Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


What I mean is, nothing has ever happened in his life that would be evidence for him to believe in God. Obviously. How can he post so much crap, nsults and mockery designed to offend. When someone else may
have good, solid factual happenings in there life, that support what they believe.
He could be spiritually dead for all I know. So nothing spiritual will ever happen to him. He will nevcer find because he does not seek.

Seek and you will find.

But asking an atheist to find God is like asking a thief to find a policeman.

For instance a woman I know was healed of an anurism right in the hospital. By some men and women who prayed over her.
Doctors even said," This is a miracle" !

[edit on 25-6-2010 by randyvs]




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hrm..
Rampant amounts of Confirmation Bias in the thread? Check.
Straw Men all over? Check.
Cliche arguments made? Yup.
Cliche counter-arguments? Yuppers.
Grotesque misunderstanding of things such as the burden of proof being on the one who disagrees instead of the one who asserts the existence of something? No surprise here: Always in these threads is that one here.


Here is an idea, since people only see or pay attention to the things that affirm what they already believe (See: Confirmation Bias).. How about certain people apply the scientific method, and more specifically the concept that: Truth is only found when proving things wrong. ie: Truth can only be found by being skeptical.

But, that will probably be ignored, as I am sure the next quote will be, but I shall try anyway:



"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." - Bertrand Russell



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

What I mean is, nothing has ever happened in his life that would be evidence for him to believe in God. Obviously. How can he post so much crap, nsults and mockery designed to offend.


To be fair though, the original post is deserving of some ribbing and I did a little myself.


When someone else may
have good, solid factual happenings in there life, that support what they believe.
He could be spiritually dead for all I know. So nothing spiritual will ever happen to him. He will nevcer find because he does not seek.

Seek and you will find.


Therein lies a problem. Such "evidence" is subjective. And seeking such evidence will enable confirmation bias.


For instance a woman I know was healed of an anurism right in the hospital. By some men and women who prayed over her.
Doctors even said," This is a miracle" !


It wasn't actually a miracle though. Funny how such "miracles" never happen to amputees: you know, growing the limb back.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 




I assumed that God did not exist, I assumed that free will did not exist. And THAT is when you realize they do, because things don't add up. It is called a proof by contradiction.



So you support terrorism?

God has nothing to do with free will or morals at all.


when they finally get their heads out of their asses.


Must be tough being the only real smart person on this planet, huh?


Until then, I am still collecting news articles and scientific data to back up my theories.


Wow, wait... What?! Your theory is based off those people who have their heads up their asses? Jesus H. Christ, god dammit.... talk about a walking contradiction!



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 



"I got in contact with Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, a quantum physicist, bought his books and those of a few other authors, and eventually wrote an independent study for my psychology major on a Quantum Theory of Mind that will probably never be taken seriously by the mainstream scientists"


Can you post this independent study here? Or give a bit more information on it? Every good scientific theory should be able to stand to scrutiny.

I have a few problems with the logic in your OP.


Try reading Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't spend a single second of his book "The God Delusion" proving that God doesn't exist.

This was thoroughly explained to you in your last thread. I don't understand why some people don't understand this concept - it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Hence, Darwin doesn't try to in his book.

Instead, he spends the entire piece of trash railing on a God that DAWKINS HIMSELF BELIEVES TO EXIST, or else he wouldn't bother to insult Him and his followers.


This is nonsensical. Dawkins clearly does not believe god. The book is an attempt to appeal to your logic. He goes into great detail into many of the assumptions that theists have, and proceeds to demonstrate with simple logic why they are flawed.



I assumed that God did not exist, I assumed that free will did not exist. And THAT is when you realize they do, because things don't add up. It is called a proof by contradiction.

I don't see a contradiction - one of the outcomes of a no-free-will universe may entail a human being reflecting on the fact that he has no free will.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





Atheists don't have to. The lack of evidence for God speaks volumes - it doesn't mean God doesn't exist 100% for sure but it does mean there's no reason to believe in God. Why believe in something for which there is no evidence?

What if you had evidence. I don't think you even tell anyone.
You are allowed your views. The FACT is your views could simply pertain,
do to a lack of spiritual experience. You can't even tell for sure if the spirit is dead with in you. What is it that causes all the mockery in your posts .
You really try to make yourself sound correct in your own measure.
Just dosn't work for me.
The only alternatives you can think of to explain existence are even more absurd or can be made to sound so.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by randyvs]


If there was evidence for your God, then there would be no Atheists of your God. Point of fact is, you and I are both Atheists towards other Gods, like Osiris, Odin, Zeus, etc. My Atheism goes a step further to include your God as well.

What if there was evidence for Zeus? Would you stop believing in your current God and follow Zeus instead?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





To be fair though, the original post is deserving of some ribbing and I did a little myself.


Ok, in the interest of fairdom I agree. It was the punctual constent that I see no reason for. I believe you are speaking of a guilt we all share. Pretty much. At the risk of sounding judgemental.

Sirnex



If there was evidence for your God, then there would be no Atheists of your God. Point of fact is, you and I are both Atheists towards other Gods, like Osiris, Odin, Zeus, etc. My Atheism goes a step further to include your God as well.

I disagree.
You do not believe in other Gods because you are not prejudice or partial.

I do not believe in other Gods because I believe in God.




What if there was evidence for Zeus? Would you stop believing in your current God and follow Zeus instead

you seem to forget I'm not the one who needs evidence.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



You do not believe in other Gods because you are not prejudice or partial.


I do not appreciate people telling me why I believe or don't believe what I believe.

Point of fact is, I do not believe in any deities because there is simply no evidence for me to believe in them. It has nothing to do with partiality or prejudice. In fact, if I were to be more partial to one deity over another then I would choose Odin as a preferred supreme deity. The reason for that being that the mythology just simply sounds better than the contradictory biblical mythology.


I do not believe in other Gods because I believe in God.


That doesn't answer my question at all. If there was evidence for Zeus, would you drop your deity of choice/indoctrination in favor of Zeus?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Point of fact is, I do not believe in any deities because there is simply no evidence for me to believe in them. It has nothing to do with partiality or prejudice. In fact, if I were to be more partial to one deity over another then I would choose Odin as a preferred supreme deity. The reason for that being that the mythology just simply sounds better than the contradictory biblical mythology


Wow I'm very sorry I didn't take all of the Sirnex appreciations into account before I posted.
I always try and forget about the God complex. Sorry I'll try to do better.




That doesn't answer my question at all. If there was evidence for Zeus, would you drop your deity of choice/indoctrination in favor of Zeus?


Already answered that!

[edit on 25-6-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

I disagree.
You do not believe in other Gods because you are not prejudice or partial.

I do not believe in other Gods because I believe in God.


I think you proved his point, randyvious. In order to believe in your god you must reject the thousands of others.

Also, remember that the god of the bible references other gods that you are required to reject. Technically, the Abrahamic religions (christianity included) are henotheistic, NOT monotheistic. They require a degree of atheism to operate.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Already answered that!


No, you evaded having to answer it.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Also, remember that the god of the bible references other gods that you are required to reject. Technically, the Abrahamic religions (christianity included) are henotheistic, NOT monotheistic. They require a degree of atheism to operate.

See the only thing I can say that is Booole' sheought! Just because people believe in other Gods dosn't mean they are actual entitys. Which is how I
would explain away another one of your points of view. About the jealousy of the lord. Sounds righteous to me for him to be jealous. if we are going to worship idles of stone or worse yet a demon.
I think that would flame my ass as well actually.

It really is a plus for the Atheist in a way.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

See the only thing I can say that is Booole' sheought!


It's no B.S. There are other gods named in the bible and the jealous god requires you to reject them. Christianity is henotheistic.


Just because people believe in other Gods dosn't mean they are actual entitys. Which is how I would explain away another one of your points of view.


Now here I agree with you 100%. Keep in mind that the converse may also be true. There are others who worship different gods who feel that the god of the bible is not an actual entity.


About the jealousy of the lord. Sounds righteous to me for him to be jealous. if we are going to worship idles of stone or worse yet a demon.
I think that would flame my ass as well actually.


Well, the jealousy also points to a polytheistic spirit realm. There are other gods listed by name, angels and demons referred to by name, etc. ,and a requirement that one reject all the others and submit to YHWH. You must be atheistic in order to operate as a devoted christian.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Just because people believe in other Gods dosn't mean they are actual entitys.


EXACTLY!!!

Just because you believe in God does not make him an actual entity.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Ah, the great debate, does God exsist or not? For the person of faith the answer is Yes! And for the atheist it is No! Stating that there is no God is an absolute statement that requires 100% knowledge in order to be correct. Should the atheist have even 1% of all the knowledge and evidence contained in the intire universe there still leaves 99% that is not known and could prove that God exists. Thus the atheist mearly believes there is no God via his/her limited knowledge.

The statement of faith that a person believes in God doesn't require proof as they have faith and believe. This puts both the atheist and the believer in the same boat. The only difference being in what they believe to be true. However, if God does in fact exist as the Bible says He does then the atheist will suffer total loss in all areas. Should God not exist as the atheist claims, the person of faith has lost nothing. He chose to live a life of faith and was happy to do so. The only side that has to be 100% correct is the atheist because he/she is betting the farm they are. In the end its the person of faith that can not loose. If no God he has lost nothing and if there is he wins.

Are there any gamblers present?


[edit on 6/25/2010 by pstrron]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Sorry @JokerzReality but I have to respectfully disagree with some of your points : )


Originally posted by JokerzReality
I must admit. Most arguments i see from believers and atheist alike, sounds incredible ignorant.

Atheism doesn't result from ignorance, but from searching for knowledge and questioning the generally accepted assertion that god(s) exist. Nobody just decides "oh well, I feel like being an atheist". Why do you think only around 16% (high estimate) of US population are non-believers, while upwards of 60% of scientists are non-religious - is it because scientists are more ignorant than the general population? Religion however, is typically "inherited" (by a process of brainwashing) e.g. from parents, and doesn't require particular intelligence, or indeed requires only faith.


God is considered the ultimate creator, i mean, our universe do exists, we are here are we not?


I don't think any atheist denies we are here, however what does that have to do with whether god exists or not? See the "non sequitur" logical fallacy aka "it does not follow".


So you could consider the concept of God as a scientific theory, because it has just as much evidence as any other theory regarding the start of of the universe (If there even is one), the big bang being the most popular. I know of the pictures being taken of the big bang or whatever, but still, it's just some stupid theory based on a bunch of pictures(Not really into all of this, so please correct me if i'm wrong)


God as a scientific theory? What evidence is there for god? I think this may be a classic case of misunderstanding the word theory as it pertains to science. A scientific theory is not the same as the general use of the word "theory". Scientific theories are models of reality that make predictions and can be tested. How does a "theory" that god exists, predict anything? How can it be tested? God's existence has to be taken purely on faith.

Just my thoughts. Cheers!



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
Stating that there is no God is an absolute statement that requires 100% knowledge in order to be correct. Should the atheist have even 1% of all the knowledge and evidence contained in the intire universe there still leaves 99% that is not known and could prove that God exists. Thus the atheist mearly believes there is no God via his/her limited knowledge.


The atheist only needs a small amount of reasoning to determine that there is no need to assume existence of an all-controlling, conveniently invisible entity simply because other people claim such a thing is real.



The statement of faith that a person believes in God doesn't require proof as they have faith and believe. This puts both the atheist and the believer in the same boat. The only difference being in what they believe to be true.


Believers definitely have a requirement of providing objective evidence for their claims when called on it. Otherwise they are in the same boat as the credulous, not atheists.



However, if God does in fact exist as the Bible says He does then the atheist will suffer total loss in all areas. Should God not exist as the atheist claims, the person of faith has lost nothing. He chose to live a life of faith and was happy to do so.


You have it 100% backwards. Should god not exist the person of faith has lost everything: the self-denial of human experiences based upon a lie. If god exists the atheist has gained everything: the proof he/she was searching for all along.



The only side that has to be 100% correct is the atheist because he/she is betting the farm they are. In the end its the person of faith that can not loose. If no God he has lost nothing and if there is he wins.

Are there any gamblers present?


Everyone "gambles" in this game. However, as previously mentioned the person of faith can most definitely lose and arguably has the most at stake to lose.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 



Ah, the great debate, does God exsist or not? For the person of faith the answer is Yes! And for the atheist it is No! Stating that there is no God is an absolute statement that requires 100% knowledge in order to be correct. Should the atheist have even 1% of all the knowledge and evidence contained in the intire universe there still leaves 99% that is not known and could prove that God exists. Thus the atheist mearly believes there is no God via his/her limited knowledge.


Ah, the wonders of throwing critical thought out the _

Let's get the story straight shall we? The discussion of the Judaic-Christian deity, so named "God" and whether this entity exists or not is a very knowable question in my belief. Just as we can 'prove' that all other deities are mythological entities created by man to explain the unknowable, "God" too can be shown to be a man made mythology, more of a rehash of previous mythologies in a story told slightly differently with fresh new characters and adventures.

Now, as to whether the universe was created by some entity, be it God, Zeus, Odin, or Osiris... That's a really good question. Has our universe been created by some unknown intelligent force or entity? Who knows! Has our universe been created by some man made mythological entity? Obviously not!


The statement of faith that a person believes in God doesn't require proof as they have faith and believe.


Right, they have faith that their man made mythology accurately depicts the origins of reality without a single bit of evidence. Basically, lazy intellectualism doing nothing more than a disservice to believers.


This puts both the atheist and the believer in the same boat.


Not quiet, let's be honest here. Both Atheists and God believers don't believe in Zeus because there is no evidence to believe in Zeus and what evidence does exist points to Zeus being a man made mythology. Even back in the hay days of Zeus believers, there were Atheists who did not believe in Zeus, rather, they pointed out that Zeus was a man made concept and not an actual real entity. Atheism has been around just as long as man made mythologies have been!


The only difference being in what they believe to be true.


We both know an orange to be spherical. If either of us believe an orange to be cubical, who would be correct? The only difference is belief versus reality.


However, if God does in fact exist as the Bible says He does then the atheist will suffer total loss in all areas.


So do you advocate a "just in case" clause to belief? Why not believe in Odin "just in case"?


Should God not exist as the atheist claims, the person of faith has lost nothing.


Whilst partially true, we must not forget that said belief has also led to many horrific crimes against those who don't believe as advocated by the deity in question. They may not lose their supposed soul, but they lose their humanity.


He chose to live a life of faith and was happy to do so.


Define a life of faith. Many of those who have faith in God, practice that faith hypocritically.


The only side that has to be 100% is the atheist because he/she is betting the farm they are. In the end its the person of faith that can not loose. If no God he has lost nothing and if there is he wins.


I disagree. As an Atheist, I am obliged to morality towards fellow man as this is the only life I shall receive. There is no profit of reward IF I subject myself to some perceived higher authority dispensing morality. Those of faith do indeed lose their own humanity as they are subjugated their necessity for morality to some fictitious entity. They have no reason to be truly moral as this entity has a "get out jail" clause in it's rules, so long as they repent they are still rewarded with the prospects of an eternally blissful afterlife.

Reward for morality, is not morality. It is a selfish act expecting a reward in the end. A crime committed against another with the intent of repenting later is still a crime against another.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by darkbake
 


Trust me, it doesn't deserve it's own posting.

1. You cannot prove a negative. If a god does not exist, there will not be any evidence to prove that it doesn't.

2. I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in any gods.

Do you have that independent study avaliable for us to read?

[edit on 24-6-2010 by PieKeeper]


3-5= -2 Hmm.
But if a creator did not exist there would be nothing. lol. Something cannot come from nothing no matter what you think.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by randyvs

do to a lack of spiritual experience. You can't even tell for sure if the spirit is dead with in you.


But that raises the question: what is a "spirit"? Where is the evidence for a spirit? How can it gain experience and die?


I am not sure what can about the spirit, but soul and spirit pretty much go together.

www.snopes.com...

I found this interesting. There are skeptics who say it is not true, but it is interesting none the less.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join