It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Don't You Belive In God???

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kirev
 


If a religion is a group of people that hold similar beliefs, then why isn't 9/11 Truth a religion? Why isn't String Theory a religion? Why isn't the Pro-Choice Movement a religion? Why isn't there a Church of PETA and a series of Greenpeace scriptures? Where are all the Atkins Diet Evangelists and Vegan Missionaries? Why is there no Secret Brotherhood of the New York Rangers Should Take the Cup Every Year?

I think the answer is quite obvious. A religion is more than just what you believe, be it true or not. Atheism is not a belief system, it's not a set of guidelines to live your life by, nor does it deal directly with concepts of judgment or an afterlife. Saying that Atheism is a religion merely because it deals in the belief of a supernatural entity is a false analogy. It is not a religion. It is a term that describes someone who does not believe in a higher power. To quote a friend, Atheism belongs in a list of religions just as much as abstinence belongs in the Kama Sutra. And before you say:

"Well what about people who list 'Atheist' as their religious views when they're asked to provide it?"

they do it for the same reasons that people choose "d) None of the Above" on a multiple choice exam - because they know that all of the other answers are not the best choice for the question presented. Think of it as responding to the question "Would you like apple or cherry pie" with the answer "no thanks, I'm not hungry". Last I checked, "no thanks I'm not hungry" wasn't something you could bake in a crust and serve with ice cream.

[edit on 4/12/2007 by Thousand]




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angus65

Of course not, leprechauns are small folk. They don't fly, you're confusing them with fairies.


No. I just know about these ones, and since no one can prove they don't exist, they therefore must exist?!

Or did I get the fundamental concept wrong?




Never heard of an invisible horse,


Oh they must exist however, as there is no proof that they do not !


but I have heard of a six foot tall invisible rabbit.


An uber easter bunny. I don't think so, or we'd have humongous easter eggs!!


Wait - I suspect a paradox here.. Yegads !!



And gorillas have always struck me as drummers not singers.


You may just have that one.. It's quite possible. It would be the chimpanzees who bellow the sweet tunes!!


But seriously, I'm not going to be able to prove to you that God exists. Conversely, you will never be able to prove to me that God doesn't exist. It is simply a matter of faith. Of course I could find examples of "faith" used in mathematics or science, given enough time and resources.


I never attempted to. I merely, and successfully I may add, pointed out that by using lack of evidence to prove existence, you therefore MUST accept that everything exists.

Otherwise you would have to admit that you are being selective and ignoring the facts in regards to the existence of a belief.


One example I do know off the top of my head is the parallel postulate which is used in Euclidean Geometry. There has never (as far as I know) been a successful proof of the postulate, yet it is accepted as true. Being accepted as true. it is used to prove the mid-segment theorem.

So using your logic...if there is no proof, it is not true...our understanding of geometry is flawed and therefore much of our modern math and sciences are wrong.


I prefer to quote Adam's Stance in reply to such autocratic promulgation - "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Let's abase the situation - You claim God exists, because lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence - hence a lack of evidence of non-existence proves actual existence.

So, lets keep it on an even keel.

Why then, do not giant leprechauns that fly, invisible horses that live on roof tops and eat rainbows or 6 legged gorillas that can sing opera NOT exist?




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tenryuu
And since the etymology of the word is derived from one of the root cultures/languages of English (i.e., Greek), it is still correct to use it with respect to this argument. If you want to place all of your arguments within a rhetorical framework that ignores several thousand years of culture and history, by all means, let me know when you're going to do that so I can stop reading your posts. And, as always, thank you for your valuable input.


It was not an argument; it was an observation in regards to the post I replied to. I did not state anywhere that we should refrain from defining our selves as Atheist. Clearly, in a theistic dominant world such as this the word does serve a purpose.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhombus24

Now this wasn't all I was going to say but the point of this post was to ask why you atheists do not believe in a God.
I don't believe in any god due to the non evidence for the existence of one. I also disagree with the argument given by religions for the existence of their chosen deity whether it be 'experiential' or scriptural arguments. Even though I consider myself an atheist I know for a fact that there is a probability that some god might exist (please do not say I am agnostic because I still DO NOT BELIEVE that any god exists however the probability) however I find that any religion to claim that this deity is THEIR chosen deity absurd, this is only an assumption (most religionites can't even define what 'god' is never mind state that it exists for certain).

Experiential arguments fail as well due to the nature of experience, we as humans are fallible - emotions/experience can create unsubstantiated claims that while seem completely true to the observer can have (and most do) a completely rational and different meaning.

Scriptural arguments? well! do you believe everything you read?

G



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leyla
If there is no God then tell me why there are billions of people living on this earth? If there is no God then who created Adam and Eve a unicorn or wait a fairy? Oh I know it was Zeus.


no, that's evolution coupled with SCIENTIFIC advances in medicine, agriculture, and nutrition...

it's odd... because zeus is just as good of an explanation as your deity is, yet you scoff at the idea.



You have proof all around you just open your eyes and you will see it.


...proof all around me...
my eyes are open, i see a delightful, yet entirely benign universe...



Yet people claim there is no God- Why because you had a tough life or is it due to stubborness? Everyone has tough times doesn't mean there is no God. Join the club.


tough life?
i have a very very happy life. i'm never hungry, have a roof over my head, a great family, a wonderful girlfriend, and much in the way of entertainment...



Better wise up fast because this No God argument is getting old.


wise up?
i'm sorry, i have, it's why i'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to believe in a deity.
show me the proof and i'll believe.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggiceland
There is no proof god exsists and there is no proof he exsists!!!!!!!

people who do not believe (like me) need proof to believe in something so big

and people who do believe do not need proof for stuff that supposivle makes sence

There is no proof and that is that....


Technically, I believe you were meaning to say "there is no proof god exists and no proof he does not." If that wasn't what you meant to say please accept my apologies for putting words (that make sense) in your mouth.

I agree that there will always be a certain percentage of the human race that requires some form of concrete "proof" to believe in any given point. Likewise, there will always be a certain percentage that will accept dogma with little or no mental qualification. I like to think I fall into that middle percentage; I don't accept things blindly but I am not so self-important that I expect a Supreme Being to knock on my door, invite Itself in for tea and crumpets, and answer all my questions about the universe and mortal existance. Besides, in my worldview, even if such an event *did* occur I would not be able to understand -- or if I could understand through some divine intervention -- or communicate effectively to anyone who wasn't present at this Tea and Crumpets Mass the "Truths" that had been explained to me.

S'okay...I don't need that level of affirmation. I see the mystical and divine all around me everyday. Yes, some of life is ugly and hateful. I was thoroughly pissed at God for a while for taking my father away from me last year by cancer. (Okay, it's still a little raw, but I'm working on it...I'm working.) But I remember the bits about "free will" and that reminds me to schedule an annual physical and do my monthly personal exam so that *I* find out about anything when it's still early enough to treat. I recognize that humanity is flawed and that some choose to behave in ways contrary to "getting along with others."

Do I believe in eternal damnation for those who sin or eternal bliss for those who do not? First, define "sin" and I don't mean the shopping list of behaviors the Roman Catholic church has refined for the past 2,000+ years. As I've said for a number of years, "I believe in God. I just don't believe in Organized Religion." The two, mind you, are NOT synonymous although most people treat them as one and the same. I doubt anyone (short of Hitler or Mother Theresa) could do so much evil or so much good in this eyeblink of a lifetime to cause ANY rational being to make a decision about their eternal reward or punishment. But do I believe in an Afterlife? You betcha. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (although I lost it when I "re-cycled"). But that's a personal decision. I don't expect or NEED everyone to agree with my philosophy. It is enough that I do.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leyla

Originally posted by Angus65
The reverse is just as valid...

I believe in God because there is no compelling evidence to suggest God doesn't exist.

It's virtually impossible to prove a negative.


That's quite true, but you got the reasoning backwards. No one has to prove a negative. The person who states the positive is required to prove that. "God exists" is such a statement. Until you can prove that, we have to assume that it is not a valid statement.


If there is no God then tell me why there are billions of people living on this earth?
This is a meaningless question in relation to the argument. The existence of people can be explained very easily by evolution. There is no need for the concept of a god to be introduced.


If there is no God then who created Adam and Eve a unicorn or wait a fairy? Oh I know it was Zeus.
Another silly argument. Can't you see that belief that Adam and Eve are not fairytale characters requires that one believe in the existence of a god.


You have proof all around you just open your eyes and you will see it.
I am delighted in the wonderousness of the universe and how science is explaining more and more of it. Just because some parts haven't been answered yet, doesn't justify suddenly tacking "god" onto them.


Yet people claim there is no God- Why because you had a tough life or is it due to stubborness? Everyone has tough times doesn't mean there is no God. Join the club.
No, i've had a very good life. I just don't believe in anything unless I see some evidence that isn't explained more effectively by something else. So far god is just a series of fairytales without any evidence.


Better wise up fast because this No God argument is getting old.
I see just the reverse - the insistence in believing in something that has no evidence to support it is getting very old.

Occam



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Doesn't it get tiring to see such posts over and over again?

Can't we sticky?

My personal disbelief in God rests mainly on the infinity paradox: as long as God is defined as having infinite properties it can't be real, but specific disbelief in Bible God is summed up in my SIG.

C



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I don't believe in god because the idea to me is, frankly, ludicrous. Examined rationally it makes no sense whatsoever. I have spent my life in a quest to be completely honest with myself. This has led, in part, to finally accepting that I'm an atheist. When I look at the subject of god and superstition honestly, I can see that it makes no sense. To try to accept something nonsensical runs counter to how I try to live, and perceive things.

Leyla, I want to address one of your points, the one about a tough life turning one against god. I don't know how many stories I have heard from Xians here and elsewhere that they had a bad life and it made them find god.

There are people who have great lives who believe in god, and people with great lives that do not.

One doesn't really have anything to do with the other. It's like saying someone died and they also ate bread, so bread must have caused them to die.

People don't believe in god because they don't find the arguments compelling. It has nothing to do with the quality of one's life, the circumstances of their birth, their socio-economic status or anything else. It has to do with reasoning through all the arguments people make for the existence of god, and finding them all lacking. That's it.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Thousand
 


Well said.

As David Eller points out in Natural Atheism, what is it that a theist is trying to do by calling atheism a religion? Either it is an extreme compliment, because they believe that religion is good, or they are attempting to insult the atheist by making the clam, and thereby degrading religion (including theirs) in general.

So which is it? an insult or a compliment? Keeping in mind that if one is insulting atheism, then they are insulting their own religion by default.

I personally also think that if someone can get away with calling atheism a religion they believe they can dismiss it as irrelevant, as they do all religions that are not their own.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I don't believe in god because the idea to me is, frankly, ludicrous. Examined rationally it makes no sense whatsoever.


To not believe in God, and to believe that there is no God are two quite distinct beliefs.

An agnostic, for example, does not believe in God, but does not believe that there is no God.

An atheist does not believe in God, and also believes that there is no God.

Believing that there is no God is a position which is not supported by empirical evidence. Not any more or less dogmatic than believing in God.

I do not believe that there is a teapot orbiting our solar system. I do not have evidence however to believe that such a tea pot doesn't exist. Believing in the teapot, and not believing in the teapot are equally dogmatic.



[edit on 26/12/2007 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
To not believe in God, and to believe that there is no God are two quite distinct beliefs.

True.


An agnostic, for example, does not believe in God, but does not believe that there is no God.

Agnostics and Christians are both cowards, afraid to proceed any further. Agnostics lean one way or the other. Either doubting God, but not wanting to offend, or they have that last little fear of God and can't let go. Can't say I've seen anyone absolutely middle of the road. Most of the population is still believer-agnostic and the more agnostics switch over to atheism, the harder it will be for the cowards to hold that particular fallacy against us.


An atheist does not believe in God, and also believes that there is no God.

There are atheist cultures with no concept of God. The fact that God is a broken concept is major point for atheism though.


Believing that there is no God is a position which is not supported by empirical evidence. Not any more or less dogmatic than believing in God.

Are you saying you have actual evidence that isn't based on some sort of logical fallacy? We're all atheists because everything every theist has ever said rested one or more logical fallacies.


I do not believe that there is a teapot orbiting our solar system. I do not have evidence however to believe that such a tea pot doesn't exist. Believing in the teapot, and not believing in the teapot are equally dogmatic.


42 Logical Fallacies
#19, Burden of Proof

Aside from this, a teapot is a tiny thing in an immense vaccum, like WMD in Iraq. God is omnipresent and omnipotent, and you couldn't hide these features if you were seriously looking for them. The only people who claim to seen Him have questionable support and seem to rush for the Logical Fallacies as if they were going out of style.

C

Had the url reversed.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Columbus]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Hello Columbus,


Originally posted by Columbus

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Believing that there is no God is a position which is not supported by empirical evidence. Not any more or less dogmatic than believing in God.


Are you saying you have actual evidence that isn't based on some sort of logical fallacy?


What I am saying is that a lack of evidence for the existence of God is not evidence for its nonexistence.


Aside from this, a teapot is a tiny thing in an immense vaccum, like WMD in Iraq. God is omnipresent and omnipotent, and you couldn't hide these features if you were seriously looking for them.


What observable features would an omnipresent and omnipotent God display?

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
What I am saying is that a lack of evidence for the existence of God is not evidence for its nonexistence.

You're right. The evidence against God is separate, but then we get to the definition of what you are talking about when you say "god". We all know what a teapot is, but god is a little nebulous, and this is intentional, because any point you try to have takes away something else you might want to keep in your idea of god. Yes, I've been all the way to the end on that ride. The basic evidence against god is the lack of any definition.

There is not such a thing if you are not prepared to define what it is that is supposed to exist.


What observable features would an omnipresent and omnipotent God display?

It represents a fundamental instability of the physical laws, which we don't observe, unless god has been sitting very still as long as we have existed. Oh sure, you might say he's done a few things here and there, but where's the evidence? And it's not just evidence that something happened, it has to be evidence that it had to have been God and only God.

Remember in murder trials, the proof of the murder is prerequisite, but the evidence has to show it had to be Pickton and only Pickton.

C

Added link to Pickton.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Columbus]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

You're right. The evidence against God is separate, but then we get to the definition of what you are talking about when you say "god". We all know what a teapot is, but god is a little nebulous, and this is intentional, because any point you try to have takes away something else you might want to keep in your idea of god.


God: A being or object believed to have more than natural attributes.


It represents a fundamental instability of the physical laws, which we don't observe, unless god has been sitting very still as long as we have existed.


Emphasis mine.

As you have rightly stated, it is possible that an omnipotent and omnipresent God can choose to do nothing at all. If this is the case than such God would not present an instability of the physical laws. Therefore, through logical reasoning, we have come to the conclusion that an omnipotent and omnipresent God does not necessarily display any observable features.



Inverencial Peace,
Akashic



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
His movements are observed through his body, we being the body of God. It is his thoughts we cannot intercept and investigate. We can derive quanta of information through meditation of word and through prayer, but to know fully the mind of God is to assume the stature of God.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
God: A being or object believed to have more than natural attributes.

Supernatural is a self-contradictory property. It essentially means God is not real, which contradicts the notion that you believe He is real.


unless god has been sitting very still as long as we have existed.

Which is no different than if He didn't exist. Occam's Razor.


...God does not necessarily display any observable features.

Except for Quantum Mechanics. What you are really ending up with is a God that really has no interaction with the universe, and does not even observe it.

It comes down to Occam's Razor. There simply isn't any reason to believe in such a God because it adds nothing to our knowledge of the universe.

C



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
His movements are observed through his body, we being the body of God.

A god as nasty as you is not worthy of belief. If your immorality, ignorance, and violence represent Gods Will in the world, I'll have no part of it. You simply have no ability to evaluate genuine worthiness.


...to know fully the mind of God is to assume the stature of God.

Blubbering. Christians have been telling us what we can't know since year zero. It's a good thing intelligent people don't listen.

C



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Any "bad" action is the result of the mind disconnecting itself with the truth, the natural balanced law. Any mis-allocation of resource is a result of a certain body (say a countries governement) choosing to act. The human directs intention and assumes a stature. Right or wrong a path has to be trodden. In this world violence seems to beget violence.

God is violent only when violence is presented to him. God simply reflects back to us who we really are, pays us back what we have paid out unto the world.

When a messenger comes to you, don't assume the messenger is a sound model of the one he bears news of.

To know fully the capabilities of something is to be superior to it, like a superbike rider owning his machine. We aren't capable of controlling our own minds let alone the clockwork of the universe.

We'll hurt ourselves to get what we think we need. Population reduction for a newer, safer world. I'll let the word speak for itself, the tangible "signs" have been playing out for years.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
Any "bad" action is the result of the mind disconnecting itself with the truth, the natural balanced law.

Bad is what hurts people. Balance is provided by avoiding being hurt.


In this world violence seems to beget violence.

Speaking as someone unfamiliar with stable systems. Oscillation does not imply instability, going to the rail does, then everyone dies. They've just made it so quick and easy to go to the rail, yet it still hasn't happened. Christians have no faith in man, yet man has already proven himself.

But like the apple tree in Eden, how long can we seriously expect to leave it there before someone makes even a tiny mistake? Forget Sin, an apple could fall from the tree (Broken Arrow), roll far away, get picked up by someone unsuspecting, and thinking it's something else (I mean how could it be that?) push a button or break a wire totally by mistake.


When a messenger comes to you, don't assume the messenger is a sound model of the one he bears news of.

There has never been a Christian come to me with more than insults.


We aren't capable of controlling our own minds...


[SNIP]

C

-------------------------------------
personal attack removed

Please read Courtesy is mandatory

www.abovetopsecret.com...

-and, from the T&C's

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.








[edit on 27/12/07 by masqua]




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join