am more appreciative of what you people in the military do to keep my worthless ass safe...than I can possibly put into words.

And I will close with a sincere, honest apology for the several digs I have taken at you for whatever reasons I have used to justify my them.

Surely, considering the differences in our perspective, we will continue to have substantial differences on many matters that will be discussed here...and I hope that we can both do that in a reasonable, respectful and intelligent way.

I pledge that I will do so to the best of my abilities.

0 Replies

I'll try as well.

I only know one other avowed agnostic personally - he is a physician and a recovering addict. So, I can say with complete honesty that all the agnostics I know are very interesting!

0 Replies

uh, I just got home.

i became a devout agnostic when I had a chance to read the Gnostic gospels, The Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Peter or jerome, etc etc. I was aasked to read them by my Jesuit tteacher in high School , and we discussed how the gospels were selectively chosen by aagenda.
FAather Gerry (his naame at school) has quit the priesthood and marriied . Hes about 75 years old now and we still exchange e-maail. Ive tried to interest him in abuzz and , now a2k. hes polite but not interested in further prosylitizing , since he is now, as he closes in on his lifes end, having second thoughts.

0 Replies

thanks for sharing.

0 Replies

Something that I find really amusing this time of year is that Christians are always shunning comercialization and non-jesus icons for the holiday.

They say things like, "Remember the reason for the season."

But if you think about it, the reason for the season is the winter solstice. The christans picked up the holiday from the pegans in order to gain more converts.

So, remember the reason for the season - the astronomical position of the sun.

(side note: isn't it strange how "sun" and "son" sound similar in our language and are at the root of peganism/christianity?)

For the record, I am an agnostic. I argued in a long thread about how theists make the same basic logical flaw as atheists - Belief completely unsupported by evidence.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

... They say things like, "Remember the reason for the season."

But if you think about it, the reason for the season is the winter solstice ...

Absolutely. Its high time and far beyond we all should set ourselves to putting Sol back into The Solstice. Enough of these theistic and materialistic hijackings alike. This is the time of year to celebrate the bounty of the past harvest and hunts, the soundness of our dwellings, the haleness of our livestock, the fortitude of our warriors, the fellowship of our fellow survivors, and to focus ourselves on the bounty and comfort and booty sure to follow upon the lengthening of days as benificently granted us by ever-watchful, ever-dependable Sol.

Now shove that yule log a little further into the firepit, pass around more mead, and bring in the dancing bears. 'Tis the season for it!

0 Replies

Quote:

I argued in a long thread about how theists make the same basic logical flaw as atheists - Belief completely unsupported by evidence.

I don't see it quite that way. The agnostic -the only one of the three positions that cannot possibly be correct- refuses to take a position because there isn't enough evidence either way. The atheist and the theist evalutate, and make judgement calls, based on the evidence that does exist, meager though it may be. What is the evidence? The universe we live in.

Atheists could be wrong; theists could be wrong. But its hard to think of any development in human history, good or bad, that resulted from a refusal to make a guess or take a stand.

The chief agnostic contribution to humanity -and it is a valuable one- is to point out that we should be tolerant of guesses at odds with our own. But progress, in science, the arts, commerce, and the human condition, will continue to come chiefly from those who play hunches, and not from those who wait for an unknown someone to produce a complete instruction manual.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

Quote:
I argued in a long thread about how theists make the same basic logical flaw as atheists - Belief completely unsupported by evidence.

I don't see it quite that way. The agnostic -the only one of the three positions that cannot possibly be correct- refuses to take a position because there isn't enough evidence either way. The atheist and the theist evalutate, and make judgement calls, based on the evidence that does exist, meager though it may be. What is the evidence? The universe we live in.

Atheists could be wrong; theists could be wrong. But its hard to think of any development in human history, good or bad, that resulted from a refusal to make a guess or take a stand.

The chief agnostic contribution to humanity -and it is a valuable one- is to point out that we should be tolerant of guesses at odds with our own. But progress, in science, the arts, commerce, and the human condition, will continue to come chiefly from those who play hunches, and not from those who wait for an unknown someone to produce a complete instruction manual.

I think you are failing to separate god as a general human concept across time and place from individual dieties.

Individual dieties, such as Jesus, Inanna, Muhammed, Pharos, etc. are all ascribed traits which can be evaluated. The same for religous text.

But the general concept of a creator-type-being is so broad, it is impossible to define consistently much less collect evidence on. What if god is just the word for what created everything, but isn't some kind of human-like being? What if god is something larger that we are a tiny part of? What if god existed and died?

Pretend that this is a trial. We couldn't convict without any evidence. We can't say, no god doesn't absolutely doesn't exist.

We also couldn't say, yes, based on evidence, god does absolutely does exist.

This is because there is no evidence on god as a general concept. We can't even provide a stable definition of the concept of god.

So, out of trust for the scientific method and necessity for evidence in that process, I am an agnostic.

I doubt this argument could ever collect evidence - as it is very similar to the invisible pink elephant/unicorn argument.

Highly unlikely is different than absolutely impossible.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

Quote:
I argued in a long thread about how theists make the same basic logical flaw as atheists - Belief completely unsupported by evidence.

I don't see it quite that way. The agnostic -the only one of the three positions that cannot possibly be correct- refuses to take a position because there isn't enough evidence either way. The atheist and the theist evalutate, and make judgement calls, based on the evidence that does exist, meager though it may be.

There is another way of putting that last part, Greyfan...and it involves the words, "...make wild guesses and pretend they are evaluations."

And insofar as we KNOW at the moment, agnosticism is the only one of the three which it the truth at this moment.

Quote:

What is the evidence? The universe we live in.

That may or may not be all the evidence...but whether it is or isn't...the fact remains that both sides use that meager, ambiguous evidence to justify its wild guess.

And it is not the guesses...which even agnostics acknowledge form the basis for learning...with which the agnostic takes exception. It is the fact that there are factions of both sides who insist their guess is more than a guess...and is, in fact, knowledge.

We have atheists here in A2K who assert: "There are no gods, period!"

We have theists here in A2K who assert: There definitely is a God."

We have atheists here in A2K who assert: "I know there are no gods."

We have theists here in A2K who assert: "I know there is a God."

It is that part of atheism and theism with which the agnostic takes issue.

As I have often pointed out...there are many agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. No problem there at all.

Quote:

Atheists could be wrong; theists could be wrong. But its hard to think of any development in human history, good or bad, that resulted from a refusal to make a guess or take a stand.

I agree...but so what? What make you suppose agnostics cannot make a guess???

I am as agnostics as they come...but I have no problem making guesses upon which "developments in human history" can proceed.

Quote:

The chief agnostic contribution to humanity -and it is a valuable one- is to point out that we should be tolerant of guesses at odds with our own.

The chief agnostic contribution to humanity is to provide a philosphical perspective that shows theism and atheism in their pure form...to be absurdities.

Quote:

But progress, in science, the arts, commerce, and the human condition, will continue to come chiefly from those who play hunches, and not from those who wait for an unknown someone to produce a complete instruction manual.

A gratuitous slur of agnosticism...which I hope I returned in kind.

0 Replies

Hey Frank

I think you know there is probably not much real difference between our points of view...I am comfortable "guessing" there is no God but I realize it is only a guess.

Both you and Portal Star are comfortable dismissing the claims for God that are usually made as without proof; I am, obviously, of the same opinion.

The crux of the issue, then, is whether or not a God (or Gods) exists who does not issue orders and commandments to his creation; a God who, to put it bluntly, does not meet the usual definition of God. You claim that we cannot know if such a God exists, and I agree; I would take it one step further and add that God Himself could not know if such a God exists.

If you think leaving the door open for this remote, unapproachable God is important, you might call yourself an agnostic. If you think a more important consideration is that this theoretical remote, unapproachable God has no bearing on human life, you might be more inclined to call yourself an atheist.

The root beliefs are the same, but the emphasis is different.

0 Replies

The flesh is emnity to God, and that which is flesh cannot understand that which is spirit. People basically look for the answers of the spirit in the world of the flesh. The spirit is like the wind, nobody knows where it is coming from and nobody knows where it goes, but everybody knows it exists. Now, why don't atheists believe in God, simply because they don't want to know, because knowing that He does exist would imply that there is somehting greater than themselves. Which in turn would make them feel insignificant, because of the fact that there is a greater power than the self. Also, if God would exist to an atheist it would mean that he has no control over his own life and basically has to live reactively and not proactively. Alhtough proactive living is really impossible, but the illusion of it does make a man feel more powerful. This is basically my opinion.

Oh yeah, and I still love Eintstein's saying:

"Little philosophy leads you away from God, much philosophy leads you to God."

0 Replies

1. umm, we can know where wind goes and is coming from. Inapt annalogy.

2. I think its more egoistic to think that a god created us, although im agnostic, i think that the belief that a god made you specially, draws people to belief. It makes them feel special. Its really just an antihistemine for real life.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

Hey Frank

I think you know there is probably not much real difference between our points of view...I am comfortable "guessing" there is no God but I realize it is only a guess.

Both you and Portal Star are comfortable dismissing the claims for God that are usually made as without proof; I am, obviously, of the same opinion.

The crux of the issue, then, is whether or not a God (or Gods) exists who does not issue orders and commandments to his creation; a God who, to put it bluntly, does not meet the usual definition of God. You claim that we cannot know if such a God exists, and I agree; I would take it one step further and add that God Himself could not know if such a God exists.

If you think leaving the door open for this remote, unapproachable God is important, you might call yourself an agnostic. If you think a more important consideration is that this theoretical remote, unapproachable God has no bearing on human life, you might be more inclined to call yourself an atheist.

The root beliefs are the same, but the emphasis is different.

You are turning our logic problem into an emotional argument. The scientific method doesn't have a process for emotional thought, that is why it is infalliable. (People are falliable, the method - if used perfectly - is infalliable.)

And, how could god himself not know if he existed if we have no definition for god? We aren't even assuming god is some kind of concious being (being that we can't consistently define it), so this argument makes no sense.

Think about it like this:
Complete unknown entity is not aware of complete unknown entity (self-existance)
That's not much of an argument.

0 Replies

SmokingFire wrote:

The flesh is emnity to God, and that which is flesh cannot understand that which is spirit. People basically look for the answers of the spirit in the world of the flesh. The spirit is like the wind, nobody knows where it is coming from and nobody knows where it goes, but everybody knows it exists. Now, why don't atheists believe in God, simply because they don't want to know, because knowing that He does exist would imply that there is somehting greater than themselves. Which in turn would make them feel insignificant, because of the fact that there is a greater power than the self. Also, if God would exist to an atheist it would mean that he has no control over his own life and basically has to live reactively and not proactively. Alhtough proactive living is really impossible, but the illusion of it does make a man feel more powerful. This is basically my opinion.

Oh yeah, and I still love Eintstein's saying:

"Little philosophy leads you away from God, much philosophy leads you to God."

Being that the proven statistic is: "The more education you get, the less likely you are to be religious"

I'd say Einstein should stick to physics and leave morality be.

0 Replies

Here is a link to a site that pretty much debunks the notion that Einstein "believed in" a God such as SF wants to paint him "believing in."

http://www.2think.org/einstein.shtml

0 Replies

Earth is less than a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things. In all of history the only known time a notion of a god has existed is in the final eyeblink and only on Earth, come from the overactive imagination of specks on the speck. Anyone holding out hope of a god, I have some mighty nice ocean front property to sell you in Kansas City.

0 Replies

How do you know there is no God, edgar?

0 Replies

What Makes People NOT believe In God? (Atheists Come!)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know