Athiesm doesn't work

Intelligent people, including scientists and philosophers, have reasoned for the existence of God.  While it's easy to see their self-justification and rationalization (Aquinas, Chesterton, Sartre, Kant, Pascal), they really are basing their views on belief and faith.  The same with all followers of theistic religions.  Even if one can affirm that no God or afterlife or supernatural exists, there is the sense of emptiness and lacking in a life with no written purpose or directed goal from some superior all-knowing being.  Thus people feel that "it can't hurt" to believe in something anyway, in hopes that that belief will lead to a better afterlife (Pascal's wager).  Many people feel an intrinsic need to be looked after by something greater or have some absolute laws that are unquestionable, putting faith in this authority like a dog would to his owner.  Without a master, humans are lost, empty, and find no purpose.  So religion just "feels good" even if it becomes  proven as illogical.  Besides, what else can prayer, hymns, cathedrals, and complicated ceremonies with special titles and clothing dedicated to a higher glory or state of being be used for, when nothing is there?  Humans hate to worship humanity for its own sake.  Even believing that we create our own laws and morals implies that nothing is absolutely right, as long as we are just simple biological creatures on a life supporting rock for a limited period of time.  Humans have a hard time accepting their uncontrolled, unmonitored position, and put faith in something even if there is proof it doesn't exist, in order to justify that their spiritual bases will be covered "just in case it exists."  It's easy to say God doesn't exist.  It's harder for most people to believe it.     

To any piece of shit who says athiests are irrational, unscientific, whatever...

If you are rational, your thought system, and what you know to be true is based in reason.  Since there is simply no fucking reason for you to believe in a god, to do so would be irrational.

There is clearly no room for agnosticism in a rational person.  If there is no reason to think god is there, it would never even cross a rational person's mind, and thus he does not believe in the existence of a god.  Since he does not believe in a god, he is an athiest, period. 

Stop calling atheism a religion.  Religions are based in faith.  Atheism is based in reason. 

>>1 and >>4 are the same people.

Materialism ftw.  Fuck religion, give me life's material pleasures. 

Can you honestly say you'd rather have your religion than a hot girlfriend, a sports car, some cool firearms, a multi-billion dollar business, video games, porn, etc?  Seriously...

Materialism ftl

fixed

Consumer goods don't fall in your lap, you know? You have to run, run, run after the almighty dollar.

I don't care if a person is an atheist, but there's something inherently pathetic about a person who thinks happiness is just a few green pieces of paper away.

>>41
It is also reasonable that no man ia a completely rational being. Does that mean true atheism is impossible?

>>43

Materialism is a philosophical stance about the nature of the universe. Materialism != Consumerism.

Major religions have gone too far to be rational. There are questions of sentience, like >>21 said, so fuck you any 100% science cunts who think we don't have free will and are all undead robots, but also fuck you 100% religion fucktards who arrogantly claim to know everything about the universe and hate anyone who points out there is no rational basis for most of their bullshit and they are just using these claims to fuck with people.

>>45
Touche. :o

re·li·gion   Audio pronunciation of "Religion" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

   1.
         1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
         2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
   2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
   3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
   4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.



a·the·ism   Audio pronunciation of "Atheism" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-zm)
n.

   1.
         1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
         2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

>>46
Questions of sentience are irrelevant to atheism and/or materialism being true. For all we know, all matter might be sentient, there could be different levels of sentience, from individual subatomic particles upto the universe as a whole and everything in between, there is no fucking way to make sure. Free will, however, is a nonsensical up concept. We are all subjec to the laws of the universe(or whatever exists beyond the universe, if you have some sort of metaphysical/supernatural beliefs) and make decisions based on the information we get from it - our "will" cannot be free, it doesn't matter if we have some sort of souls that operate on some higher level than the universe or not. And if some process is indeterminate, doesn't mean it's free, it's just unpredictable.

Science is the new religion, but with it we lost the ability to imagine, such as >>49's stance.

>>50

Science isn't religion. 

>>43

It's not the green pieces of paper, it's what you can get with them.  (Pretty much anything you want...from sex, to a sports car, and everything in between).

If we had commodity backed money like we used to have in the United States, those "green pieces of paper" would represent something of actual worth. 

Materialism rules.  Capitalism rules.  Nobody gives a shit about their religion anymore, except for a few fundamentalists.  People want life's material pleasures. 

Even if the process is slow, people are starting to care less and less about their religion (in the USA at least).  They may hold some of the tenets of their religion close, such as being anti-gay or some such crap, but pointedly, they are less and less militantly religious as time goes on...and it's a good thing.

>>52
>Even if the process is slow, people are starting to care less and less about their religion (in the USA at least)

I am not sure about that. Especially about the USA part. It's seems that there is a whole lot of religious brainwashing going on and the fundies are reproducing at an alarming rate. Clearly, abstinence is not working as birth control.

>>53
They get married and have children, you fucking retard.

>>54

No, they get children and then the girl and her family blackmail the guy into marrying her.

>>55

And live in poverty poorly ever after.

>>53

I don't agree.  It seems like many modern people just casually go along with things, rather than being vehemently foam-at-the-mouth religious.  People are letting their spirituality slide in light of material pleasure.  Over time, I think this will lead to a more materialist, less spiritual society. 

>>31
>>32
I've seen an atheist make a good point before. He said that since God (note the capital "G") can do anything by definition (all-powerful), he can't exist because there's no such thing as a being that can do anything since in order to be able to it'd have to be able to create something that even it can't destroy. If it can then there is something it can't do, namely destroy the creation in question, and if it can't then there is still something it can't do -- create it in the first place.

>>51
Technically it isn't, but there are some scientist who zealously belief in some theories. Most notably human evolution. That's bit unscientific, as theories should be regarded as just theories, unless proven right or wrong.

>>58
God can create logic and destroy that too

It's not the green pieces of paper, it's what you can get with them.

Yes, and that's the problem. Some people think that you can buy happiness. They spend their entire lives chasing money so they can buy things. Buy this, that, and the other. Whoo hoo.

However, in reality, it turns out that once you have the basics of life (food, shelter, safety, etc), there is very little variation in happiness. The mega rich are exactly as happy as your standard middle-class person.

Where am I going with this? Well, you need money for the basics. Once you have that, thinking that more will make you happier is outright stupid. If you spend your life trying to get richer, you're wasting your life, because it won't make you happier.

There are better things to do with the few seconds you spend in this mortal coil.

>>61

"There are better things to do with the few seconds you spend in this mortal coil."

Like pray to fictitious deities?  Meditating like one of those monks, concentrating on the veins of a leaf?

Nah, I'd rather earn some money, buy a sports car or something.  Thx.

>>62
I realise that this is a thread about religion, but I'm bitching about consumerist mentality in general.

Not chasing money doesn't imply praying. There's more to life than either. I won't stop you from trapping yourself in such a silly false dichotomy though.

>>59
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

>>59
In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis. That is, it:
is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense;
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct;
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory;
is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several criteria, or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

tl;dr version of >>65 to >>59

STFU n00b !!! You have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context.

>>21

Is correct. Be there an overguideing 'principle' or Logos, and attempt to even define its parameters with our weak 'objectivity' will fail.

So therefore, what we conceieve to be god fails.

Dont give me all that shit about archetypes and whatever too, Ontological crap and whatever else you guys like.

Predisposed Belief illustrates intrinsic need more so than intrinsic need validates a metaphysical almighty benevolent deity

Stupid Christians *Sighs*

>>1
This is mostly an emotional appeal, it doesn't argue for or against the existence of a God. Even someone who believes there is no god may agree that there is comfort in the belief in a higher power.

I think both atheists and christians should read three books.

The first two you probably already have somewhere in your house, if not they're online, that's the old testament and the new testament. It might be interesting for atheist and christian to read the annotations on http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The other book is Atheism: The Case Against God it's available on amazon it has many of the arguments for the existence of God and refutes them. Atheists should know these arguments and theists should know which ones have been refuted and how.

>>67 (Without spaces)
Is correct. Be there an overguideing 'principle' or Logos, and attempt to even define its parameters with our weak 'objectivity' will fail.
So therefore, what we conceieve to be god fails.
Dont give me all that shit about archetypes and whatever too, Ontological crap and whatever else you guys like.
Predisposed Belief illustrates intrinsic need more so than intrinsic need validates a metaphysical almighty benevolent deity
Stupid Christians *Sighs*

>>66

Shut the fuck up dumbass.  They are right about theories.  You don't know jack shit.

>>68

Ooh I saw that book before, but didn't get it.. I was thinking about it though.  Is it REALLY worth reading? The guy I was with said it probly wasn't. 

>>61
I'd be happier with a Cadillac than an Oldsmobile.  I'd be happier with a Corvette than a lesser sports car.  All these things cost money, and most people can't afford them all.  I'd be happier if I had a bigger T.V.  I'd be happier if my computer was faster.  I'd be happier if I had new clothes all the time.  I'd be happier if I had money to go on vacations.  I'd be happier if I had my own private jet/helicopter.  I'd be happier if I had a personal limo and driver. 

The point being, there is an almost infinite, neverending supply of things for you to work for, and earn.  Would you rather go live in a fucking cave than have all the above stuff? Face it, there are finer and better things in life than living in simple drudgery.  There IS materialistic happiness. 

>>60
No, because the laws of logic are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

>>70
"Is it REALLY worth reading?"

Probably not if you already know the arguments for and against the existence of a christian style god.

>>67
You forget scripture is divine revelation, and therefore does not admit to be a conception of any man.

>>72
I don't see how this matters.

>>49
Interesting you brought that up, but what about sentience of free will?

I don't see how this matters.
The laws of logic, like all scientific laws and the rules of math, are nothing more than observations.

Law: 12a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/L0073000.html

People often get confused with the other meanings of the word and incorrectly assume that a scientific law somehow causes something to do something. It doesn't. It simply -- and often mathematically -- describes what we observe to be true. That's what I mean when I say that these laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Likewise, when we say that something obeys a scientific law we're referring to it being consistent with the predictions of the law, not that the law is a thing causing it to behave that way.

If in the future we observed a planet that didn't obey the law of gravity, it's not because the law was not prescribed to it. The law is simply an observation. Obviously we'd have to revise the law to keep it consistent with our new observations of reality.

In the case of the rules of logic, let's look at the principle of non-contradiction. A contradiction is defined as either of two propositions related in such a way that it is impossible for both to be true or both to be false. http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/C0606500.html This is a completely human and completely arbitrary definition widely accepted by long term usage.

When you say that "God can create the object" and "God can not create the object," the word "not" is used in this context to indicate the contradiction of the first sentence. Once again, this is a completely human and completely arbitrary definition widely accepted by long term usage.

So if God could both create the object and not create the object it would not be contradictory by definition.

>>76
"People often get confused with the other meanings of the word and incorrectly assume that a scientific law somehow causes something to do something."
Someone would have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that.

Pascal's Wager:

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

   In other words:
    * You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
    * You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
    * You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
    * You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

     so statistically you have a chances of winning with believeing in god are 1/2 and with disbelief 1/2.  However, although the chances of win and loss are equal on both sides, the ammount of potential loss to potential gain is infinately greater on the side of the believer.

                     God exists (G)       God does not exist (~G)
Belief in God (B)     +∞ (heaven)            0
Non-belief in God (~B)     −∞ (hell)            0

>>78

When you take into account that there are MANY GODS, and if you believe in the wrong one you're fucked, suddenly Pascal's wager doesn't seem so inviting.

Plus, a god would presumably know that the only reason you believe is to go to heaven. I don't think he'd like that.

Believe in god, but don't waste your time following him. According the christians giving all your money and efforts to charity is not as important as believing in god in order to get into heaven, so you can just believe in god and do whatever the fuck you want and you get into heaven. Isn't that great!