Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

I just want to question some things.

Explain to me how God exists when I see so much to say he doesn't.

Why does God have a gender? A common axiom is the creator is omnipresent, so is the universe really a boy? If he's not omnipresent, then there must be some place in the universe he's not aware of, which will contradict the axiom of god being all knowing.

You are one perspective, which means you're ignorant to potential evidence that suggest the creator or the metaphysical is real in reality. We can take this to another level and apply this to a conglomerate of people who see no evidence of God, but still suffer the fate of being ignorant to things reality may have.

Is it so hard to say "I don't know if god exist" since nothing suggest there's no creator and nothing suggest there is?

Children being raped and killed by their parents.

That's just reality. Why should a omnipresent creator, which is the universe (thus reality itself) change it's rules to save humanity? Why should the creator be bound by left wing /right wing constructs, such as Good and Evil, right or wrong, boy or girl, etc or etc, why can't the creator just simply exist as all? Or fulfill the common axiom of God being omnipotent held by you and every other person that expect the creator to have this asset?

The biggest problem I see with people conceptions of the creator is the fact they based conceptions off past people preconceptions of the creators.





[edit on 21-5-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

Originally posted by Utopian
...
The reason for creating this thread is to debate the seemingly closed mindedness of Atheism in relation to most other belief systems.

This thread is bogus! The OP charges "Atheism" with "seemingly closed mindedness" without providing any supporting evidence.

I submit a counter-charge of "closed-mindedness" against anyone who has read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and still believes in a god or the validity of any religion.

I add the charge of "malice aforethought" if that person went on to indoctrinate their children in religious beliefs before that child was old enough to reason for itself. Doubly so if they taught their child to believe in "faith" before "scientific evidence!"

Criminal charges come into effect for anyone who uses religion as an excuse to persecute, injure or kill another human being.

As an atheist of long standing, I've never encountered any unreasoned argument attributed to atheism.

Keep in mind that there is no organised Atheism which Dawkins suggests is actually our biggest weakness. You won't find local chapters meeting weekly, singing Atheistic songs and praying for the Atheist savior to return. You won't find atheist lobbying Congress for privileged tax concessions. And you won't find atheist lobbying heavily to protect the country from laws, etc that religious groups push into existence to restrict our freedoms (apologies for not providing references but please google "teaching creationism vs evolution" for an example.)

I'm not a scientist BUT I can see the baselessness of the argument that their must be a god. I was told as a child in a Catholic school "There has to be a god because you cannot create something from nothing. Only God could have created the universe out of thin air." When I answered "But who created God", I was sent to the Principles office!

If a god can just exist, then so can a complete universe. Or is everthing just a figment of something?'s imagination.

Atheism is like darkness. Its the absence of light. Which may sound evil but it is the exact opposite. If you are standing in the dark and you see a light that is not there, it is called a hallucination. A figment of your imagination. Usually produced by your brain trying to comprehend the darkness and failing.

Just like people trying to comprehend our and the universes existence, and coming up with different shapes and ideas. They "suggest" it to someone else and this sets up a shared hallucination.

Religion is just the result of the lack of light, a limited imagination and lack of critical thinking processes. Which funny enough puts those who happily stand in the dark, more enlightened than those who "believe" in God.

reply to post by GrandKitaro777


who obviously as god force people that never asked anything to worse lives in torture till death just because they didnt ask anything, is not because of who asked, obviously mister
so you cannot preach of that fake justification, how god is all what everyone limits are, as if he is the sum of whatever can pretend being existing one alive
god is him alone when he is the source of some that are never, it says only the evil he is in thinking all the hidden ways to profit from absolute and lies as all one for his one free life alone gains

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
Religion is just the result of the lack of light, a limited imagination and lack of critical thinking processes. Which funny enough puts those who happily stand in the dark, more enlightened than those who "believe" in God.

and they dare invent that being in dark is the reason of all evil from fears, as if fear would create anything positively, just to justify how death is the source of easy life for them meaning all powers against who cant accept that power represent what is true

blind people are clearly the proof how being in dark is just being yourself more alone which is the reason to be sad knowing how the world is colorful but never to panik and invent things, on the contrary all blind people are quiet calm and real

reply to post by lyyhtsource

What do you gain by rejecting the notion of Elohim and his son Yahushua?

First off...you left out the most important name, which is found so much in the true writings of the OT but not in the NT.....Yahweh.

So what does one gain by rejecting Yahweh...lets say? In my heart, I accepted a nature, the nature was of love, humility, grace, mercy, forgiveness...I could accept this nature, and did relate it to the man they call Jesus as well as what is termed the Holy Spirit, because I could see this nature in them.

But Yahweh, had a different nature.

I walked the Christian road for over 20 years of my life. Accepted it, studied it, breathed it, placed my children in it.

But so many strange happenings had occurred in my life and others around me. Things that the Bible or science really could not explain.

I went through a very spiritual time...and in this process, I rejected the nature of Yahweh. I rejected the actions that prior man told me was of God. I fasted and prayed and went through the deepest experience of my life.

You know what happened when I rejected Yahweh...and that nature?

I found the true Spirit...and that was all she wrote. I couldnt hardly stand for how shamed I felt that man had thought such primal ways of the Spirit. I saw what was Holy...and what was not. Entire new experiences began...and I could spend my life talking to others about how dark natured some of the Bible is....how understanding of things of Spirit must come from a personal path...not a path that follows another....for true understanding, comes from a relation between you and the Spirit within you. You learn its within everyone and everywhere there is life.

You win back the right, the spiritual birth right that was intended for you....by rejecting Yahweh an the primal nature that is displayed there.

You win back the opportunity to use your own reasoning...which you also learn about yourself, for the Spirit then leads you on understanding WHY you reason the way you do, and teaches and guides you to sift from things of Earth and things of Spirit.

You win your rights back as a spiritual being...and know, you dont have to be afraid and you never had to be afraid.

The root word of Elohim is older then the use of Yahweh. I dont think names are what is important...for the Spirit doesnt seem to be worried about a name either (just from experiences), the Spirit is not bound to language, something that is not eternal and infinite.

But there is a important verse...where it talks about El...giving the inheritance to Yahweh. The inheritance was Israel. And then what happens, this Yahweh becomes prideful and greedy...worries about a special land and people. I tell you truly, there is no special grounds in the nature of Spirit....no need for bloodlines, no need for a Earthly land....and this is only something you can learn through the personal path...it does me no good to just tell it to you and for you to accept it...just as you have accepted a book and what other men have told you.

You should test everything...and accept nothing, just to be safe. The Spirit would see right through that reason anyways. You must be true in heart, your nature must be selfless (so seeking for self salvation is out of the picture), you must have a humbled mind. Go to Thee, without the preconceived ideas....and just start seeking.

What do you gain by rejecting this Yahweh nature?

The knowing, you were loved, are loved, and WILL always be loved.

reply to post by randyvs


I sit in a odd ball place here...because I believe/have experienced a Holy Spirit....but this Spirit seems to be very eternal yet does not intercede.

What if existence...what if matter and anti matter....are infinite? What if they have always been...just as the Holy Spirit has always been? What if just as though the Spirit is the within the substance of the creation...the creation itself decides on where it takes itself. Do we choose to create a heaven like place? Do we choose to create a hell like place?

Sure, there seems good evidence that there was finite beginning with the big bang....but how do we know, that before that point, there was not a collapse of a prior expansion...similar to what we experience right now. Breath in, breath out...how do we know the Universe has not been doing this infinitely...how do we know that after another collapse, it will just expand again? How do we know that the Universe is not like a literal body of the Spirit of life itself?

No one can explain existence. We can only guess...and any guess is just as good as the next. But I think the magic wand trick...*poof, and there was life*....is not as up to par as some. Why? Because how often do we see 'God' act in such ways? How often do you see something form out of nothing...out of thin air? It just doesnt seem to be Gods trick of the trade. It seems to me....God is more of a emantor. Makes things out of prior things...the later comes from a former....and it all seems to circle around in the end, recycling itself...just look at nature...anywhere on Earth or in the Universe...we see nature recycling itself. Nothing getting wasted, but always getting reused, changing forms of energy....and being of value.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by LeoVirgo]

Originally posted by faceoff85

WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god.
I keep an open mind to the idea that there is no god but you(and most atheists I talked to) only use sources wich flame the existence of a god and/or simply throw out the idea of a god being real. I am honestly interested as to how you came to deduce why a god cant exist. Beacuse When I ad things up I come to the complete oposite answer... for 2 people to have such different viewpoints there must be something someone has overlooked I guess

One should distinguish carefully between the atheist position of "I claim there is no god." verus the anti-theist postion which is "I do not accept your claims that god exists." In the former position a claim is being made while the latter position is merely a rejection of other people's claims. If someone makes absurd claims about the existence of god, I have no obligation to accept or refute them. For example, one I hear a lot is that god exists because the bible says so and the bible is the inspired word of god and inerrant, QED.

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Originally posted by Utopian
...
The reason for creating this thread is to debate the seemingly closed mindedness of Atheism in relation to most other belief systems.

I submit a counter-charge of "closed-mindedness" against anyone who has read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and still believes in a god or the validity of any religion.

I add the charge of "malice aforethought" if that person went on to indoctrinate their children in religious beliefs before that child was old enough to reason for itself. Doubly so if they taught their child to believe in "faith" before "scientific evidence!"

Criminal charges come into effect for anyone who uses religion as an excuse to persecute, injure or kill another human being.

As an atheist of long standing, I've never encountered any unreasoned argument attributed to atheism.

Keep in mind that there is no organised Atheism which Dawkins suggests is actually our biggest weakness. You won't find local chapters meeting weekly, singing Atheistic songs and praying for the Atheist savior to return. You won't find atheist lobbying Congress for privileged tax concessions. And you won't find atheist lobbying heavily to protect the country from laws, etc that religious groups push into existence to restrict our freedoms (apologies for not providing references but please google "teaching creationism vs evolution" for an example.)

I'm not a scientist BUT I can see the baselessness of the argument that their must be a god. I was told as a child in a Catholic school "There has to be a god because you cannot create something from nothing. Only God could have created the universe out of thin air." When I answered "But who created God", I was sent to the Principles office!

If a god can just exist, then so can a complete universe. Or is everthing just a figment of something?'s imagination.

Ahh, Dawkins' ideological progeny. Firstly, Dawkins' book of which you referenced in the above quote, was refuted by many scholars and well educated individuals.

Secondly, your entire post is biased. You make a lot of outrageous claims (just like Dawkins) and state them as matter of fact (not literally but in sentence structure, etc so as to be interpreted this way) without any data to support said claims.

What really gets me are the hard line Atheists; those campaigning against 'evil' religion, 'saving' individuals from the clutches of idiocy. The main point always has and always will continue to be:

No one knows the truth.

Science can only give us so many answers. We have the ability to understand how things work, why they work, etc. We even have detailed theories as to how life came about. However, at the end of the day, they remain theories. I am not attempting to refute these theories, only pointing out the obvious.

Lastly, and in conjunction with the above logic, the religious man believes in his deity via faith just as you believe in Darwin's "Origin of Life" via faith. This is irrefutable and to claim otherwise is to ignore the simple logic behind it.

No offense brother, didn't mean any. Just pointing out the fallacies in your argument. I could go on for days, however, I have to work.

You can't seriously compare the theory of evolution, for which there is A LOT of evidence, to a the theory of creationism for which there is ZERO evidence.

The reason many creationists claim that evolution is, just like a religion, faith based is that this allows them to directly pitch it against the religion a lot of people are following, Christianity. And guess what, if you tell people evolution is like a religion (which is hogwash), they will stick to their old religion...otherwise they'd have to admit that they were wrong all those years...and no one likes to admit to be wrong.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


that is excellent move that proove truth existence too and not only gods, why atheists must accept believers while religious never do accept atheists dont you see how it is weird>?

religious are the one who are suppose speaking of truth and everything as all source, how atheists that speak only of what they as one indiivual mortal human understand from knowing personnally, are the one that justify believers from their fears and justify their silly churchs that shouldnt cause harm if it makes them feel better really

who is loving who there as the other and accepting him the way he is for whatever he wants as free

hey it is void the truth, how existence times conditions became the source when it is suppose to just be a positive plus add

i tell you how lol,

nature use void truth to be instead and so do god but each from their respective position possiblity

nature use the logic of positive absolute realisations to claim its free positive rights, so she use it as a source of positive reality creations life to mean being the living free from it, from what she does she use it to assert her life existing and not existence of truth she use, so she kills the truth of freedom and assert that freedom is in positive creations living so only her life is free

god use the logic of freedom from all as the positive fact existing always more, to claim being the source of what he supports to exist in creations, so he take the sense of truth freedom as positive to be more positive him as creator of life source, and enslave all he means to exist as possessing their moves and never allow their rights in freedom truth

truth is freedom from all sides as positive source existence fact true, as real then present

by such truths anyone should understand why we cant mean positive plus as a world creation nor we can mean any help or supports to ourselves

who would help you is necessarly from god supports meaning slavery to him and surely never meaning your means by being positive true free
and what make nice things to touch or appreciate whatever intelligence design level and dimensions is from nature means necessarly, puting you down for herself life freedom as up from any appreciation to nice things

it is them that make humans education which is wrong, humans should never be from reacting to what they are so they can still use them to corrcect themselves as creators while gaining to be creators more

rights of rights rights are for rights, merrrddde because rights are the livings sense of truth and truth is only what is, and the exclusive reference to what to do or what to think

and yes you are right, self awareness is the awareness true free sense while witnessing an objective reality life, even if it looks like itself but the awareness knows that it is not itself since it is moving along with the conditions whole life

the reference is always freedom truth as positive source wether it is to support as positive source or it is to move freely alone for positive absolute life

void as positive source mean how you cannot limit it, it is the source of its wholeness void but the result is simply positive always and absolutely hehe not what god say what positive result is by killing everything as nothing
absolute positive cannot be from a perspective dimension that mean being beyond from lies,
absolute mean that there cant be an objective point or dust that would deny the character of positive and positive more

like not true is whatever point that objectively is not absolutely positive free, supporting itself alone as itself source and realizing always something objectively positive of itself reality

and god is a liar, he teachs men how to profit from all sides by pretending that negative is as good as positive, meaning evil positive in lies life gains

god is meaning evil postive, by complaining how nature is a liar and not positive, by insisting on destructions for the pleasure of easy realisations as a source of all, by getting the freedom sense truth positive while rejecting the fact that it is positive to mean from nature what she would give to convince him about positive freedom

those ways of god make a lot of people in love about him, they think he is funny he is one living eternally they can count on his sounds of being real, but no, god is before anything a monster of most evil ways to take absolutely always by killing absolutely all

the point that i agree with you on, is that truth is always first so noone is creating or doing anything that is how evil as lies came existing first

noone is to convince another about anything it is just some are meaning stop the abuse and put your life out of mine

Have been lurking for a while decided its time to join in.

One of the reasons why some atheists are so anti religion is exactly the opposite of the threads header. Children being taught that we live on a planet created approx 6000 years ago in direct opposition to scientific evidence.

Creationist mis-using the word theory to try and discredit evolution, evolution is a fact people (look up the dictionary definition of theory in a scientific context)

All of the scientific evidence support the hypothesis there is a high probability of no god.

As an aside, i made the switch from agnostic to atheist when my own brother (a minister) made a very simple staenment as follows.

Either the bible is the word of god, and holds the ultimate truth, or it is a fiction. If you can find anything in the bible that is wrong, it can not be the work of an omnipitent, omniscient god and it should all be disregarded.

There is a lot in the bible, (and other holy scriptures) that is obviously wrong, and no matter how much you believe in something, or how much you sincerely want something to be true, that belief and need isnt going to make it true.

I whole heartedly believe in the scientific method as it allows for full examination of the available facts, for testing and reproducing results and I will go out on a limb and say the greater majority of atheist would hold the same view.

I dont care if an individual wants to believe in god, gods or coloured cotton wristbands, but when it comes to education, particularly presenting information, then only facts should be presented as such.

I have no problem either with religion being taught, but be under no illusion, it is a philosophical belief system (i refer to all religion) and should be taught as such.

Before i finish, i will attempt to pre-empt the " science once thought the world was flat" anti-science argument. The staement is correct, science did once believe the world to be flat, but as new information and better testing was introduced, science changed it view and thats what is great about the scientific method.

Show me the creationist who is of the same flexibilty of mind. Show me the creationist who says, "well, religion did once think the world was 6000 years old, but with the new evidence....etc, etc.

Yay another $0.02 thread. (NOT... v.v)

Seriously, this doesn't matter, but of course, as a human being, I can't help but state my opinion.

Former atheist, currently entirely agnostic. I hold no beliefs, because I feel as though my belief will affect neither my actions nor the consequences of my actions. I essentially see being opinionated as a waste of time, in most walks of life.

But if I were to justify it... I just don't think there's a very large chance that we'll just suddenly find something that proves or disproves God's existence, or that He will initiate contact suddenly. Therefore, if He exists, we cannot fathom or experience Him through objective means. If He does not exist, we cannot fathom or experience Him through objective means. Either case points towards a logical agnostic belief system.

Atheists are just as illogical as religious zealots (and for some reason more offensive though I agree more with their statements, though they might just be particularly jilted that an intellect like myself doesn't buy into their dogma). While those of faith base their beliefs on fallacious premises (My religious text is undoubtedly true.), atheists base their beliefs on fallacious arguments (I see no evidence of God, therefore He does not exist.).

Another silly atheist trick is, "The Bible says ridiculous things, so I'm obviously right." Even if met with success, disproving scripture does not disprove the existence of a divine being or a creator. Claiming it does is rubbish, just as much as saying God hates condoms... which is odd, since I didn't think anyone had spoken to God about the things.

Originally posted by pondrthis
Atheists are just as illogical as religious zealots

.....atheists base their beliefs on fallacious arguments (I see no evidence of God, therefore He does not exist.).

I don't see the lack of logic nor a fallacious argument. Forming a certitude based on the profound lack of evidence is very logical and hardly fallacious.

If anything, agnosticism is the most illogical. Agnostics hold open the possibility of the existence of deities when the likelihood of such is about on par with discovering evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. Agnostics readily form a certitude against the existence of the tooth fairy and the easter bunny citing lack of evidence and credibility, yet fail to form the same certitude against the existence of deities given the same reasons. That is illogical.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


exactly, agnostics are simply meaning hiding as religious to take advantage of atheists thinking being spiritually superior from knowing god powers making the present and the only source of positive free life

jesus taught them that technic of snakes and nature strategies of mulitplying gains of lies sources

thanks to who he will claim his price after, how can we kill god, i wish if a bigger rock fall on god head, then it would be interesting to see how nature is going continue to support her dogs

they like stories what about this one hen?

Originally posted by ixiy
A logical, rational person, atheist or otherwise, should realize that having an ethical and moral code in any society usually allows for a better, stable, peaceful and safer place to stay as a community (even if certain codes are questionable by others) compared to one without it which has a higher chance of turning into an Anarchy and Chaos.

It's logical for a society or group of humans to have a moral code or common cause in the interests of bonding and preventing fragmentation of the society. That helps group survival.
It is less relevant in societies these days, due to their broader and more disparate nature.

It is totally illogical for someone to live their own personal life according to an arbitrary ethical code. If there is no arbitor of right and wrong, then morality is irrelevant.

Setting a moral code for yourself is an unneccessary and irrational millstone to hang around your neck.

Originally posted by pondrthis
Yay another $0.02 thread. (NOT... v.v)

There are so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to start. Since you stated upfront that you were sharing your opinion, I guess that refers to the entire post, and if so, then so be it.

However, you've stated that Atheists have dogma = false. You've stated that Atheists have beliefs = Maybe so, but it's not part of Atheism, those would be personal beliefs. Atheism doesn't define that "I see no evidence of God, therefore He does not exist." Atheism doesn't have "silly tricks," people do.

I'm sick of people re-defining Atheism to support their own stance. And yes, this happens on all sides, but since this thread started as an attack on Atheists' open-mindedness, someone has got to re-center the debate.

I'm an Atheist, and I'll be the first one in line to be "born again" if I'm shown incontrovertible proof that a deity exists. I believe in the possibility of aliens, multiple universes and any number of conspiracies that I have no proof of. How much more open-minded can I be? But until I see proof of a deity, or undeniable direct evidence that such exists, I choose not to believe. Is that so wrong or misguided? It's my own damn mind, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else, or pass any laws (unless a law tried to limit my freedom of religious choice or limits my freedom in respect of a religion). Why is this so hard for fundies (and others) to accept - they accept so much else on faith alone, but still want to suppress my freedoms based on their religion... that sounds pretty closed-minded to me.

-Greyling

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
With all due respect, that's rather absurd. You're talking with an atheist who is not a nihilist and argues that every atheist he knows behaves morally and ethically. It's up to you if you wish to maintain this misconception but if we can't get beyond it there's no more use for us to discuss moral and ethical behavior.

I think you misunderstand my point. My apologies if I'm not making myself clear.

The point I'm arguing is that there is no discernible difference between the attitudes to morality and ethics of atheists, theists, agnostics etc.

A theist tends to believe that right or wrong is handed down by God, whereas an atheist logically knows that right or wrong can't be absolute.

I fail to see how nihilism cannot be the default position for an atheist.
Atheists will often say how a newborn baby is born as an atheist, so it must also follow that they are also born with an absence of any kind of moral values. It is a stretch to say that a baby is born a nihilist, they certainly are born amoral and without valuing any man-made concept.

Just as someone who was raised a Catholic may renounce their faith as they get older, why don't people renounce the moral code that was taught to them by their parents and society ?

I'm querying why atheists who think their stance on God is logical, if they believe their is a lack of evidence, don't continue on the same logical train of thought when it comes to arbitrary morality.
The fact that atheists have exactly the same preponderence to act in a moral and ethical manner, is the very reason that I query their wilful acceptance of something that is illogical and a hinderence.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
I guess I dont understand your question.....I guess I missed it where Atheist's are saying that there is no such thing as good or bad behaviors...as in personal opinions of what bad or good actions are. I think their point would be how can they force their own perspective of what is right or wrong on to a entire society or world.

Logically, good and bad do not exist in the context of morality. Those concepts should be just as mythical and man-made as any deities to a logical atheist.

I'm wondering why they claim rationality for their absence of belief in God, yet actively embrace something as illogical as morality.

Originally posted by malcr
There is actually a method of proving something that is almost impossible to prove directly. Mathematicians do it all the time to prove or disprove unprovable proofs! I will leave it up to the informed reader (who cares about being right or wrong) to investigate the method.

I will leave you with this: the method proves there is no God.....ooops.

That's impossible.
Or are you on a wind-up ?