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.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 1:05
>>79
That's true, but it dodges the fact that the real reason not to believe in god is simply because there is no reason to.
Not giving a shit is agnosticism or irreligion. Atheism is defined as having the positive belief that God does not exist, which is logically unsupported- it's a belief like any other.
If you just don't think the evidence warrants a decision either way, like me, you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
Why is saying God doesn't exist logically unsupported? Because the theory is untestable. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, it just means we don't have the resources to test the hypothesis.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-29 12:09
Proof that god doesn't exist:
"god" is by definition omnipotent... but can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift?
1) if he can't, then he isn't omnipotent because we've found a thing he can't do
2) if he can, then he isn't omnipotent because he can't lift the rock
since the concept of god is logically inconsistent and logically inconsistent things don't exist, we conclude by modus ponens that god doesn't exist
atheism is thus a fully justified positivist philosophy
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-29 12:41
>>86
You see, if there isn't a reason for something to be there, then you assume it isn't. If I am looking at a boulder, and I see no reason to think there is a little green martian sitting behind it about to zap me with his ray gun... well yeah.
Agnostics: "WELL WE ARENT SURE THERE ISN'T A MARTIAN THERE LOL!"
Religious fags: "don't think, believe!"
Athiests: "Since I don't see a reason that it would be there, there is no reason to believe it, and I won't even consider the notion until I do."
For a reasonable person, things must be proven or given reason to be there before they are considered. Until you can prove that there IS a god, or show that there is a REASON that god is there, it's not even worth consideration.
You see, for a rational person, you don't need proof that something isn't there, you just need a situation in which there is no reason to think that it IS there. Unless there is a REASON for something to exist, it's ruled out by default.
Cause and effect. It's simple shit. If you don't see a reason, or a cause, why would you even consider it, as many other things associated with god (or certain religions) have been proven to be false so far?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-30 1:00
But there is a reason, mankind is so fucking pathetic, emo and alone that it needed something much greater than itself to beleive in. It needed religion. Now though, we are starting to understand everything around us, and we dont need religion to explain it. Thus the main purpose of religion, to fill an empty spot of understanding is now filled by science, which actually can be proven. But there are still people who stick to the religion because their parents told them about god when they where little and they can;t get that freaking idea out of their heads....
Really. One scientist skews his carbon dating experiment to match the bible and chatholics go "ZOMG!-that lines up with our idealogy, all other experiments must be LIEZ"
Same thing with prayer. Pray 1000 times, and then the one time a prayer is "answered" - "PROOF GOD"
Exiastance of the soul is the biggest load of crap in Chatolic Dogma. The soul is somthing that is not energy, is not matter, but controlls who you are and what your personality is. To do this, a soul would have to contain data. However, data cannot exist without a catalyst/container/medium. Therefore the soul is not contained within our quark/sub-quark defined exiatance.
Your personality is a product of social evolution.
Scene(environment) --> Gene(Body language race etc.)-->Meme(self-replicating thought/information contained within the brain(a medium)
*camps for "no conclusive proof quarks exist"*
Re: "no conclusive proof god exists"
Without information supporting the FACT - not "the possibility" - that God exists, I will not beleive it/he/she exists.
Really. One scientist skews his carbon dating experiment to match the bible and chatholics go "ZOMG!-that lines up with our idealogy, all other experiments must be LIEZ"
Same thing with prayer. Pray 1000 times, and then the one time a prayer is "answered" - "PROOF GOD"
Exiastance of the soul is the biggest load of crap in Chatolic Dogma. The soul is somthing that is not energy, is not matter, but controlls who you are and what your personality is. To do this, a soul would have to contain data. However, data cannot exist without a catalyst/container/medium. Therefore the soul is not contained within our quark/sub-quark defined exiatance.
Your personality is a product of social evolution.
Scene(environment) --> Gene(Body language race etc.)-->Meme(self-replicating thought/information contained within the brain(a medium)
*camps for "no conclusive proof quarks exist"*
Re: "no conclusive proof god exists"
Without information supporting the FACT - not "the possibility" - that God exists, I will not beleive it/he/she exists.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-30 4:01
>>91
Well if I am a computer, I am still sentient so I am not just a computer, but still a computer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-30 5:22
God spelled backwards is dog...
yeah think about it...
Name:
anti-chan2006-07-30 7:40
regardless of the "answer", I'm pretty certain that the metaphysical existence of a "god" is completely irrelevant at this point. this "god" ha]d no intrested in interceding in human affairs and we should act as such. I'm coming from a point in my life where I'm not sure if there's a god or not but regardless I'm certian that he (if he exists) wishes for us to sort out our own problems and messes. his track record for officail interference in human affiars is poor, at best.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-31 8:19
Religious people are emo for god's/gods' attention?
Name:
Xel2006-07-31 11:26
>>1 What is this "atheism" you speak of. We all make typos because typos are xtreme kewl, but typos in the subject header is so not xtreme kewl.
That argument is dependent on the definition of "omnipotent." If by omnipotent one means "able do do absolutely everything," then it works. If, however, it means "able to do all that is possible," then it doesn't work.
And then there is the idea that God=the totality of the energy in the universe. If this is the case, then God would be all-powerful in the sense that God=all the power in the universe. It also explains omniscience, omnivorence, and omnibenevolence. Also has the byproduct that God is omnimalevolent, too.
Name:
xel2006-07-31 14:16
>>97 God works in, um, unaccountable, extradimensional and uncriticizable ways, so everything is either his well-doing or the latte-drinkers' fault. See how easy it is to be religious?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 2:22
When we debate this subject we are faced with two hands.
On one hand believing something because someone wrote a book that we should believe it. Also doing this will comfort us in the knowledge that if we try hard enough we will live eternally frolicking amongst the clouds. It also invites to a lot of gloating of the other side who will burn in hell and feeling good about oneself for not belonging to that side.
On the other hand we believe what we see and experience and by logical proof take to be the truth. This side is faced with a big problem, a gap if you will, the great question of why one should bother living. Because its a proven fact that if you take away a person's brain he is dead. Shut your eyes and you cant see, cover your ears and you cant hear etc. etc.. Well, imagine someone getting blown to smitherines by a grenade, how is he going to experience, much less appreciate any type of heaven without his senses? The same goes for hell btw :P. So now we understand the problem, once we die, we cease to exist, nothing we have ever experienced can compare to that. Therefore death is neither sad nor joyful, yet death IS inevitable. So what can we do, we're stranded on a trickling hourglass which is our life, whereafter nothing really matters. Scientific discovery and historic acknowledgement, you say? Just as man dies, so Earth and the human race dies with it eventually meeting the same fate, i.e. pointless struggle. Out of death experience, you say? Try having one when youre brain is blown to pieces. Vampires, you say...? (-_-).
So what is there left? Just enjoy life as it is? Live for the moment? Do drugs, drive fast cars, bungee jump? I suppose thats one option. Theres also the option of believing something like a religion to comfort oneself. They all sound like good options, but in my humble opinion I just say live life as it is, no matter what youre doing you wont be enjoying yourself all the time and you wont ever be ever comfortable. So in whatever you ever choose to do, remember to experience every moment of it fully and treasure it. That is my version of atheism.
Dont be emo about that "its all pointless we dies" crap.
If the human race would put more effort/resurces into scientific research we may be able to 1: Put the human brain into a "less squishy" container. 2: Migrate to electronics (Ie: record memory in the form of a computer program, thus creating sentinent artificial life, where existance/purpose would be logically filtering data with the accept/reject subroutine/ability present in our organic forms. 3: Cure aging. 4: Breed a supirior race with the capability of longer life, healthier life, and heightened mental capacity to create even better incarnations of "human" - basically forcing evolution based on what we, observers, find important, rather than drawn out, painstaking natural selection.
We could develop technology that would allow us to explore space. We could search other galaxies for planets suitable for habitation, we could even develop the technology to CREATE planets. Earth's clock is ticking; if we work hard we might be able to gtfo before it becomes unable to support carbon based life.
There is alot to do.
If we use 100% of our ability we may become the most powerful species in the universe.
No point? No Reason? Live fast? Waste the limited time you have on drugs & sex? Fuck that.
Science is the only shot we have. No amount of faith will stop our us from dissapearing before we reach our full potential as a species.
Religion is just comfort for the weak - and only the strong survive.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:00
>>98
Bet you can't do it. You seriously think religious people don't have doubts?
>>101
>>only the strong survive
Religion is probably the oldest idea man has got. Don't go quoting natural selection on this one, because religion has proved it worth.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 14:18
Everything in post-Enlightenment philosophy has pointed towards humans becoming their OWN masters. Christianity was not built in a day, and it is going to take a long time for us to shed all of its vestiges.
When these final vestiges of Christianity disappear from the world, it's going to become OK for people to rule another again. The current illusion of intellectual/other types of egalitarianism perverted by those who misunderstand post-Enlightenment philosophers will fade away. It will be okay for a "higher type" of man to exist, and rule over others.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 22:35
>>103
events in history have pointed towards the second coming of Jesus Christ, etc etc.
FAIL for making fantastic predictions about the future
>>105
He permitted whores the 'honour' of washing his feet to show that he forgives them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 2:48
>>101
That's the general idea, I agree. However never fall into the trap of believing you are unfallible, you and I and everyone is capable of becomming a crazy fuck. You need to point in the right direction while remaining predictable and controlled if you want to implement a new ideal.
BEING AN ATHEIST DOESN'T MEAN YOURE SOME WHINY PRETENTIOUS NIHILISTIC FUCKTARD
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 19:09
also fyi i may be an atheist too but i can't stand most atheists
honestly, most of you faggots practically shit yourselves over someone having any sort of theistic or supernatural beliefs, you faggots are really no better than the people you're attacking
HOLY SHIT RELIGION IS FOR SHEEP MAN ITS FOR FUCKING SHEEP FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFHOLYSHITIMAFAGGOTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
>>112
That's like saying the knowledge of snails is responsible for all the evil in the world caused by people who know what a snail is. We all know the jews created the nazis.